Vapor Intrusion How good are my Data? Will Elcoate Alpha Analytical Ohio Brownfield Conference 2016 April 7th at Hilton Columbus/Polaris

EPA VI Guidance Update June OSWER Technical Guidance 2015 OUST Technical Guidance for Petroleum Vapor Intrusion PVI 2015

VISL Updated Soil Gas Vapor concentrations input to calculate –IA screening levels with option of user site specific inputs or updated Attenuation factor 0.03 (formerly 0.1) Uses EPA generic screening values –Update VISL when generic screening values are updated 2

Vapor Intrusion Guidance 3 Ohio EPA DERR Review For Remedial Response and RCRA sites, recommending use of the US EPA VI guidance with aspects of the DERR's 2010 VI guidance. EPA suggests modeling as a line of evidence For VAP, which permits modeling, we advise the use of the VISL Calculator for screening, with emphasis on further sampling (soil gas and indoor air) if site concentrations exceed screening levels use site specific modeling. For more specific information, please contact the appropriate program. Ohio EPA, Division of Environmental Response & Revitalization Thu, Aug 27, 2015

Vapor Intrusion Guidance VI Pathway Investigative Strategy Stage 1: VI Receptor Evaluation Assess potential for Vapor Intrusion Identify Receptors Stage 2: VI Investigation Develop and implement VI Investigation Evaluate data using applicable screening levels Stage 3: Mitigation Stage 4: Operations, Maintenance and Monitoring Stage 5: Termination 4 Conceptual Site Model Multiple Lines of Evidence Decision Point

Vapor Intrusion Investigations What is Important? Vapor Intrusion Investigations are Iterative 5 Conceptual Site Model Specific site conditions Receptor evaluation Current and future use Multiple Lines of Evidence Historical use/contamination Existing data (GW, Soil Gas) New data / data gaps Variability Target data collection to: (a) confirm knowns; (b) to fill data gaps Field & Laboratory QA/QC is critical for representative data Data confidence is key to support the decision process OHIO EPA VI Guidance May 2010 APPENDIX C Vapor Intrusion Conceptual Site Model Checklist

Sources of Uncertainty 6 Site Knowledge and Data Collection Strategy Location selection Variability in concentration Other Sources /Background Sampling procedures Sample Integrity Documentation + Laboratory Data Quality Media integrity Media cleaning & certification Instrument calibration Sample collection Lab Quality Systems = Level of Uncertainty

AMBIENT AIR UPSTAIRS BASEMENT ATTACHED GARAGE Foundation Crack DOWNSTAIRS AMBIENT AIR CRAWLSPACE / BASEMENT AIR Indoor Air Sampling INDOOR AIR SUBSLAB AIR Courtesy of Thomas McHugh GSI Environmental Inc. Battelle Bioremediation Symposium 2011 Reno, Nevada Concurrent sampling, Ambient/indoor/sub-slab

Data Quality Objective Process Quality Assurance Project Plan Clarify the study objective. Identify the chemicals of concern (COCs). Define if the sample will provide qualitative or quantitative information. Define the type, quantity, and quality of each piece of data collected in the study. Determine required analytical detection limits Define how each sample will be used to assess if vapors are intruding into buildings. Determine the most appropriate locations, sampling method, and sampling duration for data collection. Specify the amount of acceptable uncertainty in the sampling results. Specify how the data will be used to test the exposure hypothesis. 8 OHIO EPA VI Guidance May 2010

9 Volatiles Organic Compounds EPA TO-15 MassDEP APH Natural Attenuation/Petroleum sites EPA Method 3C: Method ASTM 1946 Oxygen, Fixed Gasses & Methane Semi-Volatile Compounds TO-4 & TO-10 PCB’s & Pesticides TO-11 Aldehydes & Ketones T0-13 PAHs & Semi-Volatiles TO-17 VOC’s & Semi-Volatiles Other Methods OSHA / NIOSH for unusual Compounds of Potential Concern (COPC’s) Typical Environmental Air Methods

TO-15 Summary Analytical ParameterRequirements Unitsppbv and ug/m 3 LCS/Tune Check Frequency Every 24-hr or 20 samples QA / QC Dup, blank, CC, LCS LCS Recovery Limits70-130% RPD Limits25% Internal Standard Recovery Limits % Data Evaluated against the Standard Operating Procedure

F.C. for Soil Vapor composite F.C. for Ambient / Indoor Air Canister Sampling Equipment 11 F. C. for Sub-Surface 200mls/min Grab

Sampling Media Cleaning and QA/QC Canisters & Flow Controllers After data is reported canisters are cleaned (held for ??) Cleaning procedure-evacuate then “rinse” w/ hum. air or N 2 analyze one can in batch (up to 20) as blank to certify batch is clean, TAL must be less than ½ reporting limit Vacuum is checked prior to shipping to client (-28 in. Hg) Flow controllers flow rate checked upon receipt (20% RPD) cleaned and reused Canister and flow controller use is tracked ! 12

Air Sampling - Field Quality Control 13 Canister Pressures Check & record pressure in canisters before sampling and at end of sampling event. Temporal samples should have negative canister pressure after sampling complete ~ -5” Mercury Field duplicate? Co-locate or use sampling T

14 Air / Vapor Sample Duplicates Indoor Air /Ambient Duplicates

Canister Sampling Documentation

Detailed Survey: Identify building use and operational parameters Identify & remove Indoor Air VOC sources Pre-Planning Indoor Air Sampling 16

Indoor Air Sampling 17 Courtesy of Adam Hackenburg Langan Engineering 100% TCE

Sample Integrity Checks = Quality Data Shut-in Check: confirms above-ground sampling assembly is leak-free 18 Advised for all Soil sub-Surface samples Conduct on assembly before sample collection Pull vacuum with surface and canister valves closed After check to do not make changes before sample collection

Helium Leak Check: Demonstrates that the sampling probe insertion point into the sub-surface is leak free 19 Suggested for all samples Used primarily for Sub-Slab or shallow Soil Gas samples Larger sites 1 in 10 to confirm surface sealing technique Sample Integrity Checks = Quality Data

Why Do a Data Usability Assessment 20 Managing uncertainty & incorporating it into project decision making CERTAINTY RISK OF WRONG DECISIONS To minimize uncertainty, follow the Vapor Intrusion Investigative Process

Data Assessment & Usability Guidance 21 MassDEP Policy #WSC Conceptual Site Model 2.Sampling Plan 3.Field & Lab data 4.Representativeness 5.Data Usability

Data Usability Assessment Case Narrative: summarizes the laboratory’s review for data non-conformances Also notes dilutions resulting in elevated reporting limits Case Narrative: Volatile Organics in Air The canister ID recorded on the Chain of Custody for sample L XXXX was 900; however, the correct canister ID is 908. Samples L13XXXX-01, -02 and -03 were diluted and re-analyzed to quantitate the samples within the calibration range. The LCS designated WGXXXX-2 yielded recoveries for 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene (145%) and Hexachlorobutadiene (138%) are above the upper 130% acceptance limit. None of the samples associated with this LCS have reportable amounts of these analytes. Therefore this is not an issue. 22

Data Review against Screening Levels 23 EPA OHEPAAA-1 IA-1IA-2 SG-1 VISL- TIAC VISL- TSSGC*TIACResult Q Q Q Dichlorodifluoro- methane Acetone U95 Chloroform U U2.13 Benzene U Toluene Ethylbenzene U p/m-Xylene U o-Xylene U ,2,4-Trimethyl- benzene U Tetrachloroethene U U3.32 Trichloroethene U U2.35U TO-15 Full Scan Units ug/M3 TO-15 SIM TCE 0.11ug/M3 Exceeds SL

Background Study Summary of selected VOCs (µg/m 3 ) 24 Parameter Frequency of Detection Minimum Concentration Maximum Concentration VOCs by SIM Benzene94% Toluene100% Ethylbenzene100% o-Xylene100% p/m-Xylene100% ,3-Butadiene39% Methyl tert butyl ether1%0.151 Naphthalene24% EPA's Vapor Intrusion Database: Evaluation and Characterization of Attenuation Factors for Chlorinated Volatile Organic Compounds and Residential Buildings.

Re-evaluation of exposure continues 25 Missouri woman exposed to carcinogen awarded $20.6M POSTED 10:12 AM, MARCH 22, 2016, BY ASSOCIATED PRESSASSOCIATED PRESS SPRINGFIELD, Mo. (AP) _ A southwest Missouri woman has been awarded $20.6 million in damages after federal jurors found that a company exposed her to a toxic chemical that left her with permanent disabilities.

Summary For successful project outcomes where Air testing is needed Understand the regulatory drivers and regulations governing your project Develop a Conceptual Site Model using Multiple Lines of Evidence approach Quality Assurance Project Plan / Analyte List / QC/QC / RLs / Reg Criteria Field sampling, both sample location and collection critical for representative data Perform Use Data Usability Assessment Involve your Laboratory early; they can be a resource for method selection and meeting regulatory data requirements CSM & DUA reduces Uncertainty to Improve Confidence in Decision Making * 26

Contacts: Will Elcoate National Air Product Manager Tel: Questions