Vapor Intrusion Case Study: Unexpected VI Issue Arises During BrownfieldProperty Redevelopment Project in MassachusettsTim...
Case Study – A Brief Chronology► Former industrial metal-working  facility    –   1964: Original manufacturing building   ...
Abandoned Vacant Manufacturing Building(March 2004)                     01M042012D                                        ...
New Warehouse Building (February 2006)                      01M042012D                                         VAPOR INTRU...
Vapor Intrusion and TCE Concentrations Increaseduring Building Renovation                                                 ...
VI Solution –a Soil Vapor Extraction & Remediation System                      01M042012D                                 ...
Vapor Control and Treatment System                      01M042012D                                     VAPOR INTRUSION CAS...
TCE Concentrations in Indoor Air reducedby SVE System                                              Average Indoor Air TCE ...
VI Case Study Summary & Lessons Learned► Pre-transaction due diligence established escrow for identified soil and  groundw...
CONTACTTim Kemper, PE, LSPThe Shaw Group+1 617.589.6162tim.kemper@shawgrp.com
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Case Studies of VI in Massachusetts

647

Published on

Tim Kemper, PE, LSP, Client Program Manager, Shaw Environmental and Infrastructure Group - April 2012

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
647
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Case Studies of VI in Massachusetts

  1. 1. Vapor Intrusion Case Study: Unexpected VI Issue Arises During BrownfieldProperty Redevelopment Project in MassachusettsTim Kemper, PE, LSPProgram ManagerThe Shaw Group
  2. 2. Case Study – A Brief Chronology► Former industrial metal-working facility – 1964: Original manufacturing building constructed (40,000 ft2) on two-acre parcel – 1964-1997: Chlorinated solvents (TCE) used on site for metal degreasing. Waste materials reportedly “recycled off site and disposed to sanitary sewer” – 1980s & 1990s: Several small releases reported to MADEP by various owners – 1998: Manufacturing company filed for bankruptcy – 1998-2004: Building abandoned and property blighted – 2004-2006: New owner. Building renovated for warehouse use – 2006: Vapor intrusion issue detected after renovation – 2007-2010: IAQ monitoring, vapor mitigation, site remediation, and MCP environmental closure 01M042012D VAPOR INTRUSION CASE STUDY 2
  3. 3. Abandoned Vacant Manufacturing Building(March 2004) 01M042012D VAPOR INTRUSION CASE STUDY 3
  4. 4. New Warehouse Building (February 2006) 01M042012D VAPOR INTRUSION CASE STUDY 4
  5. 5. Vapor Intrusion and TCE Concentrations Increaseduring Building Renovation Average Soil Vapor TCE Concentration vs. Time 900,000 800,000 768,638 700,000 Building heated & 600,000 TCE Concentration (ug/m3) used as warehouse 500,000 400,000 Building 349,080 300,000 renovation complete Building abandoned 200,000 with holes in roof Building 100,000 9,184 renovation in 8,218 progress 0 March 2004 March 2005 January 2006 February 2006 Date 01M042012D VAPOR INTRUSION CASE STUDY 5
  6. 6. VI Solution –a Soil Vapor Extraction & Remediation System 01M042012D VAPOR INTRUSION CASE STUDY 6
  7. 7. Vapor Control and Treatment System 01M042012D VAPOR INTRUSION CASE STUDY 7
  8. 8. TCE Concentrations in Indoor Air reducedby SVE System Average Indoor Air TCE Concentration (ug/m3) vs. Time 180 170 169 (without ventilation) 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 58 (with ventilation) 60 50 40 30 20 10 18 (with SVE system) 0 March 2006 May 2006 Oct. 2006 TCE = trichloroethene MADEP = Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Date 01M042012D VAPOR INTRUSION CASE STUDY 8
  9. 9. VI Case Study Summary & Lessons Learned► Pre-transaction due diligence established escrow for identified soil and groundwater (GW) remediation outside building footprint based on existing data► Vapor Intrusion was not suspected as: no known sub-slab VOC sources, groundwater levels < MCP GW-2 standards and GW depth >15 feet below grade► Previous environmental assessments unable to discover key VOC source under building (unidentified leaky floor drain system)► Building renovations (new roof, insulation and heating system) and resultant “chimney effect” caused a significant increase in soil vapor intrusion (100x) into indoor air► Significant remediation costs (~$200,000) required to treat soil beneath building for abatement of VI issue► VI issues from unidentified sub-slab VOC releases drove site remediation – not soil and GW contamination previously reported to MADEP► Beware of potential VI issues from sub-slab sources! 01M042012D VAPOR INTRUSION CASE STUDY 9
  10. 10. CONTACTTim Kemper, PE, LSPThe Shaw Group+1 617.589.6162tim.kemper@shawgrp.com
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

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

×