the future of pfas regulation and cleanup in new hampshire · • deem pfas as food adulterants •...
TRANSCRIPT
EBC New Hampshire Emerging Contaminants Program
The Future of PFAS Regulation
and Cleanup in New Hampshire
Welcome
Harry Stewart
EBC New Hampshire Chapter Leadership Team
Senior Associate
Normandeau Associates, Inc.
Environmental Business Council of New England
Energy Environment Economy
Welcome to Sheehan Phinney
Thomas Burack
Shareholder
Environmental and Energy Practice Group
Sheehan Phinney Bass & Green, PA
Environmental Business Council of New England
Energy Environment Economy
Thank you to our Host
EBC Committees & Chapters
Environmental Business Council of New England
Energy Environment Economy
Climate Change and Air Committee
Dam Management Committee
Energy Resources Committee
Infrastructure Committee
Ocean and Coastal Resources Committee
Site Remediation and Redevelopment Committee
Solid Waste Management Committee
Water Resources Committee
Ascending Professionals Committee
Connecticut Chapter
New Hampshire Chapter
Rhode Island Chapter
EBC New Hampshire Chapter
Environmental Business Council of New England
Energy Environment Economy
Committee Chair
Robert Varney, Normandeau Associates, Inc.
Committee Vice Chair
Chip Crocetti, Sanborn Head & Associates, Inc.
Leadership Team
Thomas Burack, Sheehan Phinney
Richard Dumore, Eversource Energy
Bettina Eames, PG, AECOM DCS Americas
Peter M. King, Geosyntec Consultants
Russ Lagueux, EnSafe, Inc.
David A. Murphy, Tighe & Bond
Michael J. Quinn, McLane Middleton
Muriel S. Robinette, GZA
James P. Ricker, P.G., Wilcox & Barton, Inc.
Harry Stewart, Normandeau Associates, Inc.
Shelley Tamis
Strategic Environmental Services, Inc.
Rick Vandenberg, Credere Associates, LLC
Programs
Access
Networking
EBC Membership Benefits
Environmental Business Council of New England
Energy Environment Economy
Upcoming Programs
Environmental Business Council of New England
Energy Environment Economy
July 9 – PFAS in the Drinking Water Supply
July 10 – Connecticut Chapter Summer Gathering
July 11 – Briefing by New England State Energy Leaders
July 12 – Briefing from NH DES Commissioner Robert Scott
July 17 – Update from EPA & MA DEP Brownfields Program
July 18 – Ascending Professionals “Year in Review” Night
July 23 – Connecticut Chapter: PCBs in Building Materials
July 24 – PFAS Remediation and Disposal
July 26 – New England Climate Change Summit
July 30 – Connecticut Chapter Program: PFAS Overview
July 31 – Treatment & Disposal - PCB Contaminated Materials
Aug 8 – 25th Annual Summer Garden Party
1. Presentations will be posted to “ebcne.org”– Link to location of presentations in follow-up email
2. Get involved in EBC Chapters and Committees– Join Leadership Teams
– Join Google Group for each committee / chapter
• Email request to [email protected]
3. Audience Introduction
4. Finally: Ask questions during presentations– Don’t hesitate to interrupt the speaker
Final Notes
Environmental Business Council of New England
Energy Environment Economy
Program Purpose & What You Will Learn
Charles Crocetti, PhD., P.G.
Program Co-Chair
Senior Vice President
Sanborn Head & Associates, Inc.
Environmental Business Council of New England
Energy Environment Economy
The “Latest News” in PFAS Regulation
Across the Country and NH
Tom Burack, Esq.
Shareholder
Sheehan Phinney Bass
& Green PA
Michael Wimsatt, P.G.
Director
Waste Management Division
NHDES
Environmental Business Council of New England
Energy Environment Economy
The “Latest News” in PFAS Regulation
Across the Country and NH
Tom Burack, Esq.
Shareholder
Sheehan Phinney Bass
& Green PA
Environmental Business Council of New England
Energy Environment Economy
PFAS Regulation:Recent Key Developments
Tom Burack, Esq.Sheehan Phinney Bass & Green, PAEnvironmental Business Council of
New EnglandJune 25, 2019
© 2019 Sheehan Phinney Bass & Green
EPA PFAS Action Plan(February 14, 2019)
• Start MCL process for PFOA and PFOS
• Designate PFOA & PFOS as hazardous substances
• Consider adding PFAS to Toxics Release Inventory
• Include PFAS in next UCMR cycle
• More science to support PFAS risk assessment
• Use enforcement tools when necessary
• Develop risk communications toolbox
© 2019 Sheehan Phinney Bass & Green
Reducing AFFF Use at Airports
• By 2021, FAA shall not require use of fluorinated fire fighting foams to meet CFR performance standards (H.R. 302, Sec. 332, 9.24.2018);
• New FAA Guidance no longer requires discharge of AFFF to ground when testing firefighting equipment
Image from stuff.co.nz
© 2019 Sheehan Phinney Bass & Green
Proposed PFAS Legislation in 116th Congress• 33 bills: EPA, FDA, DoD, USGS, VA
• Amend CAA, CERCLA, EPCRA (TRI), RCRA, SDWA, TSCA
• List PFAS as hazardous air pollutants and hazardous substances
• Set MCLs and MCLGs
• Add PFAS to TRI
• Test PFAS compounds under TSCA
• Make the polluter pay
• Reduce or ban use of AFFF containing PFAS
• Deem PFAS as food adulterants
• Discourage use of PFAS in pots and pans
• Provide cleanup funding
• Study PFAS occurrences nationwide
Image from washington.org
• To date: A few hearings; possible Senate floor action on S. 1507
© 2019 Sheehan Phinney Bass & Green
PFAS in Food• FDA detected:
• PFOS in ~50% of meats and seafood
• PFPeA in chocolate milk and chocolate cake with icing;
• PFBA in pineapple;
• PFHxS in sweet potato
• GenX in leafy greens
• PFAS can migrate into food from packaging, irrigation waters or soils contaminated with PFAS from biosolids spreading (~3.5 million tons of sewage sludge is land applied annually in US)
• Short-chain PFAS (GenX, PFBS) accumulate in greater amounts in edible portions of plants (e.g., strawberries and lettuce leaves); long-chain PFAS (PFOS, PFOA) tend to accumulate in roots of plants
© 2019 Sheehan Phinney Bass & Green
ACWA and ASDWA: Contaminants of Emerging Concern Workgroup
• Recommendations Report –May 2019
• Establish a National Priority Framework and Research Agenda for Priority Setting
• Engage Industry to Develop and Improve Access to Comprehensive Chemical Data
• Increase Coordinated Monitoring Across Water Resource Management Programs
• Expedite Risk Assessment and Response
• Improve Risk Communications
© 2019 Sheehan Phinney Bass & Green
States Stepping Up• Considering or adopting
laws and regulations establishing standards for: • Drinking water• Groundwater • Surface water • Soils and sediments• Air emissions
• Banning use of PFAS in AFFF or fire-fighting equipment; replacing PFAS in food packaging PFAS = “Problem For All States”
© 2019 Sheehan Phinney Bass & Green
NH Files Suits against PFAS and AFFF Manufacturers (Filed May 29, 2019)
• Sues as sovereign, trustee of public trust resources, owner of impacted properties, and parens patriae (parent of the country)
• Seeks investigation, cleanup, treatment of State’s groundwater, surface water, fish, wildlife, marine and other natural resources; replacement potable water supplies; disposal of PFAS and AFFF; testing costs
Image from the Union Leader
• Alleges negligence, defective design, failure to warn, trespass, public trust doctrine, enhanced compensatory damages, fraudulent transfer
© 2019 Sheehan Phinney Bass & Green
PFAS = “Problem for all Sites”:Uncertainties and Liability Risks
• Liability concerns may stymie development activities without new:– Surface water quality
standards– Soil (cleanup) standards– Sediment standards– Epidemiological studies– “Contained-out”-type
determination guidance (?)
© 2019 Sheehan Phinney Bass & Green
Questions?
Tom Burack, Esq.
Sheehan Phinney Bass & Green, PA
1000 Elm Street, 17th Floor
Manchester, NH 03101
603-627-8387
The “Latest News” in PFAS Regulation
Across the Country and NH
Michael Wimsatt, P.G.
Director
Waste Management Division
NHDES
Environmental Business Council of New England
Energy Environment Economy
The “Latest News” inPFAS Regulation in New Hampshire
Presented by:Michael Wimsatt, Director, Waste Management DivisionEBC New Hampshire Emerging Contaminants Program
Manchester, New HampshireJune 25, 2019
• 2016: NHDES established Ambient Groundwater Quality Standards (AGQS) of 70 ppt for PFOA/PFOS combined
• Per SB 309 (2018 session), NHDES:• In Jan. 2019, initiated rulemaking for MCLs/AGQS for
PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, and PFHxS;• By Jan 2020, must develop plan and budget for
development of surface water quality standards; and• Has clear authority to regulate air emissions to protect
water quality
• New 2019 Legislative Efforts
PFAS Regulation in NH
Legislation in 2019 Session
• 11 bills directly related to or inspired by the PFAS problem
• 4 passed by both chambers
• 2 in committee of conference process
• 4 retained in committee, rereferred, or laid on table
• 1 voted inexpedient to legislate
• Significant bi-partisan interest in the issue
Bills of Interest – HB 737• Establishes a commission to investigate and analyze
environmental/public health impacts related to PFAS contamination in Merrimack, Bedford, and Litchfield
• Highlights:• Delineate extent of drinking water contamination;
• Assess Saint-Gobain impacts on surface water;
• Assess adequacy of regulations to protect public health;
• Assess adequacy of current penalties;
• Assess agreements between State and Saint-Gobain
• Propose additional actions/legislation
Bills of Interest – SB 257
• Relative to firefighting foams containing PFAS
• Highlights:• prohibits use for training or testing purposes;
• prohibits sale or distribution for use, except for facilities where required by FAA or at chemical plants/tank farms;
• Mfrs. of firefighting personal protective equipment must notify purchasers if the equipment contains PFAS
• NHDES must survey municipalities relative to stocks of legacy foams and institute a take-back program (7/2021)
• Municipalities must notify NHDES of discharges of PFAS foams within 48 hours
Bills of Interest – SB 287• Requiring NHDES to adopt specific drinking water
MCLs and AGQS for PFOA, PFOS, PFNA and PFHxS
• Highlights:• Directed NHDES to initiate rulemaking by November 1,
2019 setting specific numerical standards for the four compounds;
• NHDES opposed on the grounds that it is already engaged in a rulemaking process;
• Bill was Re-referred
Status of NHDES Statewide Assessment
of Occurrence and Sources of PFAS
Kate Emma Schlosser, P.E.
Emerging Contaminants Section
Waste Management Division
NHDES
Environmental Business Council of New England
Energy Environment Economy
Environmental Occurrence Data from PFAS Sources
in New Hampshire
Environmental Business Council of New England, Inc.
EBC New Hampshire Emerging Contaminants Program
June 25, 2019
Findings from Statewide Sampling
Challenges
Sampling initiatives and occurrence data
A look forward
Challenges and complexities
• It’s not just PFOA and PFOS (and PFNA and PFHxS)
• Precursors
• Replacement chemistries
• Different analyses and reporting limits
• Data availability – EMD and OneStop
Waste Site Guidance Documents (UPDATED!)
Data collected since 2016 shows PFAS impacts to environmental media
Statewide andSite-Specific
Water Quality Data
• Public water
• Private drinking water
• Groundwater
• Surface water
Statewide Waste Quality Data
• Wastewater
• Wastewater sludge and biosolids
• Landfill leachate
Additional Site-Specific Data
• Soil
• Sediment
• Fish
• Loon eggs
• Air
• Stack residue
PFAS impacts to water quality are present throughout New Hampshire
Public water supply sampling
Combined PFOA & PFOS Result
Number of Public Water System
SourcesPercentage
>70 ppt 18 4%>60 ppt 20 4%>50 ppt 21 4%>40 ppt 22 5%>30 ppt 30 6%>20 ppt 47 10%>10 ppt 74 16%>5 ppt 102 22%>ND 179 40%
Non-detect 277 62%Number of Sources Tested = 471
PFAS in public water supply systems
PFASNumber of Detections
Approx. Maximum Detected (ppt)
PFOA and PFOS 179 279
PFOA 170 106
PFOS 83 173
PFHPA* 69 23
PFHXS 62 159
PFHXA 52 79
PFBS 50 49
PFPEA 41 76
PFBA 34 20
PFNA 17 73
PFHPS 4 3
N_ETFOSA 2 6
PFDS 1 1
PFTRDA 1 4
FOSA 1 5
Note – Water systems used labs that reported a varying list of analytes so detection frequency is not provided above. *PFHPA has been identified as a common lab contaminant.
Private water supply sampling• Targeted sampling associated with industrial or
intensive use, including schools/sensitive receptors
• Waste site investigation receptor surveys
• Fire service sampling
• Statewide background study – PFAS and other contaminants
Detection Frequency in Private Wells in Area Impacted by Air Emissions
# of Wells
Sampled
Non Detect
Above Detection
Limit
Above Detection
Limit
>5 ppt
>10 ppt
>20 ppt
>30 ppt
>40 ppt
>50 ppt
>60 ppt
>70 ppt
Number of Wells
TOTAL_PFAS 1309 157 88.0% 1152 993 847 680 574 513 449 388 334
PFOS_PFOA 1309 170 87.0% 1139 968 796 586 476 398 320 265 228
PFOA 1309 170 87.0% 1139 962 780 566 462 378 302 247 215
PFHPA 1304 726 44.3% 578 425 224 102 46 30 20 15 10
PFHXA 1015 445 56.2% 570 487 276 110 58 39 25 17 14
PFPEA 1015 648 36.2% 367 290 112 42 23 12 9 5 4
PFBS 1304 1078 17.3% 226 154 52 15 8 5 2 1 1
PFOS 1309 1116 14.7% 193 125 51 23 13 8 5 5 2
PFHXS 1304 1112 14.7% 192 86 28 12 10 7 5 4 3
PFBA 985 895 9.1% 90 67 48 15 8 6 3 3 2
PFPES 45 41 8.9% 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
62FTS 920 901 2.1% 19 16 10 8 6 5 4 4 4
PFNA 1304 1285 1.5% 19 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FOSA 970 958 1.2% 12 12 4 1 1 1 1 0 0
PFDA 1015 1004 1.1% 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Data collected from 2016-2018 – varying detection limits (~0.5-4 ppt)
Private Well Sampling
DWGTF Sampling Program
41
(132 compounds)
Groundwater Discharge Permit Sampling
PFOA and PFOSthrough March 31, 2019
~47 sites have sampled
Waste Site and Groundwater Management Permit sampling (non-landfill)
PFOA and PFOSthrough March 31, 2019
~175 sites have sampled
Landfills - GMPs and Groundwater Release Detection Permit sampling
PFOA and PFOSthrough March 31, 2019
~175 sites have sampled
Waste Site Sources Sites Sampled
% Sites > AGQS
Max.PFOA+PFOS (ppt)
PFOA and PFOS are a subset of
∑PFAS
Applications of Class B Foam / AFFF 15 93% 500,000
Biosolids/wastewater 1 749
Consumer products 5 60% 647 27%
Dry Cleaner 8 50% 960 87%
Manufacturing – textiles/coating 3 100% 72,060 50%
Manufacturing – paper/coating 2 100% 27,600 81%
Metalworking/plating/machine shops 14 64% 7,160 95%
Mixed sources 16 81% 2,628 97%
Other sources 16 69% 5,600 36%
Semi-conductor industry 4 75% 760
Unknown sources 24 50% 1,920 84%
Waste management facilities 185 53% 3,792 48%
Through March 2019
Continued evaluations• Statewide drinking water sampling
• Continued screening at waste sites
• Waste site investigations
• Remedial evaluations
• Potential assessments• Soil quality • Surface water quality
• Occurrence data• Identify release type in EMD uploads
Further data evaluation at BIA/NHDES Conference in September 2019
http://nhdes.maps.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=66770bef141c43a98a445c54a17720e2&extent=-73.5743,42.5413,-69.6852,45.4489https://www.des.nh.gov/
onestop/documents/ gismap-guide.pdf
http://nhdes.maps.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=66770bef141c43a98a445c54a17720e2&extent=-73.5743,42.5413,-69.6852,45.4489
https://www4.des.state.nh.us/nh-pfas-investigation/
Background references:• ITRC PFAS Fact Sheets
• Early 2020 – Technical Guidance Document
• Education and training
Kate Emma A. Schlosser, P.E.Hazardous Waste Remediation Bureau | NH Department of Environmental Services
29 Hazen Drive, Concord, NH 03302-0095 | Phone: (603) 271-2910 [email protected]
Contact information:
Status of NHDES Development of MCLs and
AGQS for PFAS – Where we are in the Process
Clark Freise
Assistant Commissioner
NHDES
Environmental Business Council of New England
Energy Environment Economy
Status of NHDES Development of MCLs and AGQS for PFAS:
Where we are in the Process
Clark Freise
Assistant Commissioner, NHDES
52
Background• HB1101 and SB309
– Adds impacts to groundwater to air emission evaluation• Best Available Control Technology
– Authorizes MCL and AGQS for PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS & PFNA• Most science available
• Allows for going below federal standards/advisories
• Specifies looking at other state’s efforts
• Highlights pre-natal concerns
– Authorizes hiring of Toxicologist and Health Risk Assessor
53
First Steps
• Technical work sessions
• Review of literature and other state’s efforts
• Generate initial proposal• People are only focused on MCLs
54
Compound Standard (ng/l or ppt)
PFOA 38
PFOS 70
PFHxS 85
PFNA 23
Next Steps
• Stakeholder meetings to explain technical report
• Communication highlighting “Minnesota Model”
• Three public comment hearings
– Over 500 written submissions
– Over 800 pages of written submissions
55
What Now?
• Final proposal to be submitted to JLCAR
– New technical report
– Written response to comments
– Face to face stakeholder meeting
• JLCAR hearing – 18 July??
• Approval??
– If so, rules implemented 1 Oct 2019
– If not???
56
Remediation/Treatment of
PFAS in Water and Soil
Harrison Roakes, P.E.
Project Manager
Sanborn Head
Michael Wimsatt, P.G.
Director
Waste Management Division
NHDES
Environmental Business Council of New England
Energy Environment Economy
Remediation/Treatment of
PFAS in Water and Soil
Harrison Roakes, P.E.
Project Manager
Sanborn Head
Environmental Business Council of New England
Energy Environment Economy
Building Trust. Engineering Success.
Soil Leaching to Groundwater Considerations for PFAS
EBC New Hampshire Emerging Contaminants ProgramThe Future of PFAS Regulation and Cleanup in New HampshireJune 25, 2019
Harrison Roakes, PESanborn | Head & Associates, Inc. 20 Foundry Street, Concord, NHT 603.415.6156 [email protected]
Outline
▪ Leaching properties
▪ Leaching-based screening values
▪ Background concentrations
▪ Screening approaches
The focus of this presentation is on PFOA and PFOS.PFAS, including precursors to PFOA and PFOS, havewidely ranging chemistries and properties.
60
PFOA – Chemical Structure
61
Fluorocarbon tail • Strong bonds• Hydrophobic• Lipophobic
Functional group• Hydrophilic
High solubilityLow volatility
O
OH
F FF F FFF
F
F FFF FFF
See ITRC fact sheets for more information: https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/pfas_fact_sheet_fate_and_transport__3_16_18.pdf
F
FFFF
FFFFFFF
FF F
Branched Isomer
O
O
(–)
AIR
WATER
OO
FF
FF
FF
F
F
FF
FF
FF
F
(–)
PFOA and PFOS Phase Partitioning
62See ITRC fact sheets for more information: https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/pfas_fact_sheet_fate_and_transport__3_16_18.pdf
▪ Hydrophobic partitioning
▪ Electrostatic interactions
▪ Partitioning to air-water interface O
O
F F F F F F F
F
F F F F F F F
(–)
Recent Literature Advancing Understanding
▪ Li et al. (2018)1 review of PFAS literature found partitioning “is more complex than can be explained by a single soil or sediment property”, e.g. Koc. Further work is required.
▪ Brusseau et al. (2019)2 found air-water interfacial adsorption greatly enhanced PFOS retention in unsaturated soils
▪ Anderson et al. (2019)3 reported soil-to-groundwater ratios for PFAS at AFFF source zones varied over 8 orders of magnitude and used meta analysis to identify significant factors
63
1. Li et al. (2018). Science of the Total Environment, 628-629 110-120: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.01.1672. Brusseau et al. (2019). Water Research, 148 41-50: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.10.0353. Anderson et al. (2019). Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 220 59-65: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconhyd.2018.11.011
Dilution/Attenuation
Groundwater
64
Leaching ModelsSoil
Leaching
Leachate
Common Model Inputs▪ Hydrogeologic setting
▪ Release assumptions
▪ Contaminant parameters
▪ Soil parameters
Dilution/Attenuation
Leaching
Groundwater
65
USEPA Soil Screening LevelSoil
Leachate 𝐾𝑜𝑐 × 𝑓𝑜𝑐 +𝜃𝑊 + 𝜃𝑎𝐻′
𝜌𝑏×
𝐷𝐴𝐹
𝐶𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 = 𝐶𝐺𝑊 ×
Soil-GW ratio
Source, USEPA , EPA-540-R-96-018, Soil Screening Guidance: User’s Guide, Part 2: Development of Pathway-Specific Soil Screening Levelshttps://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-soil-screening-guidance
Groundwater and Soil to Groundwater Regulatory/Guidance Values
66
1. “GW Values” and “Soil to GW Protection Values” were largely obtained from the ITRC fact sheet spreadsheet updated May 2019
(https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/fact-sheets/). Only states or agencies with both groundwater and soil to groundwater values are shown.
2. “GW Values” and “Soil to GW Protection Values” were paired based on the availability of data. The soil values were not
necessarily developed based on protecting against the indicated GW values.
10
100
1,000
10,000
100,000
1,000,000
Pa
rts p
er
Tri
llio
n (
i.e
., n
g/L
or
ng/k
g)
PFOAGW
PFOASoil
PFOSGW
PFOSSoil
NH direct contact-based values
10
100
1,000
10,000
100,000
Pa
rts p
er
Tri
llio
n (
i.e
., n
g/L
or
ng/k
g)
PFOAGW
PFOASoil
PFOSGW
PFOSSoil
USEPA RSLcalculator
ratio = 0.95
USEPA RSLcalculator
ratio = 0.43
Groundwater and Soil to Groundwater Regulatory/Guidance Values
67
1. “GW Values” and “Soil to GW Protection Values” were largely obtained from the ITRC fact sheet spreadsheet updated May 2019
(https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/fact-sheets/). Only states or agencies with both groundwater and soil to groundwater values are shown.
2. “GW Values” and “Soil to GW Protection Values” were paired based on the availability of data. The soil values were not
necessarily developed based on protecting against the indicated GW values.
10
100
1,000
10,000
100,000
Pa
rts p
er
Tri
llio
n (
i.e
., n
g/L
or
ng/k
g)
PFOAGW
PFOASoil
PFOSGW
PFOSSoil
0.1
1.0
10.0
100.0
1,000.0
So
il-G
W R
atio
(L
/kg)
PFOSRatios
PFOARatios
USEPA RSL
calculator
Groundwater and Soil to Groundwater Regulatory/Guidance Values
68
1. “GW Values” and “Soil to GW Protection Values” were largely obtained from the ITRC fact sheet spreadsheet updated May 2019
(https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/fact-sheets/). Only states or agencies with both groundwater and soil to groundwater values are shown.
2. “GW Values” and “Soil to GW Protection Values” were paired based on the availability of data. The soil values were not
necessarily developed based on protecting against the indicated GW values.
PFAS in Background Vermont Shallow Soils
69Source, University of Vermont and Sanborn Head: https://anrweb.vt.gov/PubDocs/DEC/PFOA/Soil-Background/PFAS-Background-Vermont-Shallow-Soils-03-24-19.pdf
▪ 66 locations, 0-6” depth▪ Parks, grass areas, forests▪ 13 PFCAs & 4 PFSAs
ΣPFAS (ng/kg) >5,000
8 locations 2,000-5,000
23 locations1,000-2,000
25 locations<1,000
10 locations
<1000 1000 - 2000 2000 - 5000 >5000<1000 1000 - 2000 2000 - 5000 >5000
Soil Screening Values & VT Background Data
70
1. The intent of this aggregate comparison is to contextualize the regulatory and guidance values. The individual data in this
study were not collected for comparison to regulatory or guidance values and should not be used for that purpose.
2. “Soil to GW Protection Values” were largely obtained from the ITRC fact sheet spreadsheet updated May 2019 (https://pfas-
1.itrcweb.org/fact-sheets/). Only states or agencies with both groundwater and soil to groundwater values are shown.
370
685
1300
3580
10
100
1,000
10,000
100,000
Pa
rts p
er
Tri
llio
n (
ng/k
g)
PFOAScreening Values
PFOAVT Data
PFOSScreening Values
PFOSVT Data
95th percentile
median
Comparison of Some Soil Screening Levels and VT Background Data
71
AgencyConcentrations (ng/kg or ppt)
BasisPFOA PFOS
Study Median 370 685Study 95th Percentile 1,300 3,580
USEPA RSL (HQ=1) 172 378Leaching equation; 400 ng/L Alaska 1,700 3,000Leaching model; 400 ng/LAlaska (proposed) 290 530Leaching model; 70 ng/LMaine 9,500 21,000Leaching model; 400 ng/LMaine (beneficial reuse) 2,500 5,200Leaching modelMass. (proposed) 200 200Practical quantitation limitNew York (reuse) 1,000 1,000Detect triggers leaching test
• The intent of this aggregate comparison is to contextualize the regulatory and guidance values.
The individual data in this study were not collected for comparison to regulatory or guidance
values and should not be used for that purpose.
• Gray indicates a value less than the 95th percentile; Dark Gray indicates a value less than the median.
• Soil screening values were obtained from the ITRC fact sheet spreadsheet updated May 2019
(https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/fact-sheets/) and online documentation from government agencies.
Depletion Model Using USEPA RSL Equation
72
Basic model assumptions include: 1st-order, USEPA RSL leaching; complete
mixing, steady-state hydraulics; 0.5 meters of soil, 0.18 meters per year infiltration
10
100
1,000
10,000
0 2 4 6 8 10
Pa
rts
pe
r T
rill
ion
PF
OA
(n
g/
L o
r n
g/
kg
)
Time (years)
Initial soil concentration = 1,000 ppt PFOA
Initial leachate concentration ~ 2,326 ppt PFOA
Relatively high leachate concentrations lead to rapid depletion of PFAS in soil
Potential Screening Tools?
73
Empirical Theoretical
Sim
ple
Com
ple
x
Site Data
High res.
In-situ
testing
Soil data
Paired Soil /
GW data
Lab Tests
Column
testing
Kinetic and
isotherm
studies
Single-point
leaching
Models
Generic
Site
Specific
GW data
All Models are Wrong, Some are Useful
Additional work needed
▪ Model complexity
▪ Other sorption or retardation phenomena
▪ Concentration with soil depth
▪ Retardation in the saturated zone
▪ Site-specific hydrology and geology
▪ Better defined inputs (e.g., soil and chemical parameters)
▪ Diagnostic data for models
74
LeachingComplex and difficult to model
Leaching-Based Screening ValuesTypically lower than direct contact-based values, andVery large range of values
Background ConcentrationsPFOA and PFOS present in many background soils, and Comparison to lowest screening values suggests the screening values may be overly conservative
Screening ApproachesImportant limitations and potential misapplications
75
Summary
Building Trust. Engineering Success.
Questions and Comments Appreciated!
And thank you to the many collaborators, including:Wenyu Zhu, PhD | Appala Raju Badireddy, PhD | VTDECSteve Zemba, PhD, PE | Chip Crocetti, PhD, PG
Harrison Roakes, PESanborn | Head & Associates, Inc. 20 Foundry Street, Concord, NHT 603.415.6156 [email protected]
Remediation/Treatment of
PFAS in Water and Soil
Michael Wimsatt, P.G.
Director
Waste Management Division
NHDES
Environmental Business Council of New England
Energy Environment Economy
Looking Forward –Development of Surface Water Standards and Soil Leaching to
Groundwater Standards for PFAS
Presented by:
Michael Wimsatt, Director, Waste Management Division
EBC New Hampshire Emerging Contaminants Program
Manchester, New Hampshire
June 25, 2019
PFASResults_Sur taceWater
PFOA+PFOS(ppt)
• 400+ ppt
• 70 ppt - <399 ppt
• 45 ppt - <70 pp!
10 ppt - <45 ppt
• •10 ppt
Surface Water (Established or Proposed Standards and Guidance Values)
LocationConcentration (ng/L)
PFOA PFOS PFNA PFHxS PFHpA PFDA PFBS PFBA
Michigan (rule) 420 11
Maine 170 300 7,914
Oregon 24,000 300,000 1,000Australia 5,600 700 700
Norway 9,100 0.65
New Hampshire ? ? ? ?
Sources: State webpages and ITRC PFAS Fact Sheets (https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/fact-sheets/)
• SB 309 (2018 Session) directed NHDES to develop a plan, schedule and cost estimates to establish surface water quality standards for PFOS, PFOA, PFHxS, and PFNA in class A and B waters for all designated uses
• Plan to be submitted by January 1, 2020
Developing Surface Water Standards for PFAS in NH
• Review of neighboring states – possible collaboration• Existing data review – targeted sampling• Review of data needs – fish, water, sediments• Uses considered:
• Drinking water• Fish consumption• Recreational contact• Aquatic life
Surface Water Standards Plan -Probable Elements
• There is a need• NHDES has authority to develop standards• No specific legislative directive – but interest expressed
in HB 737• More complex than many other contaminants• Direct contact #s likely much higher than leaching
standards
Developing Soil Leaching Standards for PFAS in NH
Fabric Coating / Air Emissions
POEs, ~100
public water
service
connections
POUs,
~600+
public water
service
connections
Waste Site SourcesNumber of
SitesNumber of
Sites >70 ppt PFOA+PFOS
% >70 ppt PFOA+PFOS
Max PFOA+PFOS Concentration
(ppt)
Waste management facilities (landfills, scrap yards, metal recycling)
185 98 53% 3,792
Unknown sources 24 12 50% 1,920
Mixed sources 16 13 81% 2,628
Other sources 16 11 69% 5,600
Applications of Class B Foam / AFFF 15 14 93% 500,000
Metalworking, plating facilities, machine shops
14 9 64% 7,160
Dry Cleaner 8 4 50% 960
Consumer products (e.g. waxes, sealants, cosmetics, cleaners, treated fabrics)
5 3 60% 647
Semi-conductor industry 4 3 75% 760
Manufacturing – textiles 3 3 100% 72,060
Manufacturing – paper 2 2 100% 27,600
Soil(Established or Proposed Standards and Guidance Values)
Source: ITRC Training Materials, Boston, MA
• Objectives:• Statewide background study
• Evaluate PFAS presence in soils• Evaluate PFAS occurrence in biosolids
• Determine Kd values for major soil types/biosolids• Field-scale investigations
Possible Partnership with USGS -Evaluating PFAS in Soil/Biosolids
Networking Break
Remediation/Treatment of
PFAS in Water and Soil
Michael Marley
Principal & Founder
XDD, LLC
Scott Miller, P.E.
Regional General Manager
Clean Earth, Inc.
Environmental Business Council of New England
Energy Environment Economy
Remediation/Treatment of
PFAS in Water and Soil
Michael Marley
Principal & Founder
XDD, LLC
Environmental Business Council of New England
Energy Environment Economy
Presented by:
Mike Marley
Do it Right, Do it once
Remediation/Treatment of PFAS in Water
EBC New Hampshire Emerging Contaminants Program
The Future of PFAS Regulation and Cleanup in New Hampshire
92
Agenda
❑Issues in Remediation/Treatment of PFAS
❑PFAS Remediation/Treatment Options for Water➢Overview of remedial alternatives based on physical – chemical properties of PFAS
➢Non-Destructive technologies
➢Destructive technologies
93
Issues Summary
❑New and fast-changing targets
➢Which PFAS?
➢Which cleanup levels?
➢Can we measure all PFAS?
➢Do we understand the toxicity?
94
Issues Summary
❑PFAS remediation challenges➢Low cleanup levels
➢Analytical challenges / Cross contamination
➢Numerous PFAS chemicals –all need to be remediated?
➢Transformation vs. destruction
➢Risk of making things worse
➢Concentrated waste streams from non-destructive approaches need treatment
95
Based on the Physical – Chemical Properties of PFAS
(at least the higher C# - PFAS)
❑Higher molecular weight = potential for sieving / filtration / separation
❑Higher Koc = potential for adsorption
❑Charged head = potential for ion exchange (IX)
➢Pers typically anions i.e. negatively charged head,
➢Poly’s can be anionic, cationic or zwitterionic
➢Surfactant properties suggests potential for separation approaches
❑Lower H = not suitable for stripping from groundwater at ambient temperatures
96
Technologies Covered
❑Non-Destructive➢Sorption / Ion-Exchange
➢Filtration / Separation
❑Destructive➢Chemical
➢Thermal
➢Biological
97
Non-Destructive Technologies
Most Applicable for low concentration – high volume flows
98
Adsorption/Ion Exchange(most commonplace, produces concentrated PFAS waste)
❑Carbon-based systems➢Ex-situ activated carbon systems (GAC or
PAC)
➢Biochar (biomass and charcoal) – less consistent and kinetically slower?
➢In-situ injectable carbon-based systems –* gaining interest *
Treatability studies are needed
99
Adsorption/Ion Exchange(Also produces concentrated PFAS waste)
❑Synthetics resins – gaining traction due to capacity/effectiveness➢Combination IX and adsorption
➢Faster kinetics and higher capacities = smaller reactor size
➢Higher product cost – requires site specific cost-benefit analysis
➢Ongoing work on single use IX and shorter chain PFAS sorption
Treatability studies are needed
Public water supply well (in NH) side-by-side pilot: Sorbix LC1 resin vs. Calgon F400 GAC
Removal comparison – Total PFAS
Short chain removal comparison - PFBA
103
Adsorption/Ion Exchange(Also produces concentrated PFAS waste)
❑Other natural materials or modified natural materials (mainly R&D)➢Modified natural mined materials
▪ Surface charge
▪ Surface area
Treatability studies are needed
104
❑Nano-Filtration (NF) ➢ Ultra and micro-filtration low effectiveness
❑Reverse Osmosis➢ >90% effective most PFAS
❑Pretreatment maybe needed due to potential for filter clogging
❑Treatment trains are likely needed to achieve ppt levels cost-effectively➢ Likely carbon / resin polishing
Filtration / Separation(Also produces concentrated PFAS waste)
105
❑Pretreatment maybe needed due to potential for filter clogging
➢PerfluorAd – not really filtration but coagulation -flocculation
▪ Electro-coagulation as alternate
➢Ozofractionation – separation on ozone / air microbubbles (as foam) due to PFAS surfactant properties
▪ Ozone may treat co-contaminants and reduce Poly’s to Per’s
❑Treatment trains are likely needed to achieve ppt levels cost-effectively
Filtration / Separation(Also produces concentrated PFAS waste)
Treatability studies are needed
106
❑Typically incineration at > 1000 oC / 1800 oF
❑ Applied research into other treatment options
➢Electrochemical
➢Multiple technologies in train
❑R&D – SERDP current funding primary focus on waste stream treatment
❑Reaction times can be long – up to hours
➢ less suited for low level PFAS impacted waters
Concentrated PFAS Waste Require Treatment(typically high mg/L level PFAS + salts + other organics)
107
Applied Destructive Technologies
Most Applicable for high concentration – low volume flows
108
Destructive Technologies❑Oxidative / reductive technologies – redox manipulation➢Showing promise, but many unanswered questions
➢Common theme is high energy and / or diverse reactive species needed and reaction time (e.g., electrochemical, plasma, photolysis)▪UV photolysis generate aquated / hydrated electron with EV
= 2.9V
▪Electrochemical using Boron Doped Diamond Electrode some success with PFAS, but not fully with sulfonates oOther effective mixed metal electrodes are being evaluated e.g. Titanium
suboxides Ti4O7
▪ZVI at high temperature and pressure or with catalyst has some success with PFOS
109
Destructive Technologies
❑Oxidative / reductive technologies –redox manipulation➢Byproducts may be a concern ▪Formation of lower C Per’s with higher mobility
▪Chloride to perchlorate
▪Bromide to bromate
➢PFAS range of applicability may be limited ▪Showing more promise for carboxylic’ s (PFOA) than
sulfonates (PFOS)
➢Treatment to ppt levels may require treatment train / polishing
110Copyright© EnChem Engineering, Inc. 2017All Rights Reserved.
Bench Scale Lab Results: #2
AFFF Site Contaminated Groundwater – High Undetected PFAS – 750% Fluoride Recovery
111
Destructive Technologies(less sensitivity to PFAS range)
❑Thermal destruction (higher temperatures ~1100oC)
❑ Sonolysis ➢Ultrasonic waves (can produce cavitation – bubble surface can
reach several thousand oK and high pressures – hundreds of atmospheres)
➢Also can form free radicals (e.g. OH.)
❑ Biodegradation➢ Evidence of transformations of Polys via natural and
enhanced processes
➢Typical byproduct is Per’s
➢Very limited research to date showing biodegradation of Pers
Remediation/Treatment of
PFAS in Water and Soil
Scott Miller, P.E.
Regional General Manager
Clean Earth, Inc.
Environmental Business Council of New England
Energy Environment Economy
EBC New HampshireDisposal of PFAS Contaminated Soils
PFAS Contaminated SoilCurrent Disposal Options
1. Clean Harbors – Incinerate, Landfill• High Temperature Incineration Technology in Texas,
Arkansas, Utah, Nebraska, Ontario
• RCRA Subtitle C Triple-Lined Landfill with Leachate Capture and Destruction in Ontario, Utah and Oklahoma
2. US Ecology – Landfill• Engineered Subtitle C landfills with leachate collection
and treatment systems
• Michigan, Nevada, Idaho, Texas
3. Recupere Sol – Thermal Treatment• High Temperature Thermal Desorption
• Facility in Saint-Ambroise, QC
PFAS Contaminated SoilDisposal Options in Development1. Thermal Treatment
• Clean Earth facilities in Fort Edward, NY, Loudon, NH and Plainville, CT
• Completed initial RD&D under direction of NYSDEC at Fort Edward facility
• Additional Demonstrations in development at all three New England facilities
2. Solidification• Encapsulating PFAS compounds within the soil matrix
reducing mobility
• Treatability studies using Portland cement, carbon and CKD proprietary blends for in-situ and ex-situ treatment alternatives
PFAS Contaminated SoilUpcoming EBC Program
EBC Emerging Contaminants Program PFAS Remediation and Disposal – PFAS Detected, What’s Next?
Wednesday, July 24, 2019 – Confirmed
Clean Harbors – Confirmed
101 Philip Drive Norwell, MA
This EBC Emerging Contaminants program will discuss the next steps to take once the project is beyond the investigative stage. This program will explore current and future options for treatment and destruction for PFAS materials.
Implications of New Standards for the Broader
Environmental Scene: Solid Waste & Landfill
Leachate Management, WWTPs and Biosolids
Michael Wimsatt, P.G.
Director
Waste Management
NHDES
Environmental Business Council of New England
Energy Environment Economy
Implications of New Standards for the Broader Environmental Scene:
Solid Waste and Landfill Leachate Management, WWTPs, and Biosolids
Presented by:
Michael Wimsatt, Director, Waste Management Division
EBC New Hampshire Emerging Contaminants Program
Manchester, New Hampshire
June 25, 2019
• Majority of NH wastes managed by either landfilling or wastewater treatment
• NHDES data demonstrates PFAS presence throughout solid waste and wastewater management systems
• Both sectors aware of the problem and will need to address
PFAS Water Standards – Consequences for All Methods of Waste Management
• Public water systems• Private wells contaminated by air emission sites• Private wells not near known PFAS contamination sites• Waste sites• Landfills & leachate• Wastewater• Groundwater discharge sites• Surface water (general and nearby contamination sites)• Sludge and biosolids• Air stack testing• GenX• Non-targeted analyses• Fire Departments
Sampling Initiatives
Drinking Water / Groundwater (Select Locations - Established or Proposed Standards and Guidance Values)
LocationConcentration (ng/L) (* also includes sum of indicated analytes)
PFOA PFOS PFNA PFHxS PFHpA PFDA PFBS PFBA
USEPA70 70
40 40
Alaska* 70 70 70 70 70 2,000
Rhode Island *70 *70
Maine *70 *70 400,000
Connecticut *70 *70 *70 *70 *70
Vermont *20 *20 *20 *20 *20
Massachusetts *20 *20 *20 *20 *20 *20 2,000
Minnesota 35 15 47 2,000 7,000
California 14 13
New Jersey 14 13 13
New York 10 10
New Hampshire
*70 *70
*38 *70 23 85
? ? ? ?
Sources: State webpages and ITRC PFAS Fact Sheets (https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/fact-sheets/)
Waste Site SourcesNumber of
SitesNumber of
Sites >70 ppt PFOA+PFOS
% >70 ppt PFOA+PFOS
Max PFOA+PFOS Concentration
(ppt)
Waste management facilities (landfills, scrap yards, metal recycling)
185 98 53% 3,792
Unknown sources 24 12 50% 1,920
Mixed sources 16 13 81% 2,628
Other sources 16 11 69% 5,600
Applications of Class B Foam / AFFF 15 14 93% 500,000
Metalworking, plating facilities, machine shops
14 9 64% 7,160
Dry Cleaner 8 4 50% 960
Consumer products (e.g. waxes, sealants, cosmetics, cleaners, treated fabrics)
5 3 60% 647
Semi-conductor industry 4 3 75% 760
Manufacturing – textiles 3 3 100% 72,060
Manufacturing – paper 2 2 100% 27,600
Existing Contaminated Site Sampling –Hazardous Waste Remediation Sites
# of sites ~516
Initial screening Required at sites meeting specific
criteria (see NHDESOct 2017 letter)
% of sites sampled 35%
% of sites with detections
92%
% of sites with exceedances of current AGQS
51%
*Includes State-led hazardous waste, CERCLA, brownfields ** Data as of May 2019
Waste Site Screening - Landfills
# of sites ~200
Initial screening Sampling required (municipalities given
until end of 2018)
% of sites sampled 88%
% of sites with detections
84%
% of sites with exceedances of current AGQS
41%
Data as of May 2019
Landfills
CLOSED LANDFILL
Groundwater impacts fairly
localized
No typical “fingerprint”
Landfill caps could be a PFAS
source in some instances
(biosolids, short paper fiber)
Landfill Leachate Sampling• 15 leachate samples• 27 PFAS analyzed• Not detected in any leachate sample
• Detection Frequency (# detects/ #samples)
10:2 FTS PFDS PFDoS PFNS
PFODA PFHxDA PFTeDA PFTrDA
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
A C E F G H I J K L M N O P Q
Leachate Sample ID
Nan
ogr
ams
pe
rLi
ter
PFAS in Landfill Leachate
PFOA
PFHxA
PFBS
PFPeA
PFOS
PFHpA
PFBA
PFHxS
6:2 FTS
PFDA
NMeFOSAA
NEtFOSAA
PFNA PFPeS
8:2 FTS
PFDoDA
PFUNA
PFHpS
4:2 FTS
17
PFAS in Leachate StatisticsMax Mean Median Min
4:2 FTS 6 ND ND NDPFHpS 34 3 ND NDPFUNA 49 4 ND NDPFDoDA 92 6 ND ND8:2 FTS 100 11 ND NDPFPeS 200 36 24 NDPFNA 380 72 51 NDNEtFOSAA 390 68 ND NDNMeFOSAA 440 110 71 NDPFDA 590 59 ND ND6:2 FTS 940 282 190 NDPFHxS 1300 405 330 NDPFBA 1400 637 480 38PFHpA 1500 525 430 1PFOS 1700 282 150 NDPFPeA 1900 840 860 3PFBS 6000 1409 560 NDPFHxA 6900 2165 1800 2PFOA 10000 2235 1200 3
Surface Water (Established or Proposed Standards and Guidance Values)
LocationConcentration (ng/L)
PFOA PFOS PFNA PFHxS PFHpA PFDA PFBS PFBA
Michigan (rule) 420 11
Maine 170 300 7,914
Oregon 24,000 300,000 1,000Australia 5,600 700 700
Norway 9,100 0.65
New Hampshire ? ? ? ?
Sources: State webpages and ITRC PFAS Fact Sheets (https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/fact-sheets/)
Wastewater Assessments- r i
EnvironmentalServices
• 6:2 FTS PFOS • PFHXS • PFBS • PFDA • PFNA 8 PFOA • PFHPA PFHXA • PFPEA • PFBA
InfEf fInfEf fInfEf fInfEf fInfEf fInfEf fInfEf fInfEf fInfEf fInfEf fInf
Outfa l lEf fInfEf fInf
0 100
·-
• •
-·-·.·.... ..•·\
200
ng/L
300 400
-
--
Permitted Wastewater Discharges to Groundwater
132
• 47 sites sampled
• 39 sites have PFAS detections
• 10 sites exceed 70 ppt of PFOA & PFOS
Residuals Assessments
0 200 400 600 800 1000
SludgeSludge
SPFsludgeSludgeSludgeSludge
SPFSludge
SPFSludgeSludge
SPFSludgeSludge
Ash Sludge Sludge Sludge Sludge
Compost Sludge Sludge Sludge Sludge
Compost Compost Compost Compost
SPFSludgeSludge
ppb
PFBS
PFBA
PFHPA
PFHXS
PFHXA
PFNA
PFOA
PFOS
PFPEA
Monofill, Wastewater Plant and Biosolids
Biosolids Application Site
311
ND
198
189
300
273
135
3.6378
MW-10
ND
• Solid Waste Landfills• Reducing PFAS presence in solid waste• Operators aware of leachate concerns – seeking
treatment solutions• Possible regional treatment solutions?• Augmented monitoring of groundwater
• Wastewater Plants/Biosolids• Reducing PFAS in wastewater• Facilities/industry aware• More data needed to understand risk• Possible regional treatment solutions for residuals?
Path(s) Forward
Please Fill out the Program Survey
Environmental Business Council of New England
Energy Environment Economy
Moderated Discussion
Moderator: James Ricker, P.G., Wilcox & Barton, Inc.
Panelists:
• Tom Burack, Sheehan Phinney
• Clark Freise, NHDES
• Michael Wimsatt, NHDES
• Kate Emma Schlosser, NHDES
• Michael Marley, XDD, LLC
• Scott Miller, Clean Earth, Inc.
• Charles Crocetti, Sanborn Head
Environmental Business Council of New England
Energy Environment Economy
EBC New Hampshire Emerging Contaminants Program
The Future of PFAS Regulation
and Cleanup in New Hampshire