Vapor Intrusion Guidance Updates VAP CP Training October 27, 2015 Audrey Rush Ohio EPA DERR

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
IEC C ASE S TUDY PRESENTED BY: Mark D. Fisher, CHMM, LSRP Principal – The ELM Group, Inc.
Advertisements

Eduardo J Salazar-Vega, MPH CPH Jan Koehn, MS CIH.
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.
U.S. EPA Region 9’s New Response Action Levels 02 October 2014 Derral Van Winkle, P.G. NAVFAC Southwest, Environmental Restoration Program Manager.
Sampling: Your data is only as good as your field technicians.
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.
Biodegradation and Natural Attenuation
Trichloroethylene (TCE) Toxicity Values Update Waste Site Cleanup Advisory Committee Meeting March 27, 2014 C. Mark Smith Ph.D., M.S. Deputy Director Office.
EBC Seminar The IAQ/Mold Assessment – Getting it Right! – Controlling Your Risk Next Speaker Rosemary McCafferty Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Importance of Quality Assurance Documentation and Coordination with Your Certified Laboratory Amy Yersavich and Susan Netzly-Watkins.
Vapor Intrusion: Investigation of Buildings Overview of the US vapour intrusion framework, empirical attenuation factors, and the conceptual understanding.
Vapor Intrusion Workgroup July 29,
Vapor Intrusion Guidance Proposed Updates
Return of DQOs - Data Interpretation and Risk Assessments Amy Yersavich, Susan Netzly-Watkins and Mike Allen.
Detect Limits as Representation for a Standard VAP Rule Discussion Dawn Busalacchi Risk Assessor, DERR, Central Office VAP Rule Discussion Dawn Busalacchi.
Common Issues for Exposure Scenarios without GNS VAP CP Summer Coffee July 14 th, 2015 Mike Allen Ohio EPA CO- Supervisor
Module 4: Getting Ready: Scoping the RI/FS. 2 Module Objectives  Explain the purpose of the scoping phase of the RI/FS  Identify existing data which.
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)
Pennsylvania Brownfields 2013 PRACTICAL APPROACH TO MANAGING THE UNCERTAINTIES OF VAPOR INTRUSION IN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS December 10, 2013 Christopher.
Overview of US EPA’s Vapor Intrusion Guidance VAP CP Summer Coffee July 14 th, 2015 Carrie Rasik Ohio EPA CO- Risk Assessor
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.
DTSC VAPOR INTRUSION GUIDANCE California Industrial Hygiene Council 16 th Annual Conference Dan Gallagher Department of Toxic Substances Control California.
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.
GeoSyntec Future Directions for Assessing Vapor Intrusion by Todd McAlary, GeoSyntec Consultants, Inc. AEHS VI Workshop October 19, 2004.
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,
Contaminated land: dealing with hydrocarbon contamination Assessing risks to other receptors.
Discerning Background Sources from Vapor Intrusion Jeffrey Kurtz, Ph.D. and David Folkes, PE EnviroGroup Limited Denver Boston Albuquerque Seattle Colorado.
Modeling Vapor Attenuation Workshop A Study of Vapor Intrusion Modeling in the Context of EPA’s Guidance USEPA’s (OSWER) Nov Draft Guidance for Evaluating.
The Ira A. Fulton School of EngineeringArizona State University Paul Johnson, Ph.D. Lilian Abreu Ph.D. Candidate Department of Civil and Environmental.
Voluntary Action Program Updates Certified Professional Coffee July 14, 2015.
VI Draft Guidance: Overview of Comments to November, 2002 OSWER VI Guidance Michael Sowinski DPRA, Inc.
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.
Carousel Tract Environmental Remediation Project Update by Expert Panel to Regional Board July 11, 2013.
Preparing a Site Conceptual Model. Typical Site Management Problems: Site complexities  Complicated hydrogeology  Multiple contaminants of concern (COCs)
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.
1 Setting Action Levels and Controlling exposure with Air Monitoring A review...
Conceptual Site Models Purpose, Development, Content and Application CP Annual Training October 27, 2015.
Common VAP Risk Assessment Issues Certified Professional Annual Training October 2015 Mike Allen.
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.
Charge Questions for Expert Panel Modeling Vapor Attenuation Workshop Annual International Conference on Soils, Sediments, and Water October 19, 2004 Amherst,
SABR Updates Amy Yersavich, Ohio EPA VAP Certified Professional Annual Training October 27, 2015.
Forging Partnerships on Emerging Contaminants November 2, 2005 Elizabeth Southerland Director of Assessment & Remediation Division Office of Superfund.
Evaluation of Methane Pathway, Risk and Control Rafat Abbasi, P.E., Senior Project Manager Brownfields and Environmental Restoration Program Department.
By Ben Bentkowski, P.G. Scientific Support Section, R4 Superfund Presented at the March 29, 2016 Air & Waste Management Association Regulatory Update Conference.
Vapor Intrusion How good are my Data? Will Elcoate Alpha Analytical Ohio Brownfield Conference 2016 April 7th at Hilton Columbus/Polaris.
Building Trust. Engineering Success. Real-time Vapor Intrusion Investigations in Industrial Buildings Using Portable GC-MS Presented by: Paul Gallagher,
The World of AUL Presentation by: Atul Pandey, P.E. PANDEY Environmental, LLC 2016 Ohio Brownfield Conference April 7, 2016.
Risk CHARACTERIZATION
By Robin V. Davis, P.G., Project Manager, retired Utah Department of Environmental Quality Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Welcome to the World of AUL Avoiding the voidance of your CNS.
GSI ENVIRONMENTAL INC. Houston, Texas (713) Workshop 1: Assessment and Evaluation of Vapor Intrusion at Petroleum.
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
At facilities with subsurface contamination, what other chemicals may your workers be breathing? Matt Raithel.
Connecticut Remediation Standard Regulations: Volatilization Criteria
Hold Your Breath—Ohio EPA’s TCE Initiative
Radon Vapor Intrusion Screening Level Calculator
A&WMA Regulatory Conference Symposium UST Risk Based Corrective Action
Chemical Metals Industries, Inc. (CMI)
Presentation transcript:

Vapor Intrusion Guidance Updates VAP CP Training October 27, 2015 Audrey Rush Ohio EPA DERR

US EPA’s Vapor Intrusion Guidance OSWER Technical Guide for Assessing and Mitigating the Vapor Intrusion Pathway from Subsurface Vapor Sources to Indoor Air, June 2015 – Final Guidance VI and Petroleum Vapor Intrusion (PVI) companion document supersede and replace the Draft VI Guidance

US EPA’s Vapor Intrusion Guidance Intended for use at any site and any building or structure on a site being evaluated under – CERCLA – RCRA corrective action – EPA’s brownfield grantees

Vapor Intrusion is… The migration of volatile chemicals from the subsurface into overlying buildings. Dissolved contamination LTLT Diffusion Vadose zone Building zone of influence Wind effects Enclosed space Cracks Q soil Air streamlines Convection Top of capillary zone Water Table Stack effects Mixing in indoor air and inhalation Advection/ Convection Diffusion Phase partitioning C gw to C soil gas

Petroleum Vapor Intrusion US EPA – OUST– June 2015 US EPA – approach to VI from CHCs is inappropriate and “overly conservative” for addressing VI from PHCs under aerobic conditions. LNAPL floats PHCs biodegrade rapidly under aerobic conditions. – If complete, water and carbon dioxide. – If incomplete - intermediate degradation products usually less toxic than the parent PHCs.

Inclusion (or Exclusion) Zones for PVI shorter lateral and vertical distances for further sampling

Key Recommendations CSM, DQOs and Work plan Limit analysis to compounds of concern in subsurface and indoor air Assess VI using multiple lines of evidence Generally supports direct collection of indoor air If risk conclusion is that indoor air meets risk goals when known subsurface source exists, multiple rounds of data are preferred (reduce Type II error)

Key Recommendations Select sampling and analytical methods capable of detecting COCs less than risk-based levels – Consider variability in lab analysis – include duplicates Collect ground water samples from wells screened across the top of the water table Consider seasonal and building/receptor-specific sampling strategy to capture RME concentrations

VI Key Recommendations Consider background Identify conditions that warrant prompt action – Explosive or short-term hazards Modeling is most appropriately used in conjunction with other lines of evidence – Confirm reliability of results Mitigation

Compounds of VI concern Guidance# COCsVolatilityToxicity HLC>1E-05VP>1MW<200toxic?route to route USEPA 2002 and Ohio EPA x "exceed risk"yes VAP generic stds 82x, AND xRfC, IURno 2015 US EPA, VISL depends on scenario x, ORx pure source vapor>risk goals no

For VAP COC List Recommendation: – Release History (Phase I) – Use VISL for front line COC list – Pathway analysis, including preferential pathways (current and reasonably anticipated) – Justify eliminating further assessment in Voluntary Action Documents

CSM, DQOs, and Work plan CSM – update as information becomes available – Consider “worst first” approach – Preferential pathways – Utilize exclusion distances (100 feet laterally (two houses) or vertically from ‘boundary’ of subsurface vapor concentrations of potential concern) Boundary is defined in US EPA guidance as VISL level No preferential pathways, significant soil cover absent Diffusion driven (not advective)

Sampling Considerations Ground water – Screen across the top of gw zone – Capture temporal differences – Appropriate statistical representation Exterior Soil Gas – Near source less variable, provides info on ‘potential’ – Collect as close to receptor as possible, preferably subslab – Beware of the advective envelope – Leak testing – Typically grab samples – May be variable with weather conditions (record wind speed, direction, precip, temp)

Sampling Considerations Sub-slab sampling – Typically 3 sub-slab samples at buildings < 1,500 sq ft – Include central locations – Measure pressure difference Indoor Air – Building survey – COCs, preferential pathways, HVAC – Time-integrated samples – 24 hour/6 L summa – Sorbent methods for longer term – Multiple rounds recommended – Paired with sub-slab and ambient – Useful to support mitigation/remediation systems

Applicable Standards GNS for indoor air – Tox and exposure Medium-specific “standards”? Not really – VAP standard is the exposure point concentration – indoor air! Medium-specific concentrations determined to meet the indoor air applicable standard

How to Determine? US EPA Guidance – VISL, based on AF database 2010 Ohio EPA VI Guidance – – Generic attenuation factors – J&E modeling, default inputs and/or site-specific

18

US EPA Attenuation Factors

VI Guidance - Modeling When suitably constructed, documented, and verified, mathematical models can provide an acceptable line of evidence supporting risk management decisions pertaining to vapor intrusion. In certain situations (e.g., future construction on vacant properties), it is particularly useful to employ mathematical modeling to predict reasonable max indoor air concentrations because indoor air testing is not possible.

Modeling Most appropriately used in conjunction with other lines of evidence. Calibrate, run uncertainty analysis, run with “reasonable worst case” Generally reserved for situations where observed, direct measurements cannot be obtained. Assumes factors exist that effectively attenuate

Risk Assessment and Management Framework Occupational Exposures (OSHA PELs) – enforceable occupational standards developed in 1971 using info available at that time – Intended to protect workers against catastrophic (e.g., organ damage) and subtle (e.g., sensory irritation) effects – Not intended to protect sensitive workers, tox data different – Does not apply to uncontrolled release of haz subs or petroleum Short-term or acute exposures – ATSDR (acute and minimal risk levels), PPRTVs – IRIS will work to develop expanded science policy direction to address short-term exposures Potential Explosion Hazard – chemical-specific LELs – 10% LEL in subslab, crawl space, indoors warrants prompt action

Response Actions Remediate source Engineered exposure controls Monitor to assess and verify performance and effectiveness of remedial systems and engineered exposure controls Institutional controls

Mitigation Immediate Response for Existing Buildings – Sealants – Over-pressurize with HVAC – install or maintain vapor traps for sewers and drains – Increase building ventilation Active Depressurization

Mitigation System Monitoring Generally two phases: – Initial post-construction (more intensive) – Subsequent to operation (periodic) Indoor air – direct measurement recommended Pressure field measurement across subslab used to demonstrate the system has attained hydraulic control and communication over building footprint or source area.

Thank You