APPENDIX A Comments and Responses for Proposed Amendments to Rule 4651 (Soil Decontamination Operations) August 16, 2007

Transcription

1 APPENDIX A Comments and Responses for Proposed Amendments to Rule 4651 (Soil Decontamination Operations) August 16, 2007

2 SUMMARY OF WRITTEN COMMENTS AND RESPONSES FOR THE JULY 11, 2007 VERSION OF THE RULE Rule 4651 (Soil Decontamination Operations) Comments from United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): 1) No comments were provided at this time. Comments from California Air Resources Board (ARB): 2) The ARB has reviewed draft Rule 4651 and had no comments at this time. Comments from Stakeholders The following stakeholders submitted the comments: Geomatrix (G) Kern Oil & Refining Co. (KOR) Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) Comments From Workshop #3 on July 11, 2007: 3) COMMENT: The rule should be simplified, and if this is not possible, then the District develop a Compliance Bulletin to help simplify and summarize the key requirements describing how they apply to subject activities. (KOR) RESPONSE: As staff proposed at the workshop, a Compliance guideline would be developed to help rule compliance by providing a summary of the key requirements of the subject activities. 4) COMMENT: Section 3.9 Definition of Emergency: The definition of emergency should be revised with language to include actions needed to ensure protection of the environment. The definition should also include actions requiring notification of the Office of Emergency Services. (KOR, WSPA) RESPONSE: The definition has been revised to be consistent with Bay Area Air Quality Management District to further clarify the intent of the exemption for emergency excavation. Protection of environment would also be added to the definition as suggested by the stakeholders. The District has no control over OES regulations so that language was not added, but many of those actions may be exempt under the District's definition. A - 2

3 5) COMMENT: Section 3.19 Definition of Uncontaminated Soil: The definition should provide an option to test the uncontaminated soil using an organic vapor analyzer (or) by using the gas chromatographic methods specified in Sections and (KOR) RESPONSE: This suggestion has been incorporated into the rule. 6) COMMENT: The requirement to conduct mass composition sampling is costly and time consuming and would interfere with the implementation of this regulation without any benefit. Monitoring of decontaminated soil as required by Section should be sufficient to document compliance with the requirement of the rule. Soil sampling and analysis of uncontaminated soil, as proposed in Section serves no useful purpose. Section should be deleted or accomplished with an organic vapor analyzer. (KOR, WSPA) RESPONSE: Excavated soil that has been determined to be uncontaminated from the field with the use of EPA Method 21 would not require additional lab testing. Under Section and Section 6.6, the proposed rule would require the use of an organic vapor analyzer (OVA) to monitor the soil for VOC concentration after the decontamination process. If the decontaminated soil registers above 50 ppmv, operators would be required to properly dispose, bury, or decontaminate the soil. However, if the decontaminated soil registers below 50 ppmv with the use of an OVA after the decontamination process, operators would be required to confirm that the soil is uncontaminated by obtaining soil sample analysis using the test methods in either Section or Section The District believes that lab analysis should be required to confirm that decontaminated soil is uncontaminated since the soil may be reused, such as a vapor suppressant. Section has been revised to further clarify the purpose of soil sampling requirements. 7) COMMENT: Uncontaminated soil should be specifically allowed as a vapor suppressant. The use of uncontaminated soil as a vapor suppressant is consistent with requirements contained in other sections of this rule (i.e. Section 5.1.4, Section , and Section ). (WSPA) RESPONSE: This suggestion has been incorporated into the rule. 8) COMMENT: The addition of phrase the facility essentially limits the exemption to one cubic yard per day for an entire stationary source. The phrase facility be replaced with the term incident which is more realistic. The exemption should be increased for one cubic yard to five cubic yards. One cubic yard is about one wheel barrel full of dirt. Five cubic yards is equal to around one bucket (scoop) on a small front end loader. (KOR, WSPA) RESPONSE: The exemption has been changed to be based on an incident basis. The exemption for one cubic yard of contaminated soil reflects the current provision, whereas a five cubic yard exemption would be a rule relaxation. A - 3

4 9) COMMENT: During the workshop, the District stated that the one-barrel exemption was in error and that the exemption was only intended to be 5 gallons. The onebarrel exemption should be retained and revised to clarify that it includes operations related to accidental spillage. (WSPA) RESPONSE: The exemption for accidental spillage of less than five gallons would be reinstated into the proposed rule as mentioned at the workshop. The proposed threshold for accidental spillage would be consistent with other air districts. Section 4.2 has been revised to address the 42-gallon exemption. 10) COMMENT: The exemption for natural seepage of liquids from natural sources should not be deleted. (WSPA) RESPONSE: The exemption for natural seepage will not be reinstated. Removal of natural seepage from the exempt section of the rule would be consistent with existing rules from other air districts. Regardless of the source of the contamination, a excavation of soil with a detection of VOC concentration above 50 ppmv from the soil would trigger all applicable rule requirements. 11) COMMENT: We request that the District add an exemption for VOC containing liquids (i.e. clean produced water) containing less than 35 mg/l VOC. (WSPA) RESPONSE: There is insufficient information at this time to include an exemption for VOC containing liquids containing less than 35 mg/l of VOC. Any projects requiring the excavation of soil that has been contaminated by a VOC containing liquid would be subject to rule requirements if the VOC concentration reads above 50 ppmv and does not meet one of the exemptions from Section ) COMMENT: Section 4.2 needs to be clarified. The current wording is confusing with too many double-negatives. It is not clear as to the intent of this section. (KOR, WSPA) RESPONSE: Section 4.2 has been revised for clarity. Operators would be required to comply with the administrative requirements for any accidental spillage of more than 5 cubic yards but no more than 42 gallons. The current language is intended to distinguish the threshold from Section and any accidental spills over 42 gallons. Under the proposed rule, any spills exceeding 42 gallons would be subject to all applicable rule requirements. 13) COMMENT: Section should be revised to allow notification by fax, , or telephone. (WSPA) RESPONSE: Section has been revised to include notification by fax or other approved methods. A - 4

5 14) COMMENT: Section 4.3.2: The allowable period for submitting excavation notifications is infeasible for oil field cleanup operations. Section allows up to 30 days to recycle, dispose of, decontaminated or return contaminated soil to the excavation site. Notification should be submitted after the allowable time period has elapsed. Please increase the noticing period for emergency excavations to 72 hours and the noticing period for the completion of excavation to 45 days. (WSPA) RESPONSE: Section 4.3 would exempt emergency events if an order can be obtained from an authorized officer as mentioned in the proposed rule. Oil field cleanup operations would be exempt under Section 4.3 if a copy of the signed emergency declaration from the authorized officer can be obtained. Otherwise, all applicable rule requirements would apply. The 48 hours to notify the District would be consistent with other air districts provisions. The 30-day requirement to notify the District has been determined to be feasible and would remain consistent with other air districts. For clarification, the proposed rule would allow operators up to 30 days from the completion of excavation to properly dispose or treat the contaminated soil. The District believes that from the time that the last day of excavation is completed, operators would have had sufficient amount of time to properly dispose or treat the contaminated soil. With this in mind, operators would be able to provide written verification with the necessary information. 15) COMMENT: Section should be changed to allow for up to 72 hours for notification required for the discovery of contaminated soil during excavation. (WSPA) RESPONSE: District staff believes that 48 hours would be feasible for operators to notify the District. South Coast Air Quality Management District requires notification within 24 hours, but given the size of the operations in the Valley, District staff believe the additional 24 hours is warranted and will not impact air quality efforts. 16) COMMENT: Section requires VOC monitoring every 15-minutes during excavation. This frequency of monitoring is overly onerous and unnecessary. Initial monitoring should be conducted to establish whether or not the contaminated soil is greater than 1,000 ppmv for purposes of section applicability. There is no useful purpose in continuing to monitor every 15-minutes. (KOR) RESPONSE: If the operator treats the excavated soil as above 1000 ppmv per Section 5.2.1, VOC monitoring would not be required. District staff believes that it would be necessary to monitor the soil for VOC concentration every 15-minutes during excavation thereafter. VOC monitoring would not only allow operators to determine when to cease excavation but to also help ensure that operators comply with other rule requirements for excavated soil registering above 50 ppmv. Excavated soil measuring below 50 ppmv would not be subject to rule requirements. A - 5

6 17) COMMENT: In the cases, for example, of excavated natural seeps, operators should be allowed to return contaminated soil back to the excavation site. Please revise. (WSPA) RESPONSE: Operators would need to comply with all applicable requirements in Section 5.1. for contaminated soil excavation. If the excavated contaminated soil is not or no longer placed in storage piles, Section would apply. This rule does not supercede any other applicable local, state or federal regulation concerning the disposition of contaminated soils, which could otherwise prohibit direct burial. 18) COMMENT: Section requires contaminated soil to be placed in sealed containers or loaded onto trucks within 30-minutes. This is not practical in the real world and the limit should be 72-hours. (KOR) RESPONSE: District staff has discussed operations with a local contractor and based on the response, 30-minutes should be sufficient for both methods of handling contaminated soil registering above 1000 ppmv. 19) COMMENT: Immediate loading and transport is not possible unless it is being moved to a holding area while awaiting test results. If the soil is contaminated with VOC and other substances, the soil must also be tested for other hazardous materials before it can be released for treatment and/or disposal. These tests typically require 3-4 weeks to complete. The requirement to immediately transport contaminated soil should be removed. (WSPA) RESPONSE: In addition to all other applicable rule requirements, Section is among one of the optional methods for handling contaminated soil registering above 1000 ppmv. If the soil must be tested for contaminants prior to treatment and/or disposal, operators may handle the soil according to Section or Section Based on research, projects involving contaminated soil are typically determined to the extent of contamination before excavation commences. For projects where contaminated soil is discovered, operators generally would be required to stop all operations until further inspection can be conducted. Under the Exemption Section 4.1.3, contaminated soil may be exposed only for the purpose of sampling. Since the excavated contaminated soil registers at a high VOC concentration under Section , operators would be required to expedite the handing and transportation operations in order to reduce the release of VOC contaminants into the atmosphere. 20) COMMENT: To ensure that the soil excavation requirements in Section and the soil handling requirements in Section are consistent, we request that Section (approved alternate storage) be revised. (WSPA) RESPONSE: Due to the high VOC concentration for the handling operations under Section 5.2.1, operators would be required to immediately comply with one of the methods along with all other applicable rule requirements. Section and A - 6

7 Section have been revised to include Section for clarification. If operators do not immediately transport the contaminated soil offsite to an approved facility, the contaminated soil would need to be quickly placed into sealed containers or other approved methods until further plans or test results have been issued. Contaminated soil registering above 1000 ppmv requires tighter control of VOC emissions and may not be stored in storage piles or covered with uncontaminated soil onsite as these requirements are reserved for contaminated soil registering below 1000 ppmv. 21) COMMENT: Section requires each storage pile to be clearly identifiable. The word pile should be replaced with the word area. This would allow the identification of segregated storage areas that contain less than 1,000 ppm or greater than 1,000 ppm contaminated soil. (KOR) RESPONSE: According to the proposed rule, all storage piles registering above 50 ppmv may not exceed 30 days for proper disposal or treatment. Therefore, it would be necessary to identify each of the storage piles of contaminated soil, specifically the date for tracking purposes along with proper identification and verification for adequate coverage and control. 22) COMMENT: Section requires daily visual inspection of storage piles. This requirement is impractical since many facilities are not manned on weekends or holidays. Visual inspection should only apply to storage piles of highly contaminated soil (1,000 ppmv VOC or greater). (KOR, WSPA) RESPONSE: Section has been revised to require visual inspection of the storage piles at least once every 24 hours except when operators do not report to the facility for that given 24 hours. The revised language would be consistent with other District rules. Since contaminated soil registering below 1000 ppmv only require covering with heavy duty plastic sheeting or uncontaminated soil, the District believes that daily inspection of contaminated soil storage piles would be necessary to ensure adequate coverage and control of VOC emissions into the atmosphere. 23) COMMENTS: Section requires trucks/trailers to be covered providing no openings for vapors to escape. This is not a practical nor achievable standard. In addition, since DOT and CHP already require trucks hauling soil to be covered during transport, Section should be deleted from the proposed amendments. (KOR) Revise Section to allow for transportation using vapor suppressants and plastic coverings or transportation in covered trucks or trailers. (WSPA) RESPONSE: Section has been revised to address stakeholders comments. District staff believes that Section strengthens the proposed amendments to Rule 4651 and will remain as revised. A - 7

8 24) COMMENT: Section requires an emergency excavation be issued a signed emergency declaration from the authorized officer. Most emergency clean-up activities conducted in the oilfield are conducted under an MOU with predetermined procedures. Only the largest incidents are directly overseen and therefore the declaration may not be possible except in the very largest of incidents. Furthermore, emergency declarations are not normally created by the appropriate governmental agencies. (KOR, WSPA) RESPONSE: Section specifically states that it applies to emergency operations conducted at the direction of the authorized officer. If the written order is given, then a copy should be provided to the District. If a written order is not provided, then it is not logically required by the District. COMMENT: Section requires records of chain-of-custody. When the sample or material has not left the facility, a chain-of-custody would not necessarily have been generated. Operations such as handling, excavation, transportation, decontamination, and lab analysis may be handled on site and will not generate a custody transfer. (KOR, WSPA) RESPONSE: The purpose of requiring chain-of-custody records is to document when the soil samples are transferred from one facility over to the responsible facility conducting the lab analysis. Lab tests can be performed either onsite or offsite depending on operators preference and mobility of the lab facility. Chain-ofcustody record requirements would apply specifically to the transfer of soil sample from the field to the lab, which would be between the two facilities regardless of location. Custody transfer would not be required if the operator conducts both the decontamination operations and laboratory analysis. 25) COMMENT: Section requires the signature of the person conducting the visual inspection. A signature is practical in the field since most of the routine field checks and inspections of equipment and activities occurs by the Operator using a check-list. Any reference to requiring signatures in the proposed rule amendments be removed. (KOR) RESPONSE: In order to maintain valid recordkeeping, the District believes that it would be necessary to obtain a signature on the checklist from the person authorized to conduct the visual inspection. 26) COMMENT: The rule should be clear that that inspections and records are not required when the VOC control device is not in operation. For example, a soil vapor extraction engine may not operate 24/7/365 days of the year. Records and inspections should not be required when the unit is not operating. (KOR) A - 8

9 RESPONSE: Section has been deleted since the requirements vary among different types of VOC control devices. Operators would be required to follow all applicable rule and administrative requirements for VOC control devices under Rule ) COMMENT: The Appendix B Emission Reduction Analysis does not quantify the all the VOC emissions associated with required decontamination. For example: vehicle emissions from the transportation and handling of contaminated soils at decontamination sites, landfills, etc and fuel to operate thermal oxidizers as VOC controls. These VOC emissions associated with decontamination could easily exceed the VOC emissions from limited aeration under the existing rule and in that case would result in a net increase in VOC emissions. Based on these omissions, the Emission Reduction Analysis is inadequate because it underestimates the emissions associated with the replacement remediation methods. A proper emissions inventory for comparable decontamination processes needs to be included in the emissions analysis. The SJVAPCD has published methods suitable for preparing such an emissions inventory. (G, KOR) RESPONSE: It was assumed that the vehicle transportation and handling emissions would be equivalent, if not less, than those associated with those generated by uncontrolled limited soil aeration. Emissions generated by soil decontamination controls would also be less than the uncontrolled release of the VOC. Operators would also have several options to properly dispose or treat the contaminated soil under the proposed rule that do not require thermal oxidation controls. A - 9

10 This page intentionally left blank. A - 10