Vapor Instrusion: The Three most often asked questions

Transcription

Vapor Intrusion: The Top Three Most Often Asked
Questions?
5th AIPG Conference: Innovative Environmental Assessment and Remediation
Technology
April 23 & 24, 2014
Kennesaw State Continuing Education Center
Presented by:
Jim Fineis P.G
Atlas Geo-Sampling Company
jimfineis@atlas-geo.com
www.atlas-geo.com
770-883-3372
Questions?
1) 
If the Phase I Report Indicates That There is a Potential Vapor Intrusion Condition
(VIC) or a Vapor Encroachment Condition (VEC), Where and How Do I Collect
High Quality Vapor Intrusion Data?
2) 
Does Petroleum Vapor Intrusion (PVI) Pose the Same Risk as Vapor Intrusion
From Chlorinated Solvents Sites?
3) 
Is Collecting Indoor Air (IA) Samples a Good Alternative to Collection Sub-slab,
Near-slab or At Depth Vapor Samples?
Where do I
Sample?
Should I
Collect
Indoor Air?
Is PVI Really
an Issue?
Question #1
If the Phase I Report Indicates That There is a Potential Vapor Intrusion
Condition (VIC) or a Vapor Encroachment Condition (VEC), Where and How
Do I Collect High Quality Vapor Intrusion Data?
The recent adoption of ASTM E1527-13 and the use of ASTM
E2600-10 to conduct vapor encroachment screenings, a lot of
questions concerning how to conduct a vapor intrusion investigations
are being been asked. The most often questions are:
1) 
2) 
3) 
4) 
Where on the property should I collect the samples?
How many samples should I collect?
What depths should the samples be collected?
Should I use tedlar bags or summa canisters?
Question #1
1)  Where on the property should I collect the samples?
The answer to the question is site specific but there are general guidelines:
²  If the VI concern is from a VEC, the most appropriate places to collect vapor
samples are as follows:
q  Approximately 5’ above the existing groundwater table if it is suspected that
the vapors are being generated by the groundwater or a free-phase plume.
q  Three to five feet above the suspected source if it is an “at depth” source
(assuming it is not groundwater). An example might be that you are on a
“zero lot line” property and there are underground tanks along the property
line.
q  At a depth of approximately 3 feet below ground surface if the suspected
source is a building on a “zero lot line” property.
q  Within or as close to the backfill if the source is a suspected preferential
pathway. Examples could include utility conduits, shallow rock or other man
made conduits.
Question #1
²  If the VI concern is from a VIC, and the concern is for an existing building or
buildings onsite, the following approach is common:
q  Sub-slab vapor samples are the most accurate way to determine if there is a
risk to the current or future tenants of a building.
q  At depth implants are a viable option if access to the building is not granted
or is not advisable.
Question #1
²  If the VI concern is from a VIC, and the concern is for vacant property or a site
where the proposed footprint of a building is known:
q  At depth implants installed to a depth of approximately three feet below
ground surface is the preferred approach.
q  Make sure you address any new utility conduits that may be installed.
q  Base the number of implants installed on the proposed size of the future
building and how many potential onsite sources are being addressed.
Question #1
1)  Should I use tedlar bags or summa canisters?
Either method is acceptable but remember the limitations of tedlar bags:
q  Approximately a 25% decrease in concentration after 24 hours.
q  Approximately a 50% decrease in concentration after 72 hours.
q  Some compounds can “stick” to the inside of the bag and not provide a true
representation of the sample collected.
Summa canisters are the “gold’ standard and have hold time up to 30 days. A cost benefit
analysis of tedlar bags (quick turn around time) vs. summa canisters (standard turn
around time) may indicate that there is not much cost difference.
Questions?
Question # 2
And the Answer is ?
Question # 2
Before December 2013, the answer would have been NO. After December 2013 the
answer is ALMOST. What changed in December 2013?
The EPA added TPH aromatic low, TPH aromatic medium, TPH aromatic high,
TPH aliphatic low and TPH aliphatic medium values to the Regional Screening
Levels (RSL) tables for indoor air concentrations (industrial and residential).
Why is this a “game changer” ?
If you can not use exclusion criteria (we will talk more about this later) to “exit” the
vapor intrusion pathway, there is a high risk that your site will indicate that the
vapor intrusion pathway is complete.
Question # 2
How does the EPA define TPH aromatic low, TPH aromatic medium, TPH aromatic
high, TPH aliphatic low and TPH aliphatic ?
q  TPH Aromatic Low = C6 – C8
q  TPH Aromatic Medium = C9 – C16
q  TPH Aromatic High = C17 – C32
q  TPH Aliphatic Low = C5 – C8
q  TPH Aliphatic Medium = C9 – C16
Question # 2
Question # 2
Why is this a “game changer” ?
q  It is a potential “game changer” because the TPH components do not bio-degrade
as readily as the typical BTEX compounds.
q  Many PVI sites that would have required no further investigation with regards to
vapor intrusion will now require further investigation.
Question # 2
Indoor Air 1
Subslab Soil Vapor 2
Chemical
Residential (µg/m3)
Commercial/Industrial (µg/m3)
Residential (µg/m3)
Commercial/Industrial (µg/m3)
Benzene
0.31
1.6
310
3,200
Ethylbenzene
0.97
4.9
970
9,800
Toluene
5,200
22,000
5,200,000
44,000,000
Xylenes
100
440
100,000
880,000
0.072
0.36
72
720
C5-C8 aliphatics
630
880
630,000
1,760,000
C9-C18 aliphatics
100
150
100,000
300,000
C9-C16 aromatics
100
150
100,000
300,000
Naphthalene
Question # 2
How can I avoid having to conduct vapor sampling when dealing with a site
contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons? You better hope you can meet certain
“exclusion criteria” that will allow you to get off the vapor intrusion pathway with having
to sample. What are these “exclusion criteria?
Question # 2
Exclusion criteria can be defined as a series of criteria which if met on PVI sites can
allow for the vapor pathway to NOT be considered complete. The proposed vertical
exclusion criteria are as follows:
q  High Contamination Sites – defined as having LNAPL, TPH (GRO) > 30 mg/L or
Benzene >5 mg/L in groundwater or soil containing > 250 mg/kg TPH (GRO) or
Benzene > 10 mg/kg
If the site meets the above criteria after an adequate subsurface investigation and you
have the following criteria then vapor intrusion investigation “should” not be required:
Vertical Exclusion Criteria
15’ or greater depth between the lowest part of the structure
Question # 2
allow for the vapor pathway to NOT be considered complete. The proposed vertical
exclusion criteria are as follows:
q  Low Contamination Sites - defined as having LNAPL, TPH (GRO) < 30 mg/L or
Benzene <5 mg/L in groundwater or soil containing < 250 mg/kg TPH (GRO) or
Benzene< 10 mg/kg
If the site meets the above criteria after an adequate subsurface investigation and you
meet the following criteria then vapor intrusion investigation “should” not be required:
Vertical Exclusion Criteria
6’ or greater depth between the lowest part of the structure
Question # 2
allow for the vapor pathway to NOT be considered complete. The determination of
Lateral exclusion criteria is not quite as strait forward. There is a EPA document on this
topic. The document is titled as follows:
“An Approach for Developing Site-Specific Lateral and Vertical Inclusion
Zones within which Structures Should be Evaluated for Petroleum Vapor
Intrusion due to Releases of Motor Fuel from Underground Storage Tanks”
A general guideline for lateral distances is that they are the same as vertical exclusion
distances. 6’ & 15’. This is going to be a site specific value that will need to be discussed
with the appropriate parties (regulators, legal council, client, etc. ).
Question # 3
In my opinion the CLEAR answer is NO!
Why do I feel so strongly about this? There are too many other sources of volatile
compounds that can be found in the indoor air. There is a “movement” within the EPA to
have indoor air samples collected for a much longer duration than the current 8-hr or
24-hr time frame. The new thought process is to have indoor air samples collected from
7 to 21 DAYS!. The theory behind this thinking is to “capture” the random vapor
intrusion “events” that seem to occur. Those of you who have attended one of my
previous talks on vapor intrusion may remember the slides about these “events”. Please
see me later if you want more information of these random “vapor intrusion events”.
Question # 3
What are the possible sources of chemicals that could show up in your indoor air
sample? A lot more things than you might realize!!!!!!!
Credit and Disclaimer:
The following data and information was collected and presented by Suzie Nawikas of
H&P Mobile Geochemistry at the 2014 AEHS Vapor Intrusion conference in San Diego.
The following disclaimers apply:
q  H&P is not a product testing laboratory.
q  No claims about any brands are being made and any likeness
to particular brands is unintentional.
q  NO company is being accused of any wrongdoing; as far
as we know, all of the companies that produce these products
are in compliance with the regulations that apply to their
industry.
* Shaving Cream
* Daily use product
* Hair removal cream
had over 27,000 ug/
m3 TPH Aliphatics.
* REMINDER:
NOT
appropriate for a
leak check
compound
Compound
Shaving
Noncancer
Cancer (µg/m3)
(µg/m3)
Cream
Benzene
389
0.310
31.00
Toluene
789
n/a
5,200.00
Ethylbenzene
77
0.970
1,000.00
Xylenes
Naphthalene
142
104
n/a
100.00
0.072
3.10
Hexachlorobutadiene
89
0.110
n/a
* Lotions and Sunscreen
Compound
Sunscreen
Body Cancer (µg/ Noncancer
m3 )
(µg/m3)
Lotion
Ethanol
110,000
150
n/a
n/a
Ethyl acetate
11,000
-
n/a
73.00
48
-
9.400
3,100.00
93,000
2,800
n/a
n/a
(C5-C8) Aliphatics
- 1,200
13.000
630.00
(C9-C10) Aromatics
640
- n/a
3.10
(C9-C12) Aliphatics
39,000
4,400
0.540
100.00
MTBE
TPH (C5-C11)
Sunscreen FAQ: An aerosol sunscreen
was recalled for fire hazards. People
were applying it then going to a heat
source (grill) and combusting.
Lotions
* Sunscreen
* Mildly scented body
lotion
* Shampoo & Conditioner
* Middle shelf brand
* According to European
and Canadian reports,
carcinogens are in almost
every brand
Compound
Shampoo Conditioner
1,4-Dioxane
87
- Chloromethane
170
Cancer Noncancer
(µg/m3)
(µg/m3)
0.490
31.00
88
n/a
94.00
6,500
120
n/a
73.00
Isopropylbenzene
- 280,000
n/a
420.00
(C9-C12) Aliphatics
11,000
32,000
0.540
100.00
Ethyl acetate
* Fish Oil Vitamins
Heart Health x 2 = 2,400 mg
“Holy Crap
Carp”
* Broke open (2) pills, squeezed
the supplement into the VOA,
dropped in both capsule casings,
and closed the lid.
Fish Oil
Cancer (µg/
m3 )
1,3-Butadiene
39
0.081
Benzene
19
0.310
Compound
* Baby Wipes
Testing Procedure
* A syringe was pushed
into the packaging and
a sample was pulled
from the interior
“headspace” into the
syringe, which was
immediately injected
into the instrument.
Compound
Benzene
Two different
brands of baby
wipes were
tested with
similar results.
Is it from
packaging,
material, or
soap?
Baby
Wipe 1
Baby
Wipe 2
Cancer
(µg/m3)
17
21
0.310
* Dish Soap
* Daily use product,
even multiple times a
day
* Also contained a large
amount of Ethanol
(happy dishwashers)
* Take into consideration
Dish Soap
Cancer (µg/
m3 )
Benzene
19
0.310
Ethylbenzene
25
0.970
Naphthalene
31
0.072
Hexachlorobutadiene
29
0.110
7
0.081
2,100
0.490
Compound
for homes, office
1,3-Butadiene
break rooms, as well as
1,4-Dioxane
restaurant kitchens
* Hand Cleanser/Scrub
Pumice Hand Cleanser
* Used by many contractors
(environmental,
construction, automotive,
etc)
* Refrain from using prior to
and during sampling
Compound
Benzene
Pumice Cleanser Cancer (µg/m3)
Noncancer (µg/m3)
27
0.310
31.00
(C5-C8) Aliphatics
16,000
13.000
630.00
(C9-C12) Aliphatics
34,000
0.540
100.00
* Shoe Closet
Casual Shoes
C5-C8 Aliphatics
Sport Shoes
C5-C12 Aliphatics
C6-C8 Aromatics
Ethylbenzene, Xylenes
Compound
Polish/Waterproofing
C5-C12 Aliphatics
Trichloroethene
1,3 Butadiene
Shoe Polish/ Cancer (µg/ Noncancer
Waterproofing
m3 )
(µg/m3)
Trichloroethene
55
0.430
2.10
1,3-Butadiene
25
0.081
2.10
TCE Short Term Exposure – 2 ug/m3 for only 24 hours during first
trimester
* Caulking & Sealants
Not any major health concerns, but…
* Large amounts of background contamination
that one may attribute to lab contamination
(i.e. TBA, 2,2,4-TMP, etc).
* Although Siloxanes are not target compounds,
they interfere with the Internal Standards on
a TO-15 analysis.
Cancer Noncancer
(µg/m3)
(µg/m3)
Compound
Caulk 1
Caulk 2
2,2,4Trimethylpentane
130,000
-
n/a
n/a
Isopropyl Alcohol
69,000
- n/a
7,300.00
Toluene
27,000
- n/a
5,200.00
- 31,000
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
TBA
TPH gas (C5-C11)
Siloxanes*
2,800,000 not tested
loaded
not tested
* Natural Gas
Compound
Benzene
NG CC NG NN
NG SB
NG HT
NG EW
Cancer
(µg/m3)
Noncancer
(µg/m3)
470
2,200
270
49,000
20
0.310
31.00
Cyclohexane
1,300
1,700
750
42,000
48
n/a
6,300.00
Ethylbenzene
35
160
- 3,500
10
0.970
1,000.00
m,p-Xylene
180
870
36
16,000
40
n/a
100.00
n-Heptane
1,000
5,000
460
51,000
29
n/a
n/a
n-Hexane
3,100
7,600
1,700
76,000
160
n/a
730.00
o-Xylene
56
180
- 3,600
12
n/a
100.00
-
- - n/a
3,100.00
Propene
21,000 56,000
Toluene
380
2,600
150
50,000
58
n/a
5,200.00
Methane & TPH
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
- - * Air Fresheners
Various Forms/Tests
* Scented oil plug (flux chamber)
* Scented solid (flux chamber)
* Scented Spray (directly into VOA)
* Scented Spray (in a bathroom, door
closed and air sampled minutes later)
Heated Oil
Toluene
TPH C5-11 (230,000)
Scented Solid
Ethylbenzene (3,400)
TPH C5-11 (390,000)
Spray in VOA
Ethanol (3,000,000+)
Ethyl Acetate
TPH C5-11 (290,000)
Spray in Room*
Low levels of Benzene &
Carbon Tetrachloride
(TPH not tested)
* Candles
Melted and Unmelted Wax tested
* Organic Beeswax (unscented)
* One test with melted wax poured into
a VOA.
* Another test with solid wax placed in
VOA.
Candle Burn
Candle
Cancer (µg/m3)
Noncancer (µg/
m3 )
Benzene
7,100
6
0.310
31.00
1,3-Butadiene
2,000
-
0.081
2.10
Ethylbenzene
90
-
0.970
1,000.00
Naphthalene
24
0.072
3.10
Compound
- * Silly String
Benzene
23,000
ug/m3!
C5-C8
Alipha
ti
7,000 c
,0
0 ug/m 0
3!
* Squeeze Toy
Compound
Ethylbenzene
Toy
Cancer (µg/ Noncancer
m3 )
(µg/m3)
1,000
0.970
1,000.00
Xylenes
940
n/a
100.00
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
52
n/a
n/a
(C5-C8) Aliphatics
7,100
13.000
630.00
(C6-C8) Aromatics
1,900
0.310
31.00
(C9-C12) Aliphatics
720
0.540
100.00
Benzene non-detect <16 µg/m3
* Modeling Clay
Compound
Cancer
Noncancer
(µg/m3)
Clay 1 Clay 2 (µg/m3)
Tetrachloroethene
430
18
9.400
42.00
Benzene
14
-
0.310
31.00
Ethylbenzene
25
76
0.970
1,000.00
Toluene
13,000
100
n/a
5,200.00
Xylenes
101
330
n/a
100.00
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
150
780
n/a
7.30
Two Types of Clay
* Tests performed
because of
confusion as to
where PCE hits
were coming from
at a gas station?
* Lab contamination?
* Helium (Party Tank)
We tested two kinds of “party”
helium with <1% impurities.
Compound
Helium 1 Helium 2
Cancer
(µg/m3)
Noncancer
(µg/m3)
Benzene
7
2
0.310
31.00
Ethylbenzene
8
7
0.970
1,000.00
Naphthalene
1
n/a
0.072
3.10
n/a 600
n/a
n/a
TPH gas (C5-C11)
* Cola
Soda Pop
Cancer
(µg/m3)
Noncancer
(µg/m3)
(C5-C8) Aliphatics
260
13.000
630.00
(C9-C10) Aromatics
1,000
n/a
3.10
(C9-C12) Aliphatics
16,000
0.540
100.00
Compound
Interesting Fact:
It is a well studied fact that Benzene
is in soda pop (combination of a
benzoate preservative and citric
acid, especially in warm/light
conditions)
* Conclusion?
Birthdays will kill you.
Helium
Balloons
Soda Pop
Candles
Birthdays
Modeling
Clay
+7,027,580 Total TPH
+25 Naphthalene
+2,000 1,3-Butidiene
Benzene
32,283 ug/m3
Ethylbenzene
2,206 ug/m3
TCE
448 ug/m3
Squeeze
Toy
Bloonies
Silly
String
* Occupants:
Do’s and Don’ts…
…for A MONTH?!
LONG TERM SAMPLING: The push toward 21 Day Air Sampling
brings in a whole new set of considerations
21 Day DO Examples
•  You can have ONE birthday party
21 Day DON’TS: For 21 Days, no
daily use products?
•  Don’t wash your hair
•  Only do dishes once/week
•  Absolutely no shaving
•  How do you list everything?
•  People’s daily lives include
chemicals of concern that can
make it difficult to interpret
data
Question # 3
q  The current method of doing a “chemical inventory” and then removing items from a
business or residence during the 8-hr or 24-hr indoor air sampling event will not
work if a longer sampling time is required (7 to 21 day). As you can see from the
previous slides. I am not sure the methodologies currently work for the short term
sampling.
q  If you are going to be required to collect an indoor air sample, try and collect a subslab or at-depth vapor sample as well. This way you have a “fighting chance” of being
able to discount any compounds found in indoor air that are not found in the sub-slab
or at-depth vapor sample.
Questions?
Conclusions:
1) 
If the Phase I Report Indicates That There is a Potential Vapor Intrusion Condition
(VIC) or a Vapor Encroachment Condition (VEC), Where and How Do I Collect
High Quality Vapor Intrusion Data? – know your potential sources and
sample accordingly.
2) 
From Chlorinated Solvents Sites? – If you can’t use the exclusion criteria to
prove the vapor intrusion pathway is incomplete, you and your client
are going to have a lot more work to do.
3) 
Near-slab or At Depth Vapor Samples? No….. Simple enough
Questions or Comments?
Jim Fineis P.G.
Atlas Geo-Sampling Company
jimfineis@atlas-geo.com
www.atlas-geo.com
770-883-3372
I would like to thank the AIPG Georgia Section, Ron Wallace, Eric
Lowe and Dr. “Yo” Sumortojo for the opportunity to present and
be an exhibitor.

Vapor Instrusion: The Three most often asked questions

Transcription

Similar documents

Proposed Downeast LNG Vapor Fences

Transhield

Thermalboard™ News Thermalboard™ News

46789 VitaCraft Neova Flyer.indd

U.S. Department ofLabor Matm`hd Safety Data Sbcet Manufacturer`s

Contents of this book

2015 prayer guide - Vapor International

Vapor Canister Purge Solenoid

FOSS(Fiber Optic Stress Sensor)

Satel Presentation - Satel Importadores de Ferretería SAS