Ensuring Occupational Worker Safety At Vapor Intrusion Sites

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

APPENDIX I-3 Air and Fugitive Dust Monitoring and Mitigation

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

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

MEMORANDUM. To: Billy Meyer. Christie Zawtocki, PE Timothy Klotz. Date: April 8, 2014

Environmental Assessment of Soil and Soil Gas

Attenuation Factors for Hydrocarbons Associated With a Diesel Spill

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

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

MEMORANDUM. To: Billy Meyer. Christie Zawtocki, PE Kitty Hiortdahl, EI. Date: March 12, 2015

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

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

MITIGATION MDNITDRING PROGRAM (Accompanies the Van Nuys Fire Station 39 Environmental Impact Report SCH No ) Van Nuys Fire Station 39

ATSDR Health Assessment of Vapor Intrusion at Military Facilities

Evaluation of Air Quality in Buildings Located Above TCE and Chloroform Contaminated Plume A Field Study

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

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

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

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

Working Together. Ministry of the Environment. Toronto Public Health. Coal Tar Remediation Case Study

NJDEP Vapor Intrusion Guidance

AIR SAMPLING LOCATIONS AND RESULTS OF DISPOSAL VOLUME ESTIAMTES

April 10, Ms. Lynn Dittmer Metropolitan Area Planning Agency 2222 Cuming Street Omaha, NE 68102

August Vapor Intrusion Guidance FAQs

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

Thermal Desorption Technical Support

An Empirical Approach to Site Assessment for Vapor Intrusion

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

Alternative Sampling Methods Implemented at North Carolina Dry-Cleaning Solvent Act (DSCA) Program Sites: A Compilation of Noteworthy Data

Websites to Visit Often

Vapor Intrusion: Due Diligence Issues

7.0 EVALUATION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES

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

Brownfield Program in California

ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC. Environmental Consulting & Management

BACKGROUND LEVELS OF VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS IN HOMES: A REVIEW OF RECENT LITERATURE

FACTS ABOUT: Vapor Intrusion

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

Vapor-Intrusion Management Plan Lockheed Martin Middle River Complex 2323 Eastern Boulevard Middle River, Maryland

February 28, 2006 Project No Robert Nowak Century City Realty LLC Constellation Boulevard Suite 1650 Los Angeles, California 90067

A Dirty Secret: Duplicate Variability in Summa Canister Samples for Vapor Intrusion Investigations

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

Impacts of Low Permeability Caps on Groundwater Quality. By John A. Baker Alan Environmental,LLC

Understanding VI Screening Levels

Vapor Intrusion: The Conference An Analytical Perspective

Risk Assessment in Regulatory Decision-Making

H&P Breakfast Seminar

An RT Regulatory Program Summary

Remedial Methods for Mitigating Vapour Intrusion to High Density Urban Developments

OREGON Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program ORELAP Fields of Accreditation

COMMUNITY MEETING Trichloroethylene contamination

Vapor Intrusion in Massachusetts Gerard Martin

Former Waste Oil Pit Feasibility Study Former Lordstown Ordnance Depot, Lordstown, Ohio

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Bureau of Land Recycling and Waste Management. Land Recycling Program Technical Guidance Manual

VI Issues: Lessons Learned- Including Methane

Field Methods to Distinguish Between Vapor Intrusion and Indoor Sources of VOCs

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

Risk Management Plan Ho Cleaners DSCA ID No Matthews, Mecklenburg County H&H Job No. DS0-14J. Table of Contents

THE STATUS OF VAPOR INTRUSION ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION IN OREGON

North Minneapolis Air Monitoring Study: 2015 Data Summary

Rapid, Efficient Delineation From VI Potential of A Large Soil Gas Plume Using HAPSITE and Other Lines of Evidence

California Low-Threat Closure Policy

Enhanced Anaerobic Biodegradation of a Refinery Benzene Groundwater Plume

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

ISOTEC Case Study No. 67 ISCO TREATMENT PROGRAM: IMPACTED GROUNDWATER TREATMENT UTILIZING ACTIVATED SODIUM PERSULFATE

Informational Meeting: Onsite and Offsite Response Action Plans

BACKGROUND CONCENTATIONS OF SELECTED CHLORINATED HYDROCARBONS IN RESIDENTIAL INDOOR AIR

Update - Vapor Intrusion and Mitigation in Florida

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 SUMMARY OF SITE CONDITIONS Site History Summary of the Remedial Investigation Summary of Site Risks 12

Continental Aluminum Exposure Investigation Executive Summary

Vapor Intrusion Issues

Collegeville Area Air Monitoring Project Second Report. March 7, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

January 13, Mr. Mike Zamiarski New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Region East Avon Lima Road Avon, New York 14454

MPCA Site Assessment: Vapor Intrusion Investigation. Remediation Division Superfund Unit 1

Dayton Bar Association

Soil Vapor Reproducibility: An Analytical and Sampling Perspective

Attached Garages as a Source of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes

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

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

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

EPA Seeks Public Comments on Proposed Plan to Amend 1991 Cleanup Plan. vapor intrusion, and identifies and provides the rationale for EPA s

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

23 February 2017 Reference No L-Rev1-8500

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

Clean Harbors (Sarnia) Air Monitoring Plan and Sampling Results

Irvine Unified School District

Accelerated Dry Cleaner Remediation Process Manual. Virginia Voluntary Remediation Program

INDOOR AIR QUALITY TESTING IN JONES MIDDLE SCHOOL, 2100 ARLINGTON AVENUE, UPPER ARLINGTON, OHIO

FINAL INDOOR AIR QUALITY INVESTIGATION BUILDINGS A, B, C, AND VLS LOCKHEED MARTIN MIDDLE RIVER COMPLEX

Autumnwood Investigation The Community s Perspective

MassDEP Response. Comment Number. Comment Set(s)

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

Irvine Unified School District

Sub-Slab Sampling and Analysis to Support Assessment of Vapor Intrusion at the Raymark Superfund Site

EPA Vapor Intrusion Update

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

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

APPENDIX K. Groundwater Monitoring Results

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

Screening Criteria to Evaluate Vapor Intrusion Risk from Lead Scavengers

Transcription:

Ensuring Occupational Worker Safety At Vapor Intrusion Sites Shukla Roy-Semmen, William Bosan, C.Y. Jeng and Frank Parr Department of Toxic Substances Control California Environmental Protection Agency

DTSC Guidance Worker protection Appendix F of DTSC s Vapor Intrusion guidance document states that: For sites in California, regardless of whether the exposure scenario is residential, commercial, or industrial, OSHA PELs should not be used as indoor air screening levels for vapor intrusion. DTSC regulates chemicals in the subsurface and any human exposure derived from the associated contaminant migration, whereas OSHA regulates workspaces and any associated exposure derived from workplace air contaminants.

Challenges faced when evaluating worker exposures/risks at VI sites a) Some facilities argue that OSHA PELs apply to ALL workers, regardless of whether VOCs are part of the process. b) The same types of VOCs that are present in the subsurface contamination are also used as part of daily operations at the facility. c) Office workers are present on the premises who do not handle VOCs as part of their job.

Background We routinely encounter situations where there are high levels of VOCs in the subsurface and there are also indoor workers onsite. Typically, these are RCRA facilities, but many are also non- RCRA facilities that have been operating for decades. Uncontrolled releases of VOCs into the subsurface occurred in the past when regulations were lax or non-existent. Regulations have become more stringent as toxicity data were updated and risk assessment methodologies evolved. Today, indoor air levels of VOCs that are considered acceptable, are based on the lead regulatory agency: you may let workers operate (OSHA) or have them evacuate the site (EPA).

OSHA vs. EPA Occupational Safety and Health Administration Environmental Protection Agency Mission Provide a safe and health workplace Protect Public health and the environment Target population Healthy Workers General population Air concentrations Permissible Exposure Limits Screening values for initial evaluation (e.g., RSLs) Enforceable Yes No (risk-based evaluations) Source of toxicity values Human data Primarily animal data Uncertainty factors No Yes Range of values ppm (mg/m 3 ) ppb (µg/m 3 ) range for many of the common VOCs encountered at vapor intrusion sites When were values developed? Most PELs were developed prior to the 1970s Updated frequently

Case Study: Waste Oil Recycling Facility 13 acre site located in a heavily industrial area, residences adjacent and schools close by Facility formerly used as an Oil Refinery (manufactured petroleum products such as greases, soluble oils, quenching oils, transformer oil and other petroleum products) Currently, it is a waste oil recycling facility (waste oil, oily water, waste gasoline, used oil filters, used antifreeze). These materials are processed into useable products and sold to industry. Operates 24/7; facility is currently paved ; GW at 27-30 feet

Site Investigations Light non-aqueous phase liquid (LNAPL) detected in several monitoring wells High concentrations of VOCs in groundwater (8,200 ug/l vinyl chloride, 1,000 ug/l of benzene) Methane detected up to 165,000 ppmv Interim remedial measures: Over the last 15 years Operating a liquid phase hydrocarbon (LPH): > 17,500 gallons of LPH extracted Groundwater recovery system: 29,000,000 gallons of affected groundwater removed > 26,000 lbs of VOC removed via vapor extraction treatment (VET) since 2011

Groundwater Benzene Plume

Groundwater Vinyl Chloride Plume

Soil Gas Investigations

Soil Gas VOC Concentrations VOC 5 feet soil gas data (ug/l) 15 feet soil gas data (ug/l) Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Benzene 0.17 109.00 0.25 861.00 Ethylbenzene 0.49 184.00 0.08 1,120.00 Toluene 0.93 409.00 0.15 3,900.00 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 0.79 190.00 0.03 404.00 Trichloroethylene 0.49 16.00 0.19 4.00 Tetrachloroethylene 0.19 10.00 0.49 8.50 Vinyl Chloride 0.12 35.00 1.1 71.00 Xylene 2.3 671.00 1.2 3,540.00 Gasoline 26.5 6,060.00 16 32,800.00

Predicted Indoor Air VOC Concentrations VOC Based on 5 feet bgs data (ug/m 3 ) Based on 15 feet bgs data (ug/m 3 ) Air Screening Levels (ug/m 3 ) CalOSHA PEL (ug/m 3 ) Min. Max. Min. Max. Benzene 0.09 59.00 0.06 210.00 0.42 (DTSC) 3,194 Ethylbenzene 0.23 85.00 0.02 220.00 4.9 (USEPA) 22,000 Toluene 0.46 210.00 0.03 840.00 1,300 (DTSC) 37,000 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 0.34 81.00 0.01 71.00 31 (USEPA) 125,000 Trichloroethylene 0.23 7.40 0.04 0.78 3.0 (USEPA) 135,000 Tetrachloroethylene 0.092 3.80 0.07 1.30 2.1 (DTSC) 170,000 Vinyl Chloride 0.07 21.00 0.31 20.00 0.16 (DTSC) 2,556 Xylene 1.10 310.00 0.23 690.00 440 (USEPA) 435,000 Values exceeding DTSC air screening levels for VOCs.

Predicted Cancer Risks and Non-Cancer Hazards Predicted Cancer Risk (per million) Predicted non-cancer hazard VOC 5 feet soil gas data 15 feet soil gas data 5 feet soil gas data 15 feet soil gas data Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Benzene 0.22 140 0.14 490 0.0007 0.45 0.00046 1.6 Ethylbenzene 0.046 17 0.003 44 0.00005 0.019 0.000003 0.05 Toluene 0.00035 0.17 0.00002 0.64 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 0.011 2.6 0.00017 2.3 Trichloroethylene.075 2.5 0.012 0.26.026 0.84 0.0043 0.089 Tetrachloroethylene 0.025 1.8 0.035 0.61 0.00047 0.025 0.00048 0.0083 Vinyl Chloride 0.45 130 2.0 130 0.00016 0.047 0.0007 0.045 Xylene 0.0024 0.71 0.00053 1.6

Indoor air sampling? Based on predicted indoor air concentrations, DTSC asked for specific information such as (a) types of workers (b) identity of buildings with workers (c) documentation showing that all workers are appropriately trained and monitored. Facility stated that predicted levels are well below OSHA PELs and that ALL workers, including office workers, are covered under OSHA, in any operating facility. Not under DTSC s jurisdiction. DTSC contacted California OSHA to determine agency involvement in facility oversight. CalOSHA stated that they only investigate instances of complaints or injury at workplaces and it is the lead agency s responsibility to ensure that the facility is monitoring its workers appropriately.

Next Steps DTSC asked the facility to show records demonstrating compliance. Facility provided the site Health and Safety Plan (H&SP) and methane monitoring data for review by DTSC s Health and Safety Program. DTSC found the H&SP to be inadequate and recommended collection of personal air samples for the various types of employees at the facility. Facility prepared Work Plan for Employee Air Monitoring.

Employee Air Monitoring Eight employees (1 office employee, one laboratory employee, one control room employee, two laborers, three drum handlers) Mini-Summa canisters laboratory certified Mini-Cans from ALS with flow controllers. Analyzed for full suite of VOCs in TO-15 list

VOC Employee Monitoring Data (Indoor Employees) Laboratory Worker Office Staff Control Room Employee Air Screening Levels (ug/m 3 ) CalOSHA PEL (ug/m 3 ) Benzene 1.7 4.4 4.8 0.42 (DTSC) 3,194 Ethylbenzene 2.04 1.8 6.5 4.9 (DTSC) 22,000 Methylene Chloride 3821 52.1 55.6 12 (DTSC) 86,850.72 Toluene 32.0 15.5 37.7 1,300 (DTSC) 37,000 1,2,4- trimethylbenzene 2.8 2.9 nd 31 (USEPA) 125,000 Trichloroethylene nd nd nd 3.0 (USEPA) 135,000 Tetrachloroethylene 4.1 nd nd 2.1 (DTSC) 170,000 Vinyl Chloride nd nd nd 0.16 (DTSC) 2,556 Xylene 9.1 2.7 12.59 438 (USEPA) 435,000 Note: Other VOCs detected were acetone, cyclohexane, dichlorodifluoromethane, heptane, MEK, hexane, Freon 11.

VOC Employee Monitoring Data (Outdoor Employees) Drum Handler (ug/m 3 ) Maximum Laborer (ug/m 3 ) Outdoor Sample (ug/m 3 ) Air Screening Levels (ug/m 3 ) CalOSHA PEL (ug/m 3 ) Benzene 6.7 11.5 3.5 0.42 (DTSC) 3,194 Ethylbenzene 25.2 5.21 4.8 4.9 (DTSC) 22,000 Methylene Chloride 6948.0 90.3 4.5 12 (DTSC) 86,850.72 Toluene 211.0 67.8 19.6 1,300 (DTSC) 37,000 1,2,4- trimethylbenzene 11.3 5.9 5.9 31 (USEPA) 125,000 Trichloroethylene nd 2.42 nd 3.0 (USEPA) 135,000 Tetrachloroethylene nd 55.6 nd 2.1 (DTSC) 170,000 Vinyl Chloride nd nd nd 0.16 (DTSC) 2,556 Xylene 27.4 5.7 2.74 438 (USEPA) 435,000

Conclusions VOCs detected in indoor and ambient air are well below CalOSHA PELs. Indoor workers at the facility do not appear to be exposed to unacceptable levels of VOCs originating from the subsurface, under DTSC s criteria. Methylene chloride and other VOCs detected as part of the monitoring program for all workers, are originating from facility operations at the site. Employees will be monitored annually using procedures that are acceptable to DTSC.

Recommendations Don t assume that OSHA is overseeing workers safety at these facilities. Get Industrial Hygienist involved; check H&SP. Make sure workers are: appropriately trained (HAZWOPER) know how to use PPE cognizant of the risks (Proposition 65)