2018 NH BIA Air & Water Regulatory Conference

Robert ScottMay 31, 2018

NHDES Mission

• The mission of the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services is to help sustain a high quality of life for all citizens by protecting and restoring the environment and public health in New Hampshire.

New Hampshire’s Challenges

• Infrastructure needs

• Water quality and emerging Contaminants

• Public engagement

• Good Science

NHDES Initiatives• Wetlands rules• Drinking Water standards

– 1,4 dioxane– PFAS – 70 ppt combined PFOS/PFOA Ambient

groundwater quality standards (AGQS)

• Air fees• National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System (NPDES) delegationomunicipal separate storm water sewer system

(MS4) issues

2018 Legislative Changes

• HB 1104 -relative to dredge and fill permit time limits; Certified Application Preparer (CAP) • HB 1592 - review standards relative to arsenic contamination in drinking water•Multiple bills (HB 1101) – PFAS standards

Chlorides• We now have data showing that chlorides are

becoming an issue in NH’s lakes and water bodies

Salt use in US is increasing

Per- and Polyfluoralkyls (PFAS) contamination

• Found from many sources o fabric coating, food packaging, landfills,

car wash, cleaning solvents, manufacturing, fire fighting foam, etc

• Over 3000 compounds• Air deposition component• Developing health impact data• Public engagemento Risk communication

Water Infrastructure Needs• NH’s Estimated Total 10-Year Water Infrastructure

Needs• Wastewater $1,471 million• Stormwater $ 272• Water Supply$ 860+

• NH has over 2600 dams – many high hazard, in need of upkeep and repair

• NH in a growth spurt, infrastructure investments must go with new development or development can’t be sustained.

• Cheapest to plan and fix infrastructure before fails

DWGW Trust Fund Advisory Commission• Available from Trust Fund: $278 million• Advisory Commission Approved Projects

– Grants: 9 projects, $11,330,00– Loans: 11 projects, $23,174,700– Source water protection/other: 2 projects, $700K

• Approved Projects include– Lead (Colebrook and Northumberland)– 1,4-dioxane (North Walpole)– MtBE (Dover and Lee Traffic Circle)– PFCs (Coakley, Dover and Pennichuck)– Disinfection Byproducts (Bethlehem)– Sanitary/Wellhead Issues (Whitefield)

– PFCs (Amherst) $5 million TCI loan (SB57)

DWGW Trust Fund Source Water Protection/Other

• Portsmouth Source Water Protection Project

– Source water protection preserves drinking water sources

– Reduces water treatment costs

• Statewide Drinking Water Quality Sampling Project

– Data on overall drinking water quality, naturally occurring, and emerging contaminants (background, prevalence)

Southern NH Drinking Water Project

Other Challenges• Risk Communications

– Comparative risk

• Need for fact – science based decision making– Health risk data, environmental impact

• Education

• The economy and the environment

– Long-term benefits vs short-term gain

Questions?Bob Scott, Commissioner

271-2958robert.scott@des.nh.gov

NH Department of Environmental Services29 Hazen Drive

271-3503www.des.nh.gov

Addressing Emerging Contaminants of Concern in New Hampshire

2018 New Hampshire Air & Water Regulatory ConferenceMay 31, 2018 - Business & Industry Association

Brandon Kernen, PG – NHDES

Identifying Emerging Contaminants

• USEPA tests for select unregulated contaminants every 5 years

• USEPA issues a new health advisory for a contaminant – NHDES must adopt an Ambient Groundwater Quality Standard – per state law

• Lessons learned from sites across the country

NHDES’ Emerging Contaminant Subsection

When a new contaminant is regulated by NHDES:

• Develops policies and procedures for investigation and remediation

• Shares technical and scientific information across NHDES

NHDES’ Response to PFOA & PFOS

• Hundreds of drinking water wells contaminated in southern NH due to air emissions (March 2016)

• Based on an action level EPA applied for a site in NY, NHDES immediately provided alternate water to the public impacted.

• USEPA issued an updated health advisory in May 2016.

– NHDES adopted an emergency rule shortly thereafter

– Regular rule adopted in October 2016

19

Davis et al., 2007, Chemoshpere

Schedule

20

Schedule

21

Schedule

22

Schedule

23

PFAS - Just Not Another New Contaminant

Two sites in NH Contaminated by Air Emissions◦ Undermines traditional waste site investigation/source water

protection

◦ Has caused contamination over in an area up to 60+ sq. miles

Its presence in drinking water(ppt) is measurable in

our residents’ blood (ppb) – health implication is not

known

Currently have standards for two out of thousands

PFAS

Short-term exposure is considered a health risk

Other states contemplating standards 3-5 times lower

than NH’s standard

Identify Potential Sources

+Targeted Well

Sampling

Waste Sites Sampling

400+ sites

Class B Foam

Outreach –Letters &

online forms

New Community Well Siting

Groundwater Discharge

Permits

100+ sites

Public Water Supply

Sampling –Voluntary

400+ sources

Wastewater/ Biosolids

Assessment

What’s next in NH?

• 2018 Legislation

– Rulemaking for MCLs/AGQS required by January 1, 2019 for PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS and PFNA

– Authority to regulate air emissions to protect water quality

– NHDES must propose a plan and budget for developing surface water quality standards by January 1, 2020

USEPA’s May 22-23, 2018 - NATIONAL PFAS SUMMIT TAKEAWAYS

1) Risk communication needs to be improved & include a discussion of relative risk.

2) PFAS efforts need to be prioritized

3) Should we focus on individual PFAS versus a group?

4) Do we need to think about source control versus the end of the pipe? What is the role of industry in this?

5) Regional PFAS Summits will be conducted.

• First meeting in NH – June 25-26

6) ATSDR will be releasing new toxicity information for PFOA, PFOS, PFNA and PFHxS soon

EPA’s Commitments at the National PFAS Summit

• Evaluate the need for an MCL for PFOA and PFOS

• Address the status of PFOA and PFOS as "hazardous substances" under its existing statutory authority such as CERCLA Section 102

• Develop groundwater cleanup recommendations for PFOA and PFOS (expected Fall 2018)

• Issue toxicity values for GenX and PFBS (Summer/Fall 2018)

___The Rapidly Changing Regulatory Landscape

29

C O M I N G S O O N … ?

• MI DEQ – POTWs treating industrial wastewater have until late June

2018 to find PFAS users among their customer base and develop a

plan to monitor

• Colonie Landfill (Colonie, NY) applied for expansion permit. A group

opposed to the expansion collected samples: PFOA was detected by in

stormwater (68 ppt), in seeps near the Mohawk River (519 ppt), and in

samples from the River (1-3 ppt)

• NC Utility Commission hearing on solar

development is considering whether PFAS

contaminants are a concern and whether

development should be approved

• NHDES recommendations for soil and groundwater

management during construction projects

(implications for NHDOT, private construction)

Water Utility Interests

• Standard Setting

• Groundwater Management Zone

• Public Water System Expansion

31

Redevelopment: It’s all about RISK

• Risk=Liability

• Discovery

• Investment

• Uncertainty

Presented by: Tony Giunta, tgiunta@nobiseng.com

Talking Points for PFAS Panel Session

Human health risk assessment1. Health risks are not well understood

• Findings of Australian Expert Panel• Indications from the EPA PFAS Summit

2. EPA toxicity values likely for GenX and PFBS to supplement PFOS and PFOA; MCLs for PFAS may be developed

3. Details of the 70 ppt Lifetime Health Advisory (LHA) for PFOA + PFOS• Basis of the Reference Dose (RfD)• RfD to LHA

Air deposition of PFAS1. Empirical evidence at Parkersburg, WV, Hoosick Falls, NY, Bennington, VT, and Merrimack,

NH2. Soil to groundwater considerations3. Background4. Deposition modeling

Reality check: Wastewater & biosolids convey PFAS, but…• PFAS are ubiquitous. Even wastewater & biosolids with no industrial inputs can have 1’s to 10’s parts per billion (ppb*).

Wastewater & biosolids are not sources, but transfer routes for PFAS. Source control & phase-outs are the best option for reductions. But we will not get to zero PFAS in wastewater and biosolids and the environment anytime soon.

• Presence does not necessarily mean risk. For wastewater & biosolids, there is no dermal, inhalation, or ingestion risk. The indirect pathway of leaching to waters is the only possible human health concern, and that will depend on the endpoint screening levels set for ground- and surface waters.

• NH DES data for biosolids sites show groundwater impacts directly under several worst-case-scenario legacy biosolids sites, but no significant impacts on neighboring drinking water wells (except 1 surface well with marginally elevated PFOA + PFOS, the sources of which are uncertain). Biosolids & soils bind longer-chain PFAS.

• PFOA & PFOS are at lower levels in modern wastewater & biosolids than in the past, due to phase-outs. Wastewater & biosolids returning to the environment today are conveying significantly less PFOA & PFOS (~1/10th).

• Data are inadequate for robust modeling of leaching potential from biosolids applied to soils. Most states recognize this. There are no approved EPA analytical methods. Efforts are underway for regional &/or national studies to address data gaps.

• Environmental impacts: Wastewater & biosolids have contained PFAS for 50+ years – including PFOA & PFOS at higher levels than today. Bioassays of uses of effluent & biosolids have not found significant negative impacts, only benefits.

• How much will society – your municipality & state – spend chasing trace PFAS in waste streams & the environment? And what is the public health benefit compared to use of those resources elsewhere? Prioritize – as DES has done – the obvious, highly-impacted industrial & military sites. Careful thinking is needed as screening levels & standards are set.

• Best practical option: Phase out any PFAS that are particularly toxic, persistent, &/or bioaccumulative.

*1 ppb = 1 sec. in 31.7 years / 1 ppt = 1 sec. in 31,700 years