REMEDIATION ROUNDTABLE Connecticut …

1 Connecticut department of energy and environmental ProtectionConnecticut department of Energyand environmental ProtectionREMEDIATION ROUNDTABLEJune 9, department of energy and environmental protection Updates Risk-Based Decision-Making and the Transformation Roadmap APS/Alternative Criteria Request Process Analytical Methods for Petroleum Hydrocarbons SEH Statutory Changes Something Completely DifferentCAMILLEFONTANELLAA gendaConnecticut department of energy and environmental ProtectionWebsite UpdatesCAMILLEFONTANELLA TCE Developmental Risk Guidance Urban Soil Discussion Document PREPARED Brownfields Municipal Workbook DEEP s Risk-Based Decision Making Report 1996 RSR Criteria Derivation Coming Petroleum Analytical Methods Guidance Document Updated APS/Alternative webpage Updated SEH webpageConnecticut department of energy and environmental ProtectionCAMILLEFONTANELLAA nnouncements QA/QC Workgroup: In response to May 2014 ROUNDTABLE survey Planning DQA/DUE Training Updates on RCPs Improving communication between EP and labs (factsheet in the works) Revisions to ELUR Instructions and Guidance -please send suggestions Wave 2 Public Discussion Document:Revisions to A-2 Survey Regulationscoming July 2015 Connecticut department of energy and environmental ProtectionConnecticut department of energy and environmental ProtectionAnnouncementsITRC -New DocumentsIntegrated DNAPL Site Characterization and Tools Selection(ISC-1) April 2015 Decision Making at Contaminated Sites: Issues and Options in Human Health Risk Assessment(RISK-3) Jan 2015 ITRC -Classroom Training and Online Trainingfull schedule at department of energy and environmental ProtectionCAMILLEFONTANELLAR oundtable Survey, March 2015 Who?

2 800+ people on listserv 39 people took survey Participating is a productive use of time 85% YES RT Length & Presentation Length 85% Quarterly Frequency 75% Connecticut department of energy and environmental ProtectionCAMILLEFONTANELLAR oundtable Survey, March 2015 RT topics are useful and informative 84% YES PowerPoint Slides are useful 94% YES Q&A Newsletter is useful 94% YESC onnecticut department of energy and environmental ProtectionCAMILLEFONTANELLAR oundtable Survey, March 2015 Audience Interaction Sufficient opportunity to ask questions 85% YES Do you see the need for increased audience interaction? 41% YES / 59% NO More Breakout Sessions? oAvg score = (neutral) o68% willing to participate Workgroup participation 71% YESC onnecticut department of energy and environmental ProtectionCAMILLEFONTANELLAR oundtable Survey, March 2015 Room for Improvement Provide clearer picture of transformation priorities and schedule Reading and answering anonymous questions Interactive dialog Email questions before the meeting Hand-held microphoneConnecticut department of energy and environmental ProtectionQuestions / CommentsPlease state your nameand speak department of energy and environmental ProtectionRisk-Based Decision-Making Reportand the Transformation RoadmapRobert BellRemediation Division Assistant DirectorJan CzeczotkaRemediation Division Assistant DirectorConnecticut department of energy and environmental ProtectionConnecticut department of energy and environmental ProtectionROBBELLC onnecticut department of energy and environmental ProtectionConnecticut department of energy and environmental ProtectionRisk Evaluation Process DEEP tasked with evaluation of risk-based decision-making for site cleanup Use independent experts, broad national experience CDM Smith selected.

3 Competitive process Scope developed by DEEP, DPH and stakeholder rep CDM Report August 29, 2014 Public Comments October 1, 2014 DEEP Report April 15, 2015 ROBBELLC onnecticut department of energy and environmental ProtectionConnecticut department of energy and environmental ProtectionCDM s Themes where CT is CT s cleanup standards (RSRs) are similar to surrounding states CT s risk assessment approach for polluted soil is generally valid, similar to EPA/many states CT s human health risk approaches are in top half of best practices of states CDM evaluated Opportunities for change 6 primary recommendations from CDMROBBELLC onnecticut department of energy and environmental ProtectionConnecticut department of energy and environmental ProtectionAction Plan -highlightsEcological Risk Develop guidance for 3-tiered eco risk assessment Include adapting approaches used in MA and BC Drafts available for public input in 2016 ROBBELLC onnecticut department of energy and environmental ProtectionConnecticut department of energy and environmental ProtectionAction Plan -highlightsUpdate Numeric Criteria Convene Science Advisory Panel [2016]

4 Input and feedback on methodologies for deriving criteria After recommendations from SAP, draft criteria proposals for RSR amendment process Post on web Additional Polluting Substance recommended numeric values [June 2015] Post on web info on derivation of 1996 RSR criteria [Completed -April 2015]ROBBELLC onnecticut department of energy and environmental ProtectionConnecticut department of energy and environmental ProtectionAction Plan -highlightsRisk-based flexible risk management approaches RSR Wave 2 public hearing draft early 2016. Examples: Alt GWPC formulas Alt PMC self-implementing, site-specific Deed Notice regs public hearing draft 2016 Groundwater Reclassification for some areas 2015/2016 Other more narrowly focused actionsROBBELLC onnecticut department of energy and environmental ProtectionConnecticut department of energy and environmental ProtectionCleanup TransformationTransformation is ..JANCZECZOTKAC onnecticut department of energy and environmental ProtectionComprehensive Evaluation Whitepaper 2011 Visioning Session 2011 Evaluation Workgroups 2011 Transformation Workgroups 2012 Draft Proposal for a Transformed cleanup Program 2013 JANCZECZOTKAC onnecticut department of energy and environmental ProtectionTransformation TopicsWave I RSR Amend-mentsMunicipal Liability ReliefExpanded Institutional Control AuthorityRisk EvaluationSEHNWave 2 RSR Amend-mentsState-Wide GW ReClassRelease ReportingRegulationsSoil Reuse RegulationsInformation MgmtUnified Program ElementsHistorical ReleasesJANCZECZOTKAC onnecticut department of energy and environmental Protection2013 RSR Wave 1 (effective June 27, 2013)Municipal Liability Relief (effective July 2013)New Authority.

5 Expanded Institutional Controls(October 2013)SEH Statutes (amended 2013, effective July 2015)2014 Risk Assessment Evaluation (Started August 2013)Public Discussion on Regulatory Reform-Wave 2 cleanup Standards-Spill Reporting -Soil Reuse2015 Significant Hazard Phase-in (of 2013 amendments)Risk Evaluation completedRSR Wave 2, Spill Reporting, and Soil Reuse regulation draftingJANCZECZOTKAC onnecticut department of energy and environmental Protection2016 Science Advisory Panel Ecological Risk Assessment guidanceSoil Reuse Regulations adoption process2016 RSR Wave 2 regulations adoption processStatewide Groundwater Reclassification processInformation management system and website upgradeSupporting Legislation as needed JANCZECZOTKAC onnecticut department of energy and environmental ProtectionTransformation TopicsWave I RSR Amend-mentsMunicipal Liability ReliefExpanded Institutional Control AuthorityRisk EvaluationSEHNWave 2 RSR Amend-mentsState-Wide GW ReClassRelease ReportingRegulationsSoil Reuse RegulationsInformation MgmtUnified Program ElementsHistorical ReleasesJANCZECZOTKAC onnecticut department of energy and environmental ProtectionQuestions / CommentsPlease state your nameand speak department of energy and environmental ProtectionCriteria Request and Approval ProcessCraig Bobrowiecki environmental Analyst

6 IIRemediation DivisionTraci Iott Supervising environmental AnalystPlanning & Standards DivisionConnecticut department of energy and environmental ProtectionConnecticut department of energy and environmental Protection050100150200250 Substances in RSRsApprox # SubstancesCommonly Detected atRemediation Sites in CTCountSubstances at REMEDIATION Sites in CTSubstances at REMEDIATION Sites in CTSubstances without REMEDIATION criteria RSRs require clean up to REMEDIATION criteria or backgroundTRACIIOTTC onnecticut department of energy and environmental ProtectionConnecticut department of energy and environmental ProtectionRemediation Goal Options Under RSRsDECP romulgated #APSA lternativeBackgroundPMCP romulgated #APSA lternativeBackgroundGWPCP romulgated #APSB ackgroundSWPCP romulgated #AlternativeBackgroundVol CPromulgated #AlternativeBackgroundTRACIIOTTC onnecticut department of energy and environmental ProtectionConnecticut department of energy and environmental ProtectionRisk Report: Update Criteria Per Risk Report recommendations, DEEP to have a process to review/revise RSR criteria Establish Independent Science Advisory Board DEEP, DPH and SAB work on methodology for criteria update After SAB process, seek public input Then proceed to a regulatory adoption processFall 2015 Dependent on time needed to work with SAB2016 TRACIIOTTC onnecticut department of energy and environmental ProtectionConnecticut department of energy and environmental ProtectionRisk Report Criteria Commitment Comprehensive Criteria review and update process to take time In interim, DEEP committed to improving on-going criteria activities Additional Polluting Substances (APS)

7 Alternative CriteriaTRACIIOTTC onnecticut department of energy and environmental ProtectionConnecticut department of energy and environmental ProtectionDEEP Additional RecommendationInterim Tiered APS Process from list of DEEP Recommended APS/Alt APS/Alt criteria using RSR default APS/Alt criteria using Site-specific assumptions or risk assessmentJune 2015 Fall 2015 Fall 2015 TRACIIOTTC onnecticut department of energy and environmental ProtectionConnecticut department of energy and environmental ProtectionDeveloping Interim Recommendations Working with DPH Updating toxicity values Using 1996 RSR / 2003 Volatilization Criteria equations Developing recommended values for approximately 100+ chemicals for all criteria types Values to be updated periodically as neededTRACIIOTTC onnecticut department of energy and environmental ProtectionConnecticut department of energy and environmental ProtectionProviding Updated Values Risk Report identified transparency as a component of best practices DEEP Concurs Values to be published by end of June 2015 Technical Support Document will be provided Informational meeting to be scheduled for July 2015 TRACIIOTTC onnecticut department of energy and environmental ProtectionConnecticut department of energy and environmental ProtectionOptions for Your Site Under RSRsUse promulgated criteriaRequest DEEP recommended valuesCalculate site-specific criteriaBackgroundNo Change to Available OptionsCRAIGBOBROWIECKIC onnecticut department of energy and environmental ProtectionRecommended Values = Quick Approval21772014 RequestsRecommended ValuesCalculated CriteriaCRAIGBOBROWIECKI2243364560102030 405060 RECOMMENDED VALUESCALCULATED CRITERIAT imeframes for Response in WeeksMaxAverageMinConnecticut department of energy and environmental ProtectionConnecticut department of energy and environmental ProtectionTransition to 2015 Recommendations Criteria requests which have been already approved are still VALID Requests for recommended

8 Criteria received by COB (4:30 PM) June 30, 2015 will be approved based on pre-6/30/15 recommendations Once published, use 2015 recommended values for future requests to expedite approvals site-specific risk based or background based REMEDIATION criteria for review and approval per RSRsCRAIGBOBROWIECKIIn all cases, need site-specific request and written approval to be validConnecticut department of energy and environmental ProtectionConnecticut department of energy and environmental Protection2015 Recommended Additional/Alternative Numbers Remember Transmittal Form Request form similar to petroleum hydrocarbon form in development for requesting these values Expedited review and approval (1-3 week turn around)CRAIGBOBROWIECKIC onnecticut department of energy and environmental ProtectionConnecticut department of energy and environmental ProtectionSummary Existing approvals remain valid Choices: Use recommended values to expedite approvals Updated values June 2015 Use DEEP request form Informational meeting July 2015 Develop site-specific criteria Use backgroundCRAIGBOBROWIECKIC onnecticut department of energy and environmental ProtectionQuestions / CommentsPlease speak loudly so everyone can hearyour question!

9 APS questions contact:Craig BobrowieckiTraci department of energy and environmental ProtectionGuidance for Selection of Analytical Methods to Characterize Petroleum ReleasesPAULCLARKENVIRONMENTALANALYST3 SITEASSESSMENTANDSUPPORTUNITALLISONFORRE STENVIRONMENTALANALYST2 SITEASSESSMENTANDSUPPORTUNITC onnecticut department of energy and environmental ProtectionDevelopment To assist in the selection of appropriate analytical methods for characterizing a petroleum release The QA/QC Workgroup is formed by a broad base of professionals:oLEPsoLaboratory personneloDPH Laboratory Manager & StaffoEPAoDEEPoCT Lab Advisory CommitteeALLISONFORRESTC onnecticut department of energy and environmental ProtectionPurpose In 2008, 55% of over 8,000 releases in Connecticut were petroleum products Provides details on the individual methods and their analytes for petroleum productsALLISONFORREST Sampling and Analytical Methods for Underground Storage Tank Closure Based on Analytical Methods Used to Characterize Petroleum Releases on the DEEP website department of energy and environmental ProtectionTable of Contents Introduction Suggested Analytical Methods for Evaluation of Petroleum Releases Analytical Methods ETPH EPH VPH APH GC/MS Methods for VOCs (Methods 8260, and ) SVOCs (Method 8270) PCBs (Method 8082)

10 Metals Vapor Methods Additives Question and AnswerALLISONFORRESTC onnecticut department of energy and environmental ProtectionCarbon Ranges of Commonly Used Petroleum Products and Analytical MethodsALLISONFORRESTC arbon #456789101112131415161718192021222324252 627282930313233343536 Notes:*Carbon ranges can varyReference for carbon ranges - Volume 1, Analysis of Petroleum Hydrocarbons in environmental Media, Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Criteria Working Group Series, pages 61-68, March 1998 Analytical carbon ranges from the Reasonable Confidence Protocol for each methodFigure 1 Carbon Range*Kerosene, Jet A, A-1, -5, and -8 EPH MethodETPH MethodGasolineNapthasStoddard SolventVPH MethodJP-4 Jet FuelDiesel, #2 Heating FuelFuel Oils #4, #5, and #6 and Bunker C, some >C40 Lube Oil, Motor Oil, Grease some >45 APH MethodConnecticut department of energy and environmental ProtectionCarbon Ranges of Commonly Used Petroleum Products and Analytical MethodsALLISONFORRESTC arbon #45678910111213141516171819