Vapor Intrusion Regulatory Guidance and IRIS Updates with Mitigation Case Studies. Richard J. Rago Haley & Aldrich 20 June 2012

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

A REVIEW OF VAPOR INTRUSION GUIDANCE BY STATE

Evaluating the Petroleum Vapor Intrusion Pathway

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

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

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

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

H&P Breakfast Seminar

FACTS ABOUT: Vapor Intrusion

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

Is this the maturation Phase of Vapor Intrusion Investigations?

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

New Insights Into Exposure Through Preferential Pathway Vapor Migration

Remedial Methods for Mitigating Vapour Intrusion to High Density Urban Developments

NJDEP Vapor Intrusion Guidance

Proposed MCP Amendments


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

Vapor Intrusion in Massachusetts Gerard Martin

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

Exclusion Distance Criteria for Assessing Potential Vapour Intrusion at Petroleum Hydrocarbon Sites

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

An RT Regulatory Program Summary

Summary of State Approaches to VI 2018 Update

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

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

Empirical Data to Evaluate the Occurrence of Sub-slab O 2 Depletion Shadow at Petroleum Hydrocarbon- Impacted Vapor Intrusion Sites

Vapor Intrusion Mitigation Methods & Strategies

Screening Criteria to Evaluate Vapor Intrusion Risk from Lead Scavengers

PVI Risk Pathway: Sampling Considerations

Use of Soil-Gas Data in Vapor Intrusion Decisions

MassDEP Response. Comment Number. Comment Set(s)

Understanding VI Screening Levels

Screening Distances for Petroleum Vapor Intrusion Risk Assessment

A Rational Approach to Vapor Intrusion Preferential Pathways

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

August Vapor Intrusion Guidance FAQs

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

SOIL VAPOR INTRUSION Frequently Asked Questions

VAPOR INTRUSION TECHNICAL GUIDANCE

PA Vapor Intrusion Guidance

Update - Vapor Intrusion and Mitigation in Florida

Practical Aspects of VI Assessment for TCE. Acknowledgments and special thanks to:

EPA Vapor Intrusion Update

Petroleum Vapor Intrusion: Sampling & Analytical Issues

Vapor Intrusion Mitigation: Answering the Common Questions Plaguing Brownfield Developers West Virginia Brownfields Conference

Oregon Guidance for Assessing and Remediating Vapor Intrusion in Buildings

Best management practices for vapor investigation and building mitigation decisions

Quantitative Decision Framework for Vapor Intrusion Evaluation in DoD Industrial Buildings - Based on an Empirical Database

Mass Flux Characterization for Vapor Intrusion Assessment

Indoor Air Quality Testing at the Middle River Complex

23 February 2017 Reference No L-Rev1-8500

March 2010 Frequently Asked Questions

Lessons from Large Groundwater Plume Sites Redfield and Wall

Design of Below Sub-slab Vapour Management System for a Commercial Building

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

Navy VI Web Tool: A Systematic Approach for Assessing Strength of Evidence

i-admin /15/14 2 of 3 Doc Type: Board Memo/Issue Statement

Rhode Island Department of Environmental Mgmt. Office of Waste Management. NEWMOA TCE Vapor Intrusion Workshop Providence, Rhode Island April 13, 2015

In Situ Treatment of Contaminated Soil and Groundwater: Lessons Learned from the Field

Background. NCP Early or Interim Actions 5/3/2017. Current Ohio EPA Response Action Levels and Time Frames for TCE at Vapor Intrusion Sites in Ohio

Ask The Expert Webinar Series Vapor Intrusion Assessments Part Two: Improving Data Quality Using Today s Best Practices for Sample Analysis

TCE Fate and Transport, as Related to Vapor Intrusion

TCE Fate and Transport, as Related to Vapor Intrusion

Vapor Intrusion Assessments Program considerations and comments on U.S. EPA s Technical Guides Tom Yoder Product Manager

Lessons from Petroleum Hydrocarbon and Chlorinated Solvent Sites Extensively Monitored for Vapor Intrusion

Vapor Intrusion Basics

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

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

Attenuation Factors for Hydrocarbons Associated With a Diesel Spill

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

Calculation of Site Specific Groundwater to Indoor Air Volatilization Factors (GIVFs)

Presented by: Thomas Hatton

INDOOR AIR INVESTIGATION

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

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

NEWMOA/ Brown SRP Vapor Intrusion Workshop. September 26 and 26, η T. q = k ρ g. D ig. = d i air η g. dφ = gz + 10 / 3

IPEC Conference San Antonio, TX November 13, 2013 Glenn Nicholas Iosue

ATLANTIC RBCA (Risk-Based Corrective Action) Guidance for Vapour Intrusion Assessments

Measurement of BTX Vapour Intrusion into an Experimental Building

THE STATUS OF VAPOR INTRUSION ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION IN OREGON

A Review of Preferential Pathway Case Studies: Lessons-Learned for Vapor Intrusion Site Assessment

Vapor Intrusion Risk Pathway: Updates & Hot topics

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

The Vapor-Intrusion Pathway: Petroleum Hydrocarbon Issues

Vapor Intrusion: Due Diligence Issues

Soil Gas Sampling for Vapor Intrusion Assessments: Key Issues

Introduction to Horizontal Remediation Wells for Improved Site Cleanup Training Workshop

Royalton-Hartland School District Village of Middleport Campus March 2006 Air Testing Results Sampling completed by FMC Corporation

Kansas Drycleaning Program. kdheks.gov

PM STRAUSS & ASSOCIATES Energy and Environmental Consulting MEMORANDUM

Eric M. Nichols, PE Amy Goldberg Day

Vapor Intrusion from Subsurface to Indoor Air:

Petroleum Vapor Intrusion Pathway

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

Vapor Intrusion Issues

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

MEMO. Kris Hinskey

RISK BASED CLOSURE ALTERNATIVE TO REMEDIATION AT AN URBAN SITE. Brian H. Hackett CP, EMS LLC January 17, 2011

Testing Is Easy And Inexpensive

Transcription:

Vapor Intrusion Regulatory Guidance and IRIS Updates with Mitigation Case Studies Richard J. Rago Haley & Aldrich 20 June 2012

Outline Vapor Intrusion Overview and VI Regulatory Landscape Recent Changes and Focus on PVI IA Background Considerations Mitigation Case Studies

VI Pathway Main Transport Mechanisms Diffusion of vapors from sources in the unsaturated zone Diffusion of vapors from sources in shallow ground water Advective/convective transport of vapors Vapor migration through preferential pathways USEPA 2004 Key Point: Volatile chemicals does not mean just VOCs.

General Approach To date, EPA and many states recommend a tiered approach to evaluate sites: Tier 1 Simple Screen Are any volatile chemicals present? Tier 2 Simple screen Are volatile chemicals above screening criteria? Tier 3 Site-specific evaluation

MassDEP Numerical Standards NYS DOH IA Background Study CT DEP Numerical Standards CDPHE Redfields, CDOT Sites History of VI Guidance Development CDPHE IA Analysis Guide MDEQ Volatilization Criteria (RBSLs) NH DES Standards NH DES Residential IA Assessment Guide NYSDEC Endicott, NY VI Project Michigan Science Board Evaluation NYS DOH IA Sampling Guide OSWER (EPA) MassDEP IA Sampling Guide & Proposed Revisions MDEQ Revisions MDEQ TCE memo And RRD Op Memo No. 1 NYS DEC Draft Policy CA DTSC NJDEP VI Guidance IDEM NYSDOH NHDES ITRC MassDEP Internal SOP UPVs ASTM EPA Mitigation Advisory MDEQ RRD Op Memo No. 4 OSWER TCE Memo CTDEP SVS SOP CA DTSC VIMA SG Advisory 1992.. 1996 1997 1998.. 2000 2001 2002.. 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Recent and Scheduled Federal Changes and Updates AEHS/EPA Public Listening Session (March 2011/April 2011) Background indoor air concentrations paper (June 2011) TCE IRIS Assessment - September 2011 (previously 1989) cancer and non-cancer toxicity, oral and inhalation; mutagen PCE IRIS Assessment - February 2012 cancer and non-cancer toxicity, oral and inhalation; not classified as a mutagen EPA s VI Database Evaluation and Screening Level Calculator March 2012 Petroleum Vapor Intrusion Guidance for LUST and ITRC PVI April 2012 Lessons learned from Radon paper 2012 Final Subsurface Vapor Intrusion Guidance - 30 November 2012

Attributes of CT, NY, and NJ Programs Trigger distance (feet) Modeling vs. Measurement Numerical criteria Background #s incorporated? Analyte list Outdoor air sampling? Hypothetical future use? CT NY NJ GW: 15H; 15V DOH: none 100H; 100V DEC: not 100 PHCs: 30H: 30V Measurement Measurement Measurement IA, SV, and GW IA (5 compounds*) Yes Yes No Full-suite (RCPs) SV: wide range IA: site-related Yes IA, SV, and GW Full suite TO-15 (first round*) Yes Yes Yes Yes * Changes expected

New Jersey (2012) Table 3-2 Recommended Minimum Number of Sub-Slab Soil Gas Samples Table 3-3 Recommended Minimum Number of Indoor Air Samples Square footage of floor Number of Sub-Slab Soil Gas Samples Square footage of floor Number of Indoor Air Samples Up to 1,500 2 1,501 to 5,000 3 5,001 to 10,000 4 10,001 to 20,000 5 20,001 to 50,000 6 50,001 to 250,000 8 250,001 to 1,000,000 10 >1,000,000 12+ Up to 1,500 1-2 1,501 to 5,000 2 5,001 to 10,000 3 10,001 to 20,000 4 20,001 to 50,000 5 50,001 to 250,000 6 250,001 to 1,000,000 9 >1,000,000 9+

Petroleum Hydrocarbons And Chlorinated Hydrocarbons Differ In Their Potential For Vapor Intrusion - US EPA OUST; September 2011 VI OSWER NJ MA IN MI PA? CA CA ME NY TIME PHC VI CVOCs

History of VI Guidance Development NYS DOH IA Background Study MassDEP Numerical Standards CT DEP Numerical Standards CDPHE IA Analysis Guide MDEQ Volatilization Criteria (RBSLs) NH DES Standards CDPHE Redfields, CDOT Sites NH DES Residential IA Assessment Guide Michigan Science Board Evaluation NYS DOH IA Sampling Guide NYSDEC Endicott, NY VI Project OSWER (EPA) MassDEP IA Sampling Guide & Proposed Revisions MDEQ Revisions MDEQ TCE memo and RRD Op Memo No. 1 NYS DEC Draft Policy CA DTSC VI Guidance First Established/Discussed Different Triggers for PHC NJDEP IDEM NYSDOH NHDES ITRC MassDEP Internal SOP UPVs ASTM EPA Mitigation Advisory MDEQ RRD Op Memo No. 4 OSWER TCE Memo CTDEP SVS SOP CA DTSC VIMA SG Advisory 1992.. 1996 1997 1998.. 2000 2001 2002.. 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Recent Updates from the States that show PHC Implications Washington Department of Ecology (2009) PHC have same 100 ft trigger distance as CVOCs, but assumed 10X additional PHC attenuation (of their 0.1 default) Maine DEP (2009) 30 ft trigger distance allowed for PHC, but same 0.02 attenuation factor Massachusetts DEP (2010 draft) Default alpha of 0.02 for CVOCs; Default alpha of 0.001 for PHC

Recent Updates from the States that show PHC Implications Indiana DEM (RCG Draft 2011) Default sub-slab alphas of 0.1 for residential and 0.01 for some commercial/industrial Default exterior SG alphas of 0.1 for shallow (5-15 ft) and 0.01 for deep (>15 ft) Free product trigger of 30 feet concentration of benzene in GW under building greater than 1,000 ug/l or GW > VI GWSLs in direct contact with slab less than five ft of clean, unsaturated soil with an oxygen content greater than 5% exists between the residual petroleum and the building Well-oxygenated soil promotes biodegradation of petroleum vapors. A sufficient thickness (separation distance) of unsaturated, oxygenated soil between the source and the building may permit sufficient biodegradation to prevent VI. (Davis, 2009; Luo et al., 2009, Lundegard, 2008; Patterson and Davis, 2009; U.S. EPA, 2010).

Recent Updates from the States that show PHC Implications (continued) Massachusetts DEP (Interim Final 2011) Single default alpha of ~0.014 (e.g. 70X) - inverse of 80th percentile of the attenuation factors in EPA database PHC degradation built in to GW2 standards Soil: within six feet horizontally from the wall of the structure, and within ten feet vertically from the basement floor/slab; GW2 definition: less than 15 feet vertically or a horizontal distance greater than 30 feet from an occupied building, but evaluate VI if GW greater than ten times the GW-2 Standard within 100 feet of an occupied building or structure

Recent Updates from the States that show PHC Implications (continued) Indiana DEM (Final 2012) Same as 2011, except: Under PHC, clarified Free product as LNAPL (MGP DNAPL?) Default sub-slab alphas of 0.1 for residential and commercial/industrial (0.01 for some C/I) Default residential and C/I shallow exterior soil gas alphas of 0.1 (0.01 for some C/I) Default residential and C/I deep exterior soil gas alphas of 0.01 (0.001 for some C/I)

Recent Updates from the States that show PHC Implications (continued) New Jersey DEP (2012) Still a 30-foot trigger distance (horizontal and vertical) for PHC-related groundwater (100 ft for CVOCs); 100-foot critical distance criterion shall be used for all free product, PHC-related or otherwise Default attenuation factor of 0.02 for CVOCs and PHC, but an additional attenuation factor of 0.1 was incorporated into the default GWSL for PHC (e.g., BTEX) Documents PHC aerobic biodegradation (Roggemans et al. 2001, Lahvis et al. 1999, Devaull et al. 1997) and relaxes earlier evidence that oxygen > 4% needed for biodegradation (DeVaull et al. 1997): oxygen threshold may be lower, between 1-2% (Roggemans et al. 2001, Abreu et al. 2009)

Recent Updates from the States that show PHC Implications (continued) New Jersey DEP (2012) For gasoline only: benzene is the exclusive VI trigger PVI investigation not necessary if vertical distance between the water table and the building slab is at least 10 feet and benzene concentrations in shallow groundwater under the building are 1,000 μg/l or less; OR; Vertical distance between the water table and the building slab is at least 5 feet and benzene concentrations in shallow groundwater under the building are 100 μg/l or less; OR; Vertical separation distance between the water table and the building slab is at least 5 feet with the presence of 2% (v/v) oxygen in the vadose zone at the appropriate location and benzene concentrations in shallow groundwater under the building are 1,000 μg/l or less.

Indoor Air Background (NJDEP) One of the most difficult facets of investigating VI is the interpretation of the available information and the subsequent conclusions reached on the completeness of the pathway. This task is complicated by the impact of background contaminant sources on the overall indoor air quality...the most critical point is in the assessment of indoor air data as it relates to background contamination.

Benzene Background Comparison BENZENE 12.00 10.00 10-6 ELCR ~ 0.31 ug/m3 8.00 ug/m3 6.00 1.6-28 ug/m3 BENZENE 4.00 2.00 0.00 MA 2005 50%ile NY 2003 50%ile MN 2000 50%ile VT 91-92 50%ile CRA 2004 50%ile RIOPA-CA 2005 RIOPA-NJ 2005 RIOPA-TX 2005 Stol. 1990 50%ile S&S 1988 50%ile Rago et al, 2007

Ethylbenzene Background Comparison 12.00 10.00 8.00 (ug/m3) 6.00 ETHYLBENZENE 4.00 2.00 0.00 MA 2004 50%ile NY 2003 50%ile MN 2000 50%ile VT 91-92 50%ile Stol. 1990 50%ile S&S 1988 50%ile Rago, 2005

Ethylbenzene Background Comparison (with my house) 30.00 25.00 20.00 (ug/m3) 15.00 ETHYLBENZENE 10.00 5.00 0.00 MA 2004 50%ile NY 2003 50%ile MN 2000 50%ile VT 91-92 50%ile Stol. 1990 50%ile S&S 1988 50%ile My House (actual)

Tetrachloroethylene Background Comparison 6.00 5.00 4.00 ug/m3 3.00 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE 2.00 1.00 0.00 MA 2004 50%ile NY 2003 50%ile MN 2000 50%ile VT 91-92 50%ile Stol. 1990 50%ile S&S 1988 50%ile Rago, 2005

Tetrachloroethylene Background Comparison (with my house and my office) TETRACHLOROETHYLENE 35.00 30.00 25.00 20.00 ug/m3 15.00 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE 10.00 5.00 0.00 MA 2004 50%ile NY 2003 50%ile MN 2000 50%ile VT 91-92 50%ile Stol. 1990 50%ile S&S 1988 50%ile My House (actual) My Office (previous)

Daily Residential Indoor Air Data 5 4.5 Dry-cleaned clothes brought into home Tetrachloroethylene 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 Concentation (ug/m3) ND ND ND ND 2 0.5 0 Rago el al, 2010

VI Mitigation is easy New Construction/Passive Retrofit/Active

Case Study #1 Retail Strip with former dry cleaner PCE in soil gas under basement of retail spaces up to 563,000 ug/m 3 ; PCE in indoor air up to 768 ug/m 3 in occupied retail spaces Sub-slab depressurization selected to mitigate risks; diagnostic testing completed to design depressurization system with negative pressure greater than 0.02 in. H 2 O measured 20 ft. from pilot suction point Full scale system consisting of four suction pits installed; during installation, water observed infiltrating into bottom of 2 of the 4 suction pits at 6 below floor slab Efforts made to retrofit but negative pressure field not measured at temporary monitoring points

Case Study #1 (cont.)

Case Study #1 (cont.) Solution: expanded two of the four suction pits and added 12 diameter slotted perforated PVC sump with level controlled sump pump with vacuum tight cover Sump pump discharge treated through carbon and discharged to on site infiltration trench Vacuum Sumps connected and manifolded to existing blower Immediately after started of retrofitted system, negative pressure field measured at greater than 0.02 in. of H 2 O throughout the entire 4,000 ft 2 building footprint Subsequent indoor air testing indicated PCE concentrations of less than 1 ug/m 3 in indoor air

Case Study #2 Strip Mall with Former Dry Cleaner Tenants included clothing store, barber shop and pizza parlor; Soil vapor concentrations of up to 150,000 ug/m 3 PCE detected beneath basement of pizza parlor; PCE detected in restaurant space at concentrations of up to 45 ug/m 3 Subslab depressurization selected to mitigate VI; diagnostic testing to design depressurization system completed during off hours to minimize disruption to restaurant

Case Study #2 (cont.) Diagnostic testing demonstrated effective ROI of up to 0.016 in. H 2 O at 20 ft. from pilot suction pit System designed and installed with suction pits in basement of restaurant Following system startup, measureable vacuum detected in vacuum monitoring points, but only up to 0.008 in. H 2 O Efforts to troubleshoot did not indicate problems with blower system However, front door of pizza shop was difficult to open

Case Study #2 (cont.) Arranged temporary shutdown of large exhaust fan differential pressures of up to 0.014 in. H 2 O measured at all locations in building footprint differential pressure readings increased and decreased when the exhaust fan was cycled on and off Solution: additional suction pits were installed to provide better coverage and dilution air to vacuum blower was balanced negative pressure field of up 0.015 in. H 2 0 measured even while exhaust fan operating

Case Study #3 Residential condominium Building downgradient from operating dry cleaner Soil vapor concentrations of up to 25,000 ug/m 3 of PCE measured under slab on grade unit; PCE measured in indoor air in residential unit up to 25 ug/m 3 Subslab depressurization selected to mitigate VI risk with diagnostic testing completed; system installed consisting of 8 suction pits to depressurize 10,000 ft 2 footprint Negative pressure field of greater than 0.02 in. H 2 0 documented within footprint following start up Subsequent IA testing indicated PCE concentrations of less than 1 ug/m 3 approximate 2 weeks after start up

Case Study #3 (cont.) Post-mitigation IA concentrations consistent over more than 6 months IA samples in one area contain 250 ug/m 3 of PCE Reinspected area and identified a can of Sheila Shine and used rags New building manager recently hired; employees normal use of Sheila Shine to clean stainless steel elevator doors Removed material and rags; PCE in indoor air less than 1 ug/m 3 when sampled approximately one week later

Case Study #4 Former Pressed Metal Facility Conditions: potential source of legacy chlorinated solvents; now an active plumbing/hvac supply chain; soil and groundwater >>> targets Other circumstances: covered trench drain, covered sump; 130,000 ug/l TCE in well next to interior sump Facility sells TCE; very old building. Large garage doors open often to allow customer and forklift access Indoor air ranging from 349 ug/m 3 to 486 ug/m 3 TCE Ongoing study; obvious internal VI source

Case Study #4: TCE Concentrations 7,000 ug/l 476 ug/m3 3,400 ug/l 469 ug/m3 130,000 ug/l 486 ug/m3 349 ug/m3

Case Study #4 Former Pressed Metal Facility (cont.) Temporary remedy: $500; 9,000 cfm fan (36 ) Concentrations immediately reduced to ~29 ug/m3 TCE Concentrations increased to ~132 ug/m3 TCE What happened?

Case Study #5: Former MGP Site Constructed over former purifier house structures Legacy NAPL, drip pots, other structures Now a commercial food service bakery Large ovens, freezers, vent fans Initial indoor air benzene ~197 ug/m3

Case Study #5: Former MGP Site

Case Study #5 (cont.) SF6 tracer studies indicate VI at column joints 1998 Temporary remedy: epoxy sealing 1999 Simple, temporary sub-slab depressurization system - 2000 Piping and manifold largely hand-installed 3 HP blower with explosion proof motor Carbon treatment GC analysis of vapor Telemetry added to system

Case Study #5 (cont.)

Case Study #5 (cont.) Toluene at 2,000 ug/m3 at one location Facility painting file cabinets Toluene acting independently of other site COC Packaging room tape tested via ASTM D5116-97 (chamber test) Per roll emission rate =46.6 ug h -1 toluene at 24 h Chamber sample 696 ug/m3 toluene Urban area; indoor air < outdoor air Ongoing remedy: hand-installed piping/external sub-slab depressurization system Simple, temporary system is creating sufficient depressurization to mitigate VI

Take Home Messages VI is continuing to be an evolving science with regulatory oversight/involvement increasing Management of VI sites nationally can be inconsistent, unpredictable, and resourceintensive Focus nationally tends to be on chlorinated VOCs; Practitioners increasingly recognize that petroleum hydrocarbons (from petrogenic and pyrogenic sources) are subject to biodegradation and confounded by background Future trends may include more reliance on preemptive installation of mitigation systems; large building mitigation is often a cost-effective solution, especially when implemented during construction/redevelopment

Thank You! Richard Rago 860.290.3115 tel. 617.719.6128 cell rrago@haleyaldrich.com