21 st Annual Conference. Soil and Groundwater Screening Levels Developing Soil and Groundwater Screening Levels for International Service Station Sites.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Learning from the States… Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Advertisements

COMPARISONS OF SUB-SLAB SOIL GAS MEASUREMENTS TO MODELED EMISSIONS FROM SUBSURFACE CONTAMINATION by John A. Menatti and Robin V. Davis Utah Department.
NATO June 2007 Tour de table presentation Nadine DUESO Coordinator Contaminated sites department ADEME - FRANCE.
Understanding the MRBCA Program UST Program Implications Petroleum Storage Tank Insurance Fund May 2004.
PA One Cleanup and Land Use Controls The “Business of Brownfields” Conference April 17, 2008 Terri Smith Environmental Liability Management, Inc.
Remediation Programs Update MSECA Quarterly Meeting March 13, 2012.
Revisions to Washington’s Cleanup Rules Martha Hankins & Chance Asher Toxics Cleanup Program Department of Ecology Water Quality Partnership May 20, 2010.
By: Robert J. Carr, P.E., LEP CONNECTICUT’S 2013 REVISIONS TO REMEDIATION STATUTES AND REGULATIONS MARCH 12, 2014.
A U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science Laboratory Operated by The University of Chicago Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy Risk-Based Regulation.
Dale T Littlejohn Senior Geologist. What is fate and transport in the vadose zone? Vadose Zone Hydrocarbon release from buried pipeline Aquifer Surface.
Contaminated land: dealing with hydrocarbon contamination Conceptual models for petroleum hydrocarbon sites.
National Inventory of Potential Sources of Soil Contamination in Cyprus Part 2 Risk-Based Approach to Assessment of Cypriot Contaminated Sites Eleonora.
Environmental Investigation by Con Edison Former E115th Street Gas Works November 13, 2007.
Vapor Intrusion Guidance Proposed Updates
Responding to Soil Contamination in the Moanataiari Subdivision And when the NES does and does not apply May 2012.
DRAFT Field Sampling Guidance To be used this field season by DEC and consultants Initial focus on soil, groundwater, and vapor intrusion Future versions.
1 Risk Assessment Develop Objectives And Goals Develop and Screen Cleanup Alternatives Select Final Cleanup Alternative Communicate Decisions to the Public.
Human Health Effects of Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid BTEX Components in Drinking Water Ashley Andersen, Nicole Fenton, Alex Friedman, Kevin Jackson, Alec.
Module 4: Getting Ready: Scoping the RI/FS. 2 Module Objectives  Explain the purpose of the scoping phase of the RI/FS  Identify existing data which.
1 of 25 The EPA 7-Step DQO Process Step 5 - Define Decision Rules 15 minutes Presenter: Sebastian Tindall DQO Training Course Day 2 Module 14.
Contaminated land: dealing with hydrocarbon contamination Assessing risks to human health.
Application of a Human Health Risk Assessment Software to Support Revitalisation Decisions at Post-industrial Sites E.Wcislo, J.Dlugosz, M.Korcz Institute.
Of Massachusetts Department ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Soil Vapor Intrusion... A Decade of Regulatory Requirements & Experiences Paul W. Locke MA DEP Bureau.
Introduction to Atlantic RBCA Version 3 Webinar May 4, 2013.
DTSC VAPOR INTRUSION GUIDANCE California Industrial Hygiene Council 16 th Annual Conference Dan Gallagher Department of Toxic Substances Control California.
IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency Roger Seitz Addressing Future Human Actions for Safety Assessment Summary from CSM on Human Action And Intrusion.
1 of 35 The EPA 7-Step DQO Process Step 4 - Specify Boundaries (30 minutes) Presenter: Sebastian Tindall Day 2 DQO Training Course Module 4.
LOGO Feasibility Test of Applying Complex Remediation Technology for Diesel Contamination in Soil and Groundwater 2012 International Conference on Environmental.
Former Monsanto Chemical Tip Wrexham County Borough Council.
Exposure Assessment by Multi-media modelling. Cause-effect chain for ecosystem and human health as basis for exposure assessment by multi-media modelling.
Contaminated land: dealing with hydrocarbon contamination Assessing risks to other receptors.
Overview of Regulatory Changes, Policy and Implementation Colleen Brisnehan Colorado Department of Public Health And Environment Hazardous Materials and.
LDEQ RECAP Miscellaneous Topics. Exposure Assessment n Site-specific under MO-3 only n Construction worker scenario n Greatly reduced ET, EF, and/or ED.
Case Study 1 Application of different tools: RBCA Tool Kit and APIDSS.
COMMITMENT & INTEGRITY DRIVE RESULTS Risk Based Corrective Action Using site-specific risk assessment to achieve Regulatory Closure.
Examples of Health Risk Assessment Applications for Contaminated Sites in the Upper Silesia, Poland Eleonora Wcislo Institute for Ecology of Industrial.
Multimedia Assessment for New Fuels: Stakeholders’ Meeting September 13, 2005 Sacramento, CA Dean Simeroth, California Air Resources Board Dave Rice, Lawrence.
2010 Long-Term Surveillance and Maintenance Conference Institutional Controls Featuring the Pinellas Site Jack Craig U.S. Department of Energy Office of.
1 RBCA Tool Kit Exercise. 2 Groundwater protection : Tier 1 compliance point Point of compliance=Point of exposure (on site) compliance point (receptor)
A New Risk-Based Approach to Establish Clean-up Levels for TPH David Nakles and Stephen Geiger ThermoRetec Consulting and Engineering Sara McMillen and.
Italy: developments in the new legislation and progress in the remediation of contaminated sites F. Quercia, APAT Tour de Table NATO CCMS Pilot Study Meeting.
1 The Use of Institutional Controls Under the RCRA Corrective Action Program.
Draft Policy for Assessing & Managing Contaminants in soil: a progress report WMINZ Conference, 15 October 2009 James Court and Howard Ellis Ministry for.
Monitored Natural Attenuation and Risk-Based Corrective Action at Underground Storage Tanks Sites Mike Trombetta Department of Environmental Quality Environmental.
Review of Current Conditions Report and Work Plan for Area 1 Presented by The Great Plains/Rocky Mountain Technical Outreach Services for Communities.
Are SPLP or TCLP testing data adequate for understanding soil adsorption coefficients? Chris Bailey, T&T.
Carousel Tract Environmental Remediation Project Update by Expert Panel to Regional Board July 11, 2013.
David G Bennett December 2014
Area I Burn Pit Santa Susana Field Laboratory RCRA Facility Investigation Work Plan February 19, 2008 Laura Rainey, P.G. Senior Engineering Geologist California.
September 18, 1998 State of Illinois Rules and Regulations Tiered Approach to Corrective Action (TACO) Presented by The Great Plains/Rocky Mountain Technical.
Argonne National Laboratory Experience and Perspectives on Environmental Remediation Karen P. Smith Environmental Science Division Argonne National Laboratory.
RECAP Implementation Issues Implementation Issues.
Principles of Hazardous Waste Site Ranking September 27, 2001 Stephen M. Caldwell Deputy Director, State and Tribal Programs and Site Identification Center.
NFA Letter Template: Tips and Hints to Reduce Comments CP Annual Training October 27, 2015 Sydney Poole – DERR.
Evaluating the Practicality of LNAPL Recovery Jeff Lane, P.G. November 17, 2015 International Petroleum Environmental Conference (IPEC) IPEC 22 Contact.
Who’s Risk Is It? Risk-Based Decision-Making in Indian Country Ms. Marilyn Null Deputy for Community-Based Programs U.S. Air Force.
FAIR Meeting April 6, Groundwater Results – Fall 2003 Benzene ND 1,000 ug/L Product.
1 FORMER COS COB POWER PLANT From Characterization to Redevelopment Brownfields2006 November 14, 2006.
Long-Term Management of Contaminated Soil and Groundwater – Iwilei District, Honolulu April 16, 2015.
 Clean Water Act 404 permit  Ohio EPA Division of Surface Water 401 water quality certification  Ohio Revised Code 6111 – Placement of dredged materials.
Risk CHARACTERIZATION
GSI ENVIRONMENTAL INC. Houston, Texas (713) Workshop 1: Assessment and Evaluation of Vapor Intrusion at Petroleum.
Omaha Riverfront Redevelopment Project Brownfields 2004 C. Dale Jacobson, P.E., DEE.
Proposed Plan for No Further Action
Presentation on Livermore Lab Site 300 Superfund Cleanup Peter Strauss, Environmental Scientist, PM Strauss & Assoc. Community-Wide Meeting on
Anniston PCB Site Review of Risk Assessments for OU-1/OU-2
Jay Peters Gina M. Plantz Richard J. Rago
Hold Your Breath—Ohio EPA’s TCE Initiative
Addressing Future Human Actions for Safety Assessment
Brownfield Corrective Action with Revised RRS
Presentation transcript:

21 st Annual Conference

Soil and Groundwater Screening Levels Developing Soil and Groundwater Screening Levels for International Service Station Sites Lynn Spence Spence Environmental Engineering Eric Daniels and Renae Magaw Chevron, ETC

Soil and Groundwater Screening Levels3 Soil & Groundwater Screening Levels: Outline Introduction Business Case – Why do we need them? What are they? What are their intent? Soil and Groundwater Screening Levels Derivation Basis Example Tables? Comparison with screening levels from around the world

Soil and Groundwater Screening Levels Project Objective Establish human health risk based screening levels at service station sites in countries that have no environmental regulations. Provide sets of generic tables for determining appropriate screening levels. Enable site-specific application based on a few key parameters.  Annual precipitation  Depth to groundwater  Future use of the site

Soil and Groundwater Screening Levels5 Motivation for Project The inconsistency of local regulations and standards creates legal and business uncertainty that can negatively impact project schedule and cost Delays in UST upgrades Prolonged remediation activities Directing large quantities of waste to waste facilities Improve consistency in internal risk-based decision- making Proactive advocacy can result in cost-effective regulations

Soil and Groundwater Screening Levels6 Soil & Groundwater Screening Levels: What Are They? Screening levels of hydrocarbon impacts in soil and groundwater Used for long-term site liability management decision making Apply to soil and groundwater remaining at retail sites Assumes reliable/accurate lab analysis results are available for BTEX, TPH, and metals Specific to refined petroleum products such as gasoline and diesel and not for crude oil and other heavier materials Developed based on a human health risk assessment software tool Screening levels are to be used at locations where there are no existing regulations Screening levels provide: Consistent, conservative human health risk-based approach Defensible scientific basis for environmental management

Soil and Groundwater Screening Levels7 Soil & Groundwater Screening Levels: Limitations Screening Levels don’t take the place of existing regulations Screening Levels may not be the solution for all sites; site- specific risk assessment will always be an option Screening Levels don’t address vapor intrusion Screening Levels don’t address Light Non Aqueous Phase Liquids (LNAPL) and how to recover/manage them

Soil and Groundwater Screening Levels8 Screening Level Assumptions Water Use: Default assumption is that any and all groundwater on site may potentially be used for drinking water. Site Remediation Specialists may determine that the groundwater is not suitable for drinking water. Site Remediation Specialists may determine where water standards must be met (e.g. at the property boundary or at some point further downgradient). Land use: Default assumption is that the site will be used for residential purposes if it is to be transferred. Site Remediation Specialists can override residential assumption, for example:  If region has zoning laws and the site is not zoned for residential  If directed by Property Transfer Team  If other land uses can be assumed based on site specific conditions. Reason(s) for exception (decision) must be documented and site- specific screening level must be developed.

Soil and Groundwater Screening Levels Site Conceptual Model Summary Two types of sites: (1) ongoing service station (2) site to be transferred Two types of receptors: (1) resident (2) on-site worker Screening levels were developed for: (1) soil (two tables) (2) groundwater (one table) There are two soil screening level tables, for two different exposure scenarios: (1) surface soil (2) leaching to groundwater Chemicals of concern: BenzeneTPH GRO EthylbenzeneTPH DRO TolueneLead XylenesMTBE

Soil and Groundwater Screening Levels10 Soil Screening Levels: Direct Contact Chemical For Sites that are Being Transferred* For Sites that are to Remain Service Stations Impacted Soil Will be Covered With Concrete or Asphalt (mg/kg) BenzeneXXNL EthlybenzeneXXXXNL TolueneXXXXNL XylenesXXXXNL TPH GROXXXXNL TPH DROXXXXNL LeadXXXNL NL: No Level. It is assumed that people will not have direct contact with impacted soils when the soil is covered with concrete or asphalt. *Surface soil for these sites is defined as the top 3 meters of soil. Risk Assessment Assumptions: Exposure pathways include ingestion of soil, dermal contact with soil, inhalation of volatiles and particulates. Depleting source Default human exposure parameters from WHO. Cancer risk target = 1 x 10 -5

Soil and Groundwater Screening Levels Site Conceptual Model (Soil Leaching to Groundwater): Site to be Transferred 11 Depth to Groundwater from Bottom of Impacted Soil (4 Categories) Thickness of impacted soil (2 m) Precipitation (3 Categories) Well location (Assumed to be directly underneath impacted soil) Impacted Soil

Soil and Groundwater Screening Levels Depth to Groundwater from Bottom of Impacted Soil (4 Categories) Thickness of impacted soil (2 m) Precipitation Infiltration assumed to be less than 5 cm/year Asphalt or Concrete (for on-going service stations) Impacted Soil 10 m Only potential exposure pathway: leaching to groundwater - 2 potential “well” locations Site Conceptual Model (Soil Leaching to Groundwater): Site to Remain Ongoing Service Station

Soil Screening Levels: Leaching to Groundwater Decision Matrix

Soil and Groundwater Screening Levels14 Soil Screening Levels: Leaching to GW Site Will Be Transferred Table Number Average Annual Precipitation Depth to Groundwater* Benzene (mg/kg) Ethyl benzene (mg/kg) Toluene (mg/kg) Xylenes (mg/kg) TPH GRO (mg/kg) TPH DRO (mg/kg) Lead (mg/kg) Table 2A <50 cm/yr 0 to 1 m X.XXXX XXX8000NA 1 to 3 m XX60XXXXX NA 3 to 5 m XXX NA > 5 m XXX NA Table 2B 50 to 200 cm/yr 0 to 1 m X.XXXXX.X XXX8000NA 1 to 3 m X.XXXX XXX8000NA 3 to 5 m X.XXXXXX NA > 5 m XX NA Table 2C 200 to 400 cm/yr 0 to 1 m X.XXX.X XX8000NA 1 to 3 m X.XXXXX.X XXX8000NA 3 to 5 m X.XX60XX XXX8000NA > 5 m X.X60XXXXX 8000NA Numbers in italics represent mobility limits, not risk-based numbers.

Soil and Groundwater Screening Levels TPH Mobility Calculations C res = what's left in the soil after gravity drainage (of product) Mobility calculations using Equation 5 of Brost and DeVaull (2000) Density of oil assumed to be 0.75 (for gasoline)

Soil and Groundwater Screening Levels Summary of Annual Precipitation for Countries where Chevron Operates* *And most likely do not have soil and groundwater regulations

Soil and Groundwater Screening Levels17 Groundwater Screening Levels Default assumption is that groundwater may be used for drinking water. All values are from the World Health Organization “Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality” (2004), which are human-health risk-based guidelines for safe drinking water. If groundwater cannot be used for a drinking water supply, this table does not apply and site-specific risk assessment should be considered. Chemical concentrations above these screening levels do not automatically mean that remediation is required. However, exceeding these levels suggests that further evaluation of the potential risks is appropriate. Chemical Groundwater Concentrations (ug/L) TPHN.L. Benzene10 Toluene300 Ethylbenzene700 Xylenes500 MTBE*15 Lead10 *Screening level for MTBE is based on taste and/or odor considerations. N.L. -- “No Level” indicates WHO does not have a safe drinking water standard for TPH.

Soil and Groundwater Screening Levels How do the Screening Levels Compare to Other Countries’ Screening Levels? The project included compilation of international screening levels from 81 countries and/or regions into a database. The intent was to use this database to compare results obtained from modeling with regulatory numbers from around the world. 18

Soil and Groundwater Screening Levels19 How do the Screening Levels Compare? Constituent Belgium (Flanders)SwitzerlandDenmark Soil (mg/kg) Groundwater (ug/L) Soil (mg/kg) Groundwater (ug/L) Soil (mg/kg) Groundwater (ug/L) TPH Specific fractions 1009 Benzene Ethylbenzene Toluene Xylenes Lead Screening levels vary dramatically by agency Not all values are health-risk based, may consider different exposure pathways. Individual agencies incorporate policy decisions that may not be appropriate for all sites Chevron screening levels provide consistent, scientifically defensible values, applicable to a broad portfolio of sites -- no standard given

Soil and Groundwater Screening Levels Screening Levels Vary Sometimes by Orders of Magnitude Even in the US Chemical Direct Soil Contact Residential Land Use USEPA RSLs (mg/kg) Texas TRRP PCLs (mg/kg) California RWQCB ESLs ( mg/kg) Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene Xylenes Naphthalene MTBE TPH gasoline NA TPH mid-distillate NA

Soil and Groundwater Screening Levels21 Site-Specific Risk Assessment (As always,) Site-specific risk assessment and development of site-specific cleanup objectives are available options for every site. However, it turns out that the scenarios selected cover most sites.

21 st Annual Conference