A New Risk-Based Approach to Establish Clean-up Levels for TPH David Nakles and Stephen Geiger ThermoRetec Consulting and Engineering Sara McMillen and.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Understanding the MRBCA Program UST Program Implications Petroleum Storage Tank Insurance Fund May 2004.

Advertisements

The Role of Background Soil Levels in Risk Assessment Teresa S. Bowers Presented at USGS/NRCS Soil Geochemistry Workshop March 4, 2003.

Revisions to Washington’s Cleanup Rules Martha Hankins & Chance Asher Toxics Cleanup Program Department of Ecology Water Quality Partnership May 20, 2010.

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.

Simple, Fast and Accurate Solvent-free Method for Produced Water Process Monitoring.

1 Petroleum Substances: Special Considerations for Interpreting HPV Data Characterizing Chemicals in Commerce: Using Data on High Production Volume (HPV)

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

CE 510 Hazardous Waste Engineering

Dale T Littlejohn Senior Geologist. What is fate and transport in the vadose zone? Vadose Zone Hydrocarbon release from buried pipeline Aquifer Surface.

DISTRIBUTED BY. A non-toxic, Planet Friendly solution for soil remediation  Proven effective in the field with documented test results Environmental.

Bioremediation of marine environment contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbon Richard Mannion Martin Casserly Martin Gallagher.

Use of microwave energy for the remediation of hydrocarbon contaminated soils John Robinson Department of Chemical & Environmental Engineering, University.

Risk Assessment.

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.

Laboratory Tests for Petroleum Pre ME tests: TPH by EPA SW s Gasoline and Fuel Oil: DEP and Gasoline and Fuel Oil: DEP.

Goals  Determine which chemicals present (or potentially present) in the Lake Champlain basin would cause detrimental effects  Determine the pathways.

Monroe L. Weber-Shirk S chool of Civil and Environmental Engineering Partitioning of Volatile Organic Carbon Compoundss.

Copyright 2002 Marc Rigas Issues in Exposure Assessment Marc L. Rigas, Ph.D. National Exposure Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Environmental Engineering

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.

Your Environment, Your Health

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 Uncertainty in Ecological Risk Assessments Larry Tannenbaum, U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine (USACHPPM)

Risk Analysis of Contaminated Sites: Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment F. Quercia, ANPA Workshop ICS/UNIDO - Fundacion Mamonal Environmental.

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.

BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT OVERVIEW Dawn A. Ioven Senior Toxicologist U.S. EPA – Region III 4 April 2012.

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.

United States Chemicals Management Petroleum Sector Approach Jennifer Galvin, PhD, DABT, CIH Sound Management of Chemicals Working Group – Stakeholder.

Examining Bioaccumulation & Biomagnification: Implications for Ecosystems and Human Health.

Brownfields Health Risks & Remediation Diogo Cadima Topic ‘A’ Term Project CET 413.

Examples of Health Risk Assessment Applications for Contaminated Sites in the Upper Silesia, Poland Eleonora Wcislo Institute for Ecology of Industrial.

Baseline Analysis of Ground Water Quality Around Open Dumpsites in Lagos, Nigeria: Focus on Polynucelar Aromatic Hydrocarbons. Baseline Analysis of Ground.

Forging Partnerships on Emerging Contaminants November 2, 2005 John Vandenberg Associate Director for Health National Center for Environmental Assessment.

1 The Use of Institutional Controls Under the RCRA Corrective Action Program.

Monitored Natural Attenuation and Risk-Based Corrective Action at Underground Storage Tanks Sites Mike Trombetta Department of Environmental Quality Environmental.

SITE STATUS UPDATE TOP STOP PETROLEUM RELEASE SITE GUNNISION, UTAH Morgan Atkinson – Division of Environmental Response and Remediation, Project Manager.

RISK ASSESSMENT. Major Issues to be considered in designing the Study 1.- Emission Inventory What is the relative significance of the various sources.

Module 6: Alternatives. 2  Module 6 contains three sections: – 6.1 Development and Screening of Alternatives – 6.2 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives.

Potential Addition of Vapor Intrusion to the Hazard Ranking System U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response February 24, 2011 Listening Session.

September 18, 1998 State of Illinois Rules and Regulations Tiered Approach to Corrective Action (TACO) Presented by The Great Plains/Rocky Mountain Technical.

An Overview of the Objectives, Approach, and Components of ComET™ Mr. Paul Price The LifeLine Group All slides and material Copyright protected.

Principles of Hazardous Waste Site Ranking September 27, 2001 Stephen M. Caldwell Deputy Director, State and Tribal Programs and Site Identification Center.

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.

Air Pollution Research Group Analysis of 1999 TRI Data to Identify High Environmental Risk Areas of Ohio by Amit Joshi.

Ukraine Petro Nakhaba All-Ukrainian Public Organization “ Chysta Khvylya ” Deputy Head Kyiv, Ukraine Contaminated Sites Management Joint UMOE-DEPA Project.

Soil contamination Proposed EEA/ETC contribution to the working group on Soil Contamination European Topic Centre on Terrestrial Environment SESSION 2.

FAIR Meeting April 6, Groundwater Results – Fall 2003 Benzene ND 1,000 ug/L Product.

Forging Partnerships on Emerging Contaminants November 2, 2005 Elizabeth Southerland Director of Assessment & Remediation Division Office of Superfund.

Marshall Landfill Site.  Patrick Cabbage, Hydrogeologist/Site Manager  Bill Fees, Engineer  Carol Bergin, Public Involvement Coordinator.

UNEXPECTED VOCS IN SOIL GAS ASSESSMENT RESULTS James M. Harless, PhD, CHMM Vice President / Principal Cheryl Kehres-Dietrich, CGWP Principal Paul Roberts.

 Clean Water Act 404 permit  Ohio EPA Division of Surface Water 401 water quality certification  Ohio Revised Code 6111 – Placement of dredged materials.

Health Consultation Cincinnati Country Day School Lead Site Cincinnati, OH Ashley Roberts February 9,2009.

Risk CHARACTERIZATION

GSI ENVIRONMENTAL INC. Houston, Texas (713) Workshop 1: Assessment and Evaluation of Vapor Intrusion at Petroleum.

Anniston PCB Site Review of Risk Assessments for OU-1/OU-2

Jay Peters Gina M. Plantz Richard J. Rago

Task 1 Separating Substances

Deyuan Kong, Brian Morlan, Roopa Kamath, and Sara Mcmillen

Deyuan Kong and Sara Mcmillen, Chevron Energy Technology Company USA

Environmental sampling and monitoring

Arsenic in the Soils, USGS

FAQs for Evaluating the Soil-to-Groundwater Pathway

Presentation transcript:

A New Risk-Based Approach to Establish Clean-up Levels for TPH David Nakles and Stephen Geiger ThermoRetec Consulting and Engineering Sara McMillen and Renae Magaw Chevron Research and Technology Company Jill Kerr Exxon Production Research Company Robert Sweeney Unocal

Acknowledgments §Nancy Comstock - Department of Energy: National Petroleum Technology Office §Harley Hopkins - American Petroleum Institute §John Harju - Gas Research Institute §George Deeley/ Ileana Rhodes - Equilon Enterprises, LLC §Michele Emerson - Chevron Research and Technology Company

Acknowledgments (Con’t) §H. Rodger Melton and Maged Hamed - Exxon Production Research Company §Paul Lundegard - Unocal §Deborah Edwards - Exxon Biomedical Sciences, Inc. §Greg Douglas and George Naughton - A.D. Little

Regulation of Environmental Impacts in the United States Evolving Risk-Based Approach §Using state-of-the-art science Goal: To protect human health and the environment by: §Developing cleanup standards based on: 1. Risk to human health 2. Expected land use

Benefits of the Change §Incorporates new science and methods

Form 4 Form 3 Form 2 Form 1 Benefits of the Change §Provides standardized but flexible approach

Benefits of the Change §Provides more effective site management

Benefits of the Change §Ability to use alternatives to aggressive remedial technologies in all types of settings

Presentation Objectives Describe risk-based method for determining acceptable concentrations of crude oil in soil §Describe elements of environmental risk §Present methods to assess risk of non-cancer health effects §Demonstrate application of methods to hypothetical E&P site l Identify range of acceptable concentrations for crude oil in soil l Confirm ability to use conventional measurement techniques

Elements of Environmental Risk Risk is the possibility that something bad might happen Risk  Hazard * Exposure * People Hazard Exposure People Risk

Assessing and Managing Risk at Crude Oil Sites Risk  Hazard * Exposure * People Hazard Exposure People Risk Ingestion Inhalation Skin Contact

l TPH measurement is not sufficient for hazard evaluation l Need method for understanding the composition of crude oil and its products Hazard Evaluation of Crude Oil l Estimated that over 100,000 individual compounds exist in crude oil l Toxicity of these compounds varies widely — no one compound can represent mixture

TPH Results Are Method Specific TPH Methods: Approximate Carbon Ranges Purgeable/Volatile/Gasoline Range, Modified 8015, Purge and Trap, GC Diesel Range, Modified 8015, Extraction, GC 418.1, Modified 418.1: Extraction, IR C2C2 C4C4 C6C6 C8C8 C 10 C 12 C 14 C 16 C 18 C 20 C 22 C 24 C 26 C 28 C 30 Gasoline Diesel Fuel/Middle Distillates Lube/Motor Oil, Grease

Problems with Using TPH for Assessing Risk TPH can be measured throughout nature…. …..and not all TPH is the same Dried Oak Leaves 18,000 mg/kg (1.8%) Crude Oil 618,000 mg/kg (61.8%) Grass 14,000 mg/kg (1.4%) Pine Needles 16,000 mg/kg (1.6%) Petroleum Jelly 749,000 mg/kg (74.9%)

Problem with Existing Cleanup Goals for TPH Different States ,000 10, ,000 1,000,000 TPH Cleanup Level (mg/kg) Cleanup Levels Petroleum Jelly Gasoline Crude Oil

§Determine TPH composition §Determine risk-based screening levels (RBSLs) of hydrocarbon mixtures in soil §Has been implemented by several states (e.g., Louisiana, Michigan, Alaska,Texas, Ohio) Solution: Conservatively Estimate Human Health Risk Using Chemical Composition of TPH New methodology derived from the TPH Criteria Working Group (TPHCWG) — Established in 1995 by the USAF 2345

Preferred Option Risk Assessment Approaches for Petroleum Hydrocarbons C5C35 Indicator Approach BenzeneAnthracene Fraction Approach C C5-C8 C8-C16 C16-C35 Whole Product Approach C5C35 GasolineDiesel

Determining TPH Composition: Separate TPH into Fractions Separate based on chemical structure AromaticsAliphatics Toluene (C 7 H 8 or C 7 ) Octane (C 8 H 18 ) H|CH|C H — C C|C|HC|C|H C — H H — — H H — C — C — C — C — C — C — C — C — H H|H| H|H| H|H| H|H| |H|H |H|H |H|H |H|H H|H| |H|H H|H| |H|H H|H| |H|H H|H| |H|H

Determining TPH Composition: Further Separate TPH into 14 Fractions Further separate based on movement in the environment AromaticsAliphatics >C 6 -C 7 >C 7 -C 8 >C 8 -C 10 >C 10 -C 12 >C 12 -C 16 >C 16 -C 21 >C 21 -C 44 >C 5 -C 6 >C 6 -C 8 >C 8 -C 10 >C 10 -C 12 >C 12 -C 16 >C 16 -C 44 H|CH|C H — C C|C|HC|C|H C — H H — — H H — C — C — C — C — C — C — C — C — H H|H| H|H| H|H| H|H| |H|H |H|H |H|H |H|H H|H| |H|H H|H| |H|H H|H| |H|H H|H| |H|H

Why Did The TPHCWG Go To All This Trouble? Not all chemicals in crude oil move the same in the environment Mobility Carbon Number

Adapting the TPHCWG Method for Crude Oil §Crude oils can have 60 to 70% >C 35 §Modified extraction, separation, and GC detection method l GC extended to C 44 compounds l Determined C 44+ fraction

Analytical Capability Now Exists to Categorize >85% of Crude Oil Compounds into Fractions Mass Balance % GC <C6 >C44 Different Crude Oils Diesel

Comparison of Composition of Different Crude Oil Products 0 100, , , , , , , , ,000 Concentration (mg/kg) TPH Fractions Aliphatics Aromatics Gasoline Mineral Oil Vaseline Crude Oil >C 6 -C 7 >C 7 -C 8 >C 8 -C 10 >C 10 -C 12 >C 12 -C 16 >C 16 -C 21 >C 21 -C 44 >C 5 -C 6 >C 6 -C 8 >C 8 -C 10 >C 12 -C 16 >C 16 -C 44 >C 44

Assignment of Toxicity to TPH Fractions §Toxicity data assigned to each fraction of TPH based on available animal toxicity studies §Animal toxicity studies are the same as used by the U.S. EPA

Representative Fraction Toxicity: C 5 to C 44+ (Non-Carcinogens) AromaticAliphatic 5.0 — Oral 18.4 — Inhalation0.04 — Oral 0.02 — Inhalation 0.1 — Oral 1.0 — Inhalation 0.03 — Oral2.0 — Oral Fraction-Specific RfDs/RfCs (mg/kg/day) 0.03 — Oral2.0 — Oral0.03 — Oral0.8 — Dermal Range >C 5 to C 6 aliphatic >C 8 to C 10 >C 10 to C 12 >C 12 to C 16 >C 16 to C 21 >C 21 to C 35 >C 35 to C 44 >C 44+ >C 6 to C 8 aromatic 0.2 — Oral 0.4 — Inhalation

Potential Routes of Exposure for Crude Oil Release at Typical E&P Sites Groundwater Impacted shallow soil Drinking water well Vapors Hazard People Exposure

Limiting pathway = surface soil for Vaseline ®, diesel, & crude oil Limiting pathway = soil leaching to groundwater for gasoline Non-Carcinogenic TPH RBSLs for Hydrocarbon Mixtures 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80, ,000 RBSL, TPH (mg/kg) Vaseline ® Crude Oil 1800 mg/kg Non-Residential Sites Vaseline ® = 1,000,000 mg/kg Diesel Gasoline

Non-Residential TPH RBSLs for Crude Oil in Soils Around the World API Gravity 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 TPH Non-Residential Surface Soil RBSL, mg/kg soil Upper Limit of Existing State Clean-Up Levels

Comparison of Crude Oil Composition of Study Samples to World-Wide Sample Set 50% 100% Saturates 50% 100% Resin + Asphaltenes Aromatics 100% Study Samples PERF Oils and 6 Soils World-Wide Sample Set 636 Crude Oils Frequency Distribution World Oils

Conclusions Regarding Risk-Based Approach to E&P Site Management §Protects human health §Uses a rigorous state-of-the-art scientific process §Provides standardized approach §No need to analyze all sites using new analytical technique, but can rely on existing conventional TPH measurement techniques

Commonly Asked Questions §Why have cancer health effects not been addressed? §Why have ecological risks not been addressed? §Do we need to analyze more oils produced in our state?