Former Alpena Hide and Leather Project Status February 2019 Janice - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Former Alpena Hide and Leather Project Status – February 2019

Janice Adams, MDEQ Project Manager: ADAMSJ1@michigan.gov Len Mankowski, Wood Geologist: leonard.mankowski@woodplc.com Sesha Kallakuri, DHHS Toxicologist: KallakuriS@Michigan.gov

Overview

Alpena Hide and Leather (AHL)

 History and Land Use  Preliminary Findings

Per- and Polyfluorinated Alkyl Substances (PFAS)

 What are PFAS?  Why are they a Concern?  DEQ Statewide Initiative

AHL – Current Understanding

 Non-PFAS Tannery Impacts  PFAS Nature and Extent

AHL – Next Steps (2018-2019)

 PFAS Pilot Tests – Immobilization  Arsenic  Surface Water

Alpena Hide & Leather (AHL)

Tannery ~1895-1952

 Northern Extract Company (NEC)  Sinclair Bulk Fuel Terminal

Post Tannery (to 2005)

 Warehousing  Insulation Manufacturing  Metal recycling (Alro Steel)  Excavation Company (North)

Post Fire (October 2005)

 Thunder Bay Self Storage  Austin Brothers Brewery (North)  Treatment Facility (South)  Soccer Fields (East)

NEC

Bulk Fuel Tannery

AHL – Site Activities

2008 – Environmental Site Assessments

 Tannery Property (2008-2013)  Austin Brothers Property (2014-2015)

2015/2016 – Remedial Investigation (DEQ)

 Electromagnetic Survey  130 Soil Borings  21 Monitoirng Wells Installed

• Mar. 2017 – Interim Response

 Buried Hides (5200 tons)  Metals  Fuel-related chemicals  Cyanide and Chloride

• Aug. 2017 – PFAS Tested & Detected

What are PFAS?

Per and Poly-fluoroalkyl substances

Generic family (over 5000) of chemicals Man-made and do not occur naturally Developed in 1940’s Used to make products that resist heat,

• ils, grease, stains and water

Most prevalent/researched: PFOS & PFOA

Per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)

 Strong carbon-

fluorine bonds

 Surfactants  Hydrophobic(repels

water) and oleophobic (repels oil, fat, grease)

 5,000+ compounds

F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F C C C C C C C C O O O- S

PFOA - perfluorooctanoic acid PFOS - perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

7

PFAS Uses

Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Electronics Aerospace Apparel Building and Construction Aqueous Film Forming Foam Semiconductors Oil & Gas Energy Healthcare and Hospitals

Why the Concern?

 Pervasive  Persistent  Bioaccumulative  Associated with adverse health effects  Scarcity of information in scientific literature  Lack of sufficient standards

In water, we analyze for PFAS at the parts per trillion level

What is a Part per Trillion?

Units; nano- (10-9):

 Liquid - nanograms per liter (ng/L)  Solid - nanogram per kilogram (ng/Kg) often reported in parts per billion

• r nanograms per gram (ng/g)

Conceptual:

 One drop in 500,000 barrels of water  6-Inches in the 93 million mile journey to the sun  A square foot of floor tile on a floor as big as Indiana

Challenges:

 Laboratory (measurement / analyses)  Sample collection procedures and checks  Potential introduction of PFAS into samples

Mobility

 Highly mobile  Unconventional  Affected by organic

carbon, pH, clay content

 Low volatility (especially

longer chains)

 Persistent  Current models

lacking

Where are we now?

 EPA expected to list as

Hazardous Waste in 2019

 22 States with some form of

water criteria (70% in last 2 years; MI - Jan 2018)

 Over half have adopted

current EPA lifetime advisory (70 ng/L)

 Ten states have adopted

criteria for other PFAS

PFHxS - Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

Federal USEPA DW 0.07 0.07 USEPA GW 0.4 0.4 US States Alabama (AL) DW 0.07 0.07 Alaska (AK) GW 0.40 0.40 Arizona (AZ) DW 0.07 0.07 California (CA) DW 0.014 0.013 Colorado (CO) DW 0.07 0.07 GW 0.07 0.07 Connecticut (CT) DW/GW 0.07 0.07 Delaware (DE) GW 0.07 0.07 Iowa (IA) GW 0.07 0.07 DW 0.07 0.07 GW 0.13 0.56 RW 0.05 1.2 Massachusetts (MA) DW 0.07 0.07 SW 0.42 0.011 DW/GW 0.07 0.07 Minnesota (MN) DW/GW 0.035 0.027 Nevada (NV) DW 0.667 0.667 New Hampshire (NH) GW 0.07 0.07 New Jersey (NJ) DW 0.014 0.013 North Carolina (NC) GW 2 NA Oregon (OR) SW 24 300 Pennsylvania (PA) GW 0.07 0.07 Rhode Island DW/GW 0.07 0.07 Texas (TX) GW 0.29 0.56 Vermont (VT) DW/GW 0.02 0.02 West Virginia (WV) DW 0.07 0.07 Maine (ME) Michigan (MI)

PFOA PFOS

MPART

Michigan PFAS Action Response Team

 Governor Snyder signed ED 2017-4 on November 13, 2017  Statewide cooperation and collaboration to strategically and

proactively address this emerging contaminant.

12

Alpena Hide and Leather

DEQ Testing

 40+ PFAS sites

identified

 Municipal water  River, Lakes &

Streams

 Biosolids  Landfill leachate  Fish & Deer

Public Water Supply Testing

14

• 1,119 community water

supplies sampled

• 461 Schools sampled
• 168 Daycares/Head start

facilities sampled

Michigan PFOS / PFAS groundwater standard established in 2018: 70 nanograms per liter (ng/L)

Statewide Municipal Drinking Water Testing Program

Surface Water Investigation

15

Sources:

• Public owned treatment works

▪ Industrial pretreatment program ▪ Biosolids

• Industrial direct dischargers

Pathway: Storm Water At the Receptor:

• Ambient monitoring
• Surface Water Foam
• Fish and Wildlife

AHL – Current Understanding Tannery-Related Operations

16

▪ Soil Exposure

• Arsenic
• Residual petroleum
• Residual hides

▪ Groundwater

• Arsenic Plume
• Other Metals
• Cyanide

Former Bulk Fuel Area Arsenic in Soil 2017 Hide Removal

PFAS – Source (Soil)

17

▪ Screening Levels (ng/g)

• PFOS > 0.24
• PFOS + PFOA > 1.4
• PFOS or PFOA > 25,000

▪ Detected PFAS (84 of 110)

• 14 different PFAS detected
• PFOS - 69 detections (63%)

Max = 264 ng/g (> 0.24 ng/g)

• PFHxS - 62 detections (56%)

Max = 43 ng/g

• PFOA - 10 detections (9%)

Max = 5.4 ng/g

PFAS - Groundwater

18

▪ Screening Levels (ng/L)

• PFOS > 12
• PFOA > 12,000
• PFOS + PFOA > 70

▪ Detected PFAS (125 of 130)

• 16 different PFAS detected
• PFOS - 94 detections (72%)

Max = 5,420 ng/L (76 > 12 ng/L)

• PFHxS - 105 detections (81%)

Max = 10,800 ng/L

• PFOA - 110 detections (85%)

Max = 710 ng/L PFOS+PFOA > 70 ng/L in 60 samples

PFAS – Seasonality in Groundwater

19

▪ Source Area

• PFHxS & PFOS >> PFOA
• Correlation of PFHxS to

Groundwater Elevation

598.0 598.5 599.0 599.5 600.0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 Jun-17 Sep-17 Dec-17 Apr-18 Jul-18 Oct-18 Feb-19

Groundwater Elevation (feet amsl) PFAS (ng/L)

MW-5 (Source Area)

PFHxS PFOA PFOS GWE Top of Screen 593.0 594.4 595.8 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Jun-17 Sep-17 Dec-17 Apr-18 Jul-18 Oct-18 Feb-19

Groundwater Eelvation (feet amsl) PFAS (ng/L)

MW-19 (Downgradient)

PFHxS PFOA PFOS GWE Top of Screen

▪ Downgradient

• PFOA > PFOS
• PFOA & PFHxS Correlation

to Groundwater Elevation

PFAS – Surface & Storm Water

20

▪ Screening Levels (ng/L)

• PFOS > 12
• PFOA > 12,000

▪ Detected PFAS in river (33 of 33;

perfluorobutanoic acid-PFBA)

• 11 different PFAS detected
• PFOS - 5 detections (15%)

Max= 10.5 ng/L (Storm=175 ng/L)

• PFHxS - 9 detections (27%)

Max= 44.2 ng/L (Storm = 626 ng/L)

• PFOA - 8 detections (24%)

Max= 9.93 ng/L (Storm = 51 ng/L)

PFAS – Surface Water/Foam

21

▪ Foam - April, 2018 ▪ Surface water/foam samples

collected at four locations

Location 3rd Ave. & Carter 9th Ave Culvert S Date 4/25/18 5/8/18 4/24/18 5/8/18 L-PFBA 4.22 JJ 7.39 5.51 7.32 T-PFHxS 4.57 U 3.93 U 16.1 2.51 JJ T-PFOA 8.74 1.38 JJ 3.62 JJ 1.91 JJ T-PFOS 490 3.93 U 4.53 0.830 JJ Location Island Bridge Island Bridge Right Bank Date 4/24/18 11/15/18 4/24/18 11/15/18 L-PFBA 3.68 JJ 1.99 JJ 3.53 JJ 2.17 JJ T-PFHxS 4.06 U 4.21 U 3.97 U 4.22 U T-PFOA 1.19 JJ 4.21 U 0.863 JJ 4.22 U T-PFOS 12.8 4.21 U 3.97 U 4.22 U

PFAS – Conceptual Site Model

22

PFAS – Treatment Approaches?

23

▪ PFAS/Site-Related Challenges:

• Thin aquifer
• Shallow depth to water
• PFAS impacts below water table
• Solid Waste?
• Lack of in-situ destruction

technologies (C-F Bond)

▪ Immobilization Approach:

• Carbon - tested ex-situ
• Largely untested in-situ
• Delivery - Inject or Mix?
• Long-term - sorptive capacity?

Injection Area Soil Mixing Area

December 2018 Pilot Tests

2018 PFAS – Injection Pilot Test

24

▪ Advantages:

• Ability to work in

“developed” areas

• No solid waste
• Relatively cost effective

▪ Disadvantages:

• Treats saturated soil only
• Uniform distribution?
• Liquid waste
• Potential short circuiting

EW-2 (~7ft) PZ-1 (~4ft) MW-5 (~9ft)

2018 PFAS – Soil Mixing Pilot Test

25

▪ Advantages:

• Treat unsaturated and

saturated soil

• More uniform mixing/contact
• No liquid waste
• Ability to remove material
• Non-hazardous disposal?

▪ Disadvantages:

• Slower / more costly
• Requires complete access
• Compaction/build-ability?

Soil Mixing Area (10’x10’x8’)

Arsenic – Next Steps

26

▪ What Levels are Safe?

• In Vitro Bioaccessibility

(IVBA) Study Underway

• Determine Site Specific

Safe Levels

▪ Excavation / Restoration

• Arsenic impacted soil
• Residual hides

▪ Groundwater

• Source removal

Arsenic in Soil 2017 Hide Removal Hide Removal

Surface Water Pathway

27

▪ Former Bulk Fuel

• Residual petroleum impacts
• Site Drainage to RCCB-1

during high water table conditions

▪ Storm Water

• High Water Drainage to

SFCB-2

• Unmapped Systems?
• Thunder Bay River Outfall?
• Groundwater / Storm Water

Interactions?

Former Bulk Fuel Area RCCB-1 Old Storm? SFCB-2 ? ?

www.Michigan.gov/PFASresponse

Janice Adams, MDEQ Project Manager: ADAMSJ1@michigan.gov

989-705-3434 www.michigan.gov/deq

Sign up for email updates Follow us on Twitter @MichiganDEQ