Sorting Out the Implications of U.S. EPA VI Guidance

© 2012 Environmental Data Resources, Inc.

Presented by:

• David Gillay, Barnes & Thornburg LLP• Dr. Blayne Hartman, Hartman Environmental

Geosciences• Brad Willy, Terra Vapor• Craig Brown, Terra Vapor

Sorting Out the Implications of U.S. EPA VI Guidance

CONFIDENTIAL © 2013 Barnes & Thornburg LLP. All Rights Reserved. This page, and all information on it, is confidential, proprietary and the property of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, which may not be disseminated or disclosed to any person or entity other than the intended

recipient(s), and may not be reproduced, in any form, without the express written consent of the author or presenter. The information on this page is intended for informational purposes only and shall not be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion of Barnes & Thornburg

LLP.

ATLANTA CHICAGO DELAWARE INDIANA LOS ANGELES MICHIGAN MINNEAPOLIS OHIO WASHINGTON, DC

EDR National Webinar:

Sorting Out the Implications of EPA VI Guidance –

Hot Button Issues & Legal Solutions

David R. Gillay, Esq.Chair, Brownfields & Environmental

Transactional Diligence

August 6, 2013




LLP.

Overview

• Setting the Stage• Hot Button Issues (& suggested solutions/strategies) • Implications of draft EPA VI guides on DD• States Reactions• Next Steps




LLP.

Vapor Intrusion• Condensed history of EPA VI guidance …no

longer can VI be ignored, delayed, down played.

• Vapor intrusion (VI) generally occurs when there is a migration of volatile chemicals from contaminant sources into an overlying building. – Volatile chemicals can emit vapors that may migrate

through subsurface soils and into indoor air spaces of overlying buildings in ways similar to that of radon gas seeping into homes.




LLP.

Vapor Intrusion




LLP.

Hot Button Issues

• More (all?) Sites with VOCs will likely “screen in”

• Less (no?) default/easy Exit Ramps

• Overly conservative screening levels (layer after layer …– EPA acknowledges and takes big step. See Section 7.4.– What about OSHA PELs?– TCE RfC (non-cancer endpoint) is driving Risk

• Attenuation issues – non-residential scenarios?




LLP.

Hot Button Issues

• Multiple Lines of Evidence (MLOE) – How should data be “weighed”– Is this a practical approach and do all sites require MLOE?

• Pre-emptive mitigation – annual O&M obligations, use restrictions, new tools

• Public Outreach and Risk Communication Challenges: New guidance on Community Involvement Plans; communicating risk

• Managing residual COIs with ICs under new policy




LLP.

Some Helpful Links

• EPA VI Homepage: http://www.epa.gov/oswer/vaporintrusion/

• US EPA VI Docket: http://www.regulations.gov/#!home– Type in ‘EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0033’ and filter for Public Submissions (177)– DOD, GM/DOW, NASA, Trade Groups

• B&T Comments: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002- 0189; 0077; and 0059.

• TSCA TCE Draft Chemical Risk Assessment: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0723

• ARA Website: http://www.allianceforrisk.org/Projects/TCE.html– TCE Risk Assessment for Contaminated Sites, April 2013– Recent Inside EPA Articles – movement for additional practical guidance with

national webcast later this year.

http://www.epa.gov/oswer/vaporintrusion/

http://www.regulations.gov/#!home

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0723

http://www.allianceforrisk.org/Projects/TCE.html




LLP.

Suggested Legal Solutions/Strategies

• Themes– VI pathway is complex and science is evolving but you can successfully

navigate to closure with cost effective and practical approaches– Need a team of multi-disciplinary experienced experts on VI– Site-specific legal and technical solutions do exist

• Suggested Solutions/Strategies– Identify Applicable Exit Ramps & data needed for site-specific approach – Develop VI CSM to assess potential transport mechanisms (diffusion,

advection, and pref paths)– Develop a stakeholder approved VI Decision Matrix [protocols for

immediate (hr), acute (days), subchronic (weeks), and chronic (months)]




LLP.

Suggested Legal Solutions/Strategies

– Develop Risk Communication talking points & coordinate upfront with regulators and health department (e.g., radon, background, ambient).

– Determine sampling and analysis plans; consider TRIAD, real-time data; phased approach to address “highest” potential structures first.

– Tailor closure strategy and mitigation based on site-specific approach flowing from applicable state/federal policy, risk tolerance, and degree of sophistication.

– Determine how best to structure a long term stewardship and/or IC Plan to manage residual COCs and potential future risks using new EPA IC Guides and policy as part of closure strategy.




LLP.

New 2013 IC Guides

• In most States, ICs are generally necessary unless the site meets unlimited use and unrestricted exposure (UU/UE).

• EPA’s NEW National Policy on Use and Roles of ICs is to develop an IC Plan:

– Institutional Controls: A Guide to Planning, Implementing, Maintaining, and Enforcing Institutional Controls at Contaminated Sites, EPA-540-R-09-001 (Dec. 2012) [referred to as the “IC Guidance”]

– Institutional Control: A Guide to Preparing Institutional Control Implementation and Assurance Plans at Contaminated Sites, EPA-540-R-09-002 (Dec. 2012) [referred to as “ICIAP Guidance” or “IC Plan”]




LLP.

Revisions to Due Diligence Standards

• Revisions to Phase I expected later this year

• Vapor migration is included; some argue that vapor migration was always part of a CERCLA release and AAI

• Post-Closing - Maintaining CERCLA defenses (BFPP)– Obstacle was/remains the VI pathway/liability– Brownfield and Redevelopment Tail




LLP.

States Reactions

• April 2012 Roundtable with EPA & Region 5 States• States that recently submitted comments include (14):

CA, NC Dry Cleaning Fund, Hawaii, Utah, New York, TN, WA, VA, AZ, KY, MO, MT, MN, IN.

– Each state should be able to evaluate/interpret EPA VI guides and utilize portions that are applicable to conditions and policy in that State. [AZ, IL]

– Many project teams lack the expertise to make scientifically defensible arguments as to whether the pathway is complete. [VA, GA]




LLP.

Next Steps

• EPA may finalize both OSWER and OUST VI Guides• National Policy on short-term action levels for TCE

– Support ARA’s Practical Application Guide for TCE• ITRC may be updating its 2007 VI Guide• EPA to release at least three (3) critical supporting

documents referenced in draft OSWER VI Guide:– Technical Basis to select, design, install, operate mitigation systems– S&A Methods for VI Investigations– User’s Guide for J&E Model

• Each State will eventually evaluate impact/implications to its VI policy




LLP.

Final Comments

• VI pathway is complex and science is evolving but you can successfully navigate to closure with cost effective and practical approaches.

• Need a team of multi-disciplinary experienced experts on VI.

• Site-specific legal and technical solutions do exist.




LLP.

Questions?

Please contact:

David R. Gillay

Partner, Environmental Department

Chair, Brownfields & Environmental Transactional Diligence

(317) 231-7474 or (317) 946-9267

[email protected]

Vapor Intrusion Risk Pathway: A Survival Guide

Blayne HartmanHartman Environmental Geoscience

[email protected]

August 2013

EDR Webinar

Potential Risk of VI Sites

yesno

no yes

Start

Petroleum Site?

Whew!

Gulp!

TCE Site?

Ouch

EPA Guidance Updates(Release Date: 2014?)

• EPA (OSWER & Superfund) – Preference for sub-slab & indoor air– Preference for soil gas near source (bad for HCs!)– Longer indoor air sampling period (7 to 21 days)– Fixed Att factor of 0.03 for shallow SG (~15x drop)– Sub-slab Att factor 0.03 (3.3x increase)– Modeling no longer an exit

http://www.epa.gov/oswer/vaporintrusion

Comment Period Ended 6/24/13

EPA Guidance Updates(Release Date: 2014?)

• EPA-OUST: Guidance for HCs – Exclusion criteria? Yay! – Testing/Adoption of Biovapor model? Wishy-washy– No Screening Levels – Pipes you to OSWER!!

http://www.epa.gov/oust/cat/pvi/index.htm

Comment Period Ended 6/24/13

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

• EPA-OUST Exclusion Value: 5000 ug/L

OSWER ~3300 times lower than OUST!!

ITRC PVI GUIDANCE(Due out early 2014)

1. Introduction

2. Types of PVI Sites

3. Conceptual Site Model

4. Basic Investigative Framework for PVI Sites

5. Site Screening and Prioritization

6. Investigative Toolbox

7. Mitigation

New TCE Standard(As of October 2011)

• Residential (1e-6 cancer risk) – Indoor Air cancer: 0.43 ug/m3 (down from 1.2 ug/m3)– Indoor Air non-cancer: 2.1 ug/m3 Short-Term Exposure?– Groundwater: 1.1 ug/L

• Commercial/Industrial (1e-6 cancer risk)– Indoor Air: 3.0 ug/m3 (down from 6.1 ug/m3)– Indoor Air non-cancer: 8.8 ug/m3 (Pregnant employees?)– Groundwater: 7.4 ug/L

New PCE Standard(As of March 2012)

• Residential (1e-6) – Indoor Air cancer: 9.4 ug/m3 (up from 0.41 ~22x !!)– Indoor Air non-cancer: ~47 ug/m3

• Industrial (1e-6)– Indoor Air: ~47 ug/m3 (up 22x)– Indoor Air non-cancer: 175 ug/m3

CA-EPA Ignored new PCE Standard

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

Ingredients for Effective VI Assessments

• Investigatory Approach• Determine Correct Screening Levels• Sample & Analyze Properly• Know & Use Supplemental Tools• Demonstrating Bioattenuation

The Most Important Ingredient

• Experience: – Consultant – Collector – done soil gas before?– Lab – certified for methods?– Regulator– Public– YOU!

What level person is going in the field?

O2=7.5%

Most Common VI Bloopers

• Unit Confusion– Assuming ug/L equivalent to ppbv– Assuming ug/m3 equivalent to ppbv

• Screening Levels– Comparing to generic screening levels– Not calculating correct levels

• Sampling & Analysis Errors– Program design: soil gas? GW? SS? IA?– Using wrong hardware– Using wrong analysis

Units: ppmv

Indoor air SLs

SG Samples

These values brought up into this table

Approach Generalizations

• Indoor Air– Always find something – Multiple sampling rounds:

• Groundwater Data– Typically over-predicts risk

• Soil Phase Data– Typically not allowed; over-predicts risk for HCs

• Soil Gas Data– Transfer rate unknown– Sub-slab intrusive

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!!

Gun Cleaner: TCE

Pepper Spray:

TCE

But We Don’t Use “CHLORINATED” Chemicals Anymore…...

Brake Cleaner: TCE/PCE Hobby Glue:

PCE

Plastics:1,2-DCA

Bloonies

35

Bloonies’ Goodies

36

750 ngBenzene

Toluene 2744 ng

Bloonies – Party Time!

37Ethanol: 207,000 ng !!!

Cleaning Your Dishes?(or Polluting Your House)

Dawn VOC Analysis Results

1,4-Dioxane 2100

Naphthalene 31

No Wonder She’s Smiling When Doing Dishes

Ethanol 600000

Benzene 19

Got Natural Gas?

Which Soil Gas Method?

• Active?• Passive? (limited use)• Flux Chambers? (limited use)

Active method most often employed for VI

Probe Considerations• Tubing Type

– Rigid wall tubing ok (nylon, teflon, SS)– Flexible tubing not (tygon, hardware store)

• Probe Tip – Beware metal tips (may have cutting oils)

• Materials Used to Bury Probes– Sand, cement

• Equipment Blanks– Need to collect blank through collection system

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 & Purge Volume– 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)

Canisters vs Tubes

Beware of the Hardware

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.

• Continuous analyzers –Real-time monitoing

• Pressure Measurements –Can help interpret indoor air results

Refer to ASTM E2600-08 Table X.1 for summary table

On-site TO-14 (8021)

• Small Footprint GC (Flies free on SW)• Fast Start-up (~45 min)• 5 minute run time for TCE & PCE• Can get to <1 ug/m3 for TCE, CCl4, PCE• But Also Can Measure High (>10,000 ug/m3)• Cost ~ 1/4 of TO-15 ($50/sample)• Can Go Into Automated Monitoring Mode

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650

SSP-2 PCE

PCE

12/2012 1/2013 2/2013 3/2013

Sub-slab Soil Gas Data

Sub-Slab Variations do NOT Occur Over Short Time Periods (days)

1 day

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600

Conc

(ug/

m3)

Run Number

PCE - 420 1st Floor Air

PCE

Continuous Monitoring – PCE in Indoor Air

12/2012 3/20131/2013 2/2013

3 days 5x 3 days 10x

2 days 4x

Continuous Monitoring – PCE in Indoor Air

12/2012 3/20131/2013 2/2013

0.28

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650

422 1st Floor Air

PCE

4 days 10x

3 days 5x1 day 5x 2 days 10x

Previews of the VI Future

• VI Likely to be a Concern at Your Sites • Variable Regulatory Guidance Makes

Assessment Tricky & Slow• New EPA OSWER Guidance to be Stricter• ASTM Standard Increase # of Sites• Hydrocarbons to be Less of a Concern

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, Nov 2010

• Robin Davis’ Articles on Bioattenuation:– Lustline #61 May 2009 – LustLine #52 May 2006 (www.neiwpcc.org)

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

VI Websites & Links

• www.handpmg.com– Soil Gas Information– Other Site Assessment Methods

• www.itrcweb.org• www.api.org

Blayne Hartman, Ph.D.

[email protected]

Mitigation for Environmental Vapor Intrusion

Issues

www.terravapor.com

Email: [email protected]: 877-399-4190

Case Study #1

• Bloomington 1 (Sub-Slab Depressurization (SSDS))– 6,500 SqFt. footprint with two stories– Former dry cleaner across alleyway to the west

of building– Building constructed into side of a hill on west

side– Mitigated at night to avoid conflict with

sensitive tenants– 5 sub-systems connected to 6 extraction points– Roof mounted fans to preserve historic district

building appearance

SSDS Theory - Slab on Grade

System Layout

System Install

Case Study #2

• Bloomington 2 (Modified Ventilation)– 2,800 SqFt. footprint with three stories (inc.

basement) Top floor of building is residential– Active dry cleaner adjacent and building

historically stored dry cleaning chemicals & filters

– Client conducted 1st pilot study– High water table and bedrock within 2 feet

of basement floor– SSDS not applicable

HRV/ERV

HRV/ERV - Heat Recovery Ventilators / Energy Recovery Ventilators

• Typical Application– very low

concentrations of COC in indoor air

Typical HRV/ERV Theory

Pilot Study – HRV/ERV & Building Pressurization

• Blower Door Test– Must find air exchanges per hour (ACH)

– HRV/ERV is limited by the amount of reduction in COC concentration

needed

Building Pressurization Theory

Modified HRV/ERV Theory

Case Study #3

• Indianapolis Residential (SSDS and Sub-Membrane Depressurization (SMDS))– EPA Superfund site with upwards of 125

impacted residences– Former dry cleaner upgradient from

neighborhood– First selected mitigation contractor was a

radon specialist – Lowest bidder– Most (75%) of the houses mitigated by first

contractor were not up to code or properly mitigated

Photos of SSDS

Photos of SMDS

Key Lessons Learned

• Many different approaches to deal with a vapor intrusion issue

• Each building is different– Assumptions are extremely dangerous– Site specific data is crucial to getting the

best designed system

• Partnering with experience matters

Keep Vapor from Killing Deals

Proper Mitigation + Monitoring = Corrected Vapor Intrusion Issue

• Quickly installing a proper mitigation solution keeps environmental remediation projects moving toward closure

• Once a mitigation system is installed ensuring that it is working properly at all times is crucial

System Installed… Now what?

• Once a mitigation system has been installed on a structure:– How do I prove to all stakeholders that

the system is still functioning adequately after the confirmatory sampling event?

– How often should I continue to verify the system is preventing exposure?

EPA Draft OSWER Guidance

• Multiple mentions of follow up monitoring of installed mitigation systems.

• Opportunity to avoid re-sampling events if you can show site conditions warrant a different monitoring schedule.

• Monitoring is a key part of Long Term Stewardship concept.

Key OSWER Concepts

• Routine inspection of all visible components of the VI mitigation system including fans, piping, seals, membranes, and collection points to ensure there are no signs of degradation or blockage.

• Routine monitoring of vent risers for flow rates and pressures generated by the fan to confirm the system is working and moisture is draining correctly.

Key OSWER Concepts

• Confirmation that the extraction fan is operating.

• Confirmation of adequate operation of the warning device indicator.

• For SSDS, EPA recommends that the pressure gauge be monitored quarterly to verify the system is operating efficiently.

Key OSWER Concepts

• EPA recommends that the system failure warning devices or alarms be installed on active depressurization systems, and appropriate responses to them should be understood by building occupants. Monitoring devices and alarms should be placed in a readily visible, frequently trafficked locations within the structure.

Comparison of Traditional vs. Alternative Monitoring

• Traditional system monitoring relies on site visits and informed building occupants to report to the responsible party if an issue has caused the system to stop functioning adequately between scheduled monitoring events.

• Alternative monitoring allows the system to be monitored remotely and removes the responsibility of the building occupant to inform the responsible party when a system issue arises.

Comparison of Traditional vs. Alternative Monitoring

Traditional Alternative Pressure gauge readings Onsite visit Real time data remotely

Confirmation fan is operating Onsite visit Real time data remotely

System Shut down Onsite visit Shut down remotely

Confirmation alarm is functioning Onsite visit Real time data remotely

Ongoing sampling events Onsite visit Reduced frequency Telemetry technology can reduce the disturbance to building occupants with less site visits by the environmental professionals for monitoring and sampling events, while providing superior evidence of system functionality.

[email protected]

www.terravapor.com

877-399-4190

© 2012 Environmental Data Resources, Inc.

Q&A

Date post:	17-May-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	edr
View:	574 times
Download:	3 times