23 rd National Tanks Conference Vapor Intrusion Session March 19, 2012 Matthew D. Young Inc. 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 . . .

ST. LOUIS SEATTLE TORONTO SAN DIEGO TAMPA BAY

MIAMI KANSAS CITY (AL) CHICAGO (NL)

HOUSTON ARIZONA SAN FRANCISO

COLORADO LOS ANGELES ATLANTA DETROIT CINCINNATI The Work Scope  Evaluate State Regulatory Guidance for the States.  Phase I of Larger Project to Incorporate the Entire .  Why Start with New England?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:New_England_USA_close up.svg Physical Comparison of the Documents The Guidance Documents  Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP)“Interim Final Vapor Intrusion Guidance (WSC#-11-435)” December 2011  Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) “Vapor Intrusion Guidance” July 2006 updated July 5, 2011 with policy update addendum  Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP) Bureau of Remediation “Vapor Intrusion Evaluation Guidance” January 13, 2010 The Guidance Documents  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  Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CT DEEP): None  Department of Environmental Conservation (VTDEC): None (DRAFT Document: Appendix C of Investigation and Remediation of Contaminated Properties). The Documents Guidance Documents Not Regulations. Regulations of Each State are Variable. Scope of Guidance Documents also Variable. Rapidly Changing with Science. Document Page Count

Guidance Document 200 172 178 180 158 160

140

120

100 87 80 Number of Pages Numberof 54 60

40

20 16 10

0 Massachusetts Maine New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont ITRC EPA (DRAFT) (DRAFT)

Scope State Rhode New Scope of Guidance Includes: Connecticut Island Vermont Maine Hampshire Massachusetts Written Guidance x x x x x Final Distributed Guidance x x x When VI Assessment Necessary x x x x x Stepped Approach to Assessment x x x x x x Sample 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 x Communication and Public Involvement x Property 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. FunctionalPlease Note These are Included Elements for Illustrative Purpose Only. Please Consult the Applicable Regulatory and/or Guidance Documents for Environmental AssessmentTriggers Purposes. for a Vapor Intrusion Assessment Triggers Distance From Receptor Petroleum VOCs Non-Petroleum VOCs Soil Groundwater NAPL Soil Groundwater NAPL Other? From regulations: Connecticut 15 15 15 15 15 15 specify all VOCs Site Specific - Case Rhode Island Manager Still Draft Format: Consult Case Vermont 5-10 5-10 30 100 100 100 Manager

Media also includes Maine 30 30 30 100 100 100 soil gas impacts Odors, site specific, & preferential New Hampshire near 30 near near 100 near pathways Odors, site specific, & preferential Massachusetts 6-10 30-100 30 6-10 30-100 30 pathways Distances from receptor in feet 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 Please Note These are Included for Illustrative Purpose Only. Please Consult the Applicable Regulatory and/or Guidance Documents for Environmental TechnicalAssessment Purposes.  Benzene Indoor Air “Action” Concentrations

Benzene (ug/m3) Influences: State Residential Commercial • Risk Calculation Connecticut* 3.3 3.3 • Multiple Contaminants Rhode Island 0.08 1 • Background Vermont 1.18 1.18 Concentrations and Maine 0.31 1.6 Percentile New Hampshire 1.9 1.9 • Method Detection Massachusetts 2.3 11 Limits * 3.25/21.5 in current regulations 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. Please Note These are Included for Illustrative Purpose Only. Please Consult the TechnicalApplicable Regulatory and/or Guidance Documents for Environmental Assessment Purposes.  Benzene Soil Gas “Action” Concentrations

Benzene (ug/m3)  Influences:  Indoor Air “Action” State Residential Commercial Values Connecticut* 0.78 1.4  Attenuation Factors Rhode Island NA NA  Vermont 1180 1180 More Conservative Numbers Presented Maine 15.6 80 New  VT Shallow/Deep Hampshire 95 95  ME Multiple Massachusetts 160 770 Contaminants ppmv in regulation, 1 and 113 in current regulations 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 Ahead Continue 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 Count

250

217

200 178 172 158 150

100

87 Number of Pages Numberof

54 50

99 10

0 Massachusetts Maine New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont ITRC EPA (DRAFT) (DRAFT)

Documents 1. 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_int rusion.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 Documents 6. 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 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I 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