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

Similar documents
Screening Distances for Petroleum Vapor Intrusion Risk Assessment

Screening Criteria to Evaluate Vapor Intrusion Risk from Lead Scavengers

Evaluating the Petroleum Vapor Intrusion Pathway

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evaluation of the Petroleum Vapor Intrusion Risk of Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) and 1,2 Dichloroethane (1,2 DCA) RemTech

PVI Risk Pathway: Sampling Considerations

H&P Breakfast Seminar

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


23 February 2017 Reference No L-Rev1-8500

Assessing Variability in Petroleum Vapor Intrusion

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

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

Excavation of petroleum-contaminated soil and tank removal sampling Petroleum Remediation Program

Rhode Island Standards for Hydrocarbon Contaminated Groundwater a Groundwater Objectives (GA and GB) b

The Vapor-Intrusion Pathway: Petroleum Hydrocarbon Issues

California Low-Threat Closure Policy

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

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

Advancing Environmental Solutions How ITRC Reduces Barriers to the Use of Innovative Environmental Technologies

Proposed Low-Threat Petroleum UST Closure Policy

New England Storage Tank Conference

Petroleum Vapor Intrusion Pathway

Mary Ann Parcher ES&T, a Division of GES

Using Sensors to Monitor Biodegradation in the subsurface

A REVIEW OF VAPOR INTRUSION GUIDANCE BY STATE

COMPARISON OF DIRECT-PUSH ANALYTICAL INSTRUMENTATION

Guidance Document Risk-Based Corrective Action (RBCA) For Residential and Commercial Heating Oil Systems. National Oilheat Research Alliance (NORA)

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

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

Residual LNAPL Remediation Using BOS 200 at Budget Rental Car Site in Louisville, Kentucky USA

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

About the South Dakota Petroleum Release Compensation Fund

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

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

Remediation of BTEX in Shallow, Silty Clay Soil Successes and Insights

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

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

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

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

Alternative Cleanup Methods for Chlorinated VOCs

REPORT OF ENGINEERING SERVICES Phase II Environmental Site Assessment. 130 London Bridge Road Virginia Beach, Virginia 23454

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

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

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

EPA s Final Vapor Intrusion Guidance

Environmental Technology Resources, Interstate Technology Regulatory Council Guidance Documents: Technology Transfer Challenges and Solutions

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

West Virginia UST/LUST Program Update. Ruth M. Porter, Tanks Program Manager Melissa McCune, Tanks Corrective Action Program Manager

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

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

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. The following is our conclusions of the environmental issues at the Site based on our investigations:

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

4. LNAPL Conceptual Site Model (LCSM)

Delaware Cleanup Standards for Hydrocarbon Contaminated Groundwater

Atlantic RBCA Guidance for Vapour Intrusion Assessments (December 2016)

Is this the maturation Phase of Vapor Intrusion Investigations?

Nez Perce Tribe Groundwater Assessment and Cleanup

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

MTBE and TBA Groundwater Remediation Using Sulfate Enhanced Biodegradation

Three Case Studies: Using High Resolution Site Characterization. Patrick O Neill Vertex Environmental

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

ATLANTIC RBCA (Risk-Based Corrective Action) For Petroleum Impacted Sites in Atlantic Canada

Collect deeper soil samples and groundwater from beneath site?

Phytoremediation of PAHs: Designing for Success

MassDEP Response. Comment Number. Comment Set(s)

Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids Young Environmental Professionals (YEPs) Presentation 23 February 2017

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

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

Evaluating Natural Source Zone Depletion at Petroleum Hydrocarbon Sites New Toolkit of Technologies

State of the Practice versus State of the Art in Chemical Oxidation / Reduction Technologies.

RE: Public Comment Period regarding proposed closure of the following four Leaking Underground Fuel Tank (LUFT) Cases:

Petroleum Vapor - Field Technical

Making Better Decisions: Real-Time Data Collection and Interpretation

FACTS ABOUT: Vapor Intrusion

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

STRATEGIES FOR CHARACTERIZING SUBSURFACE RELEASES OF GASOLINE CONTAINING MTBE

Vapor Intrusion from Subsurface to Indoor Air:

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

Vapor Intrusion: How, Why, Where, When

In Situ Remediation (ISR MT3DMS TM ) Features: Reactions

Use of Semi-Quantitative Field Screening Data in Hydrocarbon Investigation and Remediation

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.

Petroleum Vapor Intrusion: Sampling & Analytical Issues

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

TDEC Vapor Intrusion Workgroup Flowchart A Work In Progress

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

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

Site Assessment Using Laser-Induced Fluorescence at Hydrocarbon Contaminated Sites

FACT PATTERN THE RESERVATION

Presenters' Contact Information

Sniffing Out Vapor Intrusion

Transcription:

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 Document VI Pathway is on the national scene, but PVI specifics are mostly ignored $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Lack of guidance and training to support confident decision making Site Investigation 3 Vapor Control & Management

Motivation for Guidance Document Experience with chlorinated compound vapor intrusion (CVI) heightens concern for PVI Limited resources without effective prioritization process to focus on sites with greatest potential for PVI Financial impacts (e.g., delays in construction or property transactions) Potential adverse health effects of building occupants if vapors at sufficiently high concentrations Source: ITRC PVI Internet Based Training, January 2015 4

The Need To create a document that: Provides a strategy for screening, investigating and managing potential PVI sites Explains and incorporates the importance of biodegradation in PVI evaluations Applicable to a variety of petroleum site types (more than just your typical gas station) Scientifically based on the latest research 5

Up for the Challenge Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC) (www.itrcweb.org) Host Organization - ECOS State regulators All 50 states, PR, DC Federal partners ITRC Industry Affiliates Program Academia Community stakeholders DOE DOD EPA

Up for the Challenge Team Composition 47 state regulators 75 consultants 13 federal representatives 35 vendors and industry reps 6 community stakeholders 5 academia Industry Stakeholder Academia States Federal Consultants

The Group Process Our Goal: Make a Positive Impact on Target Users Build skills and knowledge Support the transfer of new skills and knowledge to create improved on-the-job performance Empower confident decision-making User Target

The Group Process What was important? General Principles of PVI Bioattenuation of Hydrocarbons PVI Databases Summary of Various Empirical Database Results Sampling and Analytical Issues Site Exclusion Criteria Investigations Vapor Intrusion Screening at Petroleum Hydrocarbon Sites Microbiology Primer Summary of California Low-Threat Petroleum UST Case Closure Policy Review of OUST PVI Draft Guidance Perspectives on PVI from States and DoD Perspectives on PVI from Community Stakeholder and Tribal Representative ITRC, 2014 ITRC, 2014 9

Important Topics 10 Investigation and BioVapor PVI vs CVI EPA Vertical Analysis Biodegradation and Screening Other Preferential Toolbox Databases Mitigation CSMPathways for PVI

What was Created ITRC s PVI Assessment Strategy Figure 1-2. PVI strategy flowchart Community Engagement Strategy includes: Site screening using vertical screening distance PVI Site investigation Vapor Control and Site Management ITRC PVI, 2014: Figure 1-2

Consensus Building Need to Know Must Know Focus on the target User Decides what s need to know and what s nice to know Providing opportunity for debate on topics Need to Know Nice to Know McArdle, 1993

Hot Topics Clean or Non-Source Soil ISSUE: application of screening distances assumes clean or non-source soil between source and building foundation criteria: CLEAN OR NON- SOURCE SOIL Vadose Zone O 2 soil-gas > 1-5% vol/vol TPH soil < 100-250 mg/kg PID <100 500 ppmv no odors /staining terminology HYDROCARBON SOURCE Saturated Zone Water Table

Criterion Oxygen (O 2 ) < 1-5% vol/vol CONCERNS: O 2 soil-gas sampling defeats purpose of site screening applicable O 2 soil-gas concentration (e.g., lower threshold for aerobic biodegradation: O 2 soil gas > 1-5% vol/vol) aerobic threshold No PVI Risk O 2 soil-gas measurements not meaningfully factored into derivation of screening distances RESULT: O 2 soil-gas measurements not necessary for site screening LNAPL presence/absence is key factor provided 1 o and 2 o sources identified O 2 soil-gas measurements can help support PVI CSM during further site assessment RELATIVE DISTANCE ABOVE SOURCE 1 0 AEROBIC RBSL x Biodegradation Interface ANAEROBIC 0 1 RELATIVE SOIL-GAS CONCENTRATION >5%O 2 1-5% O 2

LNAPL Indicator Criteria Indicator benzene: > 1-5 mg/l TPH (gasoline) : > 30 mg/l BTEX: > 20 mg/l current or historical presence of LNAPL (including sheens) current or historical presence of LNAPL (staining) benzene > 10 mg/kg TPH (gasoline) > 250-500 mg/kg ultraviolet fluorescence (UV) or laser induced fluorescence (LIF) fluorescence response in LNAPL range PID or FID readings > 500 ppm Groundwater Soil Comments no specific hydrocarbon concentration in groundwater that defines LNAPL because: - varying product types - degrees of weathering use of TPH soil concentrations as LNAPL indicators should be exercised with caution: - can be affected by the presence of soil organic matter - TPH soil concentrations are not well correlated with TPH or O 2 soil gas concentrations Location relative to UST system (e.g., tank, dispenser, pipework) or AST adjacent (e.g., < 20 feet) from a known or suspected LNAPL release or petroleum UST/AST equipment probability of encountering LNAPL increases closer to release location

Criterion - TPH Soil Concentration < 250 mg/kg CONCERNS: TPH identified as a potential PVI risk driver (Brewer et al., 2013) TPH is a poor predictor of PVI risk (drive unnecessary sampling and analysis) non-petroleum sources From Golder Associates (2008) soil concs over predict soil-gas concs (Golder Associates, 2008) VOC loss biodegradation TPH soil concentrations not well correlated with TPH or O 2 soil-gas concentrations (Lahvis and Hers, 2013) F1 = C 6 C 10 hydrocarbons

Criterion - TPH Soil Concentration < 250 mg/kg TPH risk varies widely depending on product type TPH soil concentrations not meaningfully applied in derivation of screening distances vertical screening distances for TPH fractions < 3 ft * -------- * derived using MaDEP soilgas screening levels for a relatively small population of soil-gas data (~ 50 data points) From Lahvis and Hers (2013)

Criterion - TPH Soil Concentration < 250 mg/kg RESULT: focus placed on assessment of individual compounds rather than TPH concentrations in soil and groundwater can be used to help identify: LNAPL sources type of LNAPL present (i.e., gasoline vs. diesel)

Did It All Work Out?? Reviewed by State and Federal Agencies ITRC PVI Guidance released as a Web-based document in October 2014 Internet based training started January 2015 19

What s Next? 2-Day Classroom Training PVI 20

Questions. Catherine Regan ERM Catherine.Regan@erm.com (617) 646-7859 Matt Lahvis Shell Matthew.Lahvis@shell.com (281) 544-6884