Common VAP Risk Assessment Issues Certified Professional Annual Training October 2015 Mike Allen.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Spanish Royal Decree for the statement of polluted soils Real Decreto 9/2005 (B.O.E nº15, 18 of January, 2005) JRC Meeting, 3-4 February, 2005 The criteria.
Advertisements

IEC C ASE S TUDY PRESENTED BY: Mark D. Fisher, CHMM, LSRP Principal – The ELM Group, Inc.
Supporting documents Implement Work Plan Sub-Area CSM Sub-Area DQOs Sub-Area Work Plan (contains Sub-Area CSM and Sub-Area DQOs) BRC Decision 1. BRC Common.
RECAP Addressing Exposure to Multiple Constituents that Elicit Noncarcinogenic Effects on the Same Target Organ/System.
2014 Vapor Intrusion Guidance Amendments Discussion Points Waste Site Cleanup Advisory Committee Meeting May 22, 2014.
Understanding the MRBCA Program UST Program Implications Petroleum Storage Tank Insurance Fund May 2004.
Remediation Programs Update MSECA Quarterly Meeting March 13, 2012.
Voluntary Action Program – A Primer Martin Smith, Ohio EPA State and Federal Resources to Redevelop Blighted Properties Workshop.
CE 510 Hazardous Waste Engineering
Constructing Conceptual Site Model (CSM) Diagrams using the Simulation Editor EXAMPLE Constructing Conceptual Site Model (CSM) Diagrams using the Simulation.
LDEQ’s RECAP Soil Protective of Groundwater - Soil GW Soil Saturation - Soil sat.
Michael H. Dong MPH, DrPA, PhD readings Human Exposure Assessment II (8th of 10 Lectures on Toxicologic Epidemiology)
Module 8: Risk Assessment. 2 Module Objectives  Define the purpose of Superfund risk assessment  Define the four components of the human health risk.
Importance of Quality Assurance Documentation and Coordination with Your Certified Laboratory Amy Yersavich and Susan Netzly-Watkins.
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.
VAP Environmental Covenant Guidance 2015 CP Coffee - July 14, 2015 Sue Kroeger, Ohio EPA Legal Office.
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
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.
Introduction to Atlantic RBCA Version 3 Webinar May 4, 2013.
BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT OVERVIEW Dawn A. Ioven Senior Toxicologist U.S. EPA – Region III 4 April 2012.
Arsenic in the Soils, USGS.
The Radionuclides Rule Monitoring, Compliance, and Substitution.
MCP Representativeness Evaluations & Data Usability Assessments
Human Health Risk Assessment and Chemical Safety
Italy: developments in the new legislation and progress in the remediation of contaminated sites F. Quercia, APAT Tour de Table NATO CCMS Pilot Study Meeting.
Italy: the new legislation on the remediation of contaminated sites F. Quercia, APAT Tour de Table NATO CCMS Pilot Study Meeting 5-7th June 2006, Athens,
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.
VI. Purpose of Water Treatment
Environmental Covenant Guidance Certified Professional Coffee April 13, 2015 Sydney Poole – DERR-VAP Sue Kroeger – Legal.
Module 6: Alternatives. 2  Module 6 contains three sections: – 6.1 Development and Screening of Alternatives – 6.2 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives.
Route of Exposure: Drinking Water. Measuring chemicals in water The concentration of chemicals in water or soil is often reported in parts or million.
Sign env. Risk Human uses What is the (weighted) extent of exceedance of a GW-QS or criteria’s value in a GWB? Further assessments verify GWB is of good.
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.
Vapor Intrusion Guidance Updates VAP CP Training October 27, 2015 Audrey Rush Ohio EPA DERR
Conceptual Site Models Purpose, Development, Content and Application CP Annual Training October 27, 2015.
Toxicology Update - Implementation of Revised Impacts Review Procedures Mike Coldiron, P.E. Air Permits Division Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
MOA-Track Updates Certified Professional Training October 27, 2015.
DOE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROGRAM WORKSHOP BIOTA PROTECTION Stephen L. Domotor (202)
Reporting and payment claims Black Sea Basin ENPI CBC Programme Training for Grant Beneficiaries and Partners Bucharest 18 June 2014 Financial Unit.
Human Health Risk Assessment and Chemical Safety Stephanie Simstad The Ohio State University Extension Clermont County AFCEE, 2002.
NFA Letter Template: Tips and Hints to Reduce Comments CP Annual Training October 27, 2015 Sydney Poole – DERR.
Who’s Risk Is It? Risk-Based Decision-Making in Indian Country Ms. Marilyn Null Deputy for Community-Based Programs U.S. Air Force.
HAPPY HALLOWEEN 2015 CERTIFIED PROFESSIONAL ANNUAL TRAINING Sue Kroeger and Sue Netzly-Watkins, Ohio EPA Opening the covenant crypt…
Ukraine Petro Nakhaba All-Ukrainian Public Organization “ Chysta Khvylya ” Deputy Head Kyiv, Ukraine Contaminated Sites Management Joint UMOE-DEPA Project.
My NFA letter Will Be Audited How is the CP Involved? VAP Annual CP Training
LDEQ RECAP.
RISK DUE TO AIR POLLUTANTS
RER/9/111: Establishing a Sustainable National Regulatory Infrastructure for Nuclear and Radiation Safety TCEU School of Drafting Regulations November.
Protection of ground water meeting UPUS Determining ground water zones – Ground water definition – Determining how many zones Examples POGWMUPUS and GW.
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.
How does the VAP handle COCs that have left the VAP Property? Certified Professional Coffee February 24, 2016 Sydney Poole DERR-VAP.
 Clean Water Act 404 permit  Ohio EPA Division of Surface Water 401 water quality certification  Ohio Revised Code 6111 – Placement of dredged materials.
OSHA A GUIDE TO THE NEGATIVE EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT.
The World of AUL Presentation by: Atul Pandey, P.E. PANDEY Environmental, LLC 2016 Ohio Brownfield Conference April 7, 2016.
Risk CHARACTERIZATION
Welcome to the World of AUL Avoiding the voidance of your CNS.
Directive 2006/118/EC Short overview
Directive 2006/118/EC Short overview
Purpose Reflect changes in scientific understanding since 1994
Area Averaging Technical Guidance Overview
Hold Your Breath—Ohio EPA’s TCE Initiative
A&WMA Regulatory Conference Symposium UST Risk Based Corrective Action
Preparing a Site Conceptual Model
Presentation transcript:

Common VAP Risk Assessment Issues Certified Professional Annual Training October 2015 Mike Allen

Today Leaching to Unrestricted Potable Use Standards (UPUS) and Multiple Chemical Adjustment (MCA) and the Rules Quick Notes – Identified Area (IA) to Exposure Unit (EU) – Applicable Standards and MCA – Conceptual Site Model (CSM): Literal to Graphic – Complete Exposure Pathway and CSM Catch as Catch Can (CACC)

Leaching to UPUS and MCA Contaminated Soil above Ground Water Meeting Unrestricted Potable Use Standards (UPUS) UPUS as defined in the VAP – Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) Appendix A, Table VI – Risk Based Standards Appendix A, Table VII Unrestricted Potable Use (UPUS) and the Protection therein.. POGWMUPUS

Leaching to UPUS ~ Determinations and Demonstrations

Leaching to UPUS ~ Demonstrations The NFA must demonstrate that UPUS will be protected, but let’s go back to what UPUS is: UPUS as defined in the VAP – Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) Appendix A, Table VI – Risk Based Standards Appendix A, Table VII … and be clear that we may need to pay attention to Rule -08 (A)(2)

Generic Numerical Standards ~ Applicability ~ Assumptions ~~ …except for… … Rule -08 (A)(2) (2) Assumptions. The following assumptions apply for all generic numerical standards except for the generic direct contact soil standards for petroleum described in paragraph (B) of this rule, direct contact soil standards for lead as described in paragraph (C)(3)(e) of this rule, the generic unrestricted potable use standards based on maximum contaminant levels or other regulatory established criteria as described in paragraph (E), …

Generic Numerical Standards ~ Applicability ~ Assumptions ~~ …except for… … Rule -08 (A)(2) Meaning that, the Ohio EPA expects the Generic Standards for Potable Use based on MCLs (Table VI) to be met without alteration. Generic Standards for Potable Use that are based on a risk (Table VII) need to be handle as a Generic Standard.

Soil Leaching to Ground Water Applicable Standards UPUSs.. MCL? Or Risk Based? Soil

Soil Leaching to Ground Water Applicable Standards Typically back calculated from the UPUS concentrations to Chemical of Concern (COC) concentrations in soil If the UPUSs are based on MCLs the MCLs are used for each COC If the UPUSs are based on a risk based concentration the risk based concentrations are adjusted to account for other risk based COCs

Quick Notes from Risk Identified Area (IA) to Exposure Unit (EU) Applicable Standards and MCA Complete Exposure Pathway and CSM Conceptual Site Model (CSM): Literal to Graphic

Identified Area (IA) to Exposure Unit (EU) EU concept is controlled in (D)(3)(b) of Rule 09 (D)(3)(b) Exposure assessment – (i) Identification receptor populations – (ii) Evaluation of exposure pathways – (iii) Quantification of chemical-specific intake – (iv) Criteria for use of property-specific data

Identified Area (IA) to Exposure Unit (EU) EU concept is controlled in (D)(3)(b)of Rule 09 (D)(3)(b) Exposure assessment – The exposure assessment must determine the reasonably anticipated magnitude, frequency, duration and routes of exposure Please look into Technical Guidance Compendium (VA ) – Difference Between Identified Areas and Exposure Units in the VAP

Identified Area (IA) to Exposure Unit (EU) More often than not, characterizing one Exposure Unit that contains three Identified Areas with one sample in each IA does not satisfy (D)(3)(b) of Rule 09, that is the determination of magnitude, frequency and duration of the exposure.

Applicable Standards (AS) and MCA

Again, lets assume that the GNSa, b, c and d = 10, 8, 3 and 2, respectively… Remember that the GNS is based on being the only COC. MCSa = 2.5, MCSb = 2, MCSc = 0.75, MCSd = 0.5 What if the respective Soil Concentrations are SCa = 0.25, SCb = 0.2, SCc = 0.05, and SCd = 1.8, We’re still good to go, right? YES.. Good to go.. But why? Applicable Standards (AS) and MCA

In the two examples what were the Applicable Standards used? The single generic standards? The single generic standards divided by four? The site wide risk goal? The soil concentrations for each COC? The soil concentrations divided by the single generic standards? Applicable Standards (AS) and MCA

Rule -07 (I)(3)(b) To verify compliance with applicable standards, the volunteer must compare the concentration of each chemical of concern determined in accordance with paragraph (F)(6) of this rule to the applicable standard identified in paragraph (F)(5) of this rule. Compliance with an applicable standard is verified if the concentration of each chemical of concern does not exceed the applicable standard. Applicable Standards (AS) and MCA

– Conceptual Site Model (CSM): Literal to Graphic – Complete Exposure Pathway and CSM Quick Notes

Questions? Please if you have questions now or particular training on VAP risk issues you’d like to have presented more formally let me know and we can do that for you. Mike Allen