UNEXPECTED VOCS IN SOIL GAS ASSESSMENT RESULTS James M. Harless, PhD, CHMM Vice President / Principal Cheryl Kehres-Dietrich, CGWP Principal Paul Roberts.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
H&P Mobile GeoChemistry Escondido, CA
Advertisements

Urban Air Toxics. The UAT Monitoring Network Urban Sites Asheville Charlotte Winston-Salem Raleigh Research Triangle Park Wilmington Rural Site Candor.
Vapor Study Informational Meeting General Mills/Henkel Corp. Superfund Site Van Cleve Recreation Center November 12, 2013 Minnesota Department of Health.
Vapor Study Informational Meeting General Mills/Henkel Corp. Superfund Site Van Cleve Recreation Center November 12, 2013 Minnesota Department of Health.
PURGE & TRAP Training Commercial July, 22th 2010 Saint-Antoine - France.
Case Study of Subsurface Vapor Intrusion at a Dry Cleaner Site Amy Goldberg Day AEHS Annual East Coast Conference on Soils, Sediments.
Sampling: Your data is only as good as your field technicians.
Forensic Analysis and Sorbent Collection Methods MSRAS Soil Gas Sampling Workshop Indianapolis, IN August 21-22, 2006 Gina Plantz NewFields Environmental.
Using isotopic analysis to determine the source and fate of groundwater contamination.
Slide 1. Water-supply system Treatment slide 2 Ambientgroundwater Watercaptured by supply wells Drinkingwater.
Environmental Investigation by Con Edison Former E115th Street Gas Works November 13, 2007.
Chemical Fingerprinting of Groundwater Plumes: Concepts and Case Studies David S. Lipson, CPG Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc. Golden, CO.
EBC Seminar The IAQ/Mold Assessment – Getting it Right! – Controlling Your Risk Next Speaker Rosemary McCafferty Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
VOCs in Alberta’s Industrial Heartland AMS Annual Conference Rachel Mintz*, Robert D. McWhinney, Beau Chaitan, Curtis Englot, Réal D’Amours Environment.
Post-Katrina Water Quality Assessment: Lake Pontchartrain and Surrounding Water Bodies Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality Water Quality Assessment.
Sam Winer Motors Technical Outreach Support for Communities Michigan State University East Lansing, MI November 29, 2001.
Vapor Intrusion: Investigation of Buildings Overview of the US vapour intrusion framework, empirical attenuation factors, and the conceptual understanding.
Proactive Indoor Air Quality Surveys Conducted in Metropolitan New York Commercial Buildings Between Jack Springston, CIH, CSP William Esposito,
Tools Available for Real-Time Exposure Assessment Phil Smith, PhD, CIH CDR MSC, USN
Overview of US EPA’s Vapor Intrusion Guidance VAP CP Summer Coffee July 14 th, 2015 Carrie Rasik Ohio EPA CO- Risk Assessor
Of Massachusetts Department ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Soil Vapor Intrusion... A Decade of Regulatory Requirements & Experiences Paul W. Locke MA DEP Bureau.
Overview of USGS Groundwater Quality Assessment Activities and Related Data in Alabama 2011 Alabama Water Resources Conference September 9, 2011, Perdido.
COMMITMENT & INTEGRITY DRIVE RESULTS WAITING TO EXHALE – OR HOW TO MANUEVER THROUGH THE INDOOR AIR MAZE Vapor Intrusion Pathway By: Lisa Campe, MPH, LSP.
Ecology and environment, inc. ecology and environment, inc. International Specialists in the Environment December 2003 Initial Site Screening Using Dynamic.
Quiz Solution 1 ug/L benzene = ? ppbv For gases, RT = 24 liters/mole at 20C How to go from volume to mass? Ug/L = mass/volume ppbv = volume/volume PV=nRT.
A Single Calibration for Waters and Soil Samples Performing EPA Method 8260 Anne Jurek – Applications Chemist.
Air Quality Monitoring Networks Maine DEP 2015 Annual AQ Monitoring Meeting MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Protecting Maine’s Air, Land and.
Discerning Background Sources from Vapor Intrusion Jeffrey Kurtz, Ph.D. and David Folkes, PE EnviroGroup Limited Denver Boston Albuquerque Seattle Colorado.
Commission for Environmental Cooperation Keith Chanon, Program Manager Pollutants and Health Characterizing Chemicals in Commerce: Using Data on HPV Chemicals.
Statistical Evaluation of Attenuation Factors at Lowry Air Force Base, CO Helen E. Dawson, PHD Regional Superfund Hydrogeologist US EPA Region VIII Denver,
Step 1: Do Exclusion Criteria Exist?
Contaminated Soil Monitoring Pornsri Suthanaruk, Ph.D Pollution Control Department (PCD) Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Thailand Workshop.
Analysis of Frack Water By Kiersten Briggs and Schuyler Mincemoyer.
Status of Garfield County’s Air Quality Monitoring Program April 6, 2006 Energy Advisory Board Meeting.
Citizen Air Monitoring in the Houston Area Jane Laping, Executive Director Mothers for Clean Air
PHOTOVAC, Inc. Voyager Gas Chromatograph Concept.
Preparing a Site Conceptual Model. Typical Site Management Problems: Site complexities  Complicated hydrogeology  Multiple contaminants of concern (COCs)
HRM Houston Regional Monitoring 1 Hazardous Air Pollutants Ambient Air Monitoring Data Review Air Toxics: What We Know, What We Don’t Know, and What We.
U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Assessment of Shallow Ground-Water Quality in Agricultural and Urban Areas Within the Arid and Semiarid.
1 LANDFILL GAS IMPACTS TO SHALLOW GROUNDWATER Steve Wampler, AquAeTer, Inc. Louis Bull, Waste Management Groundwater Protection Program What is the real.
Donald Pope| IPEC 2015 Conference
Advances in Hydrocarbon Remediation Technology and Water Treatment
Performance Based System for Determining Post Closure Care (PCC) at Florida MSW Landfills Southwest Landfill, Alachua County, Florida Dr. Debra Reinhart.
Using logistic regression to predict the probability of occurrence of volatile organic compounds in ground water by Michael Moran NAWQA VOC National Synthesis.
Groundwater Pollution
Air Pollution Research Group Analysis of 1999 TRI Data to Identify High Environmental Risk Areas of Ohio by Amit Joshi.
By Alex Walton Josh Bush Alex Walton, Josh Bush1.
1. 2 Presentation Highlights BGOU overview Scope of the Remedial Investigation Investigation results Schedule 2.
Vapor Study Informational Meeting General Mills/Henkel Corp. Superfund Site Van Cleve Recreation Center November 12, 2013 Minnesota Department of Health.
Building Trust. Engineering Success. Real-time Vapor Intrusion Investigations in Industrial Buildings Using Portable GC-MS Presented by: Paul Gallagher,
The World of AUL Presentation by: Atul Pandey, P.E. PANDEY Environmental, LLC 2016 Ohio Brownfield Conference April 7, 2016.
1 Urban Community Air Toxics Monitoring Project, Paterson City, NJ UCAMPP Update 5/07 Charlie Pietarinen (609)
Risk CHARACTERIZATION
Welcome to the World of AUL Avoiding the voidance of your CNS.
Optimization of 1,4-Dioxane and Ethanol Detection
Silicon-Lined Canister Cleaning Practices and Blank VOC Concentrations
Chemical Metals Industries, Inc. (CMI)
Taryn McKnight – Client Relations Manager
Sean Anderson, P.Eng., QPESA Steve Russell, B.Sc., QPRA
Developing a Consensus Test Method for Measuring Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in Water utilizing Headspace Analysis with Gas Chromatography and Mass.
Jay Peters Gina M. Plantz Richard J. Rago
Using the HAPSITE® as a Vapor Intrusion Investigation Tool
Qays Jasim Saud Syed E. Hasan Department of Geosciences
Data Collection, Reporting, and Communication
At facilities with subsurface contamination, what other chemicals may your workers be breathing? Matt Raithel.
Air Monitoring Trends in New Jersey
Hold Your Breath—Ohio EPA’s TCE Initiative
Brownfield Corrective Action with Revised RRS
Chemical Metals Industries, Inc. (CMI)
Preparing a Site Conceptual Model
Presentation transcript:

UNEXPECTED VOCS IN SOIL GAS ASSESSMENT RESULTS James M. Harless, PhD, CHMM Vice President / Principal Cheryl Kehres-Dietrich, CGWP Principal Paul Roberts Project Geologist

OVERVIEW Study questions Methodology Soil gas compositions Soil gas compositions compared to soil and groundwater data Soil vapor criteria exceedances Conclusions

STUDY QUESTIONS What were the range and average number of soil gas detections across all projects reviewed? Did it matter which lab performed the analyses? Did it matter what type of site the samples were collected from? How often were compounds detected in soil gas and also soil and/or groundwater (GW)? How often were soil gas criteria exceeded? Were soil and groundwater VI criteria exceedances indicators of soil gas impacts?

METHODOLOGY

STUDY COMPONENTS 42 Sites 375 Soil Gas Samples 3 States3 Labs “Lab 1” “Lab 2” “Lab 3”

PROJECT CATEGORIES Type Of Site MFX = auto parts, tool & die, foundry, cardboard box/paper, etc. OTHER = other commercial, dump, etc. Laboratory

SAMPLE COLLECTION Soil gas samples were collected from both sub- slab and deep (typically ≥ 5’) locations o mostly Bottle-Vac ® containers in Michigan o mostly Summa ® canisters in Indiana and Ohio Soil samples were obtained from soil borings Groundwater samples were obtained from temporary or permanent monitoring wells

CHEMICAL ANALYSES Soil gas samples were analyzed for VOCs using EPA Method TO-15 Soil and groundwater samples were analyzed for VOCs using EPA Method 8260

TYPICAL TO-15 ANALYTES

TO-15 (soil gas) vs 8260 (soil / GW) Varies by lab

FINDINGS

What did we find in the soil gas samples?

TYPICALLY, A LOT OF COMPOUNDS Number detected: 8 – 35 (~60 analytes) Average detected: 17 Most frequently detected (≥ 25): Acetone, Benzene, 2-Butanone, Carbon Disulfide, Cyclohexane, Dichlorodifluoromethane, Ethylbenzene, n-Hexane, n-Heptane, PCE, Toluene, TCE, Xylenes Least frequently detected (≤ 2): Bromomethane, Dichlorobenzenes, 1,2-Dichloroethane, 1,1- Dichloroethene, 1,4-Dioxane, MTBE, 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2- Trichloroethane, 1,1,2-Trichlorofluoroethane, Vinyl Acetate

DETECTIONS BY LABORATORY = Average

DETECTIONS BY SITE TYPE = Average

How did soil gas results compare with soil / GW results?

SOIL GAS vs. SOIL / GW SAMPLES Number of analytes detected o Soil gas: 8 – 35 (~60 analytes) o Soil / GW: Average number of analytes detected o Soil gas: 17 o Soil / GW: 6

SOIL GAS vs. SOIL / GW RESULTS

Most consistently detected in both Ethylbenzene, Naphthalene, PCE, Toluene, Xylenes Most inconsistent (in soil gas, not soil / GW) Acetone, Benzene, 2-Butanone, Carbon Disulfide, Cyclohexane, Dichlorobenzenes, n-Hexane, Isopropanol, 4-Methyl-2-pentanone, Styrene, Trichlorotrifluoroethane Most inconsistent (in soil gas, rarely in soil / GW) Ethanol, 4-Ethylbenzene, Methylene Chloride, Propylene, THF, 1,1,1-TCA

SOIL GAS vs. ASSESSMENT SAMPLES Most inconsistent (in soil / GW, not soil gas) Acetone, Benzene, TMBs

Now, what about the concentrations of contaminants in soil gas vs. VI exposure criteria?

DETECTIONS vs. EXCEEDANCES 644 detections 35 exceedances ~5% of detected compounds exceeded criteria Exceedances occurred at ~60% of sites

THE 5%ers

TCE AND PCE MOST PREVALENT

What about soil / GW concentrations as indicators of soil gas VI exposure criteria exceedances?

THE STATS (NUMBER OF SITES) Exceedances in soil/GW and in soil gas: 17 of 26 (65%) Exceedances in soil gas and in soil/GW: 17 of 19 (89%) Exceedances as unreliable indicators of exceedances in other media: 11 of 28 (39%) Sites with soil/GW criteria exceedances: 26 Sites with soil vapor criteria exceedances: 19

WHAT ABOUT THE MEDIUM AS INDICATOR? On a project basis, how often did soil and GW indicate soil gas exceedances? Soil impact was an accurate indicator of VI concern 62% of the time soil > VI screening criteria GW impact was an accurate indicator of VI concern 77% of the time GW > VI screening criteria

WHAT ABOUT THE COMPOUND AS INDICATOR? Overall good trackers Overall poor trackers

CONCLUSIONS

SOIL GAS COMPOSITION

SOIL GAS COMPOSITION SOURCES?

SOIL GAS COMPOSITION

CORRELATION OF SOIL/GW AND SOIL GAS This is consistent with relative mobility and biodegradation (REDOX) potential

UNEXPECTED VOCS IN SOIL GAS ASSESSMENT RESULTS James M. Harless, PhD, CHMM Vice President / Principal