1. Vapor Intrusion Risk Pathway Regulatory Updates & Practical Strategies Blayne Hartman Independent Consultant 760-925-7206 www.handpmg.com Kennedy-Jenks Webinar June 2010

2. What Is Vapor Intrusion? What Is Vapor Intrusion? Key Criteria Controlling Assessment: –Risk level (1 in 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000?) –Toxicity of Compounds –Exposure Factors (time, rates, ventilation)

3. Why Do You Care About VI? (Risk Often More Perceived Than Real) Health & Safety of Occupants EPA, ITRC, & State Guidances ASTM New Phase 1 Standard Attorneys & Citizen Groups Future Liability

5. When to Worry About VI? If VOC Contamination & Structures Exist: –Laterally within 100’ (EPA, DTSC) –Vertically Within 100’ (EPA, DTSC) –NY: No Limits!!! Complaining Occupants Structures With Odors, Wet Basements Sites With Contamination & Future Use Attorneys & Communities Even Animals, Fruits, Vegetables

6. EPA-OSWER Draft Guidance Tier 1: Primary Screening – Q1: VOCs present? – Q2: Near buildings? – Q3: Immediate concern? Tier 2: Secondary Screening – Q4: Generic screening – Q5: Semi-site specific screening (alphas from charts & tables) Tier 3: Site-Specific Pathway Assessment – Q6: Indoor air (and/or subslab)

7. Newest Changes (2010?) EPA OSWER VI Guidance Tier 1: Primary Screening – Q1: VOCs present? – Q2: Near buildings? – Q3: Immediate concern? Tier 2: Source Screening – Generic screening using near-source samples Tier 3: Pathway (Building) Assessment – Multiple lines of evidence (sg & gw) – Must go inside???

8. EPA Guidance Updates Fed EPA (OSWER & Superfund) –Modeling no longer an exit –Moving to sub-slab & indoor air –7 to 30 day indoor air sampling period –Att factor of 0.1 for SG & 0.001 for GW –Decision matrix? EPA-OUST: Guidance for HCs by 2012 –Exclusion criteria by Fall 2010

9. OH 9-079

10. Allowable Benzene in GW 1e-6 risk New OSWER Guidance: 0.31 ug/m3/0.001 = 0.31 ug/L/0.2 = 1.5 ug/L Robin Davis’ Exclusion Value: 1000 ug/L ~700 times lower than database suggests!!

11. Allowable Soil Gas Levels (Benzene 1e-6 Risk, residential) StateAlpha1/Alpha Risk Based Level (ug/m 3 ) EPA Now0.002500155 EPA 2012?0.1103.1 CA0.00250042 NJ (Subslab)0.0520060 MO118,000 TN0.00137802,414 CT0.110192

12. State Guidance Updates States With Recent Guidances/Policy –OR, OH, MT, WA States Rethinking Guidances/Policy –IL, NJ, MA, MO, TN, ME, CA

13. CA Agencies CA-DTSC (& LA-RWQCB) –Soil Gas, VI, & Mitigation “Advisory” –CHHSLs (thanks to OEHHA) EPA Region 9 –Follows the EPA Draft VI Guidance –Adopted Region 3 Screening Levels SF-RWQCB –ESLs include aliphatics! Central Valley Boards –Want Residential Criteria Applied Regardless of Site Use

14. Uh-Oh I wanted to provide a heads up that R2 (SF) is poised to modify its Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) with respect to the vapor intrusion pathway... the consequence of this change would be much lower groundwater ESLs for this pathway (20 to 30x lower for most VOCs and over 200x lower for biodegradable VOCs such as BTEX)... details below... cheers E-mail received on 9/15/09:

15. ITRC VI GUIDANCE Practical How-to Guide Stepwise Approach Investigatory Tools (Toolkit) Thorough Discussion of Mitigation Scenarios Document Three Training Dates in 2010

16. The Net Widens: ASTM VI Standard Focus on Property Transactions Prescriptive Screening Distances No RBSLs (RBC) No Assessment Recommendations Legal Standards Mitigation Released March 3, 2008

17. ASTM VI Standard Vapor Intrusion Condition (VIC) is defined as “the presence or likely presence of any volatile chemical of concern in existing or planned structures on a property resulting from an existing release or a past release from contaminated soil or groundwater on the property or within close proximity to the property, at a concentration that presents or may present a human health risk.”

18. OH 9-0718

19. Liability Concerns Phase I Environmental Consultant Prospective/Current/Past Property Owner Property Lender Property Insurer

20. Regulatory Approach for HC Sites Current Regulatory Approaches: Current Regulatory Approaches: – USEPA: Guidance not recommended for UST sites – ASTM: Screening distance reduced from 100’ to 30’ – Some agencies include a 10X biodegradation factor – ITRC: Use vertical profile to demonstrate Data suggests these approaches are overly conservative for most petroleum release sites Data suggests these approaches are overly conservative for most petroleum release sites

21. Methods to Assess VI Indoor Air Sampling Groundwater Sampling Soil Phase Sampling Predictive Modeling Measure Flux Directly Soil Gas Sampling Supplemental Tools/Data

22. Ingredients for Effective VI Assessments Investigatory Approach Determine Correct Screening Levels Sample & Analyze Properly Know & Use Supplemental Tools Demonstrating Bioattenuation

23. Some Key VI Assessment Issues Experience of the Collector/Consultant – Have they done this before? – Do they understand RBSLs? – Quality/experience of field staff? Sr or Jr? Get Enough Data Near/Around/Under Legal Perspective – How conservative to be or not be?

24. Most Common VI Bloopers Unit Confusion: Assuming ug/L equivalent to ppbv Assuming ug/m3 equivalent to ppbv Vacuum units: in Hg to inches H20 Screening Levels: Comparing to CHHSLs Not calculating correct levels

25. Approach Generalizations Indoor Air – Always find something – Multiple sampling rounds: extra time & $ Groundwater Data – Typically over-predicts risk Soil Phase Data – Typically not allowed; over-predicts risk Soil Gas Data – Transfer rate unknown – Sub-slab intrusive

26. Indoor Air Measurement Pros: –Actual Indoor Concentration Cons: –Where From? –Inside sources (smoke, cleaners) –Outside sources (exhaust, cleaners) –People activities – NO CONTROL! –Time-intensive protocols –Snapshot, limited data points –Expensive!!

27. Ambient Air Benzene at 23 CA Sites

28. ARAMCO Art and Crafts Goop Aleenes Patio & Garden Adhesive Consumer Products Containing PCE Product Gumout Brake Cleaner PCE Concentration Hagerty Silversmith Spray Polish Champion Spot it Gone Plumbers Goop Adhesive Liquid Wrench Lubricant w/ Teflon Not Specified 70% 50 - 90% 67.5% 30.5% 20 - 25% 65 - 80% KEY POINT: Wide variety of consumer products still contain high concentrations of PCE. Indoor Air

29. Indoor concentration of 1,2-DCA increasing over time. New indoor source = molded plastic (e.g., toys, Christmas decorations). New Indoor Source of 1,2-DCA KEY POINT: CONCENTRATION DETECTION FREQUENCY 1,2-DCA Detection Frequency (%) 1,2-DCA Concentration (ug/m 3 ) USEPA INDOOR AIR LIMIT <0.08 Median 1,2-DCA Conc. 90%ile 1,2-DCA Conc.

30. OH 9-0730

32. Passive Soil Gas Samplers Adsorbent inside tube open on one end Adsorbent inside badge Adsorbent inside vapor permeable, waterproof membrane

33. Approach Generalizations Indoor Air – Always find something – Multiple sampling rounds: extra time & $ Groundwater Data – Typically over-predicts risk Soil Phase Data – Typically not allowed; over-predicts risk Soil Gas Data – Transfer rate unknown – Sub-slab intrusive

34. Modeling Johnson-Ettinger Most Common – GW, soil, soil gas spreadsheets – Screen & advanced versions – EPA-OSWER: no longer an exit Biovapor – Includes bioattenuation – Agency acceptance?

35. What is BioVapor? Free, easy-to-use vapor intrusion model that accounts for oxygen-limited aerobic vapor intrusion. KEY POINT: 1-D Analytic al Model Oxygen Mass Balance Version of Johnson & Ettinger vapor intrusion model modified to include aerobic biodegradation (DeVaull, 2007). Uses iterative calculation method to account for limited availability of oxygen in vadose zone. Simple interface intended to facilitate use by wide range of environmental professionals. User- Friendly O2O2 HC SIMPLE MATH Conceptual Model

36. 3Advection, diffusion, and dilution through building foundation 2Diffusion & 1 st order biodegradation in aerobic zone 1Diffusion only in anaerobic zone Vapor Source Hydrocarbo n Oxyge n aerobic zone anaerobic zone Algebra Solution for: Oxygen demand = Oxygen Supply BioVapor – API 1-D Steady State VI Model

37. Which Soil Gas Method? Active? Passive? (limited use) Flux Chambers? (limited use) Active method most often employed for VI

38. Probe Considerations Tubing Type – Rigid wall tubing ok (nylon, teflon, SS) – Flexible tubing not (tygon, hardware store) – Small diameter best (1/8” or ¼”) Probe Tip – Beware metal tips (may have cutting oils) Equilibration Time – Effects by air knife, rotary, air percussion, sonic Equipment Blanks –Need to collect blank through collection system

39. Soil Gas Sampling Issues Sample Size – Greater the volume, greater the uncertainty – Smaller volumes faster & easier to collect Containers – Canisters: More blank potential. Higher cost – Tedlars: Good for ~2 days. Easier to collect Flow Rate – Really not imp. But most agencies < 200 ml/min Tracer/Leak Compound – Crucial for sub-slab & larger sample volumes – Gases (He, SF6, Propane) & Liquids (IPA)

40. Beware of the Hardware

41. Poor Hardware

42. Container Issues Large vs. mini-canisters Filling a tedlar bag with syringe

43. Common Soil Gas Analyses VOCs –Soil & Water Methods: 8021, 8260 –Air Methods: TO-14, TO-15, TO-17 Hydrocarbons –8015 m, TO-3 Oxygen, Carbon Dioxide –ASTM 1945-96 SVOCs (sorbent methods) –Air Methods: TO-4, TO-10, TO-13

44. On-site TO-15 Scan/SIM Simultaneous Scan/SIM mode enables < 10 ug/m3 for All VOCs & ~ 1 ug/m3 for subset of compounds. Only 2cc of Sample. Eliminates Hardware Real-time Analysis in Structures: Control! Two “Mobile Air Labs” Now Operational Can Go Into Automated Mode

45. Don’t Forget 8021 Can get to 1 ug/m3 for TCE, CCl4, PCE Can get to ~25 ug/m3 for Benz & Napthalene 5 minute run time for benzene, TCE & PCE Cost ~ 1/5 of TO-15

46. Supplemental Tools/Data Site Specific Alpha Using Radon – Factor of 10 to 100. $100/sample Indoor Air Ventilation Rate – Factor of 2 to 10. <$1,000 per determination. Soil Physical Properties – Moisture content the key parameter Real-Time, Continuous Analyzers – Can sort out noise/scatter

47. Soil Gas Sampling for HCs Might Need to Sample <5’ bgs –If samples >5’ bgs exceed allowable levels –How to know? On-site analysis best –If not, collect samples anyway Always Collect Oxygen Data Might Need Soil Phase Data

48. Sub-Slab vs. Near-Slab Samples ?

49. Dirty Groundwater (>100 ug/l) at Site

50. Dirty Soil (>1 ppm) at Site

51. Subslab Data (ug/m3 benzene) Service station 8.3 4.3 4.6 ND 11 10 7.2 6.9 6.510 12 5.3 3.1 5.9 12. 4.9 20 13/7.7 10 8.3 12 8.3 8.4 8.3 ND 9.2 9.8 16/ 24 5.4 6.7 GW 0 100 ft

52. The Culprit

53. BBQ Sample Results

54. Previews of the VI Future VI Likely to be a Concern at Your Sites Variable Regulatory Guidance Makes Assessment Tricky & Slow New EPA & DTSC Guidance to be Stricter ESLs to Go Lower? Hydrocarbons to be Less of a Concern

55. Want to Know More? ITRC 2-day VI Training – 2010 –July 12: Boston –October 4: Atlanta AWMA 2-day – Chicago 9/29/2010 Tanks Conf, PVI Workshop, Boston 9/2010 AEHS –MA: PVI Workshop – Oct 2010

56. Existing Documents & Training Soil Gas Sampling SOPs –Soil Gas Sampling, Sub-slab Sampling, Vapor Monitoring Wells/Implants, Flux Chambers (www.handpmg.com) Other –ITRC VI Guidance (www.itrcweb.org) –API Soil Gas Document (api.org) –ASTM E2600-08: Good Summary Table in App X

57. VI Documents Overview of SV Methods (www.handpmg.com) –LustLine Part 1 - Active Soil Gas Method, 2002 –LustLine Part 2 - Flux Chamber Method, 2003 –LustLine Part 3 - FAQs October, 2004 –LustLine Part 4 – Soil Gas Updates, Sept 2006 –LustLine – VI For Petroleum Hydrocarbons, May 2010 Robin Davis’ Articles on Bioattenuation: –Lustline #61 May 2009 –LustLine #52 May 2006 (www.neiwpcc.org)

58. Blayne Hartman Hartman Environmental Geoscience H&P Mobile Geochemistry 858-925-7206 www.handpmg.com