PHASE II ESA INVESTIGATING IDENTIFIED CONCERNS. PHASE II ESA Why do we do it? To provide information relevant to: > Assessing whether there has been a.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Major Concepts: Activity 31
Advertisements

Revised Environmental Site Assessment Guidelines & Asbestos Inspection Guidelines for Bridges.
ODOT's Environmental Site Assessment Process
Home with an Underground Heating Oil Tank (UST) Solutions for your Leaking Heating Oil Tank.
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AT SOLID WASTE (SW) LANDFILLS QUIZ Ruxandra Floroiu, Environmental Engineer, ECSSD WB Safeguards Workshop Chisinau, Moldova October.
Vapor Study Informational Meeting General Mills/Henkel Corp. Superfund Site Van Cleve Recreation Center November 12, 2013 Minnesota Department of Health.
PHASE II ESA 2014 ESA GUIDELINES. PHASE II ESA 2014 ESA GUIDELINES PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES –PATH 2 AND 3 PROJECTS –PATH 4 AND 5 PROJECTS W/ WORK.
VAPOR INTRUSION: AN INTRODUCTION OHIO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE JENNIFER MILLER NOVEMBER 7, 2012.
Case Study of Subsurface Vapor Intrusion at a Dry Cleaner Site Amy Goldberg Day AEHS Annual East Coast Conference on Soils, Sediments.
2014 Vapor Intrusion Guidance Amendments Discussion Points Waste Site Cleanup Advisory Committee Meeting May 22, 2014.
Vapor Intrusion. What is Vapor Intrusion? The migration of volatile chemical vapors from the subsurface to overlying buildings.
Claremore Medical Office Building From Landfill to Medical Office Building A Brownfield Success Story THE GREEN SIDE OF BROWNFIELD REMEDIATION.
ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT SCREENING. Purpose First step in ODOT’s ESA Process Identifies all sites in project Use hard data to screen the project.
PILING IMPLICATIONS FOR A NEW INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ON A CLOSED LANDFILL SITE By Michael Redfern.
Biodegradation of btex
Distribution of Nitrate in Ground Water Under Three Unsewered Subdivisions Erin P. Eid Mike Trojan Jim Stockinger Jennifer Maloney Minnesota Pollution.
Phytotechnologies for Environmental Restoration and Management Micah Beard, M.S. Shaw Environmental, Inc.
Neponset River Capen Street Investigation Milton, MA Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EOEEA) Department of Environmental Protection.
Enviromental aspects of Brownfield Regeneration Barbara Vojvodíková, Marcela Maturová „This project has been funded with support from the European Commission.
Factors that Influence the Occurrence of Nitrate in the Upper Willamette Valley Basic Groundwater Hydrology Understanding Nitrate and its Distribution.
Fate and Transport of Chemicals A Presentation by Terrie Boguski Technical Outreach Services for Communities (TOSC) Great Plains/Rocky Mountain Hazardous.
EnviroSense, Inc. An Overview of Environmental Factors in Developing Brownfields Sites in Massachusetts Presented By: Eric S. Wood, P.Hg., PG, LSP President.
Soils Investigation Soil Investigation
DRAFT Field Sampling Guidance To be used this field season by DEC and consultants Initial focus on soil, groundwater, and vapor intrusion Future versions.
Tritium: Fleet-Wide Assessment Program Zigmund A. Karpa Director Environmental and Regulatory Affairs.
Vapor Intrusion Evaluation Strategy and Modeling Developments
Other Environmental Issues U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Noise Endangered and Threatened Species Explosive/Flammable Hazards and Underground.
Ohio EPA Targeted Brownfield Assessment and Technical Assistance Programs.
HONR 297 Environmental Models Chapter 2: Ground Water 2.3: Typical Quantitative Issues.
Release Reporting. Lesson #17 - Release Reporting How Do I Know If I Have a Leak in My UST System?
Do It Right or Pay the Price! AAI Property Transfer Environmental Assessments.
Enviromental aspects of Brownfield Regeneration Barbara Vojvodíková, Marcela Maturová „This project has been funded with support from the European Commission.
Examining A Hazardous Waste Site. Hazardous Wastes Accidentally spilled Intentionally spilled Illegally dumped From business or industry.
Predicting Vapor Intrusion Risks in the Presence of Soil Heterogeneities and Anthropogenic Preferential Pathways Brown University Ozgur Bozkurt, Kelly.
GFOA PS3260 Contaminated Sites Workshop Thursday, November 14, 2013 Whitehorse, YT.
Brownfields Health Risks & Remediation Diogo Cadima Topic ‘A’ Term Project CET 413.
TURNING BROWNFIELDS. Definition US EPA 1997 abandoned, idled or under-used industrial and commercial facilities where expansion or redevelopment is complicated.
Phase I ESA Environmental Site Assessment. Purpose Is to provide a professional opinion on the potential for current presence of RECS at the subject property.
GROUND WATER MONITORING TO EVALUATE EFFECTS OF LAND USE ON WATER QUALITY Mike Trojan Erin Eid Jennifer Maloney Jim Stockinger Minnesota Pollution Control.
Former Point Cook Fire Training Area Contamination Remediation Works Project Community Information Session 26 September 2013.
Monitored Natural Attenuation and Risk-Based Corrective Action at Underground Storage Tanks Sites Mike Trombetta Department of Environmental Quality Environmental.
USEPA Region 2 Vapor Intrusion Study Cayuga Groundwater Contamination Site March 4, 2009.
Review of Current Conditions Report and Work Plan for Area 1 Presented by The Great Plains/Rocky Mountain Technical Outreach Services for Communities.
Preparing a Site Conceptual Model. Typical Site Management Problems: Site complexities  Complicated hydrogeology  Multiple contaminants of concern (COCs)
Potential Addition of Vapor Intrusion to the Hazard Ranking System U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response February 24, 2011 Listening Session.
Area I Burn Pit Santa Susana Field Laboratory RCRA Facility Investigation Work Plan February 19, 2008 Laura Rainey, P.G. Senior Engineering Geologist California.
September 18, 1998 State of Illinois Rules and Regulations Tiered Approach to Corrective Action (TACO) Presented by The Great Plains/Rocky Mountain Technical.
Chicago Heights Brownfield Sergio,Tierria. Property Names and Aliases 14thst.Lincoln Hwy Southside Lowe to Wallace E.14 th st., Chicago Heights,IL.
Hydrogeologic Analysis of the Delphi Corporation Site, Wyoming Michigan Mark Bryson, Emily Daniels, Sara Nagorsen, Kirk Perschbacher, Joe Root, Jason Stewart,
Evaluating the Practicality of LNAPL Recovery Jeff Lane, P.G. November 17, 2015 International Petroleum Environmental Conference (IPEC) IPEC 22 Contact.
Protection of ground water meeting UPUS Determining ground water zones – Ground water definition – Determining how many zones Examples POGWMUPUS and GW.
Release Reporting. How Do I Know If I Have a Leak in My UST System? 1. Unusual operating conditions; such as, erratic behavior of the dispensing pump.
1 FORMER COS COB POWER PLANT From Characterization to Redevelopment Brownfields2006 November 14, 2006.
Environmental Site Assessments Hazardous Materials/ Regulated Substances Categorical Exclusion Training Class.
Vapor Study Informational Meeting General Mills/Henkel Corp. Superfund Site Van Cleve Recreation Center November 12, 2013 Minnesota Department of Health.
 Clean Water Act 404 permit  Ohio EPA Division of Surface Water 401 water quality certification  Ohio Revised Code 6111 – Placement of dredged materials.
Using Insurance to Fund Brownfield Development Technical Issues Geoff Glanders, President August Mack Environmental, Inc.
Bancroft Elementary School School Building Committee Meeting February 24, 2010.
Omaha Riverfront Redevelopment Project Brownfields 2004 C. Dale Jacobson, P.E., DEE.
Proposed Plan for No Further Action
Anniston PCB Site Review of Risk Assessments for OU-1/OU-2
Release Reporting Lesson 17 covers the subject of Release Reporting. You will learn how you know when you have a leak and what leaks require reporting.
Chemical Metals Industries, Inc. (CMI)
Sean Anderson, P.Eng., QPESA Steve Russell, B.Sc., QPRA
Welcome.
Environmental Issues Mapping Field Lab
Connecticut Remediation Standard Regulations: Volatilization Criteria
Hold Your Breath—Ohio EPA’s TCE Initiative
Chemical Metals Industries, Inc. (CMI)
Preparing a Site Conceptual Model
Presentation transcript:

PHASE II ESA INVESTIGATING IDENTIFIED CONCERNS

PHASE II ESA Why do we do it? To provide information relevant to: > Assessing whether there has been a release > Meeting continuing obligations of landowner under CERCLA liability defenses > Qualifying for a brownfields remediation grant > Identifying, defining and evaluating property conditions associated with target analytes that could present a risk to human health or the environment and therefore result in potential liability > Allocating business environmental risk > Supporting liability disclosures

PHASE II ESA How do we do it? > ASTM E for most initial investigations > Can also be informed by multiple agency and regulatory program standards, e.g.: OEPA Voluntary Action Program (VAP) RCRA Corrective Action CERCLA Site Assessment

PHASE II ESA: CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL ASTM Definition: > A representation of hypothesized current site conditions, which describes the physical setting characteristics of a site and the likely distribution of target analytes that might have resulted from a known or likely release, and which is based on all reasonably ascertainable information relevant to the objectives of the investigation and the professional judgment of the Phase II Assessor.

PHASE II ESA: CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL What do we know or suspect through our observations and data sources? > Site buildings, site and nearby soils, groundwater and bedrock > Suspected or known releases And what do we need to investigate as a result? > Confirm presence or absence of releases > Define risks to human health and the environment

Goal: Redevelop Site for Senior Housing

Existing building – former auto dealer, became F.O.E hall

Site visit concerns, including workshop across street

Drums behind building showed signs of leaking

1928 Sanborn: auto-related uses and buried canal nearby

PHASE II ESA: CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL What do we know or suspect? > Historical filling station, southwest corner > Historical underground tanks north of northeast buildings > Historical auto-related uses > Damaged drums near surface drain on northwest building corner > Possible solvent and/or petroleum use in workshop across street > There also were additional garages and filling stations in the surrounding area

PHASE II ESA: CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL More of what we know or suspect > Groundwater projected to flow toward the Tuscarawas River, located approximately 1,000 feet west of the site, BUT > Former Miami & Erie Canal located under 1 st Street SW – could complicate near-surface flow patterns > Hydrogeological sources predict sandy loam surface soils over sand and gravel aquifer, but surface soils were likely altered by the past development and subsequent demolition

PHASE II ESA: CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL What do we need to investigate as a result? > Are tanks or tank piping still present? > Did the drums near the surface drain cause a release into soils around the underground drain piping? > Did the auto-related activities on the site and in the area result in contamination at the site? > Where (depth, formation) is groundwater and which way is it moving?

PHASE II ESA: CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL Always check for existing data! > OEPA files > BUSTR files > Health Department records of wells, septic systems, etc. Why spend the money to repeat investigations someone else has already done? Use existing data to refine the site conceptual model.

Questions?

PHASE II ESA: INVESTIGATIVE METHODS Investigation methods can be divided into: > Direct observation and sampling vs. remote sensing > Aboveground vs. subsurface In general, lower disturbance (of soil or building materials) and simpler technology equals lower cost

PHASE II ESA: INVESTIGATIVE METHODS Aboveground, direct observation and sampling: > Surface soils, surface water, sediments > Indoor air > Outdoor air (much less commonly used) Target analytes (suspected contaminants) drive analytical methods, which are the main cost driver

PHASE II ESA: INVESTIGATIVE METHODS Aboveground, remote sensing METHODDETECTSLIMITATIONS Magnetometer Buried metal (tanks, drums, piping) Depth, surface metal or rebar interference Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) Changes in density, texture (buried materials, voids) Clay soils, damp soils, high subsurface variability Seismic reflectionChanges in density Natural & man-made noise (traffic, etc.)

PHASE II ESA: INVESTIGATIVE METHODS Subsurface, remote sensing > Many instruments have modified versions that can be used in a soil boring or monitoring well: Dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH, conductivity Flow (groundwater can flow up and down in an aquifer as well as sideways) Seismic reflection/penetration

PHASE II ESA: INVESTIGATIVE METHODS Subsurface, direct observation and sampling: > Test pits > Soil borings – hydraulic push, hollow-stem auger, air rotary, hydrosonic, cable tool > Groundwater wells – temporary vs. permanent, bailers vs. pumps vs. passive samplers > Soil gas

PHASE II ESA: INVESTIGATIVE METHODS Remember: the driller’s and sampler’s technique will have a large effect on the usefulness of the information collected and the validity of the samples.

PHASE II ESA: FIELD INVESTIGATIONS Questions to remember in talking to the consultant: > What will we know if the tests are positive? > What will we know if the tests are negative? > Will we have defined the site and the concerns well enough to meet our objectives? (Make sure objectives are clear!) Field investigation may require multiple phases to meet the objectives, depending on what they are.

Consider the main concerns

Magnetic survey for tanks

Soil borings and temporary wells in areas of concern

Permanent wells for confirmation and groundwater flow

Questions? And now for a reminder…

“PHASE III” ESA RISK AND REMEDIATION

“PHASE III ESA” – RISK AND REMEDIATION To address concerns identified for a site: > Know the properties of the contaminants > Understand the ways in which those contaminants might affect property users, the environment and continuing obligations under CERCLA defenses or other regulatory programs > Limit exposure by removing, treating in place or blocking/ redirecting the contaminants

“PHASE III ESA” – RISK AND REMEDIATION Exposure > Humans exposed through: Ingestion Inhalation Absorption (and skin injury) > Impacts to ecological resources Plants Animals/birds/insects Fish/aquatic species Media > Contamination can be found in: Soil Groundwater Surface water, sediments Indoor/outdoor air Building materials Consumer goods Plant matter/living tissue

“PHASE III ESA” – RISK AND REMEDIATION Migration > Solids can be blown, tracked, deposited and hauled, and can dissolve, float or sink or be suspended in liquids > Liquids can flow, float, sink, percolate through, be absorbed by and evaporate > Gases can diffuse in open air and through cracks and porous materials, including soil, and can dissolve into liquids

“PHASE III ESA” – RISK AND REMEDIATION At the case study site: magnetic survey found former filling station piping; possible tanks under sidewalk addressed during demolition/construction > Soil and groundwater sampling in the vicinity of piping did not show contaminants, so no remediation was needed > No tanks or contaminants were found beneath the sidewalk north of the F.O.E. building during demolition

“PHASE III ESA” – RISK AND REMEDIATION At the case study site: semi-volatile organic compounds and buried building materials found in former garage location > Building materials removed to prepare site for redevelopment > Contaminants detected at low levels and well below the ground surface – no significant vapors expected and with the building over the area, the soils will not be excavated and rainwater will not percolate through. No other mitigation was needed.

“PHASE III ESA” – RISK AND REMEDIATION Risk assessment > Define concentrations of contaminants > Evaluate exposure pathways to determine which are complete For example, volatile contaminant in soil travels as gas through soil formation and building foundation to indoor air > Could the known contaminant concentrations cause an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment? 1 in 1,000,000 vs. 1 in 100,000

“PHASE III ESA” – RISK AND REMEDIATION Screening levels and action levels > Developed by making assumptions about typical conditions, then calculating the concentration of a contaminant that is the threshold for risk > If exceed screening levels, either move to more site-specific evaluation or take remedial action > Action levels are specific to regulatory programs; exceeding them results in prescribed actions

“PHASE III ESA” – RISK AND REMEDIATION At the case study site: groundwater contaminated with volatile organic compounds (solvents) > Not drinking water, no plans to use for irrigation > Concern over vapor diffusion through ground and into building addressed through passive sub-slab vapor removal system (“radon system”) and post-construction indoor air sampling to confirm that active removal was not needed

“PHASE III ESA” – RISK AND REMEDIATION At the case study site: Arsenic was detected in two soil samples on the north part of the site at unacceptable levels > Surface soils removed and replaced; adequate removal confirmed by sampling the edges of the excavation > Some soils allowed to remain in place under building and pavement; a maintenance plan and deed restriction were put in place to ensure future maintenance of these controls

Soil arsenic discovered as a result of the soil borings and removed or covered with clean soils during construction

“PHASE III ESA” – RISK AND REMEDIATION Arsenic and naturally occurring chemicals of concern > Arsenic is naturally occurring mineral, but can cause cancer at low levels and is a poison at much higher concentrations > If levels are naturally occurring, then remediation is not required > Natural levels are location-specific; determine through sampling an undisturbed nearby location > Alternative: published area-specific surveys or the USGS National Geochemical Survey, which provides county-level data

“PHASE III ESA” – RISK AND REMEDIATION Recap: remediation and mitigation > Basically three options: remove, prevent contact or treat in place > Always have: Scientifically supportable and measurable endpoint Means of verifying that the approach is working > If preventing contact, also have a plan to ensure maintenance of the solution: deed restriction, O&M plan, tenant notification, etc.

Questions?

FOR MORE INFORMATION Jennifer Miller > > (937) > LJBinc.com