Screening Distances for Petroleum Vapor Intrusion Risk Assessment

Similar documents
Screening Criteria to Evaluate Vapor Intrusion Risk from Lead Scavengers

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

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

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

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

Vertical screening distances for total petroleum hydrocarbon for vapour intrusion risk assessment at petroleum underground storage tank sites

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

PVI Risk Pathway: Sampling Considerations

A REVIEW OF VAPOR INTRUSION GUIDANCE BY STATE

August Vapor Intrusion Guidance FAQs

Vapor Intrusion: How, Why, Where, When

PA Vapor Intrusion Guidance

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evaluating Risk of Heritage LNAPL Bodies. International Petroleum Environmental Conference 10/14/14

Stylistic Modeling of Vadose Zone Transport Insight into Vapor Intrusion Processes

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

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

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

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

6. Organic Compounds: Hydrocarbons. General Comments Borden, Canada, tracer test Laurens, SC, gasoline spill Bemidji, MN, crude oil spill

Enhanced Anaerobic Biodegradation of a Refinery Benzene Groundwater Plume

Full Scale Implementation Of Sulfate Enhanced Biodegradation To Remediate Petroleum Impacted Groundwater

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

Soil Gas Sampling for Vapor Intrusion Assessments: Key Issues

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

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

Using Fate and Transport Models to Evaluate Cleanup Levels

Phytoremediation Technology Evaluation and Preliminary Design

Updated J&E Model VIAModel.xls

Kentucky and Beyond BOS 200 Success Story. The RPI Group Approach to In-situ Petroleum Hydrocarbon Remediation

Vapor Intrusion Risk Pathway: Updates & Hot topics

THERMAL REMEDIATION OF A CLOSED GASOLINE SERVICE STATION PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION LED BY: GLEN VALLANCE PROJECT MANAGER, CGRS

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

7.0 EVALUATION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES

Examples of Data Collection Strategies and Methods

Vapor Intrusion Issues

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

Is this the maturation Phase of Vapor Intrusion Investigations?

Oregon Guidance for Assessing and Remediating Vapor Intrusion in Buildings

BIOVENTING. History. Where was the mass of contaminant going? The answer: Bacterial degradation!

Evaluation of Vapor Intrusion from a Subsurface Diesel Plume UsingM ultiple Lines of Evidence

PermeOx. Plus. Enhanced Aerobic Biodegradation

Making Better Decisions: Real-Time Data Collection and Interpretation

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

Using Mass Balance to Assist in Determining Remedial Options. Stephen Thomson URS New Zealand Limited

STRATEGIES FOR LNAPL REMEDIATION

VAPOR INTRUSION FROM REGULATORY, TECHNICAL,

Mary Ann Parcher ES&T, a Division of GES

New Applications of Current Methods to Assess and Monitor Natural Attenuation

Manufactured Gas Plant Site Management - Program 50

Chlorinated Hydrocarbons A Widespread Issue

VAPOR INTRUSION TECHNICAL GUIDANCE

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

Tyree 26 Town Forest Road, Webster, MA Fax: Phone:

UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE OF SEWER PREFERENTIAL PATHWAYS IN VAPOR INTRUSION. Thomas McHugh, Ph.D., D.A.B.T. Lila Beckley, P.G.

OPTIMIZATION OF A CHEMICAL OXIDATION TREATMENT TRAIN PROCESS FOR GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION. Gary Cronk, P.E., CHMM

Vapour Intrusion Regulatory Framework and Case Law Review

Interpreting Analytical Results

Natural Source Zone Depletion of LNAPL - How to Get to Yes (A Quality LNAPL Conceptual Site Model Decision Tree)

Soil Vapor Intrusion Training In The New Economy*

Surfactant Enhanced Remediation Of Petroleum and Chlorinated Contaminated Sites. Bud Ivey Ivey International

GROUNDWATER: CLEANING UP

In Situ, Low Temperature Thermal Remediation of LNAPL with Pesticides and Other Recalcitrant Compounds

Technical Protocol for Evaluating the Natural Attenuation of MtBE Regulatory and Scientific Affairs Department

Best management practices for vapor investigation and building mitigation decisions

Soil Gas Analytical Methods (Overview, TAGA, Forensics)

AECOM tel 8000 Virginia Manor Road, Suite fax Beltsville, MD 20705

Nez Perce Tribe Groundwater Assessment and Cleanup

How To Effectively Recover Free Product At Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites

Technical and Regulatory Guidance Supplement

Landfill Case Study: the New River Regional Landfill

An Investigation on Remediation of Transformer Oil Contaminated Soil by Chemical Oxidation Using Hydrogen Peroxide

GROUNDWATER INFORMATION SHEET. Methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE)

Steps in Conducting Structural Vapor Intrusion Potential Evaluations Under the Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch 13 February 2017

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

Vapor Encroachment Screening Under the Newly-Revised ASTM E Standard

Environmental Solutions. Klozur CR. Combined Chemical and Bio-Remediation

S-ISCO REMEDIATION OF COAL TAR

Contaminant Degradation and Forensics Using Compound Specific Isotope Analysis

TECHNICAL GUIDANCE. Groundwater Protection Model ON CONTAMINATED SITES

CHAPTER IV METHODS FOR EVALUATING RECOVERABILITY OF FREE PRODUCT

EPA s Final Vapor Intrusion Guidance

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

Application of Human-health Risk Assessment in Italy: Regulatory aspects and technical guidelines

I-ROX. Chemical Reduction-Oxidation (REDOX) Technology

Techniques Used to Evaluate Potential LNAPL Mobility

DRAFT Procedures for Quantifying Fugitive VOC Emission Sources at Petroleum Facilities

Biological Reductive Dechlorination of Chlorinated Compounds. Barry Molnaa WSW Remediation Practice Manager ARCADIS

In-situ Remediation Lessons Learned

Mixed Plume Remediation using EHC In-Situ Chemical Reduction and Oxidation Technologies

Sustainability; in Residential, Commercial and Industrial Buildings

Vapor Intrusion Attenuation Factors Based On Long Term Monitoring Data

THERMAL IN SITU SUSTAINABLE REMEDIATION (TISR) Linking Renewable Energy to Sustainable Site Restoration

Groundwater Remediation Using Engineered Wetlands

Soil vapor surveys can be used for a number of purposes, including the following:

Transcription:

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, 2013 Matthew Lahvis LNAPL SOURCE UNSATURATED ZONE Use this area for cover image high hydrocarbon (height 6.5cm, mass flux width 8cm) hydrocarbon LNAPL CAPILLARY ZONE SATURATED ZONE DISSOLVED PHASE O 2 0 1 relative soil gas concentrations aerobic reaction front 1

OVERVIEW Background Empirical Studies Implementation Regulatory Uptake Conclusions 2

SEPARATION DISTANCES VS. ATTENUATION FACTORS Attenuation Factor 1.E-01 1.E-03 1.E-05 1.E-07 1.E-09 1.E-11 1.E-13 1.E-15 1.E-17 1.E-19 aerobic limit from DeVaull (2007) no degradation limit increased oxygen 1.E-21 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 KEY POINT MODELING Source to Foundation Distance (m) RELATIVE DISTANCE ABOVE SOURCE 1 0 FIELD DATA HC O 2 0 1 RELATIVE SOURCE CONCENTRATION September 2011 AF ~ 0 sharp reaction front AF ~ 1 attenuation factor is depth dependent for reactive VOCs (hydrocarbons) under aerobic conditions, rapid attenuation either see it or you don t (noted by ITRC, 2007) sharp attenuation interface amenable to exclusion criteria 3

SCREENING DISTANCES EMPIRICAL STUDIES Reference Database Dissolved Phase (ft) US EPA OUST (2013) Lahvis et al. (2013) Davis (2009) + 11 Maine and 1 Canada site 74 sites 829 data pairs US EPA (2013) Wright (2012) LNAPL (ft) 0 5.4 UST: 13.5 15 non UST: 18 Benzene Soil-Gas Screening Level ( g/m 3 ) LNAPL Indicator Concentration Criteria ( g/l) 50, 100 C gw benzene > 5,000 C gw TPH > 30,000 0 UST: 13 30, 50, 100 C gw benzene > 15,000 Davis (2009) Peargin and Kolhatkar (2011) Wright (2012) 62 sites 735 data pairs 25 sites 218 data pairs 124 sites 1080 data pairs 5 UST: 8 non UST: 30 complete attenuation C gw benzene > 1,000 C gw TPH > 30,000 0 15 300 520 5 10 13 (no sub-slab data) 50 1,000

KEY CONCLUSIONS FROM EMPIRICAL STUDIES vertical screening distances derived for benzene are longest of any hydrocarbon (i.e., can be used to conservatively define screening distances) dissolved-phase petroleum hydrocarbon sources pose little risk vertical screening distances for LNAPL sources - petroleum UST (e.g., retail): 13 to 15.4 ft - non-ust (e.g., terminal, pipeline, refinery): 18 ft (LIMITED DATA SET) soil type has a negligible on vertical screening distances (for the range of data evaluated) vertical screening distances are only slightly sensitive to the presence of building foundations and pavement (effects are inconclusive) vertical screening distances are deemed broadly suitable for most sites & recent gasoline fuel types vertical screening distances are expected to apply laterally in the absence of preferential pathways or significant hydrogeologic barriers use of O 2 soil-gas measurements alone to validate screening distances should be exercised with caution 5

SCREENING PROCESS NO ENTER 1a Do preferential pathways exist between source and building? NO 1b Is the building within the lateral inclusion distance? YES 1c Any other precluding conditions? YES YES NO LEGEND 1 APPLICABILITY 2b NO 2a Is LNAPL likely present below building? 2b YES 2 APPLICATION NO DISSOLVED PHASE Source-building separation distance sufficient? LNAPL Source-building separation distance sufficient? NO 3 ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT YES YES 3 Further PVI Investigation or mitigation required 6

SCREENING PROCESS lateral offset 7

SCREENING PROCESS 8

SCREENING PROCESS 9

LEAD SCAVENGERS (1,2 DCA) soil-gas data (6 sites, 21 locations, 31 samples) 1,2 DCA in soil vapor (µg/m3) 1000000 100000 10000 1000 100 10 1 0.1 DRAFT Non detect (<RL) Detect Soil gas screening level 9.4 µg/m 3 from Chevron 0 10 20 30 40 50 Separation Distance between Probe and DTW (ft) PROBABILITY (%) 100 80 60 40 20 0 soil gas concentration < 9.4 ug/m3 0 5 10 15 20 25 DISTANCE ABOVE SOURCE WATER TABLE (ft) KEY POINT preliminary analysis indicates that 15 ft of vertical separation distance is adequately protective for 1,2-DCA when the vapor source is at the water table 10

SCREENING PROCESS 11

IMPLICATIONS FOR SITE INVESTIGATION ACT THE SAME LOOK THE SAME (a) (b) (c) UNSATURATED ZONE UNSATURATED ZONE UNSATURATED ZONE high hydrocarbon mass flux high hydrocarbon mass flux low hydrocarbon mass flux CAPILLARY ZONE SATURATED ZONE LNAPL CAPILLARY ZONE SATURATED ZONE NO LNAPL CAPILLARY ZONE SATURATED ZONE NO LNAPL MW MW MW LNAPL DISSOLVED PHASE MW = Monitoring Well from Lahvis et al. (2013) KEY POINT good source-type characterization (i.e., identification of residual-phase LNAPL) essential during initial site investigations 12

LNAPL INDICATORS from Lahvis et al. (2013) June 2012 13

SCREENING PROCESS soil-gas sampling - 1,000x bioattenuation factor (Cal EPA 2012) modeling (e.g., BioVapor) http://www.api.org/environment-health-and-safety/clean-water/ground-water/vapor-intrusion from Cal EPA (2012) 1,000x bioattenuation factor 14

GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION MEASUREMENTS SOIL GAS CONCENTRATION LOWERMOST PROBE ( g/m 3 ) 10000 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 BENZENE Detect Soil Gas (53 samples) Non Detect Soil Gas (89 samples) 0.1 10 1000 100000 GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION ( g/l) from Lahvis et al. (2013) KEY POINT groundwater concentrations have limited value in VI risk assessment at hydrocarbon sites (vapor concentrations << predicted by Henry s Law) poor correlation likely attributed to biodegradation in the capillary zone and inability to measure water table concentrations May 2010 15

SCREENING DISTANCES REGULATORY VALUES Guidance References Australia (CRC Care) (2013) J. Wright (2011); US EPA (2013); Lahvis et al. (2013); R Davis (2009) EPA OUST (in prep) NONE States (CA, NJ, IN, WI) various references (R.Davis, McHugh et al.) include O2 requirement Screening Distance (ft) 6.5 : benzene Cgw < 1,000 g/l; TPH < 10,000 g/l 26 : benzene Cgw > 1,000 g/l; LNAPL 5 : benzene Cgw < 100 g/l (NJ, CA) < 1,000 g/l (IN, WI) 10 : benzene Cgw < 1,000 g/l (CA, NJ, IN) 20 : benzene 1 ppm < Cgw < LNAPL (WI) 30 : LNAPL

CONCLUSIONS source-building separation distance a more meaningful metric than attenuation factors for PVI screening empirical studies suggest: - 5 ft - dissolved-phase - 13 ft - LNAPL method simple to apply (source-building separation distance & source type are key factors) regulatory uptake by US EPA, Australia (CRC Care), states implementation strategy being documented in ITRC PVI guidance 17

CONSIDERATIONS / ADDITIONAL STUDY buffer distances - dissolved-phase sources uncertainties in water-table elevation (e.g., 5 10 ft) - LNAPL sources to account for uncertainties in delineating the edge of LNAPL (residual phase) (e.g., 20 30 ft ) factors that affect biodegradation (O 2 availability) - large building foundations (e.g., associated with industrial/commercial, apartment complexes) - high-ethanol content fuel (e.g., E85) releases - pavement - large-volume releases (non-ust sites) 19

O2 SOIL-GAS MEASUREMENTS TPH CONCENTRATION SOIL GAS ( g/m 3 ) 3.5E+08 3.0E+08 2.5E+08 2.0E+08 1.5E+08 1.0E+08 5.0E+07 0.0E+00 Detect (307 Samples) Non Detect TPH (88 Samples) Sum of Partial Pressures < 95% atm (45 Samples) Hal's Chevron 0 5 10 15 20 25 OXYGEN CONCENTRATION SOIL GAS (%) 0.99 0.9 0.1 CUMULATIVE FRACTION OF SOIL GAS CONCENTRATION DATA (dimensionless) from Lahvis et al. (2013) KEY POINT O 2 /TPH concentrations in soil gas generally support the aerobic biodegradation reaction paradigm O 2 soil-gas concentration measurements not necessary for site screening May 2010 20

O 2 SOIL-GAS MEASUREMENTS CUMULATIVE FRACTION OF SOIL GAS CONCENTRATION DATA (dimensionless) 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 BENZENE AND TPH (HYDROCARBON) SOIL GAS CONCENTRATIONS Benzene (54 detect; 16 nondetect samples) TPH (60 detect; 0 nondetect samples) ANAEROBIC UNSATURATED ZONE (O 2 SOIL GAS CONCENTRATIONS < 4 % vol/vol) 1E+00 1E+02 1E+04 1E+06 1E+08 anaerobic unsaturated zone conditions (e.g., O 2 < 4% v/v) - ~25% of benzene soil-gas concentrations < 30 g/m 3 CUMULATIVE FRACTION OF SOIL GAS CONCENTRATION DATA (dimensionless) HYDROCARBON CONCENTRATION IN SOIL GAS ( g/m 3 ) 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 BENZENE AND TPH (HYDROCARBON) SOIL GAS CONCENTRATIONS HIGHLY AEROBIC UNSATURATED ZONE (O 2 SOIL GAS CONCENTRATION > 17% vol/vol) Benzene (99 detect; 130 non detect samples) TPH (118 detect; 72 non detect samples) 1E+00 1E+02 1E+04 1E+06 1E+08 HYDROCARBON CONCENTRATION IN SOIL GAS ( g/m 3 ) highly aerobic unsaturated zone conditions (e.g., O 2 >17% v/v) - ~10% of benzene soil-gas concentrations >1,000 g/m 3 KEY POINT O 2 soil-gas concentration measurements may have limited value in validating site-screening criteria September 2011 21