Bill Janes and Earl Crapps Department of Environmental Conservation

1. Proposed RevisionsOil and Other Hazardous SubstancesPollution Control RegulationsAnnual Meeting Alaska Association of Environmental Professionals November 14, 2007 Bill Janes and Earl Crapps Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Spill Prevention and Response Contaminated Sites Program

2. Presentation Overview • Site cleanup rules background • Multi-phase revision approach • Modifications currently out for public comment • Comments received to date • Audience discussion and input

3. Background Cleanup rules (18 AAC 75.325-390) developed over 10 years ago - no major changes since Default cleanup levels in look-up tables Risk-based approach allows for alternative cleanup levels Similar regulations for regulated UST cleanups developed in early 1990s (18 AAC 78) Cleanup levels in 75 adopted by reference Lab approval program in 78 Differences in terminology and procedure

4. Multi-Phase Revision Approach • Phase I • Update cleanup levels • Update several other technical requirements • Address certain policy issues • Perform housekeeping

5. Multi-Phase Revision Approach • Phase II (and possibly beyond) • Update technical and policy requirements • Merge 75 and 78 cleanup sections • Introduce a new QA/QC section • Develop clear and consistent submittal review and approval criteria

6. Multi-Phase Revision Approach • Phase II (and possibly beyond) • Possibly revise petroleum fraction cleanup levels • Clearly differentiate between regulation, procedure, and guidance • Perform regular housekeeping

7. Phase I - Web Site Resources • Q&A Fact Sheet • Summary of Proposed Changes • Proposed Regulations • Cleanup Levels Guidance • Cumulative Risk Guidance • Cleanup Levels Spreadsheet • Cleanup Levels Comparison Spreadsheet

8. Phase I Proposed Technical Revisions • Changes “Ingestion” to “Direct Contact” (340) • Updates cleanup level tables (341 and 345) • Uses Risk Assessment Information System (RAIS) • Adds new chemicals to tables • Revises soil-water partitioning equations • Default DF, AF, mixing zone depth can no longer be modified (Cleanup Levels Guidance)

9. Phase IProposed Technical Revisions • Adds default Surface Area and Adherence Factors to commercial/industrial cleanup levels (Cleanup Levels Guidance) • Adds Absorption Factor (ABS) column for chemicals that have dermal risk effects for dermal contact pathway (Cleanup Levels Guidance) • Adds “selection of compounds for dermal absorption” section (Cleanup Levels Guidance)

10. Phase IProposed Technical Revisions • Adds four PAH compounds to the indicator compounds table (Cumulative Risk Guidance) • Adds table of fugitive dust COPCs (Cumulative Risk Guidance) • Updates compounds that exceed cancer risk standard and HQ of 1.0 at the Table C groundwater cleanup levels (Cumulative Risk Guidance)

11. Phase IProposed Policy Revisions • Repeals permitted solid waste storage or disposal facility exemption (325 (c)) • Changes cumulative non-cancer HI to one significant figure (325 (g) and (h) • Site-specific soil cleanup levels not in regulation to be developed by department (340(g)) • Establishes a statewide migration to gw cleanup level per contaminant (341 Tables B1 and B2) • Would now apply to the Arctic

12. Phase IProposed Policy Revisions • Repeals aliphatic/aromatic cleanup levels (341 Table B2 and 345 Table C) • Implements true petroleum fraction “caps” (341 Table B2) • Recognizes the presence of naturally occurring arsenic throughout Alaska (notes to Tables B1 and B2)

13. Phase IProposed Policy Revisions • Repeals the GW “10X” cleanup level option (345 (b)(2)) • Clarifies when the department may eliminate the use of institutional controls (375(f)) • Modifies definition of “qualified person” (990(100)

14. Phase I - Proposed Housekeeping Revisions • Updates citations - ADF&G, ADNR, Standard Methods, ASTM, 40 C.F.R. (325 h and k) • Adds new column to cleanup level tables to distinguish between carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic contaminants • Clarifies cleanup Levels Guidance and Cumulative Risk Guidance text and tables to reflect the various technical modifications

15. Phase I - Proposed Housekeeping Revisions • Updates regional master discharge prevention and contingency plan boundary for Western AK • Clarifies definition of “carcinogen” (990 (12) • Places definition of “risk assessment” into regulation (990(109)

16. Let’s take a look at comments received to date. • Army • Navy • Coast Guard • FAA • AK Miners Assn. • Solid Waste Assn. of North America • ADOT

17. Comments • General • Proposed regulations inadequately researched, poorly communicated, contradict state recommended uses, and increase threats to human health • Science must be technically correct • Must be separation between science and policy and a defensible basis for the non-science • No improvement in clarity, flexibility and scientific defensibility • Need more time to evaluate cost of compliance

18. Comments • General • DEC should not regulate site cleanups if the State is the RP or landowner • DEC needs to track developments and build protective measures for emerging contaminants that may cause significant ecological impacts • SOC should review comments submitted and formulate consensus recommendations • Risk due to the cleanup activities greater than the health risk from the chemicals

19. Comments • Cleanup Levels – Table B1 • Request to allow responsible persons to continue to calculate and propose cleanup levels that are not currently listed • Objection to cleanup levels for propylene glycol; PG is a FDA approved food additive • Inadequate information regarding the reasons for proposed changes to the cleanup levels • Request to differentiate between the current and proposed cleanup levels (we recently put a side-by-side comparison on our web site)

20. Comments • Cleanup Levels – Table B1 • Objection to proposed cleanup levels for 2,4-D and arsenic • Objection to using the RAIS database as our single source of information • Objection to using screening levels as cleanup levels • Some cleanup levels below laboratory detection limits • Proposed PCB migration to groundwater cleanup level (0.3 mg/kg) overly conservative and beyond intent of TSCA

21. Comments • Cleanup Levels – Table B1 • Confusion regarding the PCB footnote and the human health risk based concentrations in the Cumulative Risk Guidance • Clarification requested regarding the hierarchy of sources used to generate the proposed cleanup levels • Request to verify consistency between tables and text • Objection to using a default attenuation factor for all chemicals • Many chemicals not listed in IRIS

22. Comments Cleanup Levels - Table B1 • Request for expansion of footnote 15 (background arsenic) to include other metals • Revised table does not include inhalation cleanup levels for some previously listed chemicals (aldrin, chlordane, DDT, others) Appendix B of Cumulative Risk Guidance calculates soil inhalation levels. • Confusion regarding application of Csat caps and inhalation risk screening levels in the Cumulative Risk Guidance • De-minimis levels must be defined and incorporated into regulation

23. Comments • Cleanup Levels – Table B2 • No technical basis for the petroleum maximum allowable concentrations • Request to move the maximum allowable issue to phase 2 of the regulation revisions • Objection to a rigid concept regarding maximum allowable concentrations • Maximum allowable concentrations create unreasonable demand for cleanup and a marginal reduction in risk at high cost

24. Comments • Cleanup Levels – Table B2 • Technical inaccuracies and interconnected concepts in the SOC paper • Request to use SOC papers to develop technically accurate and defensible migration to groundwater cleanup levels for petroleum • Objection to applying a statewide migration to groundwater cleanup level to Arctic sites

25. Comments • Cleanup Levels – Table B2 • Objection to applying the three-phase equation to both vadose zone and saturated zone soils • Objection to rescinding the aliphatic/aromatic cleanup levels; important scientific link to the total fractions broken • Petroleum fraction cleanup levels do not reflect how fuels migrate in the subsurface • Fuel contamination in groundwater generally due to smear zone contact, not leachate migration through soil

26. Comments • Groundwater • Examples requested for what will take place of the 10X rule • Objection to repeal of the groundwater 10X rule • Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phalate is a common lab contaminant; footnote the Table C cleanup level

27. Comments • Qualified Person Definition • Request to leave the current definition of "qualified person" in place • Request to clarify how the proposed qualified person standard will be implemented

28. Comments • Risk Assessment • Clarification requested on the rounding of the HI • Proposed revisions inconsistent with current EPA risk assessment guidance and implementation of the NCP • Clarification requested on additional pathways to investigate (cumulative risk guidance) • References requested for changes to the slope factors and reference doses

29. Comments • Solid Waste Exemption • Objection to the proposed repeal of the solid waste facility exemption

30. Comments • Institutional Controls and Site Closure • Request for policy regarding closure and conditional closure to be placed in regulation • IC provisions of 75.375 remain vague and are not uniformly enforced • No substantive basis for the proposed modification to remove ICs when the most stringent cleanup level protective of unrestricted use has been reached

31. Conclusions • The Site Cleanup Rules have been in place for nine years with little change. • The major goal of the Phase I package is to update the cleanup levels. • The Phase II package and beyond will further improve clarity and defensibility.

32. Questions and Discussion