The Future of PFAS Regulation and Cleanup in New Hampshire · • Deem PFAS as food adulterants •...

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



Thank you to our Host

EBC Committees & Chapters



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



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



Upcoming Programs



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



Program Purpose & What You Will Learn

Charles Crocetti, PhD., P.G.

Program Co-Chair

Senior Vice President

Sanborn Head & Associates, Inc.



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





Tom Burack, Esq.

Shareholder

Sheehan Phinney Bass

& Green PA



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


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


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


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


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


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”


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


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 (?)


Questions?

Tom Burack, Esq.

Sheehan Phinney Bass & Green, PA

1000 Elm Street, 17th Floor

Manchester, NH 03101

[email protected]

603-627-8387




Director


NHDES



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


NHDES



Environmental Occurrence Data from PFAS Sources

in New Hampshire

Environmental Business Council of New England, Inc.


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)



Landfills - GMPs and Groundwater Release Detection Permit sampling



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/

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:

mailto:[email protected]

Status of NHDES Development of MCLs and

AGQS for PFAS – Where we are in the Process

Clark Freise

Assistant Commissioner

NHDES



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


Director


NHDES





Harrison Roakes, P.E.

Project Manager

Sanborn Head



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

https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/fact-sheets/

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


67






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


68






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]





Director


NHDES



Looking Forward –Development of Surface Water Standards and Soil Leaching to

Groundwater Standards for PFAS

Presented by:

Michael Wimsatt, Director, Waste Management Division


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



Michael Marley

Principal & Founder

XDD, LLC

Scott Miller, P.E.

Regional General Manager

Clean Earth, Inc.





Michael Marley

Principal & Founder

XDD, LLC



Presented by:

Mike Marley

Do it Right, Do it once

Remediation/Treatment of PFAS in Water


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


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


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)


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



Scott Miller, P.E.

Regional General Manager

Clean Earth, Inc.



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


Director

Waste Management

NHDES



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


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)


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

? ? ? ?


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)


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 ? ? ? ?


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



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




The Future of PFAS Regulation

and Cleanup in New Hampshire

Date post:	01-Mar-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	4 times
Download:	0 times