LDEQ RECAP Miscellaneous Topics. Exposure Assessment n Site-specific under MO-3 only n Construction worker scenario n Greatly reduced ET, EF, and/or ED.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Society for Risk Analysis Workshop 3: Application of Web-based Risk Assessment Information System (RAIS) Leslie Galloway, University of Tennessee/Oak Ridge.
Advertisements

Revisiting the Formula CTL Workgroup Contaminated Media Forum 1.
Workshop on Climatic Analysis and Mapping for Agriculture
RECAP Addressing Exposure to Multiple Constituents that Elicit Noncarcinogenic Effects on the Same Target Organ/System.
COMPARISONS OF SUB-SLAB SOIL GAS MEASUREMENTS TO MODELED EMISSIONS FROM SUBSURFACE CONTAMINATION by John A. Menatti and Robin V. Davis Utah Department.
CE Introduction to Environmental Engineering and Science Readings for This Class: O hio N orthern U niversity Introduction Chemistry, Microbiology.
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.
Understanding the MRBCA Program UST Program Implications Petroleum Storage Tank Insurance Fund May 2004.
A U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science Laboratory Operated by The University of Chicago Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy Risk-Based Regulation.
21 st Annual Conference. Soil and Groundwater Screening Levels Developing Soil and Groundwater Screening Levels for International Service Station Sites.
Trichloroethylene (TCE) Toxicity Values Update Waste Site Cleanup Advisory Committee Meeting March 27, 2014 C. Mark Smith Ph.D., M.S. Deputy Director Office.
River Corridor Closure Project Safety People Results U.S. Department of Energy Richland Operations Office 100 Area and 300 Area Component of RCBRA Steve.
National Inventory of Potential Sources of Soil Contamination in Cyprus Part 2 Risk-Based Approach to Assessment of Cypriot Contaminated Sites Eleonora.
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality Risk Evaluation/Corrective Action Program (RECAP) October 20, 2003.
LDEQ’s RECAP Domenico and Summer’s Models. DOMENICO MODEL.
LDEQ’s RECAP Soil Protective of Groundwater - Soil GW Soil Saturation - Soil sat.
Microcystin toxin in blue crabs in James River; Analysis of 2012 and 2013 monitoring.
Phytotechnologies for Environmental Restoration and Management Micah Beard, M.S. Shaw Environmental, Inc.
RECAP From RECAP 2000 To RECAP LDEQ’s RECAP n RECAP revision schedule – FEIS Draft and Fiscal Office Draft11/20/02 – NOI to State Register12/10/02.
EBC Seminar The IAQ/Mold Assessment – Getting it Right! – Controlling Your Risk Next Speaker Rosemary McCafferty Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
KELLY HAYDEN Applying GIS to Watershed Pollution Management.
L-THIA Long-Term Hydrologic Impact Assessment Model ….provides relative estimates of change of runoff and non point source pollutants caused due to land.
Vapor Intrusion Guidance Proposed Updates
1 Risk Assessment Develop Objectives And Goals Develop and Screen Cleanup Alternatives Select Final Cleanup Alternative Communicate Decisions to the Public.
29 th International conference SEGH, 8-12 July Toulouse, FRANCE 2013 Health risk estimate for groundwater and soil contamination in the.
Module 4: Getting Ready: Scoping the RI/FS. 2 Module Objectives  Explain the purpose of the scoping phase of the RI/FS  Identify existing data which.
Vapor Intrusion Evaluation Strategy and Modeling Developments
SOUTHWEST DIVISION Evaluation of Ambient Metals in the San Francisco, California Area Presentation for the NDIA Conference G. Patrick Brooks, R.G. NAVFAC,
Overview of US EPA’s Vapor Intrusion Guidance VAP CP Summer Coffee July 14 th, 2015 Carrie Rasik Ohio EPA CO- Risk Assessor
Contaminated land: dealing with hydrocarbon contamination Assessing risks to human health.
Of Massachusetts Department ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Soil Vapor Intrusion... A Decade of Regulatory Requirements & Experiences Paul W. Locke MA DEP Bureau.
Introduction to Atlantic RBCA Version 3 Webinar May 4, 2013.
Gradient CORPORATION Vapor Intrusion Attenuation Factors (AFs) – Measured vs. EPA Defaults A Case Study Presented by Manu Sharma and Jennifer DeAscentis.
COMMITMENT & INTEGRITY DRIVE RESULTS WAITING TO EXHALE – OR HOW TO MANUEVER THROUGH THE INDOOR AIR MAZE Vapor Intrusion Pathway By: Lisa Campe, MPH, LSP.
BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT OVERVIEW Dawn A. Ioven Senior Toxicologist U.S. EPA – Region III 4 April 2012.
1 of 35 The EPA 7-Step DQO Process Step 4 - Specify Boundaries (30 minutes) Presenter: Sebastian Tindall Day 2 DQO Training Course Module 4.
Exposure Assessment by Multi-media modelling. Cause-effect chain for ecosystem and human health as basis for exposure assessment by multi-media modelling.
RICE Air Toxics Health Effects and Development of Standards Matt Fraser Civil and Environmental Engineering Department.
Contaminated land: dealing with hydrocarbon contamination Assessing risks to other receptors.
Michael J. Sullivan, Ph.D., CIH, REA
Case Study 1 Application of different tools: RBCA Tool Kit and APIDSS.
Fairbanks Areawide Industrial Reclamation Project ADEC AREAWIDE MANAGEMENT GOALS Janice Wiegers ADEC.
Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Goals I.Overview II.Complications III.Simplifying Approaches Prepared by Marc Pitchford for the WRAP Reasonable.
VI Draft Guidance: Overview of Comments to November, 2002 OSWER VI Guidance Michael Sowinski DPRA, Inc.
Are SPLP or TCLP testing data adequate for understanding soil adsorption coefficients? Chris Bailey, T&T.
INTRODUCTION TO RECAP WORKSHOP. Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality Risk Evaluation/Corrective Action Program October 20, 2003.
September 18, 1998 State of Illinois Rules and Regulations Tiered Approach to Corrective Action (TACO) Presented by The Great Plains/Rocky Mountain Technical.
Organic Waste N and P Dynamics Under Dryland Agroecosystems Jim Ippolito and Ken Barbarick USDA-ARS-NWISRL & Colorado State University.
Vapor Intrusion Guidance Updates VAP CP Training October 27, 2015 Audrey Rush Ohio EPA DERR
1 Section 4- Characterization  Characterization is 95% of the Success of ISCO  Develop a complete and comprehensive Conceptual Site Model  ISCO is a.
ChemSTEER Chemical Screening Tool for Exposures & Environmental Releases Scott Prothero US EPA AIHCE May 25, 2000.
RECAP Implementation Issues Implementation Issues.
LDEQ RECAP.
Charge Questions for Expert Panel Modeling Vapor Attenuation Workshop Annual International Conference on Soils, Sediments, and Water October 19, 2004 Amherst,
1 FORMER COS COB POWER PLANT From Characterization to Redevelopment Brownfields2006 November 14, 2006.
UNEXPECTED VOCS IN SOIL GAS ASSESSMENT RESULTS James M. Harless, PhD, CHMM Vice President / Principal Cheryl Kehres-Dietrich, CGWP Principal Paul Roberts.
Presentation for Office of Surface Mines on Potential Use of the Leaching Environmental Assessment Framework to enhance source terms for use of CCRs in.
High Level Scoping for Upcoming Monitoring Dave Dilks, Joyce Dunkin SRRTTF Technical Track Work Group June 3,
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality Risk Evaluation/Corrective Action Program (RECAP) October 20, 2003.
Risk CHARACTERIZATION
What’s the Problem: The Vapor Intrusion Issue Brownfields 2008 Heavy Starch: Cleaning the Dry Cleaners Detroit, MI May 5, 2008 Presented by: Henry Schuver,
Proposed Plan for No Further Action
Anniston PCB Site Review of Risk Assessments for OU-1/OU-2
Registrations.
Data from Scott Copeland’s IMPROVE data set
Purpose Reflect changes in scientific understanding since 1994
FAQs for Evaluating the Soil-to-Groundwater Pathway
Remediation Standards Rule Update NJDEP and A&WMA Regulatory Update Conference November 16, 2018 Barry Frasco, Assistant Director Hazardous Site Science,
HSRA Rule Change Reflect changes in scientific understanding since 1994 Provide Consistency in Cleanup Standards Reduce risk from contaminated sites Correct.
Presentation transcript:

LDEQ RECAP Miscellaneous Topics

Exposure Assessment n Site-specific under MO-3 only n Construction worker scenario n Greatly reduced ET, EF, and/or ED n Site-specific data should be documented

Exposure Assessment n Absence of site-specific data  Default values n Permanent vs non-permanent structures n Enclosed structures

Exposure Assessment Additional exposure considerations when the site- specific GW2 or GW3 DAF is large: n Construction worker exposure n Volatile emissions to ambient air (GW air ) n Cross-media transfer - migration to deeper zones

Toxicity Assessment n Unavailability of toxicity values  Develop a toxicity value(s)  Identify a surrogate toxicity value based on structure/activity and/or targets  Route-to-route extrapolation  Qualitative evaluation

Toxicity Assessment nNo speciation data ex) Cr +3 vs Cr +6 nNew slope factor ranges in IRIS nDermal toxicity values  If GI absorption efficiency < 50%  adjust oral tox value  If GI absorption efficiency > 50%  do not adjust  RAGS HHEM Supplemental Guidance Dermal Risk Assessment Interim Guidance (EPA 1998)

Background Data n Where should samples be collected? n How many samples??? n How should the data be used?  Calculate arithmetic average  Obtain Department approval  Compare to arithmetic average for AOI n What if there are high anthropogenic bg levels???

TPH Issues nTPH-G, TPH-D, and TPH-O  Physical/chemical properties presented  Soil sat and Water sol not applicable  Target organs/critical effects identified

Wet Weight vs Dry Weight nData is routinely reported on wet-weight basis nWet weight used for exposure concentrations nDry weight used for EF&T calculations nWet weight  Dry weight

Soil to Groundwater Pathway SPLP Data nWhere should SPLP samples be collected? nHow is the SPLP data used to evaluate the soil to gw pathway?  Soil GW1 : Compare SPLP to GW 1 x DF Summers  Soil GW2 : Compare SPLP to GW 2 x DF Summers x DF2  Soil GW3 : Compare SPLP to GW 3 x DF Summers x DF3

Soil to Groundwater Pathway SPLP Data  If SPLP <, then screen out soil to gw pathway  If SPLP >, then delineate area of concern  SPLP vs TCLP  SPLP vs LRS

Estimation of S d S d = Thickness of impacted groundwater within permeable zone Un-impacted groundwater 10’ 15’ Impacted groundwater 5’ S d = 5’

Estimation of S d S d = Thickness of permeable zone if thickness is not known or if the zone is not impacted Un-impacted groundwater 10’ 15’ S d = 15’

Alternate RS nMO-3 only nTechnically impracticable and/or economically infeasible ONLY nCorrective Action Study nRequires Department Approval

Workplans nRequired for MO-3 nRecommended for some MO-2 nThe more detailed, the better  Id of AOI/COCs  CSM  Id of approaches/methods  Id of assumptions/site-specific and default inputs

Fractional Organic Carbon Fractional Organic Carbon (foc) -Estimated by dividing the percent organic matter (POM) by a conversion factor of 174 -POM determined using ASTM D2974 -Samples should be collected from a non- impacted area at a depth consistent with the depth of impact - Default foc = 0.006