Introduction to Atlantic RBCA Version 3 Webinar May 4, 2013.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Society for Risk Analysis Workshop 3: Application of Web-based Risk Assessment Information System (RAIS) Leslie Galloway, University of Tennessee/Oak Ridge.
Advertisements

Revisiting the Formula CTL Workgroup Contaminated Media Forum 1.
RECAP Addressing Exposure to Multiple Constituents that Elicit Noncarcinogenic Effects on the Same Target Organ/System.
Case Study of Subsurface Vapor Intrusion at a Dry Cleaner Site Amy Goldberg Day AEHS Annual East Coast Conference on Soils, Sediments.
COMPARISONS OF SUB-SLAB SOIL GAS MEASUREMENTS TO MODELED EMISSIONS FROM SUBSURFACE CONTAMINATION by John A. Menatti and Robin V. Davis Utah Department.
2014 Vapor Intrusion Guidance Amendments Discussion Points Waste Site Cleanup Advisory Committee Meeting May 22, 2014.
Vapor Intrusion. What is Vapor Intrusion? The migration of volatile chemical vapors from the subsurface to overlying buildings.
Remediation Programs Update MSECA Quarterly Meeting March 13, 2012.
21 st Annual Conference. Soil and Groundwater Screening Levels Developing Soil and Groundwater Screening Levels for International Service Station Sites.
Dale T Littlejohn Senior Geologist. What is fate and transport in the vadose zone? Vadose Zone Hydrocarbon release from buried pipeline Aquifer Surface.
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.
LDEQ’s RECAP Domenico and Summer’s Models. DOMENICO MODEL.
Environmental Investigation by Con Edison Former E115th Street Gas Works November 13, 2007.
TCEQ Air Permits Division Justin Cherry, P.E. Ahmed Omar Stephen F. Austin State University February 28, 2013.
Fate and Transport of Chemicals A Presentation by Terrie Boguski Technical Outreach Services for Communities (TOSC) Great Plains/Rocky Mountain Hazardous.
Vapor Intrusion Guidance Proposed Updates
1 Risk Assessment Develop Objectives And Goals Develop and Screen Cleanup Alternatives Select Final Cleanup Alternative Communicate Decisions to the Public.
Radionuclide dispersion modelling
Vapor Intrusion Evaluation Strategy and Modeling Developments
Risk Analysis of Contaminated Sites: Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment F. Quercia, ANPA Workshop ICS/UNIDO - Fundacion Mamonal Environmental.
Overview of US EPA’s Vapor Intrusion Guidance VAP CP Summer Coffee July 14 th, 2015 Carrie Rasik Ohio EPA CO- Risk Assessor
Screening Level Ecological and Human Health Risk Assessment Poplar Point, Washington, DC.
Contaminated land: dealing with hydrocarbon contamination Assessing risks to human health.
Of Massachusetts Department ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Soil Vapor Intrusion... A Decade of Regulatory Requirements & Experiences Paul W. Locke MA DEP Bureau.
Gradient CORPORATION Vapor Intrusion Attenuation Factors (AFs) – Measured vs. EPA Defaults A Case Study Presented by Manu Sharma and Jennifer DeAscentis.
EFCOG Safety Analysis Working Group May 10, 2012 Jeremy Rishel Bruce Napier Atmospheric Dispersion Modeling in Safety Analyses: GENII.
Overview of Land Use Compatibility between Sensitive Land Uses and Nuisance Sources Peter Piersol A&WMA/OPPI Land Use Compatibility.
Contaminated land: dealing with hydrocarbon contamination Assessing risks to other receptors.
Approaches for Evaluating the Relevance of Multiroute Exposures in Establishing Guideline Values for Drinking Water Contaminants Kannan Krishnan, Université.
LDEQ RECAP Miscellaneous Topics. Exposure Assessment n Site-specific under MO-3 only n Construction worker scenario n Greatly reduced ET, EF, and/or ED.
Case Study 1 Application of different tools: RBCA Tool Kit and APIDSS.
Examples of Health Risk Assessment Applications for Contaminated Sites in the Upper Silesia, Poland Eleonora Wcislo Institute for Ecology of Industrial.
1 RBCA Tool Kit Exercise. 2 Groundwater protection : Tier 1 compliance point Point of compliance=Point of exposure (on site) compliance point (receptor)
CRITICAL PATHWAY ANALYSIS FOR RADIOLOGICAL IMPACT CONTROL AND ASSESSMENT Riaz Akber
A New Risk-Based Approach to Establish Clean-up Levels for TPH David Nakles and Stephen Geiger ThermoRetec Consulting and Engineering Sara McMillen and.
VI Draft Guidance: Overview of Comments to November, 2002 OSWER VI Guidance Michael Sowinski DPRA, Inc.
SITE STATUS UPDATE TOP STOP PETROLEUM RELEASE SITE GUNNISION, UTAH Morgan Atkinson – Division of Environmental Response and Remediation, Project Manager.
Pesticide Spray Drift Conference September 5 and 6, 2001 AgDRIFT® Dave Esterly Environmental Focus, Inc
Are SPLP or TCLP testing data adequate for understanding soil adsorption coefficients? Chris Bailey, T&T.
Carousel Tract Environmental Remediation Project Update by Expert Panel to Regional Board July 11, 2013.
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.
Area I Burn Pit Santa Susana Field Laboratory RCRA Facility Investigation Work Plan February 19, 2008 Laura Rainey, P.G. Senior Engineering Geologist California.
September 18, 1998 State of Illinois Rules and Regulations Tiered Approach to Corrective Action (TACO) Presented by The Great Plains/Rocky Mountain Technical.
REMEDIATION OF CONTAMINATED LAND IN SOUTH AFRICA Part 8 of the Waste Act Ms Mishelle Govender Chemicals and Waste Management.
RECAP Implementation Issues Implementation Issues.
Common VAP Risk Assessment Issues Certified Professional Annual Training October 2015 Mike Allen.
An Overview of the Objectives, Approach, and Components of ComET™ Mr. Paul Price The LifeLine Group All slides and material Copyright protected.
VERSITET SOIL CONTAMINATTION APRIL 2014 UNI INDOOR CLIMATE RISK ASSESSMENT.
HF Modeling Task Mike Williams November 19, 2013.
Environmental Risk Assessment and Risk Management Kevin L. Long ENVIRON International Corporation Academy Park High School May 12, 2010.
Stephen F. Austin State University February 27, 2014 Justin Cherry, P.E. Reece Parker TCEQ Air Permits Division.
1 FORMER COS COB POWER PLANT From Characterization to Redevelopment Brownfields2006 November 14, 2006.
Long-Term Management of Contaminated Soil and Groundwater – Iwilei District, Honolulu April 16, 2015.
Key Concepts on Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures.
Field Investigation of the Chemistry and Toxicity of TPH in Petroleum Vapors: Implications for Potential Vapor Intrusion Hazards Roger Brewer & Lynn Bailey.
Brownfields 2004, “Light or Heavy Starch: Cleaning the Cleaners” September 2004 Presented by Matt Shurtliff Roosevelt Towne Apartments.
The Indoor Inhalation Exposure Route Heather Nifong Illinois EPA May 5, 2008.
Risk CHARACTERIZATION
GSI ENVIRONMENTAL INC. Houston, Texas (713) Workshop 1: Assessment and Evaluation of Vapor Intrusion at Petroleum.
S-Risk® - Advanced demo
Anniston PCB Site Review of Risk Assessments for OU-1/OU-2
Sean Anderson, P.Eng., QPESA Steve Russell, B.Sc., QPRA
At facilities with subsurface contamination, what other chemicals may your workers be breathing? Matt Raithel.
Connecticut Remediation Standard Regulations: Volatilization Criteria
Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology
European Risk Model Comparison Study
FAQs for Evaluating the Soil-to-Groundwater Pathway
A&WMA Regulatory Conference Symposium UST Risk Based Corrective Action
Brownfield Corrective Action with Revised RRS
Presentation transcript:

Introduction to Atlantic RBCA Version 3 Webinar May 4, 2013

Attending Today’s Session Hosting –Tania Noble, Stantec –Michel Poirier, NBENV –Ulysses Klee, Stantec You – People who have taken the on-line course 2

3 Outline Quick Navigation (Webinar) Questions asked during course or submitted for the webinar Reminder of topics/other questions on theory Review Case Studies from course

Q1 – Incorporating lab results Tier ITier IITool kit – version 3 Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene Xylenes 4

Q1 – Incorporating lab results Tier ITier IITool kit – version 3 C 6 -C 10 hydrocarbonsAliphatic C 6 -C 8 Aliphatic >C 6 -C 8 Aliphatic >C 8 -C 10 Aromatic >C 8 -C 10 >C 10 -C 16 hydrocarbonsAliphatic >C 10 -C 12 Aliphatic >C 12 -C 16 Aromatic >C 10 -C 12 Aromatic >C 12 -C 16 >C 16 -C 21 hydrocarbonsAliphatic >C 16 -C 21 Aromatic >C 16 -C 21 >C 21 -C 32 hydrocarbonsAliphatic >C 21 -C 32 Aliphatic >C 21 -C 34 Aromatic >C 21 -C 32 Aromatic >C 21 -C 35 Modified TPH – Tier IModified TPH – Tier II- Return to Baseline at C 32 ? (yes/no)? - 5

Q2 –Modeling different pathways Run inhalation pathways separately from ingestion pathways >C16 hydrocarbons non-volatile (no inhalation toxicity information) but do contribute to oral exposures If you try to run both pathways together, the contributions of the non-volatile hydrocarbons to oral exposures will not be assessed 6

Q2 –Modeling different pathways Model: Well Dilution Factor (WDF) versus Lateral Dilution Attenuation Factor (DAF) WDF – typical area of impact is not sufficient to supply even a 2 person family. WDF accounts for how much “clean” water will be mixed with impacted water to meet demand DAF – as a plume moves away from the source area, the concentrations decrease. DAF estimates what the downgradient concentration will be 7

Q2 –Modeling different pathways Run TEX separately from TPH The target hazard quotient (THQ) for TEX is 0.5, but THQ for TPH is 1.0 Tool kit only has one location to input THQ 8

Q2 –Modeling different pathways Run Indoor Air Pathways Separately from all other Pathways for TPH The adjustment factor (AF) of 10 must be applied to the SSTL at the end The tool kit selects the lowest SSTL for each sub- fraction for calculator – possibility of mixing SSTLs that need AF of 10 with those that don’t 9

Q2 –Modeling different pathways 10 Best Practice: –Run each pathway separately Indoor Air (x 10) Dermal Contact and Soil Ingestion Groundwater Ingestion –Run TEX separately from TPH Might seem like a lot of runs for some sites, but it will greatly reduce the chance of error

Q3 – Minimum Requirements for AF=10? Same as basic requirements for using model –Concrete floor –30 cm clean soil separation Can still adjust other building parameters as usual and apply AF=10 for BTEX/TPH 11

Q4 – How can you adjust crack fraction? Crack fraction = A cracks /A bldg Default crack fraction assumes: –Perimeter crack only –From CWS: crack width = 0.2 cm for residential, = 0.26 cm for commercial For all other openings, note dimensions, calculate area, and add to perimeter crack 12

Q5 – Adjust for dirt floor (internal purposes only) Technically: Adjust the crack fraction to 1.0 Note: Once you go beyond the range of “typical” values ( to 0.01), model may become unstable, and results may become very sensitive to other parameters 13

Q6 – Relevant Parameters for Indoor Air Pathway Does depth to contamination matter? –Depends. If diffusion through soil to foundation is dominant process, yes –If advection dominates, then SSTL is not sensitive to depth to contamination 14

Q6 – Relevant Parameters for Indoor Air Pathway Does area of contamination matter? –Area of impact on soil input parameters does not affect SSTL for indoor air pathway –Account for soil area through volume to area ratio 15

Q7 – Equation for estimating dispersivity Xu and Eckstien equation is recommended over ASTM 16

Q8 – What if you don’t know the wind direction? For air dispersion model, if you don’t know wind direction, assume receptor is directly downwind Similar recommendation for groundwater dispersion if you are uncertain about groundwater direction 17

Reminder of the Topics M1 – Introduction M2 – Overview M3 – RA Fundamentals M4 – Evaluating Exposure Pathways M5 – Fate and Transport M6 – ARBCA Model Issues M7 – Model Sensitivity M8 – Navigating the ARBCA Toolkit M9 – Version 2 User Guidance M10 – Soil Vapour & IA Monitors M11 – Atlantic Regulatory Process M12 – Final Test 18

Case Study #1 19

Case Study #1 Provided only 1 soil sample and 2 MW samples & table of site- specific conditions Assumptions: –Full site characterization has been completed –Building has no major openings in concrete floor and is at least 2 levels 20

Case Study #1 Soil Remedial Criteria (mg/kg) Benzene0.042Max < Tier I RBSL Toluene0.35Max < Tier I RBSL Ethylbenzene0.061Tier II SSTL (GW ing) Xylenes10Tier II SSTL (GW ing) Modified TPH1200Max > Tier II SSTL (IA) Groundwater Remedial Criteria (mg/L) Benzene0.005Max < Tier I RBSL Toluene0.024* GCDWQ (Max > criteria) Ethylbenzene0.0024Max < Tier I RBSL Xylenes0.3Max < Tier I RBSL Modified TPH5.9Max > Tier II SSTL (GW ing) 21

Case Study #2 22

Case Study #2 Provided limited sample results; no info on surrounding land use Assumptions: –Full site characterization has been completed –Building has no major openings in concrete floor –Surrounding land use is commercial –Mixed use on-site – residential most conservative 23

Case Study #2 – Gas/Diesel Soil Remedial Criteria (mg/kg) Benzene0.042Max (nd) < Tier I RBSL Toluene0.33Tier II SSTL (GW ing) Ethylbenzene0.061Tier II SSTL (GW ing) Xylenes10Tier II SSTL (GW ing) Modified TPH240Tier II SSTL (IA) Groundwater Remedial Criteria (mg/L) Benzene0.005* GCDWQ Toluene0.024* GCDWQ Ethylbenzene0.0024* GCDWQ Xylenes0.3* GCDWQ Modified TPH17Tier II SSTL (GW ing) 24

Case Study #2 – Weathered Diesel Soil Remedial Criteria (mg/kg) Benzene0.042Max (nd) < Tier I RBSL Toluene0.22Tier II SSTL (GW ing) Ethylbenzene0.038Tier II SSTL (GW ing) Xylenes6.4Tier II SSTL (GW ing) Modified TPH500Tier II SSTL (IA) Groundwater Remedial Criteria (mg/L) Benzene0.005* GCDWQ Toluene0.024* GCDWQ Ethylbenzene0.0024* GCDWQ Xylenes0.3* GCDWQ Modified TPH4.9Tier II SSTL (GW ing) 25

Case Study #3 26

Case Study #3 Original report and assessment dates back prior to 2003 –Did you pick up on changes between how report was RBCA was used then, versus how you did it now? –How did you address: Vapour screening? Bedrock Off-site wells? 27

Case Study #3 What assumptions did you have to make? What other information would you have liked to have? Based on your assessment, does this site require further mediation or risk management? 28

Suggestions or comments 29