Updated J&E Model VIAModel.xls

Similar documents
EPA s Vapor Intrusion Database

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

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

An Empirical Approach to Site Assessment for Vapor Intrusion

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

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

Soil Vapor Intrusion Training In The New Economy*

Case Study of Modeled and Observed TCE Attenuation from Groundwater to Indoor Air. Christopher G. Lawless Johnson Wright, Inc.

Pennsylvania s Land Recycling Program. Vapor Intrusion Technical Guidance

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

Mark Kelley Battelle Environmental Technology and Restoration

Use of Soil-Gas Data in Vapor Intrusion Decisions

Temperature and Vapor Intrusion Evaluation

Lessons from Large Groundwater Plume Sites Redfield and Wall

Vapor Intrusion from Subsurface to Indoor Air:

The Future of Vapor Intrusion (VI)

A Rational Approach to Vapor Intrusion Preferential Pathways

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

Understanding VI Screening Levels

Mass Flux Characterization for Vapor Intrusion Assessment

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

Oregon Guidance for Assessing and Remediating Vapor Intrusion in Buildings

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

TCE Fate and Transport, as Related to Vapor Intrusion

TCE Fate and Transport, as Related to Vapor Intrusion

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

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

Establishing Critical Protective Concentration Levels (PCLs) for Lead-Affected Soils

ESTCP Research on Optimization of Vapor Intrusion Mitigation Systems in Large Military Buildings

Screening Criteria to Evaluate Vapor Intrusion Risk from Lead Scavengers

Eric M. Nichols, PE Amy Goldberg Day

August Vapor Intrusion Guidance FAQs

RemTech Remediation Technologies Symposium

Vapor Intrusion in Massachusetts Gerard Martin

Proposed MCP Amendments

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

Specialty Seminar on Technical Updates to USEPA & ITRC Vapor Intrusion Guidance Data from Vapor Intrusion Investigations

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

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

Case Study of TCE Attenuation from Groundwater to Indoor Air and the Effects of Ventilation on Entry Routes

Southern Cleaners & Laundry Jacksonville, North Carolina. CASE STUDY Vapor Intrusion Pathway: Evaluation and Risk Assessment

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REMEDIATION AND REDEVELOPMENT DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION RESPONSE ACTIVITY

New Models to Support Vapor Intrusion Mitigation Design

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

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

Vapor Intrusion Pathway Screening for Soil Excavation Remedies

Risk Management Strategies to Address Vapor Intrusion Assessment and Mitigation Uncertainties Robert Ettinger Geosyntec Consultants

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

Using Fate and Transport Models to Evaluate Cleanup Levels

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

NJDEP Vapor Intrusion Guidance

Risk Assessment Methodologies in Ranking Decontamination Actions on National and Local Level. a Hungarian Experience

Is this the maturation Phase of Vapor Intrusion Investigations?

What is the Evidence for Long Term Stewardship (LTS)

1.0 EPA/AEHS Vapor Intrusion Attenuation Workshop

Ensuring Occupational Worker Safety At Vapor Intrusion Sites

Building Pressure Cycling for Vapor Intrusion Assessment

THE STATUS OF VAPOR INTRUSION ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION IN OREGON

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

Case Studies of Innovative Use of Tracers, Indicators and Field GC/MS for Assessing the Vapor Intrusion Pathway

You may circulate this manuscript to the PVI workgroup and others as appropriate. It is draft. It may be revised prior to final publication.

UPDATE TO THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (NJDEP) VAPOR INTRUSION SCREENING LEVELS (March 2013)

Diagnosing Vapor Intrusion Occurrence, Impact, and Contributing Pathways

Screening Distances for Petroleum Vapor Intrusion Risk Assessment

FINAL. Vapor Intrusion Screening Levels and Removal Action Levels 700 South 1600 East Street PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah

H&P Breakfast Seminar

TECHNICAL GUIDANCE. Groundwater Protection Model ON CONTAMINATED SITES

Atlantic RBCA Guidance for Soil Vapour and Indoor Air Monitoring Assessments: Overview. December 7 th, 2006 Moncton, New Brunswick

Risk and Required Mitigation

Evaluating the Petroleum Vapor Intrusion Pathway

technical report Health screening levels for petroleum hydrocarbons in soil and groundwater Part 4: Extension model

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

23 February 2017 Reference No L-Rev1-8500

ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION

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

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

APPLICATION OF SUBSURFACE VAPOUR ASSESSMENT AT HYDROCARBON IMPACTED SITES

Vadose Zone Profiling to Better Understand Processes

Project Summary Site-Specific Protocol for Measuring Soil Radon Potentials for Florida Houses

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

Assessing Variability in Petroleum Vapor Intrusion

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

OAKLAND RISK-BASED CORRECTIVE ACTION: TECHNICAL BACKGROUND DOCUMENT

A REVIEW OF VAPOR INTRUSION GUIDANCE BY STATE

Vapor Intrusion into Large Buildings

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

Petroleum Vapor Intrusion (PVI)- The Key Role of Natural Attenuation. Eric Suuberg School of Engineering, Brown University Providence, Rhode Island

Vapor Intrusion Attenuation Factors Based On Long Term Monitoring Data

Recent Trends and Critical Issues for Assessment of Vapour Intrusion Pathway

An RT Regulatory Program Summary

ENVIRONMENTAL FATE AND TRANSPORT MODELING OF EXPLOSIVES IN THE UNSATURATED ZONE

Methodology for Establishing Cleanup Levels for Contaminated Sites

TRANSPORT PATHWAY EVIDENCE OF A SEWER VAPOR. Findings from Work Performed at the Indianapolis USEPA Research Duplex

APPLICATION OF SUBSURFACE SOIL VAPOUR ASSESSMENT TO MANAGE HEALTH RISKS AND DEVELOP REMEDIATION CRITERIA AT HYDROCARBON IMPACTED SITES

Page. Changes in VI Behavior with Time: In-Progress Results from a Multi-Year Study. Vapor Intrusion (VI) Overview

Characterizing TCE Exposure Distribution for Occupants of Houses with Basements

FACTS ABOUT: Vapor Intrusion

CSR OMNIBUS UPDATING: Proposed Amendments to Schedule 11

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

APPROACHES TO MANAGING TCE ACUTE RISKS

Transcription:

Updated J&E Model VIAModel.xls Helen Dawson, Ph.D. USEPA Region 8 AEHS Spring 2006

What s Different? Combines screening and advanced versions of the groundwater and soil gas spreadsheets. Provides default parameters for commercial buildings and commercial exposure scenarios. Uses default Q soil /Q building rather than default Q soil Incorporates reasonableness checks based on Johnson (2002).

What s Different, Cont d? Makes transparent the intermediate fate and transport calculations. Provides an estimate of subsurface soil gas profile under building. Provides both forward and reverse calculations: Soil gas and/or groundwater screening level concentrations Indoor air concentration estimate and corresponding cancer risk and/or hazard quotient Incorporates uncertainty calculations Provides results for multiple chemicals

What Hasn t Changed Same basic J&E (1991) algorithm Same conceptual assumptions

Intended Applications? Constrained applications: Tier 3: Exterior Site-Specific Screening No interior sampling needed Calibrated applications: Site-specific assessments Interior samples for comparison

J&E Model Input Constrained application:

J&E Model Input Constrained model input parameters Source characteristics Building characteristics Vadose zone characteristics Exposure parameters

J&E Model Input Source Characteristics Vapor source medium groundwater or soil gas not bulk soil Source medium concentration If groundwater: check < aqueous solubility for groundwater If soil gas: check < saturated vapor conc. for soil gas* Depth to source If groundwater: depth to water table If soil gas: depth to sample Average subsurface temperature

Source Characteristics

J&E Model Input Building Characteristics Building setting Residential Commercial/industrial Foundation type Basement w/ slab Basement w/ dirt floor Crawlspace w/ slab Crawlspace w/ dirt floor Slab-on-grade

Residential Building Parameters For Tier 3, default parameters for residential buildings should not be changed.

Commercial Building Parameters For Tier 3, default parameters for residential buildings may be changed.

Building Data Table

Residential Default Building Parameters Depth below grade to base of foundation Foundation thickness Enclosed space mixing height Fraction of foundation area with cracks Enclosed space floor area Indoor air exchange rate Qsoil/Qbuilding No Changes Typical or Mean Values Conservative

Residential Q soil /Q building = Sub-Slab Alpha 0.1 Filtered Sub-Slab Attenuation Factors Attenuation Factor 0.01 0.001 0.0001 Default Bonnie Brae Georgetown Orion Park Hppwell Precision Raymark Endicott Lowry AFB 0.00001 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Sub-Slab Concentration (ug/m3)

Residential Q soil /Q building = Sub-Slab Alpha Filtered Sub-Slab Attenuation Factor Statistics Sub-Slab Attenuation Factor 1.0E+00 1.0E-01 1.0E-02 1.0E-03 1.0E-04 1.0E-05 Min Median 90% 95% Max Statistics DenverPCEBB Georgetown Orion Park Hopewell Precision Site Raymark Endicott LAFB Site Name Min Median 90% 95% Max DenverPCEBB 1.1E-03 2.5E-03 3.8E-03 Georgetown 1.3E-03 2.4E-03 4.9E-03 5.2E-03 Orion Park 5.0E-04 3.2E-03 1.4E-02 2.4E-02 3.3E-02 Hopewell Precision Site 1.5E-03 1.0E-02 1.8E-02 2.3E-02 3.4E-02 Raymark 6.3E-04 5.8E-03 1.1E-02 2.1E-02 3.1E-02 Endicott 2.6E-04 2.4E-03 6.4E-03 8.3E-03 1.3E-02 LAFB 3.5E-05 1.1E-03 7.6E-03 1.1E-02 1.4E-02

Model input? Q soil /Q building or Q soil? Q soil /Q building Issues: Empirical data substantial only for residential buildings with slabs Default value for commercial? Crawlspace? Dirt floors? Options: Default value Constrained range Q soil = Qbuilding ( A H ACH ) Allow Qs/Qb to vary when building parameters vary Q soil building building

Model input? Qsoil/Qbuilding or Qsoil? Qsoil Issues: Very limited empirical data Default values? Calculated Qsoil may yield unrealistic values. Function of soil properties and building properties Options: Default Qsoil Constrained range for Qsoil Constrain to ensure Qsoil/Qbuilding is within reasonable bounds

J&E Model Input Vadose Zone Characteristics Up to three soil layers 12 SCS soil types Default parameters (typical or mean values): Total porosity Water-filled porosity Bulk density

J&E Model Input Risk & Exposure Parameters Target risk for carcinogens Target hazard quotient for non-carcinogens Exposure scenario (tied to building type) Default Values:

J&E Model Output Attenuation factor Predicted indoor air concentration Critical parameters Risk based target screening levels Incremental risk estimates Soil gas profile* Uncertainty estimate* Propagation of error (coefficient of variation)

J&E Model Output

Mean = 140.00 38.00 89.00 140.00 191.00 242.00 Mean = 3.00 2.70 2.85 3.00 3.15 3.30 Mean = 11.00 8.00 9.50 11.00 12.50 14.00 Mean = 1.03E-2 2.80E-3 6.55E-3 1.03E-2 1.40E-2 1.78E-2 Mean = 0.30 0.16 0.26 0.35 0.44 0.53 Mean = 0.144 0.130 0.137 0.145 0.152 0.160 Mean = 0.54 0.07 0.74 1.42 2.09 2.76 Mean = 0.672 0.606 0.641 0.676 0.710 0.745 Mean = 0.375 0.345 0.360 0.375 0.390 0.405 Depth below grade to water table (m) Ls 6.7 Normal +- 0.3 m (+_ ~1.0 ft) Average groundwater temperature ( o C) Ts 15 Normal; mean 15; stdev 1.5 Vapor concentration at water table (ug/m3) Cs 37076 Chemical Name - Chem Trichloroethylene CAS No. - CAS 79016 Chemical Properties Pure component water solubility (mg/l) S 1.472E+03 Henry's Law Constant @ 25 o C (-) Hr 4.36E-01 Henry's Law Constant @ system temperature (-) Hs 2.65E-01 Toxicity Factors Unit risk factor (ug/m 3-1 ) URF 2.00E-06 Reference concentration (mg/m 3 ) RfC 4.00E-02 Building setting Bldg_Setting Residential Foundation type Found_Type Basement Depth below grade to bottom of foundation (m) Lb 2.00 Foundation thickness (m) Lf 0.10 Fraction of foundation area with cracks (-) eta 2.22E-04 Enclosed space floor area (m2) Ab 100 Enclosed space height (m) Hb 3.66 Indoor air exchange rate (1/hr) ach 0.45 Lognormal; 10% 0.2, 90% 1.0 Building ventilation rate (m3/hr) Qb 164.70 Average vapor flow rate into building (m3/hr) Qsoil 0.30 Lognorm; 10% 0.2; 90% 0.4; gstd same SwSA Check: Qsoil/Qbuilding C_Param 0.0018 Stratum A (soil below building foundation): Stratum A soil type - SCS_A Loamy Sand Stratum A thickness below foundation (m) hsa 4.70 Ls-Lb Stratum A total porosity (-) nsa 0.390 Normal; mean 0.375, min 0.35 max 0.4 Stratum A water saturation (-) SwSA 0.195 Lognormal, g mean 0.144; min 0.13, max 0.16 Stratum A water-filled porosity (-) nwsa 0.076 Stratum A bulk density (g/cm 3 ) rhosa 1.620 Stratum directly above the water table Select Stratum A, B, or C - wt_soil Stratum A Height of capillary fringe (m) hcz 0.19 Capillary zone total porosity (-) ncz 0.390 Capillary zone water saturation Swcz 0.777 Lognormal; gstc same as SwSA Capillary zone water filled porosity (-) nwcz 0.303 Exposure Scenario Scenario Residential Uncertainty Analysis Cell: F7 Cgw Cell: F39 SwSA Cell: F8 Forecast: GW - IA Alpha Ls 10,000 Trials Frequency Chart 221 Outliers Cell: F30 Input Data Units Symbol Value Used Comments Source Characteristics: Groundwater concentration (ug/l) Cgw 140 Normal; mean 140, stdev 34 per LAFB.031 305 ach Chemical: Cell: F9 Henry's Law Constant @ 25 o C (atm-m 3 /mol) Hc 1.03E-02 Normal; mean 1.03E-3; stdev 2.5E-3.023 228.7 Ts Building Characteristics: Cell: F58.015 152.5 Swcz Vadose zone characteristics: Cell: F16.008 76.25 Hc Cell: F38 Exposure Parameters:.000 0 nsa 6.99E-5 5.93E-4 1.11E-3 1.64E-3 2.16E-3 Cell: F32 Qsoil INPUT PARAMETERS ATTENUATION FACTOR

Uncertainty Estimate Coefficient of variation assigned to each input parameter Propagation of error Estimate coefficient of variation for each predicted output parameter

Uncertainty Analysis Input

Uncertainty Analysis Output Uncertainty Estimate Frequency Median Estimate Mean Estimate Default Point Estimate Lifetime Cancer Risk

Proposed New Name for Spreadsheet Vapor Intrusion Assessment Guidance for Risk Assessment