DTSC VAPOR INTRUSION GUIDANCE California Industrial Hygiene Council 16 th Annual Conference Dan Gallagher Department of Toxic Substances Control California.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Vapor Study Informational Meeting General Mills/Henkel Corp. Superfund Site Van Cleve Recreation Center November 12, 2013 Minnesota Department of Health.
Advertisements

VAPOR INTRUSION: AN INTRODUCTION OHIO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE JENNIFER MILLER NOVEMBER 7, 2012.
Case Study of Subsurface Vapor Intrusion at a Dry Cleaner Site Amy Goldberg Day AEHS Annual East Coast Conference on Soils, Sediments.
Learning from the States… Commonwealth of Massachusetts
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.
Vapor Intrusion: When to Worry? NAREIM National Assn of Real Estate Investment Managers Las Colinas, TX September 26, 2012 Beverlee E. Silva, Esq. Alston.
© 2011 COLUMBIA Technologies. Use of MiHpt Systems to Improve Project Outcomes Rapid, Real-Time High Resolution Site Characterization © 2013 COLUMBIA Technologies.
 Site Assessment and Mitigation Program Department of Environmental Health – County of San Diego.
Part III Solid Waste Engineering
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.
Further Site Investigation Sutton Walls Former Landfill
Dale T Littlejohn Senior Geologist. What is fate and transport in the vadose zone? Vadose Zone Hydrocarbon release from buried pipeline Aquifer Surface.
“GAS MART” petroleum facility in Florida By: Ernest Twum-Barimah Zhengzhong Fang (John) Zhengzhong Fang (John)
Environmental Investigation by Con Edison Former E115th Street Gas Works November 13, 2007.
Environmental Issues for Rural Communities STATE FUNDING AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT Sandy Karinen Cal/EPA Department of Toxic Substances Control Site Mitigation.
EBC Seminar The IAQ/Mold Assessment – Getting it Right! – Controlling Your Risk Next Speaker Rosemary McCafferty Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Fate and Transport of Chemicals A Presentation by Terrie Boguski Technical Outreach Services for Communities (TOSC) Great Plains/Rocky Mountain Hazardous.
EnviroSense, Inc. An Overview of Environmental Factors in Developing Brownfields Sites in Massachusetts Presented By: Eric S. Wood, P.Hg., PG, LSP President.
Vapor Intrusion Guidance Proposed Updates
Vapor Intrusion Evaluation Strategy and Modeling Developments
Revised TCE Fact Sheet (a.k.a. “Status Update”) Q&A’s & Template IH Notice Form March 27, 2014 Paul W. Locke MassDEP Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup (617)
Overview of US EPA’s Vapor Intrusion Guidance VAP CP Summer Coffee July 14 th, 2015 Carrie Rasik Ohio EPA CO- Risk Assessor
Of Massachusetts Department ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Soil Vapor Intrusion... A Decade of Regulatory Requirements & Experiences Paul W. Locke MA DEP Bureau.
Overview of USGS Groundwater Quality Assessment Activities and Related Data in Alabama 2011 Alabama Water Resources Conference September 9, 2011, Perdido.
Gradient CORPORATION Vapor Intrusion Attenuation Factors (AFs) – Measured vs. EPA Defaults A Case Study Presented by Manu Sharma and Jennifer DeAscentis.
COMMITMENT & INTEGRITY DRIVE RESULTS WAITING TO EXHALE – OR HOW TO MANUEVER THROUGH THE INDOOR AIR MAZE Vapor Intrusion Pathway By: Lisa Campe, MPH, LSP.
Predicting Vapor Intrusion Risks in the Presence of Soil Heterogeneities and Anthropogenic Preferential Pathways Brown University Ozgur Bozkurt, Kelly.
Vapor Intrusion and Environmental Liability Learning From Past Mistakes EDR Insight Webinar, February 12, 2013 Presented by: Joseph Maternowski Hessian.
Modeling Vapor Attenuation Workshop A Study of Vapor Intrusion Modeling in the Context of EPA’s Guidance The 20 th Annual International Conference on Soils,
Overview of Regulatory Changes, Policy and Implementation Colleen Brisnehan Colorado Department of Public Health And Environment Hazardous Materials and.
COMMITMENT & INTEGRITY DRIVE RESULTS Risk Based Corrective Action Using site-specific risk assessment to achieve Regulatory Closure.
Fort Ord, Monterey County, California History and Closure of a Landfill on a former Military Installation and Current Superfund Site Derek S. Lieberman,
Contaminated Soil Monitoring Pornsri Suthanaruk, Ph.D Pollution Control Department (PCD) Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Thailand Workshop.
The Ira A. Fulton School of EngineeringArizona State University Paul Johnson, Ph.D. Lilian Abreu Ph.D. Candidate Department of Civil and Environmental.
History and Cleanup at Chemical Commodities, Inc. Jeff Field US EPA Region 7 1.
Fairbanks Areawide Industrial Reclamation Project ADEC AREAWIDE MANAGEMENT GOALS Janice Wiegers ADEC.
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.
USEPA Region 2 Vapor Intrusion Study Cayuga Groundwater Contamination Site March 4, 2009.
Former DuPont Barksdale Works Project Update May 19, 2004 DuPont Corporate Remediation Group Great Lakes Visitors Center.
Review of Current Conditions Report and Work Plan for Area 1 Presented by The Great Plains/Rocky Mountain Technical Outreach Services for Communities.
1 LOCKFORMER ELECTRIC RESISTIVE HEATING CASE STUDY U.S. EPA Emergency Response Branch Steve Faryan, On-Scene Coordinator ,
Area I Burn Pit Santa Susana Field Laboratory RCRA Facility Investigation Work Plan February 19, 2008 Laura Rainey, P.G. Senior Engineering Geologist California.
Working With Simple Models to Predict Contaminant Migration Matt Small U.S. EPA, Region 9, Underground Storage Tanks Program Office.
Corrective Action Program: Working with Your Local Agency to Solve Local Problems James Clay County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health Site.
NFA Letter Template: Tips and Hints to Reduce Comments CP Annual Training October 27, 2015 Sydney Poole – DERR.
Evaluating the Practicality of LNAPL Recovery Jeff Lane, P.G. November 17, 2015 International Petroleum Environmental Conference (IPEC) IPEC 22 Contact.
Environmental Considerations prior to purchasing Properties Sabine E. Martin, Ph.D., P.G. Center for Hazardous Substance Research Kansas State University.
Charge Questions for Expert Panel Modeling Vapor Attenuation Workshop Annual International Conference on Soils, Sediments, and Water October 19, 2004 Amherst,
FAIR Meeting April 6, Groundwater Results – Fall 2003 Benzene ND 1,000 ug/L Product.
Long-Term Management of Contaminated Soil and Groundwater – Iwilei District, Honolulu April 16, 2015.
Evaluation of Methane Pathway, Risk and Control Rafat Abbasi, P.E., Senior Project Manager Brownfields and Environmental Restoration Program Department.
Vapor Study Informational Meeting General Mills/Henkel Corp. Superfund Site Van Cleve Recreation Center November 12, 2013 Minnesota Department of Health.
The World of AUL Presentation by: Atul Pandey, P.E. PANDEY Environmental, LLC 2016 Ohio Brownfield Conference April 7, 2016.
The Indoor Inhalation Exposure Route Heather Nifong Illinois EPA May 5, 2008.
Risk CHARACTERIZATION
Welcome to the World of AUL Avoiding the voidance of your CNS.
What’s the Problem: The Vapor Intrusion Issue Brownfields 2008 Heavy Starch: Cleaning the Dry Cleaners Detroit, MI May 5, 2008 Presented by: Henry Schuver,
Proposed Plan for No Further Action
General Principles for Hydrocarbon Vapor Intrusion
Chemical Metals Industries, Inc. (CMI)
Sean Anderson, P.Eng., QPESA Steve Russell, B.Sc., QPRA
Jay Peters Gina M. Plantz Richard J. Rago
Using the HAPSITE® as a Vapor Intrusion Investigation Tool
At facilities with subsurface contamination, what other chemicals may your workers be breathing? Matt Raithel.
Hold Your Breath—Ohio EPA’s TCE Initiative
A&WMA Regulatory Conference Symposium UST Risk Based Corrective Action
Chemical Metals Industries, Inc. (CMI)
Presentation transcript:

DTSC VAPOR INTRUSION GUIDANCE California Industrial Hygiene Council 16 th Annual Conference Dan Gallagher Department of Toxic Substances Control California Environmental Protection Agency December 5, 2006

Vapor Intrusion – Conceptual Model VOC SOURCE Diffusion And Advection Stack Effects (heating and air conditioning) cracks Barometric Pressure Wind Temperature

Vapor Intrusion Guidance Document Step 1: Identification of a Spill or Release –Knowledge of site history, and past and present industrial practices Step 2: Site Characterization –Site inspection (receptors and buildings) –Three dimensional definition of contamination Guidance is Presented as a Series of Steps

Plume Characterization Hierarchy of Sampling for the Evaluation of Vapor Intrusion 1.Soil Gas 2.Groundwater 3.Soil Matrix (Method 5035) 4.Flux Chambers

Screening Sites with Groundwater Groundwater monitoring wells must be screened properly

Flux Chambers Taken From LUSTLine Bulletin 44

Flux Chambers

Vapor Intrusion Guidance Document Step 3: Is the Site a Candidate for Vapor Intrusion? - Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) at the site (list provided in the guidance)? - Are buildings located near the VOCs (100 lateral feet)?

Vapor Intrusion Guidance Document Step 4: If Pathway is Complete, Evaluate Imminent Hazard –Receptor symptoms –Odors –Wet basements –Evaluate for fire and explosive conditions

Vapor Intrusion Guidance Document Step 5: Conduct Preliminary Screening for the Building –Senate Bill 32 required the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) to develop screening numbers for vapor intrusion –OEHHA screening numbers can be used to “estimate the degree of effort” for site cleanup but the numbers are risk-based –Cal-EPA published a user’s guide for the screening numbers (

OEHHA generated soil screening levels in 2005 for seventeen volatile chemicals pursuant to SB 32 Chemical Protective Soil Gas Concentration (Residential) Benzene0.04 ug/L Trichloroethylene (TCE)0.5 ug/L Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)0.2 ug/L Vinyl Chloride0.01 ug/L EXAMPLE OF SOIL GAS CHHSLs California Human Health Screening Levels (CHHSLs)

Vapor Intrusion Guidance Document Step 6: Collect Additional Field Data –Collect air samples from crawl spaces –Collect soil gas samples directly under the building foundation (subslab) –Measure the physical properties of the soil, such as: porosity air permeability moisture content bulk density

Vapor Intrusion Guidance Document Step 7: Conduct a Site-Specific Modeling Evaluation for the Building –Use the Johnson and Ettinger Model (JEM) –Use site-specific geotechnical and building input parameters for modeling

Vapor Intrusion Guidance Document Step 8 and 9: Building Pathway Evaluation and Indoor Air Sampling –Building occupancy survey –Identify sources of indoor contamination with field analytical equipment –Sample indoor air twice over a year to evaluate human exposure using TO-14A / TO-15 [SIM]

Indoor Air Sampling Results (minimum of 2 sampling events needed) ResponseActivities Risk: <10 -6 HQ: <1.0 Minimal Determine that the soil gas plume is stable Risk: HQ: 1.0 – 3.0 Monitoring Install and sample subslab and/or vadose zone monitoring probes Risk: >10 -4 HQ: >3.0 Mitigation Institute engineering controls and continue indoor air sampling Vapor Intrusion Guidance Document Step 10: Evaluation of Indoor Air Data

Vapor Intrusion Guidance Document Step 11: Mitigate Indoor Air Exposure –Remediate the subsurface contamination –Land use covenants to restrict property use –Engineering controls to eliminate exposure Long-term monitoring may be required

Land Use Covenants (LUCs) Title 22 CCR Section –LUC must be used when contamination exceeds residential standards –LUC is executed by DTSC and owner and should run with the land –Response action is not complete until LUC is signed and recorded at the county –Owners, operators, and proponents pay all cost associated with administration, including DTSC time

Land Use Covenants (LUCs) Protect Public from Unsafe Exposure –Identification of responsible party –Restrict building locations –Barriers and vent systems –Soil management plan –Monitoring and associated reporting –DTSC inspections (cost reimbursement)

CASE STUDY Chemical Distribution Center in Los Angeles

Definition of Attenuation Factor For reference, the OEHHA attenuation factor for existing residential structures is (CHHSLs)

Chemical Distribution Center 100 FEET UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS HAZARDOUS WASTE STORAGE AREA ABOVEGROUND STORAGE TANKS

TETRACHLOROETHYLENE (PCE) SOIL GAS CONCENTRATIONS: 5 FEET BELOW SURFACE Shallow Soil Gas Plume 200 FEET

PROTECTIVE SOIL GAS CONCENTATIONS PCE Soil Gas Concentration at Nearest Residence = 48 ug/L Residential CHHSL for Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) is 0.2 ug/L PRELIMINARY SCREENING

Nearest Residential Structure

MedianConservative Total Porosity Water-Filled Porosity Permeability (cm 2 )5.8 x x MedianConservative Attenuation Factor (Modeling) PCE Cancer Risk1 x x Predicted PCE Indoors (ug/L) FATE AND TRANSPORT MODELING 13 Laboratory Geotechnical Measurements: feet below grade PCE Risk for nearest residence (PCE soil gas = 48 ug/L)

ug/L Residential CHHSL (PCE)0.2 Site-Specific Screening Value (PCE)0.8 – 5.0 PROTECTIVE SOIL GAS CONCENTATIONS PCE soil gas concentration at nearest residence = 48 ug/L

Homes Subject to Indoor Air Testing September 2004 Conducted by USEPA Declined

Indoor and Outdoor Sampling Results (2004) OEHHA Value for PCE in Indoor Air = ug/L (risk = )

Homes Subject to Vapor Intrusion Indoor air in homes that tested positive for 1,1-DCE Not Tested

Response Action DTSC Vapor Intrusion Guidance Document Indoor Air Sampling Results (minimum of 2 sampling events needed) ResponseActivities Risk: <10 -6 HQ: <1.0 Minimal Determine that the soil gas plume is stable Risk: HQ: 1.0 – 3.0 Monitoring Install and sample subslab and/or vadose zone monitoring probes Risk: >10 -4 HQ: >3.0 Mitigation Institute engineering controls and continue indoor air sampling

SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION WELLS

Vapor Extraction Carbon Canisters

0’ 10’ 40’ 50’ 85’ CONCEPTUAL CROSS SECTION EXTRACTION WELLSOBSERVATION WELLS ROI = +250 feet ROI = 150 feet NO VACUUM RESPONSE CLAY SILTY SAND SAND SILTY CLAY WAREHOUSE GROUNDWATER

OFF-SITE VAPOR MONITORING WELLS Vapor Extraction Started in May 2005 Offsite Concentration Response in the Silty Clay

Indoor Air Sampling 11/05

Outdoor Air Sampling 11/05

Indoor and Outdoor Sampling Results (2005) OEHHA Value for PCE in Indoor Air = ug/L (risk = )