COMMENTS RECEIVED ON PROPOSED GUIDANCE Land Recycling Program Technical Guidance Manual Section IV.A.4 Vapor Intrusion into Buildings from

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "COMMENTS RECEIVED ON PROPOSED GUIDANCE Land Recycling Program Technical Guidance Manual Section IV.A.4 Vapor Intrusion into Buildings from"

Transcription

1 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON PROPOSED GUIDANCE Land Recycling Program Technical Guidance Manual Section IV.A.4 Vapor Intrusion into Buildings from Groundwater and Soil under the Act 2 Statewide Health Standard DEP Guidance Document Number Published July 20, 2002 Public Comment Period July 20, 2002 through August 19,

2 ID Comment/Response Document Land Recycling Program Technical Guidance Manual Section IV.A.4 Vapor Intrusion into Buildings from Groundwater and Soil under the Act 2 Statewide Health Standard Name/Address List of Commentators* Zip 1 Ed Dziedzic, P.G. Project Manager Groundwater & Environmental Services, Inc. 410 Eagleview Blvd., Suite 110 Exton, PA (610) x154 2 Cullen Flanders, P.E. Geologic Services Corporation 129 McCarrell Lane Zelienople, PA (724) (724) (fax) 3 Fred M. Anderson Environmental Advisor, Northeast ExxonMobil Refining and Supply 3225 Gallows Road, Room 8B0427 Fairfax, VA (703) (703) (fax) frederick.m.anderson@exxonmobil.com 4 Gary J. Buterbaugh, P.G. Earth Tech 2 Market Plaza Way Mechanicsburg, PA (717) (717) (fax) Eric D. Stahl, P.E. Client Service Manager Weston Solutions, Inc (Office) (Fax) Eric.Stahl@westonsolutions.com 2

3 ID Comment/Response Document Land Recycling Program Technical Guidance Manual Section IV.A.4 Vapor Intrusion into Buildings from Groundwater and Soil under the Act 2 Statewide Health Standard Name/Address List of Commentators* Zip 6 Richard A. Blackburn GEM Company, Environmental Business Manager BP 1 West Pennsylvania Avenue Suite 915 Towson, MD (410) Mr. Jim Nairn Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 333 Baldwin Road Pittsburgh, PA (412) jnairn@cecinc.com 8 Andrew Clibanoff RCRA Corrective Action Project Manager PA Operations Branch U.S.EPA Region III 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia PA (215) *Commentators are identified by the number in parentheses at the end of each comment. 3

4 Comment/Response Document LIST OF ACRONYMS API BTEX COC COPIAC CSSAB DEP or PADEP EPA or USEPA GW IAQ J-E Model or JEM MADEP MSC MSCGW or MSC GW MSCIAQ or MSC IAQ MSDS MTBE NAPL OSHA PEL POC SHS SPL SSS SVOC TO-14 TPH VOC American Petroleum Institute Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene Contaminant of concern Chemical of Potential Indoor Air Concern Cleanup Standards Scientific Advisory Board Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Groundwater Indoor air quality Johnson and Ettinger model Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Medium-specific concentration Medium-specific concentration for groundwater Medium-specific concentration for indoor air quality Material Safety Data Sheet Methyl- tert-butyl ether Non-aqueous phase liquid Occupational Safety and Health Administration Permissible Exposure Limit Point of compliance Statewide health standard Separate phase liquid Site-specific standard Semivolatile organic compound EPA Methodology TO-14 from Compendium of Methods for the Determination of Toxic Organic Compounds in Ambient Air, Second Edition Total petroleum hydrocarbons Volatile organic compound 4

5 Comment 1 Comment/Response Document* Apparently, the referenced guidance only applies to Statewide Health Standard residential and non-residential exposure scenarios. Does it make sense, or is it acceptable to use the guidance to evaluate and eliminate pathways and demonstrate attainment under the Site-Specific Standard? Specifically, where fate and transport analysis indicates that a dissolved contaminant may exist within 15 feet below an offsite (beyond the POC) basement, could the decision matrix in the guidance be used to evaluate the pathway via indoor air sampling? If the indoor air sample results are below the MSCs for indoor air quality, could the pathway be eliminated? (1, 4) Response 1 This Vapor Intrusion Guidance is only intended as a screen under the Statewide Health Standard (SHS) and is not to be used under the site-specific standard. If the general criteria are met as indicated in the groundwater flowchart, the decision matrix process can be used to evaluate the indoor air pathway. If the indoor air samples are below the established MSC IAQ no further remedial activity is required. Comment 2 Since this is a screening documents and the media is indoor air, why are vapors emanating from soil and groundwater not considered cumulatively. Note that according to Act 2: (b) Carcinogens.--For known or suspected carcinogens, soil and groundwater cleanup standards shall be established at exposures which represent an excess upper-bound lifetime risk of between 1 in 10,000 and 1 in 1,000,000. The cumulative excess risk to exposed populations, including sensitive subgroups, shall not be greater than 1 in 10,000. (c) Systemic toxicants.--for systemic toxicants, soil and groundwater cleanup standards shall represent levels to which the human population could be exposed on a daily basis without appreciable risk of deleterious effect to the exposed population. Where several systemic toxicants affect the same target organ or act by the same method of toxicity, the hazard index shall not exceed one. The hazard index is the sum of the hazard quotients for multiple systemic toxicants acting through a single-medium exposure pathway or through multiple-media exposure pathways. Referring to the attached spreadsheet, the hazard index exceeds one for various target organs. (2) Response 2 The commentator is quoting from Section 304 of Act 2, which addresses the site-specific standard. The Statewide Health Standard (SHS) does not address media contamination and risk from a cumulative perspective. Only the site-specific pathway does. This draft guidance only applies to the SHS. 5

6 Comment 3 Comment/Response Document* Refer to page 8, 3 paragraph these screening analyses use conservative assumptions Based on some calculations, this analysis does not appear to be conservative. Using the J-E model and PADEP default values, several chemicals exceed the cancer risk of 1 in 100,000 (Statewide Standard set to 1 to 100,000). Furthermore, if the systemic affects on target organs are considered, the hazard index exceeds 1. Since this is a screening document, consider using a hazard quotient of 0.1 and a cancer risk of 1 in 1,000,000. Using these values will ensure that this screening document will comply with Pa Code (b)(1) between 1 in 10,000 and 1 in 1 million. Cumulative 1 in 10,000 and Pa Code (b)(2) the hazard index may not exceed one. (2) Response 3 The fate & transport of contaminants were set and evaluated at the worst-case scenario based on very conservative exposure factors. The CSSAB subcommittee did not want to use various toxicological endpoints which are not consistent with Chap Also, the CSSAB subcommittee, in the development of the generic SHS, addressed each medium separately and only single medium values are provided which is consistent with all currently available screening programs, e.g., Superfund SSLs. To address multi media exposure conditions, conservative assumptions are used. In this evaluation, conservative assumptions included an infinite source, no degradation, and lifetime exposures. As a further check that the evaluation was protective, model runs were performed using the residential scenario and the GSI/ASTM version of the Johnson and Ettinger model (J-E model) (GSI, 1999). This software allows both soil and groundwater to be addressed simultaneously (whereas the EPA version does not) which typically provides more conservative values that the EPA model (because of inherent assumptions in the software that cannot is adjusted). The results indicate that the values derived separately using the PA defaults and EPA J-E version are protective of both media together. This conclusion is further supported by the empirical findings by GSI (presented at the NGWA/API Petroleum Hydrocarbons Conference in Houston, 11/01). Comment 4 It is not appropriate to identify specific chemicals to be considered. It is more appropriate to identify chemical properties that would indicate that there is little indoor air hazard. For example, based on default hazard quotient calculation, naphthalene does pose an inhalation hazard and it should be considered an indoor air hazard... Other VOCs and SVOCs may need to be added to the screening list. Instead of identify chemicals that should and should not be evaluated, consider identifying chemical properties (i.e. vapor pressure, water solubility, and Henry s constant) that indicate that a chemical is not likely to pose a significant hazard. (2) 6

7 Response 4 The Act 2 regulations are based on specific chemicals, not property based factors. Comment 5 It would be helpful if PADEP generated a target organ list. Different reference documents identify different target organs. (2) Response 5 Identifying target organs would involve a lot of detail under a SHS approach and the DEP has chosen at this time not to establish a target organ list under the Statewide Health Standard. Target organs could be developed as part of remediations under the site-specific standard. Comment 6 Indoor Air Background: Indoor air risk-based limits calculated using the method proposed in the guide are below background (i.e., concentrations expected to occur at sites not impacted by affected soil or groundwater) for key COCs such as benzene and PCE. For example, Benzene: risk-based limit is 2.7 ug/m3 but a typical background indoor air concentration is 10 ug/m3 (McHugh et al., 2002). The consequence of setting a risk-based limit that is below background is that we can never use direct measurement to determine compliance with the standard. Instead, we have to rely on a conservative model that may indicate the need for corrective action when in fact, no problem exists. A conservative model is appropriate as a screening tool, but is problematic when used as a final decision making tool. (3) Response 6 Sources of hazardous substances of concern in the form of VOCs are found in a variety of household products such as paints, fuels, varnishes, cleaning solvents, and from personal habits such as smoking. All of these factors may elevate background concentrations of such substances in indoor air. Therefore, the Department suggests caution in taking indoor air samples and interpreting the results in this context. Because sampling VOCs in indoor air can be complicated by these other sources of VOCs within a dwelling, the guidance gives an option of taking soil gas measurements at a distance not to exceed 5 feet from the dwelling and compared to MSCs for soil gas. Comment 7 Use of OSHA Limits for Industrial Facilities: For industrial facilities, indoor air concentration limits should be consistent with OSHA standards. Some argue that only OSHA has the regulatory authority to establish exposure standards for industrial facilities. Aside from this issue, OSHA standards should be used to ensure consistent regulation of different sources. (In other words, why should benzene in air from groundwater be regulated differently from benzene in air from an industrial process?) 7

8 In addition, if different standards are applied for different sources, then direct measurement of air cannot be used to demonstrate compliance with the lower standard. (3) Response 7 OSHA regulations prescribe controls and monitoring of the environment including exposure to vapors and gases in the workplace. The regulations prescribe values that may not be exceeded during a workday called Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs) at enterprises that handle various volatile material to control exposure to employees. Where OSHA regulations are applicable at the site including PELs, OSHA-derived screens may be used as an alternative to the default EPA-derived screen if so documented. Comment 8 Henry's Law Equilibrium: Both the JEM and the draft guide use the assumption of Henry's Law equilibrium between soil gas and groundwater to evaluate the GW-toindoor air pathway. However, this assumption is not appropriate at most sites. Diffusion through water is 1000 to 10,000 times slower than diffusion through air. As a result, vertical diffusion through groundwater will limit groundwater-to-indoor air mass flux at most sites. The assumption of Henry's Law equilibrium will result in the greatest errors at sites with high soil permeability. Thus, the assumption of Henry's Law equilibrium in combination with conservative soil attenuation factor (intended to be protective for the highest permeability sites) results in unreasonably conservative GW screening values for the groundwater-to-indoor air pathway. (3) Response 8 The Department believes it used very conservative assumptions in developing the screening values. The J-E model as applied uses conservative screening values that may indicate a potential indoor air problem, when in fact there is not one. The Department chose to err on the side of conservatism, since the option exists to further evaluate the pathway under the site-specific standard. Comment 9 Conservative GW-to-Indoor Air Attenuation Factor: Available data indicate that an attenuation factor of 0.01 is too conservative for the GW-to-indoor air pathway even when applied as an initial screening step. An analysis of 32 sites with characteristics most likely to result in indoor air impacts (i.e., sandy soil and shallow groundwater) indicates that is a reasonably conservative attenuation factor for initial pathway screening for chlorinated solvents. (Note that this attenuation factor is calculated directly as the ratio of air concentration to GW concentration, with out the Henry's Law adjustment.) For petroleum hydrocarbons, there was no evidence of any impact on indoor air quality even for this group of high-risk sites (McHugh et al., 2002). (3) 8

9 Response 9 See last sentence of Response 8 above. Comment 10 Conservative Assumption that Impacted Soil and Ground Water Within 100' of an inhabited Building May Cause an Unacceptable Indoor Air Impact: The requirement to assume that a complete exposure pathway exists when an MSC is exceeded for ground water and a building exists within 100' of the impacted area is not supported by the facts. An evaluation of existing ground water and indoor air measurement data indicate that for petroleum hydrocarbons, only NAPL under a building or direct GW intrusion are likely to cause indoor air impacts (McHugh et al., 2002). (3) Response 10 See Response 8 above. In addition, the 100 feet from the source to receptor (inhabited building) value was chosen as the criterion to define when sites need to be addressed for vapor intrusion and to be consistent with the USEPA. The USEPA concluded that 100 feet is a reasonable criterion when considering vapor migration fundamentals, typical sampling density, and uncertainty in defining the actual contaminant spatial distribution. The rationale, as cited by USEPA, is based on the fact that vapor concentrations generally decrease with increasing distance away from a subsurface vapor source, and at some distance the concentrations become negligible. The distance at which concentrations are negligible is a function of the mobility, toxicity, and persistence of the chemical, as well as the geometry of the source, subsurface materials, and characteristics of the building of concern. Comment 11 Will this guidance document be applicable to the Storage Tank program cleanups? How will the short list of petroleum parameters used for soil and water sampling under the Storage Tank Program correlate or be used for vapor sampling? (4) Response 11 The guidance is applicable under Chapter 250 for the Statewide Health Standard (SHS) when a responsible party is attaining the SHS for soil and/or groundwater. The 30+ constituents of concern are indicated in the guidance Tables for soil and groundwater. This standard, and the associated tables are relevant to cleanups performed in the storage tank program. Comment 12 The definition of "preferential exposure pathway" is confusing/cloudy. How shallow is shallow? What length of a vertical soil fracture is significant? It may be healed, it could 9

10 be a shallow desiccation crack. Is there a way to measure if it is a preferential pathway? (4) Response 12 The Department chose not to define the vertical distance or length of fractures. This would be dependent on the site-specific geology. However, more importantly if such a feature exists and passes through or occurs within 30 feet of the source and has a direct pathway from the source to the receptor, a potential preferential pathway exists and would move the process into a sampling mode as indicated in the soil/groundwater decision matrix. Comment 13 The guidelines only apply to sites remediated under the Act 2 SHS? Why not Site- Specific? (4) Response 13 The vapor screen as designed is meant for the Act 2 Statewide Health Standard (SHS). By existing regulation, the site-specific standard (SSS) must identify pathways and perform a risk assessment. However, under SSS, one could utilize the J-E model as fate and transport to indoors and then apply risk assessment. One could NOT assume an incomplete pathway if vapor screen indoor air MSCs are met because an open exposure pathway still requires a risk assessment. Comment 14 The example stated in the Introduction, bullet 3, that if groundwater meets the non-used aquifer MSC for chloroform (1000 µg/l) that further evaluation would be needed if it does not meet the Residential screening value of 414 µg/l. However, the Groundwater IAQ Decision Matrix (Fig. 1) indicates that chloroform concentrations greater than the MSCGW for used aquifers (100 µg/l) require further evaluation. This seems to contradict. Is the decision point at 100 or 414 µg/l? (4) Response 14 The comment is referring to bullet 2 in the draft guidance and not bullet 3 in the Introduction. Groundwater concentrations for chloroform must meet the used aquifer MSC (not the nonuse aquifer MSC as stated in the comment) which would not be of concern for the indoor air pathway. The commenter correctly states that the Groundwater IAQ Decision Matrix (Fig. 1) indicates that chloroform concentrations greater than the MSC GW for used aquifers (100 µg/l) require further evaluation. There is no contradiction. If one would continue in the Figure 1 decision matrix process and not meet the vertical separation, then one would compare groundwater levels to the GW 10

11 J-E default levels of 414 µg/l (residential) in Table 1. If the groundwater values are greater than the 414 µg/l, then the process continues in the decision matrix. Comment 15 On pg. 4, next to last paragraph - Q: If SPL is present on site but >100 feet from inhabited building, then is soil gas or indoor air sampling required? The first sentence under Sampling on pg. 6 implies that sampling of soil gas or indoor air is required based on "the presence of SPL". We believe that this is intended to apply if the SPL is beneath or within 100 feet of an occupied building. (4) Response 15 If SPL is greater than 100 feet from the receptor (inhabited building) the sampling mode would not be immediately conducted. However, the vapor evaluation process continues in the Decision Matrices in Figure 1 and Figure 2. Soil gas or indoor air sampling is intended to apply if the SPL is beneath or within 100 feet of the receptor at or above the water table. Comment 16 COPIACS - last paragraph on pg.4, This paragraph uses the phrase "(those that should always be addressed)". What does this mean. It appears to imply that the COPIAC parameters must always be evaluated. If a site had a petroleum spill or more specifically a drum of toluene that spilled, does this imply that the soil, groundwater and/or vapors should be evaluated for all fifteen (15) COPIAC parameters (given a Residential setting)? This question ties to question #2, a typical situation may be that an unleaded gasoline spill occurred. soil and/or water samples were collected for characterization and analyzed for BTEX, cumene, MTBE and naphthalene. Only analytical data for these parameters would be available for evaluation with Figure 1 and/or 2. Some of these parameters are on the COPIAC list and some are not. It would not be logical or economical to include carbon tetrachloride or the other non-petroleum related compounds to the analytical list. (4) Response 16 The Department did not intend to imply that the list of COPIACs should always be addressed. A responsible party needs only to sample and analyze for those constituents pertaining to the particular release at the site that are on the COPIAC list or in Tables 1, 2, 4, 5. If the constituent is not listed in the tables and is found to be a concern at a particular site, then a site-specific analysis should be used. The Department will clarify the final guidance with additional language. 11

12 Comment 17 Paragraph 2 on page 2 states that the guidance document applies to volatile and semivolatile compounds. None of the screening criteria (Table 1, 2, 3 & 4) appear to be semivolatiles. Have they all been screen out? Were any evaluated? I spoke to a local laboratory about analyzing for petroleum VOC/SVOCs and they indicated that EPA method TO-14 does not detect compound like Naphthalene that are borderline between volatile and semivolatile. (4) Response 17 The dichlorobenzenes contained in Tables 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are considered to be semivolatiles, by the CSSAB subcommittee advising the DEP on this guidance.. The compound Naphthalene is not listed in those Tables. Comment 18 PADEP has provided guidance on evaluating the Vapor Intrusion Pathway using Act 2. This guidance includes the requirement for collecting either indoor air quality or soil gas samples to compare to the PADEP Act 2 MSCIAQ and MSCSG values, respectively, for buildings that have preferential pathways. From conversations with PADEP regulators, it is clear that soil gas sampling is the preferred method for evaluating the vapor intrusion pathway for many reasons, not the least of which is the elimination of any potential indoor air contamination interferences from household sources (including paints, glues, dry cleaned clothing, cleaners, solvents, fuels, etc.). If indoor air quality sampling is needed at a particular site, PADEP has not provided any guidance on methods for evaluating that indoor air quality data, specifically regarding contamination interferences from indoor household sources. PADEP has referenced several guidance documents from other state agencies, including the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP). The MADEP guidance provides very specific and clear recommendations on evaluating indoor air quality data, including the use of published ambient indoor background values in order to specifically screen out contaminants that may originate from normal household sources. MADEP also proposes methods of data analysis to compare sample results within a particular household that are designed to differentiate between contaminants that originate from household sources as opposed to those that originate from the external source via the vapor intrusion pathway. Question: Does PADEP accept the methods recommended by MADEP for data evaluation and analysis, specifically regarding the use of published ambient indoor air background values and household-specific comparisons, to screen out contaminants potentially originating from household sources? (5) Response 18 This comment appears to go beyond the standard default screening under the SHS and into a more site-specific analysis. The Department recognizes that there will always be 12

13 issues and unique situations that will warrant careful attention when sampling indoor air. If other indoor sources are a concern, the Department provides the option to conduct soil gas sampling. If indoor air sampling is conducted, the focus is on the proponent to identify and document extraneous sources, such that they may be removed from the analysis either by direct action or inference. Overall, the screening approach the Department has devised will eliminate sites that are clearly de minimis for this pathway. The other sites will likely move on from the SHS to the site-specific standard (SSS). That is why modeling is workable as a first step for the SSS. Comment 19 PADEP cites several references on guidance for designing soil gas sampling investigations around buildings. These references include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), MADEP, and the American Petroleum Institute (API). MADEP references EPA for guidance on soil gas sampling design. EPA specifies that soil gas samples should be collected within 5 feet of the building foundation and at a depth just below the building foundation. API recommends collecting soil gas samples close to the source, because this depth is more representative of steady-state soil gas conditions that may take months or years to achieve at shallower depths (depths close to the building foundation) depending upon the litho logical conditions at the site. API also recommends collecting soil gas samples at various depths in order to determine the effects of biodegradation on contaminants. Question: Has PADEP identified a preferred approach to soil gas sampling, specifically regarding sample depth and the evaluation of biodegradation affects on contaminants? (5) Response 19 The Department has not specified a specific depth for soil gas sampling which would likely be at a point just below the slab or basement floor where vapors would most likely enter and be representative. Obviously, the deeper the sample point and closer to the source, the higher the soil gas concentrations. The Department used a conservative process when evaluating the vapor pathway and assumed no biodegradation of contaminants. Specifics concerning soil gas and indoor air sampling will be addressed in the Technical Guidance Manual (TGM) revision. Comment 20 PADEP has provided guidance on how to evaluate the potential for vapor intrusion within a VOC plume when a complete preferential pathway (e.g., utility or drain/sewer lines, basement sumps, etc) exists. Question: If one of the aforementioned types of preferential pathways are eliminated buy use of engineering controls (e.g., drains lines removed or blanked off from service, or sumps sealed), what, if any, type of sampling is required to evaluate the potential for 13

14 vapor intrusion into structures within the area affected by VOCs in groundwater in these cases? (5) Response 20 If preferential pathways are eliminated by use of engineering controls, as mentioned above, the immediate sampling would not be required. However, the vapor pathway evaluation would continue as indicated in the Groundwater/Soil Decision Matrices (Figures 1 & 2) under SHS. Comment 21 The draft guidance may require soil gas or IAQ sampling as part of the initial screening level assessment of the indoor air pathway. If concentrations in soil or groundwater exceed the SHS for the respective matrices, a site specific risk assessment using the J&E model should be made available as an alternative to soil gas or IAQ sampling. That is, conducting a site specific risk assessment to identify soil and groundwater target levels should be an option to the investigator prior to conducting soil gas or IAQ sampling. (6) Response 21 This Vapor Intrusion Guidance is only intended as a screen under the Statewide Health Standard (SHS) and is only acceptable to be applied and used under SHS and is not intended to be used under the site-specific standard. If the general criteria are met as indicated in the Decision Matrices (Figures 1 & 2), the decision matrix process can be used to evaluate the indoor air pathway. If the indoor air samples are above the established risk-based MSC IAQ, one could mitigate the IAQ contamination or conduct a site-specific risk analysis. Comment 22 The draft guidance presents a comparison of groundwater concentration protective of indoor inhalation with the non-use aquifer standards. The leaching to groundwater and indoor inhalation pathways are separate issues that should be treated accordingly. It is not clear why the comparison to groundwater quality to the non-use aquifer MSCGW is part of the initial assessment flowchart. (6) Response 22 The guidance is to be applied when a responsible party is attaining the SHS for soil and/or groundwater under Act 2. The Department used extensive worst-case modeling (Johnson-Ettinger Intrusion Model; version 2.3, 2001) using PA-specific inputs and MSCs. The results indicated that, in the absence of SPL, if the levels of regulated substances in groundwater are less than or equal to the MSC for a nonuse aquifer (with some exceptions), no further action is required. 14

15 Comment 23 Comment/Response Document* The draft guidance does not indicate the number of soil gas samples needed nor the depth at which the samples are to be taken. It does not indicate whether samples should be collected temporally, and whether the samples should be collected on a one-time basis or from permanent soil gas wells. (6) Response 23 See Response 19 and page 18 under Soil Gas Sampling. Multiple collection events are typically needed to develop a representative soil vapor concentration and properly constructed soil gas wells would be considered as collection points. It is recommended that samples be collected periodically (e.g., four quarterly samples over a year). The MADEP guidance that is referenced recommends that 1-2 soil gas sampling probes be installed adjacent to the structure. Specifics concerning soil gas and indoor air sampling will be addressed in the Technical Guidance Manual (TGM) revision. Comment 24 In the case of multiple data points (in time or space), the draft guidance does not indicate how to determine a representative concentration (highest recorded, average, etc.) for each media; soil, groundwater or soil vapor, which will be used for the comparison with the SHS. (6) Response 24 Previous Act 2 guidance is consistent with the application of USEPA methods for the selection of representative concentrations and exposure point concentrations. For the purpose of making comparisons between environmental data sets and screening levels or criteria to establish the basis for de minimis conditions or the need for additional assessment. The Department believes it is reasonable to compare the maximum detected value or the 95% upper confidence limit of the mean of the appropriate distribution of the environmental data set to the standard or criteria. Specifics concerning soil gas and indoor air sampling will be addressed in the Technical Guidance Manual (TGM) revision. Comment 25 The draft guidance does not specify the location where the soil gas sample should be taken in those sites where a building is not present at the site. (6) Response 25 15

16 This document provides guidance only for vapor intrusion into occupied buildings in which soil gas measurements can be taken at a distance not to exceed 5 feet from the slab or basement edge. Specifics concerning soil gas and indoor air sampling will be addressed in the Technical Guidance Manual (TGM) revision. Comment 26 The draft guidance does not specify the specific inputs used in the preparation of the soil and groundwater concentrations protective of the indoor inhalation pathway. This would be helpful for review and comment on the draft guidance. (6) Response 26 The Department can provide the PA specific input parameters as a Table in the guidance document. Comment 27 The default values for soil appear to be very conservative when compared to the ones used in other States. For example, the PA default value for benzene is 0.37 mg/kg, while in Ohio this value is 0.95 mg/kg. (6) Response 27 The default values for soil were established using the standard methodologies for volatilization to indoor air and standard exposure factors commonly in use throughout the country. Please be aware that these were derived using standard default generic values and they are intended to be conservative. Further, identification of conditions that exceed these values does not indicate a requirement for remediation, only that additional assessment or explanation is warranted. The Department considered this approach conservative but not unreasonable. Comment 28 The draft guidance requires soil gas sampling or indoor air sampling when separated phase liquid (SPL) or impacted soil are within 100 feet of the receptor. It is not readily apparent why the distance of 100 was selected and this distance may be overly conservative in most cases. (6) Response 28 The 100 feet from the source to receptor (inhabited building) value was chosen as the criterion to define when sites need to be addressed for vapor intrusion and to be consistent with the USEPA. The USEPA concluded that 100 feet is a reasonable criterion when considering vapor migration fundamentals, typical sampling density, and 16

17 uncertainty in defining the actual contaminant spatial distribution. The rationale, as cited by USEPA, is based on the fact that vapor concentrations generally decrease with increasing distance away from a subsurface vapor source, and at some distance, the concentrations become negligible. The distance at which concentrations are negligible is a function of the mobility, toxicity, and persistence of the chemical, as well as the geometry of the source, subsurface materials, and characteristics of the building of concern. Comment 29 BP agrees with the concern expressed in Table 6 of the guidance regarding the uncertainties posed by the use of indoor air sampling. It is practically impossible to separate the contribution to the total concentration coming from indoor sources from that coming from the subsurface sources under the building. (6) Response 29 The Department concurs with the comment. However, prior to any indoor air sampling care must be taken to eliminate any potential sources. See pg. 2-5 of MADEP Indoor Air Sampling and Evaluation Guide. The guide is referenced in the vapor guidance and also available for download at: Specifics concerning soil gas and indoor air sampling will be addressed in the Technical Guidance Manual (TGM) revision. Comment 30 Guidance, page 3, second paragraph: Under SHS, if separate phase liquid is encountered beneath the site or within 100ft of the receptor at or above the water table, soil gas sampling or indoor air sampling is required. Comment: Further clarification is necessary as to the location of the SPL that defines a complete exposure pathway. For example, if a site has SPL within 100 feet of a receptor, but a number of soil and groundwater samples collected 50 feet from the receptor identify no unacceptable risk to the receptor, the guidance does not indicate whether soil gas samples are still required to be collected. (6) Response 30 If separate phase liquid (SPL) exists within 100 feet of a receptor, then sampling in or around the receptor to attain the Statewide Health standard is required. One may choose to assess the risk through sampling and assessment between the SPL and receptor. This however, represents procedures under the site-specific standard, which may be applied through a combination of standards remediation. 17

18 Comment 31 Guidance, page 4, second paragraph: Comment/Response Document* If the groundwater concentration is greater than the J&E PA default screening levels, or if groundwater is less than 5 feet below the receptor, then the need to further evaluate or mitigate can be determined by comparison of measured soil gas or indoor air concentrations. Comment: Why is the J&E model not considered valid when the groundwater is < 5 feet below the receptor? The Agency should consider not requiring further evaluation whenever the groundwater concentrations are below the default values, even when the depth to groundwater is < 5 feet. (6) Response 31 The Department concluded through J-E modeling that groundwater concentrations between the appropriate MSC and J-E default levels when groundwater is less than 5 feet below the receptor could pose an indoor air problem and therefore require sampling. Comment 32 Guidance, page 4, second paragraph: The MSCIAQ are found in Table 3 and MSCSG is a function of the MSCIAQ and a transfer (or attenuation) factor of 0.01, from outside to inside the building. Comment: The attenuation factor of 0.01 is not defined, as no transfer distance is given for the pathway. It appears to indicate that the transfer is from directly beneath the slab to directly into the building. The attenuation factor depends on a number of site-specific parameters including, but not limited to (i) soil type, (ii) chemical, (iii) air exchange rate in the building, (iv) cracks in the slab, (v) the pressure difference between the soil and the building, and (vi) the distance from the source to the building. (6) Response 32 The Department chose to use the transfer factor, from soil gas to indoor air, of 0.01 which is a conservative value relating concentrations in indoor air to concentrations in soil gas adjacent to a building based on a data report in Management of Manufactured Gas Plants Sites, Volume III: Risk Assessment, Gas Research Institute, 1987, pages 6-30 and The Department chose to err on the side of conservatism, since the option exists to further evaluate the pathway on a site-specific basis if warranted. Comment 33 Guidance, page 4, first paragraph in the Process for Soil Section: 18

19 Also, if preferential exposure pathways are present and pass through the source or occur within 30 feet of the source, then the decision matrix requires that soil gas or indoor air sampling be performed. Comment: This appears to indicate that a conduit or trench located 30 feet laterally away from the source is a preferential pathway, and therefore requires soil gas or indoor air sampling. A preferential pathway should be a subsurface feature that connects the source to the receptor. A subsurface feature located 30 feet laterally away from the source should not be considered to be a preferential pathway. (6) Response 33 Page 22 of the draft guidance states that a preferential pathway is defined as a natural (e.g., shallow rock or vertically fractured soil) or manmade (e.g., buried utilities) feature that creates a sufficiently direct pathway from a source to a receptor. In addition, the preferential pathway can either pass through the source or occur with 30 feet of the source. Comment 34 Guidance, page 19, Table 7 Comments: The Exposure Time, 24 hr/day, given in the Table may be too high. A more realistic number is 16 hr/day. The Inhalation rate, 1.25 m3/h or 30 m3/day, for the nonresidential case may be too high. A more reasonable value is 20 m3/day. (6) Response 34 The Department chose to use the same assumptions as promulgated in 25 Pa. Code under Inhalation Numeric Values. Comment 35 Upon review of the Vapor Intrusion into Buildings from Groundwater and Soil, Technical Guidance Manual, Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. (CEC) believes that DEP has omitted from this guidance an EPA methodology that has been proven to accurately measure emissions from subsurface contamination. In 1986, EPA published the Measurement of Gaseous Emission Rates from Land Surfaces Using an Emission Isolation Flux Chamber, User s Guide1. This guidance described a methodology to directly measure the surface emission rates of organic chemicals that volatilize from subsurface contamination. Once the emission rates from the subsurface contamination are measured, ambient air concentrations of these contaminants can be calculated and health risks to humans and the environment can be assessed. In recent years work has been completed using the flux chamber to measure vapor intrusion into buildings 2,3. The flux chamber methodology allows a direct measurement of vapor intrusion into the building. Once the intrusion rate is measured, the indoor air concentration due to 19

20 volatilization from subsurface contamination can be calculated. The flux chamber methodology offers several advantages over the methods used in the Vapor Intrusion Guidance document. First, because the flux chamber measures only the chemicals being emitted from the subsurface contamination, there is no interference from chemicals that may be present in the ambient air environment that would be measured on indoor air samples. The resulting health risk assessment will not be complicated by the presence of chemicals measured on indoor air samples but that are not associated with the subsurface contamination. Second, because the flux chamber methodology is an actual measurement, there is no need to rely on the uncertainties of modeling, resulting in a more accurate assessment of indoor air concentrations due to volatilization of subsurface contamination. In addition, often the input values used in these models are not standardized and can be disputed, creating a more complicated process. These types of disputes are eliminated through using the flux chamber methodology. The State of California is working on guidance for using the flux chamber to assess vapor intrusion into indoor air. Frank Dellechaie of the California Department of Toxics Substances Control (DTSC) can be contacted at fdellech@dtsc.ca.gov, if you have questions regarding this application. USEPA. Measurement of Gaseous Emission Rates from Land Surfaces Using an Emission Isolation Flux Chamber, User s Guide. US EPA Monitoring Systems laboratory, Las Vegas, Nevada. EPA/600/8-86/008, February, Schmidt, C.E., Zdeb, T. The Measurement of Indoor Infiltration Through a Concrete Slab Using the US EPA Flux Chamber, Presented at the Annual 1998 AWMA Conference, 98-TA9C.01, June, 1998, San Diego, CA. Schmidt, C.E., Rubin, J. Indoor Infiltration Assessments of VOC s from Contaminated Groundwater Using the US EPA Flux Chamber. Presented at the Annual 2000 AWMA Conference, June 2000, Salt Lake City, UT. (7) Response 35 The Department wants to allow flexibility in the selection of sampling devices for soil gas. We do not endorse any one sampling device method but recommend in the guidance the most widely used, available, and accepted devices. The Department indicated on page 5 of the guidance sampling soil and indoor air is complex and should be approached with caution. Also, as indicated in Table 6 there are significant difficulties with sampling indoor and soil gas. Therefore, it is beyond the scope of this document to fully define processes for sampling these media. The Department would accept the flux chamber methodology as long as all data quality objectives have been met. Comment 36 EPA released its draft Supplemental Guidance for Evaluating the Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air Pathway in October EPA is planning to publish a substantially modified version of this guidance document in the Federal Register for public comment in September 2002 or as soon as it is ready. A comparison of the latest version of EPA s 20

21 guidance and PADEP s guidance indicates a few significant differences which are summarized below. Maximum depth limitation in process for groundwater: In the groundwater screening process for determining the residential/nonresidential volatilization to indoor air criteria, a maximum depth to contamination limit of 30 feet for sand and 15 feet for nonsand soils is given in PADEP s guidance. EPA s guidance specifies a 100-foot maximum depth limitation for all soils. EPA is concerned that the depths chosen by PADEP may not be conservative enough. Available data have indicated that certain volatile organic compounds ( VOCs ) in groundwater at these depths could pose an indoor air threat above a tolerable risk level. EPA believes that PADEP may have arrived at the 15-foot and 30-foot depths based on studies related to petroleum-based compounds, which tend to attenuate rapidly over relatively small distances. EPA suggests that PADEP should reexamine whether the depth limitations contained in the guidance are appropriate. Soil screening table: PADEP s Vapor intrusion Guidance uses the Johnson-Ettinger (J-E) Model to back calculate soil concentrations that will be protective of indoor air. EPA does not recommend using soil sampling analytical results for assessing whether or not the vapor intrusion pathway is complete, unless the soil samples are preserved immediately upon collection with methanol. The uncertainties associated with soil partitioning calculations and the uncertainties associated with soil sampling/chemical analyses (see EPA/600/SR-93/140) are so great that use of soil concentration for assessment of this pathway is not technically defensible. Soil vapor concentrations are more stable than soil concentrations near the source and since collecting soil vapor samples provides direct measurement and is not any more difficult than collecting soil samples, EPA has made a decision not to pursue soil concentration tables. Soil concentration data could be used in a qualitative sense to delineate a source. For example, high soil concentrations (e.g., > 1000 mg/kg TPH) would indicate impacted soils; unfortunately, the opposite is not always true and non-detect analytical results should not be interpreted to conclude the absence of a vapor source. Comparison PADEP vs. EPA groundwater screening levels: Although both EPA and PADEP utilized the Johnson-Ettinger model to back-calculate groundwater screening criteria for the protection of indoor air, the two agencies calculated vastly different results. PADEP s values seem to be much less conservative (several orders of magnitude) than EPA s/. This is because the State used a combination of less conservative model assumptions in its calculation, such as choosing a sandy clay loam as the vadose zone soil type rather than a more porous material such as sand. PADEP also input a very low soil air porosity that, in conjunction with the soil type chosen, served to minimize the modeled soil vapor diffusion. As a result, PADEP came up with an attenuation factor of which is outside EPA s recommended scenario range of 0.1 to Very slight manipulation of certain model assumptions can result in drastically different results. EPA recommends that PADEP reevaluate the default values in the Johnson-Ettinger model so that the risk based groundwater screening criteria for individual VOCs are based on more conservative assumptions. (8) 21

22 Response 36 Comment/Response Document* The Department will consider new and previously unavailable information that will improve the scientific bases of our analyses and guidance. As new information becomes available over time, we will continue our efforts to update and make revisions to the guidance as deemed necessary. The Department believes that the factors and assumptions incorporated into our approach are representative of the conditions in Pennsylvania. The commenter was not able to provide the additional information noted in the comment above with respect to general references to data that disavow soil sampling in favor of soil gas sampling. 22

August Vapor Intrusion Guidance FAQs

August Vapor Intrusion Guidance FAQs August 2017 2017 Vapor Intrusion Guidance FAQs Topics: A. General B. Effect of New Guidance on In-Process Sites C. Future Use of Site D. Modeling E. Off-Site Properties F. Preferential Pathways G. Proximity

More information

PA Vapor Intrusion Guidance

PA Vapor Intrusion Guidance PA Vapor Intrusion Guidance Society of Women Environmental Professionals Capital Chapter November 10, 2016 Presented by: Carolyn Fair - Land Recycling Program PA Department of Environmental Protection

More information

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Bureau of Land Recycling and Waste Management. Land Recycling Program Technical Guidance Manual

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Bureau of Land Recycling and Waste Management. Land Recycling Program Technical Guidance Manual DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Bureau of Land Recycling and Waste Management DOCUMENT NUMBER: TITLE: 253-0300-100 (partial) Land Recycling Program Technical Guidance Manual EFFECTIVE DATE: June

More information

Proposed Changes to EPA s Spreadsheet Version of Johnson & Ettinger Model (and some new spreadsheet tools)

Proposed Changes to EPA s Spreadsheet Version of Johnson & Ettinger Model (and some new spreadsheet tools) Proposed Changes to EPA s Spreadsheet Version of Johnson & Ettinger Model (and some new spreadsheet tools) Workshop Integrating Observed & Modeled Vapor Attenuation The 15th Annual AEHS West Coast Conference,

More information

NJDEP Vapor Intrusion Guidance

NJDEP Vapor Intrusion Guidance NEW JERSEY VAPOR INTRUSION GUIDANCE Kenneth J. Kloo, Brownfield Administrator ASTSWMO 2008 Mid-Year Meeting Mobile, Alabama April 23 & 24, 2008 NJDEP Vapor Intrusion Guidance VAPOR INTRUSION GUIDANCE NEW

More information

Vapor Intrusion - Site Characterization and Screening. NEWMOA Workshop on Vapor Intrusion Chelmsford, MA April 12, 2006

Vapor Intrusion - Site Characterization and Screening. NEWMOA Workshop on Vapor Intrusion Chelmsford, MA April 12, 2006 Vapor Intrusion - Site Characterization and Screening NEWMOA Workshop on Vapor Intrusion Chelmsford, MA April 12, 2006 David J. Folkes P.E. 1 What is Vapor Intrusion?! Compounds of Concern " Volatile Organics

More information

Evaluation of VI Data Relative to Separation Distance Screening Criteria A Michigan Case Study

Evaluation of VI Data Relative to Separation Distance Screening Criteria A Michigan Case Study GROUNDWATER & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES,INC. Evaluation of VI Data Relative to Separation Distance Screening Criteria A Michigan Case Study Chris Mulry, GES, Inc. March 19, 2014 Presentation Outline Study

More information

MassDEP Response. Comment Number. Comment Set(s)

MassDEP Response. Comment Number. Comment Set(s) Response to Public s on the December 2010 Vapor Intrusion pg. 1 Summary of (s) 1 Introduction 1 contains many very specific recommendations, all of which the Department describes as presumptively appropriate.

More information

An RT Regulatory Program Summary

An RT Regulatory Program Summary An RT Regulatory Program Summary NJDEP ISSUES DRAFT VAPOR INTRUSION GUIDANCE In mid-june, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection issued draft Vapor Intrusion Guidance, which is very important,

More information

Understanding VI Screening Levels

Understanding VI Screening Levels A&WMA Specialty Conference URS Understanding VI Screening Levels Sept 29, 2010 VI Conference 1 Screening Values URS EPA and various states use screening values to decide which sites merit further investigation

More information

NJDEP VAPOR INTRUSION GUIDANCE Ground Water Screening Levels: Default Values and Site-Specific Specific Evaluation

NJDEP VAPOR INTRUSION GUIDANCE Ground Water Screening Levels: Default Values and Site-Specific Specific Evaluation NJDEP VAPOR INTRUSION GUIDANCE Ground Water Screening Levels: Default Values and Site-Specific Specific Evaluation Paul Sanders New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection paul.sanders@dep.state.nj.us

More information

FACTS ABOUT: Vapor Intrusion

FACTS ABOUT: Vapor Intrusion Maryland Department of the Environment FACTS ABOUT: Vapor Intrusion The Land Restoration Program (LRP) is charged with assessing and cleaning up uncontrolled hazardous waste sites throughout Maryland to

More information

Pennsylvania s Land Recycling Program. Vapor Intrusion Technical Guidance

Pennsylvania s Land Recycling Program. Vapor Intrusion Technical Guidance Pennsylvania s Land Recycling Program Vapor Intrusion Technical Guidance Appendix Y: Vapor Intrusion Modeling Guidance The Department recommends the use of EPA s Johnson & Ettinger model (U.S. EPA, 2004)

More information

A Rational Approach to Vapor Intrusion Preferential Pathways

A Rational Approach to Vapor Intrusion Preferential Pathways A Rational Approach to Vapor Intrusion Preferential Pathways PRESENTED BY: David J. Folkes, PE Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. AEHS West Coast Conference EPA Vapor Intrusion Technical Workshop March 22, 2016

More information

2. Appendix Y: Vapor Intrusion Modeling Requirements (Appendix to Statewide health standard VI guidance in the Technical Guidance Manual)

2. Appendix Y: Vapor Intrusion Modeling Requirements (Appendix to Statewide health standard VI guidance in the Technical Guidance Manual) 2. Appendix Y: Vapor Intrusion Modeling Requirements (Appendix to Statewide health standard VI guidance in the Technical Guidance Manual) DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 19 June 2014 The Department

More information

STRATEGIES FOR CHARACTERIZING SUBSURFACE RELEASES OF GASOLINE CONTAINING MTBE

STRATEGIES FOR CHARACTERIZING SUBSURFACE RELEASES OF GASOLINE CONTAINING MTBE AUGUST 2000 NO. 11 STRATEGIES FOR CHARACTERIZING SUBSURFACE RELEASES OF GASOLINE CONTAINING MTBE ERIC M. NICHOLS, LFR LEVINE!FRICKE; MURRAY D. EINARSON, CONOR PACIFIC/EFW; STEVEN C. BEADLE, LFR LEVINE!FRICKE

More information

Best management practices for vapor investigation and building mitigation decisions

Best management practices for vapor investigation and building mitigation decisions www.pca.state.mn.us Best management practices for vapor investigation and building mitigation decisions Purpose This best management practices (BMPs) document describes the processes used to conduct vapor

More information

Vapor Intrusion Update: Separating the Environmental exposure from Indoor Air Quality Issues Guidance

Vapor Intrusion Update: Separating the Environmental exposure from Indoor Air Quality Issues Guidance Vapor Intrusion Update: Separating the Environmental exposure from Indoor Air Quality Issues Guidance Will Elcoate Alpha Analytical December 5 th. 2014 1 Vapor Intrusion is the migration of volatile chemicals

More information

Issue No. 7 Fall 2017 Is It a REC? Vapor Intrusion Confusion Back in 2008 the American Society for Testing and Materials (now ASTM International) released its guidance for what was then described as an

More information

Risk-Based Clean-Up in Georgia Under the VRP Vapor Intrusion

Risk-Based Clean-Up in Georgia Under the VRP Vapor Intrusion Risk-Based Clean-Up in Georgia Under the VRP Vapor Intrusion Presented by: Genesis Project, Inc. in conjunction with Atlas Geo-Sampling Presentation Topics 1. Regulatory Implications 2. Vapor Intrusion

More information

Oregon Guidance for Assessing and Remediating Vapor Intrusion in Buildings

Oregon Guidance for Assessing and Remediating Vapor Intrusion in Buildings Department of Environmental Quality Overview of Oregon Guidance for Assessing and Remediating Vapor Intrusion in Buildings Brownfields and Land Revitalization 2011 Conference Spokane, Washington May 13,

More information

Evaluation of Spatial and Temporal Variability in VOC Concentrations at Vapor Intrusion Investigation Sites.

Evaluation of Spatial and Temporal Variability in VOC Concentrations at Vapor Intrusion Investigation Sites. Evaluation of Spatial and Temporal Variability in VOC Concentrations at Vapor Intrusion Investigation Sites. Proceeding of Air & Waste Management Association s Vapor Intrusion: Learning from the Challenges,

More information

The IAQ/Mold Assessment Getting it Right! Controlling Your Risk

The IAQ/Mold Assessment Getting it Right! Controlling Your Risk EBC Seminar The IAQ/Mold Assessment Getting it Right! Controlling Your Risk Next Speaker Rosemary McCafferty Haley & Aldrich, Inc. Outline Vapor Intrusion Overview Vapor Intrusion Sampling Vapor Intrusion

More information

EPA S 2015 vapor intrusion guides What do they mean for your facility?

EPA S 2015 vapor intrusion guides What do they mean for your facility? Environmental law alert Nixon peabody LLP July 22, 2015 EPA S 2015 vapor intrusion guides What do they mean for your facility? By J. Timothy Ramsey and Jean McCreary The United States Environmental Protection

More information

Part 3 Fundamentals. Most Common VI Bloopers. Handy Unit Conversions:

Part 3 Fundamentals. Most Common VI Bloopers. Handy Unit Conversions: Part 3 Fundamentals Units Contaminant Partitioning Vapor Migration Bioattenuation Site Conceptual Model Attenuation (alpha) Factors Risk/Screening Levels Most Common VI Bloopers Unit Confusion Assuming

More information

Vapor Intrusion in Massachusetts Gerard Martin

Vapor Intrusion in Massachusetts Gerard Martin Vapor Intrusion in Massachusetts Gerard Martin Chief Compliance, Enforcement and Brownfields Redevelopment Section Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup, MassDEP Proposed MCP Amendments Relative to Vapor Intrusion

More information

RISK BULLETIN. Vapor Intrusion An Emerging Environmental Liability WHAT IS VAPOR INTRUSION?

RISK BULLETIN. Vapor Intrusion An Emerging Environmental Liability WHAT IS VAPOR INTRUSION? RISK BULLETIN Vapor Intrusion An Emerging Environmental Liability From companies that use volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in their processes to firms that develop land, environmental impacts to soil

More information

7.0 EVALUATION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES

7.0 EVALUATION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES 7.0 EVALUATION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES This section provides a description of the developed remedial alternatives based on viable remedial technologies and process options, as identified in Section 4.0,

More information

A REVIEW OF VAPOR INTRUSION GUIDANCE BY STATE

A REVIEW OF VAPOR INTRUSION GUIDANCE BY STATE A REVIEW OF VAPOR INTRUSION GUIDANCE BY STATE Laurent C. Levy, Ph.D., P.E., Gradient Senior Project Manager Webinar Tuesday, August 14, 2012 Northeast Waste Management Officials' Association Gradient Gradientcorp.com

More information

Is this the maturation Phase of Vapor Intrusion Investigations?

Is this the maturation Phase of Vapor Intrusion Investigations? Is this the maturation Phase of Vapor Intrusion Investigations? Presenter: Will Elcoate June 27 th, 2012 EPA Moves forward with Vapor Intrusion EPA plans to tear down three city businesses Columbus Telegram

More information

Attenuation of Hydrocarbon Vapors from LNAPL Under Residential and Commercial/Industrial Buildings

Attenuation of Hydrocarbon Vapors from LNAPL Under Residential and Commercial/Industrial Buildings Attenuation of Hydrocarbon Vapors from LNAPL Under Residential and Commercial/Industrial Buildings Presented at: Vapor Intrusion Attenuation Workshop 14 th Annual West Coast Conference on Soils, Sediments

More information

Ensuring Occupational Worker Safety At Vapor Intrusion Sites

Ensuring Occupational Worker Safety At Vapor Intrusion Sites Ensuring Occupational Worker Safety At Vapor Intrusion Sites Shukla Roy-Semmen, William Bosan, C.Y. Jeng and Frank Parr Department of Toxic Substances Control California Environmental Protection Agency

More information

23 February 2017 Reference No L-Rev1-8500

23 February 2017 Reference No L-Rev1-8500 23 February 2017 Reference No. David Williams Contaminated Sites Approved Professional Society (CSAP) 744 W. Hastings Street Vancouver, BC V6C 1A5 UPDATED REVIEW OF LATERAL VAPOUR ATTENUATION FACTORS FOR

More information

Consideration of Vapor Intrusion Pathway Modeling in the MassDEP Draft Vapor Intrusion Guidance

Consideration of Vapor Intrusion Pathway Modeling in the MassDEP Draft Vapor Intrusion Guidance 289 Great Road, Suite 105 Acton, Massachusetts 01720 PH 978.263.9588 FAX 978.263.9594 www.geosyntec.com Mr. Andrew Friedmann, Ph.D. sent via email Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Northeast

More information

March 16, Dear Mr. Chapman:

March 16, Dear Mr. Chapman: March 16, 2011 Mr. Al Chapman State of North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Waste Management, Superfund Section 401 Oberlin Road, Suite 150 Raleigh, North Carolina

More information

Evaluating the Petroleum Vapor Intrusion Pathway

Evaluating the Petroleum Vapor Intrusion Pathway Evaluating the Petroleum Vapor Intrusion Pathway Studies of Natural Attenuation of Subsurface Petroleum Hydrocarbons & Recommended Screening Criteria NEIWPCC Webinar on Petroleum Vapor Intrusion June 26,

More information

Using Fate and Transport Models to Evaluate Cleanup Levels

Using Fate and Transport Models to Evaluate Cleanup Levels Fact Sheet # 25 Voluntary Remediation Program (VRP) (307) 777-7752 http://deq.state.wy.us/volremedi/index.asp Using Fate and Transport Models to Evaluate Cleanup Levels In its 2000 session, the Wyoming

More information

IXPER 70C Calcium Peroxide CASE STUDY

IXPER 70C Calcium Peroxide CASE STUDY IXPER 70C INTRODUCTION TO ENHANCED AEROBIC BIOREMEDIATION Enhanced aerobic bioremediation is a well-established and viable remediation technology for in situ degradation of a variety of petroleum hydrocarbon

More information

November 8, 2016 International Petroleum Environmental Conference. Tim Nickels Pastor, Behling & Wheeler, LLC

November 8, 2016 International Petroleum Environmental Conference. Tim Nickels Pastor, Behling & Wheeler, LLC November 8, 2016 International Petroleum Environmental Conference Tim Nickels Pastor, Behling & Wheeler, LLC Long term, non-voluntary constant inhalation exposure to toxic compounds Non-voluntarily inhale

More information

SOIL VAPOR INTRUSION Frequently Asked Questions

SOIL VAPOR INTRUSION Frequently Asked Questions NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SOIL VAPOR INTRUSION Frequently Asked Questions What is soil vapor intrusion? The phrase "soil vapor intrusion" refers to the process by which volatile chemicals move

More information

H&H Job No. DS0-05. April 29, South Tryon Street Suite 100 Charlotte, NC

H&H Job No. DS0-05. April 29, South Tryon Street Suite 100 Charlotte, NC Risk Management Plan Gay Laundry and Cleaners DSCA ID No. 60-0044 1101 North Brevard Street Charlotte, Mecklenburg County North Carolina Dry-Cleaning Solvent Cleanup Act Program H&H Job No. DS0-05 April

More information

Vapor Intrusion: Due Diligence Issues

Vapor Intrusion: Due Diligence Issues Vapor Intrusion: Due Diligence Issues Lawrence Schnapf Schulte Roth & Zabel 919 Third Avenue New York, New York 10022 212-756 756-2205 (phone) 212-593 593-59555955 (fax) Lawrence.Schnapf@srz.com Liability

More information

Vapor Intrusion Basics

Vapor Intrusion Basics Vapor Intrusion Basics Larry Schnapf So your client thinks that it has no more worries with its remediated site? Not so fast. There s a new factor to consider vapor intrusion. THE PAST DECADE witnessed

More information

Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Review/Reuse Recommendations Pagnotti Property, Maffett and South Main Streets, Plains Township, PA

Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Review/Reuse Recommendations Pagnotti Property, Maffett and South Main Streets, Plains Township, PA January 8, 2018 Dr. Brian Costello WBASD Superintendent 730 S. Main Street Wilkes-Barre, PA 18711 Subject: Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Review/Reuse Recommendations Pagnotti Property, Maffett

More information

DECISION DOCUMENT. Kent Avenue Station Site Voluntary Cleanup Program Brooklyn, Kings County Site No. V00732 October 2013

DECISION DOCUMENT. Kent Avenue Station Site Voluntary Cleanup Program Brooklyn, Kings County Site No. V00732 October 2013 DECISION DOCUMENT Kent Avenue Station Site Voluntary Cleanup Program Brooklyn, Kings County Site No. V00732 October 2013 Prepared by Division of Environmental Remediation New York State Department of Environmental

More information

ATTACHMENT 2 TECHNICAL AGREEMENTS. Dated: December 7, 2000

ATTACHMENT 2 TECHNICAL AGREEMENTS. Dated: December 7, 2000 Dated: December 7, 2000 In connection with the Multi-Site Agreement to which this is attached, representatives of BP and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (the Department) have reached

More information

U.S. EPA s Vapor Intrusion Database: Preliminary Evaluation of Attenuation Factors

U.S. EPA s Vapor Intrusion Database: Preliminary Evaluation of Attenuation Factors March 4, 2008 U.S. EPA s Vapor Intrusion Database: Preliminary Evaluation of Attenuation Factors Office of Solid Waste U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC 20460 [This page intentionally

More information

SoBRA Generic Assessment Criteria for Assessing Vapour Inhalation Risks from Groundwater Sources

SoBRA Generic Assessment Criteria for Assessing Vapour Inhalation Risks from Groundwater Sources SoBRA Generic Assessment Criteria for Assessing Vapour Inhalation Risks from Groundwater Sources Eleanor Walker, Atkins Introduction Introduction to SoBRA Groundwater vapour sub-group work - objectives

More information

LSPA Comments: MassDEP 2014 Public Review Draft, Vapor Intrusion Guidance

LSPA Comments: MassDEP 2014 Public Review Draft, Vapor Intrusion Guidance LSPA Comments: MassDEP 2014 Public Review Draft, Vapor Intrusion Guidance The following are the comments from the LSP Association. Page numbers refer to the Public Comment Draft made available electronically

More information

Modeling the Vapor Intrusion Pathway: Revisions to the MCP GW-2 Groundwater Standards

Modeling the Vapor Intrusion Pathway: Revisions to the MCP GW-2 Groundwater Standards Modeling the Vapor Intrusion Pathway: Revisions to the MCP GW-2 Groundwater Standards Environmental Protection One Winter Street, Boston, MA 02108 http://mass.gov/dep Paul W. Locke Bureau Waste Site Cleanup

More information

Variation of NEPM Schedule B1

Variation of NEPM Schedule B1 Variation of NEPM Schedule B1 CRC CARE s Role Prashant Srivastava Outline q The NEPM Review and recommendations q CRC CARE and its petroleum program q Health Screening Levels (HSLs) Project q NEPM variation

More information

ADMINISTRATION OF LAND RECYCLING PROGRAM FINAL RULEMAKING AMENDMENTS COMMENT AND RESPONSE DOCUMENT

ADMINISTRATION OF LAND RECYCLING PROGRAM FINAL RULEMAKING AMENDMENTS COMMENT AND RESPONSE DOCUMENT ADMINISTRATION OF LAND RECYCLING PROGRAM FINAL RULEMAKING AMENDMENTS COMMENT AND RESPONSE DOCUMENT INTRODUCTION In assembling this document, the Environmental Quality Board (Board) has addressed all pertinent

More information

2005 Review of Canada-Wide Standards for Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil: Report of the Model Parameter Advisory (MPA) Sub Group

2005 Review of Canada-Wide Standards for Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil: Report of the Model Parameter Advisory (MPA) Sub Group 2005 Review of Canada-Wide Standards for Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil: Report of the Model Parameter Advisory (MPA) Sub Group March 2006 1 Acknowledgement We would like to thank all the members of the

More information

Draft Guidance on Vapor Intrusion into Buildings from Groundwater and Soil under the Act 2 Statewide Health Standard Vapor Intrusion Subcommittee

Draft Guidance on Vapor Intrusion into Buildings from Groundwater and Soil under the Act 2 Statewide Health Standard Vapor Intrusion Subcommittee Draft Guidance on Vapor Intrusion into Buildings from Groundwater and Soil under the Act 2 Statewide Health Standard Vapor Intrusion Subcommittee Cleanup Standards Scientific Advisory Board Meeting July

More information

A Comparison of BioVapor and Johnson and Ettinger Model Predictions to Field Data for Multiple Sites

A Comparison of BioVapor and Johnson and Ettinger Model Predictions to Field Data for Multiple Sites Compare to J&E? O 2 for Mitigation? A Comparison of BioVapor and Johnson and Ettinger Model Predictions to Field Data for Multiple Sites AEHS 25th Annual International Conference on Soil, Water, Energy

More information

FACTS ABOUT: Former GE Power Systems Apparatus Service Center (Voluntary Cleanup Program) Site Location

FACTS ABOUT: Former GE Power Systems Apparatus Service Center (Voluntary Cleanup Program) Site Location Maryland Department of the Environment Site Location FACTS ABOUT: Former GE Power Systems Apparatus Service Center (Voluntary Cleanup Program) This 2.4581-acres site (Site) consists of four parcels of

More information

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Bureau of Environmental Cleanup and Brownfields

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Bureau of Environmental Cleanup and Brownfields DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Bureau of Environmental Cleanup and Brownfields DOCUMENT NUMBER: 260-0500-001 TITLE: Policy for Coordinating Immediate Responses and Final Remediation of Releases

More information

Remediation Progress at California LUFT Sites: Insights from the GeoTracker Database

Remediation Progress at California LUFT Sites: Insights from the GeoTracker Database API Technical Bulletin #25: Remediation Progress at California LUFT Sites: Insights from the GeoTracker Database Thomas E. McHugh, Roopa Kamath, Poonam R. Kulkarni, Charles J. Newell, and John A. Connor,

More information

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. 2. The effect of remediation on the distribution and mobility of both the LNAPL and water within the zone of interest.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. 2. The effect of remediation on the distribution and mobility of both the LNAPL and water within the zone of interest. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY For many decades, the oil production industry has recognized that significant limitations exist to complete extraction of oil from geologic formations. Attempts to recover fuels and crude

More information

Corps Base Camp Lejeune: Utilizing the DoD Phased Approach to Prioritize Building Investigations

Corps Base Camp Lejeune: Utilizing the DoD Phased Approach to Prioritize Building Investigations A Base-Wide Vapor Intrusion Evaluation at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune: Utilizing the DoD Phased Approach to Prioritize Building Investigations Jennifer Simms, Loren Lund, and Keri Hallberg, CH2M HILL,

More information

Methodology for Identifying the Area of Concern Around a Property Potentially Impacted by Vapor Migration from Nearby Contaminated Sources

Methodology for Identifying the Area of Concern Around a Property Potentially Impacted by Vapor Migration from Nearby Contaminated Sources Methodology for Identifying the Area of Concern Around a Property Potentially Impacted by Vapor Migration from Nearby Contaminated Sources Paper 2011-A-301-AWMA Anthony J. Buonicore, PE, BCEE, QEP The

More information

Proposed MCP Amendments

Proposed MCP Amendments Gerard Martin, Chief Compliance, Enforcement and Brownfields Redevelopment Section MassDEP, Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup Southeast Regional Office September 27, 2013 Proposed MCP Amendments Process Improvements:

More information

Sniffing Out Vapor Intrusion

Sniffing Out Vapor Intrusion Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Sniffing Out Vapor Intrusion Robert Howard Latham

More information

Effect of Building-Source Separation and Preferential Pathways for Steady State Vapor Intrusion Simulations in Non-Homogenous Geologies

Effect of Building-Source Separation and Preferential Pathways for Steady State Vapor Intrusion Simulations in Non-Homogenous Geologies Submitted to Environmental Science & Technology Effect of Building-Source Separation and Preferential Pathways for Steady State Vapor Intrusion Simulations in Non-Homogenous Geologies Journal: Environmental

More information

MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES. Monitored Natural Attenuation of Groundwater Contamination at Voluntary Cleanup Program Sites

MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES. Monitored Natural Attenuation of Groundwater Contamination at Voluntary Cleanup Program Sites MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Monitored Natural Attenuation of Groundwater Contamination at Voluntary Cleanup Program Sites Technical Bulletin 1/2002 Hazardous Waste Program The chemical, physical

More information

Methodology for Establishing Cleanup Levels for Contaminated Sites

Methodology for Establishing Cleanup Levels for Contaminated Sites Methodology for Establishing Cleanup Levels for Introduction: In Oklahoma, appropriate cleanup levels for a specific site are provided by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Achieving these

More information

SOUTHWEST DIVISION Comparing Air Measurements and Modeling Results at a Residential Site Overlying a TCE Plume October 18, 2004

SOUTHWEST DIVISION Comparing Air Measurements and Modeling Results at a Residential Site Overlying a TCE Plume October 18, 2004 SOUTHWEST DIVISION Comparing Air Measurements and Modeling Results at a Residential Site Overlying a TCE Plume October 18, 2004 Presented by: Wilson Doctor, Remedial Project Manager Ronald J. Marnicio,

More information

Fill Material and Soil Management

Fill Material and Soil Management Fill Material and Soil Management What You Need to Know The purpose of this fact sheet is to describe how fill material and excess soil can be reused properly during the cleanup and redevelopment of properties

More information

Use of Crawl Space Sampling Data and Other Lines of Evidence for Evaluating Vapor Intrusion

Use of Crawl Space Sampling Data and Other Lines of Evidence for Evaluating Vapor Intrusion CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL Use of Crawl Space Sampling Data and Other Lines of Evidence for Evaluating Vapor Intrusion C.Y. Jeng and William Bosan

More information

MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY SITE REMEDIATION SECTION

MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY SITE REMEDIATION SECTION MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY SITE REMEDIATION SECTION GROUND WATER POLICY DOCUMENT WORKING DRAFT, August, 1998 Fax (651) 296-9707 NOTICE THIS DOCUMENT IS AN. The of MPCA is developing guidelines

More information

Executive Summary. ES.1 Objectives and Scope

Executive Summary. ES.1 Objectives and Scope Executive Summary This Remedial Investigation and Focused Feasibility Study (RI/FFS) report was prepared on behalf of Northern States Power Co. (NSP) to document the findings of the multi-media environmental

More information

APPENDIX I A SITE-SPECIFIC RECAP EVALUATION FOR TYPICAL UST SITES

APPENDIX I A SITE-SPECIFIC RECAP EVALUATION FOR TYPICAL UST SITES APPENDIX I A SITE-SPECIFIC RECAP EVALUATION FOR TYPICAL UST SITES LDEQ RECAP 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures List of Tables List of Worksheets Page... i... i... ii I1.0 APPENDIX I UNDERGROUND STORAGE

More information

PROPOSED PLAN OF REMEDIAL ACTION. 560 Terminal Avenue New Castle, DE

PROPOSED PLAN OF REMEDIAL ACTION. 560 Terminal Avenue New Castle, DE PROPOSED PLAN OF REMEDIAL ACTION 560 Terminal Avenue New Castle, DE DNREC Project No. DE 1123 October 2002 Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control Division of Air and Waste Management

More information

Connecticut Remediation Criteria: Technical Support Document Proposed Revisions to the Connecticut Remediation Standard Regulations

Connecticut Remediation Criteria: Technical Support Document Proposed Revisions to the Connecticut Remediation Standard Regulations Connecticut Remediation Criteria: Technical Support Document 2008 Proposed Revisions to the Connecticut Remediation Standard Regulations Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Water

More information

MTBE Fact Sheet #2 Remediation Of MTBE Contaminated Soil And Groundwater Background

MTBE Fact Sheet #2 Remediation Of MTBE Contaminated Soil And Groundwater Background United States Office Of Solid Waste And EPA 510-F-98-002 Environmental Protection Emergency Response Agency (5401G) www.epa.gov/oust/mtbe/ Office Of Underground Storage Tanks MTBE Fact Sheet #2 Remediation

More information

Risk and Required Mitigation

Risk and Required Mitigation 1 2.3 Critical Exposure Pathways 2.3.1 Identification of a Critical Exposure Pathway (CEP) 2.3.1.1. The CEP Concept The CEP requirements in the MCP are focused on human receptors in homes, schools and

More information

Detailed discussion of the Petroleum Vapor Database is provided in Davis R.V., 2009, LUSTLine #61 and EPA Jan

Detailed discussion of the Petroleum Vapor Database is provided in Davis R.V., 2009, LUSTLine #61 and EPA Jan 1 The objective of studying and evaluating the behavior of subsurface petroleum vapors is to understand why, with so many LUST sites worldwide, the PVI pathway is rarely complete. Advancing our knowledge

More information

Volatilization to Indoor Air Pathway (VIAP) and Vapor Intrusion (VI)

Volatilization to Indoor Air Pathway (VIAP) and Vapor Intrusion (VI) Volatilization to Indoor Air Pathway (VIAP) and Vapor Intrusion (VI) What it is and What s up Matthew Williams Vapor Intrusion Specialist Remediation and Redevelopment Division Phone: (517)284-5171 Email:

More information

Draft Petroleum Vapor Intrusion Information Paper. Michael Lowry, RTI International Matthew Young, EPA OUST

Draft Petroleum Vapor Intrusion Information Paper. Michael Lowry, RTI International Matthew Young, EPA OUST Draft Petroleum Vapor Intrusion Information Paper Michael Lowry, RTI International Matthew Young, EPA OUST g, Describe differences between petroleum vapor intrusion (PVI) and chlorinated solvent vapor

More information

Attenuation Factors for Hydrocarbons Associated With a Diesel Spill

Attenuation Factors for Hydrocarbons Associated With a Diesel Spill Attenuation Factors for Hydrocarbons Associated With a Diesel Spill By Lindsay Breyer, CIH and James B. Cowart, PE Walsh Environmental Scientists and Engineers, Boulder, Colorado Site Location: Mandan,

More information

23 rd National Tanks Conference Petroleum Vapor Intrusion Session March 19, 2012 Matthew D. Young Cumberland Farms Inc.

23 rd National Tanks Conference Petroleum Vapor Intrusion Session March 19, 2012 Matthew D. Young Cumberland Farms Inc. 23 rd National Tanks Conference Petroleum Vapor Intrusion Session March 19, 2012 Matthew D. Young Cumberland Farms Inc. Gulf Oil LP Table of Contents Purpose & Scope (2 minutes) The Tale of the Tape (3

More information

4.1 Evaluation Criteria

4.1 Evaluation Criteria Section 4 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives A detailed evaluation of the alternatives provides the relevant information necessary for decision makers to select an appropriate site remedy. In this section,

More information

Mark Kelley Battelle Environmental Technology and Restoration

Mark Kelley Battelle Environmental Technology and Restoration !"# Mark Kelley Battelle Environmental Technology and Restoration A recently closed landfill at a military facility is the focus The landfill is a source of methane and VOCs in soil gas, as shown by lab

More information

AR No. IR No. EIELSON AFB ALASKA. Administrative Record Cover Sheet NOTES:

AR No. IR No. EIELSON AFB ALASKA. Administrative Record Cover Sheet NOTES: AR No. IR No. EIELSON AFB ALASKA NOTES: Administrative Record Cover Sheet Aaron Lambert 2013.03.06 14:20:30-08'00' DEC/EPA Comments Dated 14 December 2012 on Draft QAPP, Phase 2 Source Evaluation at SS085

More information

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Technical Guidance for the Attainment of Remediation Standards and Site-Specific Criteria

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Technical Guidance for the Attainment of Remediation Standards and Site-Specific Criteria New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Site Remediation Program Technical Guidance for the Attainment of Remediation Standards and Site-Specific Criteria September 24, 2012 Version 1.0 TABLE

More information

H&P Breakfast Seminar

H&P Breakfast Seminar Vapor Intrusion Risk Pathway: Regulatory Updates H&P Breakfast Seminar September 25, 2012 Blayne Hartman 858-204-6170 blayne@hartmaneg.com EPA Guidance Updates (Final Out in Nov 2012) EPA (OSWER & Superfund)

More information

Environmental Remediation Services Draft Focused FS FGGM 83/OU-1 Former Skeet Range

Environmental Remediation Services Draft Focused FS FGGM 83/OU-1 Former Skeet Range Environmental Remediation Services Draft Focused FS FGGM 83/OU-1 Former Skeet Range 1 Presentation Agenda OU-1/FGGM-83, Former Trap & Skeet Range Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) OU-3/FGGM-87, Former Nike

More information

Screening Distances for Petroleum Vapor Intrusion Risk Assessment

Screening Distances for Petroleum Vapor Intrusion Risk Assessment Screening Distances for Petroleum Vapor Intrusion Risk Assessment 23nd Annual International Conference on Soil, Water, Energy, and Air and AEHS Foundation Annual Meeting San Diego, California March 18-21,

More information

I would like to thank the many program stakeholders who have provided valuable input in the development of this document.

I would like to thank the many program stakeholders who have provided valuable input in the development of this document. December 20, 2011 Dear Interested Party: The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) is pleased to announce the publication of the Interim Final Vapor Intrusion Guidance (WSC#-11-435).

More information

Guidelines for Assessing and Managing Petroleum Hydrocarbon Contaminated Sites in New Zealand (Revised 2011)

Guidelines for Assessing and Managing Petroleum Hydrocarbon Contaminated Sites in New Zealand (Revised 2011) Guidelines for Assessing and Managing Petroleum Hydrocarbon Contaminated Sites in New Zealand (Revised 2011) MODULE 5 Tier 1 groundwater acceptance criteria August 1999 Contents 5 TIER 1 GROUNDWATER ACCEPTANCE

More information

Eligibility Requirements and Procedures for Risk-Based Remediation of Industrial Sites Pursuant to N.C.G.S. 130A to

Eligibility Requirements and Procedures for Risk-Based Remediation of Industrial Sites Pursuant to N.C.G.S. 130A to Eligibility Requirements and Procedures for Risk-Based Remediation of Industrial Sites Pursuant to N.C.G.S. 130A-310.65 to 310.77 North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division

More information

Facts About. LMA Fill Material and Soil Management Guidance. Introduction. What Soils and Fill Material are Subject to the Policy?

Facts About. LMA Fill Material and Soil Management Guidance. Introduction. What Soils and Fill Material are Subject to the Policy? Facts About LMA Fill Material and Soil Management Guidance The purpose of this guidance is to describe how fill material and excess soil can be reused properly during the cleanup and redevelopment of properties

More information

VAPOR ENCROACHMENT VAPOR INTRUSION; TRANSACTIONAL ASSESSMENT OF THE POSSIBLE VAPOR INTRUSION PATHWAY

VAPOR ENCROACHMENT VAPOR INTRUSION; TRANSACTIONAL ASSESSMENT OF THE POSSIBLE VAPOR INTRUSION PATHWAY VAPOR ENCROACHMENT VAPOR INTRUSION; TRANSACTIONAL ASSESSMENT OF THE POSSIBLE VAPOR INTRUSION PATHWAY By Russell Griebel, P.G., C.P.G. United Consulting Presentation Talking Points How We Got Here Vapor

More information

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION COMMUNITY ROLE IN THE SELECTION PROCESS SITE BACKGROUND... 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION COMMUNITY ROLE IN THE SELECTION PROCESS SITE BACKGROUND... 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION... 1 2.0 COMMUNITY ROLE IN THE SELECTION PROCESS... 2 3.0 SITE BACKGROUND... 2 4.0 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION SUMMARY... 3 4.1 Type and Distribution of Soil Contamination...

More information

THE STATUS OF VAPOR INTRUSION ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION IN OREGON

THE STATUS OF VAPOR INTRUSION ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION IN OREGON THE STATUS OF VAPOR INTRUSION ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION IN OREGON By Don Hanson, Oregon DEQ SCRD May 2012 Oklahoma City OREGON PUBLISHED VI GUIDANCE IN MARCH 2010 Guidance for Assessing and Remediating

More information

Post-Remedy Vapor Intrusion Evaluation for the Laboratory for Energy-Related Health Research (LEHR) Superfund Site

Post-Remedy Vapor Intrusion Evaluation for the Laboratory for Energy-Related Health Research (LEHR) Superfund Site August 20 23, 2018 Grand Junction, Colorado 2018 Long-Term Stewardship Conference Post-Remedy Vapor Intrusion Evaluation for the Laboratory for Energy-Related Health Research (LEHR) Superfund Site Mary

More information

Guidance for Evaluating Soil Vapor Intrusion in the State of New York. PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT February 2005

Guidance for Evaluating Soil Vapor Intrusion in the State of New York. PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT February 2005 Guidance for Evaluating Soil Vapor Intrusion in the State of New York Prepared by: NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Center for Environmental Health Bureau of Environmental Exposure Investigation Soil

More information

BEYOND THE GUIDANCE. The making of the ITRC PVI Guidance Document. Catherine Regan, ERM Boston Matt Lahvis, Shell Houston

BEYOND THE GUIDANCE. The making of the ITRC PVI Guidance Document. Catherine Regan, ERM Boston Matt Lahvis, Shell Houston BEYOND THE GUIDANCE The making of the ITRC PVI Guidance Document Catherine Regan, ERM Boston Matt Lahvis, Shell Houston Introduction 2 http://www.itrcweb.org/petroleumvi-guidance/ Motivation for Guidance

More information

Remedial Methods for Mitigating Vapour Intrusion to High Density Urban Developments

Remedial Methods for Mitigating Vapour Intrusion to High Density Urban Developments Remedial Methods for Mitigating Vapour Intrusion to High Density Urban Developments By: Peter T. Reid, M.Eng., P.Eng., CSAP, MBA, Practice Leader Presented to: RemTech 2013 October 18 th, 2013 Agenda Vapour

More information

Risk-Based Decision Making for Site Cleanup

Risk-Based Decision Making for Site Cleanup Risk-Based Decision Making for Site Cleanup The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has adopted a risk-based decision-making process to provide a framework for determining cleanup requirements

More information