Mitigating Vapor Intrusion Risks: Navigating Interplay ...media.straffordpub.com/.../presentation.pdf · 05/01/2017 · Mitigating Vapor Intrusion Risks: Navigating Interplay Between

The audio portion of the conference may be accessed via the telephone or by using your computer's

speakers. Please refer to the instructions emailed to registrants for additional information. If you

have any questions, please contact Customer Service at 1-800-926-7926 ext. 10.

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A

Mitigating Vapor Intrusion Risks:

Navigating Interplay Between Federal and

State Mandates, Negotiating Real Estate Deals

Today’s faculty features:

1pm Eastern | 12pm Central | 11am Mountain | 10am Pacific

THURSDAY, JANUARY 5, 2017

Matthew E. Cohn, Officer, Greensfelder Hemker & Gale, Chicago

David Folkes, Senior Principal Environmental Consultant,

Geosyntec Consultants, Greenwood Village, Colo.

Gail L. Wurtzler, Partner, Davis Graham & Stubbs, Denver

Tips for Optimal Quality

Sound Quality

If you are listening via your computer speakers, please note that the quality

of your sound will vary depending on the speed and quality of your internet

connection.

If the sound quality is not satisfactory, you may listen via the phone: dial

1-866-755-4350 and enter your PIN when prompted. Otherwise, please

send us a chat or e-mail [email protected] immediately so we can

address the problem.

If you dialed in and have any difficulties during the call, press *0 for assistance.

Viewing Quality

To maximize your screen, press the F11 key on your keyboard. To exit full screen,

press the F11 key again.

FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY

Continuing Education Credits

In order for us to process your continuing education credit, you must confirm your

participation in this webinar by completing and submitting the Attendance

Affirmation/Evaluation after the webinar.

A link to the Attendance Affirmation/Evaluation will be in the thank you email

that you will receive immediately following the program.

For additional information about continuing education, call us at 1-800-926-7926

ext. 35.

FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY

Program Materials

If you have not printed the conference materials for this program, please

complete the following steps:

• Click on the ^ symbol next to “Conference Materials” in the middle of the left-

hand column on your screen.

• Click on the tab labeled “Handouts” that appears, and there you will see a

PDF of the slides for today's program.

• Double click on the PDF and a separate page will open.

• Print the slides by clicking on the printer icon.

FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY

VAPOR INTRUSION

Federal and State Guidance and Regulations,

Recent Cases With Vapor Intrusion Experts

Matthew E. Cohn

Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale, P.C.

[email protected]

(312) 345-5003

Vapor Intrusion

Migration of hazardous vapors from any subsurface

vapor source, such as contaminated soil or groundwater,

through the soil and into an overlying building or

structure

6

Vapor Intrusion

Common volatile organic compounds associated with

most vapor intrusion sites

• Chlorinated solvents – PCE, TCE, TCA, and

degradation products

• Petroleum - BTEX

7

Recent EPA Guidance

Technical Guide for Assessing and Mitigation the Vapor Intrusion

Pathway from Subsurface Vapor Sources to Indoor Air, OSWER

Publication 9200.2-154

Technical Guide for Addressing Vapor Intrusion At Leaking

Underground Storage Tank Sites, EPA 510-R-15-001

www2.epa.gov/vaporintrusion

8

Five Conditions for a Complete

Vapor Intrusion Pathway

1. Source of vapor forming chemicals under or

near a building

2. Route of migration

3. Building susceptible to soil gas entry

4. Vapor forming chemicals present in the

indoor environment

5. Building occupied

9

Investigation and Response Process

Investigation – collect soil, groundwater, and soil gas samples; may

collect indoor air data

Risk Assessment – toxicology based cleanup objectives; Vapor

Intrusion Screening Level Calculator Spreadsheet

Response Actions – long-term solution is to eliminate or substantially

reduce the contamination; short-term solution can include vapor

barriers and sub-slab depressurization

10

Response Actions

• Remediation to reduce or eliminate subsurface

vapor sources

• Engineered controls

• Monitoring to verify effectiveness of

remediation or engineered controls

• Institutional controls to restrict land use and/or

warn of the presence of subsurface vapor

source

11

Guidance Is Just That, Guidance

DISCLAIMER

This document presents current technical recommendations of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) based on our current understanding of vapor intrusion into indoor air from subsurface vapor sources. This guidance document does not impose any requirements or obligations on the EPA, the states or tribal governments, or the regulated community. Rather, the sources of authority and requirements for addressing subsurface vapor intrusion are the relevant statutes and regulations. Decisions regarding a particular situation should be made based upon statutory and regulatory authority. EPA decision-makers retain the discretion to adopt or approve approaches on a case-by-case basis that differ from this guidance document, where appropriate, as long as the administrative record supporting its decision provides an adequate basis and reasoned explanation for doing so.

(OSWER Publication 9200.2-154, p. i.)

12

Vapor Intrusion in Most State

Environmental Cleanup Programs

Illinois California

New York Most Other States

13

In re: Wysong & Miles Company

Comparison of Vapor

Intrusion Standards

Between States

* Significant variability

between states in

numerical screening

criteria

Source:

Bart Eklund, Lia Beckley, Vivan Yates, Thomas E.

McHugh, Overview of State Approaches to Vapor

Intrusion, Remediation, Autumn 2012, Wiley

Periodicals, Inc.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=

10.1.1.406.7446

14

Leese v. Lockheed Martin

• RCRA “imminent and substantial endangerment suit” citizen suit

under 42 USC 6972(a)(1)(B)

• TCE and PCE migrated from plant to homes

• Cross motions for summary judgment filed

2014 WL 3925510 (D. N.J. Aug. 12, 2014)

15


• TCE and PCE concentrations were below the

standards in New Jersey and EPA guidance

documents

• Because the concentrations were below the guidance

document levels, this court concluded on summary

judgment that Plaintiff did not establish an “imminent

and substantial endangerment”

16


Question: What could Plaintiff have done differently?

Answer: Submit an expert report showing that just even

though the concentrations detected were below the New

Jersey and EPA standards, the concentrations still posed

a risk to human health and the environment.

17


“Plaintiffs have not provided testimony from a toxicologist or any other expert to aid

the Court’s comprehension of the data or the complicated science at the heart of this

case. Plaintiffs seem to take the position that the numbers speak for themselves. In

light of the [New Jersey] screening levels and the threshold levels in EPA primers, the

undisputed evidence plainly suggest that the very low levels of PCE and TCE

detected at Plaintiffs’ properties do not pose a substantial threat to health or the

environment….[T]he detected levels of TCE and PCE are several orders of magnitude

below the EPA’s scientific benchmarks for the threshold of concern for harm to

humans. In order for Plaintiffs to survive summary judgment, they need to provide

some evidence to enable a factfinder to reasonably infer that TCE and PCE may pose

an imminent and substantial threat to health or the environment at the levels existing

in this case.”

18


Lessons

• Need an expert opinions on harm to human health and

the environment to support vapor intrusion claims.

• Mere existence of contamination is not enough.

• Guidance document levels can be treated as de facto

“safe” levels in the absence of an expert opinion.

19

Baker v. Chevron

• Personal injury and property damage claims brought under Ohio state law

• Petroleum plume from refinery migrated under homes

• Vapor intrusion into homes

• 200 former and current neighbors

• Summary judgment in favor of defendant was appealed

2011 WL 3652249 (S.D. Ohio, Aug. 19, 2011); 533 Fed.Appx. 509 (6th Cir. 2013)

20

Baker v. Chevron

• First issue was not exclusively a vapor intrusion, it was a plume definition issue.

• Plaintiffs expert said plume stabilized and did not travel west of Adams Street.

• Some of the 200 plaintiffs were west of Adams Street.

• Plaintiffs expert offered an affidavit saying plume actually did travel west of Adams Street.

• Court was did not consider new affidavit, which did not retract prior contradicting opinion by the expert, to be credible or reliable.

• Plaintiffs west of Adams Street could not pursue their claims.

21

Baker v. Chevron

Second issue, for properties over the plume, Plaintiffs

had to show two things:

(1) that soil vapor invaded their properties

(2) that the invasion caused either

substantial physical damage to the

land or substantial interference

with their reasonable and

foreseeable use of their land

22

Baker v. Chevron

• Because there was not a certified class, the Plaintiffs had to show that

the vapor invaded each home.

• Plaintiffs’ expert only were able to show that there was contamination in

the community generally – that is, there was a plume

• No expert testified offered an opinion as to vapors entering each of the

homes

• Furthermore, the appellate court noted that even if there was vapor

intrusion to the homes, the Plaintiffs provided no medical or health expert

that the vapors found on the properties were harmful to humans

23

Baker v. Chevron

Lessons

• Good expert testimony is needed to prove causation.

Clear expert testimony should be provided that vapors

have migrated into homes. Evidence of contamination

in the area generally is not enough.

• An expert opinion on the medical and health issues

associated with vapor intrusion is essential.

24

Ebert v. General Mills

• Chlorinated solvent contamination in a neighborhood

in Minneapolis

• The defendant in this case asked the Court to

disqualify the Plaintiffs’ witnesses

• Witnesses were an environmental scientist and an

epidemiologist

2015 WL 867994 (D. Minn., Feb. 27, 2015).

25


Environmental scientist

• Decades of experience in groundwater, soil, and vapor

intrusion issues

• Use of the “multiple lines of evidence” methodology

which has been recognized by courts as being reliable

Epidemiologist

• Used the same data that was relied on by the

defendant

26


The issue was not the qualification of the witness, but rather the

credibility of the witness.

Credibility can be addressed through cross-examination.

Multiple lines of

evidence

27

Voggenthaler v. Maryland Square

• Solvents from drycleaner at a mall contaminated a

residential neighborhood

• Plaintiffs alleged vapors migrating into their homes

• One of the groups of defendants had a theory that

contamination came from more than just the

drycleaner

2011 WL 11215 (D. Nev., Jan. 13, 2011).

28


• Group of defendants wanted to conduct a fairly

extensive investigation in another area of the mall.

• Access was not granted, and so the defendants filed a

motion for the Court to grant access.

• Experts on opposing sides squared off on the need for

the testing.

29


• Issue as to whether the proposed testing was a

“fishing expedition” or whether there was a sufficient

basis to look for not yet identified contamination.

• Noting the more lenient standard in discovery, as

opposed to evidentiary requirements needed for

summary judgment, the Court granted the motion

30


Lessons

• Court would not be willing to allow just any proposed

investigation.

• Expert support for a theory of why looking for a new

source of contamination was critical.

• Investigation plan needs to be narrowly tailored to look

into that theory.

31

Tri-Realty Company v.

Ursinus College

• RCRA “imminent and substantial endangerment”

citizen suit

• Release from a fuel oil tank migrated to a nearby

apartment complex

• Vapor control system installed in the apartment

complex in 2010, a year before the case was filed

2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111455 (E.D. Penn., Aug. 24, 2015).

32


Ursinus College

• Plaintiffs hired an expert that said that there could be

serious risk from exposure to the oil through inhalation

• However, Tri-Realty also obtained a Phase I

Environmental Site Assessment during the litigation for

the purpose of supporting financing.

33


Ursinus College

• The Phase I consultant concluded, “the risk of harm from vapor

intrusion ‘is low and unlikely to occur’ due to the age of the

discharge, the mitigation system in place, and the absence of

data showing high concentrations in indoor air.”

• The defendant’s expert concluded, “indoor air exposures are

highly unlikely to occur because tests have revealed no problem

with vapor intrusion other than at the Clubhouse, and the situation

at the Clubhouse has been remediated by way of the installation

of the vapor mitigation system.”

34


Ursinus College

“Indeed, a separate report commissioned by Tri-Realty

specifically concluded that the risk of harm from vapor intrusion in

the buildings located at [the apartment complex] ‘is low and is

unlikely to occur.’ However, as described above, Tri-Realty has

presented evidence suggesting … that there may be a risk of

repeated exposures due to the potential spread of oil. Therefore,

whether or not there is a serious risk of complete exposure

pathways is a disputed issue of fact that is material to the

outcome of Tri-Realty’s RCRA claim.”

35


Ursinus College

Lesson

• Be aware of other environmental “opinions,”

such as due diligence studies, not specifically

obtained for the litigation and the way in which

the findings from these studies can conflict

with the opinions of experts.

36

United States v. Apex

• RCRA enforcement case

• One of the first vapor intrusion cases fully litigated

• This is a case concerning a large free-phase

petroleum plume emanating from a refinery in

Hartford, Illinois

2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18143 (S.D. Ill., Mar. 15, 2007);

see also 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59973 (S.D. Ill., Jul. 28, 2008).

37


• Defendant’s expert opined that NAPL on the groundwater table

was not causing odor problems in indoor air, and not causing or

contributing to dangerous levels of hydrocarbon vapors in soil

gas.

• US moved to disqualify the witness from testifying on topics of

toxicology and statistics, and said he employed methodologies

that were not subject to peer review.

• Court accepted witness – background

in chemistry and forensic chemistry

qualified him.

• Any attacks on the witness’s credibility

were reserved for cross-examination.

38


United States motion for summary judgment denied

“Defendant disputes, for example, the degree of contamination and whether such contamination poses any threat to the public or the environment. These factual disputes are supported by declarations provided by Defendant’s experts … Defendant disputes that vapor intrusion cited in the Health Consultation [Report] is attributable to the hydrocarbon plume. In turn, the United States disagrees that these facts are in dispute. Given the nature of this case and the specialized knowledge that the facts entail, the Court is not in a position to make factual findings at this stage. Accordingly, the United States’ motion for summary judgment is denied.”

39


• Broad latitude given to expert to testify on vapor

intrusion

• The specialty of the expert was chemistry and forensic

chemistry

• Yet vapor intrusion covers topics of geology,

hydrogeology, soil physics

• Court unwilling to deny expert right to

testify or grant summary judgment in

these circumstances – gave the

defendant with its expert its day in court

40


• A property was contaminated by its neighbor.

• The owner of the source property was in bankruptcy.

• The owner of the contaminated property enrolled his property into the

North Carolina Brownfields Program.

• The North Carolina environmental agency then sent a letter to the

program applicant stating its initial impression that land use restrictions

would be needed.

• The owner of the contaminated property then

made a bankruptcy claim against the owner of

the source property for $990,000 in diminution

in property value.

2011 Bankr. LEXIS 3443 (Bankr. N.C., Sept. 6, 2011.

41


• The bankruptcy court gave little weight to the initial letter from the

Brownfield Program as it was sent by the state agency early in the

process.

• The owner of source property (the debtor) hired experts.

• One expert testified that vapor intrusion was highly unlikely and that

remediation of vapor intrusion would likely not be required.

• Another expert, former state agency regulator, testified that the owner of

the contaminated property should be able to obtain a brownfields

agreement from the agency without a requirement for any vapor-intrusion

imposed land use restriction.

• The court was persuaded that a vapor intrusion

restriction would not be a part of the brownfields

agreement.

42


• The court also found that if there was a vapor-intrusion based

land use restriction, it would have minimal effect.

• The court agreed with the debtor that the diminution was a

nominal 5%.

“The type of land use restrictions that likely will be included in the

brownfields agreement have been revealed and even if a restriction

regarding vapor intrusion is included, the restriction will not prevent

or significantly limit the development of the property.”

43


Lessons

• Presence of VOCs does not mean that there is a

vapor intrusion risk.

• Vapor intrusion can be managed with appropriate

mitigation and restrictions.

Consequently, experts can argue that such

contamination would have a nominal effect on property

value.

44

LAJIM, LLC v. General Electric Company

• Chlorinated solvents migrated from an industrial plant underneath

residential neighborhood and golf course.

• RCRA citizen suit seeking full investigation of contaminated

groundwater as well as addressing vapor intrusion.

• Soil gas and shallow groundwater samples were collected in the

downgradient plume area.

• Indoor air samples were collected from

inside homes and inside of the golf course

clubhouse.

2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169753 (Dec. 18, 2015).

45


• One particular VOC – 1,2-DCA – was detected in

indoor air in a residential home at a concentration

above the screening level, but was not found in

shallow groundwater or soil gas samples underneath

the home.

• Defendant said that this meant that the 1,2-DCA is not

from the plant and must come from sources in the

home.

• Plaintiffs asked for more testing.

46


• The court on summary judgment did not conclude that the 1,2-

DCA in the home came from the plant.

• However, the court did note that contamination continues to

migrate from the source area to the residential and golf course

area, and there may be a need for more vapor intrusion testing

regardless.

• The scope of any additional vapor

intrusion testing will be evaluated in

consideration of the injunctive relief.

47

CONCLUSIONS

• Vapor intrusion is now a routine part of environmental investigations that address volatile

organic compounds such as chlorinated solvents and petroleum compounds. Vapor intrusion

is also an issue that now gets litigated, often as part of RCRA, CERCLA, and state law claims.

In environmental litigation, the need to use qualified experts on the topic of vapor intrusion will

only increase.

• The fundamentals, such as fully defining the nature and extent of contamination, are critical. It

will be necessary for an expert to clearly show where the plume is located, and to show that

vapors from that plume migrate into homes and buildings in the area overlying the plume or in

areas sufficiently proximal to the plume.

• Screening levels in vapor intrusion guidance should be used with caution. Courts will be

interested in expert opinions showing that the levels of contamination, regardless of the

screening levels, actually result in harm to human health.

• Courts will most likely give reasonable latitude during discovery for investigations designed to

link the areas where people are exposed to vapors to viable potential sources of the vapor

contamination. A qualified expert with a well thought out investigation plan will be essential to

the authorization of such a vapor intrusion investigation.

48

CONCLUSIONS

• Vapor intrusion experts who utilize reliable methods of analysis will be well received. In

particular, experts who approach forming their vapor intrusion opinions by considering

“multiple lines of evidence” will be well positioned to thwart Daubert motions and be

persuasive at trial.

• Vapor intrusion experts need to offer opinions that clearly prove up the elements required for

the cause of action. For example, expert testimony that merely identifies a potential vapor

intrusion problem and recommends more investigation will be inadequate in a situation where

it necessary to actually show that the vapor intrusion causes an endangerment or a

substantial impact.

• The areas of expertise are many in the field of vapor intrusion: geology, hydrogeology, soil

physics, chemistry, toxicology, etc. While courts may allow an expert with experience in the

environmental sciences to testify on the issue of vapor intrusion, a single expert on vapor

intrusion may not be adequate. Litigants will be best served by having more than one expert

covering the different specialties at issue in vapor intrusion.

• While vapor intrusion is a serious concern, under the right circumstances, vapor intrusion can

potentially have only a minimal impact on land use, development plans, and property values.

Experts have been able to show that vapor intrusion risks can be managed and mitigated, and

done so in a way that results in the damages associated with vapor intrusion being kept to a

minimum.

49

VAPOR INTRUSION: DUE DILIGENCE AND RISK MANAGEMENT

GAIL WURTZLER

DAVIS GRAHAM & STUBBS LLP

dgslaw.com 51

ENVIRONMENTAL DUE DILIGENCE IS:

A technical and legal inquiry re:

Environmental conditions

Legal requirements

Potential liabilities

51

dgslaw.com 52

ENVIRONMENTAL DUE DILIGENCE SHOULD BE:

Site-specific

Deal-specific

52

dgslaw.com 53

SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DUE DILIGENCE

Potential for vapor intrusion must be on list of potential environmental concerns to evaluate in any environmental due diligence

53

dgslaw.com 54

VAPOR INTRUSION

54

dgslaw.com 55

VAPOR INTRUSION POTENTIAL

What is it? How determine if you have it?

– Prior uses of property and neighboring properties – Compare soil and groundwater data to EPA and state environmental agency

screening levels – Testing

If have it, what do you do? – Consult with state environmental agency – Mitigate or monitor

Significance – Potential CERCLA liability (owner and/or operator depending upon facts) – Potential RCRA liability (most likely I&SE claims) – Potential tort liability – Potential state statutory claims

55

dgslaw.com 56

CERCLA EXCEPTIONS/EXEMPTIONS/DEFENSES TO LIABILITY FOR NEW OWNERS

Innocent Purchaser

Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser

Contiguous Property Owner

56

dgslaw.com 57

ALL 3 EXCEPTIONS REQUIRE:

No affiliation with polluter

Disposal ended before buy

All Appropriate Inquiry before buy

Report releases

Continuing Obligations after buy

57

dgslaw.com 58

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EXCEPTIONS

Innocent Purchaser and Contiguous Property Owner did not know and had no reason to know of contamination before purchase

Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser bought after January 11, 2002 and may know of contamination before purchase

58

dgslaw.com 59

ALL APPROPRIATE INQUIRY

Qualified Environmental Professional

Interviews

Review Historical Sources

Gov’t Record Review

Recorded Cleanup Liens

Inspections

Buyer’s Specialized Knowledge

Price v. Fair Market Value

Commonly Known Information

Obviousness

59

dgslaw.com 60

KEY ALL APPROPRIATE INQUIRY

Qualified Environmental Professional

Interviews

Record reviews

“Obviousness”

60

dgslaw.com 61

MAY BUYER DEFER TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL?

NO – can’t delegate:

Assessing purchase price v. FMV

Searches for cleanup liens

Commonly known or reasonable ascertainable information

Something within buyer’s specialized knowledge

61

dgslaw.com 62

MINIMUM SCOPE OF ALL APPROPRIATE INQUIRY TO SATISFY CERCLA

Onsite disposal

Historic use of hazardous substances

USTs and ASTs

Vapor intrusion potential

Remediation

Engineered or institutional controls

62

dgslaw.com 63

LIMITATIONS OF CERCLA AAI

Business v. property acquisition

Other environmental laws

Asbestos, lead paint and other building materials

Mold and radon

System contaminants

63

dgslaw.com 64

MUST CLIENT REPORT?

If report required, must do so for defense

In practice, not always clear report required

– Historic release?

– Reportable quantity?

64

dgslaw.com 65

CONTINUING OBLIGATIONS

Comply with land use restrictions

Cooperate with CERCLA agencies

Take “reasonable steps”

– Stop continuing releases

– Prevent future releases

– Prevent/limit exposure to people or natural resources

65

dgslaw.com 66

ISSUES RELATED TO OR ARISING OUT OF AAI PROCESS

For seller:

– Disclosure (reps and warranties)

– Confidentiality

– Control any reporting to regulators

– Evaluate options in the event of a discovery

• Price adjustment

• Retention of liability

• Possible sharing of liability

– Manage any retained liability

66

dgslaw.com 67

ISSUES RELATED TO AND ARISING OUT OF AAI PROCESS

For buyer:

– Understand scope of risk

• Experienced environmental consultant (may not be same entity as one performing Phase I investigation)

• Possibilities for VI mitigation and likely costs

• Future obligations

– Understand regulators’ position

• Requirements for NFA determination

• Use restrictions?

– Consider asking seller to retain liability

• Ensure seller able to perform in future

– Price adjustment

67

dgslaw.com 68

LESSONS

Prudent to conduct environmental due diligence tailored to your site and transaction

Issues more manageable if identified and addressed early

No one-size-fits-all answer; many options and need to find one that works for your site and transaction

68

dgslaw.com 69

QUESTIONS?

Gail Wurtzler (303) 892-7405

– [email protected]

69

Vapor Intrusion Mitigation:

Technical Issues

Mitigating Vapor Intrusion Risks

January 5, 2017

PRESENTED BY:

David J. Folkes, P.E.

Senior Principal

Geosyntec Consultants, Inc.

[email protected]

Outline

• Standard of care

– Awareness of the potential for vapor intrusion (VI) over time

– Guidance and standards for VI investigation/mitigation

– Qualifications and expertise

• VI mitigation

– Mitigation system requirements and standards

– Typical mitigation costs for new and existing buildings

– Mitigation system performance

– Rapid response options

71

Technical Issues potentially affecting litigation, transactions, and portfolio risk management

Standard of Care

• Example questions:

– Should an environmental practitioner (EP) have known about

the potential for VI due to TCE in groundwater in 1995?

2005?

– What evaluation/mitigation procedures should the EP have

followed in 1995, 2005?

– What certifications or qualifications should an EP have?

– How variable are VI skill levels today?

72

State of VI Science & Guidance over Time

73

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 1990 1985 1980 2020

Little to no awareness of

potential for VI

Very local and rudimentary awareness

Growing national

awareness Broad

awareness

Science largely based on radon research Early VI research Rapidly developing VI technology

Love Canal - leachate in basements (1980)

Gasoline in sewers, landfill methane, radon (general awareness of potential impacts)

Radon research (1980's to early 1990's)

Isolated VOC indoor air investigations in NY, MA (c. 1989-1990)

Johnson & Ettinger Model (1991)

EPA Air Superfund Guidance (limited reference to vapors) (1992)

ASTM RBCA Guidance (1993, 1994)

MA regulations and guidance (1995)

CDOT & Redfield Site in CO (1996-1998)

RCRA EI Guidance includes VI footnote (1999)

EPA National RCRA Meetings - VI sessions (2000, 2001)

Draft RCRA EI Guidance (2001) – withdrawn

Draft EPA Subsurface Vapor Intrusion Guidance (Fall 2002)

EPA VI Guidance Training Seminars - (Fall 2002 - Winter 2003)

Colorado, DTSC draft guidance (2004)

NJDEP guidance (2005)

NYSDOH guidance (2006)

ITRC VI guidance (2007)

ASTM E2600 Vapor Intrusion Standard (2008)

ASTM E2600-10 Vapor Encroachment Standard (2010)

35 States with VI guidance (2012)

ITRC Petroleum VI guidance (2014)

EPA Final VI, PVI guidance (2015)

VI added to Superfund HRS (2016)

Status of State VI Guidance over Time (ITRC)

74

States with Regulatory Guidance in 2011

States with Regulatory VI Guidance in 2004

Status of State VI Guidance (Sept 2013)

75

• Note that the nature and status of “guidance” varies substantially

• 36 states with specific VI guidance for VOCs (in addition to petroleum)

Standard Practice

• The following documents generally describe common investigation & mitigation practices

• Note that recommendations can vary substantially between agencies and over time

• VI science and practice have evolved rapidly over the past two decades

76

State VI guidance (as applicable)

EPA VI guidance (2002, 2015a, 2015b)

ITRC VI, PVI guidance (2007, 2014) - "line of evidence" approach

EPA OSWER reports on Background IA (2011) and Attenuation Factors (2012)

EPA (2008) Engineering Issue paper on mitigation

ASTM radon mitigation standards (E1465, E2121)

EPA radon research reports & guidance (1993, 1994)

AARST radon mitigation standards

EPA VI annual workshop presentations (2004 – 2016)

ESTCP research reports

Technical literature (largely last 10 years)

Requirements for VI Practitioners?

77

Certifications? – No VI mitigation degrees

– Radon mitigation certification available • For residential buildings only

• Does not address many VI concerns

PE License? – Required by some guidance and

building departments

– Does not guarantee any mitigation skill

– Key is familiarity with VI issues, radon guidance, relevant experience, good quality control

X

Hole in slab?

Potential Concerns

78

Limited standards and lack of

knowledge/experience can

result in:

– Inadequate materials

– Poor workmanship

Photos courtesy of Tony McDonald, A-Z Solutions, Inc.

Photo courtesy of Geosyntec

“clean” gravel for venting layer

State of VI Technology vs Typical Practice

• Rapid technology development over past two decades

• Lag between typical practice and state of the art

79

2000 2010 2020 1990 1980 TIME

LEVEL

TECHNOLOGY

STATE OF PRACTICE

o

o

TYPICAL

CUTTING EDGE

LEARNING CURVE

Mitigation Issues

Example questions:

– What are the standards for mitigation?

– How much do mitigation systems cost?

– Can you reduce costs without reducing performance?

– How do you know a mitigation system is working?

– What “rapid response” options available, e.g., if required by

short-term TCE action level concerns?

80

Photos courtesy of Tom Hatton, Clean Vapors, Inc.

VI Mitigation Standards

81

• Based on radon systems

• Some differences between radon and VOCs – Different source locations results

in different transport behavior

– Less concentration reduction typically required for radon

– Regulatory, QA and monitoring requirements more stringent for VOCs

– Stakeholder concerns greater for VOCs

• Mitigation standards specifically addressing VOCs in progress by American Association of Radon Scientists & Technologists (AARST)

Pre-2002

Several national radon guidance/standards

• 1988 Radon Abatement Act

• EPA 1991 – Interim Radon Mitigation Standards

• EPA 1993 – Radon reduction techniques for existing detached homes

• EPA 1993 – Radon Mitigation Standards (RMS), revised April 1994

• EPA 1994 – Model standards and Techniques for Control of Radon in New Residential

Buildings

• EPA 1994 – Radon prevention in the design and construction of schools and other large

buildings

• ASTM E1465 (92) – New low-rise residential buildings

• ASTM E2121 (01) – Existing low-rise residential buildings (replaced EPA 1994 RMS and

Model standards)

Very limited VI guidance and no mitigation standards

• MADEP 1995 – Guidelines for the design, installation, and operation of sub-slab

depressurization systems

Post-2002

Still limited EPA and state guidance (e.g., EPA 2008, CA VIMA 2011)

• ASTM E1465 updated in 2008

• ASTM E2121 updated in 2002, 2003, 2008, 2012, 2013

• AARST radon standards

– 2006 Low rise residential (now defers to ASTM E2121)

– 2013 New construction 1 & 2 family dwellings

– 2014 Multi-family buildings

– 2014 Schools and large buildings

Radon Mitigation Technology vs Time

82

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 1990 2020 1985

Substantial radon mitigation R&D 1980s to early 90’s

VI mitigation R&D State of

technology

Radon Mitigation Skill Level vs Time

83

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 1990 2020 1985

Average skill level radon mitigation

Commoditization of radon market

Variation in VI mitigation skill & experience

State of technology

Substantial radon mitigation R&D 1980s to early 90’s

VI mitigation R&D

Typical Installation Cost

84

Existing Buildings • Typically Sub-Slab Depressurization (SSD)

or “radon” systems

Note: does not include cost of investigation, design, permits, regulatory reporting, treatment of emissions, which can equal or exceed installation costs.

Cost $/SF*

Building Conditions

$1-3 Single family residential

$2-4 Single story commercial/warehouse

$4-10 Multi-story residential/commercial

$10+ Complex buildings/codes

* Mitigated area

Neg Pressure

Air flow Fan

Typical Installation Cost

85

New Buildings

Courtesy of Land Sciences Technologies

Note: does not include cost of investigation, design, permits, regulatory reporting, treatment of emissions, which can equal or exceed installation costs.

Cost $/SF*

System Type

$1-3 Membrane liner/gravel

$3-7 Spray-on asphaltic liner/gravel

$1-3 Aerated floor system

Membrane Liner (Stego® Wrap)

Gravel

Aerated floor (Cupolex®)

Vent mats (Enkavent®)

Spray-on Liner (Geoseal®)

Courtesy of Land Sciences Technologies

How to Reduce Mitigation Costs

Target mitigation area – Only depressurize source and/or

vapor entry zone

– Soil venting mitigates surrounding

areas

Reduce vacuum levels – Experience shows high vacuum

levels typically not needed

throughout target zone

– Mitigation also reduces vapor

concentrations

86

14-20 Watts

420-810 Watts

Luo, Folkes & Hunter, 2016

How to Reduce Mitigation Costs

Aerated Floors, e.g.,Cupolex® – Lower installation cost

– Highly efficient air flow = lower

electrical cost

Passive Systems – Where feasible, rely on natural forces

to provide vacuum and venting

– Most feasible with aerated floor

systems due to low air flow

resistance

87

Is Mitigation Working?

88

Indoor air (TO-15) tests

– Testing actual medium of concern

– Often required by agency

– But requires good background

forensic skills

Radon tests

– Avoids background concern

– But only qualitative indicator of VI

mitigation performance

– Does not always directly correlate

with VOC levels

.

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

-100 0 100 200 300 400 500

Days After System Installation

Co

ncen

trati

on

(u

g/m

3) 1,1 DCE

DCM

1,1 DCA

1,1,1 TCA

1,2 DCA

PCE

TCE

VC

D. Folkes, 2000


89

Vacuum (active systems)

– Physical evidence of downward air

flow

– Easily measured

– Easily monitored

Aerated floors

– High vacuum with small fan

– Uniform vacuum levels (can be

monitored at one location)

Vacuum

Air flow Fan

Vacuum > 10 times typical levels with one 20 W fan


90

Measure sub-slab VOC levels

– Below soil gas action level?

– May eliminate need for indoor air test

– Levels typically decrease after system

start-up

Measure VOC “mass flux”

– Measure exhaust gas concentration and

flow rate

– Compare to theoretical maximum mass

flux from source

*Mass flux = concentration x flow rate

Luo, Folkes & Hunter, 2016

Rapid Response Options

91

Increase Ventilation (lower floors)

– Increase air exchange rate by factor of 2 to 4

– Potentially higher for tight buildings

HVAC Modifications

– In some cases commercial building HVAC

systems can be modified to create positive

pressure and/or increase air exchange rate

– 100% reductions are feasible with positive

pressure


92

Indoor air treatment

– Typically reduce concentrations

by 25 to 75%

– Not ideal for long term use

(noise, maintenance, cost)

CRREL Lab, Hanover NH

-200 units installed (HealthMateTM 450) -TCE concentrations reduced 42 to 87%


93

Sealing cracks

– May work well if major vapor

entry points are identified

– Multiple/hidden entry points can

limit effectiveness

– 0 to 50% reduction might be

expected (EPA, 1993)

Key Points

VI standard practice has evolved rapidly over past two decades – Most practitioners were unaware of VI potential prior to 2002

– Rapid technology development = steep learning curve and variable skill levels

Mitigation installation costs vary substantially – From $1 to $10 per SF or more

– Costs can be reduced by using aerated floors, more strategic design

Variety of ways to measure mitigation performance – Indoor air measurements (with good background source forensics)

– Sub-slab vapor concentrations/mass flux measurements (avoid indoor air tests)

– Vacuum measurements (particularly aerated floors)

Several rapid response options available – Ventilation, HVAC modifications, indoor air treatment, sealing

– 50% - 100% reduction may be feasible (100% requires HVAC + pressure)

94

Documents

Mitigating Vapor Intrusion Risks: Navigating Interplay ...media.straffordpub.com/.../presentation.pdf · 05/01/2017 · Mitigating Vapor Intrusion Risks: Navigating Interplay Between