Tag: Hazardous Waste

PFAS: FROM “EMERGING CONTAMINANTS” TO “FOREVER CHEMICALS”

There is growing evidence about the harmful effects from Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl (“PFAS”) substances in our drinking water supplies.  The urgency for decisive and prompt action to treat PFAS in drinking water to below evolving cleanup standards and maximum contaminant levels is now second only to the public health challenges posed by the coronavirus pandemic.  What to do about PFAS dominates the agendas of federal and state regulators, municipal boards, public water suppliers and consumers.  MassDEP set PFAS cleanup standards under the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (“MCP”) in December 2019, released an updated Office of Research and Standards Guideline (“ORSG”) for PFAS in drinking water in January 2020, and will promulgate a Maximum Contaminant Level for PFAS compounds in drinking water by mid-2020 – all limits to be 20 parts per trillion (“ppt.”) for the aggregate of six PFAS compounds.  There is constant news coverage on NPR and TV, and in newspapers, magazines and books.  A 2018 investigative documentary film, The Devil We Know, reported PFAS can be found in the blood stream of nearly every American.  Dark Waters is a three-star Hollywood conspiracy thriller about Rob Bilott’s crusade against Du Pont, a manufacturer of PFOA.  Lawsuits are proliferating to recover cleanup costs and damages, and to fund health studies, and by manufacturers to challenge state regulations.  PFAS has spawned hundreds of conferences and seminars on technical, forensic and litigation issues (now virtual events due to the virus). 

Our law firm has participated in the emergence of PFAS since the UCMR3 results became public in 2014.  We advised Public Water Systems (“PWS”), local governments and private clients in “real time” as the contaminant escaped from the “PFAS Zone” (a/k/a Legal Limbo) of conflicting, non-enforceable federal and state guidelines, the lack of scientific consensus on human health effects, and the “encouragement” of MassDEP for PWS to take immediate steps to monitor and plan for PFAS treatment systems, even in advance of MassDEP promulgating MCP cleanup and an MCL standards for PFAS in drinking water. 

Our work includes:

  • evaluating the implications of the PFAS results from the UCMR3 and UCMR4 sampling events;
  • advising on “voluntary” compliance with MassDEP’s non-enforceable ORSG health advisory of 70 ppt and now 20 ppt for PFAS concentrations in drinking water;
  • recruiting water supply engineers to work with PWS to monitor groundwater, and to plan for the design, permitting, procurement and installation of cutting-edge treatment systems, such as granulated activated carbon (GAC) and ion exchange resin;
  • consulting and negotiating with MassDEP, PRPs and treatment system vendors to identify potential treatment systems, to pre-approve, procure and fast-track the permitting and construction of treatment systems; and to provide an interim bottled water supply for town residents and schools;
  • commencing cost recovery and common law claims against PRPs;
  • searching for additional PFAS sources and PRPs; and,
  • advising clients on risk communication to consumers, media interactions, and funding for expensive monitoring and treatment systems.

We also advise companies during ASTM due diligence assessments on the impacts of PFAS on proposed acquisitions, and on MCP investigations at target sites.  John Shea lectured on “PFAS Liability and Funding Sources” to the New England Water Works Association (“NEWWA”) and Peter Durning on “Litigation Issues related to PFAS in Drinking Water” to the Massachusetts Water Works Association (“MWWA”).  John also worked on the MWWA’s comments on the proposed MCP and MCL standards.

Background

PFAS were created in the 1930s and used widely since the 1940s in commercial and industrial products from the 1950s because of their fire resistance and oil, grease and water repellant properties.  There are over 4,000 PFAS synthetic chemicals with carbon-fluorine chains.  The primary regulatory focus is on the long-chain chemicals:  PFOS, PFOA, PFHxS, PFNA, PFHpA and PFDA.  Industrial uses included: Firefighting Aqueous Film-Forming Foam, medical devices, textiles, furniture, clothing, rubber, plastics and paper.  Commercial uses included: non-stick cookware, candy wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, pizza boxes, shampoo, dental floss, cosmetics, carpets, fast food containers, rain coats, and vehicle waxes.  Manufacturers ceased PFAS production in favor of new chemicals with unknown health risks, such as Gen-X.  Imported products still contain PFAS.

PFAS became an “emerging contaminant:” disclosed in litigation against manufacturers in the early 2000s, EPA’s 2009 provisional health advisory of 200 ppt for PFOS and 400 ppt for PFOA issued “in response to an urgent or rapidly developing situation,” EPA’s 2012 Unregulated Contaminants Monitoring Rule (UCMR3) testing of PWS for PFOA and PFOS, and the 2013 C8 Science Panel Study funded by a 2005 settlement.  Based on the growing number of recent studies on PFAS by EPA, state agencies, universities, and others, PFAS have fully “emerged” and become “forever chemicals” due to their chemistry, persistence in the environment, resistance to breakdown by microbes and light, and solubility and mobility in water.  PFAS are in soil, water and even air, are absorbed by plants and animals through the food chain, and bioaccumulate in blood and tissue, which can result in toxic threshold concentrations increasing the risk of health effects.  Human exposure is primarily through drinking water and food.  PFAS are distributed through the body by plasma and into the liver, kidneys, and placenta.  PFAS are eliminated by urine, feces and breast milk over unknown years.  Studies indicate that exposure to elevated levels of certain PFAS may cause development issues in fetuses and infants, affect the thyroid, liver, kidneys and immune systems, and even pose a risk of cancer.  Sources of PFAS include manufacturing sites, firefighting foam, spills and air deposition, and landfills where releases leach from soils into groundwater or flow into surface water.

EPA

EPA’s process for setting Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) in drinking water for specific chemicals begins with testing for candidate contaminants not currently regulated but likely to pose risks to public health and the environment.  In 2012, under EPA’s UCMR3 testing, PFOA and PFOS were among 30 contaminants tested by 5,000 PWS serving 80% of the US population.  In Massachusetts, 158 PWS serving more than 10,000 persons and 13 smaller systems had nine detections above EPA’s reporting limits (20 ppt for PFOA and 40 ppt for PFOS).  Since then, additional testing found PFAS above and below the old MassDEP ORSG advisory of 70 ppt.  Twelve PWS exceeded the proposed 20 ppt standard.  When varying but significant concentrations were detected in UCMR3, in 2016 EPA issued a non-binding Health Advisory that PFOA and PFOS levels above 70 parts per trillion (ppt) pose a risk of birth defects, testicular and kidney cancer, and developmental problems. 

EPA released its PFAS Action Plan on February 14, 2019, which proposed technical assistance on PFAS testing, monitoring protocols on treatment and remediation technologies, and toxicity assessments for five additional PFAS, and adding PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under CERCLA.  On June 10, 2019, EPA concluded public comment on the draft Interim Recommendations for Addressing Groundwater Contaminated with PFOA and PFOS, which will provide guidance for CERCLA and RCRA cleanups.  On November 22, 2019, EPA made available $4.8 million in funding for research on PFAS in agriculture.  On February 20, 2020, EPA proposed regulatory determinations for PFOS and PFOA, and seeks public comment on eight more contaminants on the UCMR4 candidate list.  EPA’s formal MCL rulemaking under the Safe Drinking Water Act takes at least 18 months, and by operation of law new MCLs are not effective for three years.  Some critics of the Plan see it as too slow and “kicking the can down the road.”  Perhaps motivated by the specter of Flint Michigan and by intense media coverage, States (NH, NJ, NY, MN, MI, CA, VT, CT, RI) are not waiting for Washington and are issuing their own MCLs and health advisories.

Massachusetts

EPA, the World Health Organization, and the States are developing health advisories, guidelines, goals and MCLs to address evidence that PFAS at very low concentrations represent a potential public health concern in sensitive populations.  Massachusetts has uniquely decided to use a three-pronged strategy to establish drinking water standards for PFAS: health advisories, an MCL, and cleanup standards under the MCP.  On October 25, 2018, the Conservation Law Foundation and Toxics Action Center filed a “Petition for Rulemaking to Establish a Treatment Technique Drinking Water Standard for PFAS” that advocated 20 ppt for five PFAS.  In its January 28, 2019 Response, MassDEP described its “game plan” to initiate multiple, transparent regulatory processes to address the potential risks posed by PFAS in drinking water.  Accordingly, MassDEP followed lengthy public processes of stakeholder meetings, public hearings and meetings, and public comment periods to adopt MCP and MCL standards.  Based upon review of scientific literature, assessments by other states, and public comments, MassDEP adopted total 20 ppt standard for the sum of six PFAS compounds.  In spite of criticisms about overly conservative decision-making based on limited epidemiological data, laboratory animal studies without a definitive connection with specific human diseases, the presence of PFAS in soil at background levels in excess of 20 ppt, and the application of uncertainty factors, MassDEP did not waiver from the very early proposed 20 ppt standard, and used the MCP process to “inform” (bootstrap) the MCL and ORSG processes.  In an abundance of caution, MassDEP has acted deliberately and decisively to require cleanups under the MCP to protect water supplies, and to require PWS to comply with a conservative MCL ensuring the delivery of clean and safe drinking water. 

Massachusetts Contingency Plan

On December 27, 2019, MassDEP finalized revisions to the MCP (310 CMR 40.000) for the sum of six PFAS compounds.  The MCP is the “cookbook” for Licensed Site Professionals (“LSP”) to assess and cleanup contaminated sites.  The PFAS revisions include: Reportable Concentrations (“RC”) in groundwater and soil and Reportable Quantities, Method 1 cleanup standards for groundwater and soil, Method 2 standards for soil, and Method 3 Upper Concentrations Limits for groundwater and soil.  The regulations provide a listing of toxicity information for performing a Method 3 risk characterization (Listed PFAS compounds are for the acid and anionic forms.).  The PFAS Sampling Guidance was revised on December 27, 2019 to reflect the new standards (described below). 

There were four public hearings and a public meeting, and 51 comments were submitted.  The majority of the testimony and comments focused on Reportable Concentrations and cleanup standards.  MWWA submitted a 13-page comment letter with expert toxicological reviews and the Michigan 2019 Health-Based Drinking Water Value Recommendations for PFAS.  MWWA argued that it is premature to be setting regulatory standards before “there is a better understanding of expected background levels and sources, and understanding of the extent of PFAS prevalence in the Commonwealth, and most importantly, a better understanding of the real potential human health impacts at the low levels that are being detected and potentially regulated in drinking water within Massachusetts.”

In the end, MassDEP retained its proposed groundwater RC and the RC GW-1 and GW-1 Method 1 standard of 20 ppt for the sum of six PFAS in order to protect current and potential drinking water sources.  Based on comments on the background levels of PFAS in soil, the RCS-1 RC and the S-1/GW1, S-2/GW-1, and S-3/GW-3 Method 1 soil standards were revised from 200 ppt to six chemical specific standards ranging from 300 to 2,000 ppt.

MassDEP recommends that LSPs should sample for PFAS in or near GW-1 areas where certain activities may have occurred: PFAS manufacturing facilities, textile manufacturing companies, landfills with uncontrolled leachate potentially containing PFAS, airports, crash sites and firefighting training areas where foam was used or stored, and metal plating and coating facilities.

ORSG

On January 27, 2020, MassDEP issued an updated Office of Research and Standards Guideline (“ORSG”) for drinking water of 20 ppt, individually, and the sum of the concentrations of six PFAS (PFOS, PFOA, PFHxS, PFNA, PFHpA, PFDA).  The updated ORSG replaces the June 8, 2018 guideline for drinking water of 70 ppt for five PFAS compounds.  The new guideline is based on a draft Toxicology Profile for PFAS by the ATSDR (2018), scientific assessments by other state agencies, input from the MassDEP Health Effects Advisory Committee, and public comments received on the draft MCP PFAS standards.  The lower drinking water standard of 20 ppt for the sum of six PFAS compounds presumably provides a greater degree of health protection to sensitive groups, including pregnant women, nursing mothers and infants.

The new ORSG and the updated Technical Support Document (December 26, 2019) can be found at: https://www.mass.gov/info-details/per-and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas#health-advisories-and-downloadable-fact-sheets-.

Maximum Contaminant Level

MassDEP has proposed revisions to the Massachusetts Drinking Water Regulations (310 CMR 22.00) to establish a Total PFAS MCL of 20 ppt for six PFAS contaminants: PFOS, PFOA, PFHxS, PFNA, PFHpA and PFDA for Public Water Systems (“PWS”).  The proposed regulation includes minimum reporting requirements, required actions when PFAS is detected, invalidation of sample results, determination of compliance, technologies for treating PFAS in water, monitoring schedules and protocols, and health effects information for Consumer Confidence Reports.  PWS serving more than 50,000 consumers (20 systems with 4.3 million consumers) must begin quarterly monitoring for one year by April 1, 2020, before the MCL is even finalized!  PWS with less than or equal to 50,000 but more than 10,000 consumers (106 systems with 2.6 million consumers) must begin monitoring by October 1, 2021.  For 569 systems serving 708,000 consumers, monitoring must begin by October 1, 2021.  Transient Non-Community Systems must collect a single sample by September 30, 2022.  This staggered schedule is proposed due to reflect the anticipated demand for laboratory services, and engineering design, procurement and construction of treatment systems.  The public comment period closed on February 28, 2020.  A final MCL is expected later this year.

MWWA submitted a 20-page comment letter with five appendices: Costs Incurred by PWS for PFAS (to date); a Summary of the DEP New Source Approval Process; a Treatment Planning, Design, Permitting and Construction Timeline; a Summary of the Interconnection Process; and a scientific paper, “Activation of human nuclear receptors by PFAS” from Toxicology in Vitro (2020).  MWWA presented many specific comments and several major recommendations:

  • MassDEP needs to understand the enormous financial impacts from the proposed MCL.
  • MassDEP should not act based on what other states are doing.
  • MassDEP should not apply an excessive conservative factor to a number not supported by sound science.
  • MassDEP should follow the EPA’s rigorous MCL process and implement standards only after the scientific merits have been methodically considered.

MWWA objects to an MCL of 20 ppt for the sum of six compounds because of different toxicity end points, uncertainty factors, reference doses, half-lives and bioaccumulation of each PFAS compound.  MassDEP should not use a cumulative approach and should develop compound-specific standards for each PFAS.  MWWA opposes treating values below the laboratory’s MRL as ½ the MRL.

Sampling and Testing

Did measuring to parts per trillion (“ppt”) originate with Steve Martin’s 1970s riff to “get really, really small,” or Richard Feyman’s musings on quantum particles?  One ppt is equivalent to one grain of sand in an Olympic size swimming pool, or the finding a single important second in the middle of 31,000 years!  Scientific advances in analytical equipment and new testing protocols allow the detection of PFAS at these extremely low levels.  Due to the presence of PFAS in equipment and products used to collect groundwater and drinking water samples (tubing, containers, tools), special protocols must be used to collect samples to prevent cross-contamination with PFAS.  MassDEP issued “Interim Guidance on Sampling and Analysis for PFAS at Disposal Sites Regulated under the Massachusetts Contingency Plan” on June 19, 2018 (updated on December 27, 2019), and “Field Sampling Guidelines for PFAS” using EPA Method 537 or 537.1” in January 2020.  Method 537.1 focusses on long-chain PFAS.  In December 2019, EPA announced a new validated Method 533 that focusses on “short chain” PFAS.  MassDEP offers PFAS sampling training to PWS in person or by video.

PWS and MassDEP discovered that there are not enough laboratories certified to test for PFAS using EPA Methods 533, 537 or 537.1.  Chemical and physical properties of PFAS prevent the use of GC/MS to measure PFAS concentrations.  The advanced testing instrument costs over $250,000.  As a result, there is a backlog of samples for testing.  As more sampling is performed at disposal sites under the MCP and under the proposed MCL, laboratory capacity will be further stressed and the costs for testing will likely increase.  MassDEP needs to certify more laboratories which invest in the technology with detection limits below 4 ppt.

Wastewater Discharges and Residuals

David Abel, the award-winning environmental journalist for the Boston Globe, exposed several troubling PFAS issues involving wastewater treatment plants (“WWTP”).  In November 2019, he reported on the permitted disposal for 100,000 gallons per day of PFAS laden runoff from a NH landfill into the Lowell WWTP, which then was discharged under an NPDES permit into the Merrimack River, a source of drinking water for more than 500,000 people.  His article and pressure from environmental advocates and lawmakers caused the Lowell WWTP to suspend its contract with the landfill.  In a December 1, 2019 article, David explored how sewage sludge from Deer Island that is converted into fertilizer contained more than 18,000 ppt of three PFAS chemicals.  Maine has imposed PFAS limits in sludge fertilizer after 1420 ppt was found in milk from an Arundel farm.  MassDEP approves the land application of sludge from WWTP based on chemical quality and treatment to reduce pathogens.  There are no standards for PFAS in bio-solid fertilizers that can leach into groundwater, get absorbed by plants and ingested by livestock.  MassDEP is now requiring PFAS testing in renewed or new applications for use of sludge as bio-solid fertilizers, and may set PFAS standards.  Ironically, dumping WWTP sludge in landfills contaminates the leachate with PFAS, which then is disposed of at WWTP but is not treated for PFAS, and the PFAS ends up in WWTP sludge, and eventually in surface and groundwater supplies.  Catch-22?

Compliance Funding

The “Show Me the Money” rant in Jerry Maguire (1996) resonates in town halls during debates on how to pay for expensive, unproven treatment systems for PFAS in drinking water.  The new drinking water requirements pose a huge financial burden on municipalities.  In 2019, Governor Baker introduced a proposed Supplemental Closeout Budget of $35 million in loan money to the Clean Water Trust for water supply projects.  In December 2019, the Legislature passed a Supplemental Budget with $24 million in funding for PFAS testing, design of treatment systems at PWS, and 0% interest loans for PWS to install treatment systems.  Impacted communities can seek reimbursement for costs and expenses incurred for testing and treatment systems.  MassDEP estimates the funding is adequate to test all PWS under the proposed MCL, and will be contracting with laboratories to provide free PFAS testing to PWS.  On January 31, 2020, the Board of Trustees for the Clean Water Trust approved a 0% interest rate loan pilot program for treatment systems that remediate PFAS in public water supplies.  Request for PFAS mitigation project funding are to be submitted for “emergency” financing by the end of December 2020.

Town Meetings acknowledged the need for safe, clean drinking water, and authorize appropriations for treatment systems.  Such approvals come with the expectation that PRPs will be vigorously pursued for recovery of costs.

The Future

Over the next several years, we hope to expand our work for PWS.  It is rewarding to work with dedicated and smart municipal leaders (Selectmen, Executive Assistant, DPW Director, Water Department) to forge and implement strategies for achieving swift and continuing compliance with evolving PFAS drinking water standards and guidance, providing interim bottled water to schools and residents, selecting and operating cutting-edge, full-scale pilot GAC and resin treatment systems, funding the multi-million dollar effort, and securing positive communications with MassDEP and water customers.

MassDEP should not be tempted to reduce the proposed 20 ppt PFAS MCL just because RI is proposing an MCL of 10 ppt for the weighted sum of six PFAS (with an explicit acknowledgement of the health benefit and cost uncertainties).  Instead, MassDEP should continuously rethink the alleged health risks posed by PFAS in drinking water that American’s have ingested since the 1950s, and recognize the relative paucity of evidence of human health impacts from low doses.  MassDEP should participate closely in the federal MCL process and be receptive to an increase in PFAS standards based on the EPA MCL and evolving science.

MassDEP should act as a clearing house on potential PFAS treatment technologies and permits, so PWS can avoid reinventing the wheel under the strain of legal and regulatory jeopardy.  The costs of PFAS treatment systems must be fully evaluated by MassDEP.  It is clear the $24 million in loan money from the Clean Water Trust available to all water supply projects, and not just for PFAS, is woefully inadequate.  Governor Baker and the Legislature must significantly increase funding for monitoring, treatment systems, and interconnections with clean water supplies.  Perhaps a share of the $3 billion surplus fund could be earmarked for PFAS and for replacing aging water mains now on life-support.  MassDEP should train PWS and consultants how to properly sample groundwater for PFAS testing.  MassDEP must certify more laboratories to test for low concentrations of PFAS in drinking water samples.

PWS are understandably concerned what new contaminants will emerge from UCMR4, and whether the expensive PFAS treatment systems will be capable of addressing a new suite of contaminants.  PWS also wonder if the coronavirus pandemic that is crippling the world impacts the delivery of safe drinking water.  The CDC and media bombard us with daily advisories on the rapidly increasing victims, and containment strategies and tactics (handwashing, sneezing, masks, disinfection, fist bumping instead of handshaking, travel bans, empty sporting venues, testing and quarantines).  Water supply professionals should take some comfort that the virus is only spread person-to-person during close contact, through inhalation of respiratory droplets from coughs or sneezes, handshakes, and touching the face.  The CDC, WHO and other experts advise that the virus is unlikely to be in raw water, and modern drinking water plants are already equipped to remove and disinfect viruses through filtration, chlorine, and ultraviolet processes.  Coronavirus will not be delivered through the drinking water distribution system to our faucets. 

MWWA is coordinating a weekly conference call with MassDEP and PWS on COVID-19 issues.  MassDEP has posted an initial FAQ for water systems that will be updated to include EPA guidance and additional concerns from PWS.

For the near future, the coronavirus will take the hot klieg light off PFAS.  Still, PWS will need to act eventually and expeditiously, in consultation with MassDEP, to plan, design, permit, purchase, and secure approval for a PFAS treatment system that will reliably produce drinking water that meets the MCL standard to be promulgated in 2020.  PWS should assemble their compliance teams now. 

John Shea

March 2020

 

For more information about PFAS:

  • The PFAS Zone. Peter F. Durning, Esq. (2019).  This tongue-in-cheek editorial riff on The Twilight Zone, explores the discomfort of Public Water Suppliers (“PWS”) and their customers during the time when MassDEP was just proposing MCP cleanup standards and an MCL for PFAS in drinking water.  Even without binding standards, MassDEP warned PWS to plan for the design and construction of expensive treatment systems to meet the proposed 20 ppt standard.  Here is the link to the May 2019 Newsletter article.
  • The Journal of the New England Water Works Association (Volume 133, No. 4, December 2019) published an excellent article on PFAS: “PFAS Toxicology – The Science Behind the Variation in Drinking Water Standards” that describes how state agencies are using toxicological evidence and uncertainty factors to establish enforceable MCLs for the PFAS compounds. Here is a link to the abstract on ProQuest.

“SUPERFUND IS SEXY AGAIN.”

According to a senior US EPA official, “Superfund is sexy again.” Newly discovered health risks attributed to so-called “emerging contaminants” are causing federal and state agencies to revisit long closed Superfund sites and evaluate the environmental and human health risks at myriad new locations.  These ubiquitous environmental contaminants, including perfluoronated compounds and 1,4-dioxane, present a significant risk to human health at very low concentrations.  So much so, that US EPA Administrator, Scott Pruitt, recently held a Leadership Summit to discuss these new emerging contaminants and develop a coordinated response across EPA regions.

The US EPA and several state environmental agencies are establishing very low guidelines or standards for these contaminants.  They are also beginning to require responsible parties to test for these chemicals at existing (and in some cases closed) state and federal superfund sites, and, if present, to develop plans to address the attendant risks.  Eventually, the government will restrict the discharge of these contaminants in waste water and the air, which will pose another significant layer of compliance headaches and expenses.   While this may be good news for government regulators, environmental attorneys and consultants, this news is bad for landowners and developers.

One of these emerging contaminants is actually comprised of an entire class known as the per- and poly-fluoroalkyl (“PFAS”) compounds, such as perfluorooctanoic acid (“PFOA”) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (“PFOS”).  Until their use was phased out in the United States over the last two decades, manufacturers used these compounds in non-stick cookware, water repellent fabrics, firefighting foams and a variety of other applications.  PFAS are often found in elevated concentrations near military bases, airports, firefighting academies, metal plating plants, landfills and manufacturing facilities where they were used.   In a perfect storm of problems for responsible parties who have to deal with these emerging contaminants, they are highly persistent in the environment, expensive to monitor and test, difficult to treat and pose potential health risks at very low concentrations.  For example, the US EPA Lifetime Health Advisory for PFOA and PFOS is 70 parts per trillion (“PPT”).

Another emerging contaminant is 1,4-dioxane.  1,4-dioxane is often found along with other industrial solvents such as TCE, but it is also present in consumer products, such as shampoos and cleaning agents.  Because of their widespread consumer use, these compounds are found just about everywhere.  For example, 1,4-dioxane can be found in private septic systems and associated groundwater.  The MassDEP groundwater clean up standard for 1,4-dioxane is 300 PPT in potential or existing water supply areas.

To date, the US EPA has not set a Maximum Contaminant Level for PFAS under the Safe Drinking Water Act.  Thus, as far as the federal government is concerned, there is no enforceable standard.  However, as a result of a number of exceedances of the Lifetime Health Advisory level found by public water suppliers when they performed required monitoring for PFAS under EPA’s Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule, those water suppliers have taken action to limit public exposure.  For example, the Towns of Westfield, MA, near Barnes Air Force Base, and Ayer, MA, have both stopped using public water supply wells where detections of PFAS exceeded the Lifetime Health Advisory.  The Town of Westfield has recently filed a lawsuit against the manufacturers of AFFF firefighting foam to recover damages.

The law and regulations governing site assessments and remediation for these contaminants is still “emerging.”  While some states, such as New Hampshire, have promulgated legally binding cleanup standards for certain PFAS, others, like Massachusetts, are still in the process of developing guidance and have not yet begun the official process of establishing a legally binding regulatory standard.  In early June, MassDEP issued “Final Recommendations for Interim Toxicity and Drinking Water Values” for testing as part of the Unregulated Chemical Monitoring program.  But this Interim Guidance does not establish clear enforceable standards.  Until standards are promulgated, the question of whether or not to test for these contaminants as part of a site assessment falls to the good judgment of the professional environmental consultant.  Thankfully, most environmental consultants are sufficiently knowledgeable about the potential presence of these contaminants to design an appropriate sampling and analytical program to protect their clients.

Because PFAS are not yet consistently regulated across the states and are not defined as a “hazardous substance” under the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, (CERCLA or “Superfund”) administered by the US EPA, regulatory authority to compel assessment and remediation of PFAS varies from state to state and from site to site.  According to Regional Administrator Dunn, the Agency is reading the language of individual Superfund consent decrees to determine whether the responsible parties agreed to reopeners for only “hazardous substances,” or also for other “pollutants or contaminants,” which would encompass PFAS.  She emphasized that, at sites where the EPA concludes it does not have the legal authority to compel responsible parties to take further response actions, the relevant state may have authority to take such action.  She indicated that there has been some discord between the federal and state governments over this issue.

PFAS can be in solid waste.  The federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act currently does not include PFAS within the definition of a hazardous waste.  Currently, only Vermont and New York states reportedly regulate PFAS as “hazardous wastes” under their parallel state programs.  Conceivably, this means that in all other 48 states, an industrial or other waste generator is not required to evaluate whether or not its waste streams contain PFAS, or make any special arrangements for storage, transportation or disposal of those wastes (such as using a RCRA permitted hazardous waste facility).  This challenges solid and hazardous waste disposal companies with the question of whether they want to handle wastes which may have PFAS, and expose themselves to the potential future worker exposure or environmental release liability that may ensue.

To make matters even more difficult, most states have not adopted surface water quality criteria, discharge or other limits, on the emissions of PFAS to water bodies, or to the air.  A few states, such as Vermont, have established policy limits on the concentrations of PFAS, which can be in landfill leachate discharged to a waste water treatment facility, but this is the exception to the rule.

These emerging contaminants present a real challenge on a number of fronts.  Because of the potentially very high cost of monitoring and remediation, prospective purchasers should first obtain clear environmental consulting guidance whether emerging contaminants should be tested for in a site assessment.  Second, in the process of performing environmental due diligence in a corporate transaction, attorneys and consultants may need to advise their clients that new site assessments be performed, including this testing, to avoid reliance on reports that pre-date the emergence of these contaminants and testing protocols.  Third, if emerging contaminants are found to have caused a very significant impact, such as loss of a water supply, consider whether or not the costs can be recovered.

Franklin’s adage that “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure,” certainly applies to emerging contaminants.  Until the science is settled and the regulations are clear, there is simply too much uncertainty about the environmental and public health risks, potential liability and costs to remain ignorant about the possible presence of PFAS in whatever environmental media you are dealing with.

 

MassDEP’s TCE Closed Site Review: The Legalities

MASSDEP’S TCE CLOSED SITES REVIEW: THE LEGALITIESIn April 2016, the MassDEP initiated an effort to evaluate closed TCE sites. The Department is “screening nearly 1,000 closed sites with known trichloroethylene contamination to determine at which sites TCE has the potential to pose an Imminent Hazard based on the current understanding of health risks, even if a site was previously closed properly under earlier standards.”  Its strategy is to “systematically review past closures and, where necessary, work with site stakeholders to identify and eliminate any ongoing Imminent Hazards.”

It certainly stands to reason that the MassDEP’s duty to protect public health, welfare, and the environment, encompasses the authority to require responsible parties to take necessary and appropriate response actions at sites where newly understood hazards exist, even though former science might have justified regulatory closure.  But how can that basic principle be reconciled with our general understanding that a permanent solution provides a “liability endpoint” for a responsible party?

The 2006 brownfields amendments, codified in Section 5C of chapter 21E, provide a liability endpoint for persons who properly perform MCP response actions to completion.  Specifically, under Section 5C (a) “an eligible person shall be exempt from liability . . . pursuant to this chapter . . . for any release of oil or hazardous material at the site or portion of a site owned or operated by said eligible person, as delineated in a waste site cleanup activity opinion, for which a permanent solution or remedy operation status exists and is maintained or has been achieved and maintained in accordance with such opinion . . .”  Permanent solutions are achieved under Section 3A of the statute by achieving a level of no significant risk at a site. The import of these sections taken together is that a person’s liability ends if his or her site poses “no significant risk” such that a “permanent solution” has been achieved and maintained.

So if an eligible party reaches a condition of no significant risk, achieves such a permanent solution and is statutorily “exempt from liability,” how can the MassDEP require that same person to later take further response actions (absent an audit finding or other violation of the MCP)?  Is there something in the statute or Massachusetts Contingency Plan that provides the MassDEP with a reopener if science reveals that the level of TCE once considered no significant risk, is later determined to pose a significant risk?

The MassDEP’s definition of “no significant risk” appears to support a conclusion that later adopted standards cannot be the justification for MassDEP enforcement against a site owner who properly achieved a permanent solution. “No significant risk” requires that no “identified substance of concern” shall present a “significant risk of damage to health, safety, public welfare, or the environment during any foreseeable period of time.”  Critically, in making such a determination, the MassDEP “shall consider existing public health or environmental standards where applicable or suitably analogous . . .”

Since the definition of “permanent solution” depends upon a determination of whether or not a significant risk exists based upon “existing public health or environmental standards,” it seems quite clear that the legislature intended to provide an exemption from liability under c. 21E to persons if they properly rely upon “existing” standards, and to protect them against reopening of liability based upon new standards that may be adopted by later regulatory changes.

Does the MCP contain a backdoor mechanism whereby closed sites must be reopened by responsible parties who would otherwise be exempt from liability because they properly achieved a permanent solution?  40.0137 of the MCP requires a new release notification for an already closed site (and therefore, reopening of a site) under the following circumstances: (1) changes in activities, uses or exposures at the disposal site; or (2) the presence of such oil and/or hazardous material would negate or change prior risk determinations or statements were that presence taken into account in the preparation of the permanent solution.  Neither of these two provisions for new notification appears to apply based merely upon promulgation of a new standard.  The first only requires notification at a closed site if the exposure scenario changes. Under the second, the promulgation of a later lower risk based standard would not “negate or change the determinations or statements” in the permanent solution because the known concentrations met the existing risk based standard when the permanent solution (or RAO) was filed.  There is no other MCP provision that expressly requires a responsible party to give notice or take response actions merely as a result of a later published risk threshold.

Unfortunately, the MassDEP takes the position that even though notification and compliance with the MCP may not be required for some sites, “under 310 CMR 40.0370 appropriate steps must be taken at these sites to eliminate or mitigate risks, if necessary, though these actions do not usually require notification to or approval by the Department.”  40.0370 provides that “(1) response actions shall be undertaken for releases or threats of release of oil and/or hazardous material that do not require notification under 310 CMR 40.0300 if the releases or threats of release pose a significant risk to health, safety, public welfare, or the environment, as described in 310 CMR 40.0900.” There is no time limit on this provision, i.e. it appears to be what my law professor called a “springing” provision, waiting to spring up when least expected.

Thus, read literally, the MCP is a Möbius loop. Despite the statute’s liability endpoint, under the MCP “once a disposal site, always a disposal site.” Like the tar baby, under the MCP a site owner will never be able to shake off the label and attendant potential exposure.

Let’s review the bidding, at the outset, if notification is required, the responsible party must perform response actions in accordance with the MCP until he or she achieves and properly documents that a condition of no significant risk has been achieved.  To do this, the responsible party would compare site contamination levels to existing standards to demonstrate the level of risk.  By necessity, the responsible party would rely on the standards then in existence.  If the responsible party demonstrates a condition of no significant risk, he or she may close out the site under a permanent solution and becomes exempt from liability under the statute.  At least theoretically, if at a later time there is a change in the relevant standard which the site does not meet, under Section 40.0370 the responsible party would be required to perform a new risk assessment using the newly existing standards, and if the site posed a significant risk, perform additional response actions to eliminate that risk.  Thus, the MCP appears to leave responsible parties permanently exposed to the requirement to take further response actions under 40.0370, and appears to require a continuous reassessment of risk posed by the site conditions, regardless of prior closure.  How the MassDEP would actually enforce such a requirement remains subject to significant question, especially since, under the statute, the responsible party is “exempt from liability.”

Posted on In Categories NewsletterTags: Tags ,

…Oh, Boston you’re my home.

Since 1997, Red Sox Nation has celebrated home victories with the post-game anthem “Dirty Water,” the 1966 cynical paean to the Charles River and Boston Harbor.  “Well, I love that dirty water; Oh, Boston you’re my home.”

Beginning in the 1800’s, the Charles River and Boston Harbor were polluted by domestic, municipal and industrial wastes.  Raw sewage, chemical discharges, and leaching riverbank landfills turned the river into a toxic sluiceway flowing into the nastiest harbor in the world.
Read More → “…Oh, Boston you’re my home.”

If the Fat Lady is off the stage, why is the band still playing?

Earlier this year, MassDEP quietly let it be known in an advisory committee meeting that it would be re-visiting old MCP sites with trichloroethylene (TCE) releases to determine if the level of TCE on the property complied with the evolving standards that have lowered the threshold values for TCE.  In particular, MassDEP is concerned with the possibility that vapor intrusion of TCE into indoor air could have an impact on human health, particularly with vulnerable populations.  While the ripple from this announcement caused an initial shock that MassDEP’s actions would undermine investment backed expectations on achieving lasting solutions to hazardous contaminants, MassDEP has always retained the ability to act to protect human health.  Thus far, we have not seen a torrent of activity from MassDEP on this front, but more time will tell how extensive its review will be.  It is a good reminder to be mindful of the long-tail complications that can arise from contaminated properties – even after extensive remedial activities and achieving an RAO and Permanent Solution under the MCP.

While the initial focus of MassDEP’s recent comments was on TCE, we are also witnessing emerging “contaminants of concern,” like Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (“PFOS”), Perfluorooctanoic acid (“PFOA”) and 1, 4 Dioxane, that may result in re-opening sites that were closed after addressing the initial releases that brought the properties under the MCP.  PFOS and PFOA do not have federal regulatory detection limits, but there are health-related studies showing that they are toxic and carcinogenic.  MassDEP has set a regulatory guideline for 1, 4 Dioxane in drinking water, as well as groundwater and soil cleanup standards in the MCP.  As more information is developed about all three of these contaminants, the regulatory requirements are likely to increase, which may result in returning to sites that were previously closed under the MCP and M.G.L. c. 21E. Read More → “If the Fat Lady is off the stage, why is the band still playing?”

EPA’s ECHO Website Opens a Window into Your Industrial Facility

Have you Googled yourself lately?

You might find race results from an old turkey trot or an article about an awards ceremony, or you might find unflattering (or compromising) photos of yourself – particularly if you went to college in the age of digital cameras on cell phones.

But how often have you Googled your business or industrial facility to see what the web reveals about your environmental compliance history?

With the continued emergence of technology and the federal government’s push for greater transparency, most of the environmental compliance documentation maintained by the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) is now available on the web.

EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance History Online or “ECHO” database curates and correlates several different federal reporting regimes and federal environmental compliance data for individual industrial facilities in one place. [http://echo.epa.gov/]

The database includes filings under RCRA, the Clean Air Act, and the Clean Water Act, as well as data from the Toxics Release Inventory and Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, among several others.  In addition to stating a facility’s compliance history, including required periodic reports and disclosures, the ECHO website also includes information on inspections and enforcement actions conducted by EPA.

All of this information is easily available to the general public with a simple search.  The data can be accessed by company or facility name, but it is also searchable by state, city or ZIP Code.  This capability makes it easy for individuals to learn about facilities in their neighborhood, or perhaps to allow competitors to find out information about a rival’s compliance history.

Another significant use for this database is by groups seeking to bring citizen suit enforcement actions against industrial actors.  For example, in the Clean Water Act arena, the Conservation Law Foundation (“CLF”) and Clean Water Action, have both been very active in bringing citizen suits under the Clean Water Act against industrial facilities that either failed to file under the multi-sector general permit (“MSGP”) for discharges to waters of the United States, or facilities that have permits, but have not met their reporting obligations, or their obligations to undertake corrective actions.

Simply using the information available through the ECHO database CLF, Clean Water Action, and others can identify industrial facilities that should have permits under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) program.  Using the ECHO search tools, the citizen suit organizations can quickly find the reporting history for any industrial facility that holds a NPDES permit.  This is particularly relevant in Massachusetts and New Hampshire where EPA is the NPDES permitting authority.

Just letting their fingers do the walking from their desktop computer, the environmental organizations can assess whether a facility has filed the requisite number of quarterly reports, complied with its annual reporting obligations, and even assess whether or not the facility has exceedances of benchmark monitoring values.

As an illustration, here are the ECHO search results for industrial facilities in Newburyport, MA.  A user can click on each orange marker and learn about the business’s compliance and enforcement history.  Since many of these facilities may have discharges that lead to waters of the United States, environmental organizations searching for Clean Water Act compliance might be particularly interested in canvassing this area for compliance targets.

After a quick assessment of the compliance history available from ECHO, it is easy for the environmental organization to prepare a 60-day notice letter and initiate the process of bringing a suit under the Clean Water Act.  Once that process is started, the environmental organization will stand in the shoes of the federal regulator and impose a financial penalty on the facility for failure to comply with the requirements of the MSGP.  In most instances, the environmental organization will also demand operational or structural changes to eliminate or reduce pollutants in a facility’s discharges, and require Supplemental Environmental Projects (“SEP”) related to the impacted water-body to offset impacts to the environment.  In addition, under the federal Clean Water Act, the environmental organizations are entitled to recover their attorneys’ fees and legal costs for bringing these private enforcement actions.  All of these components result in significant financial burdens on the target facilities.

With the new MSGP permit promulgated by EPA earlier this year, industrial facilities in MA and NH have even greater obligations to provide transparency for their compliance with the Clean Water Act.  The 2015 MSGP requires facilities to either post the contents of their stormwater pollution prevention plan (“SWPPP”) on the web, or include the contents of the SWPPP in the facility’s Notice of Intent for coverage under the 2015 MSGP.  The 2015 MSGP also requires online reporting of quarterly and annual monitoring events.  With the transition to all online reporting, all of a facility’s Clean Water Act reporting obligations will be available with the click of a mouse.

The 2015 MSGP set September 2, 2015 as a deadline for facilities with existing MSGP permit to file a new Notice of Intent for coverage under the new general permit.  For facilities with an existing MSGP permit, this is an easy target for citizen groups seeking to make a quick strike.  We are aware of two actions against industrial facilities simply for failing to meet the September 2, 2015 deadline for filing a new Notice of Intent under the 2015 MSGP.  Similarly, even though facilities may have met the benchmarking requirement of four consecutive quarters without any exceedance under the old 2008 MSGP, which allows the facility to transition to annual rather than quarterly monitoring, the new permit re-starts the clock and facilities must show a minimum of four consecutive quarters of monitoring data to demonstrate compliance with the benchmark values for the particular facility before shifting to annual reporting.

While the general availability of all this data sounds alarm bells about the tidal wave of compliance information on the web and the increased potential for citizen suit actions, there are also some business advantages that web-savvy companies can reap from this wealth of data.

For example, companies looking to make an acquisition can use the ECHO database to perform quick due diligence on an industrial facility before any formal deal negotiations take place.  A review of the ECHO database will allow a potential acquirer to identify good targets, or to recognize a facility to avoid, given their compliance history.

Similarly, companies in the certain industries can use the information available through ECHO to evaluate the compliance history of the facilities receiving their outputs as part of their due diligence obligations to establish defenses under the Superfund Recycling Equity Act (“SREA”).  Armed with a potential receiving facility’s compliance history under Federal environmental laws, an arranger can make an informed choice about whether or not to sell scrap products to a particular customer.  Generators of solid and hazardous wastes can also check the compliance status of handling and disposal facilities, perhaps avoiding the cost of a full facility audit or the liability that would arise from shipments to a non-compliant facility.

Lastly, the ECHO database can also serve as a public relations tool.  Since this compliance data is available to the general public, industrial facilities should be aware of the potential public relations burden and benefit these disclosures can provide.

In addition to the importance of maintaining strong environmental controls, we recommend that industrial facilities monitor how their business information is presented in the ECHO database.  Proper management could lead to new opportunities and positive public relations, while lax attention to monitoring and reporting obligations could invite citizen suits to environmental organizations trawling the ECHO database for new victims.