mass flux characterization for vapor intrusion assessment
TRANSCRIPT
AEHS San Diego – March 22, 2016
Mass Flux Characterization for Vapor Intrusion Assessment
ESTCP ER 201503
Helen Dawson, Ph.D. Geosyntec Consultants, Inc.
April 13, 2016
AEHS San Diego – March 22, 2016
Project Team
2
Organization Individual Responsibility/Specialization
Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. Helen Dawson Principal Investigator; Project Manager
Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. Todd McAlary Technical Director
Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. William Wertz Co-Principal Investigator; Field Testing Manager
Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. Hester Groenevelt Data Validation/Data Management
Sanborn Head & Assoc Daniel Carr Co-Principal Investigator; Subsurface modeling
Navy Kyle Kirchner Site Selection; Test Planning Support
Air Force Kyle Gorder Field Sampling at HAFB
Neptune & Company Paul Black Statistical Support
Arizona State University Paul Johnson Academic Reviewer
AEHS San Diego – March 22, 2016
Vapor Intrusion Conceptual Models
3
CGW
Z
CIA
CSS
CSV
Z
MFbuilding
MFfoundation
MFsoil
MFwater table
= =
=
Concentration Mass Flux
C
Z
Attenuation Factors Threshold
AEHS San Diego – March 22, 2016
Variability in Indoor Air Concentrations
4
Indianapolis House (EPA/600/R-12/673; Schumacher, 2012)
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
Dec-
10
Jan-
11
Feb-
11
Mar
-11
Apr-
11
May
-11
Jun-
11
Jul-1
1
Aug-
11
Sep-
11
Oct
-11
Nov-
11
Dec-
11
Jan -
12
Feb-
12
Mar
-12
PCE C
once
ntra
tions
(ug/
m3)
Indianapolis House: 420 - First Floor
7-Day Samples
1-Day Samples
Greater than 1,000X variability in indoor air concentrations. Most measurements are less than the long term mean.
ASU House, HAFB (Johnson et al, 2012)
AEHS San Diego – March 22, 2016
Variability in VI Pathway Concentrations
5
Spatial Variability Temporal Variability
AEHS San Diego – March 22, 2016
ESTCP ER-201503: Mass Flux Characterization
6
CIA QBPC
Z
CSS
CSV
CSSV, QSSV
Sub-Slab Flux Diffusive Flux Building Flux MF3 MF1 MF2
MF1 = - DeffABΔCSV/ΔZ MF2 = CIAQBPC MF3 = CSSV QSSV
Conceptual Experimental Design Su
bsur
face
MF
Char
acte
rizat
ion
SSD
MF
Cha
ract
eriza
tion
Build
ing
Depr
essu
rizat
ion
M
F Ch
arac
teriz
atio
n
AEHS San Diego – March 22, 2016
Benefits of Considering Mass Flux • Mass flux is much less variable than indoor air concentrations. • Mass flux characterization may expedite risk management decisions
and reduce the need for long-term monitoring.
7
TCE
Mas
s Flu
x (g
/d)
TCE
Conc
. (µ
g/m
3 )
(Johnson, 2014)
4X
1000X
AEHS San Diego – March 22, 2016
Technical/Performance Objectives
• Demonstrate/validate mass flux characterization as a reliable and cost-effective approach for VI assessment and for developing exit strategies for VI mitigation systems.
• Document methods, outcomes, and performance. • Document cost savings. • Transfer technology to DOD staff and contractors. • Facilitate recognition, acceptance, and approval by
practitioners, responsible parties, and regulators.
8
AEHS San Diego – March 22, 2016
Draft Protocol • Preliminary assessment
suggests potential VI impacts
• MF1 data assessment (if existing) or collection
• Compare MF1 to threshold
• MF2 and/or MF3 data collection
• Compare MF2/MF3 to threshold
• Mitigation or NFA
9
AEHS San Diego – March 22, 2016
Number and Types of Samples
10
Demonstration Site – Former Raritan Arsenal – Building 200
Component Matrix Number of Samples Analyte Location
Field Construction
Whole Soil 12 and 1 QA duplicate Physical parameters1 4 exterior soil boring locations
Whole Soil 12 and 1 QA duplicate EPA’s SW-846 Alternative Method 5035
4 exterior soil boring locations
Soil Gas Sampling
Soil gas: Field Measurement
During collection of lab samples Organics via PID Same location as lab
samples
Soil gas: Laboratory Measurement
66 = (22 per event) x (3 events)
EPA Method TO-15 SIM
5 ft, 12 ft, and 19 ft in each of 4 exterior soil vapor probe locations
Building Pressure Cycling
Indoor Air: Field Measurement
Continuously until steady VOC concentrations observed
Hapsite GC/MS Building interior
Indoor Air: Laboratory Measurement
8 = (4 per event) x (2 events)
EPA Method TO-15 SIM Building interior
Outdoor Air: Laboratory Measurement 2 (1 per event) EPA Method TO-15
SIM Upwind, building exterior
SSV System Sampling
Sub-Slab Soil Gas: Field Measurement
Over time until PID observations reach a dynamic equilibrium
Organics via PID Existing SSV System Ventilation Pipes
Sub-Slab Soil Gas: Laboratory Measurement
9 = (3 locations per event) x (3 events)
EPA Method TO-15 SIM
Existing SSV System Ventilation Pipes
AEHS San Diego – March 22, 2016
Demonstration Site 1 - Description
11
• Groundwater source – DTW~ 20 feet – Coarse to fine sand
• TCE concentrations – Groundwater 6.6 to 120 µg/L – Indoor air 20 to 59 µg/m3
(pre-mitigation) – Sub-slab 86 to 29,019 µg/m3
• Measured sub-slab mass flux (ER-201322)
Building 200, Raritan Arsenal, Edison, NJ
AEHS San Diego – March 22, 2016
Legend
SSV Extraction Point (existing)
Sub-slab Probe (existing)
Proposed Soil Vapor Probe (5 ft deep)
Proposed Multi-level Soil Vapor Probe (15 ft, 25ft)
Groundwater Monitoring Well (location approximate)
MW-157
MW-153
2,200 ft2
Building 200 Sampling Locations
12
Demonstration Site – Former Raritan Arsenal
Raritan Arsenal, Edison, NJ
Legend
SSV extraction point (existing)
Sub-slab probe (existing)
Proposed soil vapor probe (5 ft deep)
Proposed multi-level soil vapor probe (12 ft, 19 ft)
Groundwater monitoring well (location approximate)
MW-157
MW-153
Threshold Mass Flux ~ 0.02 g/day for TCE IA target of 3.0 µg/m3 and air exchange rate of 0.5/hr.
AEHS San Diego – March 22, 2016
Field Plan
• Days 1 & 2 (Thursday – Friday) – Collect vent pipe air for VOC analysis and measure flow rate in vent pipes of existing SSV
system – Turn off SSV system – Field construction: conduct soil boring and collect whole soil samples; install nested soil vapor
probes; install pressure differential monitors – Collect groundwater grab samples at water table
• Day 3 (Saturday) – Collect exterior soil vapor samples – Collect interior sub-slab and 5 ft soil vapor samples for VOC analysis
• Day 4 (Sunday) – Measure baseline indoor air concentrations – Depressurize building and measure indoor air concentrations – Pressurize building and measure indoor air concentrations
13
Demonstration Site – Former Raritan Arsenal – Building 200
AEHS San Diego – March 22, 2016
MF1: Diffusive Mass Flux
14
MF1 = - DeffABΔCSV/ΔZ
Z
CSS
CSV
Concentration Porosity Moisture Content Density
Deff
AEHS San Diego – March 22, 2016
MF1: Diffusive Mass Flux
15
Building 200, Former Raritan Arsenal NJ
• Groundwater: 120 µg/L (max) • Depth to water: 20 ft • Vadose zone soil: sand; default
soil properties • Calculated mass flux
– Mass transport rate ~0.13 g/day
• Exceeds threshold mass flux of ~0.02 g/day.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
70.E+00 1.E+04 2.E+04 3.E+04 4.E+04 5.E+04
Dept
h (m
)
Soil Vapor Concentration (µg/m3)
Estimated from Groundwater Concentration
AEHS San Diego – March 22, 2016
MF2: Building Pressure Cycling • Negative pressure: induces vapor intrusion • Positive pressure: inhibits vapor intrusion • For large commercial buildings, HVAC system can
be adjusted to create pressure and vacuum conditions.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
VOC
Conc
entr
atio
ns (µ
g/m
3 )
Diffe
rent
ial P
ress
ured
(Pas
cals
)
Hours from Start of Test
Differential Pressure (Pascals) VOC Concentration (ug/m3)
Baseline Pressure
Over-Pressurized
Under-Pressurized
Induced Vapor
Intrusion
6
MF2 = CIAQBPC
AEHS San Diego – March 22, 2016
MF3: Forced Sub-Slab Depressurization
17
Variable Sub-Slab VOC Concentrations
1000 12039
MF2 = QSSV x CSSV
SSD Flux
1. Existing SSD system testing; or
2. High volume sub-slab sampling.
QSSV CSSD
AEHS San Diego – March 22, 2016
MF3: Sub-Slab TCE Mass Flux • Building 200 SSV mass flux measurements from ESTCP ER-201322
• SSV mass removal rates exceeds threshold mass flux of ~0.02 g/day; SSV mitigation system is needed.
• Mass removal rate is similar to estimated diffusive mass flux (0.2 vs 0.13 g/day TCE). 18
Building 200, Former Raritan Arsenal NJ
Date Stack
Concentration (µg/m3)
Stack Velocity (ft/min)
Stack Area (ft2)
Flow Rate (cfm)
Mass Removal Rate
(g/day)
JUL 2015 1200/300/1600 36/37/35 0.049 1.8 0.22
DEC 2016 1000 97 0.049 4.8 0.19
JAN 2016 700 134 0.049 6.6 0.20
AEHS San Diego – March 22, 2016
Estimated Indoor Air Concentrations
• Indoor air concentrations estimated from MF3 are similar to pre-mitigation (2005) indoor air concentrations (20 to 60 µg/m3)
• MF3 ~ MF2 = CIA Qbldg = CIA Abldg Hbldg AERbldg • Trichloroethene (CIA):
19
Building Footprint
(ft2)
Building Height
(ft)
Qbuild (scm/d)
Air Exchange Rate (AER)*
(/hr)
Indoor Air (µg/m3)
2200 10 2690 0.18 36
2200 10 6724 0.45 14
2200 10 18827 1.26 5
* USEPA (2011). Exposure Factors Handbook: 10%, 50%, & 90% values of residential AERs.
AEHS San Diego – March 22, 2016
Application to VI Risk Management
• Calculate RME indoor air concentration from mass flux:
IARME = MF1, 2, or 3 / (Vbldg AER)
• Calculate mass flux threshold from target indoor air concentration:
MFthreshold = IAtarget Vbldg AER
IA = indoor air concentration MF1, 2, or 3 = mass flux characterized by Methods 1, 2, or 3 AER = air exchange rate RME = reasonable maximum exposure
20
AEHS San Diego – March 22, 2016
Key Points
• Mass flux characterization has potential to improve VI assessment – Provide alternative lines of evidence – Address challenges due to spatial & temporal variability and
preferential pathways – Reduce timeframe for and increase confidence in risk
management decisions – Reduce VI assessment costs
21