petroleum vapor intrusion session march 19, 2012 ...neiwpcc.org › tanks2012old › presentations...

23 rd National Tanks Conference Petroleum Vapor Intrusion Session

March 19, 2012Matthew D. Young

Cumberland Farms Inc. Gulf Oil LP

Table of Contents Purpose & Scope (2 minutes)

The Tale of the Tape (3 minutes)

Similarities & Differences

Scope (3 minutes)

Functional Elements (4 minutes)

Technical (4 minutes)

Future Work (1 minute)

References

The Purpose “Vapor Intrusion is a rapidly developing field of

science and policy”1

Large number of regulatory and technical guidance documents are being produced and revised as the field continues to develop.

Not an Evaluation of Risk Standards or Requirements.

Observations from the perspective of the regulated community.

Evaluate the documents for consistency in scope, technical assumptions, and methodologies.

Navigating the regulations One Size Does Not Fit All, but . . .

BOSTON

NEW YORK (AL) CHICAGO (NL)

SAN DIEGO

KANSAS CITY

TAMPA BAY

SEATTLE

SAN FRANCISO

TORONTO

HOUSTON

COLORADO

ST. LOUIS

ATLANTA

MIAMI

MINNESOTA

PHILADELPHIA

LOS ANGELES

ARIZONA

CINCINNATIDETROIT

The WorkScope

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:New_England_USA_closeup.svg

Evaluate State Regulatory Guidance for the New England States.

Phase I of Larger Project to Incorporate the Entire United States.

Why Start with New England?

Physical Comparison of the Documents

The Guidance Documents Massachusetts Department of Environmental

Protection (MassDEP)“Interim Final Vapor Intrusion Guidance (WSC#-11-435)” December 2011

New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) “Vapor Intrusion Guidance” July 2006 updated July 5, 2011 with policy update addendum

Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP) Bureau of Remediation “Vapor Intrusion Evaluation Guidance” January 13, 2010

The Guidance Documents Rhode Island Department of Environmental

Management (RIDEM): None (DRAFT Document: “Recommended Methodology for the Evaluation of Indoor Air Results in Buildings with Potential Vapor Intrusion Issues” February 2010

Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CT DEEP): None

Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (VTDEC): None (DRAFT Document: Appendix C of Investigation and Remediation of Contaminated Properties).

The DocumentsGuidance Documents Not Regulations.

Regulations of Each State are Variable.

Scope of Guidance Documents also Variable.

Rapidly Changing with Science.

Document Page Count

158

87

54

16 10

172 178

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Massachusetts Maine New Hampshire Rhode Island (DRAFT)

Vermont (DRAFT)

ITRC EPA

Nu

mb

er

of

Pa

ge

s

Guidance Document

ScopeState

Scope of Guidance Includes: ConnecticutRhode Island Vermont Maine

New Hampshire Massachusetts

Written Guidance x x x x x

Final Distributed Guidance x x xWhen VI Assessment Necessary x x x x xStepped Approach to Assessment x x x x x xSample Analyses, Timing, and Frequency x x x x x x

Risk Standards x x x x x x

Mitigation Approaches x x x

Regulatory Framework xCommunication and Public Involvement xProperty Restrictions and Future Use x

Scope From a Regulated Party Perspective:

Consistency.

Scientific Support.

Triggers to Complete a Vapor Intrusion Assessment.

Criteria for an Acceptable Vapor Intrusion Assessment.

Regulatory Approved End Point.

While Maintaining Flexibility Due to Site Specific Conditions and Changes in Science.

Functional Elements Triggers for a Vapor Intrusion Assessment

Triggers Distance From ReceptorPetroleum VOCs Non-Petroleum VOCs

Soil Groundwater NAPL Soil Groundwater NAPL Other?

Connecticut 15 15 15 15 15 15From regulations: specify all VOCs

Rhode IslandSite Specific - Case Manager

Vermont 5-10 5-10 30 100 100 100

Still Draft Format: Consult Case Manager

Maine 30 30 30 100 100 100Media also includes soil gas impacts

New Hampshire near 30 near near 100 near

Odors, site specific, & preferential pathways

Massachusetts 6-10 30-100 30 6-10 30-100 30

Odors, site specific, & preferential pathways

Distances from receptor in feet

Please Note These are Included for Illustrative Purpose Only. Please Consult the Applicable Regulatory and/or Guidance Documents for Environmental Assessment Purposes.

Functional Elements Soil Gas Sampling Sub-Slab (MA, NH) versus Near Slab (ME, VT, CT)

Indoor Air Sampling Requirement to represent worst case scenario (heating

season) and more than one round.

Multiple Floors (represent living areas) and ambient air (background).

Attempt to indentify and remove sources of background impact to indoor air.

Encouraged to identify background to avoid false positives.

Technical Indoor Air Background Assessment Concerns Regarding “False Positives.”

Utilize Studies to Determine Range of Contaminants and Background Concentrations Present Lacking Vapor Intrusion. Commonly Referenced Studies:

MassDEP Typical Indoor Air Concentrations 2008

New York State Department of Health “Study of Volatile Organic Chemicals in Air of Fuel Oil Heated Homes” Revised November 2005

USEPA “Building Assessment and Survey Evaluation (BASE) Database

Technical Benzene Indoor Air “Action” Concentrations

Benzene (ug/m3)

State Residential Commercial

Connecticut* 3.3 3.3

Rhode Island 0.08 1

Vermont 1.18 1.18

Maine 0.31 1.6

New Hampshire 1.9 1.9

Massachusetts 2.3 11

* 3.25/21.5 in current regulations

Influences:

• Risk Calculation

• Multiple Contaminants

• Background Concentrations and Percentile

• Method Detection Limits


Technical Standards Methodology

Transport of Vapors from Soil/Groundwater/Soil Gas to Indoor Air.

Groundwater to Soil Gas: Johnson and Ettinger Model.

Soil Gas to Indoor Air: Attenuation Factor.

Start with Risk Determination for Indoor Air Standard.

Work Backward to Determine Appropriate Soil Gas Concentration.

Technical Benzene Soil Gas “Action” Concentrations

Benzene (ug/m3)

State Residential Commercial

Connecticut* 0.78 1.4

Rhode Island NA NA

Vermont 1180 1180

Maine 15.6 80New

Hampshire 95 95

Massachusetts 160 770ppmv in regulation, 1 and 113 in current regulations

Influences:

Indoor Air “Action” Values

Attenuation Factors

More Conservative Numbers Presented

VT Shallow/Deep

ME Multiple Contaminants


The Case in Maine Study completed by MEDEP in Collaboration with

Cumberland Farms.

Intent: Better Understanding of Risk of Vapor Intrusion and Tools/Methods to Assess.

Document Recommendations Include Changes to 2010 Maine Vapor Intrusion Guidance: Groundwater Screening Levels Do Not Correlate with

Risk.

Possible Limited Influence of Preferential Pathways.

Opportunity to work with other Regulatory Bodies in Similar Cooperative Studies.

Summary General Consistency of Process is Emerging in Region.

Variances in Scope of Documents and Standards.

PRP Perspective

What Triggers Requirement for Investigation?

What Constitutes a Satisfactory Investigation?

What is the End Point for the State to be Satisfied that Human Health and the Environment are protected?

Do the Current Documents Succeed?

The Road AheadContinue to Monitor and Update.

Review Interpretation with Agencies.

Cost Benefit Analysis.

Proceed to next group of states (NY, PA, NJ, DE, MD, FL).

Incorporate into GIS and Database.

Written Summary

Document Page Count217

158

87

54

9910

172178

0

50

100

150

200

250

New Jersey Massachusetts Maine New Hampshire Rhode Island (DRAFT)

Vermont (DRAFT)

ITRC EPA

Nu

mb

er

of

Pa

ge

s

Documents1. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection “Interim Final

Vapor Intrusion Guidance (WSC#-11-435)” December 2011

Availability: http://www.mass.gov/dep/cleanup/laws/vifin.pdf

2. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services “Vapor Intrusion Guidance” updated July 5, 2011 with policy update addendum

Availability: http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/waste/hwrb/documents/vapor_intrusion.pdf

3. Maine Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Remediation “Vapor Intrusion Evaluation Guidance” January 13, 2010

4. Maine Department of Environmental Protection “Summary Report State of Maine Vapor Intrusion Study for Petroleum Sites” January 2012

Availability: http://www.maine.gov/dep/spills/publications/guidance/

5. Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection “Connecticut Remediation Standard Regulations” January 1996

Documents6. Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection “Proposed Revisions to

Connecticut’s Remediation Standard Regulations Volatilization Criteria” March 2003

Availability: http://www.ct.gov/dep/cwp/view.asp?a=2715&q=325012&depNav_GID=1626

7. Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM): None (DRAFT Document: “Recommended Methodology for the Evaluation of Indoor Air Results in Buildings with Potential Vapor Intrusion Issues” February 2010

Availability: Contact Case Manager

8. Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (VTDEC): None (DRAFT Document: Appendix C of Investigation and Remediation of Contaminated Properties).

Availability http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/wastediv/sms/IROCP.html

9. Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council “Vapor Intrusion Pathway: A Practical Guideline” January 2007

Availability: http://www.itrcweb.org/guidancedocument.asp?TID=49

10. United States Environmental Protection Agency “OSWER Draft Guidance for Evaluating the Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air Pathway from Groundwater and Soils (Subsurface Vapor Intrusion Guidance)” November 2002

Availability: http://www.epa.gov/wastes/hazard/correctiveaction/eis/vapor.htm

Personal Communications Personal Communications with:

Mr. Herb Woike LEP, LSP Groundwater Environmental Services (Windsor, CT)

Ms. Sofia Kaczor CPG and Mr. Kevin Gillen of RIDEM

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSI would like to acknowledge the assistance and support of the following in preparing this presentation:

Mr. Ray Leather, Mr. Chris Gill, Mr. Chris Johnson, Mr. Marty Hilfinger, Mr. Nathan Stevens, and Ms. Angela Pimental of Cumberland Farms Inc./Gulf Oil LP.

Mr. Herb Woike LEP, LSP Groundwater Environmental Services (Windsor, CT)

Ms. Sofia Kaczor CPG and Mr. Kevin Gillen of RIDEM