© 2012 Environmental Data Resources, Inc.
Presented by:
• David Gillay, Barnes & Thornburg LLP
• Dr. Blayne Hartman, Hartm...
CONFIDENTIAL © 2013 Barnes & Thornburg LLP. All Rights Reserved. This page, and all information on it, is confidential, pr...
ATLANTA CHICAGO DELAWARE INDIANA LOS ANGELES MICHIGAN MINNEAPOLIS OHIO WASHINGTON, DC
CONFIDENTIAL © 2013 Barnes & Thornbu...
ATLANTA CHICAGO DELAWARE INDIANA LOS ANGELES MICHIGAN MINNEAPOLIS OHIO WASHINGTON, DC
CONFIDENTIAL © 2013 Barnes & Thornbu...
ATLANTA CHICAGO DELAWARE INDIANA LOS ANGELES MICHIGAN MINNEAPOLIS OHIO WASHINGTON, DC
CONFIDENTIAL © 2013 Barnes & Thornbu...
ATLANTA CHICAGO DELAWARE INDIANA LOS ANGELES MICHIGAN MINNEAPOLIS OHIO WASHINGTON, DC
CONFIDENTIAL © 2013 Barnes & Thornbu...
ATLANTA CHICAGO DELAWARE INDIANA LOS ANGELES MICHIGAN MINNEAPOLIS OHIO WASHINGTON, DC
CONFIDENTIAL © 2013 Barnes & Thornbu...
ATLANTA CHICAGO DELAWARE INDIANA LOS ANGELES MICHIGAN MINNEAPOLIS OHIO WASHINGTON, DC
CONFIDENTIAL © 2013 Barnes & Thornbu...
ATLANTA CHICAGO DELAWARE INDIANA LOS ANGELES MICHIGAN MINNEAPOLIS OHIO WASHINGTON, DC
CONFIDENTIAL © 2013 Barnes & Thornbu...
ATLANTA CHICAGO DELAWARE INDIANA LOS ANGELES MICHIGAN MINNEAPOLIS OHIO WASHINGTON, DC
CONFIDENTIAL © 2013 Barnes & Thornbu...
ATLANTA CHICAGO DELAWARE INDIANA LOS ANGELES MICHIGAN MINNEAPOLIS OHIO WASHINGTON, DC
CONFIDENTIAL © 2013 Barnes & Thornbu...
ATLANTA CHICAGO DELAWARE INDIANA LOS ANGELES MICHIGAN MINNEAPOLIS OHIO WASHINGTON, DC
CONFIDENTIAL © 2013 Barnes & Thornbu...
ATLANTA CHICAGO DELAWARE INDIANA LOS ANGELES MICHIGAN MINNEAPOLIS OHIO WASHINGTON, DC
CONFIDENTIAL © 2013 Barnes & Thornbu...
ATLANTA CHICAGO DELAWARE INDIANA LOS ANGELES MICHIGAN MINNEAPOLIS OHIO WASHINGTON, DC
CONFIDENTIAL © 2013 Barnes & Thornbu...
ATLANTA CHICAGO DELAWARE INDIANA LOS ANGELES MICHIGAN MINNEAPOLIS OHIO WASHINGTON, DC
CONFIDENTIAL © 2013 Barnes & Thornbu...
ATLANTA CHICAGO DELAWARE INDIANA LOS ANGELES MICHIGAN MINNEAPOLIS OHIO WASHINGTON, DC
CONFIDENTIAL © 2013 Barnes & Thornbu...
Vapor Intrusion Risk Pathway:
A Survival Guide
Blayne Hartman
Hartman Environmental Geoscience
858-204-6170
blayne@hartman...
Potential Risk of VI Sites
yesno
no yes
Start
Petroleum Site?
Whew!
Gulp!
TCE Site?
Ouch
EPA Guidance Updates
(Release Date: 2014?)
• EPA (OSWER & Superfund)
– Preference for sub-slab & indoor air
– Preference f...
EPA Guidance Updates
(Release Date: 2014?)
• EPA-OUST: Guidance for HCs
– Exclusion criteria? Yay!
– Testing/Adoption of B...
Allowable Benzene in GW
1e-6 risk
• New OSWER Guidance:
0.31 ug/m3/0.001 = 0.31 ug/L/0.2 = 1.5 ug/L
• EPA-OUST Exclusion V...
ITRC PVI GUIDANCE
(Due out early 2014)
1. Introduction
2. Types of PVI Sites
3. Conceptual Site Model
4. Basic Investigati...
New TCE Standard
(As of October 2011)
• Residential (1e-6 cancer risk)
– Indoor Air cancer: 0.43 ug/m3 (down from 1.2 ug/m...
New PCE Standard
(As of March 2012)
• Residential (1e-6)
– Indoor Air cancer: 9.4 ug/m3 (up from 0.41 ~22x !!)
– Indoor Ai...
Methods to Assess VI
• Indoor Air Sampling
• Groundwater Sampling
• Soil Phase Sampling
• Predictive Modeling
• Measure Fl...
Ingredients for Effective
VI Assessments
• Investigatory Approach
• Determine Correct Screening Levels
• Sample & Analyze ...
The Most Important Ingredient
• Experience:
– Consultant
– Collector – done soil gas before?
– Lab – certified for methods...
O2=7.5%
Most Common VI Bloopers
• Unit Confusion
– Assuming ug/L equivalent to ppbv
– Assuming ug/m3 equivalent to ppbv
• Screenin...
Units: ppmv
Indoor air SLs
SG
Samples
These values brought up into this table
Approach Generalizations
• Indoor Air
– Always find something
– Multiple sampling rounds:
• Groundwater Data
– Typically o...
Indoor Air Measurement
• Pros:
– Actual Indoor Concentration
• Cons:
– Where From?
–Inside sources (smoke, cleaners)
–Outs...
Gun Cleaner:
TCE
Pepper
Spray:
TCE
But We Don’t Use “CHLORINATED”
Chemicals Anymore…...
Brake Cleaner:
TCE/PCE Hobby Glue:...
Bloonies
35
Bloonies‟ Goodies
36
750 ngBenzene
Toluene 2744 ng
Bloonies – Party Time!
37
Ethanol: 207,000 ng !!!
Cleaning Your Dishes?
(or Polluting Your House)
Dawn VOC Analysis Results
1,4-Dioxane 2100
Naphthalene 31
No Wonder She‟s Smiling When
Doing Dishes
Ethanol 600000
Benzene 19
Got Natural Gas?
Which Soil Gas Method?
• Active?
• Passive? (limited use)
• Flux Chambers? (limited use)
Active method most often employed...
Probe Considerations
• Tubing Type
– Rigid wall tubing ok (nylon, teflon, SS)
– Flexible tubing not (tygon, hardware store...
Soil Gas Sampling Issues
• Sample Size
– Greater the volume, greater the uncertainty
– Smaller volumes faster & easier to ...
Canisters vs Tubes
Beware of the Hardware
Supplemental Tools/Data
• Site Specific Alpha Using Radon
– Factor of 10 to 100. $100/sample
• Indoor Air Ventilation Rate...
On-site TO-14 (8021)
• Small Footprint GC (Flies free on SW)
• Fast Start-up (~45 min)
• 5 minute run time for TCE & PCE
•...
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650
SSP-2 PCE
PC
12/...
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
Conc(ug/m3)
Run Number
PCE - 420 1st Floor Air
...
Continuous Monitoring – PCE in Indoor Air
12/2012 3/20131/2013 2/2013
0.28
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9....
Previews of the VI Future
• VI Likely to be a Concern at Your Sites
• Variable Regulatory Guidance Makes
Assessment Tricky...
VI Documents
• Overview of SV Methods (www.handpmg.com)
– LustLine Part 1 - Active Soil Gas Method, 2002
– LustLine Part 2...
Existing Documents & Training
• Soil Gas Sampling SOPs
– Soil Gas Sampling, Sub-slab Sampling, Vapor
Monitoring Wells/Impl...
VI Websites & Links
• www.handpmg.com
– Soil Gas Information
– Other Site Assessment Methods
• www.itrcweb.org
• www.api.o...
Blayne Hartman, Ph.D.
858-204-6170
blayne@hartmaneg.com
Mitigation for Environmental
Vapor Intrusion
Issues
www.terravapor.com
Email: info@terravapor.com
Phone: 877-399-4190
Case Study #1
• Bloomington 1 (Sub-Slab Depressurization (SSDS))
– 6,500 SqFt. footprint with two stories
– Former dry cle...
SSDS Theory - Slab on Grade
System Layout
System Install
Case Study #2
• Bloomington 2 (Modified Ventilation)
– 2,800 SqFt. footprint with three stories (inc.
basement) Top floor ...
HRV/ERV
HRV/ERV - Heat
Recovery Ventilators
/ Energy Recovery
Ventilators
• Typical Application
– very low
concentrations ...
Typical HRV/ERV Theory
Pilot Study – HRV/ERV &
Building Pressurization
• Blower Door Test
– Must find air exchanges per hour (ACH)
– HRV/ERV is l...
Building Pressurization Theory
Modified HRV/ERV Theory
Case Study #3
• Indianapolis Residential (SSDS and Sub-
Membrane Depressurization (SMDS))
– EPA Superfund site with upward...
Photos of SSDS
Photos of SMDS
Key Lessons Learned
• Many different approaches to deal with a
vapor intrusion issue
• Each building is different
– Assump...
Keep Vapor from Killing Deals
Proper Mitigation + Monitoring = Corrected
Vapor Intrusion Issue
• Quickly installing a prop...
System Installed… Now what?
• Once a mitigation system has been
installed on a structure:
– How do I prove to all stakehol...
EPA Draft OSWER Guidance
• Multiple mentions of follow up
monitoring of installed mitigation
systems.
• Opportunity to avo...
Key OSWER Concepts
• Routine inspection of all visible
components of the VI mitigation system
including fans, piping, seal...
Key OSWER Concepts
• Confirmation that the extraction fan is
operating.
• Confirmation of adequate operation of the
warnin...
Key OSWER Concepts
• EPA recommends that the system failure
warning devices or alarms be installed on
active depressurizat...
Comparison of Traditional vs.
Alternative Monitoring
• Traditional system monitoring relies on site
visits and informed bu...
Comparison of Traditional vs.
Alternative Monitoring
Traditional Alternative
Pressure gauge readings Onsite visit Real tim...
info@terravapor.com
www.terravapor.com
877-399-4190
© 2012 Environmental Data Resources, Inc.
Q&A
Sorting Out the Implications of U.S. EPA VI Guidance
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Sorting Out the Implications of U.S. EPA VI Guidance

618

Published on

EDR-hosted web seminar presented by David Gillay (Barnes & Thornburg LLP), Dr. Blayne Hartman (Hartman Environmental Geosciences), Brad Willy (Terra Vapor), & Craig Brown (Terra Vapor)

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
618
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
13
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • EPA-OUST guidance proposed exclusion criteria for UST sites.
  • ITRC has convened a new technical workgroup to write guidance specifically for petroleum hydrocarbon sites.
  • 7.5% oxygen in a working office space?? The lab says the analysis was confirmed as correct. How can this be?
  • Sub-slab soil gas data collected at another sub-slab location by a continuous analyzer shows little variation in values over 3 months from December 2012 to March 2013. The red bands show a bout 1-day of time. Observed variations are small and occur over long time frames weeks to months, not over short time frames (days). This means that grab samples are suitable for sub-slab samples. There is no advantage to 8-hr or 24-hr time period samples.
  • Sorting Out the Implications of U.S. EPA VI Guidance

    1. 1. © 2012 Environmental Data Resources, Inc. Presented by: • David Gillay, Barnes & Thornburg LLP • Dr. Blayne Hartman, Hartman Environmental Geosciences • Brad Willy, Terra Vapor • Craig Brown, Terra Vapor Sorting Out the Implications of U.S. EPA VI Guidance
    2. 2. CONFIDENTIAL © 2013 Barnes & Thornburg LLP. All Rights Reserved. This page, and all information on it, is confidential, proprietary and the property of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, which may not be disseminated or disclosed to any person or entity other than the intended recipient(s), and may not be reproduced, in any form, without the express written consent of the author or presenter. The information on this page is intended for informational purposes only and shall not be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion of Barnes & Thornburg LLP. ATLANTA CHICAGO DELAWARE INDIANA LOS ANGELES MICHIGAN MINNEAPOLIS OHIO WASHINGTON, DC EDR National Webinar: Sorting Out the Implications of EPA VI Guidance – Hot Button Issues & Legal Solutions David R. Gillay, Esq. Chair, Brownfields & Environmental Transactional Diligence August 6, 2013
    3. 3. ATLANTA CHICAGO DELAWARE INDIANA LOS ANGELES MICHIGAN MINNEAPOLIS OHIO WASHINGTON, DC CONFIDENTIAL © 2013 Barnes & Thornburg LLP. All Rights Reserved. This page, and all information on it, is confidential, proprietary and the property of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, which may not be disseminated or disclosed to any person or entity other than the intended recipient(s), and may not be reproduced, in any form, without the express written consent of the author or presenter. The information on this page is intended for informational purposes only and shall not be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion of Barnes & Thornburg LLP. Overview • Setting the Stage • Hot Button Issues (& suggested solutions/strategies) • Implications of draft EPA VI guides on DD • States Reactions • Next Steps
    4. 4. ATLANTA CHICAGO DELAWARE INDIANA LOS ANGELES MICHIGAN MINNEAPOLIS OHIO WASHINGTON, DC CONFIDENTIAL © 2013 Barnes & Thornburg LLP. All Rights Reserved. This page, and all information on it, is confidential, proprietary and the property of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, which may not be disseminated or disclosed to any person or entity other than the intended recipient(s), and may not be reproduced, in any form, without the express written consent of the author or presenter. The information on this page is intended for informational purposes only and shall not be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion of Barnes & Thornburg LLP. Vapor Intrusion • Condensed history of EPA VI guidance …no longer can VI be ignored, delayed, down played. • Vapor intrusion (VI) generally occurs when there is a migration of volatile chemicals from contaminant sources into an overlying building. – Volatile chemicals can emit vapors that may migrate through subsurface soils and into indoor air spaces of overlying buildings in ways similar to that of radon gas seeping into homes.
    5. 5. ATLANTA CHICAGO DELAWARE INDIANA LOS ANGELES MICHIGAN MINNEAPOLIS OHIO WASHINGTON, DC CONFIDENTIAL © 2013 Barnes & Thornburg LLP. All Rights Reserved. This page, and all information on it, is confidential, proprietary and the property of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, which may not be disseminated or disclosed to any person or entity other than the intended recipient(s), and may not be reproduced, in any form, without the express written consent of the author or presenter. The information on this page is intended for informational purposes only and shall not be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion of Barnes & Thornburg LLP. Vapor Intrusion
    6. 6. ATLANTA CHICAGO DELAWARE INDIANA LOS ANGELES MICHIGAN MINNEAPOLIS OHIO WASHINGTON, DC CONFIDENTIAL © 2013 Barnes & Thornburg LLP. All Rights Reserved. This page, and all information on it, is confidential, proprietary and the property of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, which may not be disseminated or disclosed to any person or entity other than the intended recipient(s), and may not be reproduced, in any form, without the express written consent of the author or presenter. The information on this page is intended for informational purposes only and shall not be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion of Barnes & Thornburg LLP. Hot Button Issues • More (all?) Sites with VOCs will likely “screen in” • Less (no?) default/easy Exit Ramps • Overly conservative screening levels (layer after layer … – EPA acknowledges and takes big step. See Section 7.4. – What about OSHA PELs? – TCE RfC (non-cancer endpoint) is driving Risk • Attenuation issues – non-residential scenarios?
    7. 7. ATLANTA CHICAGO DELAWARE INDIANA LOS ANGELES MICHIGAN MINNEAPOLIS OHIO WASHINGTON, DC CONFIDENTIAL © 2013 Barnes & Thornburg LLP. All Rights Reserved. This page, and all information on it, is confidential, proprietary and the property of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, which may not be disseminated or disclosed to any person or entity other than the intended recipient(s), and may not be reproduced, in any form, without the express written consent of the author or presenter. The information on this page is intended for informational purposes only and shall not be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion of Barnes & Thornburg LLP. Hot Button Issues • Multiple Lines of Evidence (MLOE) – How should data be “weighed” – Is this a practical approach and do all sites require MLOE? • Pre-emptive mitigation – annual O&M obligations, use restrictions, new tools • Public Outreach and Risk Communication Challenges: New guidance on Community Involvement Plans; communicating risk • Managing residual COIs with ICs under new policy
    8. 8. ATLANTA CHICAGO DELAWARE INDIANA LOS ANGELES MICHIGAN MINNEAPOLIS OHIO WASHINGTON, DC CONFIDENTIAL © 2013 Barnes & Thornburg LLP. All Rights Reserved. This page, and all information on it, is confidential, proprietary and the property of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, which may not be disseminated or disclosed to any person or entity other than the intended recipient(s), and may not be reproduced, in any form, without the express written consent of the author or presenter. The information on this page is intended for informational purposes only and shall not be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion of Barnes & Thornburg LLP. Some Helpful Links • EPA VI Homepage: http://www.epa.gov/oswer/vaporintrusion/ • US EPA VI Docket: http://www.regulations.gov/#!home – Type in „EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0033‟ and filter for Public Submissions (177) – DOD, GM/DOW, NASA, Trade Groups • B&T Comments: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002- 0189; 0077; and 0059. • TSCA TCE Draft Chemical Risk Assessment: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0723 • ARA Website: http://www.allianceforrisk.org/Projects/TCE.html – TCE Risk Assessment for Contaminated Sites, April 2013 – Recent Inside EPA Articles – movement for additional practical guidance with national webcast later this year.
    9. 9. ATLANTA CHICAGO DELAWARE INDIANA LOS ANGELES MICHIGAN MINNEAPOLIS OHIO WASHINGTON, DC CONFIDENTIAL © 2013 Barnes & Thornburg LLP. All Rights Reserved. This page, and all information on it, is confidential, proprietary and the property of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, which may not be disseminated or disclosed to any person or entity other than the intended recipient(s), and may not be reproduced, in any form, without the express written consent of the author or presenter. The information on this page is intended for informational purposes only and shall not be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion of Barnes & Thornburg LLP. Suggested Legal Solutions/Strategies • Themes – VI pathway is complex and science is evolving but you can successfully navigate to closure with cost effective and practical approaches – Need a team of multi-disciplinary experienced experts on VI – Site-specific legal and technical solutions do exist • Suggested Solutions/Strategies – Identify Applicable Exit Ramps & data needed for site-specific approach – Develop VI CSM to assess potential transport mechanisms (diffusion, advection, and pref paths) – Develop a stakeholder approved VI Decision Matrix [protocols for immediate (hr), acute (days), subchronic (weeks), and chronic (months)]
    10. 10. ATLANTA CHICAGO DELAWARE INDIANA LOS ANGELES MICHIGAN MINNEAPOLIS OHIO WASHINGTON, DC CONFIDENTIAL © 2013 Barnes & Thornburg LLP. All Rights Reserved. This page, and all information on it, is confidential, proprietary and the property of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, which may not be disseminated or disclosed to any person or entity other than the intended recipient(s), and may not be reproduced, in any form, without the express written consent of the author or presenter. The information on this page is intended for informational purposes only and shall not be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion of Barnes & Thornburg LLP. Suggested Legal Solutions/Strategies – Develop Risk Communication talking points & coordinate upfront with regulators and health department (e.g., radon, background, ambient). – Determine sampling and analysis plans; consider TRIAD, real-time data; phased approach to address “highest” potential structures first. – Tailor closure strategy and mitigation based on site-specific approach flowing from applicable state/federal policy, risk tolerance, and degree of sophistication. – Determine how best to structure a long term stewardship and/or IC Plan to manage residual COCs and potential future risks using new EPA IC Guides and policy as part of closure strategy.
    11. 11. ATLANTA CHICAGO DELAWARE INDIANA LOS ANGELES MICHIGAN MINNEAPOLIS OHIO WASHINGTON, DC CONFIDENTIAL © 2013 Barnes & Thornburg LLP. All Rights Reserved. This page, and all information on it, is confidential, proprietary and the property of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, which may not be disseminated or disclosed to any person or entity other than the intended recipient(s), and may not be reproduced, in any form, without the express written consent of the author or presenter. The information on this page is intended for informational purposes only and shall not be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion of Barnes & Thornburg LLP. New 2013 IC Guides • In most States, ICs are generally necessary unless the site meets unlimited use and unrestricted exposure (UU/UE). • EPA‟s NEW National Policy on Use and Roles of ICs is to develop an IC Plan: – Institutional Controls: A Guide to Planning, Implementing, Maintaining, and Enforcing Institutional Controls at Contaminated Sites, EPA-540-R- 09-001 (Dec. 2012) [referred to as the “IC Guidance”] – Institutional Control: A Guide to Preparing Institutional Control Implementation and Assurance Plans at Contaminated Sites, EPA-540- R-09-002 (Dec. 2012) [referred to as “ICIAP Guidance” or “IC Plan”]
    12. 12. ATLANTA CHICAGO DELAWARE INDIANA LOS ANGELES MICHIGAN MINNEAPOLIS OHIO WASHINGTON, DC CONFIDENTIAL © 2013 Barnes & Thornburg LLP. All Rights Reserved. This page, and all information on it, is confidential, proprietary and the property of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, which may not be disseminated or disclosed to any person or entity other than the intended recipient(s), and may not be reproduced, in any form, without the express written consent of the author or presenter. The information on this page is intended for informational purposes only and shall not be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion of Barnes & Thornburg LLP. Revisions to Due Diligence Standards • Revisions to Phase I expected later this year • Vapor migration is included; some argue that vapor migration was always part of a CERCLA release and AAI • Post-Closing - Maintaining CERCLA defenses (BFPP) – Obstacle was/remains the VI pathway/liability – Brownfield and Redevelopment Tail
    13. 13. ATLANTA CHICAGO DELAWARE INDIANA LOS ANGELES MICHIGAN MINNEAPOLIS OHIO WASHINGTON, DC CONFIDENTIAL © 2013 Barnes & Thornburg LLP. All Rights Reserved. This page, and all information on it, is confidential, proprietary and the property of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, which may not be disseminated or disclosed to any person or entity other than the intended recipient(s), and may not be reproduced, in any form, without the express written consent of the author or presenter. The information on this page is intended for informational purposes only and shall not be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion of Barnes & Thornburg LLP. States Reactions • April 2012 Roundtable with EPA & Region 5 States • States that recently submitted comments include (14): CA, NC Dry Cleaning Fund, Hawaii, Utah, New York, TN, WA, VA, AZ, KY, MO, MT, MN, IN. – Each state should be able to evaluate/interpret EPA VI guides and utilize portions that are applicable to conditions and policy in that State. [AZ, IL] – Many project teams lack the expertise to make scientifically defensible arguments as to whether the pathway is complete. [VA, GA]
    14. 14. ATLANTA CHICAGO DELAWARE INDIANA LOS ANGELES MICHIGAN MINNEAPOLIS OHIO WASHINGTON, DC CONFIDENTIAL © 2013 Barnes & Thornburg LLP. All Rights Reserved. This page, and all information on it, is confidential, proprietary and the property of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, which may not be disseminated or disclosed to any person or entity other than the intended recipient(s), and may not be reproduced, in any form, without the express written consent of the author or presenter. The information on this page is intended for informational purposes only and shall not be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion of Barnes & Thornburg LLP. Next Steps • EPA may finalize both OSWER and OUST VI Guides • National Policy on short-term action levels for TCE – Support ARA‟s Practical Application Guide for TCE • ITRC may be updating its 2007 VI Guide • EPA to release at least three (3) critical supporting documents referenced in draft OSWER VI Guide: – Technical Basis to select, design, install, operate mitigation systems – S&A Methods for VI Investigations – User‟s Guide for J&E Model • Each State will eventually evaluate impact/implications to its VI policy
    15. 15. ATLANTA CHICAGO DELAWARE INDIANA LOS ANGELES MICHIGAN MINNEAPOLIS OHIO WASHINGTON, DC CONFIDENTIAL © 2013 Barnes & Thornburg LLP. All Rights Reserved. This page, and all information on it, is confidential, proprietary and the property of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, which may not be disseminated or disclosed to any person or entity other than the intended recipient(s), and may not be reproduced, in any form, without the express written consent of the author or presenter. The information on this page is intended for informational purposes only and shall not be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion of Barnes & Thornburg LLP. Final Comments • VI pathway is complex and science is evolving but you can successfully navigate to closure with cost effective and practical approaches. • Need a team of multi-disciplinary experienced experts on VI. • Site-specific legal and technical solutions do exist.
    16. 16. ATLANTA CHICAGO DELAWARE INDIANA LOS ANGELES MICHIGAN MINNEAPOLIS OHIO WASHINGTON, DC CONFIDENTIAL © 2013 Barnes & Thornburg LLP. All Rights Reserved. This page, and all information on it, is confidential, proprietary and the property of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, which may not be disseminated or disclosed to any person or entity other than the intended recipient(s), and may not be reproduced, in any form, without the express written consent of the author or presenter. The information on this page is intended for informational purposes only and shall not be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion of Barnes & Thornburg LLP. Questions? Please contact: David R. Gillay Partner, Environmental Department Chair, Brownfields & Environmental Transactional Diligence (317) 231-7474 or (317) 946-9267 david.gillay@btlaw.com
    17. 17. Vapor Intrusion Risk Pathway: A Survival Guide Blayne Hartman Hartman Environmental Geoscience 858-204-6170 blayne@hartmaneg.com August 2013 EDR Webinar
    18. 18. Potential Risk of VI Sites yesno no yes Start Petroleum Site? Whew! Gulp! TCE Site? Ouch
    19. 19. EPA Guidance Updates (Release Date: 2014?) • EPA (OSWER & Superfund) – Preference for sub-slab & indoor air – Preference for soil gas near source (bad for HCs!) – Longer indoor air sampling period (7 to 21 days) – Fixed Att factor of 0.03 for shallow SG (~15x drop) – Sub-slab Att factor 0.03 (3.3x increase) – Modeling no longer an exit http://www.epa.gov/oswer/vaporintrusion Comment Period Ended 6/24/13
    20. 20. EPA Guidance Updates (Release Date: 2014?) • EPA-OUST: Guidance for HCs – Exclusion criteria? Yay! – Testing/Adoption of Biovapor model? Wishy-washy – No Screening Levels – Pipes you to OSWER!! http://www.epa.gov/oust/cat/pvi/index.htm Comment Period Ended 6/24/13
    21. 21. Allowable Benzene in GW 1e-6 risk • New OSWER Guidance: 0.31 ug/m3/0.001 = 0.31 ug/L/0.2 = 1.5 ug/L • EPA-OUST Exclusion Value: 5000 ug/L OSWER ~3300 times lower than OUST!!
    22. 22. ITRC PVI GUIDANCE (Due out early 2014) 1. Introduction 2. Types of PVI Sites 3. Conceptual Site Model 4. Basic Investigative Framework for PVI Sites 5. Site Screening and Prioritization 6. Investigative Toolbox 7. Mitigation
    23. 23. New TCE Standard (As of October 2011) • Residential (1e-6 cancer risk) – Indoor Air cancer: 0.43 ug/m3 (down from 1.2 ug/m3) – Indoor Air non-cancer: 2.1 ug/m3 Short-Term Exposure? – Groundwater: 1.1 ug/L • Commercial/Industrial (1e-6 cancer risk) – Indoor Air: 3.0 ug/m3 (down from 6.1 ug/m3) – Indoor Air non-cancer: 8.8 ug/m3 (Pregnant employees?) – Groundwater: 7.4 ug/L
    24. 24. New PCE Standard (As of March 2012) • Residential (1e-6) – Indoor Air cancer: 9.4 ug/m3 (up from 0.41 ~22x !!) – Indoor Air non-cancer: ~47 ug/m3 • Industrial (1e-6) – Indoor Air: ~47 ug/m3 (up 22x) – Indoor Air non-cancer: 175 ug/m3 CA-EPA Ignored new PCE Standard
    25. 25. Methods to Assess VI • Indoor Air Sampling • Groundwater Sampling • Soil Phase Sampling • Predictive Modeling • Measure Flux Directly • Soil Gas Sampling • Supplemental Tools/Data
    26. 26. Ingredients for Effective VI Assessments • Investigatory Approach • Determine Correct Screening Levels • Sample & Analyze Properly • Know & Use Supplemental Tools • Demonstrating Bioattenuation
    27. 27. The Most Important Ingredient • Experience: – Consultant – Collector – done soil gas before? – Lab – certified for methods? – Regulator – Public – YOU! What level person is going in the field?
    28. 28. O2=7.5%
    29. 29. Most Common VI Bloopers • Unit Confusion – Assuming ug/L equivalent to ppbv – Assuming ug/m3 equivalent to ppbv • Screening Levels – Comparing to generic screening levels – Not calculating correct levels • Sampling & Analysis Errors – Program design: soil gas? GW? SS? IA? – Using wrong hardware – Using wrong analysis
    30. 30. Units: ppmv Indoor air SLs SG Samples These values brought up into this table
    31. 31. Approach Generalizations • Indoor Air – Always find something – Multiple sampling rounds: • Groundwater Data – Typically over-predicts risk • Soil Phase Data – Typically not allowed; over-predicts risk for HCs • Soil Gas Data – Transfer rate unknown – Sub-slab intrusive
    32. 32. Indoor Air Measurement • Pros: – Actual Indoor Concentration • Cons: – Where From? –Inside sources (smoke, cleaners) –Outside sources (exhaust, cleaners) –People activities – NO CONTROL! – Time-intensive protocols – Snapshot, limited data points – Expensive!!
    33. 33. Gun Cleaner: TCE Pepper Spray: TCE But We Don’t Use “CHLORINATED” Chemicals Anymore…... Brake Cleaner: TCE/PCE Hobby Glue: PCE Plastics: 1,2-DCA
    34. 34. Bloonies 35
    35. 35. Bloonies‟ Goodies 36 750 ngBenzene Toluene 2744 ng
    36. 36. Bloonies – Party Time! 37 Ethanol: 207,000 ng !!!
    37. 37. Cleaning Your Dishes? (or Polluting Your House)
    38. 38. Dawn VOC Analysis Results 1,4-Dioxane 2100 Naphthalene 31
    39. 39. No Wonder She‟s Smiling When Doing Dishes Ethanol 600000 Benzene 19
    40. 40. Got Natural Gas?
    41. 41. Which Soil Gas Method? • Active? • Passive? (limited use) • Flux Chambers? (limited use) Active method most often employed for VI
    42. 42. Probe Considerations • Tubing Type – Rigid wall tubing ok (nylon, teflon, SS) – Flexible tubing not (tygon, hardware store) • Probe Tip – Beware metal tips (may have cutting oils) • Materials Used to Bury Probes – Sand, cement • Equipment Blanks – Need to collect blank through collection system
    43. 43. Soil Gas Sampling Issues • Sample Size – Greater the volume, greater the uncertainty – Smaller volumes faster & easier to collect • Containers – Canisters: More blank potential. Higher cost – Tedlars: Good for ~2 days. Easier to collect • Flow Rate & Purge Volume – Really not imp. But most agencies < 200 ml/min • Tracer/Leak Compound – Crucial for sub-slab & larger sample volumes – Gases (He, SF6, Propane) & Liquids (IPA)
    44. 44. Canisters vs Tubes
    45. 45. Beware of the Hardware
    46. 46. Supplemental Tools/Data • Site Specific Alpha Using Radon – Factor of 10 to 100. $100/sample • Indoor Air Ventilation Rate – Factor of 2 to 10. <$1,000 per determination. • Continuous analyzers – Real-time monitoing • Pressure Measurements – Can help interpret indoor air results Refer to ASTM E2600-08 Table X.1 for summary table
    47. 47. On-site TO-14 (8021) • Small Footprint GC (Flies free on SW) • Fast Start-up (~45 min) • 5 minute run time for TCE & PCE • Can get to <1 ug/m3 for TCE, CCl4, PCE • But Also Can Measure High (>10,000 ug/m3) • Cost ~ 1/4 of TO-15 ($50/sample) • Can Go Into Automated Monitoring Mode
    48. 48. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 SSP-2 PCE PC 12/2012 1/2013 2/2013 3/2013 Sub-slab Soil Gas Data Sub-Slab Variations do NOT Occur Over Short Time Periods (days) 1 day
    49. 49. 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 Conc(ug/m3) Run Number PCE - 420 1st Floor Air PCE Continuous Monitoring – PCE in Indoor Air 12/2012 3/20131/2013 2/2013 3 days 5x 3 days 10x 2 days 4x
    50. 50. Continuous Monitoring – PCE in Indoor Air 12/2012 3/20131/2013 2/2013 0.28 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 422 1st Floor Air PCE 4 days 10x 3 days 5x 1 day 5x 2 days 10
    51. 51. Previews of the VI Future • VI Likely to be a Concern at Your Sites • Variable Regulatory Guidance Makes Assessment Tricky & Slow • New EPA OSWER Guidance to be Stricter • ASTM Standard Increase # of Sites • Hydrocarbons to be Less of a Concern
    52. 52. VI Documents • Overview of SV Methods (www.handpmg.com) – LustLine Part 1 - Active Soil Gas Method, 2002 – LustLine Part 2 - Flux Chamber Method, 2003 – LustLine Part 3 - FAQs October, 2004 – LustLine Part 4 – Soil Gas Updates, Sept 2006 – LustLine – VI For Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Nov 2010 • Robin Davis’ Articles on Bioattenuation: – Lustline #61 May 2009 – LustLine #52 May 2006 (www.neiwpcc.org)
    53. 53. Existing Documents & Training • Soil Gas Sampling SOPs – Soil Gas Sampling, Sub-slab Sampling, Vapor Monitoring Wells/Implants, Flux Chambers (www.handpmg.com) • Other – ITRC VI Guidance (www.itrcweb.org) – API Soil Gas Document (api.org) – ASTM E2600-08: Good Summary Table in App X
    54. 54. VI Websites & Links • www.handpmg.com – Soil Gas Information – Other Site Assessment Methods • www.itrcweb.org • www.api.org
    55. 55. Blayne Hartman, Ph.D. 858-204-6170 blayne@hartmaneg.com
    56. 56. Mitigation for Environmental Vapor Intrusion Issues www.terravapor.com Email: info@terravapor.com Phone: 877-399-4190
    57. 57. Case Study #1 • Bloomington 1 (Sub-Slab Depressurization (SSDS)) – 6,500 SqFt. footprint with two stories – Former dry cleaner across alleyway to the west of building – Building constructed into side of a hill on west side – Mitigated at night to avoid conflict with sensitive tenants – 5 sub-systems connected to 6 extraction points – Roof mounted fans to preserve historic district building appearance
    58. 58. SSDS Theory - Slab on Grade
    59. 59. System Layout
    60. 60. System Install
    61. 61. Case Study #2 • Bloomington 2 (Modified Ventilation) – 2,800 SqFt. footprint with three stories (inc. basement) Top floor of building is residential – Active dry cleaner adjacent and building historically stored dry cleaning chemicals & filters – Client conducted 1st pilot study – High water table and bedrock within 2 feet of basement floor – SSDS not applicable
    62. 62. HRV/ERV HRV/ERV - Heat Recovery Ventilators / Energy Recovery Ventilators • Typical Application – very low concentrations of COC in indoor air
    63. 63. Typical HRV/ERV Theory
    64. 64. Pilot Study – HRV/ERV & Building Pressurization • Blower Door Test – Must find air exchanges per hour (ACH) – HRV/ERV is limited by the amount of reduction in COC concentration needed
    65. 65. Building Pressurization Theory
    66. 66. Modified HRV/ERV Theory
    67. 67. Case Study #3 • Indianapolis Residential (SSDS and Sub- Membrane Depressurization (SMDS)) – EPA Superfund site with upwards of 125 impacted residences – Former dry cleaner upgradient from neighborhood – First selected mitigation contractor was a radon specialist – Lowest bidder – Most (75%) of the houses mitigated by first contractor were not up to code or properly mitigated
    68. 68. Photos of SSDS
    69. 69. Photos of SMDS
    70. 70. Key Lessons Learned • Many different approaches to deal with a vapor intrusion issue • Each building is different – Assumptions are extremely dangerous – Site specific data is crucial to getting the best designed system • Partnering with experience matters
    71. 71. Keep Vapor from Killing Deals Proper Mitigation + Monitoring = Corrected Vapor Intrusion Issue • Quickly installing a proper mitigation solution keeps environmental remediation projects moving toward closure • Once a mitigation system is installed ensuring that it is working properly at all times is crucial
    72. 72. System Installed… Now what? • Once a mitigation system has been installed on a structure: – How do I prove to all stakeholders that the system is still functioning adequately after the confirmatory sampling event? – How often should I continue to verify the system is preventing exposure?
    73. 73. EPA Draft OSWER Guidance • Multiple mentions of follow up monitoring of installed mitigation systems. • Opportunity to avoid re-sampling events if you can show site conditions warrant a different monitoring schedule. • Monitoring is a key part of Long Term Stewardship concept.
    74. 74. Key OSWER Concepts • Routine inspection of all visible components of the VI mitigation system including fans, piping, seals, membranes, and collection points to ensure there are no signs of degradation or blockage. • Routine monitoring of vent risers for flow rates and pressures generated by the fan to confirm the system is working and moisture is draining correctly.
    75. 75. Key OSWER Concepts • Confirmation that the extraction fan is operating. • Confirmation of adequate operation of the warning device indicator. • For SSDS, EPA recommends that the pressure gauge be monitored quarterly to verify the system is operating efficiently.
    76. 76. Key OSWER Concepts • EPA recommends that the system failure warning devices or alarms be installed on active depressurization systems, and appropriate responses to them should be understood by building occupants. Monitoring devices and alarms should be placed in a readily visible, frequently trafficked locations within the structure.
    77. 77. Comparison of Traditional vs. Alternative Monitoring • Traditional system monitoring relies on site visits and informed building occupants to report to the responsible party if an issue has caused the system to stop functioning adequately between scheduled monitoring events. • Alternative monitoring allows the system to be monitored remotely and removes the responsibility of the building occupant to inform the responsible party when a system issue arises.
    78. 78. Comparison of Traditional vs. Alternative Monitoring Traditional Alternative Pressure gauge readings Onsite visit Real time data remotely Confirmation fan is operating Onsite visit Real time data remotely System Shut down Onsite visit Shut down remotely Confirmation alarm is functioning Onsite visit Real time data remotely Ongoing sampling events Onsite visit Reduced frequency Telemetry technology can reduce the disturbance to building occupants with less site visits by the environmental professionals for monitoring and sampling events, while providing superior evidence of system functionality.
    79. 79. info@terravapor.com www.terravapor.com 877-399-4190
    80. 80. © 2012 Environmental Data Resources, Inc. Q&A
    1. A particular slide catching your eye?

      Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

    ×