+ All Categories
Home > Business > Buonicore, anthony edr

Buonicore, anthony edr

Date post: 17-May-2015
Category:
Upload: jason-schoenleber
View: 595 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
Popular Tags:
23
© 2011 Environmental Data Resources, In Managing Potential Risk Associated With Vapor Migration/Intrusion Using ASTM E 2600-10 by Anthony J. Buonicore, P.E. Director, Environmental Data Resources, Inc. Milford, CT For presentation at The 2011 Enfos Solutions Conference Chicago, IL October 19-20, 2011
Transcript
Page 1: Buonicore, anthony  edr

© 2011 Environmental Data Resources, Inc.

Managing Potential Risk Associated With Vapor Migration/Intrusion Using ASTM E 2600-10

by

Anthony J. Buonicore, P.E.

Director, Environmental Data Resources, Inc.

Milford, CT

For presentation at

The 2011 Enfos Solutions Conference

Chicago, IL

October 19-20, 2011

Page 2: Buonicore, anthony  edr

What is vapor intrusion?

Page 3: Buonicore, anthony  edr

Overview

• Vapor Intrusion Risk and Liability• Vapor Migration Screening Using the ASTM E 2600-10 Standard• Methodology to Manage the Vapor Migration/Intrusion Risk• Benefits to Risk Management

Page 4: Buonicore, anthony  edr

Vapor Intrusion Risk and Liability

• Multimillion dollar toxic tort class action lawsuits now common• RCRA citizen suit provision, CERCLA and traditional common law

claims (negligence, nuisance, trespass, etc.)• Typically involve chlorinated solvent and petroleum contaminant

migration off-site• Nearby residential properties impacted

Page 5: Buonicore, anthony  edr

VI Class Action Lawsuits Growing

Sampling of Some of the More Publicized Cases

• Ball v. Bayard Pump & Tank (petroleum from gas station)(1999)(PA)• Avila v. Willits Environmental Remediation Trust (chlorinateds)(1999)(CA)• Antolovich v. Brown Retail Group (chlorinateds)(2000)(CO)• Muniz v. Rexnord (Chlorinateds)(2004)(IL)• Ward/Bradley v. Lockheed Martin (chlorinateds)(2005)(FL)• Martin v. Foster Wheeler (TCE)(2006)(PA)• Aiken, et al. v. General Electric (TCE)(2006)(NY)• Branham/Booth v. Rohm & Haas (chlorinateds)(2006,2010)(PA)• Baumbach v. ExxonMobil (petroleum)(2006)(NY)• Nnadili v. Chevron (petroleum)(2006)(D.C.)• Grace Christian Fellowship v. KJG Investments (petroleum) (2008)(WI)

Page 6: Buonicore, anthony  edr

VI Class Action Lawsuits Growing cont’d

• Spears v. Chrysler (chlorinateds)(2008)(OH)• Blaine v. IBM (chlorinateds)(2008)(NY)• Sher v. Raytheon (chlorinateds)(2008)(FL)• U.S. v. Apex Oil (petroleum)(2008)(IL)• Voggenthaler v. Maryland Square (PCE)(2008)(NV)• KB Home v. Rockville TBD Corp.(chorinateds)(2009)(IN)• West Coast Home Builders v. Aventis Cropscience (chlorinateds)(2009)

(CA)• Martin v. Behr Dayton Thermal Products (chlorinateds)(2009)(OH)• Weitz & Luxenberg (on behalf of Pompton Lakes Residents) v.

DuPont and Royle Systems (chlorinateds)(2010)(NJ)• Stoll v. Kraft Foods Global (chlorinateds)(2010)(IN)

Page 7: Buonicore, anthony  edr

ASTM E 2600-10 Standard

• Consensus standard published in June 2010

• Developed to facilitate screening for vapor migration potential onto a property or away from a property

• Environmental professionals are using it for:

- Due diligence in Phase Is associated with

property acquisition

- Vapor intrusion risk assessment screening (on-site

and off-site)

- Contaminated property remediation (vapor

pathway now routinely considered in developing a

remediation strategy)

Page 8: Buonicore, anthony  edr

Vapor Migration Screening Using the ASTM E 2600-10 Standard

Key ASTM E 2600-10 Screening Terms

• Chemicals of Concern (volatiles/semi-volatiles) • Area of Concern for Plume Migration Screening• Critical Distance for Vapor Migration Screening

Page 9: Buonicore, anthony  edr

Chemicals of Concern

Commonly Encountered

• Petroleum contaminants:

- Benzene

- Ethylbenzene

- Toluene

- Xylenes

- MTBE• Common Chlorinateds:

- Carbon tetrachloride

- cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene

(DCE)

- 1,2-Dichloroethane (DCA)

- Methylene chloride

- Trichloroethylene (TCE)

- Perchloroethylene (PCE)

Screening Level in Groundwater (NJ)

- 15 µg/L

- 61,000 µg/L

- 310,000 µg/L

- 7,000 µg/L

- 78 µg/L

- 1 µg/L

- 350 µg/L

- 2 µg/L

- 53 µg/L

- 1 µg/L

- 1 µg/L

Page 10: Buonicore, anthony  edr

Area of Concern

• COC Plumes

- 1,760 feet in direction of groundwater flow

- reflects 90th percentile plume length

- also reflects vapor migration distance in reasonably

permeable soil

- 530 feet plume width at 90th percentile*• Petroleum Hydrocarbon Plumes

- 528 feet in direction of groundwater flow

- reflects 90th percentile plume length

- also reflects vapor migration distance in reasonably

permeable soil

- 130 feet plume width at 90th percentile*

• Buonicore, A.J. , Methodology for Identifying the Area of Concern Around a Property Potentially Impacted by Vapor Migration

from Nearby Contaminated Sources, Paper No. 2011-A-301, Proceedings, Air & Waste Management Association, 104 th Annual

Meeting, Orlando, Florida, June 20-24, 2011.

Page 11: Buonicore, anthony  edr

Critical Distance

• Travel distance of vapor volatilized from COC-contaminated groundwater in reasonably permeable soil

• 100 feet for COCs• 100 feet for petroleum contaminants floating on the

water table (LNAPL)• 30 feet for petroleum contaminants dissolved in

groundwater

Page 12: Buonicore, anthony  edr

Standardized Methodology to Manage the Vapor Migration Risk

1. Data Collection

2. Identification of Plume Migration Impact Zone Associated with Known or Potential Contaminant Release

3. Property Prioritization Sequence

4. On-going Portfolio Monitoring

Page 13: Buonicore, anthony  edr

Data Collection

• Contaminated groundwater plume data

- groundwater flow direction

- COC concentrations and trend

- remediation status

- current plume length and width

- plume status (migrating? attenuating? etc.)

• Surrounding area

- nearest residential development

- nearest sensitive receptors (including schools, day care centers, nearby wetlands

and surface waters, etc.)

- nearby known or suspect COC-contaminated sites (possible

PRPs?)

• COC contaminant concentration screening thresholds for vapor intrusion (RSLs – risk screening levels)

• Soil characteristics impacting permeability (clay, sandy, silty, etc.)

Page 14: Buonicore, anthony  edr

Plume Migration Impact Zone

“Zone containing [known or

potential] COC-contaminated

groundwater plume plus a distance

to account for potential vapor

migration”

Page 15: Buonicore, anthony  edr

Plume Migration Impact Zone cont’d

• Established considering known, inferred or assumed groundwater flow direction for either a known release or a potential release

• For known releases: edge of contaminated plume (where state RSL exceeded) plus the critical distance

● For COC-contaminated groundwater

- 100 feet (critical distance) beyond the plume edge in the

direction of groundwater flow

● For petroleum-contaminated groundwater

- 100 feet (critical distance) beyond the plume edge when

LNAPL exists

- 30 feet (critical distance) beyond the plume edge when

only dissolved petroleum contamination exists

Page 16: Buonicore, anthony  edr

Plume Migration Impact Zone: Known Release

Legend

Groundwater Migration Zone

Vapor Migration Zone 100 ft. for COC – contamination 100 ft. for Petro-contamination with LNAPL 30 ft. for Petro-contamination Dissolved

(only)

Source

Residential

Contaminated Groundwater Plume

Vapor Migration Zone

Property Boundary

Page 17: Buonicore, anthony  edr

Plume Migration Impact Zone cont’d

• For potential releases (or where groundwater plume delineation has not been done):

● From the source of a potential COC release

- 1,760 feet length in the direction of groundwater flow (90th

percentile plume length plus critical distance)

- 730 feet width (90th percentile plume width plus critical distance)

● From the source of a potential petroleum release

- 528 feet length in the direction of groundwater flow (90th

percentile plume length plus critical distance)

- 330 feet width (90th percentile plume width plus critical distance)

● Distances may be reduced based upon site-specific soil

characteristics, e.g., relatively impermeable soil (such as silty-clayey)

Page 18: Buonicore, anthony  edr

Plume Migration Impact Zone: Potential Release

Legend

Plume Migration Impact Zone (including 90th percentile groundwater plume length + vapor migration zone)

COC – Release: A = 1760 ft. B = 730 ft.

Petro – Release: A = 528 ft. B = 330 ft.

SourceContaminated Groundwater Plume

Property Boundary

Residential

AB

Groundwater Flow Direction

Page 19: Buonicore, anthony  edr

Property Prioritization Sequence

1. Known Release: COC-Contaminated groundwater

plume under residential or sensitive receptors

(R/SR) - no other PRPs

- other PRPs

2. Known Release: Vapor volatilized off groundwater

plume (vapor migration zone) impacting R/SR - no other PRPs

- other PRPs

Page 20: Buonicore, anthony  edr

Property Prioritization Sequence cont’d

3. Known Release: Groundwater plume migrating

toward R/SR with potential vapor migration impact

- no other PRPs

- other PRPs

4. Potential Release: R/SR in direction (down-gradient)

of potential contaminant release

- no other PRPs

- other PRPs

Page 21: Buonicore, anthony  edr

On-going Portfolio Monitoring

• New on-site contaminant releases • New off-site contaminant releases• Changes in contaminated plume migration• Changes in contaminant concentrations in plume• Changes in remediation status• Changes in status with respect to other PRPs • Changes in nearby residential• Changes in nearby sensitive receptors• Changes in contaminant releases/spills at source• Changes is state RSLs for vapor intrusion

Page 22: Buonicore, anthony  edr

Key Benefits to Risk Management

• Facilitate property clean-up prioritization• Undertake most effective risk mitigation measures• More effective use of monies available for cleanup

Page 23: Buonicore, anthony  edr

Conclusions

• Vapor intrusion represents a significant potential risk and liability to facility owners

• Risk can be managed• ASTM E 2600-10 can assist in screening and risk assessment• Screening will allow for cost effective property prioritization by

focusing where potential risk is the greatest


Recommended