Managing Potential Risk AssociatedWith Vapor Migration/Intrusion UsingASTM E 2600-10byAnthony J. Buonicore, P.E.Director, ...
What is vapor intrusion?
Overview•   Vapor Intrusion Risk and Liability•   Vapor Migration Screening Using the ASTM E 2600-10 Standard•   Methodolo...
Vapor Intrusion Risk and Liability• Multimillion dollar toxic tort class action lawsuits now common• RCRA citizen suit pro...
VI Class Action Lawsuits GrowingSampling of Some of the More Publicized Cases•   Ball v. Bayard Pump & Tank (petroleum fro...
VI Class Action Lawsuits Growing                     cont’d• Spears v. Chrysler (chlorinateds)(2008)(OH)• Blaine v. IBM (c...
ASTM E 2600-10 Standard• Consensus standard published in June 2010• Developed to facilitate screening for vapor migration ...
Vapor Migration Screening Using the ASTM E2600-10 Standard        Key ASTM E 2600-10 Screening Terms• Chemicals of Concern...
Chemicals of ConcernCommonly Encountered                   Screening Level in Groundwater (NJ)•   Petroleum contaminants: ...
Area of Concern•    COC Plumes       - 1,760 feet in direction of groundwater flow       - reflects 90th percentile plume ...
Critical Distance• Travel distance of vapor volatilized from COC-  contaminated groundwater in reasonably permeable  soil•...
Standardized Methodology to Manage the VaporMigration Risk1. Data Collection2. Identification of Plume Migration Impact Zo...
Data Collection•   Contaminated groundwater plume data     - groundwater flow direction     - COC concentrations and trend...
Plume Migration Impact Zone   “Zone containing [known or    potential] COC-contaminated    groundwater plume plus a distan...
Plume Migration Impact Zone                                           cont’d•   Established considering known, inferred or...
Plume Migration Impact Zone:                       PropertyKnown Release          Boundary                                ...
Plume Migration Impact Zone                                     cont’d•   For potential releases (or where groundwater plu...
Plume Migration Impact Zone:Potential Release          Property                                                   Boundary...
Property Prioritization Sequence1. Known Release: COC-Contaminated groundwater   plume under residential or sensitive rece...
Property Prioritization Sequence          cont’d3. Known Release: Groundwater plume migrating   toward R/SR with potential...
On-going Portfolio Monitoring•   New on-site contaminant releases•   New off-site contaminant releases•   Changes in conta...
Key Benefits to Risk Management• Facilitate property clean-up prioritization• Undertake most effective risk mitigation mea...
Conclusions• Vapor intrusion represents a significant potential risk and liability to  facility owners• Risk can be manage...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Buonicore, anthony edr

867 views

Published on

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
867
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
24
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Buonicore, anthony edr

  1. 1. Managing Potential Risk AssociatedWith Vapor Migration/Intrusion UsingASTM E 2600-10byAnthony J. Buonicore, P.E.Director, Environmental Data Resources, Inc.Milford, CTFor presentation atThe 2011 Enfos Solutions ConferenceChicago, ILOctober 19-20, 2011 © 2011 Environmental Data Resources, Inc.
  2. 2. What is vapor intrusion?
  3. 3. Overview• Vapor Intrusion Risk and Liability• Vapor Migration Screening Using the ASTM E 2600-10 Standard• Methodology to Manage the Vapor Migration/Intrusion Risk• Benefits to Risk Management
  4. 4. Vapor Intrusion Risk and Liability• Multimillion dollar toxic tort class action lawsuits now common• RCRA citizen suit provision, CERCLA and traditional common law claims (negligence, nuisance, trespass, etc.)• Typically involve chlorinated solvent and petroleum contaminant migration off-site• Nearby residential properties impacted
  5. 5. VI Class Action Lawsuits GrowingSampling of Some of the More Publicized Cases• Ball v. Bayard Pump & Tank (petroleum from gas station)(1999)(PA)• Avila v. Willits Environmental Remediation Trust (chlorinateds)(1999)(CA)• Antolovich v. Brown Retail Group (chlorinateds)(2000)(CO)• Muniz v. Rexnord (Chlorinateds)(2004)(IL)• Ward/Bradley v. Lockheed Martin (chlorinateds)(2005)(FL)• Martin v. Foster Wheeler (TCE)(2006)(PA)• Aiken, et al. v. General Electric (TCE)(2006)(NY)• Branham/Booth v. Rohm & Haas (chlorinateds)(2006,2010)(PA)• Baumbach v. ExxonMobil (petroleum)(2006)(NY)• Nnadili v. Chevron (petroleum)(2006)(D.C.)• Grace Christian Fellowship v. KJG Investments (petroleum) (2008)(WI)
  6. 6. VI Class Action Lawsuits Growing cont’d• Spears v. Chrysler (chlorinateds)(2008)(OH)• Blaine v. IBM (chlorinateds)(2008)(NY)• Sher v. Raytheon (chlorinateds)(2008)(FL)• U.S. v. Apex Oil (petroleum)(2008)(IL)• Voggenthaler v. Maryland Square (PCE)(2008)(NV)• KB Home v. Rockville TBD Corp.(chorinateds)(2009)(IN)• West Coast Home Builders v. Aventis Cropscience (chlorinateds)(2009)(CA)• Martin v. Behr Dayton Thermal Products (chlorinateds)(2009)(OH)• Weitz & Luxenberg (on behalf of Pompton Lakes Residents) v. DuPont and Royle Systems (chlorinateds)(2010)(NJ)• Stoll v. Kraft Foods Global (chlorinateds)(2010)(IN)
  7. 7. ASTM E 2600-10 Standard• Consensus standard published in June 2010• Developed to facilitate screening for vapor migration potential onto a property or away from a property• Environmental professionals are using it for: - Due diligence in Phase Is associated with property acquisition - Vapor intrusion risk assessment screening (on-site and off-site) - Contaminated property remediation (vapor pathway now routinely considered in developing a remediation strategy)
  8. 8. Vapor Migration Screening Using the ASTM E2600-10 Standard Key ASTM E 2600-10 Screening Terms• Chemicals of Concern (volatiles/semi-volatiles)• Area of Concern for Plume Migration Screening• Critical Distance for Vapor Migration Screening
  9. 9. Chemicals of ConcernCommonly Encountered Screening Level in Groundwater (NJ)• Petroleum contaminants: - 15 µg/L - Benzene - 61,000 µg/L - Ethylbenzene - 310,000 µg/L - Toluene - Xylenes - 7,000 µg/L - MTBE - 78 µg/L• Common Chlorinateds: - Carbon tetrachloride - 1 µg/L - cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene - 350 µg/L (DCE) - 1,2-Dichloroethane (DCA) - 2 µg/L - Methylene chloride - Trichloroethylene (TCE) - 53 µg/L - Perchloroethylene (PCE) - 1 µg/L - 1 µg/L
  10. 10. Area of Concern• COC Plumes - 1,760 feet in direction of groundwater flow - reflects 90th percentile plume length - also reflects vapor migration distance in reasonably permeable soil - 530 feet plume width at 90th percentile*• Petroleum Hydrocarbon Plumes - 528 feet in direction of groundwater flow - reflects 90th percentile plume length - also reflects vapor migration distance in reasonably permeable soil - 130 feet plume width at 90th percentile*• Buonicore, A.J. , Methodology for Identifying the Area of Concern Around a Property Potentially Impacted by Vapor Migration from Nearby Contaminated Sources, Paper No. 2011-A-301, Proceedings, Air & Waste Management Association, 104th Annual Meeting, Orlando, Florida, June 20-24, 2011.
  11. 11. Critical Distance• Travel distance of vapor volatilized from COC- contaminated groundwater in reasonably permeable soil• 100 feet for COCs• 100 feet for petroleum contaminants floating on the water table (LNAPL)• 30 feet for petroleum contaminants dissolved in groundwater
  12. 12. Standardized Methodology to Manage the VaporMigration Risk1. Data Collection2. Identification of Plume Migration Impact Zone Associated with Known or Potential Contaminant Release3. Property Prioritization Sequence4. On-going Portfolio Monitoring
  13. 13. Data Collection• Contaminated groundwater plume data - groundwater flow direction - COC concentrations and trend - remediation status - current plume length and width - plume status (migrating? attenuating? etc.)• Surrounding area - nearest residential development - nearest sensitive receptors (including schools, day care centers, nearby wetlands and surface waters, etc.) - nearby known or suspect COC-contaminated sites (possible PRPs?)• COC contaminant concentration screening thresholds for vapor intrusion (RSLs – risk screening levels)• Soil characteristics impacting permeability (clay, sandy, silty, etc.)
  14. 14. Plume Migration Impact Zone “Zone containing [known or potential] COC-contaminated groundwater plume plus a distance to account for potential vapor migration”
  15. 15. Plume Migration Impact Zone cont’d• Established considering known, inferred or assumed groundwater flow direction for either a known release or a potential release• For known releases: edge of contaminated plume (where state RSL exceeded) plus the critical distance For COC-contaminated groundwater - 100 feet (critical distance) beyond the plume edge in the direction of groundwater flow For petroleum-contaminated groundwater - 100 feet (critical distance) beyond the plume edge when LNAPL exists - 30 feet (critical distance) beyond the plume edge when only dissolved petroleum contamination exists
  16. 16. Plume Migration Impact Zone: PropertyKnown Release Boundary Residential Source Contaminated Groundwater PlumeLegend Vapor Migration Zone Groundwater Migration Zone Vapor Migration Zone  100 ft. for COC – contamination  100 ft. for Petro-contamination with LNAPL  30 ft. for Petro-contamination Dissolved (only)
  17. 17. Plume Migration Impact Zone cont’d• For potential releases (or where groundwater plume delineation has not been done): From the source of a potential COC release - 1,760 feet length in the direction of groundwater flow (90th percentile plume length plus critical distance) - 730 feet width (90th percentile plume width plus critical distance) From the source of a potential petroleum release - 528 feet length in the direction of groundwater flow (90th percentile plume length plus critical distance) - 330 feet width (90th percentile plume width plus critical distance) Distances may be reduced based upon site-specific soil characteristics, e.g., relatively impermeable soil (such as silty-clayey)
  18. 18. Plume Migration Impact Zone:Potential Release Property Boundary Groundwater Flow Direction Residential B Source A Contaminated Groundwater PlumeLegend Plume Migration Impact Zone (including 90th percentile groundwater plume length + vapor migration zone)  COC – Release: A = 1760 ft. B = 730 ft.  Petro – Release: A = 528 ft. B = 330 ft.
  19. 19. Property Prioritization Sequence1. Known Release: COC-Contaminated groundwater plume under residential or sensitive receptors (R/SR) - no other PRPs - other PRPs2. Known Release: Vapor volatilized off groundwater plume (vapor migration zone) impacting R/SR - no other PRPs - other PRPs
  20. 20. Property Prioritization Sequence cont’d3. Known Release: Groundwater plume migrating toward R/SR with potential vapor migration impact - no other PRPs - other PRPs4. Potential Release: R/SR in direction (down-gradient) of potential contaminant release - no other PRPs - other PRPs
  21. 21. On-going Portfolio Monitoring• New on-site contaminant releases• New off-site contaminant releases• Changes in contaminated plume migration• Changes in contaminant concentrations in plume• Changes in remediation status• Changes in status with respect to other PRPs• Changes in nearby residential• Changes in nearby sensitive receptors• Changes in contaminant releases/spills at source• Changes is state RSLs for vapor intrusion
  22. 22. Key Benefits to Risk Management• Facilitate property clean-up prioritization• Undertake most effective risk mitigation measures• More effective use of monies available for cleanup
  23. 23. Conclusions• Vapor intrusion represents a significant potential risk and liability to facility owners• Risk can be managed• ASTM E 2600-10 can assist in screening and risk assessment• Screening will allow for cost effective property prioritization by focusing where potential risk is the greatest

×