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

Similar documents
A Review for the US Navy of Best Practices, Knowledge and Data Gaps, and Research Directions for Vapor Intrusion

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

H&P Breakfast Seminar

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

Examples of Data Collection Strategies and Methods

Mass Flux Characterization for Vapor Intrusion Assessment

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

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

Evaluation of Selected Environmental Factors at a Vapor Intrusion Study Site

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

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

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

Evaluating the Petroleum Vapor Intrusion Pathway

Implementation of a Strategic Approach for Complex Vapor Intrusion Assessment at a Large Military Facility

Part 5 Soil Gas Sampling Methods. Soil Gas Measurement. VI Requires Much Lower DLs

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

Petroleum Vapor Intrusion: Sampling & Analytical Issues

Screening Criteria to Evaluate Vapor Intrusion Risk from Lead Scavengers

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

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

Building Pressure Cycling for Vapor Intrusion Assessment

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

PVI Risk Pathway: Sampling Considerations

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

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

Soil Gas Analytical Methods (Overview, TAGA, Forensics)

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

Pneumatic Testing, Mathematical. and Optimize the Performance and. Slab Depressurization Systems

Assessing Variability in Petroleum Vapor Intrusion

Empirical Data: Challenges and Future Directions

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

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

Lessons from Large Groundwater Plume Sites Redfield and Wall

Effects of Alternate Petroleum Hydrocarbon Sources in the Vadose Zone on the Vapor Intrusion Pathway beneath a Residential Community

Understanding VI Screening Levels

Passive Soil Gas Monitoring for Long-Term Stewardship of Vapor Intrusion Risk

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

CHLORINATED SOLVENTS. The Value of Modified Active Gas Sampling in Assessing Remedial Options and Risk

Recent Trends and Critical Issues for Assessment of Vapour Intrusion Pathway

Overview of Soil Gas Probe Emplacement & Sampling Methods

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

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

LNAPL Remediation via Horizontal Biosparging Wells Facilitates Property Redevelopment

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

Introductory guidance on petroleum hydrocarbon soil vapour assessment

Sulfate Delivery Using Permeable Filled Borings to Enhance Petroleum Hydrocarbon Biodegradation

Screening Distances for Petroleum Vapor Intrusion Risk Assessment

Use of Soil-Gas Data in Vapor Intrusion Decisions

LNAPL Recovery Using Vacuum Enhanced Technology. Theresa Ferguson, R.G. June 2014

Measurement of BTX Vapour Intrusion into an Experimental Building

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

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

LNAPL Remediation via Horizontal Biosparging Wells Facilitates Property Redevelopment

A Rational Approach to Vapor Intrusion Preferential Pathways

Comparison of Sampling Methods to Document the Contribution of Aerobic Biodegradation to the Attenuation of Vapor Concentrations at UST Sites

In Situ Chemical Oxidation of VOCs and BTEX Plume in Low-Permeability Soils. Amit Haryani, PE, LSRP

Diagnosing Vapor Intrusion Occurrence, Impact, and Contributing Pathways

Quantitative Passive Diffusive Sampling for Assessing Soil Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air

Eric M. Nichols, PE Amy Goldberg Day

INTERIM REPORT. SERDP Project ER-1686

Petroleum Vapor - Field Technical

Why Wait? Soil Vapor Sampling Methods and Equilibration Times

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

Armen Cleaners Indoor Air Quality Investigation. Jon Gulch, OSC U.S. EPA, Region V, ERB

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

Intensive Study of VOCs and Radon in a Historical Duplex A First Look

Proper Collection of Soil Vapour Intrusion Samples for Health- Based Risk Assessment Studies of Indoor Air at Contaminated Sites

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

Converting Membrane Interface Probe Sensor Results Into Volatile Organic Chemical Non Aqueous Phase Liquid Distribution Information

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


Example Application of Long Term Stewardship for the Chlorinated Vapor Intrusion Pathway (and VOC sources)

New Data on Attenuation Coefficients for Crawl Spaces and Deep Soil Gas from the Lowry AFB Site, Denver, Colorado

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

Vapor Intrusion Issues

NJDEP GOLDER SUBSURFACE VAPOR INTRUSION RESEARCH PROJECT

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

Vapor Intrusion: How, Why, Where, When

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

23 February 2017 Reference No L-Rev1-8500

MULTI SITE PERFORMANCE REVIEW OF LIQUID ACTIVATED CARBON FOR GROUNDWATER TREATMENT. Carlos Ortiz REGENESIS

PRACTICAL ASPECTS OFCONDUCTING SOIL VAPOR INVESTIGATIONS in general accordance with the 2015 DTSC Advisory

Soil Vapor Reproducibility

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

Soil Gas Sampling Methods

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

Case Studies: Overcoming Annoying Contaminant Rebound Using Adsorptive Technologies. RemTech Banff, AB October 11, 2018 Kevin French

Sustainability; in Residential, Commercial and Industrial Buildings

Controlled Release Experiments on Methane Fate in the Vadose Zone

Vapor Intrusion Pathway: A Practical Guideline. Vapor Intrusion - So What?

Oregon Guidance for Assessing and Remediating Vapor Intrusion in Buildings

COKE OVEN AREA SPECIAL STUDY AREA INTERIM MEASURES WORK PLAN PHASE 1

LNAPL REMEDIATION USING ELECTRICAL RESISTANCE HEATING

Vapor Intrusion Attenuation Factors Based On Long Term Monitoring Data

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

EKOS Oct 2010 COMBINING SOIL GAS SAMPLING AND MIP INVESTIGATION TO OPTIMIZE A DNAPL SOURCE ZONE CHARACTERIZATION

Ensuring Data Integrity

MISSOURI RISK-BASED CORRECTIVE ACTION (MRBCA) FOR PETROLEUM STORAGE TANKS SOIL GAS SAMPLING PROTOCOL

FACTS ABOUT: Vapor Intrusion

Vapor Intrusion Field Methods and Recent Results from EPA Funded Research

Transcription:

Lessons from Petroleum Hydrocarbon and Chlorinated Solvent Sites Extensively Monitored for Vapor Intrusion By Todd McAlary Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. EPA Workshop on Vapor Intrusion San Diego, CA March 14, 2008

Outline Petroleum Hydrocarbon Sites: 1) Refinery, WY Shallow source (0.5 to 5 ft) 2) Enid, OK Intermediate source (14-20 ft), Low K 3) Hooven,, OH Deep Source (50 to 60 ft) Chlorinated Solvent Sites: 4) Shallow (5 ft) soil gas probes seasonality 5) Deep soil gas probes (15, 45, 63 ft) VOCs & SVOCs 6) Real-time monitoring of indoor air quality - background

Spatial and Temporal Variability in Hydrocarbon and Oxygen Concentrations Beneath a Building Above a Shallow NAPL Source Emma Hong Luo 1, Paul Dahlen 1, Paul Johnson 1, Todd Creamer 2, Tom Peargin, Paul Lundegard 4, Blayne Hartman 5, Lilian Abreu 6, and Todd McAlary 6 1 -ASU, 2 -Trihydro, 4 -Lundegard and Associates, 5 -H&P Labs, 6 -Geosyntec Consultants. Lundegard & Associates Arizona State University, Trihydro Corporation, H&P Labs, Lundegard & Assoc. and Geosyntec Consultants

Former Refinery Site Light petroleum distillate (gasoline-range components) Soil is a mixture of sand, gravel, fill. Water table at about 12 to 15 feet (shallower historically) Arizona State University, Trihydro Corporation, H&P Labs, Lundegard & Assoc. and Geosyntec Consultants

Arizona State University, Trihydro Corporation, H&P Labs, Lundegard & Assoc. and Geosyntec Consultants

Arizona State University, Trihydro Corporation, H&P Labs, Lundegard & Assoc. and Geosyntec Consultants

Source Characteristics Depth to top-of-source varies from 0.5 to 5.0 ft, as shown on contours. Utilities There are utility conduits beneath the slab (Note location 16). The slab was poured, then cut into 6 segments with saw-cut expansion slots Saw-Cut Expansion Slots Arizona State University, Trihydro Corporation, H&P Labs, Lundegard & Assoc. and Geosyntec Consultants

Sub-Slab Soil Gas Snapshot Oxygen Concentration (%) TPH Concentration (mg/l) 1. Rapid TPH attenuation laterally and vertically over short distances [ft] in areas where O 2 is present, consistent with model results 2. Spatial variability >10,000X, strongly linked to source depth Arizona State University, Trihydro Corporation, H&P Labs, Lundegard & Assoc. and Geosyntec Consultants

GC Real-Time Sampling Away from Foundation: Source Zone (4 ft BGS) and Shallow Vapor-Only Area (2 ft BGS) Under-Foundation and Near-Crack: Sub-Slab (0.5 ft BGS) and Source Area (4 ft BGS) Arizona State University, Trihydro Corporation, H&P Labs, Lundegard & Assoc. and Geosyntec Consultants

200 Location #A-4ft-BGS 25 Real-Time GC Sampling 150 100 50 0 200 150 100 50 0 TPH [mg/l] CO2 [% v/v] O2 [% v/v] 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 25 TPH [mg/l] Location #9-Sub-Slab- Time [d] 0.5 ft BGS CO2 [% v/v] O2 [% v/v] Source zone depth concentrations appear to be relatively stable with time Sub-slab/near-crack variability with time 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Time [d] Arizona State University, Trihydro Corporation, H&P Labs, Lundegard & Assoc. and Geosyntec Consultants 20 15 10 5 0 20 15 10 5 0 [v/v%] [v/v%]

Sub-slab pressure minus indoor air pressure (Pa) 30 25 20 15 10 5 0-5 Wind Speed vs ΔP Controlled by Other Factors Controlled by Wind Location #9 December 2005 4 m/s = 9 mph 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 2hr average wind speed [m/s] Arizona State University, Trihydro Corporation, H&P Labs, Lundegard & Assoc. and Geosyntec Consultants

Sub-slab O 2 vs ΔP Near a Crack Sub-Slab O 2 Concentration (%) 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Flow Into Soil Autosampler-#9-SS: Oxygen concentration vs. P subslab-indoor (day 0 to day Flow Into Building -4-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Pressure difference Psubslab-Pindoor [Pa] Arizona State University, Trihydro Corporation, H&P Labs, Lundegard & Assoc. and Geosyntec Consultants

Results

Lessons from Case #1 Very Shallow Source leads to consistently elevated TPH and low O 2 in most probes Degradation occurs rapidly where O 2 is present 10 4 spatial variability in sub-slab slab = f(source depth) Buildings breathe both ways Affected by weather (wind and barometric pressure) Samples are insensitive to purge rate or volume 14

A CASE STUDY ON THE INFLUENCE OF AEROBIC BIODEGRADATION ON VAPOR INTRUSION AT A FORMER REFINERY PROPERTY Todd McAlary, Paul Nicholson, David Bertrand, Lilian Abreu, and Robert Ettinger Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. AWMA Specialty Conference On Vapor Intrusion Providence, RI - Sept 27, 2007 15

Schematic Cross Section Nested Soil Gas Sample Sub-slab Soil Gas Sample Multi-Level Soil Gas Sample SSP-1 to 11 N10 N11 N12 N13 N20 6 ft Unsaturated zone 9 ft N18 N19 12 ft Saturated zone LNAPL Silty Clay Sandy Aquifer 20 ft 16

LIF Log Residual NAPL from about 20 to about 38 ft bgs (within confined aquifer) 17

Sampling Locations 18

Depth to Water Table 10 11 12 Depth to Water (ft btoc) 13 14 15 16 Event 1: October 2006 (severe drought) 17 18 19 Event 2: June 2007 (very moist) 20 10/10/2006 11/29/2006 1/18/2007 3/9/2007 4/28/2007 6/17/2007 19

Soil Texture Grv Sand crs medium fine Silt Clay 100 90 80 A slightly finer-grained layer at about 7 feet bgs 1 to 2 feet 4 to 5 feet 7 to 8 feet 10 to 11 feet 13 to 14 feet 17 to 18 feet 18 to 19 feet 19 to 20 feet 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Cumulative Weight Retained (%) Otherwise, fairly uniform at 75 to 90% silt and fine sand 0 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001 Particle Size (mm) 20

Compression -fit ball valve Probe Design ¼-inch Nyla-Flow tubing (volume approximately 10 ml/ft) bentonite/water slurry 3.25-inch diameter corehole 6 inches dry granular bentonite 18-inches filter sand (pore volume approximately 1L) GeoProbe Stainless Steel Screen

Soil Gas Sampling Shut-in test to verify no obvious leaks Purging and field screening using Tedlar bag and lungbox for O 2, CO 2, CH 4, Helium & PID Sampling in 1 L Summa canisters for analysis by TO-15 & Helium 22

Pneumatic Testing Equivalent to a step-test of a groundwater well

Specific Capacity (October, 2006) 10 1 Q/s (L/min/in-H2O) 0.1 Shallow Intermediate Deep 0.01 0.001 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Probe Number 34 probes Q/s = flow rate (L/min) divided by vacuum (in-h20)

Rate of Vacuum Dissipation Probe Vacuum (in-h2o) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Hours After Pneumatic Test (selected low-flow probes only)

Specific Capacity 2006 vs 2007 Many probes showed little change Increased flow mostly in 9 and 12 ft probes Decreased flow mostly in shallow (6 ft) probes

Reproducibility 2 blind duplicates to each of 4 Labs About 15% RPD within a lab Up to factor of 2 variation between labs Average of 8 samples: benzene = 17 ppmv Sampled 3 weeks later: benzene = 15 ppmv

Comparison of Inter-Lab Duplicates Strong positive correlation over 6 order of magnitude: indicates good data quality 1:1 line Some possible matrix interference issues - coelution Concentrations in ppbv

Helium Tracer Data 100% 90% 80% 70% First Round Second Round Percent Leakage 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Probe Number 21 of 270 samples had leaks >5% (100% passed shut-in test) All but two were corrected using Helium and Mass Balance

Sub-Slab Slab Oxygen (%) (June, 2007) 30

Sub-Slab Slab TVOC (µg/l)( TVOC is lowest where oxygen is highest 31

Long-Term Temporal Variability N-11 N-12 Depth Oct-06 Jun-07 Oct-06 Jun-07 6 ft bgs 9 ft bgs 12 ft bgs Benzene µg/m 3 <3.2 2,200 7.9 500 TPH µg/m 3 2,000 8,000,000 1,000 1,000,000 Oxygen % 18 0.0 20.3 0.2 Benzene µg/m 3 40,000 41,000 12,000 16,000 TPH µg/m 3 46,000,000 40,000,000 700,000 2,000,000 Oxygen % 1 0.6 4.6 2.03 Benzene µg/m 3 42,000 42,000 33,000 44,000 TPH µg/m 3 40,000,000 40,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 Oxygen % 4.1 6.9 5.0 6.5 SS-1 SS-2 SS-3 Oct-06 Jun-07 Oct-06 Jun-07 Oct-06 Jun-07 Benzene µg/m 3 <48 <41 <12 <43 <8.8 11 TPH µg/m 3 10,000 200,000 10,000 300,000 10,000 1,000 Oxygen % 6.6 0.0 6.6 0.4 12.8 3.4 9 and 12 ft deep samples are relatively stable 32

Short-Term Temporal Variability Day SS-1 SS-2 SS-3 1 2 3 4 5 TPH µg/m 3 10,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 200,000 Benzene µg/m 3 11 <190 <87 <68 <41 O 2 % 1.21 1.1 0.5 1.27 0.1 TPH µg/m 3 600,000 700,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 Benzene µg/m 3 <42 <130 <44 <61 <43 O 2 % 1.39 0.8 0.5 1.1 0.1 TPH µg/m 3 1,000 900 600 1,000 400 Benzene µg/m 3 <2.2 <2.8 <2.5 11 <2.3 O 2 % 2.11 1.3 5.2 5.85 3.5 Range is generally a factor of 2 or so about the mean 33

Lessons from Case #2 Deep samples show much less spatial and or temporal variability compared to shallow samples Seasonal changes in rainfall affect shallow gas permeability, O 2 and hydrocarbons Short-term term variability is minimal by comparison Soil gas sampling in low K soil requires special care He tracer provided unique insight re. leaks Laboratory variability is minimal 34

Case Study #3 Deep Hydrocarbon Source 35

Vertical Profiles of O 2, CO 2, VOCs 36

Vertical Profiles Outside of Plume 37

38

Effect of Vapor Source Concentration and Depth Modeling Assumptions: Benzene source Sand soil Basement scenario λ = 0.79 h -1 Biodegradation is likely to have a significant effect on α for non-napl sources This effect is more pronounced for deeper sources For NAPL sources, effect of biodegradation on α may be minimal due to oxygen depletion L: source-foundation distance (Abreu et al., 2007) Attenuation Factor 1.E-02 1.E-03 1.E-04 1.E-05 1.E-06 1.E-07 1.E-08 1.E-09 1.E-10 Dissolved phase 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Vapor Source Concentration (mg/l) L = 1 m, λ = 0.79 (1/h) L = 3 m, λ = 0.79 (1/h) L = 10 m, λ = 0.79 (1/h) L = 10 m, No Biodegradation 39 L = 1 m L = 2 m All 3 sites match reasonably well to model predictions L = 2 m bgs, λ = 0.79 (1/h) L = 5 m, λ = 0.79 (1/h) L = 1 m, No Biodegradation NAPL L = 3 m L = 5 m L = 10 m

Lessons from Case #3 Deeper hydrocarbons undergo more degradation Vertical profiles of O 2 and CO 2 help identify biological activity Measured profiles match 1-D 1 D and 3-D 3 D Models Generic attenuation factors for hydrocarbon sites should be a function of source depth 40

Case Study #4: Long Term Seasonality in Soil Gas Data Sandy soil, water table at about 8 to 16 ft TCE in soil gas monitored spring & fall for > decade Soil gas samples from 5 ft bgs PID screening prior to sample collection

Conceptual Model

SGP12 SGP11 SGP10 SGP1 SGP5 SGP2 Former UST

Water Levels vs Time ~ 1 to 2 ft seasonal range in water level Generally < 2ft water table fluctuations

10000 1000 100 10 1 Spring TCE in Soil Gas Spring TCE vs Time? Mar-95 Sep-95 Mar-96 Sep-96 Mar-97 Sep-97 Mar-98 Sep-98 Mar-99 Sep-99 Mar-00 Sep-00 Mar-01 Sep-01 Mar-02 Sep-02 Mar-03 Sep-03 Mar-04 Sep-04 Mar-05 Sep-05 Mar-06 Sep-06 Mar-07 Time SGP1 SGP2 SGP5 SGP11 SGP10 SGP12 Mar-94 Sep-94

10000 1000 100 10 1 Late Summer TCE vs Time 7/17/96 1/17/97 7/17/97 1/17/98 7/17/98 1/17/99 7/17/99 1/17/00 7/17/00 1/17/01 7/17/01 1/17/02 7/17/02 1/17/03 7/17/03 1/17/04 7/17/04 1/17/05 7/17/05 1/17/06 7/17/06 1/17/07 7/17/07 Fall TCE in Soil Gas Time SGP1 SGP2 SGP5 SGP11 SGP10 SGP12

Spring&Fall TCE in Soil Gas All TCE Concentrations vs Time 10000 1000 SGP1 SGP2 SGP5 100 SGP11 SGP10 SGP12 10 1 3/1/94 9/1/94 3/1/95 9/1/95 3/1/96 9/1/96 3/1/97 9/1/97 3/1/98 9/1/98 3/1/99 9/1/99 3/1/00 9/1/00 3/1/01 9/1/01 3/1/02 9/1/02 3/1/03 9/1/03 3/1/04 9/1/04 3/1/05 9/1/05 3/1/06 9/1/06 3/1/07 9/1/07 Time

Lessons from Case #4 Seasonal variability can influence data ~10X at this site (shallow sandy soil) Is heating season always conservative? Annually, trends are consistent, so soil gas data are reproducible Decreasing trend over time due to remediation

Case Study #5: Deeper Soil Gas Samples for VOCs & SVOCs Layered Sandstone/Mudstone, water table at about 200 ft TCE, PCE and SVOCs in soil gas monitored for ~ decade Soil gas samples from 15, 45 and 63 ft bgs PID screening prior to sample collection

Conceptual Model Soil Gas Samples

Dec-07 Jun-07 1000000 100000 10000 1000 100 10 1 0.1 Depth = 15 ft bgs Jun-02 Dec-02 Jun-03 Dec-03 Jun-04 Dec-04 Jun-05 Dec-05 Jun-06 Dec-06 Sampling Date SVOC 1 SVOC 2 SVOC 3 SVOC 4 PCE TCE Dec-01 Jun-01 Dec-00 Jun-00 Jun-99 Dec-99 Concentration (ppb v)

Dec-07 Jun-07 1000000 100000 10000 1000 100 10 1 0.1 Depth = 45 ft bgs Jun-02 Dec-02 Jun-03 Dec-03 Jun-04 Dec-04 Jun-05 Dec-05 Jun-06 Dec-06 Sampling Date SVOC 1 SVOC 2 SVOC 3 SVOC 4 PCE TCE Dec-01 Jun-01 Dec-00 Jun-00 Jun-99 Dec-99 Concentration (ppb v)

1000000 100000 10000 1000 100 10 1 0.1 Depth = 63 ft bgs VOCs & SVOCs low? Only SVOCs low? Dec-01 Jun-02 Dec-02 Jun-03 Dec-03 Jun-04 Dec-04 Jun-05 Dec-05 Jun-06 Dec-06 Jun-07 Dec-07 Sampling Date SVOC 1 SVOC 2 SVOC 3 SVOC 4 PCE TCE Jun-01 Dec-00 Jun-00 Jun-99 Dec-99 Concentration (ppb v)

Lessons from Case #5 Deeper soil gas samples show less seasonal variability than shallow soil gas samples SVOCs are as reproducible as VOCs Even with considerable care, occasional samples may have a bias

Case Study #6: Background Source Former DoD site (now reused - commercial) TCE and PCE > Screening levels in: 8 groundwater wells (1 to 3 events: 1994-2006) 4 sub-slab slab samples (4 events: 2003-2008) 2008) 6 indoor air samples (5 events: 2003-2008) 2008) However: Ratio of TCE:PCE not consistent in SS and IA Higher TCE than expected in indoor air Businesses include electronics

Commercial Building Layout 105 180 30 50 70 80 130 60 120

HVAC Review and Monitoring Vent rate is sufficient to maintain slight positive pressure inside building

EPA TAGA Unit

Unit 180 Unit 80 TCE barely detectable (~0.1 ppbv) TCE ~1 ppbv PCE all <DL (<0.1 ppbv) Crack in Floor TCE ~1ppbv in Unit 80, but no increase at crack

Unit 60 Unit 50 Bathroom 1 Floor Drain Hole in Floor TCE ~3 ppbv TCE ~3pbv, but no increase above cracks or holes

Unit 70 Toolboxes warehouse office TCE ~3ppbv in warehouse, increase near toolboxes

Unit 105 Up to ~150 ppbv in warehouse Up to ~50 ppbv in office Up to 150 ppbv TCE in Unit 105 Warehouse Sub-slab TCE ~ 10 ppbv (vapor extrusion?)

Lessons from Case #6 Three different types of data (GW, SS, IA) may not be sufficient for a clear understanding Multiple Lines of Evidence includes: Comparison to expected attenuation factors Compound ratios (between media, over time) Building inventory Building HVAC operations Real-Time monitoring can resolve VI questions

Summary Each site has unique conditions, but vapor behavior is consistent with theory Otherwise: check conceptual model, data quality Customize assessment and data interpretation to site-specific specific conditions Lessons should be helpful for sites with less data