Technical Guidance For Vapour Intrsuion

ISBN ###-#-####-####-#
Draft Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment November 2010
Ministry of the Environment
PIBS ####
Table of Contents
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................. i TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................ iii CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.3.1 1.3.2 1.4 Background ................................................................................................................1-2 Objectives ..................................................................................................................1-2 Relationship to Other Guidance Documents..............................................................1-3 Existing Soil Vapour Intrusion Guidance ..................................................................1-4 Relation of this Soil Vapour Intrusion Guidance Document and the Record of Site Conditions (RSC), Ontario Regulation 153/04..........................................................1-6 Guidance Structure.....................................................................................................1-6
CHAPTER 2. OVERVIEW OF THE SOIL VAPOUR INTRUSION ASSESSMENT PROCESS 2.1 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.1.4 2.2 2.3 2.4 Screening process.......................................................................................................2-2 Development of Conceptual Site Model....................................................................2-3 Preliminary Screening................................................................................................2-4 Comparison to the Generic Site Condition Standards ...............................................2-4 Screening Level vapour intrusion Assessment ..........................................................2-4 Detailed Vapour Intrusion Assessment......................................................................2-5 Guidance Application and Implementation Process ..................................................2-5 Vapour Intrusion Mitigation ......................................................................................2-7 Community Outreach.................................................................................................2-7
CHAPTER 3. CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 What is a Conceptual Site Model?.............................................................................3-2 Information Needed to Build the Conceptual Site Model .........................................3-2 Fate and Transport Processes for Vapour Intrusion...................................................3-3 Generation of Vapours and Gases..............................................................................3-4 Fate and Transport in the Vadose Zone .....................................................................3-5 Soil Vapour Intrusion through the Building Envelope ..............................................3-5 Mixing of Vapours inside the Building .....................................................................3-6
CHAPTER 4. SITE SCREENING PROCESS 4.1 Introduction................................................................................................................4-2 4.2 Preliminary Screening................................................................................................4-3 4.2.1 Site Characterization..................................................................................................4-3 4.2.2 Are There Chemicals of Potential Concern for Vapour Intrusion? ...........................4-4 4.2.3 Does the Site Represent a Safety or Acute Health Risk Concern? ............................4-4 4.2.4 Are Buildings Located in Sufficiently Close Proximity to Contamination? .............4-5 4.2.5 Comparison to the Generic Site Condition Standards (SCS).....................................4-6 4.2.5.1 Precluding Conditions................................................................................................4-6 4.2.5.2 Additional Considerations .........................................................................................4-7 MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010
Table of Contents
iv
4.3 Screening Level Assessment......................................................................................4-8 4.3.1 Site Characterization..................................................................................................4-8 4.3.2 Screening Level Vapour Intrusion Assessment .........................................................4-15 4.3.2.1 Determine Soil Textural Type ...................................................................................4-16 4.3.2.2 Select Land Use .........................................................................................................4-16 4.3.2.3 Estimate Distance to Vapour Contamination Source.................................................4-17 4.3.2.4 Derivation of Vapour Attenuation Factor ..................................................................4-17 4.3.2.5 Adjusted Attenuation Factor Based on Building Mixing Height...............................4-21 4.3.2.6 Adjusted Attenuation Factor Based on Building Air Exchange Rate........................4-21 4.3.2.7 Adjusted Attenuation Factor Based on Biodegradation.............................................4-21 4.3.2.8 Back-calculate site specific screening levels for soil vapour and groundwater.........4-24 4.3.2.9 Data Evaluation and Next Steps ................................................................................4-24 4.3.3 Soil Vapour Screening Using the Modified Generic Risk Assessment Model .........4-26 4.4 Detailed Vapour Intrusion Assessment......................................................................4-26 4.4.1 Estimation of Input Parameters..................................................................................4-27 4.4.2 Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) Testing..............................................................................4-31 4.4.2.1 IAQ Study Design......................................................................................................4-31 4.4.2.2 Background Issues .....................................................................................................4-32 4.4.3 Data Evaluation and Next Steps ................................................................................4-33 4.4.4 Exposure Controls......................................................................................................4-33 CHAPTER 5. SOIL VAPOUR CHARACTERIZATION 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.3.1 5.3.2 5.3.3 5.3.4 5.4 5.4.1 5.4.2 5.4.3 5.4.4 5.4.5 5.4.6 5.5 5.5.1 5.5.2 5.5.3 5.5.4 5.5.5 5.5.6 5.6 5.6.1 5.6.2 Context, Purpose and Scope ......................................................................................5-2 Study Objectives ........................................................................................................5-3 Soil Vapour Sampling Approach and Design............................................................5-3 Overview of Sampling Strategy.................................................................................5-3 Considerations for Sampling Locations.....................................................................5-4 When to Sample and Sampling Frequency................................................................5-12 Biodegradation Assessment .......................................................................................5-13 Soil Gas Probe Construction and Installation ............................................................5-15 Probes Installed in Boreholes.....................................................................................5-16 Direct Push Technology.............................................................................................5-17 Use of Water Table Monitoring Wells as Soil Gas Probes........................................5-18 Subslab Soil Gas Probes ............................................................................................5-18 Probe Materials ..........................................................................................................5-20 Short-Circuiting Considerations and Shallow Probes................................................5-21 Soil Gas Sampling Procedures...................................................................................5-21 Probe Development and Soil Gas Equilibration ........................................................5-21 Flow and Vacuum (Probe Performance) Check ........................................................5-22 Sampling Container or Device...................................................................................5-22 Decontamination of Sampling Equipment.................................................................5-24 Testing of Equipment for Leaks and Short Circuiting...............................................5-25 Sample Probe Purging and Sampling ........................................................................5-26 Soil Gas Analysis.......................................................................................................5-28 Selection of Method...................................................................................................5-28 Field Detectors ...........................................................................................................5-29 MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010
Table of Contents
5.6.3 5.6.4 5.6.5 5.7 5.8 5.8.1 5.8.2 5.8.3 5.8.4
Field Laboratory Analysis..........................................................................................5-31 Fixed Laboratory Analysis.........................................................................................5-32 Quality Assurance / Quality Control Considerations.................................................5-37 Ancillary Data............................................................................................................5-39 Data Interpretation and Analysis ...............................................................................5-42 Data Organization and Reporting ..............................................................................5-42 Data Quality Analysis ................................................................................................5-42 Data Consistency Analysis ........................................................................................5-43 Further Evaluation ....................................................................................................5-44
CHAPTER 6. INDOOR AIR QUALITY TESTING FOR EVALUATION OF SOIL VAPOUR INTRUSION 6.1 6.2 6.2.1 6.2.2 6.2.3 6.2.4 6.2.5 6.2.6 6.3 6.3.1 6.3.2 6.3.3 6.3.4 6.3.5 6.3.6 6.3.7 6.3.8 6.3.9 6.3.10 6.4 6.4.1 6.4.2 6.5 6.5.1 6.5.2 Context, Purpose and Scope ......................................................................................6-2 Conceptual Site Model for Indoor Air .......................................................................6-4 Background Indoor Air Concentrations.....................................................................6-4 Building Foundation Construction.............................................................................6-9 Building Ventilation...................................................................................................6-9 Building Depressurization and Weather Conditions..................................................6-11 Mixing of Vapours Inside Building ...........................................................................6-11 Vapour Depletion Mechanisms..................................................................................6-12 Development of Indoor Air Quality Study Approach and Design ............................6-12 Define Study Objectives ............................................................................................6-12 Identify Target Compounds .......................................................................................6-13 Develop Communications Program...........................................................................6-13 Conduct Pre-Sampling Building Survey....................................................................6-14 Conduct Preliminary Screening .................................................................................6-14 Identify Immediate Health or Safety Concerns .........................................................6-14 Define Number and Locations of Indoor and Outdoor Air Samples .........................6-15 Define Sampling Duration .........................................................................................6-15 Define Sampling Frequency ......................................................................................6-16 Preparing the Building for Sampling and Conditions during Sampling ....................6-17 Indoor Air Analytical Methods..................................................................................6-18 Air Analysis Using USEPA Method TO-15..............................................................6-18 Air Analysis using Quantitative Passive Diffusive Samplers....................................6-19 Data Interpretation and Analysis ...............................................................................6-24 Data Organization and Reporting ..............................................................................6-24 Data Quality Evaluation.............................................................................................6-24
CHAPTER 7. METHODS FOR DISCERNING CONTRIBUTIONS OF BACKGROUND FROM INDOOR SOURCES 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 Constituent Ratios......................................................................................................7-2 Marker Chemicals......................................................................................................7-2 Spatial Trends ............................................................................................................7-3 Comparison of Indoor Air Data to Literature Background Concentrations ..............7-3 Modification of Building Pressurization....................................................................7-3 Emerging Methods.....................................................................................................7-4 MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010
Table of Contents
vi
7.7
Comparison of Measured to Predicted Indoor Air Concentrations ...........................7-4
CHAPTER 8. REPORTING AND DOCUMENTATION CHAPTER 9. RFERENCES CHAPTER 10. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYM LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX I. CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL FOR VAPOUR INTRUSION AND CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL CHECKLIST ................................................. AI-1 APPENDIX II. IDENTIFICATION OF CONTAMINANTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN FOR VAPOUR INTRUSION.......................................................AII-1 APPENDIX II. SELECTED LABORATORY ANALYTICAL METHODS .......... AIII-1 APPENDIX VI. RECOMMENDED HEALTH-BASED INDOOR AIR TARGET LEVELS FOR SELECTED VOC................................... AIV-1
LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 - Comparison of Different Media for Vapour Intrusion Investigations TABLE 2 - Model Input Parameters for Screening Level Risk Assessment TABLE 3 - Selection of Soil Texture Class TABLE 4 - Decision Matrix for Recommended Actions TABLE 5 - Comparison of Soil Vapour Measurement Locations TABLE 6 - Evaluation of Factors Affecting Below Building Hydrocarbon Vapour Bioattenuation and Soil Vapour Data Representativeness TABLE 7 - Soil Gas Sample Collection Containers and Devices TABLE 8 - Summary of Common Soil Vapour Sampling and Analysis Methods TABLE 9 - Dominant Sources of VOCs in Residential Indoor Air TABLE 10 - Compilation of Indoor Air Quality Data from Canadian Studies
MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment
2010
Table of Contents
vii
LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 - Flow Chart for Vapour Intrusion Guidance FIGURE 2 - Conceptual Site Model for Vapour Intrusion Pathway FIGURE 3 - Conceptual Model for Use of Soil Vapour Data FIGURE 4 - Residential Groundwater to Indoor Air Attenuation Factors FIGURE 5 - Residential Soil Vapour to Indoor Air Attenuation Factors FIGURE 6 - Commercial Groundwater to Indoor Air Attenuation Factors FIGURE 7 - Commercial Soil Vapour to Indoor Air Attenuation Factors FIGURE 8 - Results of 3-D Oxygen-Limited Soil Vapour Transport Modeling for High Concentration Source (Cg = 100 mg/L) and Moderate Concentration Source (Cg = 20 mg/L) (from Abreu and Johnson, 2005) FIGURE 9 - Soil Vapour Sampling Locations and Vertical Profile Concept FIGURE 10 - Lateral Transect Concept FIGURE 11 - USEPA (2004) Recommended Design for Subslab Soil Gas Probes. FIGURE 12 - Framework for IAQ Sampling and Analysis Program LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT 1 - Definition of Vapour Attenuation Factors EXHIBIT 2 - Comparison of Generic Vapour Attenuation Factors EXHIBIT 3 - Considerations for Cold Weather Sampling EXHIBIT 4 - Preparation of Building for IAQ Sampling
2010
Table of Contents
THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
2010
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 1-2
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.3.1 1.3.2 1.4
Background .......................................................................................................... 1-2 Objectives ............................................................................................................ 1-2 Relationship to Other Guidance Documents and Ontario regulations................. 1-3 Existing Soil Vapour Intrusion Guidance ............................................................ 1-4 Relation of this Soil Vapour Intrusion Guidance Document and the Record of Site Conditions (RSC), Ontario Regulation 153/04. ....................................... 1-6 Guidance Structure............................................................................................... 1-6
2010
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 1. Introduction 1-2
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION The Standards Development Branch (SDB) of the Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE) is currently involved in the development of a series of Technical Bulletins, Guidance Documents and Procedural Standards for contaminated sites. This Guidance Document considers soil vapour behaviour, assessment and monitoring. 1.1 BACKGROUND Soil vapour intrusion is the migration of volatile or semi-volatile chemicals from contaminated groundwater and soil into overlying buildings. When releases occur near buildings, volatilization of chemicals from the dissolved or non-aqueous phases in the subsurface can result in the intrusion of vapourphase contaminants into indoor air. If the vapour intrusion pathway is viable or complete, there may be the potential for unacceptable health risks to occupants of buildings as a result of inhalation of these vapours. The focus of this Guidance Document is an evaluation of the significance of vapour intrusion with respect to potential chronic health risks due to long-term exposure, as opposed to potential safety or acute risks which, in some cases, may arise from accumulation of vapours in buildings or confined spaces. This Guidance Document is intended to provide the user with a basic understanding of soil vapour intrusion and the tools required to identify, review and evaluate sites for vapour intrusion. This document is based on current standards of practice and is generally consistent with recent guidance from other sources (Health Canada, 2008, ITRC, 2007, EPRI, 2005). It should be noted however, that the current standard methods of assessing vapour intrusion are subject to considerable spatial and temporal variability, and challenges resolving contributions of vapours from the subsurface compared to background concentrations and analytical reporting limits for some compounds. Therefore, it is reasonable to anticipate that new methods will develop over time, and nothing in this document is intended to prevent the development and application of new technologies. 1.2 OBJECTIVES Specific objectives of the Guidance Document are outlined below: Promote the understanding of behaviour and migration of soil vapours in the subsurface under various site conditions; Assist in identifying sites where vapour intrusion may be viable, as well as contaminants that may present a concern and when and where vapour monitoring should be conducted;
2010
Specify the requirements and best practices for designing, conducting and assessing site conditions (i.e., soil vapour and subslab vapour quality) that would enable accurate assessments of potential impacts to indoor air quality; Provide a screening level assessment methodology for prediction of potential risks through inhalation of vapours migrating into indoor air, with focus on the use of soil vapour data, and guidance on when further detailed assessment may be warranted; Provide guidance on the modeling of vapour transport from the subsurface to indoor air; Assist MOE staff in the review of site characterization and monitoring for sites with volatile compounds present; Assist MOE staff in identifying sites where soil vapours, subslab vapours and/or indoor air should be monitored and formulating assessment requests and/or Environmental Protection Act (EPA) orders; Provide assistance to proponents conducting soil vapour and subslab vapour investigations as part of assessment and/or remediation of contaminated and brownfield sites in Ontarios varied geological and hydrogeological conditions; and, Provide a general framework for relevant components of technical reports including assessment and monitoring of soil vapours in the subsurface where vapour intrusion is a viable pathway.
1.3
RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS AND ONTARIO REGULATIONS Over the past several years, there has been an increased recognition that soil vapour intrusion is an important potential exposure pathway. There have been significant advances in understanding of vapour intrusion and in Canada, regulatory guidance has been developed for Health Canada (HC, 2008) and by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) (Golder 2008 and Geosyntec 2008), and by several provinces including British Columbia (BC Ministry of Environment, 2009), and the Atlantic provinces (PIRI, 2006). In the United States, regulatory guidance of note for vapour intrusion includes those developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA, 2002), Interstate Technical and Regulatory Council (ITRC) (2007), California Environmental Protection Agency Department of Toxic Substances Control (2005), American Petroleum Agency (2005), Electric Power Research Institute (2005), Tri-Services Environmental Risk Assessment Working Group (TSERAWG, 2008) and New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (2005).
2010
This document builds upon the above guidance and, in particular, incorporates relevant components of guidance developed for Health Canada, given the significant effort that was undertaken to develop the approach, model and supporting methods for this guidance. However, where warranted, modifications have been made to reflect the policy of the Ontario MOE and the conditions in Ontario. This guidance reflects the current state of knowledge on vapour intrusion. Since vapour intrusion is a developing field of science, it is anticipated that the MOE will update this document as needed to reflect refinements and advances in the understanding of vapour intrusion. 1.3.1 Existing Soil Vapour Intrusion Guidance A number of agencies in Canada, the US and Australia have recently published guidance on evaluating soil vapour intrusion at sites contaminated with volatile compounds. The following section provides a brief overview of key guidance. However, since it is a developing field, the reader should check for updates of older guidance as well as guidance from other agencies, as required and appropriate. In 2000, the CCME developed Canada-wide Standards for Petroleum Hydrocarbon Compounds (CWS-PHC) that take into consideration the vapour intrusion pathway. The modeling approach used to estimate standards for petroleum hydrocarbon fractions is based on the methodology developed by Johnson and Ettinger (1991). The CWS-PHC was updated in 2008. Further details on the modeling approach can be found in the CCME (2008) technical supporting document. The CCME soil standards for petroleum hydrocarbons developed in 2000 were adopted by the Province of Ontario and are contained in Part X.V.1 of the EPA. Further details on the adoption of the CCME standards are contained in the MOE document entitled Rationale for the Development of Soil and Ground Water Standards for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario dated December 22, 2009. The Atlantic Partnership in RBCA (Risk-Based Corrective Action) Implementation (Atlantic PIRI) Committee has adopted a similar approach for the assessment of petroleum hydrocarbons vapour intrusion that utilizes a variation of the Johnson and Ettinger (J&E) Model. It is based on the ASTM Standard E2081-00, Standard Guide for Risk-Based Corrective Action. In July 2006, Atlantic PIRI published Guidance for Soil Vapour and Indoor Air Monitoring Assessments under Atlantic RBCA Version 2.0 for Petroleum Impacted Sites in Atlantic Canada User Guidance (Appendix 9). The United States Environmental Protection released draft guidance in 2002 for evaluating vapour intrusion (US EPA, 2002). The guidance is intended for use at RCRA Corrective Action, CERCLA (National Priorities List and Superfund Alternative Sites) and Brownfields sites, but not at Underground
MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010
Storage Tank (UST) sites. The document provides methods for assessing whether sites are potential candidates for vapour intrusion and whether vapours may be present at concentrations that pose an unacceptable exposure risk. It follows a tiered approach to assessment with each tier having increasing level of detail and complexity. The US EPA has publicly available versions of the J&E model in spreadsheet format that are recommended for screening level assessments. A detailed guidance document on use of the models is also available from the US EPA website (US EPA, 2004). The Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC) released guidance in January 2007 titled The Vapor Intrusion Pathway: A Practical Guide (VI1). This Guide provides a generalized framework for evaluating the vapour intrusion pathway and describes the various tools available for investigation, data evaluation, and mitigation. The Vapor Intrusion Pathway: Investigative Approaches for Typical Scenarios (VI-2) (January 2007) is a supplement to Vapor Intrusion Pathway: A Practical Guide. The supplement describes applicable approaches for evaluating the vapour intrusion pathway in six typical scenarios. http://www.itrcweb.org/Documents/VI-1.pdf http://www.itrcweb.org/Documents/VI-1A.pdf The California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA) released guidance in 2005 titled Interim Guidance for the Evaluation and Mitigation of Subsurface Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air on the evaluation and mitigation of subsurface vapour intrusion to indoor air (Cal EPA, 2005). It is a comprehensive document that includes guidance on identifying candidate sites for vapour intrusion, outlines data requirements for evaluating indoor air exposures, describes sampling methods and provides an overview on approaches for evaluating human health risks as well as mitigative measures and monitoring requirements. http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/AssessingRisk/upload/HERD_POL_Eval_Subsurface_ Vapor_Intrusion_interim_final.pdf The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protections Vapour Intrusion Guidance (October, 2005) provides comprehensive guidance on site characterization methods, including soil gas sampling and analysis. http://www.state.nj.us/dep/srp/guidance/vaporintrusion/vig.htm The American Petroleum Institute (API) developed a guidance document in 1998 on assessing the significance of subsurface vapour migration to enclosed spaces (API, 1998). They subsequently released bulletins including guidance and modifications to the J&E model (API Bulletins 15 (2001); 16 (2002); and 17 (2002)). In November 2005, API released A Practical Strategy for Assessing the Subsurface Vapor-to-Indoor Air Migration Pathway at Petroleum Hydrocarbon Sites, which includes guidance on soil gas sampling approach, methods and analysis.
2010
http://www.api.org/ehs/groundwater/lnapl/soilgas.cfm The Western Australian Department of Environment (2004) released a guidance document on quantifying behaviour, assessment and exposure of petroleum and solvent vapours (WADE, 2004). The document provides an overview of vapour fate and transport, sampling techniques, modeling approaches and uncertainties, and data gaps. In 1992, the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) published standards for soil gas monitoring in the vadose zone. The standards were subsequently re-approved in 2001. In March 2008, ASTM published their standard E2600-08 Standard Practice for Assessment of Vapor Intrusion into Structures on Property Involved in Real Estate Transactions. 1.3.2 Relation of this Soil Vapour Intrusion Guidance Document and the Record of Site Conditions (RSC), Ontario Regulation 153/04. This guidance was developed to promote the understanding of behaviour and migration of soil vapours in the subsurface under various site conditions, and to assist MOE staff in the review of site characterization and monitoring for sites with volatile compounds present in the subsurface. This Guidance Document can also assist qualified professionals conducting RA under Ontario Regulation 153/04 to identify sites, or contaminant levels, for which contaminant exposures through a vapor inhalation pathway may cause adverse health effects. The soil vapour screening and assesment process outlined in this Guidance Document can also be used to identify the need for remediation of sources or the implementation of risk management measures (RMM) as part of the redeveleopment of brownfied sites. Note that any submission of RA and RSC under the Ontario Regulation 153/04 must meet all the mandatory requirements specified in the regulation. 1.4 GUIDANCE STRUCTURE The guidance is presented within the following structure: Chapter 2 provides an overview of the site characterization and vapour intrusion assessment process. Chapter 3 describes the conceptual site model for vapour intrusion and provides an understanding of the processes governing soil vapour fate and transport.
2010
Chapter 4 describes the tiered screening process for evaluation of soil vapour intrusion and provides an overview of site characterization data needed to support site screening and key issues for assessment of vapour intrusion. Chapter 5 provides detailed guidance on characterizing sites, with particular emphasis on soil vapour sampling and monitoring. Chapter 6 provides detailed guidance on indoor air quality (IAQ) monitoring. Chapter 7 provides an overview of methods for determining which constituents are derived from background sources and which are likely related to the contaminant release or spill into the environment. Chapter 8 provides a brief description of the recommended minimum reporting and documentation requirements.
2010
2010
CHAPTER 2 OVERVIEW OF THE SOIL VAPOUR INTRUSION ASSESSMENT PROCESS

CHAPTER 2 OVERVIEW OF THE SOIL VAPOUR INTRUSION ASSESSMENT PROCESS ...................................................................................................................................................... 2-2
2.1 Screening process................................................................................................. 2-2 2.1.1 Development of Conceptual Site Model.............................................................. 2-2 2.1.2 Preliminary Screening.......................................................................................... 2-4 2.1.2.1 Comparison to the Generic Site Condition Standards ......................................... 2-4 2.1.3 Screening Level Vapour Intrusion Assessment ................................................... 2-4 2.1.4 Detailed Vapour Intrusion Assessment................................................................ 2-5 2.2 Guidance Application and Implementation Process ............................................ 2-5 2.3 Vapour Intrusion Mitigation ................................................................................ 2-7 2.4 Community Outreach........................................................................................... 2-7
2010
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 2. Overview of the Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment Process 2-2
CHAPTER 2
OVERVIEW OF THE SOIL VAPOUR INTRUSION ASSESSMENT PROCESS This section provides a brief description of the soil vapour intrusion pathway and the recommended phased approach to assess and interpret data and multiple lines of evidence, and interact with the various stakeholders. 2.1 SCREENING PROCESS For sites impacted by volatile compounds, a tiered approach is recommended with increasing levels of complexity and information and data requirements. The tiered approach consists of preliminary and generic screening, screening level vapour intrusion assessment and detailed vapour intrusion assessment (Figure 1). Depending on the results of an individual stage, additional assessment may or may not be warranted. The following sections provide a brief overview of the soil vapour intrusion assessment process. Additional technical details and guidance for the completion of the various tiers are provided in Chapter 4. 2.1.1 Development of Conceptual Site Model A conceptual site model (CSM) should be developed for the site to facilitate an understanding of site conditions and to facilitate planning and completion of supplementary site investigations and assessments, as required. The CSM integrates available information relevant to the contaminant source and distribution, mechanisms for volatilization, soil vapour fate and transport, soil vapour intrusion into and movement within buildings, and as such involves consideration of subsurface processes, building characteristics and external forces such as weather conditions. The CSM should also reflect the risk paradigm for assessment of contaminated sites, which often includes both a descriptive and diagrammatic presentation of contaminant sources, release and transport mechanisms, exposure media, exposure pathways and receptors. The CSM should be continually updated as new information becomes available for the site and will often be a useful decision-making and communication tool for interested parties. Additional details on CSM development along with a description of processes governing the fate and transport of volatile compounds are provided in Chapter 3.
2010
Figure 1: Flowchart for Vapour Intrusion Assessment

No
Site Characterization
Are there sufficient data to develop CSM ?
Incomplete Exposure Pathway
1. Preliminary Screening
Site not of concren Determine if volatile/toxic chemicals are in proximity of buildings; determine whether there is acute or safety risk; Immediate action warranted
Site of potential concern Comparison to MOE SCS Collect Additional Data (e.g. soil, groundwater, soil vapour, sub-slab vapour, indoor air, outdoor air, building data) Vapour pathway does not pose an unacceptable risk Yes
Are site concentrations below generic S-IA and/or GW2? - Identification of precluding conditions (earthen basements, gas under pressure, preferential pathways) - Additional considerations (shallow water table, high permeability media)
Consider if No and well above SCS
NO
2. Screening level Assessment

Soil, groundwater and soil vapour sampling and testing
Obtain attenuation factor

Based on soil type and depth to contamination
Yes Adjust attenuation factor

1. Building mixing height 2. Building air exchange rate 3. Biodegradation
Vapour pathway does not pose an unacceptable risk Yes
Calculate Site Specific Screening Levels
No
Are data adequate to screen out site? See Note
Yes
Are groundwater and/or soil vapour concentrations below screening levels?
Consider if No and well above SCS
No Vapour pathway does not pose an unacceptable risk Yes Are indoor air concentrations acceptable ?
3. Detailed Assessment
Typically includes modelling and sub-slab and indoor air sampling
No
Yes
No
Note: It is of critical importance that data adequacy, consistency with CSM and all lines of evidence (contaminant concentrations, geological conditions, biological factors) be carefully considered. Additional assessment may be warranted when within 10X of standards or screening levels. For future scenario, exposure controls implemented as part of construction may be required.
Exposure Controls (e.g. institutional controls, barriers, venting systems)
No
Yes
2010
2.1.2
Preliminary Screening The preliminary screening is a qualitative screening step that uses relatively simple questions and criteria to categorize sites according to their potential for vapour intrusion and associated health effects. This step can be used to identify sites that require immediate mitigative action to protect the health and safety of occupants as well as candidate sites for risk assessments to assess long-term (i.e., chronic) health concerns. Key considerations include the type and location of contamination, presence of non-aqueous-phase liquid (NAPL), building construction, presence of odours linked to subsurface contamination and presence of hazardous vapour concentrations in soil gas or indoor air. Additional details on this step are provided in Chapter 4.
2.1.2.1
Comparison to the Generic Site Condition Standards This screening process is a comparison of the soil and groundwater quality information from the site and the MOE generic component values related to soil vapour intrusion into indoor air (soil to indoor air S-IA and/or groundwater to indoor air - GW2) (MOE, 2009a). The process begins with the evaluation of precluding conditions to determine whether the generic component values for the soil vapour intrusion pathways are applicable at the site. If there are no precluding conditions, measured concentrations can be compared to the MOE S-IA and/or GW2 (MOE, 2009a), and based on the results, the need for further assessment should be evaluated.
2.1.3
Screening Level Vapour Intrusion Assessment For sites identified as candidate sites for vapour intrusion assessment based on the preliminary and generic screening steps, a screening level vapour intrusion assessment should be considered. Screening level assessments typically rely on limited site-specific data, relatively simple predictive models or empirical factors, and conservative assumptions. In many cases, the assumptions employed are similar to those employed in the derivation of soil and groundwater standards, with minor modifications made where appropriate. For instance, the model developed by Johnson and Ettinger (1991) (J&E model) is often used for screening level assessments. Site screening is performed by comparing measured chemical concentrations in soil, groundwater, and/or soil vapour to the derived objectives or screening levels. This guidance provides an approach and recommended default input parameters for screening level assessments using the J&E model. Since available data are often limited at the screening level stage and to facilitate appropriate model predictions, the use of the J&E model is constrained in that
2010
only certain input parameters may be varied within specified ranges. In addition, prior to conducting the screening process, potential precluding conditions should be evaluated as described in Section 4.2.5. If the results of a screening level assessment conclude that concentrations at the site are below the derived screening levels for each contaminant of concern, then, a detailed vapour intrusion assessment would typically not be required for the existing or prescribed land use and building configuration. However, additional monitoring of site conditions may be warranted to assess whether conditions assumed for the screening level assessment continue to apply, or if verification of estimates based on indoor air concentrations are required. 2.1.4 Detailed Vapour Intrusion Assessment A detailed vapour intrusion assessment should be considered in situations where the screening level assessment is unable to rule out potential unacceptable human health impacts or where site conditions are very complex or differ considerably from the CSM assumed for models used to derive generic standards or used for screening level assessments. A detailed assessment should also be considered in situations where technical or financial constraints severely limit the options available for remediating a site. A detailed vapour intrusion assessment includes all the key components of the screening level assessment, but generally incorporates more detailed sitespecific data, which is often needed when more complex models are used. In the case of sites where vapour intrusion is a concern, measurements of soil gas and/or indoor air quality are generally incorporated into the assessment. Contaminant fate and transport modelling may remain an important component of a detailed assessment, but generally the assumptions employed in the modelling exercise are less conservative and more representative of actual site conditions than in a screening level assessment. The detailed assessment may also include the derivation of toxicity reference values for compounds lacking published values, or where new toxicity data are available. Similar to the screening level assessment, additional monitoring of site conditions may be warranted to assess whether conditions assumed continue to apply, or if verification of risk estimates based on indoor air concentrations are required. 2.2 GUIDANCE APPLICATION AND IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS The vapour intrusion assessment approach described in this guidance applies to contaminated sites where there is subsurface volatile or semi-volatile contamination. However, the soil vapour assessment process described in this document does not generally apply to landfills where there is generation of gases through the anaerobic decomposition of organics and where there is significant pressure-driven gas flow.
2010
The guidance is intended for application where there are currently occupied buildings at existing residential and commercial sites, or where there is the potential for the presence of occupied buildings in a future land use scenario. The soil vapour intrusion assessment should typically be implemented in sequential steps starting with characterization of the contamination source through soil and groundwater sampling together with data collection (e.g., hydrogeological and soil properties) needed to understand contaminant migration within both the unsaturated and saturated soil zones. Where concentrations in soil and groundwater are below the applicable MOE soil condition standards (MOE 2009a), no further assessment of soil vapour intrusion may be necessary, although data adequacy and uncertainty should be considered, particularly when measured concentrations are close to the standards. Given the limitations associated with the use of soil data for evaluating the vapour intrusion pathway (see Section 4.4.1), it is recommended that soil vapour characterization should generally be conducted whenever there is contamination within the unsaturated soil zone. The soil vapour assessment should begin with a characterization of soil vapour concentrations near to the contamination source and where warranted, continue closer toward the building, and finally, if indicated by the results of previous steps, characterization of indoor air quality. The development of a CSM that is updated as new information is obtained and consideration of data adequacy are especially important when screening a site out of the assessment process. A comprehensive evaluation of the vapour intrusion pathway that considers multiple lines-of-evidence is recommended before drawing conclusions on risks posed by this pathway. The lines-ofevidence include concentrations in different media and locations along the anticipated migration pathway and information on site conditions and factors that could influence vapour migration such as varying soil properties (e.g., layered deposits), aerobic biodegradation (for petroleum hydrocarbons) and environmental factors (e.g., weather conditions). Although this guidance is structured to reflect a phased approach starting with screening of sites through the use of subsurface data, it does not preclude the testing of indoor air quality to evaluate this pathway at early stages of the investigation process or pro-active implementation of exposure controls, which may be desirable and appropriate in some cases. An iterative approach may also be warranted where additional testing of subsurface concentrations is conducted as follow-up to indoor air testing to assess whether there is a complete vapour intrusion pathway. When indoor air quality results are borderline or inconclusive, it may be appropriate to rely on a combination of measurements from different media to decide on appropriate responses to safeguard human health (EPRI, 2005, ITRC, 2007).
2010
It is also important to recognize that the approach to assessment of vapour intrusion may depend on the site scenario. For example, at sites where there is contamination below existing occupied buildings and where exposures are potentially current and on-going, there will often be a focus on near building soil vapour and indoor air characterization. At brownfield sites, where there are no buildings, potential future exposures are predicted based on subsurface concentrations measured near to contamination sources. This guidance applies to both scenarios, although different approaches may be warranted. The described process for soil vapour intrusion assessment can assist in cases where a risk assessment is conducted for the purpose of filing a record of site condition (RSC) under the O.Reg. 153/04. However, it alone does not provide all the information and evaluation required under the RSC regulation. In these cases, the qualified person (QP) must follow the procedures and requirements outlined in the O.Reg. 153/04 as amended and its related documents. 2.3 VAPOUR INTRUSION MITIGATION Where site characterization information, such as indoor air quality data, indicate that actions should be taken in response to levels of contaminants entering buildings through vapour intrusion, mitigative measures should be implemented. Vapour intrusion mitigation generally refers to measures taken to prevent or control exposures. As such, these measures are typically implemented near to the building (e.g., subslab depressurization or venting systems) or within the building itself. Institutional controls or measures designed to control use of buildings by receptors are a possible solution in the short term. A longer term approach may be measures to remediate the contamination that is the source of the vapours. Additional information on mitigation systems is provided in ITRC (2007). 2.4 COMMUNITY OUTREACH Depending on the circumstances, community outreach may be an important component of a soil vapour assessment program. Where community outreach is warranted, provincial and local regulatory agencies will, to varying degrees be involved in the process. Although each site will tend to have its own unique set of circumstances, there are several good practices that should be followed for community outreach. Initial notification of residents and business owners may be warranted when off-site characterization of subsurface contamination is planned. A more comprehensive communications strategy should be implemented as part of an indoor air quality testing program. Persons involved in indoor air quality program planning and sampling should be tactful and communicate well with building occupants given that indoor air quality programs may be disruptive.
2010
Several successful community outreach programs have involved contacting residents door-to-door to discuss the program directly when requesting access and providing information packets. Other communication tools include community meetings, articles published in community newsletters, mailing of project newsletters and development of a project website posting fact sheets and other relevant information. A strong communications program is essential to educate and reassure the local community in a meaningful and sensitive manner. It is often helpful to communicate the potential risks from vapour intrusion in the context of risks from other chemicals, such as those commonly associated with background sources in indoor air.
2010
2010
CHAPTER 3 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL

CHAPTER 3 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL............................................................................. 3-2
3.1 3.2 3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4
What is a Conceptual Site Model?....................................................................... 3-2 Information Needed to Build the Conceptual Site Model ................................... 3-2 Fate and Transport Processes for Vapour Intrusion............................................. 3-3 Generation of Vapours and Gases........................................................................ 3-4 Fate and Transport in the Vadose Zone ............................................................... 3-5 Soil Vapour Intrusion through the Building Envelope ........................................ 3-5 Mixing of Vapours inside the Building ............................................................... 3-6
2010
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 3. Conceptual Site Model 3-2
CHAPTER 3 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL

This section begins by describing the elements of a conceptual site model (CSM) and information requirements for building the CSM, followed by an overview of processes and factors influencing vapour intrusion into buildings. Further guidance on conceptual site models and fate and transport processes is provided in Appendix I. 3.1 WHAT IS A CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL? A conceptual site model (CSM) is a visual representation and narrative description of the physical, chemical, and biological processes occurring, or that have occurred, at a contaminated site. The CSM should be able to communicate how the site became contaminated, how the contamination was and is transported, where the contamination will ultimately end up, and whom it may affect. To the extent possible, the CSM should provide information on the three-dimensional nature of contamination and physical characteristics of the site, as supported by maps, cross-sections and site diagrams. A well developed CSM provides decision makers with an effective tool that helps to organize, communicate and interpret existing data, while also identifying areas where additional data are required. The CSM should be considered dynamic in nature and should be continuously updated as each stage of the investigation program is completed (USEPA, 2002). 3.2 INFORMATION NEEDED TO BUILD THE CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL A CSM used for evaluating the risks associated with soil vapour at a contaminated site should provide a summary of the following: The source and distribution of contamination (history of contamination, present conditions, and potential future conditions); The receptors that could be exposed to the contamination (under both present and future land use scenarios); and, The release mechanisms for contaminants and fate and transport pathways between the vapour source and the receptors (under both present and future land use scenarios). Information on historical and current land uses, potential sources and types of volatile or semi-volatile contamination, and known and suspected releases or spills that may have occurred at the site;
The CSM should include all relevant data from the site including:
2009
Concentrations, distribution and extent of the chemicals of concern in different media (soil, groundwater, soil vapour and indoor air); Form of contamination present (dissolved chemicals in groundwater, soil contamination and non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL)); Approximate distance from the soil vapour sources to buildings (vertical and lateral); Hydrogeological information including depth to groundwater, the groundwater flow direction, hydraulic conductivity, lateral and vertical hydraulic gradients; Geological information including soil units present at the site and type or textural classification for each soil unit; Vadose zone soil properties including water content, porosity, fraction of organic carbon, bulk density and soil-air permeability; Location and characteristics of subsurface utilities; Information on buildings (present and future) including location, type of building (residential, institutional, commercial, industrial), building size and height, foundation type (e.g., crawlspace, basement, slab-atgrade) and foundation characteristics (e.g., construction, utility penetrations, sumps) and heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system; and, Information on background sources of volatile chemicals in indoor air including indoor sources, outdoor source, building materials and consumer products.
It is recognised that not all of the above information may be collected or is needed, to complete an assessment under this guidance. 3.3 FATE AND TRANSPORT PROCESSES FOR VAPOUR INTRUSION The fate and transport of a chemical from a subsurface source and ultimate concentration inside a building is controlled by processes that occur in four compartments, which consists of source partitioning or generation of soil vapours and gases; the vadose zone; the subsurface building envelope (foundation, walls and nearby utility corridors) and the building. An example of a CSM that addresses the above processes is shown on Figure 2.
2009
Indoor Air
Soil Contamination (residual or mobile NAPL)
Chemical Vapour Transport
Groundwater Contamination
FIGURE 2: Conceptual Site Model for Vapour Intrusion Residential Scenario
3.3.1
Generation of Vapours and Gases There are two sources of subsurface vapours or gases encountered at contaminated sites. The first source is partitioning of NAPL present above the water table into soil gas (vaporisation) or partitioning of dissolved chemicals in soil-water above the water table into soil gas (volatilization). The NAPL is referred to as a primary source of vapours while a dissolved phase plume is referred to as a secondary source. The second source of soil gases is biologically-mediated generation of gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, hydrogen sulphide and hydrogen under either aerobic or anaerobic conditions. For a secondary source where chemicals are present only as a dissolved phase in groundwater, their distribution below the water table will determine their potential to volatilize and eventually migrate to indoor air. If volatile chemicals are present near the surface of the water table, volatilization will readily occur. In contrast, if there is a layer of clean groundwater above
2009
contaminated water, then, the rate of volatilization will decrease since mass transport is controlled by diffusion and dispersion in groundwater. 3.3.2 Fate and Transport in the Vadose Zone The transport of chemicals in the vadose zone is controlled by chemical diffusion, gas-phase and water-phase advection, biological and chemical transformation, and partitioning between the sorbed, soil gas, soil water and NAPL phases (when present). Unless there is a constant replenishment of the chemical source, the processes are dynamic and transient since the chemical will be depleted through biodegradation, volatilization (i.e., source depletion), and dissolution through infiltration of surface water. Diffusion occurs as a result of the movement of molecules as influenced by their kinetic energy. The rate of diffusive transport is a function of the concentration gradient and the temperature of the medium through which diffusion is occurring. Diffusion coefficients in air are about four orders-ofmagnitude higher than in water; therefore, diffusive flux tends to be much higher through the air-filled than water-filled soil pores. Driving forces for gas-phase advection are pressure gradients due to barometric pressure variation, water movement, and density gradients due to compositional and temperature variation. At most sites, diffusion tends to be a more important process for transport than advection, although in the shallow vadose zone close to a building, soil gas advection due to building underpressurization is often significant, as discussed below. Environmental and seasonal factors that affect vadose zone transport processes include precipitation, barometric pressure, wind, water table levels, temperature, snow and frost cover. 3.3.3 Soil Vapour Intrusion through the Building Envelope When buildings are depressurized relative to subsurface soil, the primary process for soil vapour intrusion tends to be soil gas advection through openings in the building envelope, which may include untrapped drains, perimeter cracks at the building wall and floor slab interface, utility service penetrations, expansion joints, and shrinkage cracks. Diffusion may also occur through openings and cracks in the building envelope and may be influenced by the properties of dust-filled cracks, the type of concrete construction (i.e., poured concrete or concrete block), and subsurface moisture vapour barrier, if present. The main driving forces for soil gas advection tend to be building depressurization and barometric pressure fluctuations. The primary mechanisms for building depressurization are (1) temperature differences
2009
between indoor and outdoor air, which create a stack effect within the building (i.e., warm air moves upward within the building drawing soil gas and outside air from lower parts of the building); (2) the force of wind on buildings, and (3) mechanical equipment that moves air into and out of the building (e.g., furnaces, fans). The influence of the stack effect and wind generally increases with the height of the building (i.e., for tall buildings), although the effect for multi-storey buildings will depend on construction and air leakage between floors. For buildings where the stack effect is the most significant mechanism for building depressurization, higher soil vapour intrusion rates would be expected during winter months for Ontario climatic conditions. The zone of influence for soil gas flow from building pressure differences is usually less than a few metres. The rate of soil gas flow will be highly dependent on site specific conditions such as soil permeability, foundation backfill properties, potential preferential pathways such as utility corridors, and building foundation construction. Soil vapour intrusion into a building with a crawlspace is largely affected by the degree to which the crawlspace is ventilated by outside air, and whether the crawlspace is connected to the airspace in the rest of the building (e.g., through the heating system). In addition to migration through subsurface components of the building envelope, volatile chemicals that have migrated from the subsurface to ambient air could enter a building through windows, doors and other openings. Volatilization to outdoor air followed by transport to indoor air is generally not considered to be a significant pathway due to dilution that occurs in ambient air. 3.3.4 Mixing of Vapours inside the Building Vapours inside enclosed spaces will diffuse as a result of chemical gradients and disperse through air movement. Mixing between building floors will depend on the HVAC system and possible unintentional air leakage between floors. Most models used for screening level assessment assume uniform and instantaneous mixing of vapour within the enclosed space.
2009
2010
CHAPTER 4 SITE SCREENING PROCESS

CHAPTER 4 SITE SCREENING PROCESS.............................................................................. 4-2
4.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 4-2 4.2 Preliminary Screening.......................................................................................... 4-3 4.2.1 Site Characterization............................................................................................ 4-3 4.2.2 Are There Chemicals of Potential Concern for Vapour Intrusion? ..................... 4-4 4.2.3 Does the Site Represent a Safety or Acute Health Risk Concern? ...................... 4-4 4.2.4 Are Buildings Located in Sufficiently Close Proximity to Contamination? ....... 4-5 4.2.5 Comparison to the Generic Site Condition Standards (SCS)............................... 4-6 4.2.5.1 Precluding Conditions.......................................................................................... 4-6 4.2.5.2 Additional Considerations ................................................................................... 4-7 4.3 Screening Level Assessment................................................................................ 4-8 4.3.1 Site Characterization............................................................................................ 4-8 4.3.2 Screening Level Vapour Intrusion Assessment ................................................. 4-15 4.3.2.1 Determine Soil Textural Type ........................................................................... 4-16 4.3.2.2 Select Land Use ................................................................................................. 4-16 4.3.2.3 Estimate Distance to Vapour Contamination Source......................................... 4-17 4.3.2.4 Derivation of Vapour Attenuation Factor .......................................................... 4-17 4.3.2.5 Adjusted Attenuation Factor Based on Building Mixing Height....................... 4-21 4.3.2.6 Adjusted Attenuation Factor Based on Building Air Exchange Rate................ 4-21 4.3.2.7 Adjusted Attenuation Factor Based on Biodegradation..................................... 4-21 4.3.2.8 Back-calculate site specific screening levels for soil vapour and groundwater ....................................................................................................... 4-24 4.3.2.9 Data Evaluation and Next Steps ........................................................................ 4-24 4.3.3 Soil Vapour Screening Using the Modified Generic Risk Assessment Model . 4-26 4.4 Detailed Vapour Intrusion Assessment.............................................................. 4-26 4.4.1 Estimation of Input Parameters.......................................................................... 4-27 4.4.2 Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) Testing...................................................................... 4-31 4.4.2.1 IAQ Study Design.............................................................................................. 4-31 4.4.2.2 Background Issues ............................................................................................. 4-32 4.4.3 Data Evaluation and Next Steps ........................................................................ 4-33 4.4.4 Exposure Controls.............................................................................................. 4-33
2010
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 4. Site Screening Process 4-2
CHAPTER 4 SITE SCREENING PROCESS

This chapter addresses approaches and methods for the evaluation of the significance of the soil vapour intrusion pathway and describes the tiered framework for vapour intrusion assessment. 4.1 INTRODUCTION The tiered framework for vapour intrusion assessment consists of the following components: Preliminary Screening, including comparison to applicable site condition standard (SCS); Screening Level Assessment; and Detailed Assessment.
The above tiered process is consistent with recent developments in science and regulatory policy for soil vapour intrusion assessment (e.g., Golder, 2007; ITRC, 2007; Cal EPA, 2005; USEPA, 2002). The screening process is summarized in the flow chart shown in Figure 1. The site screening process should begin with the development of a conceptual site model (CSM) and site characterization. The site characterization process for evaluation of soil vapour intrusion will often be completed in phases and, therefore, it is essential that the CSM be updated as new information is obtained. This chapter provides a summary of the site characterization process, while details are provided in Chapter 5. Key inputs to the screening level and detailed vapour intrusion assessment process are vapour intrusion attenuation factors, which are discussed in Section 4.3.2. While the screening process is described below as a progression of steps starting with obtaining subsurface data, the guidance does not preclude concurrent implementation of the tiers below, which may be an appropriate approach for some sites. The timelines of the decision points, for example when to sample indoor air in addition to the subsurface media, should be consistent with the relative urgency of obtaining the results. There may be some situations (for example where initial testing in some residences has demonstrated vapour intrusion impacts) where indoor air sampling and measurement should be conducted concurrently with subsurface sampling due to a need to obtain the best possible estimate of exposure as soon as possible. It is also important to note that vapour intrusion investigations may follow an iterative approach rather than simply proceeding through sequential, independent steps.
2010
4.2
PRELIMINARY SCREENING The preliminary screening step involves qualitative screening of sites to evaluate the potential for vapour intrusion, and to identify site conditions that warrant rapid assessment and possible mitigation. Preliminary screening can be completed at early stages of the site assessment program but requires some site characterization data, as described below. Following site characterization, there are four components to preliminary screening: (a) determination of whether site contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) are of concern for vapour intrusion either through reference to the generic standards (do site chemicals have vapour pathway standards?) or through consideration of chemical volatility and toxicity, (b) evaluation of whether the site represents a safety or acute health risk concern, (c) evaluation of whether buildings are located in sufficiently close proximity to the contamination to be of concern, and (d) whether the identified soil and/or groundwater concentrations are above the generic MOE SCS. Although the steps are presented below as a progression, they should be conducted concurrently in an integrated manner, and relevant aspects of the assessment should be updated when new information is obtained.
4.2.1
Site Characterization Preliminary screening and comparison to generic standards requires certain site characterization data. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) should have been completed at the site, which should identify the areas of potential environmental concern (APECs) and COPCs based on a historical review, site reconnaissance and other data collection activities. From subsequent investigation phases (i.e., Phase II and III ESA), there should typically be information on the presence and extent of COPCs in soil and groundwater, hydrogeological conditions, soil properties and possible preferential pathways. The contamination migration, plume stability and vertical and lateral extent of contamination should be delineated to enable screening based on the distance criteria described under the preliminary screening step below. Basic information on the existing and future receptors and buildings at the site should be obtained to enable appropriate land use designation and identification of possible precluding conditions for generic screening. Under the preliminary screening, the maximum site-wide media (e.g. soil and/or groundwater) concentrations should generally be used for screening purposes to determine whether a higher tier assessment is required, therefore, it is important that the contamination source concentrations be properly delineated. The delineation should be conducted by assuming that the lateral and vertical extent of COPCs in soil or groundwater extends from the sampling locations where volatile contaminants are present at concentrations
2010
equal to or greater than the applicable SCS to the next sampling location at which the concentrations are below the applicable SCS. Early intrusive phases of the investigation will often include soil vapour data obtained using field screening methods (e.g., photoionization detector or combustible gas detector) at existing wells screened above the water table, which can be useful for qualitative evaluation of potential vapour sources (soil vapour testing using existing wells is further described in Section 5.4.3). However, measurements taken by field screening equipment cannot be used for delineation or to demonstrate that the applicable SCS for a COPC has been met. 4.2.2 Are There Chemicals of Potential Concern for Vapour Intrusion? The chemicals with generic standards under Ontario Regulation 153/04 represent most COPCs for vapour intrusion. If there are volatile or semivolatile organic chemicals present at a site that do not have generic standards, a risk assessment should be conducted to further evaluate the significance of these chemicals. In addition, there may be gases such as methane and hydrogen sulphide that can represent a subsurface vapour threat and should be investigated. A chemical must be sufficiently volatile to cause vapour concentrations above toxicologically-derived concentrations of concern in indoor air to pose a potential vapour intrusion concern. Screening approaches for evaluation of COPCs should consider volatility, toxicity and mobility. Screening approaches for evaluation of chemical volatility and toxicity are further described in Appendix II. If there are no COPCs for the inhalation pathway, further consideration of this pathway is not warranted. Otherwise, the investigator moves to the next step in the preliminary screening phase. 4.2.3 Does the Site Represent a Safety or Acute Health Risk Concern? The first step under preliminary screening is to identify whether there are indications of safety or acute human health risks. The following factors should be evaluated: Potentially Explosive Conditions: Gas concentrations within a building, sump, drain or other utility that exceed or are close to the explosive limit represent a significant safety hazard through explosion or fire. The lower explosive limit for methane is 5% (50,000 ppm) in air, while the limit for gasoline vapours is approximately 1.4% (14,000 ppm). The accumulation of gases may also represent an asphyxiation hazard in rare circumstances.
2010
Odours: Reports by building occupants of chemical odours that do not appear to be from indoor or ambient sources may be an indication of vapour intrusion and should be investigated. Although odours may not necessary indicate that there is a safety or acute health risk, the odour thresholds of many chemicals exceed toxicologically-based air concentrations based on chronic risk. Physiological Effects: Exposure to higher levels of vapours could result in physiological effects such as headaches, nausea, eye and respiratory irritation. The sensitivity of individuals to these effects varies widely. The physiological effects may or may not be attributable to vapour intrusion, but should be investigated. Direct Contact (Wet Basements): There is an increased risk for elevated vapour concentrations inside buildings when there are buildings with wet basements or sumps in direct contact with contamination. This is particularly the case when there is non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL) on the water table. Site information indicating a safety or acute health risk may come to light in various ways including reports from building occupants or owners. Depending on site conditions, a more pro-active approach such as a door-todoor survey involving the use of questionnaires designed specifically to evaluate potential vapour-related concerns (such as those described above), may be warranted. If any of the above conditions are present, immediate action should be taken to investigate possible safety and acute health risks and where necessary implement mitigation measures. For reports of odours and physiological effects, the outcome may depend on whether these effects could reasonably be expected to be associated with subsurface contamination. Based on the investigation, the testing of indoor air quality, exposure controls, and/or relocation of receptors may be warranted. 4.2.4 Are Buildings Located in Sufficiently Close Proximity to Contamination? This screening step is designed to identify which buildings to consider for more detailed pathway assessment. Vapour concentrations decrease with increasing lateral distance from a subsurface vapour source, and eventually dissipate to non detectable levels. The decrease in vapour concentrations is a function of contamination source size and geometry, soil properties, physicalchemical properties, and possible biological or chemical transformations within the subsurface environment. Model predictions (Abreu and Johnson, 2006, Lowell and Eklund, 2004, Mendoza, 1995) indicate that the vapour intrusion pathway has sufficient natural attenuation to be of negligible concern if the distance between the contamination and building is greater than: Thirty (30) metres for recalcitrant chemicals; and
2010
Fifteen (15) metres for chemicals that readily biodegrade under aerobic conditions (biodegradable chemicals).
There is also empirical data from several Colorado sites (USEPA 2008) where indoor air testing indicated no significant indoor vapour concentrations in single family homes that were located more than one to two residential lots (i.e., roughly 30 m) away from the interpolated edge of the groundwater plume. The distance criterion of 30 m (or 15 m for biodegradable chemicals) should not be applied when there are the following precluding conditions: (i) soil gas under pressure, (ii) a subsurface utility conduit connecting the contamination source and the building, (iii) an expanding contamination zone that is migrating toward the building, and/or (iv) a continuous low permeability cover between the contamination source and building (e.g., good quality concrete or asphaltic pavement), which prevents the normal dissipation of vapours and that leads to enhanced lateral migration. For the above precluding conditions, professional judgement should be used to consider whether buildings should be evaluated for possible vapour intrusion even if they are further than 30 m (or 15 m for biodegradable chemicals) from the edge of the contamination. Examples of situations where the 30 m lateral distance may not apply are where a utility with high permeability backfill intersects a contamination zone (e.g., NAPL), when the chemical vapours are unlikely to degrade, and where the site is covered with buildings or paved surfaces. 4.2.5 Comparison to the Generic Site Condition Standards (SCS) The comparison to the generic standards begins with the evaluation of precluding conditions to determine whether generic soil and groundwater standards for the soil vapour intrusion pathway may be applied. If there are no precluding conditions, measured concentrations should be compared to the applicable component values S-IA and/or GW2 (MOE 2009a), and based on the results, the need for further assessment should be evaluated. While Ontario MOE regulations allow sites to be assessed using soil and groundwater data, there are potential advantages associated with the use of soil vapour data, and potential disadvantages with use of soil data, as discussed in subsequent sections of this Guidance Document. For details on the approach used by the MOE to develop the SCS and whether your site characteristics are consistent with the MOE soil vapour conceptual site model and assumptions, please refer to the Rationale for the Development of Soil and Ground Water Standards for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario (MOE, 2009). 4.2.5.1 Precluding Conditions The precluding factors described below were, in part, developed considering the CSM described by the J&E model, which was used in the development of
the Ontario SCS. When site-specific conditions are not consistent with the CSM used by the MOE, described in the Rationale for Development of Generic Soil and Groundwater Standards for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario (MOE 2009), the generic screening process should not be followed, and instead the assessment should proceed to the screening level assessment or detailed vapour intrusion assessment. When conducting a generic screening process, the following site conditions should be considered: Earthen basements: Buildings with earthen basements should be precluded from the vapour screening process, unless the depth to the contamination source is sufficiently deep such that transport processes within the soil zone control the soil vapour flux into the building, as opposed to the building foundation characteristics. The depth where the properties of the earthen basement property are of lesser importance will depend on site-specific conditions. A reasonable value for this depth is 5 m, when other precluding factors are taken into consideration. Therefore, buildings with earthen basements where contamination is less than 5 m from the building should be precluded. Gas under pressure: Sites where soil gas is under pressure should be precluded from the screening process, which is often the case at landfills where methane is produced and where trace VOCs may move with the landfill gas. Subsurface utility conduit connecting contamination source and building: Utility conduits that directly connect the contamination source to the enclosed space of the building represent a precluding condition. Common anthropogenic features such as floor drains, sewer lines and utility conduits that are present at many sites are not normally considered a precluding condition, unless they connect indoor air of the building to the location of the contamination source. Presence or suspected presence of non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL) below or near to the building: the presence of NAPL is not necessarily considered to be a precluding condition, however, it could be a precluding condition when only groundwater data are available and/or when there is significant uncertainty in the location of the NAPL source and the NAPL distribution.
4.2.5.2
Additional Considerations When conducting a comparison of the measured soil and groundwater concentrations at a site against the generic MOE S-IA and/or GW2 component values, the following site conditions should be considered:
2010
Shallow Depth to Groundwater Contamination: When the water table (highest annual) is less than 3 metres from soil surface, the groundwater to indoor air vapour attenuation factors (derived using the J&E model) used in the development of the generic MOE Tables 2 and 3 are not sufficiently conservative for a preliminary screening. For sites with water table less than 3 metres below soil surface should use the GW2 component values from the MOE SCS Tables 6 or 7 (MOE 2009a). These SCS were developed using a reasonable conservative vapour attenuation factor (0.02) based on empirical information and assuming that biodegradation between the groundwater and the basement is not occurring. Very High Gas Permeability Media: buildings constructed on vertically or near vertically fractured bedrock, karst, cobbles or other media with unusually high gas permeability should use the GW2 component values from MOE SCS Tables 6 or 7 in the preliminary screening process, regardless of the depth to contamination. This is because soil gas advection within the unsaturated zone (i.e., beyond the soil zone near to the building), caused by barometric pumping or other environmental factors, can be important in these scenarios.
4.3
SCREENING LEVEL ASSESSMENT The screening level assessment process consists of site characterization, identification of precluding conditions and comparison of media concentrations to developed site specific screening levels.
4.3.1
Site Characterization A screening level assessment of sites for evaluation of vapour intrusion will typically require additional site characterization data relative to the prescreening evaluation. The Ontario generic standards are values limited to soil and groundwater, while the screening level assessment approach may include soil vapour and possibly indoor air as assessment media. The discussion below begins with an overview of advantages and disadvantages associated with characterization of different media (summarized in Table 1), a description of the multiple lines-of-evidence approach, selection of chemicals of potential concern, followed by a discussion of specific considerations for soil, groundwater and soil vapour testing. Some soil and groundwater data are typically obtained as part of the initial intrusive site investigation phase and therefore the use of these data for prescreening purposes is desirable. Site remediation confirmation testing also often involves testing of soil samples. The main disadvantages are that soil and groundwater data may not be representative of potential contaminants that
2010
could intrude into buildings and the theoretical partitioning relationships used to estimate vapour concentrations are uncertain, particularly for soil to soil vapour transfer. The main advantage associated with soil vapour media is that it provides a direct measurement of the contaminant phase that may migrate into indoor air. The main disadvantages are that the spatial and temporal variability in soil vapour concentrations is often relatively high and that appropriate protocols must be followed carefully to achieve data quality that is acceptable. While there are advantages and disadvantages with different media, often the best strategy is one based on a multiple lines-of-evidence approach where soil, groundwater, soil vapour and, in some cases, indoor air, are tested. This allows the identification of data relationships and comparison of analytical results to generic standards and/or site-specific screening levels for each medium. This can strengthen the conclusions of the study. However, the multiple lines-of-evidence approach should go beyond chemical analysis results and also include consideration of geological, chemical and biological factors that may influence soil vapour intrusion. For example, there will tend to be less potential for vapour intrusion when there is a relatively deep contamination, fine-grained soil, and/or biodegradable chemicals such as petroleum hydrocarbons. Conversely, there will tend to be greater potential for vapour intrusion at sites with shallow contamination, coarse-grained deposits and non-degrading chemicals.
TABLE 1: Comparison of Different Media for Vapour Intrusion Investigations Media Investigated
Soil
Indoor Air Evaluation Method

Partitioning model combined with soil vapour-to-indoor fate and transport model
Principal Issues
Partitioning model highly uncertain, significant spatial variability, detection limits often too high to meet screening levels, commonly significant negative bias due to losses during sampling can be used to identify a potential concern, but not relied upon to screen out. In general, it is not recommended for a screening level assessment. Partitioning model uncertain, imprecision of soil vapour transport model requires conservative attenuation factors, moderate to high spatial variability, moderate to low temporal variability More direct indication of potential exposure, but high spatial variability (generally more so than groundwater), shallow soil vapour may be non representative, moderate to high temporal variability More direct indication of potential exposure but intrusive, lateral spatial variability mitigated somewhat by sampling below building, moderate to high temporal variability More direct indication of potential exposure,
Groundwater
Partitioning model combined with soil vapour-to-indoor fate and transport model
Soil vapour Soil vapour-to-indoor air fate and (beside building) transport model Soil vapour (at Soil vapour-to-indoor air fate and least 1 m below transport model building) Soil vapour Soil vapour-to-indoor air fate and
2010
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 4. Site Screening Process Media Investigated
(near source) Subslab vapour1
4-10 Principal Issues
Indoor Air Evaluation Method

transport model
Indoor air
1
moderate to low spatial and temporal variability. Recommended for screening level assessment. Subslab vapour-to-indoor air model Closest representation of potential vapours migrating (primarily dilution in indoor air) or into building, but intrusive, high spatial and moderate empirical attenuation factor to high temporal variability, exfiltrating air may approach confound results if building is positively pressurized. Indoor air concentrations directly Direct measurement, but intrusive, background measured sources may confound data interpretation; temporal variability likely high
Air within a crawlspace can be sampled as a substitute for subslab vapour. Depending on crawlspace ventilation and connection to house, there may be very little attenuation between the crawlspace and house (i.e., attenuation factor of one).
Limitations with each type of data are minimized if decisions are supported by more than one type of data. The decision also depends on the variability and amount of data available. Data adequacy is a critical consideration when planning site characterization programs and interpreting the results, particularly when sites are screened out of the site assessment process. There are several key points that should be considered as part of the site characterization and screening process: 1. Sufficient data should be obtained to characterize the spatial variability in soil, groundwater and soil vapour concentrations such that a reasonably detailed CSM describing the distribution and extent of contamination can be developed. 2. The site characterization process for all media should begin with an evaluation of contamination source areas to characterize maximum concentrations. Initial screening of the site should generally be conducted using the maximum concentration to avoid the risk of a false negative determination (failing to identify a risk that is unacceptable). 3. Data should be collected to assess vertical trends in concentrations in addition to horizontal distribution. The vertical profile of hydrocarbon and fixed gas (oxygen, carbon dioxide and methane) concentrations is particularly helpful for assessing biodegradation of petroleum hydrocarbons. 4. The number of samples (i.e., sample density) needed to delineate plumes will tend to increase as the geological variability or complexity increases. 5. Sufficient data should be obtained to characterize the temporal variability in groundwater and soil vapour concentrations; this typically requires a minimum of two sampling events in a selected number of locations to characterize seasonal variability. 6. If individual buildings are screened at a site, sufficient characterization must be completed to characterize variability surrounding the building.
2010
This will vary from site to site and should be decided in the context of the site conceptual model. Determining Contaminants of Potential Concern (COPCs) The site characterization should identify COPCs for the study. The basis for selection of COPCs should include toxicity and volatility, potential biotransformation reactions and expected breakdown products (a.k.a. daughter products), and potential marker compounds or tracers which may help in evaluating the influence of background sources of chemicals in indoor air and shallow soil vapour (see Section 7). As a starting point, the chemicals with generic inhalation standards (S-IA and/or GW2 component values) represent most chemicals of potential concern for vapour intrusion. If the site assessment indicates the presence or potential presence of volatile or semi-volatile organic chemicals without generic inhalation standards, the screening process described in Appendix II may be followed to evaluate COPCs. Soil Data While soil data will often be obtained as part of site characterization programs, there are significant uncertainties associated with use of the soil data that should be recognized: Soil sampling, handling and preparation can result in significant (up to several orders-of-magnitude) losses of chemicals through volatilization and biodegradation. Such losses may be reduced through field preservation using solvents (e.g., USEPA SW-846 Method 3035), however, this also tends to cause higher laboratory reporting limits, which may be above the levels protective of the vapour intrusion pathway; Depending on the contaminant type and geologic conditions (texture, moisture and fraction of organic carbon), there may be significant spatial variation in soil concentrations, which are seldom evaluated in most sampling programs; There are uncertainties associated with soil partitioning calculations and predicted vapour concentrations are sensitive to the partitioning coefficient between water and organic carbon, and the fraction organic content in soil, a parameter that can be difficult to accurately determine; and Poor correlations have been observed involving studies comparing soil and soil vapour data particularly for chemicals associated with DNAPL sources such as chlorinated solvents.
2010
Since the use of soil chemistry information may result in large uncertainties in the predicted indoor air concentrations, its use in the screening level assessment process is not recommended. However, there may be some sites with fine-grained soil where it is difficult to draw a soil gas sample and where soil samples may be an alternative for assessing the vapour intrusion pathway. Nevertheless, because of the uncertainties described above, other lines-ofevidence should be considered before concluding that there is no vapour intrusion risk. Continuous soil cores, where feasible, and soil physical property data (especially texture, moisture, and density) can provide valuable information for development of the conceptual site model. Groundwater Data Groundwater samples for evaluation of vapour intrusion should be collected as near as practicable to the water table, and the assessment should include water level monitoring to assess seasonal water table elevation fluctuations. This is because VOC mass transfer from groundwater to soil vapour occurs when chemicals in pore-water volatilize into soil gas, which is facilitated by water table fluctuations (Rivett, 1995). The use of relatively short well screens situated across the water table is recommended when evaluating the soil vapour intrusion pathway. As well screen lengths increase, there is increased blending of groundwater across the screened interval. This may result in either over-estimation or under-estimation of concentrations at the top of the aquifer, depending on the contamination scenario. At locations where light non-aqueous phase liquid (LNAPL) is present or where there is an interface plume from fluctuating water table and interaction between soil gas and the water table, longer well screens may under predict concentrations near the top of the aquifer. Where there is a fresh-water lens or contamination source below the water table (e.g., dense non-aqueous phase liquid - DNAPL), longer well screens may over predict concentrations near the top of the aquifer. Since hydrogeologic systems can undergo changes, due to natural processes and/or through human activities, contaminants at depth within groundwater systems could also pose future vapour intrusion potential. Consequently, it is recommended that groundwater characterization programs also include investigation of vertical concentration variability either through the use of nested wells (at different elevations) or vertical profiling using a depthdiscrete groundwater sampling technique. Concentration gradients and water table fluctuations should be taken into consideration when evaluating the potential for soil vapour intrusion. When
2010
there are relatively steep vertical concentration gradients and increasing concentrations with depth in shallow groundwater, particular care must be taken in selecting the concentration for screening purposes. When small-scale discrete samples are analyzed (i.e., Geoprobe method, Hydropunch, Waterloo profiler or similar), the concentration data for a sample taken just below the water table may not be conservative if there are changes in the water table elevation or the vertical concentration profile. Depending on these factors, the maximum groundwater concentration measured within a few metres of the water table may be appropriate for soil vapour intrusion assessment purposes. Soil Vapour Data Soil vapour sampling and analysis avoids uncertainties related to mass transfer and phase partitioning, and therefore is valuable data for assessing potential vapour intrusion and indoor air concentrations. However, empirical data collected to date indicates a higher degree of variability in soil vapour concentrations, so special care is required during sample collection (design and execution). External soil vapour samples should be obtained at a depth equal to at least half the distance between the lowest point of the building foundation and contamination source (Figure 3) since research indicates shallower samples are more likely to result in a false negative determination (see Chapter 5). When individual buildings are screened, soil vapour measurements should be obtained from near to the building but beyond the zone of disturbance and fill that typically is present directly adjacent to the building foundation. The recommended minimum depth for soil vapour probes is 1.5 m below ground surface (for slab-on-grade buildings) or 1 m below the foundation for buildings with basements. When there is undeveloped land and a future building scenario is considered, there are additional challenges introduced by potential changes caused by the site development. For example, the soil moisture content and oxygen recharge may decrease as a result of a capping effect once the building is constructed. There may be less bioattenuation when the oxygen recharge is reduced. For the above reasons, greater caution must be taken when using soil vapour to evaluate the future building scenario and generally only deeper near contamination source soil vapour data should be used for this purpose. Consideration should be given to installation of clusters of probes at multiple depths to evaluate vertical concentration profiles. Data on vertical soil vapour concentrations can be useful in that it provides a means of corroborating the quality of the data and more fully developing the conceptual site model. Soil vapour probes aligned along transects or in a grid pattern may also provide useful data.
2010
SubSlab Soil Vapour Data Subslab vapour sampling and analysis is recommended in many regulatory guidance documents (OSWER, 2002, NJDEP, 2005, NYSDOH, 2006), but experience to date has also shown high levels of spatial and temporal variability (Luo et al., 2006 and EPA, 2006), and there are concerns about the representativeness of these data (Johnson, 2008). Research is needed to improved methods to reduce the variability in subslab vapour data. Obtaining multiple samples below the building or larger-volume samples may improve the representativeness of the data. Somewhat deeper samples obtained below building may avoid some of the variability in subslab soil vapour from immediately below the building foundation. Multiple Lines-of-Evidence Each type of data is subject to some potential uncertainties; therefore, multiple lines-of-evidence should be used as a cross check to assess the quality of soil vapour measurements. These can include the following: When there is a dissolved groundwater source, measured soil vapour concentrations should be less than groundwater concentrations multiplied by the dimensionless Henrys Law constant, since there will be attenuation of chemicals through the capillary transition zone. The magnitude of the difference should increase as soil becomes finergrained, and in areas of elevated recharge (e.g., due to irrigation); Vertical soil vapour concentration profiles should show decreasing concentrations from a source zone; When there is a localized contamination source above the water table, the soil vapour concentration distribution should be consistent with radial diffusion from the source; vapour distribution associated with large source may not be radial. When soil vapour samples contain high concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons, oxygen concentrations generally should be low, and carbon dioxide concentrations should be elevated. Higher than expected oxygen concentrations and lower than expected carbon dioxide concentrations, may indicate a leak of atmospheric air into the sample.
The design of soil vapour characterization programs, particularly at sites with deep vadose zones and multiple depth samples, should consider possible temporal changes in vapour concentrations due to transient vapour migration or changing source concentrations. Sorption and biodegradation can delay the development of steady-state vapour concentration profiles. Nomographs that enable estimation of the approximate time for vapour concentrations to reach steady state conditions are provided in Johnson et al. (1998) and API (2005).
EXISTING BUILDING
FUTURE BUILDING
dmin
Collect subslab vapour (alpha = 0.02) Collect external soil vapour from close to source, recommend dmin = *d (alpha variable) Collect external soil vapour from close to source
Vapour Contamination Source

FIGURE 3: Conceptual Model for Use of Soil Vapour Data
4.3.2
Screening Level Vapour Intrusion Assessment Under a screening level assessment process, site specific screening levels may be developed for groundwater and soil vapour. The site specific screening levels are back-calculated from risk-based indoor air concentrations using vapour attenuation factors calculated using the J&E model. However, the process is constrained in that only selected, readily measurable, input parameters (soil texture and depth to contamination) can be varied from the default model inputs within specified ranges. The exposure assumptions for receptors are identical to those for the generic MOE standards. Since evaluation of multiple media can improve the confidence in the assessment, it is recommended that site-specific screening levels be developed for all media tested. Direct comparisons of indoor air concentrations to risk based health values may also be considered in the screening level vapour intrusion assessment. The process followed to derive site-specific screening levels is to: 1. Determine soil textural type. 2. Determine land use.
2010
3. Estimate vertical distance from lowest point of building to vapour contamination source. 4. Calculate attenuation factor. 5. Adjust attenuation factor for building height, where appropriate. 6. Adjust attenuation factor for building air exchange rate, where appropriate. 7. Adjust attenuation factor for aerobic biodegradation, where appropriate for applicable chemicals. 8. Back-calculate site-specific screening levels for soil, groundwater and/or soil vapour using the health based indoor air concentrations and attenuation factor. The recommended health-based indoor air concentrations are presented in Appendix VI. 9. Evaluate data consistency, adequacy and uncertainty and determine next steps. 4.3.2.1 Determine Soil Textural Type The preferred method for determining the soil texture class is based on lithological descriptions combined with grain size distribution tests. The US Soil Conservation Service (SCS) classification system (USDA soil textural triangle) should be used to determine the soil texture. Samples for grain size analysis should be collected for each area where volatile contaminants have been identified to be present in soil and/or groundwater, at elevated concentrations. In general, the coarsest soil type from among the samples should be used for calculation of the site attenuation factor. For determining the soil textural type when using the modified generic risk assessment (MGRA) model under the O. Reg. 153/04 as amended, please refer to Table 4 (phase II ESA requirement for MGRA) of the regulation. 4.3.2.2 Select Land Use The two choices for land use for screening level assessment, which are also the basis for selection of input parameters for the J&E model, are a residential scenario and a commercial scenario. Residential: A residential scenario should be selected if the site has a single family or multi-family (townhouse or apartment) residential dwelling that is occupied for some or all of the time. A residential scenario would also apply to institutional land use (e.g., school, daycare) or operations where food is grown.
2010
Commercial/Industrial: A commercial/industrial land use should be selected for sites that are not residential and do not include operations where food is grown. Typical occupancy for a given individual is 40 hours per week or less. 4.3.2.3 Estimate Distance to Vapour Contamination Source The distance to the vapour contamination source is the distance between the lowest part of the building foundation (including sumps, if present) and vapour contamination source. The vapour contamination source is the water table when contamination is limited to dissolved constituents in groundwater. When estimating this distance, allowance for water table fluctuations should be made by selecting the annual minimum water level depth below the slab. When soil or soil vapour measurements are made, the distance is between the building and measurement point, which should be located above the top of the contamination source. 4.3.2.4 Derivation of Vapour Attenuation Factor Overview of Vapour Attenuation Factors The vapour attenuation factor (alpha - ) is the ratio of the indoor air concentration divided by the measured or estimated soil vapour concentration at the point of interest (i.e., ppbV/ppbV or dimensionless ratio). The vapour attenuation factor is the inverse of the dilution factor, which is used by CCME to describe vapour intrusion (CCME, 2008). There are three primary types of vapour attenuation factors or alphas: Groundwater-to-indoor air alpha (g): This alpha is based on the vapour concentration estimated from groundwater data and represents chemical transport through both the capillary fringe immediately above the water table and higher regions of the unsaturated soil zone. The partitioning model used for groundwater to vapour assumes equilibrium partitioning based on the Henrys Law constant. Soil vapour-to-indoor air alpha (v): This alpha is based on the measured soil vapour concentration within the unsaturated zone (typically measured beside the building) and represents transport through the unsaturated soil zone. If the soil vapour concentration is estimated from a soil concentration for a source above the water table, then the soil vapour-toindoor air alpha is the appropriate factor to apply for estimation of the indoor air concentration. Subslab vapour-to-indoor air alpha (ss): This alpha is based on the measured subslab vapour concentration measured immediately below a building foundation and represents primarily transport through the foundation.
Derivation of Vapour Attenuation Factors for Unconsolidated Deposits The attenuation factors can be calculated for unconsolidated deposits using the J&E model for residential and commercial exposure scenarios, for various soil types and varying depth from the building foundation to contamination source. The attenuation factor can apply to both a current and future building scenario. The vapour attenuation factors for soil vapour and soil measurements include only transport within the unsaturated soil zone, while for a dissolved contamination source in groundwater, it also includes transport through the capillary transition zone. For soil vapour, the attenuation factors derived using the J&E model are constrained such that site-specific screening levels may only be calculated when soil vapour measurements are obtained at least 1 m below the current or future building foundation. Where groundwater level monitoring data is available and sufficient to determine the depth to the highest annual water table, the site-specific screening levels can be derived from the J&E model where the water table and capillary fringe are below the building gravel crush. If the shallowest water table is expected to be within the gravel crush layer beneath a floor slab or above the crush layer, then the J&E model can not be used to determine the attenuation factor. Instead, alpha should be fixed at a reasonably conservative empirically-derived value. For these cases, MOE recommends an alpha of 0.02 for the Residential setting (Dawson, 2006) and 0.004 for the Commercial/Industrial setting. However, as more empirical data become available the recommended subslab vapour empirical values should be revised. When determining an appropriate empirical attenuation factor, the qualified person needs to consider the most up-to-date information and provide a rationale for the selection of any empirical values. The MOE recommended empirical attenuation factors can also be used when collecting subslab vapour data. The recommended building input parameters for calculating attenuation factors using the J&E model are provided in Table 2. For further details about these parameters please refer to the MOE rationale document for the development of the site condition standards (MOE 2009). Soil properties should be selected based on the Soil Conservation Services (USSCS) soil classes as presented in the Soil Properties Lookup Table contained in USEPAs online version of the J&E model (USEPA, 2004b). However, the clay-type soils of the USSCS classification (clay, silty clay, sandy clay) should not be used because these soil textures have the potential to fracture and therefore the default soil properties are potentially non-
2010
representative. If there are clay soils at the site, the next coarsest soil type should be selected (e.g., silt). The properties of the backfill surrounding the building as well as the gravel crush underlying the basement floor should be assumed to govern the effective soil-air permeability. The effective vapour permeability is the bulk value for the entire flow path from the ground surface down and under the foundation footing, back up to the gravel crush, and along the gravel crush to the entry crack. A gravel crush layer is required by Ontario Building Code and therefore if the basement floor becomes cracked then soil gas will flow to the crack through the gravel crush layer. This requires that the effective bulk permeability for the travel path includes that of the gravel crush. The following are the recommended properties for the gravel crush layer: Hydraulic conductivity: 10 (cm/sec) Dry bulk density: 1.60 (g/cm3) Porosity: 0.40 (vol/vol) Moisture content: 0.01 (vol/vol) Thickness: 29.9 (cm)
The soil gas advection rate (Qsoil) into a building is a function of the soil-air permeability, building depressurization, building foundation properties and building size. Building pressures are affected by several factors (e.g. temperature, wind and operation of the heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system inside a building) (Geosyntec 2010). The method often used with the J&E model for estimating Qsoil through the building envelope is an analytical solution for two-dimensional soil gas flow to a small horizontal drain called the Perimeter Crack Model. The use of this model can be problematic in that Qsoil values are sensitive to soil-air permeability and consequently a wide range in flows can be predicted (Geosyntec 2010). Also, users may input combinations of soil and hydrogeologic parameters that are not self-consistent and that will produce unreasonable Qsoil estimates (Johnson 2005). For the above reasons, the use of the J&E perimeter crack model for calculating Qsoil is not recommended by the MOE. The recommended Qsoil values are presented in Table 2. They are consistent with reported values from empirical data from houses on coarsegrained soils (~1 to 10 L/min - Golder 2008b). A different soil type for the capillary fringe can be allowed to achieve better characterization of contaminant transport from groundwater diffusing up through the vadose zone to the receptor. The calculated vapour attenuation factors developed with the J&E Model do not assume biodegradation of hydrocarbon vapours such as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes (BTEX). As described below, there is provision to
2010
adjust the attenuation factors for bioattenuation for applicable chemicals and where conditions warrant.
Table 2. Recommended J&E Model Input Values
Parameter Depth to underside of basement/foundation slab (cm) hB, gravel crush thickness beneath basement/ foundation slab (cm) Enclosed space length (cm) Enclosed space width (cm) Effective enclosed space height (cm) Air exchange rate per hour (hr-1) Depressurization (Pa) Lcrack, basement floor thickness (cm) Floor-wall crack width (cm) Ratio of Crack Area to Total Subsurface Area Soil Temperature (oC) Qsoil (L/min) - coarse - fine Residential 158 29.9 1225 1225 366 0.30 4 8 0.10 0.0002 15 8.45 1.0 Commercial /Industrial 11.25 29.9 2000 1500 300 1 2 11.25 0.10 0.0002 15 9.8 1.5
Bedrock The presence of fractured bedrock directly under the building foundation such that there is no underlying soil is normally considered a precluding condition for a screening level assessment. However, to provide additional flexibility, an assessment may be completed using a conservative attenuation factor such as the default value for subslab (i.e., 0.02) for both groundwater and soil vapour provided that the basic site assessment requirements (Section 4.3.1) are met and that there is a high level of confidence that sampling points intersect contaminant pathways in the bedrock. This may entail mapping of fractures, high-resolution sampling and repeat monitoring to adequately characterize spatial and temporal variability. Consideration should be given to subslab vapour characterization (when buildings are present) to improve the level of confidence in the CSM. An alternate approach for assessing GW2 pathway for bedrock sites overlain by thicker unconsolidated deposits may be to obtain soil vapour samples within the unconsolidated deposits. The minimum depth criteria for external soil vapour samples needs to be met (i.e., minimum the distance between lowest point of building and vapour contamination source).
2010
4.3.2.5
Adjusted Attenuation Factor Based on Building Mixing Height The residential mixing height default (3.66 m) is based on complete mixing of vapours within the basement, and partial mixing within the first storey of the residence. The commercial mixing height default (3.0 m) is considered representative of mixing of vapours within a single-storey office building. In site specific assessments, if there is information indicating that the above default mixing heights are not representative, actual heights can be used. However, for residential buildings, the default mixing height may only be reduced downward, and therefore, the adjusted attenuation factor may only increase. The default height should apply to almost all buildings, but a smaller mixing height may be appropriate for some small single-storey residential dwellings. For commercial buildings, the mixing height for vapours within a building with high ceilings (e.g., warehouse building) or a multi-storey building could be greater than the default as a result of mixing within the building caused by ventilation and leakage across floors. If the building ventilation is well understood and there is evidence to support relatively uniform mixing of vapours within a greater height, the default mixing height for commercial buildings may be increased by up to a factor of two (i.e., mixing height of 6 m).
4.3.2.6
Adjusted Attenuation Factor Based on Building Air Exchange Rate If there is information indicating that the above default air exchange rates are not representative, the attenuation factors may be calculated adjusting the exchange rate values. For residential buildings, the default air exchange rate (0.3 hr-1) may only be reduced downward, and therefore, the adjusted attenuation factor may only increase. The default air exchange rate should apply to almost all buildings, but a lower rate may be warranted when there is evidence for very low air exchange (e.g., sealed basement with poor ventilation). The air exchange rates may be higher than the default (1 hr-1) for some commercial buildings or for building spaces that require higher than normal ventilation rates (e.g., parking garages). If there is evidence to support a higher ventilation rate through either design requirements, documented measurements in a Test and Balance Report by a licensed mechanical engineer, or the results of ventilation tracer test, the default air exchange rate for commercial buildings may be increased accordingly.
4.3.2.7
Adjusted Attenuation Factor Based on Biodegradation The soil vapour attenuation factors calculated using the J&E model assume no biodegradation of hydrocarbon vapours such as benzene, toluene,
2010
ethylbenzene and xylenes (BTEX) and alkane hydrocarbons such as hexane and decane. A comprehensive research program on hydrocarbon vapour bioattenuation was completed by Golder Associates for Health Canada and the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute (CPPI) (Golder, 2008a). The research study reviewed the state-of-the-science on vadose zone biodegradation of petroleum hydrocarbons through evaluation of laboratory and field studies of biodegradation kinetics, detailed case studies where hydrocarbon vapour attenuation was assessed, empirical attenuation factors, and modeling studies. These different lines-of-evidence all indicate that often (but not for all site conditions) there will be significant aerobic biodegradation of hydrocarbon vapours. Consequently, the soil vapour attenuation factors calculated with the J&E model, while reasonable for recalcitrant chemicals such as chlorinated hydrocarbons (see comparisons in Golder, 2007), are often overly conservative for BTEX and alkane hydrocarbon compounds. The laboratory studies and detailed case studies indicate that BTEX and aliphatic hydrocarbon vapours are readily degraded in the presence of oxygen (Ostendorf and Kampbell, 1991; Fischer et al., 1996; Laubacher et al., 1997; Johnson et al., 1998; Hers et al., 2000; DeVaull et al., 2002). When there is aerobic biodegradation and a sufficient thickness of non-contaminated soil between the vapour source and building, there will typically be many ordersof-magnitude attenuation in BTEX or aliphatic hydrocarbon vapour concentrations (i.e., reduction to negligible levels). There is evidence for lower bioattenuation rates for certain hydrocarbons such as methylpentanes (present in relatively large proportions in certain jet fuels), indicating it is important to determine the type of hydrocarbon present. The empirical analysis of the attenuation between subsurface source concentrations and indoor air, while confounded by indoor background sources of these same compounds, indicated that in general the BTEX attenuation factors were considerably lower than the factors for recalcitrant chlorinated hydrocarbons such as trichloroethene (TCE) and 1,1-dichloroethene (11 DCE). The results of modeling studies indicate a key factor influencing the estimated vapour attenuation factor is the oxygen available below the building. The key site conditions that influence oxygen levels are hydrocarbon source concentrations and distance from the building to the vapour source, with other potentially important factors being the soil type and properties of the surface cover at the site, which may influence the rate at which atmospheric oxygen migrates to the subsurface. The hydrocarbon source concentrations have a critical determining influence on hydrocarbon vapour bioattenuation, since it can be shown through empirical data and modeling studies that there will generally be significant aerobic biodegradation within the unsaturated soil zone below buildings when there is a dissolved hydrocarbon source, providing there is sufficient oxygen present and a reasonable source-building separation (up to about 5 m from separate phase hydrocarbon, but as little as one metre from moderate to low dissolved phase hydrocarbon concentrations).
2010
On the basis of the above research, bioattenuation adjustment factors were developed, which can be applied to the attenuation factor calculated using the J&E model for selected petroleum hydrocarbon compounds. The application of bioattenuation adjustment factors requires appropriate site characterization and the development of a conceptual site model (CSM). When soil vapour bioattenuation factors are applied, hydrocarbon vapour bioattenuation should be confirmed through characterization of vertical soil vapour profiles. A protocol for evaluation of aerobic biodegradation through soil vapour sampling is provided in Chapter 5. In addition, the bioattenuation reduction factors may not be applied when there is a significant capping effect that would limit oxygen migration to below buildings. The capping effect may be significant when most of a site is covered with reasonably good quality concrete or asphalt (Golder 2006). The calculated attenuation factors may be divided by the bioattenuation adjustment factors (BAFs) in Table 3 for applicable petroleum hydrocarbon compounds, which are BTEX, F1 and F2 (except when aviation fuel), trimethylbenzenes, naphthalene, normal or straight chain alkane compounds (e.g., hexane, octane), as follows:
Adjusted Attenuation Factor = J&E Model Vapour Attenuation Factor / BAF
The framework for the groundwater bioattenuation reduction factors is based on hydrocarbon source strength, which depends largely on whether there is a dissolved hydrocarbon source or non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL) above the water table, and distance between the contamination source and building. Depending on the source concentrations and distance between the source and building, up to 100X reduction in the attenuation factor is provided. Table 3: Bioattenuation Adjustment Factors
Media Contamination Criteria Bioattenuation Adjustment Factors (BAF)
Groundwater Dissolved - Low Dissolved High NAPL Soil Vapour Dissolved
Benzene < 0.1 mg/L F1 < 5 mg/L F2 < 1 mg/L Benzene < 1 mg/L F1 < 15 mg/L F2 < 5 mg/L Sheen or measurable floating layer Cg < 1 mg/L TVOCs**
100X for separation distance* > 1m 10X for separation distance* > 1 m 100X for separation distance* >3 m 10X for separation distance* > 3 m 100X for separation distance* >5m 10X for separation distance* > 1 m 100X for separation distance*>3m
2010
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 4. Site Screening Process Media Contamination Criteria 4-24 Bioattenuation Adjustment Factors (BAF) 10X for separation distance* > 2 m 100X for separation distance* >4m 10X for separation distance* > 3 m 100X for separation distance* >5m 10X for separation distance* > 1 m 100X for separation distance* >3m
Transition dissolved Cg > 1 mg/L < 50 & NAPL mg/L TVOCs NAPL Cg > 50 mg/L Soil All
Notes: Above BAFs may only be applied when there is no significant capping effect and biodegradation supported through oxygen profiles (see Section 5.3.4). Cg = BTEX + F1 + F2 + Methane (CH4) * Separation distance between source and the building foundation. ** total VOCs
4.3.2.8
Back-calculate site specific screening levels for soil vapour and groundwater Site-specific soil vapour screening levels (Csv) are back calculated as follows:
Csv = CairT/ v (g/m )
3
Where
CairT = the health based indoor air target concentration (g/m ) (see
attachment VI), and v = the dimensionless soil vapour attenuation factor (adjusted based on criteria described above) (dimensionless). The groundwater screening levels developed for the vapour intrusion pathway (Cgw) can be calculated as follows: Cgw = CairT / (H gw * 1000 L/m3) (g/L) Where:
CairT = the health based indoor air target concentration (g/m ), gw = the groundwater attenuation factor (adjusted based on criteria described above) (dimensionless), and H = Henrys law constant (dimensionless).
3
4.3.2.9
Data Evaluation and Next Steps An important step in the soil vapour screening assessment process is to evaluate the results in terms of data consistency, adequacy and uncertainty and appropriate next steps or follow-up actions. The key questions that should be asked at this stage of the process include: Are predictions consistent with the CSM and internally consistent for different media and sampling locations?
2010
Are the data adequate to evaluate vapour intrusion potential, particularly when the screening assessment indicates no further action is warranted? What is the overall uncertainty in the screening process and how should this influence decisions made?
The evaluation of data consistency may involve comparison of predicted indoor air concentrations from different media (e.g., soil, groundwater and soil vapour) and sampling locations evaluated in the context of the CSM. When there are significant differences between indoor air concentrations predicted using different media, the data quality and representativeness should be carefully reviewed. For a dissolved groundwater source, the predicted indoor air concentrations using groundwater-to-indoor air attenuation factors will often be higher than those predicted using near-source (top of the capillary fringe) measured soil vapour concentrations with soil vapour-to-indoor attenuation factors. Conversely, higher predicted indoor air concentrations from measured soil vapour compared to groundwater may indicate a contamination source within the unsaturated soil zone. The indoor air predictions from soil vapour should generally always take precedence compared to those predicted from soil or groundwater. However, when the predicted indoor air concentration from soil vapour is significantly less than that predicted from soil or groundwater (i.e., >10X to 100X lower), the conceptual site model and the field data should be careful evaluated. Large differences between media would be expected when there is a freshwater lens on the water table, fine-grained high moisture content soil layers or bioattenuation. Large difference in indoor air concentrations predicted from soil vapour and groundwater sampling data may also be attributable to bias and variability in the soil vapour and groundwater data. The qualified person must evaluate the site complexity and distribution of contamination sources and plumes, the observed spatial and temporal variability to assess data quantity and quality. The data adequacy and uncertainty must be carefully assessed particularly when used to screen sites or buildings out of the assessment process. Appropriate follow-up actions will depend both on the consistency between predictions and comparisons of the media concentration and screening levels. A bright line approach where the acceptable level definitively defines whether action is or is not taken should be avoided; instead, consideration should be given to how close the media concentrations are in relation to the site screening levels (SL), in light of the uncertainty in the data, as outlined in Table 4. Particularly, when results are borderline or inconclusive, a multiple lines-of-evidence approach should be followed where a combination of measurements from different media are used to decide on appropriate responses to safeguard human health.
2010
Table 4: Decision Matrix for Recommended Actions

Measured concentration is: < 0.5xSL > 0.5xSL but < 10xSL Recommended Action1 No further testing typically warranted Depending on how close the measured concentration is to acceptable SL and data uncertainty, consider the need for additional subsurface characterization and/or indoor air testing program1 Indoor air testing program1 and/or preemptive exposure controls
> 10 x SL
1 Indoor air testing program should generally include subslab vapour, outdoor air and ancillary building
testing. Site screening levels (SL) are calculated using approach described in Section 4.3.2.8. This framework may also be implemented through comparison of measured media concentrations to site screening levels.
4.3.3
Soil Vapour Screening Using the Modified Generic Risk Assessment Model The Modified Generic Risk Assessment (MGRA) Model provides the option of generating soil vapour screening levels (SVSLs) for residential and commercial land uses based on site specific soil types and depths to soil vapour measurement. The MGRA model uses the same basic assumptions and exposure scenarios used in the development of the generic soil condition standards (MOE 2009a) for the vapour intrusion pathways (S-IA and GW2). The SVSLs calculated by MGRA model can also be used to conduct screening level soil vapour intrusion assessments for brownfield sites. For details on how to use this model, as well as sampling and reporting requirements, please refer to A Guide to Using the Modified Generic Risk Assessment (Tier 2) Spreadsheet Model, available at: http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/land/decomm/condition.htm.
4.4
DETAILED VAPOUR INTRUSION ASSESSMENT For the vapour intrusion pathway, a detailed assessment (Tier 3 risk assessment) will typically include collection and characterization of building interior data to evaluate potential exposure (when there are buildings present). Usually, it includes collection of indoor air, subslab soil vapour and outdoor air concentrations as well as building properties. A detailed assessment may also include development of site specific screening levels using different models and/or different input parameters than those
2010
specified under the screening level assessment (Section 4.3.2). In cases where the assessment is conducted for existing communities and buildings, any modification of the default input parameters should be based on site-specific data (e.g. soil type, depth to water table, building conditions). Also the presence of any model precluding conditions needs to be verified (typically through a door-to-door survey). However, conditions of closure will typically include verification of model predictions through indoor air and subslab vapour testing. 4.4.1 Estimation of Input Parameters Estimation of input parameters is challenging since only some input parameters may be directly measured; for others, observations, intuition and experience will influence the selection of reasonable inputs for vapour intrusion models. The text below describes approaches and procedures for estimating input parameter values for use in the Johnson and Ettinger model. Water-filled and Total Porosity and Bulk Density As part of a detailed soil vapour intrusion assessment, one option is to measure soil moisture and density, and to calculate the water-filled and total porosity based on these measurements. When soil samples are obtained below the building, a direct measurement approach may be reasonable; however, care must be taken to minimize disturbance to soil samples since this will result in inaccurate measurements. Where possible, soil sampling techniques that minimize disturbance should be used (e.g., Shelby tube sampler). Where it is not possible to obtain soil samples below the building or where a future scenario is being evaluated, the use of water retention models may provide for more accurate prediction of soil moisture conditions below a building. As a starting point, a water retention estimation method can be used (e.g. van Genuchten (VG) (van Genuchten, 1980)) assuming relatively dry conditions below a building. There are other methods for estimating water-filled porosity. For example, a water retention curve can be generated from the measured grain size distribution and volume mass properties of the soil using the method by Fredlund and Wilson (1997), which builds the curve by successively estimating a water retention curve for each particle-size group in the grain size distribution. There are also software programs for estimation of water retention parameters from soil grain size data (e.g., Rosetta model and SoilVision model v.4.34). Consideration may also be given to dividing the capillary transition zone into multiple layers to more closely approximate the water-filled porosity.
2010
Johnson (2005) recommends the use of a normalized parameter for soil moisture, consisting of the water-filled porosity divided by over the total porosity (water saturation), to guide selection of reasonable soil moisture inputs for different soil types. Soil Vapour Advection Rate (Qsoil) As indicated in Section 4.3.2.4, the use of the perimeter crack model for calculating Qsoil is not recommended by the MOE. In detailed soil vapour intrusion assessments and/or site-specific risk assessments (Tier 3), proponents may use alternative values for Qsoil (other than those recommended by the MOE in Table 2) based on: empirical attenuation factors and a specified range of values for the ratio of Qsoil/Qbuilding. Johnson (2005) used mass balance principles to show that the Qsoil/Qbuilding ratio is equal to the ratio of indoor air concentrations divided by subslab vapour concentrations (i.e., the subslab vapour to indoor air attenuation factor). The Qsoil value could be calculated from this ratio, if the building air exchange rate and volume are known (i.e. Qbuilding is known) (Geosyntec 2010). A detailed rationale regarding the selected empirical attenuation factor may be required. Typically, the Qsoil/Qbuilding ratio is between 0.0001 and 0.01 (Johnson 2005); or a specified value for Qsoil (based on values from tracer tests). The tracer test concept is based on characterizing soil vapour concentrations below the slab, indoors and outdoors. If the building ventilation rate is known, and if advection is the main process for vapour intrusion, then from mass flux considerations, Qsoil can be calculated. The tracer could be a natural tracer like radon, measured VOC concentrations (when indoor background contribution is negligible), or an injected tracer such as He or SF6. If the proposed Qsoil value is based on published literature, a detailed rationale must be provided on why the proposed value is applicable to the site and existing buildings.
In many cases, it will not be feasible to measure the Qsoil, using tracer tests. For that the recommended approach is to start with the default soil gas flow rates and to normalize Qsoil such that Qsoil/Qbuild remains roughly constant and near the mid-point of the empirical range of subslab alphas. This is a reasonable constraint based on comparison of model predictions to the subslab vapour attenuation factor. There are other possible approaches or adjusting the Qsoil based on the ratio of Qsoil to building foundation area or perimeter crack length; however, the differences between these approaches and one based on the Qsoil/Qbuild ratio are relatively small.
2010
Building pressure measurements can also be used to refine estimates of the soil gas advection rate. At an initial scoping level, such measurements can be useful in determining whether, in fact, there is a driving pressure gradient that would result in soil gas intrusion. Commercial buildings, in particular, can be positively pressurized effectively eliminating the contribution of soil gas advection to intrusion. Soil air permeability tests can also be used to refine the estimated soil-air permeability input in the Perimeter Crack Model, or other models used to simulate soil gas flow. These tests can be performed by using a pump to extract soil gas from a small well or probe and measuring pressure and flow. There are several mathematical solutions that can be used to estimate soil air permeability from this data, including those referenced in Johnson et al. (1990) and Garbesi et al. (1995). It is noted that if the intent is to estimate Qsoil (i.e., test near foundation soil), then both the test procedure and interpretation may be complicated by the presence of the foundation and disturbed soils. Building Mixing Height As part of a detailed site assessment, observational data and evaluation of mechanical ventilation design, in particular cross-floor mixing and leakage, may be used to refine the mixing height. In some cases, mechanical or HVAC engineers can provide useful information on mixing heights. It may also be important to evaluate thermal stratification for some buildings, since this may affect mixing of vapour within the building. Building Ventilation Rate The screening level assessment defaults for building ventilation rates are an air change rate of 0.30 hr-1 for residential scenario and air change of 1 hr-1 for commercial scenario. The air exchange rate for residential buildings typically ranges from 0.2 air changes per hour (ach) for airtight homes to 2.0 ach for leaky homes (U.S. EPA, 1988). In an Ontario study, air change rates from 70 houses ranged from 0.06 to 0.77, with the lowest air exchange occurring in summer with closed windows in R-2000 houses (Walkinshaw, 1987). In a study completed in Saskatchewan and Tilsonburg, Ontario, the average measured air change rate from 44 houses was 0.34 ach (SRC, 1992), while in a study completed in the Greater Toronto area, the average air exchange rate from 44 houses was 0.45 ach (Otson and Zhu, 1997). In regions with relatively cold climates, the recent trend has been to construct air-tight houses with reduced ventilation rates to minimize energy consumption and costs (e.g., R-2000 houses in Canada; Gusdorf and Hamlin, 1995, now called energy star homes). In Canada, the minimum required ventilation rate under the CSA F326 standard for Residential Mechanical Ventilation Systems depends on the number and types of rooms in the house but usually works out to about 0.3 air changes per hour.
2010
As part of a detailed site assessment, several factors could be considered to possibly refine ventilation rates including HVAC design information and observations providing qualitative information on ventilation rate (i.e., open doors and windows). It is also possible to measure the ventilation rate using a tracer test (e.g., carbon dioxide tracer), as described in the ASTM E741 standard. However, the measured ventilation rate is specific to the building and environmental conditions under which the test was performed and therefore may not provide information on longer-term ventilation trends. Building Size As part of a detailed assessment, the building size can be measured. For the J&E model, the predicted indoor air concentrations decrease as the building size increases, if all other inputs are held constant. Building Foundation Crack Size or Area Ratio The crack ratio, expressed as the area of the cracks divided by the subsurface foundation area, is difficult to measure or estimate. For several radon studies, the back calculated crack ratio for residential houses ranged from 10-4 to 10-3 using field data from tracer tests and a soil gas flow model (Nazaroff (1992), Revzan et al. (1991), and Nazaroff et al. (1985)). There have also been attempts to measure crack widths, although this is practically difficult to do. Figley and Snodgrass (1992) present data from ten houses where edge crack measurements were made. At the eight houses where cracks were observed, the cracks widths ranged from hairline cracks up to 5 mm wide, while the total crack length ranged from 2.5 to 17.3 m. Most crack widths were less than 1 mm. The crack ratio used for regulatory or guidance purposes varies significantly. The VOLASOIL (Dutch Ministry of Environment) model recommends a crack ratio range of 10-6 (good foundation) to 10-4 (poor foundation) while Johnson and Ettinger (1991) for illustrative purposes selected a crack ratio of 0.001 to 0.01. For detailed assessment purposes, a reasonable starting point may be a range of 10-4 to 10-3, which corresponds to a perimeter crack width of about 1 to 2 mm for residential sized buildings. While a perimeter edge crack between the foundation walls and base is relatively common, there may also be untrapped drains, shrinkage cracks in concrete, and/or small cracks surrounding utility penetrations. If the building has a poor quality foundation, a somewhat higher crack ratio may be justified, while if the foundation is of high quality or is coated with a sealant (e.g., epoxy) or other floor coverings, a lower crack ratio may be warranted.
2010
4.4.2
Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) Testing An overview of key issues for IAQ studies is presented below with details provided in Chapter 6. An IAQ study requires proper planning. A communications program, access agreements and pre-sampling survey and occupant questionnaire are vital. In particular, the survey should identify potential background sources for the chemicals of potential concern and building properties or conditions that could influence vapour migration pathways and indoor vapour concentrations. This information, together with previous information obtained as part of subsurface investigation programs, should be used to refine the CSM. Important factors to consider include data on building type, building foundation construction, near-foundation soils, potential preferential pathways (e.g., utilities, sumps, drains), building heating ventilation and air condition (HVAC) system, building operation (e.g., operation of appliances, fans, etc.) and meteorological conditions (e.g., temperature, wind, barometric pressure).
4.4.2.1
IAQ Study Design The next step is to develop the IAQ program. For many sites, the scope will include concurrent indoor air, subslab vapour and outdoor air testing since this data can often help to distinguish between background and subsurface vapour sources. Experience gained at sites indicates that the spatial and temporal variability in indoor air and subslab vapour concentrations tends to be high. A minimum of two to three subslab soil vapour samples per building is recommended and multiple indoor air samples should also typically be obtained. A larger number of subslab vapour samples or high volume composite samples may be warranted for larger commercial or industrial buildings. More than one sampling event under different climatic (e.g., summer/winter) and building conditions will also generally be required to avoid basing a decision on potentially non-representative or incomplete data. A complicating factor is that the timescales for temporal within building variability can range from a few hours (HVAC operation, wind effects) to months (seasonal temperature variations). When contamination is below multiple buildings, the IAQ program should typically be prioritized to begin with testing of buildings above the highest concentration areas, although if there are differences in the susceptibility of the foundation to vapour intrusion, this factor may also influence selection of buildings. The number of buildings should be sufficient to draw initial conclusions of concentration trends. Building Conditions and Methods The conditions under which the indoor air sampling is to be performed should also be defined. Typically, the building should be sampled under normal
2010
conditions of occupancy, although in some cases, building conditions may be controlled to facilitate sampling under either pressurized or depressurized conditions. Whenever possible, potential background sources of chemicals should be removed from the building prior to sampling. Ancillary data on building conditions, such as differential pressure measurements between indoor and outdoor air and indoor air and subslab gas, and tracer tests to estimate building air change rates should also be considered. Differential pressure data may be important for interpretation of subslab vapour data, which may be affected in different ways depending on whether there is infiltration of soil vapour into the building, or exfiltration of air from the building to subslab soil. Appropriate methods should be followed for collection of indoor air data. Composite samples (typically 24-hour duration) should be obtained, but longer duration is preferred where practicable. 4.4.2.2 Background Issues The possible confounding influence of background chemicals is often an important issue for data interpretation. Particularly problematic chemicals are those where background levels may exceed acceptable toxicological concentrations in indoor air (e.g., benzene, chloroform, carbon tetrachloride, and tetrachloroethene in a residential setting (Dawson and McAlary, 2009). Risk management decisions and risk communication can be problematic when the influence of background is not well characterized. Sources of background VOCs in indoor air include consumer products, building materials, combustion products and ambient (outdoor) air. There is significant variability in background concentrations depending on location, and building type and use. Although it can be difficult to quantify the influence of background, a multiple lines-of-evidence approach can assist in this process. The lines-of-evidence that can be evaluated include review of possible background VOC sources in buildings, comparison of indoor air concentrations to published literature values or a control building study, subslab vapour data, spatial relationships in data providing evidence for vapour intrusion, and/or relationships between different media concentrations (constituent ratios) providing evidence for vapour intrusion based on consistent patterns or ratios observed. Another line-of-evidence is to evaluate whether measured indoor air concentrations are plausible given the source soil vapour concentrations and conservative estimate of vapour attenuation between the source and building. For this line-of-evidence, there should be representative subsurface media concentrations and attenuation factor used should be sufficiently conservative to avoid a priori discounting of vapour intrusion.
2010
4.4.3
Data Evaluation and Next Steps The decision-making process and determination of next steps should consider data uncertainty and adequacy, and how close the measured media concentration is to the acceptable screening level. When measured indoor air concentrations are less than acceptable risk-based target concentrations, the data uncertainty and adequacy should be reviewed to determine whether additional monitoring is warranted. When measured indoor air concentrations exceed acceptable risk-based target concentrations, exposure controls may be warranted, although potential contribution of background sources to measured concentrations in indoor air should be considered when evaluating the need for exposure controls. The multiple lines-of-evidence approach described in Chapter 6 should be followed when evaluating the potential influence of background on indoor air quality measurements. When the estimated or measured indoor air concentrations are significantly above the acceptable risk-based target levels, exposure controls implemented in the short-term to control receptor exposure may in be warranted. The Ontario Ministry of Environment should be consulted when determining appropriate actions when this is the case
4.4.4
Exposure Controls Exposure controls may include measures to eliminate or reduce contamination sources or intercept or control the vapour migration pathway (e.g., subslab depressurization or venting systems). There are several resources available that provide guidance or common practices on the selection, installation, and long term monitoring of vapour intrusion mitigation systems, some of them are: ITRC, 2007. Vapor Intrusion - A Practical Guide o USEPA, 2008. Engineering Issue. Indoor Air Vapor Intrusion Mitigation Approaches, EPA/600/R-08-115, October. ASTM E2435 - 05 Standard Guide for Application of Engineering Controls to Facilitate Use or Redevelopment of Chemical-Affected Properties http://www.astm.org/Standards/E2435.htm ASTM E2121 - 08 Standard Practice for Installing Radon Mitigation Systems in Existing Low-Rise Residential Buildings http://www.astm.org/Standards/E2121.htm
2010
ASTM E1465 - 08 Standard Practice for Radon Control Options for the Design and Construction of New Low-Rise Residential Buildings http://www.astm.org/Standards/E1465.htm U.S. EPA. Engineering Issue Indoor Air Vapor Intrusion Mitigation Approaches. EPA/600/R-08-115. October 2008.
Mitigation system design also depends to some degree on building-specific conditions, access constraints, owner and occupant preferences and practical considerations. The qualified person should be aware of the information in the documents listed above and provide sufficient design detail and performance monitoring data to justify and defend the selection and performance of any mitigation system.
2010
2010
CHAPTER 5 SOIL VAPOUR CHARACTERIZATION

CHAPTER 5 SOIL VAPOUR CHARACTERIZATION ............................................................ 5-2
5.1 5.2 5.3 5.3.1 5.3.2 5.3.3 5.3.4 5.4 5.4.1 5.4.2 5.4.3 5.4.4 5.4.5 5.4.6 5.5 5.5.1 5.5.2 5.5.3 5.5.4 5.5.5 5.5.6 5.6 5.6.1 5.6.2 5.6.3 5.6.4 5.6.5 5.7 5.8 5.8.1 5.8.2 5.8.3 5.8.4
Context, Purpose and Scope ................................................................................ 5-2 Study Objectives .................................................................................................. 5-3 Soil Vapour Sampling Approach and Design...................................................... 5-3 Overview of Sampling Strategy........................................................................... 5-3 Considerations for Sampling Locations............................................................... 5-4 When to Sample and Sampling Frequency........................................................ 5-12 Biodegradation Assessment ............................................................................... 5-13 Soil Gas Probe Construction and Installation .................................................... 5-15 Probes Installed in Boreholes............................................................................. 5-16 Direct Push Technology..................................................................................... 5-17 Use of Water Table Monitoring Wells as Soil Gas Probes................................ 5-18 Subslab Soil Gas Probes .................................................................................... 5-18 Probe Materials .................................................................................................. 5-20 Short-Circuiting Considerations and Shallow Probes........................................ 5-21 Soil Gas Sampling Procedures........................................................................... 5-21 Probe Development and Soil Gas Equilibration ................................................ 5-21 Flow and Vacuum (Probe Performance) Check ................................................ 5-22 Sampling Container or Device........................................................................... 5-22 Decontamination of Sampling Equipment......................................................... 5-24 Testing of Equipment for Leaks and Short Circuiting....................................... 5-25 Sample Probe Purging and Sampling ................................................................ 5-26 Soil Gas Analysis............................................................................................... 5-28 Selection of Method........................................................................................... 5-28 Field Detectors ................................................................................................... 5-29 Field Laboratory Analysis.................................................................................. 5-31 Fixed Laboratory Analysis................................................................................. 5-32 Quality Assurance / Quality Control Considerations......................................... 5-37 Ancillary Data.................................................................................................... 5-39 Data Interpretation and Analysis ....................................................................... 5-42 Data Organization and Reporting ...................................................................... 5-42 Data Quality Analysis ........................................................................................ 5-42 Data Consistency Analysis ................................................................................ 5-43 Further Evaluation ............................................................................................. 5-44
2010
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 5. Soil Vapour Characterization
5-2
CHAPTER 5 SOIL VAPOUR CHARACTERIZATION

This chapter describes methodologies for characterization of soil vapour, since at many sites soil vapour measurements are an important component of a technically defensible assessment of soil vapour intrusion. A summary of considerations for sampling and analysis of other media (soil and groundwater) is also provided as well as ancillary information that may assist in the interpretation of soil vapour data and evaluation of soil vapour intrusion. 5.1 CONTEXT, PURPOSE AND SCOPE This chapter describes methodologies for characterization of soil vapour, since at many sites soil vapour measurements are an important component of a technically defensible assessment of soil vapour intrusion. A summary of considerations for sampling and analysis of other media (soil and groundwater) is also provided as well as ancillary information that may assist in the interpretation of soil vapour data and evaluation of soil vapour intrusion. Comprehensive procedures for soil vapour characterization are needed since historically greater emphasis has been placed on soil and groundwater testing, with only limited guidance available for soil vapour. There is significant recent interest in soil vapour methods and recognition that testing of this media provides for a more direct indication of the contaminant phase that may migrate into indoor air. However, it is critical that an appropriate sampling approach and methods be followed to obtain representative data. Soil and groundwater concentrations may also be used for evaluating the vapour intrusion pathway through estimation of the chemical partitioning from soil or groundwater to soil vapour. While there are limitations and uncertainties associated with the use of soil data, and to a lesser extent groundwater, for evaluating soil vapour intrusion (as subsequently described in this chapter), soil and groundwater data may provide useful additional lines-of-evidence for evaluation of soil vapour intrusion. The context of this chapter is to provide guidance on characterization of soil vapour intrusion; however, the concepts and techniques described are applicable for any site assessment where soil vapour sampling is proposed. Since soil vapour characterization programs are highly influenced by site specific conditions and project-specific objectives and potential constraints, it is not possible to provide a standardized template for sampling design and methods. However, the key principles and factors that should be considered in developing a sampling strategy are outlined and a range of methods are described to provide the practitioner with the necessary approaches and tools to investigate this pathway.
2010
5-3
5.2
STUDY OBJECTIVES The overall goal of a soil vapour investigation is typically to provide the data needed to evaluate potential risk to occupants of buildings who may be exposed to vapours migrating in indoor air. Specific objectives of the soil vapour investigation may include the following: Compare measured soil vapour concentrations to risk-based generic or site-specific soil vapour criteria or screening levels; Provide soil vapour data needed for input into models used for sitespecific risk assessment; Evaluate hydrocarbon vapour biodegradation through collection of soil vapour samples from vertical profiles or lateral transects; Evaluate cross-media transfer (chemical partitioning and attenuation through the capillary fringe) through comparison of measured concentrations in co-located groundwater and soil vapour sampling points; Evaluate models used to simulate soil vapour transport through collection of soil vapour samples at various points along the migration pathway and comparison to model-predicted soil vapour concentration profiles; and, Evaluate the influence of background chemical sources on indoor air samples through concurrent collection of subslab vapour and indoor air samples.
The study objectives should be well defined prior to developing a sampling plan, as there may be substantive differences in sampling plans depending on the type of data required and how that data is intended to be used. 5.3 5.3.1 SOIL VAPOUR SAMPLING APPROACH AND DESIGN Overview of Sampling Strategy Typically, the early phase(s) of the soil vapour investigation should focus on characterisation of soil vapour concentrations in close proximity to the known or suspected sources of vapours since as subsequently discussed, soil vapour from near to the source is least influenced by spatial and temporal variability in concentrations. For many contamination scenarios, the source consists of NAPL or dissolved constituents at the water table; therefore, deeper samples are strongly recommended to characterize the source. It is also often important to obtain some initial data on the lateral and vertical variability in the soil vapour concentrations through the use of transects and vertical profiles, since these data can improve the confidence in the results and the conceptual site model. If the initial characterisation indicates soil vapour
2010
5-4
concentrations at or above levels of potential concern, an additional phase of soil vapour investigation may be required. Alternately or in addition to soil vapour external (adjacent) to the building, testing of subslab vapour and indoor air may be warranted as part of subsequent phases. The sampling design, which includes definition of the number of probes, their location, when to sample and frequency of sampling, should consider the characteristics of the contamination source, geologic heterogeneity, possible temporal changes in site conditions, and where relevant, anthropogenic features such as utility corridors, particularly where they intersect confining soil layers. Repeat testing of soil vapour over different time periods to capture possible seasonal variations will often be warranted. 5.3.2 Considerations for Sampling Locations An important consideration for the design of a soil vapour study is the sampling location. While there is a continuum of possible sampling locations, it is helpful to categorise sampling locations as deep (near source) soil vapour, intermediate (mid-way between the source and the building), and subslab (immediately beneath the floor slab) and to identify issues and considerations for these three generic sampling locations (Table 5). Deep (Near Source) Soil Vapour Soil vapour samples obtained from near the vapour contamination source will tend to be stable seasonally and are relatively unaffected by near-surface processes (i.e., building, weather conditions), except in instances where a LNAPL smear zone is present and water levels fluctuate dramatically over time. Near source soil vapour concentrations are also less influenced by biodegradation or biotransformation processes and will reach steady state conditions relatively quickly. The variability in soil vapour concentrations will tend to increase as the distance from the contamination source increases. When determining where to locate deep soil vapour probes, it is important to recognize that soil vapour samples cannot be obtained until there is a continuous interconnected network of gas-filled pores, which is a function of the capillary transition zone height above the water table. To avoid the zone of excessive moisture, soil gas probes should generally be installed about 0.5 m to 1 m above the water table. Many sites have groundwater monitoring wells screened across the
Example Prediction of Capillary Transition Zone Height The height above the water table where the transition to continuous gas-filled pores begins can be approximated using a water retention model (e.g., Van Genuchten model). Using model input parameters for US Soil Conservation Service (SCS) soil texture classifications, the predicted height of this transition point is approximately 17 cm for sand and 38 cm for loam. See Golder (2007) for additional information on water retention modeling.
2010
5-5
water table, and if they are properly sealed and adequately purged (for example oxygen and PID readings stabilizing after successive purged volumes), these can be used to draw deep soil gas samples. Intermediate (Mid-Way between Source and Building) Soil Vapour Shallow soil vapour samples are more likely to be affected by geologic heterogeneity, changes in near-surface conditions such as barometric pressure or temperature fluctuations, and surface cover (e.g., paved versus non-paved surface). Near a building, soil gas advection, caused by building depressurization, and variation in foundation subsoils can cause variability in soil vapour concentrations. Therefore, it is recommended that near-building soil vapour samples be collected at a depth mid-way between the building foundation and the source. Bioattenuation is an important process for aerobically biodegradable chemicals (e.g., petroleum hydrocarbon compounds such as BTEX) that should be taken into account when locating soil gas probes. There are several case studies indicating a large reduction in soil vapour concentrations over small distances may result when there are soil layers with high moisture content (e.g., fine-grained layer) or aerobic biodegradation of hydrocarbon vapours (Fischer et al., 1996, Hers et al., 2000). There may also be significant lateral concentration gradients over short distances as evidenced by large concentration differences for probes situated on either side of houses (Sanders and Hers, 2006). However, for some sites, soil vapour concentrations below a building may be significantly higher than the vapour concentrations beside a building (i.e., at the same elevation) due to oxygen transport limitations and drier soils below the building. The results of a modeling study by Abreu and Johnson (2005) provide valuable insight on possible vapour concentration patterns for biodegradable contamination below buildings (Figure 8). Based on these simulations, shallow soil vapour samples external to the building could lead to non-conservative predictions of indoor vapour concentrations, but samples collected mid-way between the building depth and source depth would likely be more representative.
2010
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 5. Soil Vapour Characterization Hydrocarbon Vapours Oxygen
5-6
FIGURE 8. Results of 3-D Oxygen-Limited Soil Vapour Transport Modeling for High Concentration Source (Cg = 100 mg/L) and Moderate Concentration Source (Cg = 20 mg/L) (from Abreu and Johnson, 2005)
Subslab Soil Vapour Characterisation of subslab soil vapour below a building foundation may be warranted when deeper soil vapour tests indicate potentially unacceptable health risk or when there is a shallow contamination source. Subslab soil vapour testing may be advantageous when initially screening buildings (i.e., before indoor air quality data is obtained) and also in conjunction with indoor air testing to evaluate the potential for a complete pathway and indoor sources of chemicals (see Chapter 6). It is important to recognize that with barometric pressure fluctuations and positively pressurized buildings, it is possible for indoor air to move from the building into the subslab soil gas. If indoor air contains elevated VOC concentrations (e.g., as seen at some dry cleaner sites), this could confound interpretation of subslab data. The reverse intrusion phenomenon (vapour extrusion) can be evaluated by monitoring the pressure differential across the slab using digital micromanometers. The following factors should be taken into account when designing a sampling program that includes the collection of subslab soil vapour: A coarse-grained soil layer below a building foundation, or small crack or void below the foundation slab due to settlement will tend to
2010
5-7
promote lateral soil gas flow and will yield gas at appreciable flow rates with minimal vacuum when sampled; There may be spatial or temporal variations in subslab vapour concentrations as a result of source concentration variability, biodegradation of hydrocarbon vapours or advective pumping of soil gas caused by barometric pressure changes; and, Subslab vapour concentrations may be highest near the centre of a building for a uniform contamination source; however, the soil gas advection rates into a building may be greatest at a perimeter crack, which may be present along the interface between the floor slab and foundation wall.
Guidance on subslab soil vapour sampling has been developed by various agencies (ITRC, 2007; EPRI, 2005; USEPA, 2002). Recent data indicates significant spatial variability in subslab concentrations below even single family dwelling sized buildings (e.g., USEPA, 2008; USEPA, 2006). Multiple samples may be needed to adequately characterize this variability, so the scope and cost of subslab vapour characterization programs can be significant, especially if monitoring of multiple buildings in a residential neighbourhood is required. There are practical drawbacks associated with subslab sampling that should be recognized. Subslab sampling is intrusive in that drilling or coring equipment must be used inside the building and floor coverings may be damaged, which may be disruptive or undesirable for owners and occupants. The work may require an access agreement from the building owner. It may also be difficult to determine subsurface utility locations below slabs, although geophysical techniques (e.g., ground penetrating radar) may be used for this purpose. Due to the challenges of subslab sampling, it is not always a practical line of evidence. Future research may identify alternative sub-slab sampling methods that will overcome these challenges. Future Land Use Considerations If the objective of the risk assessment is to predict exposure under future conditions, the soil vapour sampling design should consider how land use changes will affect soil vapour measurements and data interpretation. Changes to surface conditions and development would tend to have the greatest effect on shallow vapour concentrations and the least effect on soil vapour concentrations near to the contamination source. Therefore, it is recommended that soil vapour characterization programs for the future use scenario focus on sampling of deep near source soil gas.
2010
5-8
TABLE 5: Comparison of Soil Vapour Measurement Locations Type of Soil Vapour Data Deep Soil Vapour (external)
Where Obtained As near to water table as practical, subject to considerations relating to capillary fringe and depth limitations for drilling.
Characteristics Concentrations reach near-steady conditions quickly, tend to be stable seasonally and are relatively unaffected by nearsurface changes. Least affected by biodegradation. Should represent the highest concentrations of soil vapour.
Use of Data and Cautions
If deep vapour concentrations are below target levels, vapour to indoor pathway likely not significant. For future development scenario, only deep vapour concentrations should be used. Shallow soil vapour Intermediate Close to the Water content and oxygen Soil Vapour building, but outside concentrations should be lower content beside a building than deep concentrations. (external) peri-foundational may be greater than area. Sample depth Include monitoring of O2 and CO2 beneath the building, so should be mid-way when assessing hydrocarbon external soil vapour between lowest part vapours. samples may of foundation and underestimate risks for the vapour source. hydrocarbons. Logistical issues Subslab Soil Immediately below Higher temporal and spatial associated with sample variability expected as samples Vapour foundation slab. are affected by changes in near- collection. Generally, central Costly to collect sufficient location away from surface conditions such as barometric pumping, temperature samples for statistical the foundation assessment of spatial and footings preferred. changes, HVAC systems and variability in foundation subsoils. temporal variability using Potentially more representative for current methods. Depending on where hydrocarbons, since sub-slab concentrations already reflect the subsurface vapours enter a effect of biodegradation between building through the building foundation, the vapour source and the subslab sample location building. Greater potential for non steady may or may not be representative of the state conditions depending on vapour concentrations distance from vapour source to entering the building. measurement point. May be affected by subslab utilities (e.g., drains, sewers).
2010
5-9
2-3 m
Min 1/2 D
Subslab vapour
May use soil vapour (provided data is representative) Capillary Transition Zone
FIGURE 9. Soil Vapour Sampling Locations and Vertical Profile Concept
Capillary Transition Zone
FIGURE 10. Lateral Transect Concept
2010
5-10
Lateral Transects and Vertical Profiles The soil vapour sampling design may employ transects or vertical profiles to characterize spatial variation in concentrations (Figures 9 and 10). Lateral transects or vertical profiles can provide useful information for more in-depth analysis of the effect of biodegradation or fine-grained soil layers on soil vapour transport and pathway evaluation. Transect or vertical profile data can increase the level of confidence in the CSM for soil vapour transport and data quality.
Criteria for External Soil Vapour The recommended soil vapour design for vapour intrusion assessment is: 1. Sample on at least two sides of building; probes generally to be located within 2 to 3 m of building. Obtain soil vapour selected locations. profiles at
2. 3.
Minimum depth equal to half-way between lowest part of building foundation and contamination source, further constrained to be a minimum of 1 m below ground surface. Use maximum near-building
Lateral transects are generally used concentration. when the contamination source is laterally removed from the 5. Generally repeat sampling on at least two occasions. building. Generally, a minimum of three samples should be used as part of a transect, consisting of soil gas samples from (i) the edge of contamination source nearest to building, (ii) the mid-point between source and building, and (iii) near the edge of building (API, 2005). While three sampling locations are likely sufficient for many sites, consideration could be given to additional intermediate probes if the distance between the contamination source and building is greater than 30 m. Vertical profiles are generally used when the contamination source is below the building. Again, three or more samples should be obtained from (i) just above the contamination source, (ii) mid-point between upper and lower sampling point, and (iii) a sampling point located near the building and/or a sub-slab sample. The contamination source must be at least 1.5 m below the building foundation (and preferably >3 m) for vertical profiles to be effective in resolving vertical concentration trends. Additional probes are recommended where there are changes in lithology, where changes in concentrations are expected, or where the distance between the source and building is sufficiently large. The soil vapour sampling design should also consider the potential implications of subsurface utilities for sampling locations since utilities may represent preferential pathways for soil vapour migration.
4.
2010
5-11
Recommended Soil Vapour Sampling Locations External to Building The lateral spacing of deep soil gas probes needed to characterize soil vapour source zones is highly dependent on site conditions and the number and size of buildings where soil vapour intrusion is of potential concern. For large disperse groundwater plumes, a soil gas probe spacing of several tens of meters may be adequate. For smaller plumes and hydrocarbon sites where steep concentration gradients are expected, more closely spaced probes are warranted (e.g., 5 m to 15 m). When evaluating potential vapour intrusion into a building, typically soil vapour samples from at least two sides of the building should be obtained, unless trends in soil vapour concentrations can be resolved and contoured on a broader scale. One location should be in the direction of the inferred highest soil vapour concentrations based on soil and groundwater data. The soil vapour sampling locations should be relatively close to the building (preferably within 2 to 3 m), but beyond the zone of disturbance and fill beside a building, unless property access constraints make this impracticable. For screening level assessment purposes, the model-predicted concentration patterns presented by Abreu and Johnson (2005, 2006) support a minimum depth criterion for soil vapour samples equal to half the distance between the building foundation and contamination source. The minimum depth should be further constrained as a minimum of 1 m below the elevation of the foundation slab base and 1 m below ground surface to be beyond the advective zone of influence associated with barometric pumping and building depressurization and of sufficient depth to minimize the potential for atmospheric air to be drawn into the sample. A maximum depth of 10 m below the foundation is considered a reasonable upper bound based on practical considerations (e.g., drilling costs). When the vertical profiles indicate a large degree of bioattenuation (orders-ofmagnitude) between the deep and mid-depth probe, the mid-depth probe result should be used with caution and consideration should be given to whether the mid-depth concentration is representative of conditions below the building, based on the criteria described above. Recommended Subslab Vapour Sampling Locations Below Building The number and location of subslab soil vapour samples that should be tested will depend on site-specific conditions. For small to moderate sized houses, a minimum of two to three subslab samples, preferably located in a central location away from the foundation footings, is considered reasonable for screening purposes. A greater number of samples are warranted for commercial building. It is recognized that practical considerations (e.g., homeowner access) will often dictate the location of subslab soil vapour samples. For larger buildings, multiple samples are recommended to investigate the variability in subslab soil vapour concentrations and for some buildings, it may be desirable
2010
5-12
to install sufficient probes to delineate areas with elevated subslab vapour concentrations. It is expected that future updates of this guidance will include a more definitive recommendation on the appropriate number of subslab samples as additional experience is gained in this area.
Characterization at Buildings with Shallow Contamination A different characterisation approach is typically warranted at sites with contamination below or near a building, such as dry cleaners where releases often occur via building sumps or drains, and where subslab or shallow soil vapour samples below buildings should typically be obtained. Evaluation of preferential pathways may also be important through review of site plans or geophysical techniques. Indoor air testing may also be useful; however, consideration should be given to confounding influence of background sources of chemicals (see Chapter 7).
5.3.3
When to Sample and Sampling Frequency Investigation of the soil vapour intrusion pathway will often require more than one round of soil vapour sampling since there can be significant temporal variability in soil vapour concentrations due to changes in source contamination concentrations, seasonal variations in the water table and conditions for hydrocarbon vapour bioattenuation. For example, if the water table level decreases, soil contamination, which previously was submerged by groundwater, could be exposed to soil gas thus resulting in increased volatilization. For soil vapour samples collected near to the building, there may be weather or building related sources of variability. In general, the sampling frequency should coincide with seasonal patterns for factors affecting soil vapour such as the water table elevation (i.e., high and low levels) and precipitation (soil moisture) (i.e., wet and dry season). One sampling event may sometimes be sufficient depending on the results of initial soil vapour testing. For example, if soil vapour concentrations are significantly less (i.e., greater than one order-of-magnitude) than concentrations of potential concern, and if vapour concentrations are unlikely to change significantly over time, one monitoring event may be sufficient. Alternately, if soil vapour concentrations are close to screening levels, repeat testing may be warranted. Soil vapour sampling can be sensitive to weather changes particularly to shallow samples (less than 2 m below ground surface). Shallow soil vapour sampling should be avoided during and after heavy rainfall events since collection of a representative sample may be difficult. In addition, infiltration of water into soil can result in negative bias in soil vapour concentrations due to partitioning of vapour into soil moisture and, in some cases, induce advective movement of soil gas. The time for moisture to drain from soil pores will depend on the soil type. Coarse-grained soil (sand or gravel) will
2010
5-13
drain to field capacity within a few hours (from complete saturation) while fine-grained soil will take longer to drain (Hillel, 1980). Field capacity is the soil water content after water drainage by the force of gravity is mostly complete. Based on drainage data, it is recommended that you wait at least one day after a heavy rainfall event (defined here as 1 cm) for coarse-grained soils (sand or gravel), and several days for fine-grained soils. The design of a soil gas sampling program should consider the possible effect of barometric pressure fluctuations. These fluctuations could influence shallow soil vapour concentrations when there are thick coarse-grained unsaturated zones. A conservative approach would be to collect soil vapour samples when the barometric pressure is decreasing. However, it is generally not practical to schedule soil gas sampling events to target the desired barometric pressure. However, barometric pressure data for several days before and after sampling should be obtained, when available. Frost cover can also reduce soil gas flux through ground surface, increase pressure gradients, and affect subsurface soil vapour concentrations. Consideration should be given to repeat sampling when frost cover is not present. 5.3.4 Biodegradation Assessment At some sites, more detailed monitoring of soil vapour may be warranted to evaluate the biodegradation of petroleum hydrocarbon vapours and to determine the extent to which hydrocarbon vapours are degraded before reaching the building. When evaluating biodegradation in the context of the vapour intrusion pathway, it is important to recognize that the building may influence local conditions for biodegradation below and near to the building. The recommended biodegradation assessment consists of sampling of vertical profiles adjacent to the buildings of potential concern, or lateral transects if the contamination source is offset from the building. Where possible, external probes should be situated below (preferably the middle of) a surface cover of similar permeability and size compared to the building (concrete or asphalt of reasonable quality). To provide for delineation of biodegradation effects, four vertical probes are generally recommended, although three may be sufficient if the distance between the building and source is small. The shallowest probe should generally be installed at least 1 m below ground surface. The deepest probe should extend to near to the contamination source. Bioattenuation assessments should also include careful assessment of the contamination source zone distribution through collection of soil samples and field headspace vapour testing (e.g., using a photoionization detector) and laboratory analysis of selected soil samples. A continuous soil core is recommended so that the lithology can be examined. Fine-grained soils with high moisture content can act as diffusive barriers, which give the appearance of bioattenuation. Since
2010
5-14
soils below a building will tend to be drier, there may be less attenuation through diffusion below the building. Soil gas samples should be tested for the hydrocarbon vapours of potential concern, and as a minimum, for oxygen, carbon dioxide and methane. These gases provide an indication of microbial activity occurring through aerobic or anaerobic processes. For example, depleted oxygen and elevated carbon dioxide levels are indicators of aerobic biodegradation of hydrocarbons. Consideration should be given to the analysis of certain hydrocarbon compounds (e.g., cyclohexane, 2,2,4-trimethylpentane) that are more volatile than the BTEX compounds, and potentially less biodegradable, and which serve as useful tracers for hydrocarbon vapour transport (Sanders and Hers, 2006). The assessment of bioattenuation should consider the potential for reduced biodegradation below buildings and potential non-representative soil vapour conditions in shallow samples external to the building. The key factors affecting bioattenuation below buildings include source vapour concentration, the depth to vapour source below the building, the building size, the surface cover and potential capping effect, and lateral uniformity of contamination below the building. The conditions leading to non-representative external soil vapour concentrations (subslab concentrations that are higher than external concentrations) and representative external soil vapour concentrations (similar concentrations) are evaluated in Table 6. The above qualitative factors should be reviewed when evaluating the use of external soil vapour data. If conditions suggest shallow data may not be representative, then it is recommended that deep soil vapour data be used for assessment purposes. Alternately, consideration could be given to sampling and analysis of subslab soil vapour samples to confirm that bioattenuation is also occurring below the building. If multiple buildings are potentially affected, testing below a subset of building(s) in the highest source concentration area may be sufficient to demonstrate bioattenuation is occurring. Hydrocarbon vapour biodegradation is an area of active research. It is expected that more quantitative guidance on how to apply the above factors will be developed over the next few years.
2010
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 5. Soil Vapour Characterization TABLE 6: Evaluation of Factors Affecting Below Building Hydrocarbon Vapour Bioattenuation and Soil Vapour Data Representativeness Conditions that Limit Below Building Bioattenuation and Lead to NonRepresentative External Soil Vapour Data Higher source vapour concentrations (e.g., LNAPL above water table): Greater oxygen demand.
5-15
Shallow depth to vapour contamination source and larger building size: Less opportunity for oxygen migration to below the building. Foundation subsoils that are not well connected to ground surface: Less opportunity for oxygen migration to below the building due to near-building capping effect (e.g., low permeability soils or high soil moisture). Contamination below entire building (laterally uniform concentrations): Greater oxygen demand.
Conditions that Enhance Below Building Bioattenuation and Lead to Representative External Soil Vapour Data Lower source vapour concentrations (e.g., dissolved groundwater plume): Less oxygen demand so greater chance vapours will be degraded by the time they reach the building. Deeper depth to vapour contamination source and smaller building size: Greater opportunity for oxygen migration to below the building. Foundation subsoils that are well connected to ground surface: Greater opportunity for oxygen migration to below the building through barometric pumping and wind-induced advection. Contamination below part of building (lateral concentration gradients): Less oxygen demand. Collect samples in direction of highest concentrations.
5.4
SOIL GAS PROBE CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION Soil gas probes can be constructed of a variety of materials and installed using several techniques. Critical aspects to probe construction include (i) probes should be constructed from materials that are relatively inert and non-sorptive, (ii) techniques should be used to minimize the potential for short-circuiting of atmospheric air to the probe soil gas collection point, and (iii) the probe should remain sealed between sampling events. The main options for installation of soil gas probes include: Probes installed in boreholes in soil or coreholes; Probes installed via direct push technology, or soil gas samples collected using direct push equipment while it is in the ground; and,
Further discussion on the probe materials and installation methods for each of the above probe types is described below. Useful information is also provided in Atlantic PIRI (2006), API (2005), Geoprobe (2006) and EPRI (2005). For all probe types, it is important that subsurface utilities be located prior to installation.
2010
5-16
5.4.1
Probes Installed in Boreholes Drilling methods that limit disturbance to surrounding soil such as corebarrels, augers or rotary sonic are preferred over methods that result in greater disturbance (air rotary, which should only be used in bedrock that cannot be penetrated by augers), although a re-equilibration period of a few weeks or more before sampling is highly recommended. Mud-rotary or water-rotary methods should not be used to install soil gas probes. Probes installed in boreholes are constructed in a similar fashion to groundwater monitoring wells; however, there are important differences in design. Generally short screens (0.1 to 0.3 m length) should be used for probes since typically the objective is to characterize local soil gas concentrations (i.e., over a small volume), although the screen length may also be chosen as a proportion of the thickness of the vadose zone. Longer screens may also be considered for fractured media deposits to intersect a larger number of fractures that may be impacted by contaminants in soil vapour. The probe diameter should be kept small (between 6 mm (1/4 inch) and 25 mm (1 inch)) to minimize purge volumes. Two common probe designs are rigid PVC pipe and implants constructed of steel mesh screens connected to flexible tubing. For probes constructed of continuous PVC pipe to ground surface, 19 mm ( inch) diameter pipe is commonly available and suitable for soil gas probes (smaller diameter rigid pipe is more difficult to obtain). While the slot size for groundwater wells is typically No. 10 slot (0.01 inch), a larger slot size (up to No. 40 slot) may be used for PVC soil gas probes since there is less potential for the filter pack to intrude into the probe within the unsaturated zone. Commercially-available implants are typically 0.15 to 0.3 m long, 12.5 mm ( inch) in diameter, and connected to ground surface using 6 mm ( inch) tubing. A potential disadvantage of smaller diameter tubing (i.e., 6 mm or smaller) is frictional losses if pneumatic tests are to be performed. A threaded cap should be placed over top of the riser pipe and riser pipe segments should be flush-threaded with o-ring seal. No glue should be used for construction of probes. Coarse sand or fine gravel should be placed surrounding the screened portion of the probe, and a bentonite seal (minimum 0.3 m thick) should be constructed above the screened portion of the probe. Since soil gas probes are installed in the unsaturated zone where soil moisture may be relatively low, careful consideration should be given to the hydration of the bentonite seal. A competent seal can be constructed through use of dry granular bentonite (16 mesh) and addition of distilled water to the bentonite during installation. Granular bentonite has a particle size much like the sand used for a filter-pack, and so it will settle effectively within the borehole, but hydrates rapidly. Two or three lifts of granular bentonite and water is usually sufficient to form a competent seal. Bentonite chips or pellets do not hydrate quickly enough to form a good seal by this method. Another effective method of sealing the
2010
5-17
borehole annulus is to use a thick slurry of powdered bentonite and water (volclay grout) that is tremied to the base of the hole. In cohesionless soils, the seal and filter pack should be installed as the rods (or casing) are removed to prevent collapse of the borehoe walls and an incomplete seal. In cohesive soils, it may be possible to install a probe after the rods are removed providing the hole stays completely open and a proper seal can be achieved. If multiple probes are installed in a single borehole, the borehole above and below each probe should be sealed with granular bentonite. After allowing the seal to set overnight, the integrity of the seal should be checked by drawing a vacuum on each probe, and measuring the vacuum at adjacent probes. For a competent seal, there will be little cross-communication in vacuum between adjacent probes and any vacuum observed will develop slowly. Soil gas probes should be completed with an air-tight valve or stopcock at surface to prevent atmospheric air from entering the probe, and protected using a well cover or other similar protective casing for security and weatherproofing. If multi-level probes are used, each probe should be tagged with a permanent label, using no glues, or markers. In general, a similar or higher level of care and quality control to that employed for monitoring wells should be followed when installing a soil gas probe. Potential advantages of permanent probes installed in boreholes are that temporal variability can be assessed through repeat sampling and there is greater installation flexibility (i.e., deep probes, dense soils). In addition, the filter pack that surrounds the screen provides for more open area for drawing a soil gas sample than a driven probe. A potential disadvantage of probes installed in boreholes may be access restrictions for drill rigs. 5.4.2 Direct Push Technology Direct-push techniques can be used to install a single soil gas implant in a borehole. Direct push rods are pushed to the desired depth, and implants (described above in Section 5.4.1) are installed post-run after the desired depth is reached by lowering the implant down the hollow rods and attaching it to a detachable anchor drive point. A sand pack and bentonite seal should be installed through the push rods as they are removed to minimize the potential for short-circuiting of atmospheric air from ground surface to the sampling point. The position of the filter pack and seal should be confirmed using a tamping rod. Natural collapse of the formation around the probes will not provide a competent seal and should not be relied upon. A potential advantage of using direct push technology is that implants can be rapidly installed with minimal disturbance. A potential disadvantage is that soil core is not collected for assessment of geologic material properties. In addition, the presence of overconsolidated till, rubble, gravel or cobbles may hinder or preclude the use of direct-push technology.
2010
5-18
The use of driven probes is discouraged in low permeability finer-grained soils as it is difficult to ensure the absence of annular leakage, which is more likely to become a path of least resistance in low permeability soils. Tracer tests (e.g., using helium) are recommended to evaluate possible annular leakage along the outside of driven probes. 5.4.3 Use of Water Table Monitoring Wells as Soil Gas Probes Soil gas samples can also be obtained from groundwater monitoring wells screened across the water table provided the well screen extends above the capillary fringe, and the annulus above the well screen is sealed with a bentonite slurry or grout. Prior to collecting a sample for analysis, an air-tight fitting will need to be attached to the top of the well, and the well should be purged by removing a minimum of two to three casing volumes of air. During purging, soil gas concentrations may be measured to monitor the effect of purging, and samples should be collected after field screening readings stabilize. For typical well diameters, a purge rate of several litres per minute may be required, and therefore an appropriate sized pump is required for this approach. Since groundwater wells are typically vented at surface, the amount of purging required to achieve stable field screening readings may be considerably more than 2 or 3 casing volumes. 5.4.4 Subslab Soil Gas Probes Prior to drilling or coring through concrete slabs, relevant structural and utility information should be reviewed to evaluate whether drilling or coring could adversely affect the integrity of the building envelope, foundation slab or subsurface utilities, and whether there are any potential health and safety issues with drilling or coring. As warranted, geophysical techniques should be used to identify the location of re-bar within concrete slabs prior to drilling. After drilling the hole and prior to installation of the probe, the hole should be temporarily sealed (e.g., using a rubber stopper) to minimize disturbance to subslab vapour concentrations. Typically, the objective of subslab soil gas sampling is to characterize vapour concentrations in foundation subsoils immediately below the slab. Therefore, permanent probes typically consist of stainless steel or brass inserts installed within a corehole that are sealed with concrete grout (USEPA, 2004). The concrete grout should consist of Portland cement, aggregate and water, and should not contain any additives that could contain VOCs. A fast setting, hydrating (swelling) cement may be a better option provided there are no additives that give off VOCs. A subslab probe design by USEPA (2004) is shown in Figure 11. An alternate design for installation of a temporary soil gas probe involves drilling of a smooth-walled small hole that is slightly smaller than the outer
5-19
diameter of the metal insert to be used (e.g., suggested diameter is about 12.5 to 19 mm) . TeflontTM-tape is wrapped around the outside of the metal insert, which is then forced through the hole to the base of the concrete slab. Another method of sealing the probe within the corehole is to use a rubber stopper with tubing inserted through a hole in the stopper. The insert or tubing should stick up a few centimeters above the concrete floor and a seal constructed of bentonite or other suitable inert material (e.g., modeling clay) should be placed around the insert or tubing. Although permanent probes sealed in boreholes are preferred, both of the above methods may be acceptable provided that a high level of care is taken to ensure an adequate seal. Regardless of the sealant method, a leak tracer test is recommended to verify the seal.
FIGURE 11: USEPA (2004) Recommended Design for Subslab Soil Gas Probes.
2010
5-20
Tubing Study A study of three tubing materials (PEEK, Teflon and Nylon) by Air Toxics Ltd. (Hayes et al., 2006) evaluated (i) background artifacts generated by a 2-foot length of tubing, and (ii) recovery of known 0.5 ppbV standard after gas flowed through a 2-foot length of tubing. The background test generally indicated highest artifact concentrations for Nylon tubing, which for toluene and benzene, on average, were 0.77 g/m3 and 0.43 g/m3, respectively. The concentrations for Teflon tubing were lower, except for 1,1Difluoroethane (average of 13.8 g/m3). The recovery test indicated good recoveries (70-130%) for all tubing, except for heavier molecular compounds for Nylon only, where recovery for naphthalene was 31%. This study shows tubing can influence soil vapour and air monitoring results, particularly given a short length of tubing was used for the study. The study indicates that Teflon and PEEK may perform better than Nylon for low-level analysis (note conversion of ppbV to g/m3 assumed 20oC).
5.4.5
Probe Materials Relatively inert and non-porous materials are preferred for soil gas sampling. While probes constructed of stainless steel are desirable, based on practical considerations, PVC probes are often installed. There have only been a few studies evaluating tubing, but acceptable materials are considered to include TeflonTM, Nylon (Nyla-FlowTM), polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and ChemfluorTM. High density polyethylene (HDPE) tubing may also be acceptable, but may be subject to greater sorption than the above materials. Silicon and Tygon tubing are highly sorptive and should not be used. Couplings that are compression-fittings or Swage-lok connections are preferred, although tight barbed-fittings (with tubing pushed over at least 3 barbs) should also provide for a reasonable seal. Glue, tape or other materials that could emit volatiles should not be used as part of probe construction. Relatively small diameter probes and tubing should be used to minimize purge volumes, although if pneumatic tests are performed, tubing diameter should be sufficiently large to avoid excessive line losses. Sampling trains should be kept as short as practical to minimize potential sorption. Only new materials should be used, except when temporary steel probes are re-used. Steel probes should be decontaminated prior to use. Care should be taken when storing and handling probe material to avoid contamination. For security and to prevent damage to probes, metal well protectors or well covers, with locking caps should be considered.
2010
5-21
5.4.6
Short-Circuiting Considerations and Shallow Probes Short-circuiting of atmospheric air to the probe can occur between the probe and soil, and leakage of soil gas and/or atmospheric air can occur at probe joints. Prevention of short-circuiting and leaks is particularly important for low permeability soil deposits. For finer-grained soils, the process of driving a steel probe may cause deflection of the probe, movement and cracking of soil around the probe, and hence the potential for short-circuiting during sampling. For driven probes, the surface surrounding the probe should be sealed with bentonite prior to sampling, or suitable alternate material that is inert (e.g., modeling clay). It is important to avoid the lateral or vertical movement of probes once installed to minimize any separation between the soils and the outside of the probes. The probe surface seal integrity may be tested by introducing a tracer gas (e.g., helium) around the probe at the contact with the ground surface and then analyzing the collected soil gas samples for the tracer gas.
5.5
SOIL GAS SAMPLING PROCEDURES Soil gas sampling procedures addressed in this section are soil gas equilibration, probe performance testing, sampling containers, decontamination, methods to detect leaks and short-circuiting, and purging and sampling. The methods used should be documented throughout the sampling process. A good overview of sampling procedures is also provided in API (2005), Geoprobe (2006), ITRC (2007) and EPRI (2005).
5.5.1
Probe Development and Soil Gas Equilibration Soil gas probes should be developed by removing air entrained during installation or allowed to re-equilibrate via diffusion prior to sampling. Three probe volumes of air (including the probe pipe or tubing and the pore volume of the sand pack) should be removed during development. Otherwise, the probe should be allowed to re-equilibrate prior to sampling. Suggested minimum equilibration times are: probes installed in direct push holes (about a day), probes installed in auger holes (a few days). For probes installed using air rotary drilling, purging and field screening should be performed after installation until soil vapour concentrations stabilize, and then the probes should be allowed to re-equilibrate for a few weeks prior to sampling.
2010
5-22
Equilibration Time for Sand Pack To answer how long does it take for the sand pack to equilibrate with surrounding soil gas, USEPA (2006) used a diffusion model to calculate equilibration times for different distances and soil water contents and found in most cases two hours would be sufficient for essentially steady state conditions to be reached. For example, for a 10 cm diameter borehole, the equilibration time plot shows a required time of few minutes to less than a few hours for vapour within the sand pack to come to equilibrium depending on the moisture content.
5.5.2
Flow and Vacuum (Probe Performance) Check The performance testing of selected probes should be conducted prior to soil gas sampling. The objective of the performance test is to verify the flow and vacuum are within acceptable ranges prior to sampling. The test is conducted by withdrawing soil gas from the probe at the desired flow rate using a pump and measuring the vacuum. If the vacuum exceeds 10 inches of water, a lower flow rate should be used to reduce the vacuum, where practical. Flow and vacuum measurements may also be used to estimate the soil-air permeability using mathematical models for soil gas flow to a point probe (Garbesi et al., 1995) or to a well (Johnson et al., 1990). Such tests may involve measuring vacuum for several different flow rates (i.e., step tests). For subslab soil gas samples, a lower vacuum (less than 1 inch of water) would typically be expected since granular materials are commonly present below foundation slabs. As a minimum, allow the vacuum generated during performance testing to dissipate before collecting a soil gas sample for analysis. If a relatively large volume of soil gas is removed or high pumping rate is employed during the performance test (which may cause a local disequilibrium), the probe should be allowed to re-equilibrate using similar criteria described for well development.
5.5.3
Sampling Container or Device Sample collection devices can include evacuated steel canisters, sorbent tubes, glass cylinders and TedlarTM bags. The selection of a collection device is influenced by investigation objectives, analytical requirements and detection limits. For field screening using hand-held detectors, soil gas samples are often collected using Tedlar bags. The use of vacuum chamber (lung box) to fill Tedlar bags avoids passing soil gas through a pump and possible pump contamination that may result. Gas-tight syringes are often used for on-site analysis using mobile laboratories (Hayes et al, 2007). Soil gas samples collected for analysis by a fixed laboratory for VOCs should generally be obtained using sorbent tubes or stainless steel (e.g., SummaTM) or glass-lined
2010
5-23
(e.g., SilcoSteelTM) canisters. Glass cylinders or Tedlar bags may be appropriate for light gas analysis (oxygen, carbon dioxide, methane). Sampling devices are compared in Table 7. TABLE 7. Soil Gas Sample Collection Containers and Devices
TedlarTM Bags Tedlar bags are available in volumes ranging from 10 ml to 10 litre; typically a 0.5 to 1 litre bag is used for soil gas sampling. Tedlar bags can be filled using a: 1) small battery-powered electric pump, 2) peristaltic pump or 3) vacuum chamber. Electric pumps can become contaminated and thus cross-contamination is possible. At higher vacuums, pumps do not function well and may leak. An advantage of peristaltic pumps is that soil gas does not pass through the pump. The vacuum chamber method involves placing a Tedlar bag in a sealed chamber that is evacuated, which in turn causes the bag to fill with soil gas. The vacuum chamber method is advantageous in lower permeability soils in that there is least potential for ambient air leakage (e.g., through leaking pumps or connections). Studies indicate significant leakage of Tedlar bags over the first 24 to 48 hours after sampling (Wang et al., 1996; and Andino and Butler, 1991). Tedlar bag samples should be analyzed as quickly as possible. Although reported analytical holding times are up to seven days, analysis of bags within 24 and 48 hours is recommended. Glass cylinders are available in a range of volumes; typically a 0.5 to 1 litre cylinder is used for soil gas sampling; The glass cylinder is placed in-line between the probe and pump. Glass cylinders are typically supplied by the analytical laboratory filled with high-purity nitrogen. Once purging is completed, the cylinder should be inserted into the sampling train. An additional five cylinder volumes should be purged through the cylinder before simultaneously closing both stopcocks. Glass cylinders should be analyzed as quickly as possible. Although reported analytical holding times are up to seven days, analysis of cylinders within 24 and 48 hours is recommended. Gas-tight syringes are used to collect small volume gas samples (typically 5 to 60 ml). Syringes may be glass/Teflon or plastic, but there are large differences in sorptive properties. Gas-tight syringes are typically used for on-site gas chromatography (GC) analysis. Samples should be analyzed within a short time (30 minutes) of collection.
Glass Cylinders
Gas-Tight Syringes
2010
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 5. Soil Vapour Characterization Sorbent Tubes
5-24
Stainless Steel or Glass-lined Steel Canisters
A wide range of sorbent materials are available. Tubes are selected based on the types and concentrations of volatile chemicals expected in soil gas. Sorbent tubes are placed in-line between the probe and pump. Sorbent tube sampling rates are typically 100 to 200 ml/min; the flow rate supplied by the sampling pump must be accurately determined. The sampling duration will depend on the expected concentration, flow rate, chemical type, sorbent and desired detection limit. For quality control purposes, sorbent tubes often have a front and back section, or two tubes are placed in series to evaluate possible chemical breakthrough. Canisters have a relatively inert, passivated interior surface. Available volumes range from 400 ml to 6 litres. Canisters are supplied under vacuum. The vacuum is measured prior to shipping by the laboratory, immediately prior to and after sampling using a gauge supplied by the laboratory, and by the laboratory upon receipt. Significant differences in laboratory and field vacuums (beyond the range of accuracy of the gauge) indicate possible leakage during shipping. There should be a residual vacuum left in the canisters; otherwise, the sample will not represent the entire planned sampling interval. The sampling rate is typically controlled by a flow controller (either mass flow controller or critical orifice).
5.5.4
Decontamination of Sampling Equipment Clean equipment and sample containers should be used for soil gas sampling. This can be implemented through decontamination of equipment or through the use of new, unused equipment. Care should also be taken when handling equipment since sampling equipment could be contaminated through dirty containers, permanent marking pens, hands, vehicle exhaust, etc. The level of decontamination may depend on the objectives of the soil gas survey and detection limits for analytical testing. If the soil gas survey is limited to testing of soil gas samples using a field photoionization detector (PID) or flame ionization detector (FID) measuring to part-per-million levels, it may be appropriate to re-use the soil gas probes, tubing and sampling containers (e.g., Tedlar bags). However, prior to installing a probe and collecting each sample, a field blank sample comprised of ambient air should be collected through the entire sampling train and tested using the field PID or FID. If concentrations in the field blank are elevated above background ambient levels, the equipment should be cleaned or new equipment should be used. If the soil gas survey involves collection of soil gas samples for part-perbillion analysis, greater care must be taken with respect to decontamination and verification of clean sampling equipment and containers. It is
2010
5-25
recommended that the analytical laboratory be required to demonstrate that the containers and flow controllers, if applicable, are clean prior to shipment to the site and that new sample tubing in all cases be used for each soil gas probe. Field blanks should be obtained using certified zero gas as opposed to ambient air. 5.5.5 Testing of Equipment for Leaks and Short Circuiting There are several ways in which the sampling train can be tested for leaks. A simple method is to apply either a pressure or vacuum to the sampling train and to monitor whether the pressure or vacuum holds over time. When under pressure, a soapy-water solution may be used to identify any couplings that may be leaking since air bubbles should be observed. An alternate method, described by API (2005), involves testing of sampling equipment for potential leaks using a tracer gas (e.g., diluted helium) of known concentration that is drawn through the sampling equipment at the approximate vacuum anticipated during sampling. A leak tracer test may also be conducted by introducing helium beneath a shroud that covers the probe and part of the sampling train. A soil gas sample is collected from the probe using a Tedlar bag and analyzed using a hand-held helium detector that provides readings with a range of 0.01% to 100%. Advantages of a helium leak tracer test are that data can rapidly be obtained in the field and it is a relatively simple test to perform and helium does not interfere with subsequent laboratory analysis. A liquid tracer such as isopropanol may also be deployed by wrapping paper towels soaked with the tracer around the probe and connections in the sampling train. Potential disadvantages with liquid tracers are that they may interfere with laboratory analyses, do not provide for near real-time results (unless analyzed by a field laboratory), and experience suggests the liquid tracer may diffuse or permeate through very small cracks. Potential short-circuiting of atmospheric air during sampling can also be indirectly evaluated through careful examination of oxygen and carbon dioxide data. For example, oxygen concentrations are generally depleted in the presence of elevated hydrocarbon vapour concentrations, so if a soil gas sample contain high concentrations of both hydrocarbons and oxygen, there is a good chance that atmospheric air leaked into the sample (see Section 5-9 for additional discussion).
2010
5-26
5.5.6
Sample Probe Purging and Sampling Purging Probe The purpose of purging is to ensure a representative soil gas sample is collected by removing stagnant air from the probe and filter pack prior to collecting a sample. Typically, the objective is to obtain a soil gas sample from the geologic material immediately surrounding the probe, therefore excessive purging should be avoided. In properly sealed probes, concentrations generally stabilize after the probe tubing and sand pack are purged (EPA, 2006, Creamer and McAlary, 2006).
Purging and Sampling Summary 1. Allow probe to equilibrate. 2. Check for leaks in sampling equipment. 3. Calculate the dead volume based on the inner volume of probe and tubing. 4. Purge three volumes from the probe. 5. A flow rate between 20 and 200 ml/min should generally be used for purging and sampling. 6. Monitor the vacuum during purging; reduce the flow rate if the vacuum exceeds 5 inches water. 7. Use direct reading instrument to monitor VOC concentrations during purging, where practical. 8. When purging is complete, close the sampling valve and allow the vacuum to dissipate before collecting a sample.
Cody (2003) evaluated purge volumes on the basis of a differential equation for the sequential and complete mixing of VOCs over each time step within the entire volume under consideration (probe and tubing). On the basis of this equation, the estimated concentration within the probe volume reaches 90 percent of the input concentration after purging about three volumes. For narrow diameter tubing, fewer purge volumes are likely needed to obtain a representative sample due to reduced mixing resulting from more a plug flow phenomena. Based on the above, the removal of three purge volumes prior to sample collection is considered appropriate. Sequential sampling and field screening with portable instruments such as a PID, FID or landfill gas meter may also be used during the purging process to demonstrate stable readings before a sample is collected. This technique is analogous to the low-flow groundwater sampling technique (Puls and Barcelona, 1996). Larger Volume Purge Sampling Larger purge volumes and longer sampling times may be desirable if the intent is to evaluate conditions beyond the immediate proximity of the soil gas probe (Lewis et al., 2004; Lewis et al., 2005). If the approximate permeability and soil gas flow regime is known, a volume-integrated concentration may be obtained. The concentration trends over time as measured by direct reading
2010
5-27
instruments may also provide qualitative information on spatial variability in source concentrations. For example, slowly increasing concentrations could indicate a higher soil gas concentration zone laterally removed from the probe. Large volume sampling may disturb the local equilibrium and therefore it may take some time for equilibrium conditions to be re-established. Sampling Flow Rate The soil air permeability has an important influence on sampling flow rate since the vacuum generated increases as permeability decreases. One study demonstrated that soil vapour concentrations were not sensitive to flow rate of up to 10 L/min, in properly sealed probes in moderately permeable materials (Creamer and McAlary, 2006). Conversely, it may not be practical to collect samples at flow rates of 100 ml/min in fine-grained soil without imposing an excessive vacuum. High vacuums make it more difficult to collect a soil gas sample and increase the potential for leakage (if there are small leaks in seals). Some guidance documents also suggest that high vacuums enhance the volatilization or desorption of chemicals (ITRC, 2007; API, 2005). Where possible, the vacuum during sampling should be less than 10 inches water column (by adjusting the flow rate), although it may be possible to collect samples at vacuums as high as 100 inches. The flow and vacuum can be easily measured using a T-junction connected to a digital manometer and rotameter to determine an appropriate sampling flow rate for a given geologic material permeability (EPRI, 2005; ITRC, 2007). Practically, the sampling rate is often dictated by the sampling device. For Summa canisters, use of a flow regulator is good practice, and typically results in sampling rates between about 5 and 100 ml/min. For most sorbent tubes, the analytical protocols indicate that sampling rate should not exceed 200 ml/min. Sample Collection Samples for VOCs are typically collected in Summa canisters, although glass bulbs, Tedlar bags, and glass and Teflon syringes may be acceptable for some chemicals, and adsorbent media tubes filled with Tenax, PUF/XAD, or other materials may be necessary for compounds that are not easily recovered from whole-gas containers (compounds heavier than naphthalene are typically analyzed by adsorbent media sampling). Summa canisters should have their initial vacuum checked prior to use to assure the canister did not leak enroute to the site, and a flow controller attached prior to sample collection. The residual vacuum after sample collection should also be recorded and verified upon receipt by the laboratory to assure that the canister did not leak during return shipment. Tedlar bags should be filled using a vacuum chamber, and not from the exhaust of a pump to avoid cross-contamination issues.
2010
5-28
Once purging is complete, soil gas samples from conventional soil gas probes should generally be collected using the same sampling flow rate as for purging. For subslab soil gas probes, it may be desirable to collect a subslab gas sample concurrently with an indoor air sample to reduce influence shortterm variability and enable comparisons to indoor air data over the same time period. Indoor air samples are typically obtained over a 24-hour period. The soil gas sampling rate for a 6-litre subslab Summa sample collected over 24 hours is about 6 mL/minute. Sampling of probes at a site should be completed over a relatively short time period (e.g., within one week) to provide an internally consistent data set (Lahvis, 2002). If any water is drawn in the sample container, re-collect the sample after taking measures to eliminate water. Sample Handling and Storage Soil gas samples obtained using syringes, steel canisters or glass cylinders should not be placed in a chilled cooler for transport since volatiles may condense out the vapour phase at lower temperature (Hartman, 2002). Samples should not be subjected to excessive heat. Tedlar bags and glass cylinders should be placed inside a container immediately after collection to avoid possible photo-oxidation reactions. For sorbent tubes, cool storage (approximately 4oC) in sealed containers is recommended. Sorbent tubes should be stored in a sealed plastic container containing a bed of activated carbon to minimize the potential for adsorption of ambient VOCs. All soil gas samples should be transported in separate containers from soil and groundwater samples. 5.6 5.6.1 SOIL GAS ANALYSIS Selection of Method Analytical testing methods appropriate for analyzing soil gas samples will be dependent on vapour intrusion assessment objectives, sampling method and data quality objectives. Soil gas programs often consist of a combination of field testing of soil gas samples using hand-held detectors and laboratory analysis of selected soil gas samples for specific chemicals of potential concern. Since analytical testing is a broad topic, only an overview of the key issues is provided below. Common analytical methods for soil vapour are summarized in Table 8, with a detailed list provided in Appendix III. It is important to understand procedures and potential limitations associated with different testing methods. Since soil vapour and air methods are not as well defined as groundwater methods, adequate consultation with the
2010
5-29
laboratory is essential. The types of information that should be discussed include optimal sampling flow rate and duration, detection limits, laboratory QA/QC requirements and considerations, and the handling and transport of samples. Communication with the laboratory at the early stages ensures that important analytical considerations are taken into account during the development of the sampling plan. 5.6.2 Field Detectors Field detectors commonly used are PIDs or FIDs, combustible gas detectors or explosimeters, and multi-gas detectors for compounds such as oxygen, carbon dioxide and methane, which are important for studies evaluating biodegradation. PIDs will respond to most organic vapours as well as some inorganic vapours (hydrogen sulphide, ammonia) depending on the ionization lamp energy. The sensitivity of a PID varies depending on the compound, and moisture and flow rate can bias readings; therefore care should be taken when conducting soil gas surveys. Combustible gas detectors are typically calibrated to methane in air, but also readily respond to heavier hydrocarbon (e.g., gasoline) vapours. Filters can be used to enable light (methane) and heavier organic vapours to be quantified, if desired. It is important to document the type of combustible gas detector and mode of operation. PIDs, which measure hydrocarbon vapour concentrations to ppm, or even ppb levels, are generally more sensitive than combustible gas detectors. While field detectors are valuable for site screening, the limitations associated with these instruments, including non-specificity to compounds of possible interest and the effect of environmental factors and sampling methods, should be clearly understood (Robbins et al., 1990). Field detectors should generally not be directly connected to sampling probes when taking measurements, unless it can be demonstrated that possible sampling flow rate constrictions and vacuums generated by sampling will not affect the field detector response. PIDs, in particular, are sensitive to variation in the sampling flow rate. Samples should generally be obtained in Tedlar bags to facilitate readings taken using field detectors. All instruments should be calibrated on a daily or more frequent basis.
2010
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 5. Soil Vapour Characterization TABLE 8: Summary of Common Soil Vapour Sampling and Analysis Methods Compound Class Field Screening Methods VOCs Collection Device Tedlar Bag Method No. Light Gases (O2, CO2, CH4) Combustible Gases Tedlar Bag Infrared (CO2, CH4), electrochemi cal (O2) Platinum catalyst
5-30
Method PID/FID
Comments Lower cost, real time results, equipment is simple to use PID sensitive to moisture and dust FID requires H2 source and more operator training Generally ppm detection limits (except light gases, which may be % level) Not compound specific Some detectors, such as those for landfill gases, are designed to sample against vacuum; other instruments are sensitive to vacuum and flow rate constrictions Near real time results Use of liquid (as opposed to gas) calibration standards may not provide representative data for some compounds May need to analyze subset of samples using fixed laboratory methods Lower detection limits (except some NMOC & TVOC methods) More rigorous QA/QC Higher cost Depending of chemical, may be issues for sorbent tube analysis (e.g., recovery, breakthrough) High humidity can cause problems for analysis
Tedlar Bag
Field VOCs (e.g., Laboratory BTEX) Methods
Glass and Teflon syringe, Tedlar Bag
GC/PID GC/MS
Modified USEPA 8021B Modified USEPA 8260B
Fixed VOCs Laboratory Analysis VOCs and SVOCs VOCs
sorbent tube, solvent extraction sorbent tube, thermal extraction Specially treated (e.g., Summa ) canister Polyurthane foam (PUF)
GC/FID1
OSHA 7 / NIOSH methods USEPA TO-17 USEPA TO-14A /TO-15 USEPA TO-13A
GC/MS
GC/MS
PAHs
GC/MS
2010
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 5. Soil Vapour Characterization Compound Class Collection Device Method GC/FID Method No. NIOSH 1550 USEPA TO-3 Comments
5-31
TVOC & sorbent tube, Hydrocarbon solvent Fractions2 extraction TVOC & Canister Hydrocarbon (Summa or Fractions non treated), Tedlar Bag NMOC Light Gases (e.g.,O2, CO2, CH4, CO, H2)
Notes: 1. 2.
GC/FID (Cryotrap)
Canister or on-line Canister, Tedlar Bag, Glass syringe
FID GC/TCD
USEPA TO-12 ASTM D1945-03
MS is also used by commercial labs but is not part of the reference method. Hydrocarbon fractions can consist of both ranges (e.g., TVOC (C6-10), TVOC (C10-19)) and aromatic and aliphatic fractions (e.g., CCME CWS-PHC approach) 3. GC = gas chromatograph, PID = photoionization detector, FID = flame ionization detector, TCD = thermal conductivity detector, MS = Mass Selective detector 4. USEPA = US Environmental Protection Agency 5. NIOSH = National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (USA) 6. OSHA = Occupational Safety & Health Administration (USA) 7. NMOC = non-methane organic compounds 8. CCME = Canadian Council for Ministers of the Environment 9. CWS-PHC = Canada Wide Standards for Petroleum Hydrocarbon Compounds
5.6.3
Field Laboratory Analysis Field laboratory methods are used when a greater degree of precision or component-specific information is required to make real-time decisions than that provided by a field screening method. The advantages of field laboratory methods are near real-time results, which can be used to modify programs while in progress, and potentially lower costs if the number of samples analyzed is high. Also the ability to collect repeat samples can be an advantage for assessing sampling, temporal, and spatial variability. The disadvantage of field laboratory methods are higher detection limits than fixed laboratory methods based on U.S. EPA TO- protocols (see below). Possible regulatory requirements for soil gas analytical protocols should also be reviewed when evaluating field laboratory analysis. Field laboratory methods include the use of portable gas chromatographs (GCs) that are brought to the site to analyze grab samples on an on-going basis. Soil gas air is usually collected using gas-tight syringes and is injected into the GC (or purge-and-trap apparatus) for analysis. The portable GC usually analyses data through photo ionization, flame ionization or electron capture detectors (e.g., modified USEPA Method 8021B). The precision of
2010
5-32
the results can vary depending on the equipment used. There are now some contractors that provide field testing services using portable mass spectrometers (MS), which provide greater certainty for compound identification (e.g., modified USEPA Method 8260B). Modified water methods (Method 8021B and 8260B) can work well for many compounds, but for non-polar compounds and heavier molecular weight compounds such as naphthalene, recovery tends to be poor (Hayes et al., 2005). 5.6.4 Fixed Laboratory Analysis For risk assessment studies, low detection limits and more rigorous quality control requirements typically require that soil gas samples be collected using either active sorbent tubes (i.e., air is drawn through tube using pump) or passivated steel canisters, and quantified by GC/MS methods. The use of GC/FID analysis is generally not recommended due to non-specificity of compound identification. Sampling using a sorbent tube is an indirect method of estimating the soil vapour concentration in that the test measures the mass of chemical trapped on the sorbent. The air concentration is estimated by dividing the mass by the total volume of air drawn through the tube. The canister method involves collection of a whole air sample enabling direct analysis of the soil vapour sample. Both methods are described in detail below. Sorbent Tube Method The use of sorbent tubes for sampling and analysis of soil vapour is relatively complicated and there are numerous factors to consider. While a number of methods are available, it is important to recognize that they are air methods that have been modified for soil vapour. Analytical Methods: A key distinguishing factor between methods is whether thermal desorption (e.g., USEPA TO-17) or solvent extraction is used (e.g., modified OSHA 7 or NIOSH 1501 methods). Thermal desorption involves rapidly heating the sorbent to desorb the VOC, while passing an inert carrier gas through the tube. The VOCs are carried by the gas and concentrated on a smaller downstream trap, which usually is cryogenically cooled. For thermal desorption, the whole sample is released from the sorbent during the heated desorption step. While some of the earlier thermal desorption units do not allow for the possibility for replicate analyses, the newest units have the capability of re-collecting a portion of sample during the primary desorption step to allow for re-analysis. Additionally, sample introduction parameters can be modified such that less mass is loaded onto the GC/MS in order to perform sample dilutions (this is important since soil vapour concentrations, as compared to air, can be very high and potentially
2010
5-33
overload the GC/MS). The sensitivity of thermal desorption techniques requires a smaller soil gas volume to meet screening levels than solvent extraction techniques. Solvent extraction involves use of a solvent such as carbon disulphide to extract the sample. In contrast to thermal desorption, replicate analyses can be performed on the extract. While chemical extraction methods are adapted from industrial hygiene practice and are typically not as sensitive as thermal desorption, higher detection limits may not be an issue for soil vapour analysis (but may be problematic for air analyses). To achieve low detection limits, NIOSH or OSHA methods involving chemical extraction are modified and typically utilize a larger mass of sorbent combined with longer sampling durations. As discussed below, longer sampling durations can pose challenges in terms of breakthrough. Types of Sorbents: Sorbents used for VOCs commonly used consist of charcoal, polymeric and/or carbonaceous resins. There are wide variations in sorbent properties. Since soil gas typically has a relative humidity of close to 100 percent, hydrophobic sorbents are preferred since sorbed water reduces the retention of VOCs, and because water vapour can affect the GC analysis (Harper, 1994). Polar VOC compounds can also partition into the water phase reducing recovery. Elevated ozone levels (150 to 300 ppm) have been reported to result in reduced recovery for certain VOCs such as styrene and aldehydes (McClenny et al., 2002). Other issues for sorbent sampling include sorbent pore size and uniformity, possible reactions between the sorbent and adsorbed molecules, and slow breakdown of certain polymeric sorbents and release of aromatic hydrocarbons (Harper, 1994). Special attention should be paid to sorbents selected for analysis of highly volatile chemicals such as vinyl chloride, which are difficult to trap using sorbent media. The laboratory methods typically specify the type of sorbent to use. Coconut shell charcoal is typically used for BTEX analysis (NIOSH 1501). For chlorinated solvent compounds, some laboratories use the same method but substitute newer more sorptive materials such as processed synthetic carbon (e.g., Anasorb 747) or molecular sieve materials in place of the coconut shell charcoal. For USEPA TO-17 analysis, tubes containing three materials with differing sorptive properties (e.g., graphitized carbon black, carbon molecular sieve) that are designed to optimize the collection process are used. Thermal tubes designed to perform well under conditions of high humidity should be selected. Sorbents used for semi-volatile (PAH) analyses (naphthalene and heavier molecular weight compounds) often consist of TeflonTM-impregnated glass fibres followed by a resin (XAD-2) sorbent (NIOSH 5515) or polyurethane (PUF) foam cartridge (USEPA Method TO-13A). Since trapping of particulates for soil vapour is usually not an objective, typically only the XAD resin sorbent is used for semi-volatile analyses.
2010
5-34
Sorbent Sampling Volume: The sampling volume should be carefully determined through consideration of the expected VOC concentration and mass, the sorption capacity and required detection limits. When available, the results of field PID analyses of soil vapour should be communicated to the laboratory analyst prior to sorbent sampling to guide selection of a sampling duration and flow rate that would minimize the potential for chemical breakthrough. An option is to collect two samples over different time durations to avoid the possibility of re-sampling.
Sampling Volume Calculation An example sampling volume calculation is provided for sorbent tube analysis for benzene. Assuming a target indoor air concentration of 3 g/m3, a target detection limit of 30 g/m3 for a soil gas sample is obtained (Eq. 5-1 Section 5.6.5). A typical benzene detection limit is 0.1 g (MS detector), therefore approximately 3.3 litres of soil gas would need to be drawn through the tube (0.1g/30g/m3 x 1000 L/m3). At a sampling rate of 100 ml/min, the required sampling duration would be 33 minutes.
Pump Flow Rate: Since the concentration is sensitive to the flow rate, pumps must be accurately calibrated and provide a constant flow rate throughout the sampling duration. The pump flow rate must be checked prior to and during sampling, since actual pump flow rates may vary considerably depending on the soil air permeability and vacuum. A recent study (Golder Associates, 2007, unpublished) found a significant and roughly linear drop in pump flow rate under vacuum conditions induced by soil (e.g., 11% drop in flow at 3.4 inches H20, 40% drop at 9 inches H20 and 93% drop at 16.5 inches H20). Environmental Conditions: Appropriate measures should be taken to mitigate the effects of high humidity or cold weather when sampling using sorbent tubes, which may not always be practical to avoid. Reducing the air flow rate or sampling with varying volumes of air (using multiple samples) may be a good approach under this circumstance. Further discussion on cold weather considerations is provided in Exhibit 3. Canister Method Low detection limits can be achieved utilizing the Summa canister method (USEPA Method TO-15) and, in general, the accuracy and precision of analytical results generated are high. Nevertheless, there are significant issues for this method as described below. Analytical Methods: The analytical protocols for the Summa method are USEPA TO-14A (non-polar compounds) (USEPA, 1999a) and USEPA TO-15 (polar and non-polar compounds) (USEPA, 1999b). USEPA Method TO-15 is commonly used for soil vapour analyses since there are a number of
2010
5-35
significant improvements for Method TO-15 compared to TO-14A, including enhanced measures for quality control, specific canister cleaning procedures, better water management procedures and better recovery of polar compounds. USEPA Method TO-15 utilizes a gas chromatograph (GC) with a mass spectrometer (MS) as the detector. When the MS is run in full scan mode up to 70 compounds can be readily detected with typical reporting limits between 0.2 to 0.5 parts per billion by volume (ppbV). Analytical methodology considerations are further discussed in Section 6.4.1. Hardware: Two types of canisters are available: Summa canisters, which are electro-polished steel canisters and Silco canisters, where the steel is coated with an inert fused silica layer. The silcosteel canisters internal surface is intended to be non-reactive with sulphur compounds or compounds that react with metal surfaces (e.g., polar compounds). However, there is debate between practitioners on appropriate sampling device for sulphur compounds, with some advocating the use of Tedlar bags. It is important that the canister hardware be in good condition. For soil vapour sampling, a one-litre canister is typically a sufficient volume. The flow regulator (mass flow controller or critical orifice) should be appropriately calibrated based on the desired sampling duration and the vacuum before sampling and residual vacuum after sampling should be recorded. Flow regulators are temperature and altitude dependent; therefore, the sampling location should be communicated to the laboratory so that appropriate adjustments can be made. Laboratories typically conduct performance studies to verify that flow regulators provide for an uniform sampling rate over the sampling duration, within an acceptable tolerance. If warranted, flow rates can be verified in the field using an extra canister using an electronic mass flow meter or rotometer, calibrated for vacuum conditions. A critical orifice is often used for short duration sampling for soil vapour (i.e., up to an hour), but it does not provide for a uniform flow since the flow rate is a function of the pressure differential. This is not of significant concern for soil vapour sampling; however, a residual vacuum should remain in the canister after sampling is complete. For longer duration sampling (e.g., indoor air sampling), a mass flow controller should be used to provide for a uniform flow rate. Particulate filters consisting of sintered steel with 2 to 7 micron pore sizes or deactivated glass frit are placed before the critical orifice. It is essential that all fittings are tight during sampling. Equipment Cleaning: The TO methods and hardware were designed to measure low VOC concentrations in ambient air. At some sites (e.g., dry cleaners, UST sites with free-phase NAPL), canisters are subject to soil vapour concentrations that exceed 100,000 to 1,000,000 g/m3. Experience has shown that there is a significant potential for contaminant carry over in the canister, regulator, filter or inlet tube under these conditions. Therefore, all
2010
5-36
equipment must be cleaned and canister blanks tested. Canisters are typically cleaned by heating the canister and passing humidified zero air under pressure through the canister. For heavier molecular weight compounds (trimethylbenzene and heavier), sorption onto metal tubing and filter has been shown to result in reduced compound recovery (Entech, 2007). Environmental Conditions: Although a water film on the internal surface of a Summa canister is needed for an inert surface, excessive humidity can create challenges for sample recovery and cryogenic focusing prior to analysis, although an alternate method of multiple focusing steps using non-cooled sorbent tubes can reduce problems associated with water vapour.
EXHIBIT 3: Considerations for Cold Weather Sampling In many regions of Canada, environmental investigations may be completed during periods of relatively cold weather (i.e., freezing temperatures). For soil vapour sampling design the influence of frost and snow cover on the soil vapour transport should be considered. Frost and snow cover may limit the flux of contaminant vapours to atmosphere and oxygen recharge to subsurface. There may also be significant temperature gradients between shallow soil beside and below a building, where the temperature may be well above freezing. Obtaining a soil vapour sample within frozen ground, while potentially feasible, is not considered representative and therefore either deeper external vapour samples or samples from below the building should be obtained. Certain pre-cautions should also be taken when conducting soil vapour programs during cold weather. Field instruments such as photoionization and flame ionization detectors and pumps are not designed to operate when temperatures are below freezing. Field instruments may be kept warm in a heated building or vehicle, with field samples collected and transported in Tedlar bags. Sampling pumps may be kept warm by storing them in insulated coolers or insulated lunch bags with heat packs. While the cold temperature performance of sorbent tubes is not well understood, consideration should be given to heating and insulating of sorbent tubes during sampling and keeping above-ground tubing as short as possible. There may also be condensation through cooling of warmer soil gas during sampling. Condensation can be particularly problematic for sorbent tube sampling and therefore sample tubing and bags should be closely observed for any signs of condensation (e.g., through use of translucent tubing).
Method Selection The chemical to be measured, detection limit, ease of use, cost, laboratory certification and quality control are factors that should be considered when selecting the soil gas analysis method. Sorbent tubes analyzed by modified OSHA or NIOSH methods may be used to measure a wide range of VOCs to detection limits typically required for soil vapour; however, breakthrough for light molecular weight VOCs (e.g., vinyl chloride) can be difficult to control. Summa canisters can be used to measure a wide range of VOCs including
5-37
naphthalene. Analysis by GC/MS is recommended regardless of the collection method, except when hydrocarbon fractions are analyzed (see Appendix III). Tedlar bags should generally not be used to collect samples for laboratory analyses. 5.6.5 Quality Assurance / Quality Control Considerations Data Quality Objectives Data quality objectives should be established as part of the sampling plan in conjunction with the overall study objectives. In broad terms, the objective is to ensure that data quality is acceptable and that data can be relied upon for decision-making purposes. Specific objectives may be developed in terms of accuracy, precision, data representativeness, data completeness and detection limits. There may also be specific considerations for cold weather sampling that should be incorporated in the data quality objectives (Exhibit 3). The development of a QA/QC plan will help to ensure that the desired data quality is achieved. Standard operating procedures should be used for sampling and analytical procedures, including the use of chain of custody records and identifying sampling locations. Systematic data collection and planning helps provide for defensible results and increased credibility. Detection Limits For risk assessments, the measured vapour concentrations are often used to predict indoor air concentrations. Required detection limits may be backcalculated using risk-based target indoor air concentrations combined with a maximum expected attenuation factor between soil vapour and indoor air. For subslab or near building soil vapour, a reasonable upper bound attenuation factor is 0.02. An additional safety factor (about 5-10X) should be applied to provide for greater flexibility in data interpretation and since there is increased uncertainty near to the detection limit. The target detection limit is calculated as follows: DLtarget = Cair / (AF * SF) [5-1]
Where DL is the analytical reporting (detection) limit, AF is the attenuation factor (0.02), Cair is the target indoor air concentration, and SF is safety factor (5-10).
Testing and Certification that Sampling Device is Clean For all methods, it is recommended the analytical laboratory demonstrate that the sampling device (canister, sorbent tube) is clean to below the required detection limits prior to sampling and analysis, for either a representative subset or all of the sampling devices. For projects involving soil vapour analyses where detection limits are in the part-per-billion range, batch
5-38
certification of the sampling devices may be adequate, whereas for projects involving indoor air analyses at part-per-trillion levels, individual certification will often be warranted. Quality Control Samples Analysis of duplicate samples is required to assess the precision of the method and variability of the sampling process. The field duplicate samples should be obtained from the same soil gas probe using identical sampling procedures and submitted blind to the laboratory. Duplicate samples can either be obtained simultaneously (i.e., using a splitter) or in sequence. When duplicate samples are collected in sequence, variability due to temporal changes is introduced. For indoor and outdoor air sampling, a duplicate sample may be obtained using a splitter or side-by-side (co-located) samples may be obtained. The frequency of field and laboratory duplicate sample analyses, while often each set at 10 percent of the samples analyzed, may depend on the total number of samples analyzed and analytical method. When only a small number of samples are tested, it may be desirable to increase the frequency of testing or pool QC results from multiple programs before drawing conclusions about data quality. Depending on whether the laboratory has a thermal desorption unit with re-collection feature, collection of duplicate samples for thermal desorption analyses may be advantageous in that it enables re-analysis of a second sample. While not a duplicate analysis, for sorbent tube analysis, both the front and back sections of sampling tubes (or two tubes in series) should be analyzed separately to evaluate for chemical breakthrough. Depending on project requirements, other quality control samples that may be analyzed include transport blanks, method blanks and spike samples, as described below: Field transport blanks are sample containers that are shipped with the other samples, but which are not used for collecting a sample. For Summa canisters, testing a field transport blank involves filling the canister with ultra high purity air or nitrogen, which should be supplied by the laboratory in a separate canister. Such tests may be redundant when other quality control tests are performed such as laboratory certification of canisters and testing of the vacuum before and after sampling, but is an additional quality control test that may be warranted for some projects An equipment blank may be collected by drawing atmospheric air or high purity inert gas through the sampling train and probe to be
2010
5-39
sampled, prior to installation. This can provide useful data on whether the sampling train is clean. Sample tubes spiked with known concentrations of analytes are used to evaluate the recovery of the spiked compound and accuracy of the extraction and analytical procedure. This type of test is normally performed by the analytical laboratory.
All data should be clearly reported, including blanks, and any suspect results should be flagged. The interpretation of quality control data is discussed in Section 5.8. 5.7 ANCILLARY DATA In addition to measured soil vapour concentrations, the supplemental data below may assist in understanding the vapour intrusion pathway. This information may have been collected as part of an environmental site assessment. However, supplementary data collection may be required if sufficient information was not collected during investigations completed prior to the soil vapour sampling program. Additional information is available in the ITRC (2007) and EPRI (2005) documents. Passive Soil Vapour Samplers: Passive diffusion samplers contain a hydrophobic adsorbent material that collects organic compounds over time. The adsorbed compounds are removed from the adsorbent by thermal desorption or solvent extraction, and typically analyzed using GC/MS methods. The passive soil gas method provides the mass of vapours adsorbed to the media, but currently can not reliably be used to estimate soil vapour concentrations. Passive soil gas samples are typically deployed for a few days to weeks, and therefore provide a time-integrated sample. The extended sampling duration also provides for high sensitivity. In the context of soil vapour intrusion studies, passive soil gas sampling methods could be useful in mapping the location of subsurface plumes and for identifying pathways (in particular when placed in or along utility corridors) for determining locations for permanent probe placement when the CSM is not well understood. Passive diffusive samples can be used to estimate VOC concentrations in air and are described in Chapter 6. Physical Properties: The properties of significant soil layers of the vadose zone, including soil moisture, bulk density, air-filled porosity, water-filled porosity and total organic carbon content may be important in evaluating vapour intrusion. Care should be taken to minimize re-distribution of soil moisture or drying of soil during drilling, sampling and storage of samples. Water retention tests on samples compacted to approximate in situ density can provide useful data on the likely range of water-filled porosity that could be expected in soil. Although not commonly performed, consideration can also
5-40
be given to in situ tests to provide estimates of tortuosity (effective diffusion coefficient) (Johnson et al., 1998; Lahvis et al., 1999) and soil-air permeability (Baehr et al., 1991). Hydrogeological Properties: The groundwater elevation during sampling and during an appropriate period prior to sampling is important when evaluating the possible seasonal influence on volatilization. The hydraulic conductivity and gradient are fundamental parameters required to evaluate groundwater flow systems. Meteorological Data: There are an increasing number of weather stations (government, private) for which meteorological data (temperature, barometric pressure, wind speed and direction, relative humidity and precipitation) can be readily downloaded. If there is a weather station near the site, this meteorological data should be obtained. Portable weather stations are also relatively inexpensive, and barometric pressure can be readily obtained (e.g., BarologgerTM). Barometric pressure and precipitation data for a few days prior to sampling should be obtained to enable trends to be evaluated. Frost and snow cover should be noted. Meteorological data may be useful in interpretation of soil vapour intrusion particularly if there were severe weather conditions during sampling (e.g., rapid change in barometric pressure, strong winds). Building Pressure Data: Highly sensitive manometers (sensitivity less Commercial Building Evaluation than 1 Pa (1/250 inches of water)) can be used to measure the Some commercial buildings are differential pressure between the designed to be positively pressurized building and outdoor air, and through operation of HVAC system. building air and subslab soil gas. Vapour intrusion will be significantly Information on pressure gradients curtailed if the building is sufficiently can be useful in assessing soil gas pressurized (i.e., comparable to 6 to 9 Pa intrusion potential; for example, soil recommended in ASTM (2001)). For gas intrusion potential would be low such scenarios, an evaluation consisting if the pressure in the building is of review of HVAC design, interview with building engineer to review HVAC higher than in soil below the operation, and series of differential building. When measuring pressures, pressure measurements to capture consideration must be given to the possible seasonal and barometric potential influence of wind and other pressure variations may provide valuable environmental variables on the information on pressure gradients and measurements. The building pressure the potential for a complete vapour data should be plotted against intrusion pathway (EPRI, 2005). barometric pressure and other weather data to assess whether there are any correlations in the data.
2010
5-41
Building Ventilation Tracer Test: Inert tracers such as carbon dioxide can be used to evaluate building ventilation characteristics and to estimate air change rates (ASTM E741-00). The ventilation test involves release of tracer gas (carbon dioxide) within the enclosed space followed by monitoring of the concentration decay over time. The concentration decay rate is used to estimate the air exchange rate. There are also tracer test methods that use sulphur hexafluoride. For commercial buildings, it may be possible to estimate the ventilation rate from HVAC system design. The air exchange rate should be calculated from the make-up volume, and not the total air handling volume. Radon Tracer Test: Naturally-occurring radon can be used as a tracer to evaluate sub-slab to indoor air attenuation (McHugh et al., 2008), although results may be somewhat biased by radon emissions from concrete itself or off-gassing from water, if from a groundwater source containing radon. The potential advantages of using radon, compared to analyses for VOCs, are potentially lower analytical costs, there are no common sources of indoor radon, and indoor radon concentrations are in most cases above detectable levels (unlike VOCs where bias may be caused by non-detect values). Flux Chamber Test: The surface emission flux rate of volatile chemicals may be measured by placing an open bottom box on top of bare ground or above a crack on a concrete floor (where the box is appropriately sealed to the concrete) and measuring the increase in volatile chemical concentrations in the chamber over time (static test) or measuring concentrations in air extracted at a steady rate from the chamber (dynamic test). Flux chamber tests are affected by the methodology used and conditions at the time of sampling and are relatively difficult tests to perform. The use or scaling of data for purposes of a vapour intrusion assessment is also not straightforward, although flux chamber tests may be useful when emissions to outdoor air are estimated. Larger-Scale Tracer and Pneumatic Testing: Several different techniques may be used to estimate soil-air permeability and evaluate soil gas migration pathways. Helium tracers may be released at probes and travel times monitored at a central well where soil gas is being extracted. Measurements of soil gas flow rates, pressures and vapour concentrations may be used for evaluating contamination source zones and for remediation design. Tree Coring: Recent studies have shown tree core concentrations of chlorinated solvent chemicals to be related to soil, groundwater and soil vapour concentrations (Burken et al., 2010, Struckoff et al., 2005, Vroblesky et al., 2004), indicating that trees may be a useful screening tool at some sites.
2010
5-42
5.8
DATA INTERPRETATION AND ANALYSIS The procedures for data interpretation and analysis of soil vapour data are described below.
5.8.1
Data Organization and Reporting The soil gas data should be tabulated and plotted to facilitate evaluation and review of data relationships and trends. The following data organization and presentation is recommended: Tabulate all data including sample location identifier, sample date, sample depth, sampling methods (including sampling duration and flow rate), chemical analysis methods, laboratory detection limits and results of chemical analysis; Tabulate field screening and laboratory analysis data to enable side by side comparisons; Prepare plan drawings showing soil vapour concentration data that includes pertinent structures (buildings, utilities, paved areas, vegetated areas); Compare soil vapour with nearby groundwater concentration data; consider geologic conditions when evaluating variability; Prepare vertical profiles of soil vapour concentration data that includes oxygen, carbon dioxide and methane and boring log data where available; and, Identify soil vapour target concentrations and background indoor and outdoor air concentrations, where available.
5.8.2
Data Quality Analysis Following receipt of the soil vapour results, the data should be evaluated to determine whether they meet data quality objectives outlined in the sampling plan. The data quality checks should include the following: Review reported detection limits relative to data quality objectives. In some cases, sample dilution is required which results in raised detection limits. For Summa canister analyses, review canister pressure before start of sampling, upon completion of sampling and receipt by the laboratory. Prior to sampling, the vacuum should be close to 29 inches Hg, and after sampling is complete, there should be a small vacuum left in the canister, if not, the sample integrity could be compromised. Oil-filled gauges supplied by the laboratory for field measurements have an accuracy of plus or minus 1 or 2 inches Hg, so only approximate
2010
5-43
readings can be obtained in the field using oil-filled gauges. Pressures may also be measured using digital manometers. Laboratories typically use a much more accurate pressure gauge to measure pressure in the canister. Obtain pre-delivery canister testing and certification results from the laboratory. When there are significant differences in the elevation at which the sample was obtained and the laboratory, it may be possible to correct for the effect of ambient pressure on the sample concentration (i.e., using Boyles Law for an ideal gas), providing that the barometric pressure at the time of sampling and analysis are recorded. For sorbent tube analyses, review results of analyses of front and back sections of the tube (or two tubes in series) to evaluate possible chemical breakthrough. Breakthrough can result when the adsorptive capacity is exceeded, the air flow through the tube is too high, or by chromatographic effects caused by other compounds. If the laboratory considers the first tube saturated, then results are potentially biased and re-sampling should occur. The criterion for evaluating breakthrough is method and chemical dependent but typically is a concentration in the second tube that is greater than 10 to 25 percent of the concentration in the first tube. If the sample media is not saturated, the front and back concentrations should be added together when reported. Compare the precision for laboratory and field duplicate or co-located samples, as quantified by the relative percent difference (RPD). The acceptable precision is method and chemical dependent, but for laboratory duplicates is generally 20 percent. For field duplicates, the acceptable RPD is higher since there is sampling variability in addition to laboratory variability. Review analytical results for blank samples (e.g., field blanks, laboratory blanks and trip blanks) to identify possible issues with the laboratory or field procedures that may have affected the results. Recognize that reported concentrations within five times of the quantification limit are typically more uncertain than higher concentration values.
5.8.3
Data Consistency Analysis The results of the soil gas sampling program should be reviewed in terms of the expected results, based on consistency with the conceptual site model and internal consistency between sampling points. These consistency checks should include the following: The soil vapour concentrations should be spatially consistent with the soil and groundwater concentrations, for example, the highest soil
2010
5-44
vapour concentration should be found in source contamination areas where soil and/or groundwater concentrations are also highest. The soil vapour concentrations should decrease with increasing distance from a source, and, in general, oxygen concentrations should decrease and carbon dioxide concentrations should increase close to petroleum hydrocarbon sources. If this pattern is not observed, there may be additional contamination sources present or there may be data quality issues (e.g., short circuiting). The vertical gradients of petroleum hydrocarbon vapours, oxygen, carbon dioxide and methane should be internally consistent. A decrease in hydrocarbon vapour concentrations should be associated with a decrease in oxygen and increase in carbon dioxide concentrations. As described in API (2005), stoichiometric relationships for aerobic biodegradation can be used to quantify the fluxes and concentration profiles expected. Significant depletion in oxygen concentrations are observed close to petroleum hydrocarbon source zones and below confining layers. Elevated oxygen concentrations close to hydrocarbon sources indicate that the soil gas sample was compromised through short-circuiting or leakage. Soil vapour concentrations should be consistent with expected temporal trends based on an analysis of available existing temporal data and expected variation based on the conceptual site model.
5.8.4
Further Evaluation The data quality and consistency should be evaluated to determine whether there are data gaps or quality issues that warrant additional soil vapour testing. The soil vapour concentrations will typically also be compared to risk-based generic (if available) or site-specific screening levels for the vapour intrusion pathway. Depending on the results of this comparison, additional soil vapour characterization and/or indoor air testing may be warranted.
2010
2010
CHAPTER 6 INDOOR AIR QUALITY TESTING FOR EVALUATION OF SOIL VAPOUR INTRUSION
CHAPTER 6 INDOOR AIR QUALITY TESTING FOR EVALUATION OF SOIL VAPOUR INTRUSION ................................................................................................................................ 6-2
6.1 6.2 6.2.1 6.2.2 6.2.3 6.2.4 6.2.5 6.2.6 6.3 6.3.1 6.3.2 6.3.3 6.3.4 6.3.5 6.3.6 6.3.7 6.3.8 6.3.9 6.3.10 6.4 6.4.1 6.4.2 6.5 6.5.1 6.5.2
Context, Purpose and Scope ................................................................................ 6-2 Conceptual Site Model for Indoor Air ................................................................. 6-4 Background Indoor Air Concentrations............................................................... 6-4 Building Foundation Construction....................................................................... 6-9 Building Ventilation............................................................................................. 6-9 Building Depressurization and Weather Conditions.......................................... 6-11 Mixing of Vapours Inside Building ................................................................... 6-11 Vapour Depletion Mechanisms.......................................................................... 6-12 Development of Indoor Air Quality Study Approach and Design .................... 6-12 Define Study Objectives .................................................................................... 6-12 Identify Target Compounds ............................................................................... 6-13 Develop Communications Program................................................................... 6-13 Conduct Pre-Sampling Building Survey............................................................ 6-14 Conduct Preliminary Screening ......................................................................... 6-14 Identify Immediate Health or Safety Concerns ................................................. 6-14 Define Number and Locations of Indoor and Outdoor Air Samples ................. 6-15 Define Sampling Duration ................................................................................. 6-15 Define Sampling Frequency .............................................................................. 6-16 Preparing the Building for Sampling and Conditions during Sampling ............ 6-17 Indoor Air Analytical Methods.......................................................................... 6-18 Air Analysis Using USEPA Method TO-15...................................................... 6-18 Air Analysis using Quantitative Passive Diffusive Samplers............................ 6-19 Data Interpretation and Analysis ....................................................................... 6-24 Data Organization and Reporting ...................................................................... 6-24 Data Quality Evaluation..................................................................................... 6-24
2009
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 6. Indoor Air Quality Testing 6-2
CHAPTER 6 INDOOR AIR QUALITY TESTING FOR EVALUATION OF SOIL VAPOUR INTRUSION
This chapter describes methodology for completing indoor air quality (IAQ) testing for evaluation of soil vapour intrusion. The testing of IAQ may be warranted when previous phases of an investigation indicate the potential for unacceptable risks from vapour migration into indoor air (or conducted concurrently with subsurface testing depending on the urgency of IAQ testing). 6.1 CONTEXT, PURPOSE AND SCOPE The use of IAQ measurements to evaluate potential health risk Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) Testing associated with vapour intrusion is an option for a current This chapter describes the planning, exposure scenario (existing process and methods for IAQ studies. The building). While indoor air key elements and their corresponding testing can provide a direct sections in the chapter are: measurement of potential inhalation exposure, there are a Conceptual site model (S 6.2), Study objectives (S 6.3), number of issues that can Sampling approach and design (S 6.3), complicate a vapour intrusion Indoor air analysis (S 6.4), and investigation based on indoor air Data validation and interpretation (S measurements only, and which 6.5). should be taken into consideration. These issues include background sources of the chemicals of interest and often significant variability observed in indoor vapour concentrations due to building or weather related factors. An IAQ testing program is also a relatively intrusive activity that particularly for a residential or institutional setting requires appropriate communication of program objectives and results with the building owners and occupants. The basic steps for the design of an IAQ program are similar to those described for soil vapour characterization and consist of (1) development of a conceptual site model (CSM), with specific consideration of factors that influence IAQ based on site conditions, (2) development of IAQ study objectives, and (3) preparation of a sampling plan. As indicated for soil vapour characterization, it is not possible to provide a standardized template for IAQ program design, and instead key principles and factors that should be considered in developing a sampling strategy are discussed below. A detailed flow chart of the framework for an IAQ study is provided in Figure 12.
2010
Indoor air sampling should be carried out according to an established plan, considering the study objectives and the data quality objectives. However, the plan should be flexible in that if the circumstances change, the plan could be adapted accordingly. In addition, if relevant information is obtained from activities such as the pre-sampling building survey or preliminary screening, the program should be refined to address these changes.
PREPARATORY TASKS
Define study objectives Identify target compounds Develop communications plan Pre-sampling building survey Conduct preliminary screening IMMEDIATE HEALTH OR SAFETY CONCERNS?
YES
UNDERTAKE MITIGATION
DEVELOP DETAILED SAMPLING PLAN
Assess building conditions (integrate above information) Define number & locations of indoor air samples Define sampling duration Define sampling frequency Sampling and analytical methods
NO
PERFORMING THE SAMPLING
Building Preparation Sampling & analysis
DATA INTERPRETATION & EVALUATION
Data organization & reporting Data quality evaluation Discerning contributions of background sources
ASSESSMENT OF EXPOSURE AND RISK
YES ADDITIONAL SAMPLING NEEDED?
NO
END
FIGURE 12: Framework for IAQ Sampling and Analysis Program
2010
Indoor air quality studies for assessment of soil vapour intrusion typically include some concurrent testing of outdoor air as well as subslab or near building soil vapour testing. Subslab or near building soil vapour samples may be used to identify the contaminants that have the potential to migrate into indoor air. Similarly, outdoor air samples may provide information with respect to the influence of ambient air quality on IAQ. These types of samples may provide additional lines-of-evidence that are helpful in assessing potential VOC sources. 6.2 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL FOR INDOOR AIR The CSM for soil vapour transport and intrusion into buildings was described in detail in Chapter 3 and Appendix I. The purpose of this section is to describe specific aspects of the CSM that could influence IAQ (excluding subsurface factors), which are background sources of VOCs in indoor air, building foundation construction, building ventilation, building depressurization and weather conditions, and vapour depletion processes within buildings. 6.2.1 Background Indoor Air Concentrations When evaluating the impact of subsurface vapour sources on IAQ, it is paramount that background sources of VOCs in indoor air be considered, since many subsurface contaminants of concern are also common background VOCs. Common background sources of VOCs include household products, off-gassing from building products (i.e. carpeting, shower curtains, building insulation, pressed wood products, fabrics), home heating (i.e., heating oil storage, combustion emissions), tobacco smoke, attached garages (i.e., vehicle emissions, stored products), volatilization of trihalomethanes from tap water (particularly when heated) as well as through activities occurring in the home or workplace. A list of dominant indoor air sources and associated volatile contaminants is provided in Table 9. Due to these and other indoor air sources, contaminant concentrations in indoor air are frequently higher than in outdoor air. Other background sources of contaminants include outdoor sources such as vehicle or industrial air emissions that enter the building through air leakage or ventilation. Compounds present in various consumer products are described in the household products database http://householdproducts.nlm.nih.gov/. As a consequence of the large variations in building design, use, and environmental setting, IAQ data is also highly variable. A number of studies have been completed in the United States, but fewer studies have been undertaken in Canada examining background IAQ in residential homes. Table 10 provides a summary of VOC data from key Canadian studies including a Health Canada Study conducted in 1991 and 1992 across Canada, a study conducted in the Greater Toronto area in 1996 and a study completed in
2010
Saskatchewan and Ontario in 1991 and 1999. These studies demonstrate that background concentrations are highly variable, but also show that a large number of compounds can be expected to be found in residential buildings. Although background IAQ can be expected to vary between buildings, regions and time frames, the data from these and other studies can be used to help interpret the results of IAQ investigations (refer to Section 6.5 for further discussion).
TABLE 9. Dominant Sources of VOCs in Residential Indoor Air Contaminants Benzene, Toluene, Trimethylbenzenes, Pentane, Tetrachloroethene Benzene, Toluene, Styrene, Trimethylbenzenes, Chlorobenzenes, Decane Wood Burning Toluene, Xylenes, Styrene, Trimethylbenzenes, Naphthalene Polystyrene Board Styrene, Butadiene Paint Removers Toluene, Acetone, Methylene chloride, Chlorobenzenes, Tetrachloroethene Spray Products Xylenes, Acetone Adhesives/Tapes/Glues Benzene, Toluene, Styrene, Xylene, Tetrachloroethene, Decane Room Deodorizers Ethanol, d-Limonene, Camphor, Phthalates Tobacco Smoke Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylenes, Styrene Gasoline/Driving Benzene, Toluene, Xylenes, Styrene, Trimethylbenzenes Solvents/Degreasers Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Trichloroethanes, Trichloroethene, Methylene chloride Dry Cleaning Tetrachloroethene, Trichloroethene (spot remover) Moth balls Naphthalene, 1,4-dichlorobenzene Pressed wood products Formaldehyde Note: Adapted from Hers et al. (2001) Source Paints Carpets
As a result of these background sources, particular care must be taken in the collection, review and interpretation of IAQ data. For instance, it is important to understand, as well as minimize, the effects of indoor sources through an assessment of building conditions and proper building preparation prior to sampling (Exhibit 4).
2010
Chapter6.IndoorAirQualityTesting
________________ 66
TABLE10.CompilationofIndoorAirQualityDatafromCanadianStudies
Health Canada 1991,1992a Contaminant Mean Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene m,p-Xylene o-Xylene Styrene 1,3,5Trimethylbenzene 1,2,4Trimethylbenzene Naphthalene n-hexane n-decane n- undecane n-dodecane Dichlorobenzenes 1,2,4Trichlorobenzene 1,4- Dichlorobenze Tetrachloroethene Trichloroethene 1,1-Dichloroethene Vinyl Chloride Dichloromethane 1,1,1- Trichloroethane 1,2-Dichloroethane Carbon Tetrachloride Bromodichloromethane 1,3- Butadiene Cyclohexane Isoprene 5.4 40.8 8.2 20.7 5.6 0.3 2.7 124 31.4 18.9 2.7 0.5 <0.1 Max 67.9 5730 540 1470 320 130 640 5.24 6450 1390 313 165 1.7 Mean 3.42 15.2 1.58 0.53 4.81 108 6.85 53.4 1.59 Max 45.8 186 20.9 1.47 83.4 14.5 91.9 1600 9.55 Mean 15 23.9 9.6 21.6 5.7 4.1 5.1 7.2 99.4 14.7 12.8 8.2 2.3 7.4 Max 42.3 110.5 32.9 74.2 20.3 11.3 15 30 91.9 337.5 30 6.5 25 Median 2.85 15.51 2.38 8.22 2.49 1.30 1.62 5.09 3.00 4.88 4.98 6.00 3.41 0.09 1.18 1.10 0.17 0.04 9.19 2.48 0.48 0.17 0.15 0.44 2.95 Mean* 3.99 25.04 4.16 16.33 4.95 8.37 3.99 10.05 5.09 7.94 14.50 15.61 8.88 0.23 8.67 3.06 0.30 0.15 48.99 9.94 0.57 0.28 0.24 0.80 5.26 95th percentile 10.67 88.10 15.10 41.05 17.38 37.02 9.33 32.96 17.20 26.90 53.83 57.49 24.27 0.66 39.98 14.84 0.77 178.80 54.07 0.90 0.77 0.65 2.84 16.76 Max 54.61 156.43 53.21 317.19 70.17 176.61 148.32 123.20 73.35 114.86 200.85 313.12 170.00 2.30 236.47 33.61 3.53 2.02 1.00 1209.91 115.79 4.51 1.32 2.40 11.02 43.38 Median 2.15 5.53 1.05 3.59 1.22 0.46 0.39 2.21 2.17 0.47 <0.02 <0.01 1.87 <0.02 <0.32 4.51 Mean* 2.85 11.54 4.71 7.5 5.08 0.69 3.87 3.97 5.28 1.15 0.06 0.27 14.98 0.03 0.5 6.58 90th percentile 5.21 25.47 4.76 16.35 6.48 1.49 4.75 6.73 8.09 3.25 0.19 0.83 43.21 <0.02 1.64 15.1 Max 20.99 112.93 201.41 138.97 205.11 6.53 144.44 56.60 84.60 9.23 0.87 4.05 408.37 0.71 3.65 54.12 Median 1.18 24.72 2.45 9.17 3.03 0.69 0.92 2.61 1.12 2.17 6.48 0.36 0.69 0.35 7.04 Geometric Mean 1.22 26.47 2.69 9.85 3.43 0.65 1.26 3.45 1.45 2.35 6.42 0.58 0.92 0.37 7.93 Max 22.37 436.33 19.50 77.08 26.43 14.03 22.38 68.09 23.02 38.55 203.25 286.57 179.30 4.68 1687.44 Greater Toronto, 1996b Saskatchewan and Ontario 1991, 1999c Hamilton, 1993d Ottawa, 2002, 2003e Quebec City, 2005f
MOETechnicalGuidance:SoilVapourIntrusionAssessment
Health Canada 1991,1992a Contaminant Mean Acetaldehyde Hexanal Acetone Chloroform 2-propanol 2-butanol Phenol Carbon disulfide 1-butanol 4-methyl-2-pentanone Acrylonitrile 2-butoxyethanol Methyl methacrylate Methyl tert-butyl ether Chlorobenzene 3,5-dimethylaniline 1,2-dichlorobenze 1,3-dichlorobenze 2-ethoxyethanol 2-methoxyethanol 1,2-dichloropropane Ethylene dibromide 1,1,2,2tetrachloroethane Cumene -pinene d-limonene p-cymene Concentrationsinunitsofug/m3
*
Greater Toronto, 1996b Mean Max -
________________ 67
Saskatchewan and Ontario 1991, 1999c Mean Max Median 0.00 9.33 Hamilton, 1993d Mean* 40.89 16.79 95th percentile 85.26 44.75 Max 792.41 57.40 Median 28.48 1.19 3.32 1.48 0.42 0.13 0.4 0.16 0.06 <0.28 <0.01 <0.05 <0.01 <1.2 <0.02 0.15 <0.13 <0.23 <0.04 <0.02 <0.02 Ottawa, 2002, 2003e Mean* 44.44 1.72 18.14 2.54 0.70 0.34 4.25 0.26 0.27 2.85 0.05 0.17 <0.012 <1.2 <0.02 0.77 0.43 <0.23 <0.04 <0.02 <0.02 90th percentile 76.4 4.39 68.76 6.66 1.67 0.86 5.96 0.8 0.26 7.06 0.06 <0.05 <0.01 <1.2 <0.02 1.05 <0.13 <0.23 <0.04 <0.02 <0.02 Max 455.87 8.23 238.17 16.45 5.16 3.29 139.66 1.40 8.89 41.44 1.12 3.32 0.04 4.71 0.11 16.19 27.14 <0.23 <0.04 <0.02 <0.02 Median 3.15 0.8 7.95 28.54 1.49 Quebec City, 2005f Geometric Mean 3.18 0.88 9.74 28.06 1.55 Max 18.59 45.48 800.68 329.89 32.90
Max -
Arithmeticmean Davis and Otson (1996) b Otson and Zhu. 1997.

a
c
________________ 68
Saskatchewan Research Council. 1992. Hamilton 1993 Indoor Air Statistics e Zhu et al. (2005) f Hroux et al. (2008)
d
Davis, C.S. and R. Otson (1996) Estimation of emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from Canadian residences. Volatile Organic Compounds in the Environment, ASTM STP 1261. Hroux, M.-., D. Gauvin, et al. (2007). "Housing characteristics and indoor concentrations of selected volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in Quebec City, Canada." Indoor and Built Environment 17: 128 137. Otson, R. and J. Zhu (1997) I/O values for determination of the origin of some indoor organic pollutants. Proc. Air & Waste Managements Associations 90th Annual Meeting and Exhibition, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, June 8 to 13, 1997. Saskatchewan Research Council (SRC) (1992) Volatile organic compound survey and summarization of results. Report I-4800-1-C-92. Prepared for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. April. Zhu, J., R. Newhook, et al. (2005). "Selected volatile organic compounds in residential air in the city of Ottawa, Canada." Environmental Science & Technology 39: 3964-3971.
6.2.2
Building Foundation Construction The building foundation construction will influence soil vapour intrusion rates into the building. For example, soil vapour can migrate through relatively small cracks or openings in the foundation or through utility penetrations. Soil vapour intrusion rates may vary depending on type of foundation, which include basement, slab-on-grade, crawlspace or earthen floor construction. For houses, there is often a perimeter edge crack between the foundation wall and slab for concrete floor slab construction. Compared to houses, construction methods for commercial buildings may be different including some buildings where measures are taken to seal concrete foundations, which would tend to reduce (but not completely eliminate) soil vapour intrusion. Utilities represent potential entry points for soil vapour intrusion regardless of building type.
6.2.3
Building Ventilation Through building ventilation and exchange with fresh air, soil vapour concentrations are diluted upon mixing with indoor air. Building ventilation or air exchange rates vary depending on climate, construction and season. A review of approximately 2,800 building ventilation measurements in houses across the U.S. grouped the results according to regions (defined by heating degree-days) and four seasons (Murray and Burmaster, 1995). The average yearly air change per hour (ACH) for the four regions ranged from 0.4 to 0.98 hr-1. For the north central to eastern part of the US (which most closely approximates most regions in Canada), the average ACH in summer was 0.82 hr-1, the average in fall was 0.25 hr-1, the average in winter was 0.36 hr-1 and the average in spring was 0.44 hr-1. In Canada, air exchange rates in energyefficient (R-2000) homes can be quite low based on tight construction (i.e., 0.1 to 0.2 hr-1). In an Ontario study, air exchange rates from 70 houses ranged from 0.06 to 0.77 ACH, with the lowest air exchange occurring in summer in R 2000 houses with closed windows (Walkinshaw, 1987). In a study completed in Saskatchewan and Tilsonburg, Ontario, the average measured air exchange rate from 44 houses was 0.34 ACH (SRC, 1992), while in a study completed in the Greater Toronto area, the average air exchange rate from 44 houses was 0.45 ACH (Otson and Zhu, 1997). For commercial buildings, design air exchange rates must meet minimum requirements based on building occupancy, although actual ventilation system efficiency may be variable depending on operation of the HVAC system. Standards in Canada and the U.S. both specify minimum ventilation rates for residential and commercial buildings. For example, ASHRAE (2007) indicates that for office use, 20 standard cubic feet of outdoor air is blown into the building per person to maintain sufficient fresh air supply, which corresponds to an air exchange of about 0.72 ACH for typical occupancy. Ventilation rates for institutional buildings are higher. The USEPA BASE
2010
study of one hundred randomly selected commercial buildings, which represented a wide range in construction, found that the 25th, 50th and 75th percentile air change rates were 0.47 hr-1, 0.98 hr-1 and 2.62 hr1, respectively (NIST, 2004). When conducting a site specific assessment, it may be instructive to obtain information on building ventilation from building HVAC engineers since often design and test information providing data on air flow rates for return and supply air will be available.
EXHIBIT 4. Preparation of Building for IAQ Sampling
Summary of measures implemented prior to IAQ sampling: Removal of products that are known significant sources of VOCs, such as fuel containers, paint, paint strippers or solvents, as practical; ordinary storage of normal amounts may not need removal, but should be noted in the field notes. Ensuring that containers of VOC-containing products are tightly sealed, as practical; Combustion sources (e.g., candles, wood stoves, tobacco products, incense, etc.) should be extinguished prior to sampling (preferably 24 hours prior to sampling); Consideration should be given to delaying sampling to allow elevated VOCs associated with new construction materials, paint, furnishings or sealing work to dissipate; After removal or control of known VOC sources (preferably several days before sampling), ventilation may be required to help eliminate residual contaminants. This may be done through operation of the building HVAC system or opening of doors, windows, or operation of exhaust fans. It should be completed at least 24 hours prior to sampling; and, HVAC systems (heating and cooling) should generally be operating under normal occupied conditions for at least 24 hours prior to and during the scheduled sampling time (unless the objective is to artificially control building conditions). Survey of potential outdoor air sources within a 300 meters radius of the site
Measures to be avoided 24 hours prior to and during sampling: Storage or use of fuel products, solvents, glues or petroleum-based materials within building or attached garages; Operation and storage of automobiles in attached garages; and, Operation of fireplaces. The residents of the home should be given the instructions listed below to follow 24 hours prior to and during the sampling event: Do not open any windows, fireplace openings or vents. Do not operate ventilation fans unless special arrangements are made. Do not smoke in vicinity of sampler and or disturb sampler in any way. Do not use oil based paints or varnishes. Do not store containers of gasoline or oil within the house or attached garage (except for heating fuel oil tanks). Do not clean or polish furniture or floors with petroleum or oil-based products.
2010
6.2.4
Building Depressurization and Weather Conditions The indoor and outdoor temperature, number of storeys, degree of air leakage between floors, and presence of chimney, flues, exhaust fans and vents, may contribute to the pressure differentials that affect the rate of intrusion of soil gas. Of particular importance is the stack effect that may occur during the heating season as a result of hot air rising in a building and leaving near the top of the building (e.g., through a chimney, leaky attic, exhaust vent). This creates a negative pressure in the building, thus drawing outdoor air and soil gas into the building through openings with the lower regions of the building (i.e., doors, windows, cracks and/or the building foundation). Pressure differences during the heating season for houses with basements typically range from 2 to 10 Pa, but may be as high as 15 Pa (Figley, 1997; Hers et al., 2001). The operation of the HVAC system may also result in building depressurization through intake and exhaust systems that are not balanced or through insufficient combustion air. The operation of fans and fireplaces also can result in a depressurized building. For commercial buildings, the HVAC system may be designed to provide for positive pressure under most conditions, but for tall buildings, the stack effect may be sufficient to maintain a negative pressure at ground level during cold weather. Commercial building pressures may also depend on operation of the HVAC system and exhaust fans (e.g., fume hoods, oven vents). The ASTM (2003) standard for radon mitigation specifies a pressure differential of 6 to 9 Pascals as sufficient to curtail vapour intrusion; for some buildings HVAC units may create a similar level of positive pressure thus counteracting the pressure gradient for vapour intrusion (EPRI, 2005). Wind force may create pressure differentials between upwind and downwind sides of the building, which is another mechanism that causes the building interior to be underpressurized. Changes in barometric pressure as a result of meteorological conditions can also cause pressure differences between the building interior and exterior. These pressure differences may occur at varying temporal scales (hourly to seasonally), but in general, the most significant pressure differences occur under severe winter conditions. In summary, weather conditions and HVAC operation may have a marked effect on air exchange rates and pressure differences between indoor and outdoors, which can both affect the rates of soil vapour intrusion into buildings and the degree of mixing and dilution within the building structure.
6.2.5
Mixing of Vapours Inside Building Within the building, contaminants will diffuse as a result of chemical gradients and disperse through air movement. Mixing between building floors will depend on the HVAC system and air leakage between floors. Elevator shafts
2010
often include a sump with a drain hole at the bottom to allow any water from fire-suppression systems to drain away, which may allow entry of sub-surface vapours. The movement of the elevator itself can cause pressure differential that may facilitate soil vapour entry. Furthermore, buildings tall enough to need an elevator will often have a significant stack effect when the temperature outside the building is lower than inside, which is the case for at least half the year in most of Ontario. Elevator shafts can also represent conduits for inter-floor migration of vapours. 6.2.6 Vapour Depletion Mechanisms Chemical or physical mechanisms may result in the removal of vapours from indoor air, in addition to dilution through building ventilation. Since soil vapour intrusion typically occurs over timescales of months to years, the removal of volatiles in air through adsorption onto building materials is unlikely to have a significant long-term effect on indoor vapour concentrations since adsorption sites on building materials will likely be filled over time. Adsorption onto building materials can be reversible (i.e., desorption can occur) and thus should also be considered as a source of volatiles, depending on building conditions. For example, even after soil vapour intrusion is mitigated (e.g., through a subslab venting system), there may be a period of time over which a chemical of concern is detected in indoor air as a result of desorption from building materials. Chemical transformations due to processes such as photo-oxidation are generally relatively slow processes relative to air exchange rates (i.e., half-lives of days) and biodegradation is unlikely to be a relevant process in an indoor environment. 6.3 DEVELOPMENT OF INDOOR AIR QUALITY STUDY APPROACH AND DESIGN Define Study Objectives The study objectives should be well-defined prior to developing a sampling plan, as the sampling plan could vary substantially depending on the type of data required and how that data is intended to be used. The primary goal of the IAQ study is often to provide data that could be used to evaluate exposure and potential human health risk through inhalation of indoor vapours. To meet this objective, the building conditions and sampling locations should generally reflect typical exposure conditions, as further described below. Samples collected to meet this objective are typically referred to as exposure point samples. There may be other specific objectives of the IAQ study that would result in a different sampling strategy. For example, if the goal is to evaluate potential entry points for soil gas into a building, samples may be collected from close to cracks or within utility openings. Samples collected to meet this objective are typically referred to as pathway samples. If the objective of the IAQ
6.3.1
study is to evaluate the potential influence of background sources of indoor air quality relative to subsurface sources, several indoor air samples from different locations within a building may be required. In addition, the building environment may be artificially controlled at the same time IAQ sampling is conducted to assist in evaluation of background sources, as described in Section 6.3.10. The study objectives can also be broadly defined in terms of the phase or level of investigation. An initial preliminary investigation may consist of a limited number of IAQ samples. If the preliminary investigation indicates a potential indoor air quality concern, additional investigation may be appropriate. Finally, if vapour intrusion mitigation systems are installed, follow-up IAQ monitoring may be required for some period of time. 6.3.2 Identify Target Compounds The target compounds for the sampling plan are dependant upon the contaminant source under evaluation. Target compounds would generally include the primary constituents of the contamination source and may also include potential breakdown products of these constituents. In addition to contaminants of potential concern, other compounds that are present as background constituents and that could be useful as tracers should also be considered. For an IAQ study designed to evaluate soil vapour intrusion from contaminated soil or groundwater, a screening process based on volatility and toxicity can be used to identify target compounds (Health Canada, 2007). Target compounds may also be identified based on the results of previous indoor air sampling at the site or based on the history of the site and/or neighbouring properties. For petroleum hydrocarbons, target compounds also may include petroleum fractions as well as specific chemicals of potential concern. Specific chemicals are often the more potent chemicals associated with the petroleum fraction and include carcinogenic compounds such as benzene. 6.3.3 Develop Communications Program An important part of the IAQ program is communication with the building occupants and owners and other stakeholders, to keep them informed and involved in the process. This can be done throughout the sampling process, but is especially important in the preparatory stage. Issues to address with building occupants include: why the study is being conducted and what the study objectives are; scheduling the pre-sampling building survey; discussing the types of activities to avoid prior to the sampling events and background chemical issues (see Section 6.3.10); scheduling and discussing the sampling that will be conducted; and communication of the results of the sampling program. Consideration should be given to the development of an access agreement between parties prior to sampling.
6.3.4
Conduct Pre-Sampling Building Survey Buildings should be inspected prior to and during IAQ testing to assess whether there are potential background sources of chemicals and also to describe building conditions that may influence indoor air concentrations. Building occupants may also be interviewed to derive additional information on factors that may affect IAQ and to determine the building occupancy characteristics. Examples of a pre-sampling building survey, that could be used to direct a building inspection and occupant interviews, are those published by ITRC (2007) and NJDEP (2005). The pre-sampling building survey may be used as a tool to refine the sampling plan and identify any building preparation activities that should be considered prior to sampling (see Section 6.3.10). Relevant portions of the survey should be reviewed again at the time indoor air sampling is performed. A survey should be completed for each building being investigated.
6.3.5
Conduct Preliminary Screening In conjunction with the pre-sampling building survey, a preliminary screening of the study building using a portable air monitoring instrument such as a photoionization detector (PID) can provide useful information on background VOC sources in indoor air. When sensitive PIDs are used (low ppbV range), they may also be capable of identifying entry points where soil gas intrusion is occurring. It is important to note that most direct-measuring instruments measure multiple organic compounds with varying responses and are not capable of identifying specific compounds. Furthermore, for most conventional PIDs/FIDs, the sensitivity of these instruments is often insufficient to detect compounds at levels that may be of concern for human health. Therefore, while they may be a useful tool for identifying indoor VOC sources or targeting sampling locations at some sites, they may not be used to rule out the presence of background contaminants in indoor air. The PID measurements in some environments may be biased high. For example, condensation on the PID sensor results in a slowly rising false positive response that may reach several hundred ppm (Western Australia Department of Environment, 2005). Microparticles of dust and wood soot absorb moisture more readily than a clean sensor surface exacerbating the effect of moisture; therefore, relevant conditions during sampling should be noted, and the instrument calibration should be checked frequently.
6.3.6
Identify Immediate Health or Safety Concerns If the building survey or preliminary screening identify immediate health or safety concerns associated with chemical odours or where occupants exhibit acute effects attributable to inhalation of volatiles in indoor air (e.g., headaches, dizziness, nausea), further actions should be taken to identify the chemical source and mitigate the hazard (increase ventilation, relocate
2010
occupants, etc.), as warranted. There may also be instances where there are safety concerns associated with the accumulation of potentially explosive levels of methane or oxygen deficient conditions inside or near to buildings. In the case of methane gas from landfills infiltrating structures through subsurface transport, the MOEs Guideline for Assessing Methane Hazards from Landfill Sites should be followed. In this case PID measurements and/or continuous samplers are used to assess or provide warning of explosion hazards. 6.3.7 Define Number and Locations of Indoor and Outdoor Air Samples The number and locations of indoor air samples will be dictated by several factors. If a preliminary investigation of IAQ is being undertaken, a limited number of samples may be sufficient. If the study objectives require a statistical approach or analysis of results, multiple samples would be required. The building characteristics including size, construction and ventilation patterns will also influence the required number of samples. For example, if the building is a small house with reasonably good ventilation, the indoor air concentrations within the house may be relatively uniform. For a larger house, commercial building, or school, where indoor air concentrations may vary in different parts of the building, multiple samples are required to characterize indoor air quality. For a residence with multiple floors, consideration should be given to collecting at least one sample per floor (per sampling event) to characterize inter-floor variability. Where minimal sampling is conducted for a preliminary assessment, it is generally preferable to target the first level of the building (e.g., basement) since vapour concentrations are expected to be highest in lower regions of the building in instances of soil vapour intrusion. Exposure samples should be collected within the typical breathing zone at a height of approximately 1 to 1.5 m above the floor, preferably near the centre of the room, which is generally representative of overall room conditions. Outdoor air will influence IAQ and may also contain chemicals at concentrations that exceed risk-based concentrations. Therefore, it is good practice to obtain outdoor air samples as part of the IAQ program. The number of samples will be site specific, but several samples obtained from multiple locations may be needed. As part of the outdoor air program, it is also important to identify emission sources such as gasoline stations, major highways, paving operations and remediation systems. It is important to protect outdoor air samplers from the elements (rain or snow) and vandalism. 6.3.8 Define Sampling Duration The duration for sample collection may depend on the study objectives. The selected sample duration should yield an average concentration of chemicals of potential concern over the expected daily exposure duration. For a
residential scenario, it is possible that residents may be present in the home 24 hours per day. Therefore, a 24-hour sample duration is the minimum duration recommended for a residential scenario, unless technical or time considerations require shorter time frames. To provide perspective on sampling duration it is noted that it is generally recommended that radon samples be collected over a period of one week or longer to account for temporal variability (www.epa.gov/radon). Studies of radon provide valuable insight on potential indoor air concentration variability for vapour intrusion. For example, Groves-Kirkby et al. (2006) in a study comparing timeintegrated indoor radon sampling for different time scales concluded that natural variability caused many one-week results (compared to three month tests) to be equivocal when compared to action levels, necessitating repetition of the measurement. Continuous radon monitoring indicated roughly diurnal (24-hour) variations that were up to one order-in-magnitude. Font et al. (2001) found that soil moisture levels caused by precipitation caused variations in indoor radon concentrations. The feasibility and need for longer duration active air sampling for evaluation of vapour intrusion is an area of current research. For a commercial scenario, a minimum sample duration equivalent to the standard 8-hour commercial exposure duration is recommended. Ventilation systems are often designed for energy efficiency reasons to run at minimal levels outside of normal working hours, so a sample collected over longer periods to average temporal variability may be best collected in successive 8hour increments. A longer or shorter sample duration could be selected, if warranted, based on site-specific conditions and site use. When determining the sampling duration, potential limitations in the sampling device should be considered. For example, for Summa canisters, the flow controller accuracy may be difficult to control for longer than 2-hour samples. For sorbent tubes, chemical breakthrough and moisture interference may be an issue for long-term samples, depending primarily on the sampling duration and flow rate. For this, sorbent tubes are not recommended when dealing with vinyl chloride contamination. Passive diffusive samplers are better suited to longer sampling periods than active adsorptive or active whole-gas sampling methods. 6.3.9 Define Sampling Frequency The sampling frequency will depend on study objectives, the nature of the contamination source and variability expected due to factors such as building characteristics, weather conditions and occupancy characteristics during sampling. Since it is not possible to accurately predict concentration variability due to the site-specific and complex nature of the processes that contribute to soil vapour intrusion, repeat sampling is generally required to establish concentration variability at a given site. In general, a minimum of
2010
two sampling events that capture possible seasonal variability (e.g., winter/summer) are recommended; however, additional sampling events may be warranted at some sites. In general, higher indoor vapour concentrations would be expected when sampling is performed under winter conditions because of lower air exchange rates, higher stack effect and less vertical ground permeation through frozen soils. Repeat sampling may also be warranted, for example, if the subsurface source concentrations are changing over time (e.g., mobile groundwater plume, water table fluctuations with an LNAPL smear zone being sometimes submerged and sometimes not). 6.3.10 Preparing the Building for Sampling and Conditions during Sampling A list of measures that should be considered when performing IAQ sampling programs is provided in Exhibit 4. Building occupants should be informed of the required measures or sampling conditions in advance of the sampling event. In some cases, it may be desirable to adjust building HVAC conditions to control conditions for soil gas intrusion. For example, monitoring of IAQ under conditions of positive and negative building pressure may confirm whether volatiles measured in indoor air are from subsurface or background sources. One way to control building conditions is to either extract or blow in air using a blower or fan. This Canister Cleaning Study test may be implemented by replacing a door of a building EPRI (2005) report laboratory QC data with custom door of the same where 100 canisters were tested after they size fitted with a blower (i.e., were cleaned, with results as follows: referred to as a blower door Max Chemical Number Avg. test). Consideration should be given to obtaining ancillary data (see Section 5.8), such as the differential pressure between the building and outdoor air and meteorological data, to aid in the interpretation of indoor air data. It may also be important to monitor the operation of fans, central vacuum cleaners, or other mechanical devices that could influence ventilation and pressure conditions during indoor air sampling.
Conc. Conc. (g/m3) (g/m3) Benzene 100 0.046 0.52 PCE 30 0.063 0.30 TCE 79 0.055 1.42 VC 0 non detect non detect Note: PCE = tetrachloroethene, TCE = trichloroethene, VC = vinyl chloride Detects A second study involved testing canisters one and ten days after they had been cleaned. The results indicated higher TCE concentrations for the ten day sample, which was attributed to time dependent desorption from the valve and canister. These studies highlight that the challenges for sub-g/m3 testing of air samples.
2010
6.4
INDOOR AIR ANALYTICAL METHODS The selection of the indoor air analytical method depends on a number of factors, including data quality objectives, risk assessment objectives, detection limits and the contaminants of potential concern. Typically indoor air samples are obtained using either sorbent materials or canisters (e.g., Summa canisters) and sent to a laboratory for analysis. Since analytical protocols were addressed in detail for soil vapour, this section is limited to describing differences in analytical considerations for indoor air. Since there are accepted methods for collection of indoor air samples using passive methods (unlike soil vapour), indoor air testing using passive diffusive samplers is also described. The main differences between soil vapour and indoor air sampling are that lower detection limits, larger sample volumes and longer sampling durations are generally required for indoor air testing. The required analytical reporting limit will depend on the compound, but typically is less than 1 g/m3. Detection limits should be optimally at a minimum 10 times lower than criteria/benchmark values of the target compounds. For some analytes, the target risk-based indoor air concentration may be below a practically achievable detection limit and/or below typical background levels in indoor or ambient air. The low detection limits require that a high level of care be taken to avoid cross-contamination both by the laboratory (e.g., cleaning of sampling device) and by persons performing the sampling (e.g., handling and storage of sampling device). When using canisters, it is important to consider whether they can be cleaned and certified to the levels at which the analysis will be performed. For indoor air testing, Summa canisters (six litre) are frequently used (USEPA TO-15). To provide the sensitivity required to achieve reporting limits at or below risk-based target concentrations, GC/MS analysis may need to be performed in selective ion model (SIM) for some compounds. For active sorbent tube analysis, modified industrial hygiene methods involving solvent extraction (e.g., modified OSHA 7 or NIOSH 5515) may not provide sufficiently low detection limits. Instead, thermal desorption methods may be required (e.g., USEPA Method TO-17). Summa canisters must retain at least 2 inches Hg of negative pressure to be considered valid sample.
6.4.1
Air Analysis Using USEPA Method TO-15 While a complete discussion goes beyond the scope of this guidance, there are subtle issues for analytical protocols, which may be important, and are relevant since some QA/QC requirements in the TO-15 method are either not prescribed or are deficient. Notable methodology issues include: (i) calibration standards may be used for up to one year (fresh NIST-traceable gas-phase standards should be used a holding time of 14 days common), (ii) no secondary source calibration standard is required, (iii) there is no requirement for analysis of surrogate compounds, and (iv) there is a relatively
2010
wide acceptance window for replicate standards (30% relative standard deviation (RSD)). Another issue is the use of selective ion mode (SIM), which may be desirable when sub ppbV detection limits are desired. However, since the use of SIM mode only allows specific masses to be characterized, other potential compounds are not monitored. The lack of complete mass ion data may result in inaccurate compound identification and quantification, which may result in false positives or negatives. It is recommended that the laboratory demonstrate how their implementation of the TO-15 method addresses the above quality control issues. The laboratory to be used is to be accredited by CAEAL (Canadian Association for Environmental Analytical Laboratories) for the method of analysis being used. 6.4.2 Air Analysis using Quantitative Passive Diffusive Samplers Quantitative passive diffusive samplers are less commonly used in vapour intrusion assessments than whole-gas or active adsorptive sampling, but they are growing in popularity as their capabilities become better known and demonstrated. These samplers have a known uptake rate so the concentration of chemicals can be calculated from the mass adsorbed over a known exposure duration. Passive samplers are easy to use and do not require a sampling pump. Passive samplers can be deployed for longer periods of time (up to about a week) to provide time-averaged concentrations. The sampling (i.e., diffusive uptake) rate is a function of the diffusive coefficient, which is compound and sorbent specific, and the geometry of the sampler. Other factors that affect performance include temperature, pressure, humidity, air velocity and transient changes in contaminant concentrations. The following is a short description of some of the passive sampler types available: 1) Badge-style samplers (e.g., 3M OVM 3500 and SKC Ultra II) have been used for decades for evaluation of workplace exposures to VOCs. In this application, the reporting limits are typically in the part per million (ppmV) range, samples are typically collected over an 8 hour period and the absorbent medium is typically charcoal, which is extracted using solvent (e.g., carbon disulphide, CS2) and analyzed using GC/MS methods (GC/FID is not recommended). Recently, passive diffusive badges have been used for indoor air quality studies involving longer sampling periods and lower detection limits using sorbents that are thermally desorbed (Chromosorb 106, Carbotrap Z) (OSHA, 2003, Coyne et al., 2002, Hendricks, 2003). McClenny et al. (2006) report on the results of a thermal desorption method involving the SKC Ultra-II filled with Carbotrap C, where compound-specific method detection limits on the order of 0.03 to 0.3 ppbV were reported. At these levels, badge-style samplers can also be used for assessing VOC vapour concentrations at levels protective of long-term exposures.
3M OVM 3500
SKC Ultra II
2) Radiello is a radial symmetric diffusive sampler, filled with graphitized charcoal for thermal desorption or activated charcoal for solvent extraction by CS2 (Bruno et al., 2004), or other sorbents for specific compounds. The radial design increases the uptake rate, which improves the sensitivity of the sampler (lower reporting limits) with a shorter exposure time. The Radiello has been extensively tested for a wide range of compounds, and the experimentally-determined uptake rates have been published, including correlations for the uptake rate as a function of temperature. The microporous polyethylene body through which the vapors diffuse is manufactured with different pore-sizes to adjust the sampling rate. This body also provides a moderate resistance to wind, so advective uptake tends not to cause excessive positive bias in high wind-speed settings. Calibration constants for the sampler can be determined experimentally for each individual analyte, or can be estimated from the physico-chemical properties of the analytes. (http://www.fsm.it/padova/homepage.html). 3) Automatic Thermal Desorption (ATD) tube samplers. This device uses a standard ATD Tube as the body of the sampler, which is sealed at one end and open at the other. Adsorbent media (e.g. Tenax TA or Carbograph 1TD) is packed into the closed end, and held in place with quartz wool. During a measured time, the sampler is opened at the other end to expose the sampler to any ambient vapor concentrations (Co), and a concentration gradient is created through the air inside the tube. The tube contents are analyzed by thermal desorption, gas chromatography and mass
2010
spectroscopy or flame ionization detection (ATD/GC/MS&FID), as appropriate. Application of the method to determine VOCs in indoor, ambient and workplace air is described in international standard EN ISO 16017-2. This standard provides guidance on the selection of appropriate sorbents for particular purposes where key considerations are the properties of the target analytes, the concentration of interest and the required averaging time of the measurement. The selection of an appropriate sorbent relates predominantly to the volatility of the target analyte/s and there is a requirement for the sorbent analyte interaction to be appropriate to allow quantitative retention of the analyte, but also as efficient release as possible when heat is applied in a flow of gas in the thermal desorber. The ISO standard also recommends conditions for the thermal desorption of the different sorbents for the analysis by ATD/GC/MS&FID). The stronger sorbents tend to also absorb water, which can be a problem in the analysis and can be limiting for some applications. Weaker absorbents such as Tenax do not retain water but more volatile compounds are not strongly retained and may be lost from the sampling tube by back diffusion. These types of processes can result in non-ideal behaviour of the samplers, which means that the actual performance of the sampler in the field may deviate from that calculated on the basis of the dimensions of the sampler and the rate of diffusion of the analyte in air. International standards are available describing the process of assessment of the sampler performance and these involve a series of laboratory and field tests to assess the uncertainty associated with the measurement of a particular analyte under defined conditions.
The standard also discusses the impact of environmental conditions such as humidity, air velocity, temperature, pressure, and occurrence of transient concentrations on sampler performance. Assuming the correct sorbent is selected, the standard advises that in practical use the three main considerations are air velocity, protection from precipitation and security. The sampler has been shown to perform as designed in locations with low
2010
air movement (e.g. 5 cm s-1), but if placed outdoors an appropriate shelter should be used because precipitation, direct solar heating and high wind velocities may adversely affect performance. 4) Waterloo Membrane Samplers. This sampler is composed of a 1.8 mL standard crimp-top chromatographic autosampler vial partially filled with a known amount of adsorbent medium and closed with a polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) membrane (Zabiegaa, et. al., 2006, Grecki and Namiesnik, 2002). The cross-sectional area and thickness of the membrane are controlled and the partitioning into and permeation across the membrane has been experimentally determined at different temperatures for 40 different compounds ranging from n-alkanes and aromatic hydrocarbons to alcohols and chlorinated organic compounds containing one to three carbon atoms. The performance of the samplers was evaluated alongside active air sampling techniques at various locations in a laboratory setting with excellent results. The sampler-tosampler reproducibility in determining the calibration constants was less than 8% RSD. The analytical limits of quantitation (LOQ) were as low as 0.1 g/m3 for trichloroethylene (using electron capture detection) for 24 hour sampling, with proportionally lower LOQs for longer sampling periods. PDMS is used as a stationary phase on capillary columns used in gas chromatography and the rate of uptake through the membrane is correlated to the gas chromatographic linear temperature-programmed retention indices (LTPRI) of the analytes. Thus, the calibration constants can be easily estimated from the chromatographic retention times of the analytes. This makes it possible to estimate the concentrations of VOCs whose identity is unknown at the time of sampling and to quantify complex mixtures of analytes (e.g. petroleum fractions). The membrane is also non-porous and very hydrophobic, which avoids concerns for sampling in high wind-speed or high moisture environments.
Aluminium cap PDMS membrane
Crimp top vial
2010
Given that passive diffusive sampling methods have only recently begun to be used for low-level indoor air analysis, considerations relating to their use and results of selected research studies are summarized below: The sampling rate is compound specific; there are varying (up to four) levels of validation studies. The highest level of validation are laboratory testing programs designed to evaluate the stability of the sampling rate under varying conditions and contaminant mixtures, whereas the lowest level are estimates from the diffusion coefficient of the analyte. The sampling rate is typically relatively stable over a certain time interval, but will decrease once saturation of the media is approached; In stagnant air, the sampling rate will decrease; one study indicated a significant decline for sampling face air velocities that were less than 50 cm/sec (OHSA, 1998). Another study indicated that badges performed satisfactorily down to face velocities as little as 5 cm/sec, but reported that face velocities inside houses are typically less than 2.5 cm/sec indicating the potential for a starvation effect (SKC, 2006). A review of 28 studies between 1973 and 2003 where the effect of face velocity on sampling rate was evaluated indicated that except for one study, significant underestimation in sampling rate was reported (about 20 to 60%) in the wind velocity range encountered in the indoor environment (Lee and Yun, 2004). Back-diffusion of compounds out of the sampler may occur for some compounds; Humidity above 50 percent will reduce recovery of certain compounds such as vinyl chloride, acetone and methyl ethyl ketone (3M Bulletin 1028, 2000); Extraction recovery varies depending on compound; project specific recovery tests are recommended by some badge manufacturers (3M Bulletin 1028, 2001) to address varying recovery for contaminant mixtures; There is an absence of established methods for low-level VOC analysis and studies involving longer sampling durations; and, Detection limits for passive badge-type diffusion samplers are typically about 1 g/m3 or higher for common VOCs, although lower detection limits can be achieved with newer badge or radial samplers. Comparisons of active and passive samplers indicate variable results, with some studies indicating good comparisons between two methods with environmental factors having no significant influence on the results (Strandberg et al., 2005; Scobie, 2008), while other studies report a downward
bias in concentrations measured using passive samplers relative to active methods (Jia et al., 2007). There have been significant recent developments for passive sampling technology, which show promise for longer sampling durations and low-level analysis. However, only passive diffusive samplers that are validated for specific chemicals and sampling durations should be used. Passive samplers should be deployed in areas where there is good ventilation to avoid starvation effect. 6.5 6.5.1 DATA INTERPRETATION AND ANALYSIS Data Organization and Reporting The indoor air quality data should be tabulated and plotted to facilitate evaluation and review of data relationships and trends. The following data organization and presentation is recommended: Tabulate all data including sample location identifier, sample date, sample height, sample location within room, sampling methods, chemical analysis methods, laboratory detection limits and results of chemical analysis. Calculate constituent ratios and evaluate trends with respect to (i) indoor air to soil vapour or subslab vapour samples, (ii) first building level to higher level air samples, and (iii) indoor air to outdoor air samples. Note building size, foundation conditions, utility penetrations through floor, sumps and drains, attached garages, and stains on floor. Note building HVAC conditions during indoor air sampling and qualitatively describe opening of windows and doors, operation of fireplace, furnace and fans. Note potential significant indoor sources of VOCs present during sampling. Identify target risk-based indoor air concentrations and background indoor and outdoor air concentrations, where available.
6.5.2
Data Quality Evaluation Following receipt of the indoor air testing results, the data should be evaluated to determine whether they meet data quality objectives outlined in the sampling plan. The data quality analysis for indoor air is similar to soil vapour (Section 5.6).
2010
2009
CHAPTER 7 METHODS FOR DISCERNING CONTRIBUTIONS OF BACKGROUND FROM INDOOR SOURCES

CHAPTER 7 METHODS FOR DISCERNING CONTRIBUTIONS OF BACKGROUND FROM INDOOR SOURCES ................................................................................................................... 7-2
7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7
Constituent Ratios................................................................................................ 7-2 Marker Chemicals................................................................................................ 7-2 Spatial Trends ...................................................................................................... 7-3 Comparison of Indoor Air Data to Literature Background Concentrations ........ 7-3 Modification of Building Pressurization.............................................................. 7-3 Emerging Methods............................................................................................... 7-4 Comparison of Measured to Predicted Indoor Air Concentrations ..................... 7-4
2010
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 7. Discerning Contributions of Background 7-2
CHAPTER 7 METHODS FOR DISCERNING CONTRIBUTIONS OF BACKGROUND FROM INDOOR SOURCES

Since the intent of this guidance is to evaluate impacts to indoor air resulting from soil vapour intrusion, careful consideration must be given to determining which constituents are derived from background sources and which are likely related to the contaminant release or spill. To the extent possible, multiple lines-of-evidence should be considered when evaluating IAQ data. The relative importance of various lines-of-evidence should be based on professional judgment and should consider site conditions, data quality, as well as an understanding of background sources of contamination, factors affecting IAQ as well as contaminant fate and transport mechanisms. 7.1 CONSTITUENT RATIOS An evaluation of the ratios between contaminant concentrations in groundwater, soil vapour, indoor air and outdoor air for concurrent data and chemicals with similar fate and transport properties can assist in discerning background sources of contaminants. Chemical ratios in indoor air and soil vapour should be similar if vapour intrusion is the cause for the elevated indoor air concentrations. If the ratios are significantly different (e.g., by more than one order-of-magnitude), there may be background contributions of VOCs for some or all the chemicals under consideration. Ratios of more than two compounds can be inspected using multi-linear diagrams (e.g., tri-linear), where the concentrations of each chemical are plotted on an axis and where lines are drawn to connect the plotted points (EPRI, 2005). Depending on the source, the outline may have a characteristic shape. If groundwater data are used, adjustments should be made to take into account different relative volatilities between contaminants (i.e., corrected for varying Henrys Law constants). The constituent ratio analysis works best for chemical groups with similar physical-chemical and fate properties, such as tetrachloroethene and trichloroethene. Where there are potential significant differences in physicochemical properties or biodegradation rates, this technique is less effective. 7.2 MARKER CHEMICALS Marker chemicals are compounds which are associated with the subsurface contamination, but not background air sources. An example of a marker chemical is 1,1 dichloroethene (DCE), which is a degradation product of 1,1,1-trichloroethane and trichloroethene, and which is not known to be present as a background chemical in indoor air. Therefore, detectable levels of 1,1-DCE in indoor air would suggest soil vapour intrusion is occurring (unless
from an ambient air source). Marker chemicals, if present, are also useful compounds when evaluating constituent ratios using the method described above. 7.3 SPATIAL TRENDS An evaluation of spatial trends may provide insight on differentiating background sources from the contaminants of interest. For instance, VOC concentrations in a basement may be higher than in upper floors. This provides support for a subsurface vapour source, but care must be taken to ensure that the results were not biased by products stored in the basement. Also, testing of pathway samples collected near foundation cracks, unsealed utility entry points or other possible preferential transport zones could be compared to samples collected at other parts of the building. Concentrations in pathway samples that are elevated relative to concentrations in samples from other parts of the building may indicate soil vapour intrusion is occurring. Conversely, elevated concentrations in proximity to chemical storage inside the building may indicate background sources are significant. However, spatial differences may be minimal in buildings with efficient ventilation systems. 7.4 COMPARISON OF INDOOR AIR BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS DATA TO LITERATURE
Indoor air quality data may be compared to published data on indoor air quality. Typical background sources and concentrations of VOCs in indoor air were discussed in Section 6.2.1. The data should be compared to data for buildings of similar type (e.g., single family residence, apartment, commercial). The ratio of measured indoor to outdoor air (I/O) concentration may also be compared to literature values. For some chemicals (e.g., benzene), the I/O ratio is normally relatively close to one (Hers et al., 2001); therefore, large divergences may suggest a subsurface vapour source. 7.5 MODIFICATION OF BUILDING PRESSURIZATION Indoor air quality testing under positive and negative building pressurization can be used to determine whether soil vapour intrusion is occurring and to evaluate the possible influence of background sources on indoor air quality. Indoor air concentrations that are significantly different under positive and negative pressures suggest vapour intrusion is occurring, since typically, soil gas advection caused by building depressurization is the main cause for soil vapour intrusion. Building pressures can be modified through control of the building HVAC system and use of temporary fans or blowers. While modification of building pressurization goes beyond the typical scope of
2010
testing for IAQ studies, it could be considered when it is important to distinguish background from possible subsurface vapour sources. 7.6 EMERGING METHODS Carbon stable isotope analysis (CSIA) is an emerging method for identifying potential vapour sources. Isotopes have a different atomic mass (number of neutrons); one example is carbon 12 and 13. Fractionation may occur when biodegradation or other transformation processes preferentially break down lighter isotopes. McHugh et al. (2010) present preliminary analysis where isotope ratios of TCE were determined by a modified PT-GC-IRMS (purgeand-trap-gas chromatographyisotope ratio mass spectrometry). The results indicated a difference in the carbon isotope ratios for a subsurface and indoor source. Naturally-occurring radon can be used as a tracer to evaluate sub-slab to indoor air attenuation for VOCs (assuming similar transport properties across the building envelope) through simultaneous measurement of VOCs and radon in indoor air, outdoor air and subslab soil gas. Potential advantages of radon are that there are limited sources of indoor radon (excluding granite counter tops and other decorative stone) and indoor radon concentrations are in most cases above detectable levels (unlike VOCs where bias may be caused by nondetect values). 7.7 COMPARISON OF MEASURED TO PREDICTED INDOOR AIR CONCENTRATIONS The measured indoor air concentrations may be compared to predicted concentrations from empirical relations or mathematical models. If the measured air concentrations are much higher (i.e., an order-of-magnitude or more) than the predicted concentration, there may be a background source. For non-degrading chemicals and representative data as defined in Chapter 5, the upper range in empirical attenuation factors are approximately 1x10-3 for groundwater-to-indoor air, 1x10-2 for soil vapour-to-indoor air, and 2x10-2 for subslab vapour-to-indoor air (Golder, 2007). Site-specific modeling may also be performed, for example using the Johnson and Ettinger (1991) model. When there is good quality input data, the modeled and measured values can be expected to agree within about an order-of-magnitude (Hers et al., 2003; Abreu and Johnson et al., 2005; EPRI, 2005). Comparisons using the Johnson and Ettinger model may not be meaningful if there are conditions that fall outside of the processes included in the Johnson and Ettinger model such as preferential pathways, barometric pumping or biodegradation. This approach pre-supposes that the empirical or model predictions are accurate and that source concentrations are well characterized. When using this approach, caution must be taken in that the conceptual site model must be well understood and data adequacy and quality must be high.
2010
2010
CHAPTER 8 REPORTING AND DOCUMENTATION

CHAPTER 8 .................................................................................................................... 8-2 REPORTING AND DOCUMENTATION ........................................................................ 8-2
2010
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 8. Reporting and Documentation 8-2
CHAPTER 8 REPORTING AND DOCUMENTATION

The reports should clearly document the site characterization data and input parameters used in the soil vapour intrusion assessment. Generally, the following details should be provided: Field investigation methods and scope; Hydrogeological information; Contamination characterization including quality control/quality assurance data; Description of unsaturated soil lithology and grain size; General description of building (type, size, number of storeys) for current land use scenario and proposed building design for future use scenario; Information on subsurface utilities near building, and; Description of land use and conditions surrounding building (e.g., paved area, land spaced areas).
The following additional information on the building can provide added perspective in terms of the potential for soil vapour intrusion: Description of building foundation (slab-on-grade, basement, crawlspace, general condition of foundation); Description of building (approximate age, footprint area, height of each storey, number of storeys, general information on construction), and; Description of building heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems.
The uncertainties in the predicted exposures and risks should be discussed. These include site characterization data, the partitioning model, vapour attenuation factors and risk estimates. Sources of variability in site characterization data including factors influencing spatial and temporal variability should be discussed. Under a screening level assessment or detailed assessment, all input parameters should be described and rationale provided for values selected. Where applicable, model sensitivity should be addressed. When submitted reports under the Brownfield Regulation (O. Reg 153/04), the environmental site assessment and risk assessment reports must meet the requirements of the Regulation.
2010
2010
___________________________________________________________________________
CHAPTER 9 REFERENCES CHAPTER 9 .................................................................................................................... 9-2 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 9-2
2010
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 9. References
CHAPTER 9 REFERENCES
Abreu, L. and P.C. Johnson, 2005. Effect of Vapor Source-Building Separation and Building Construction on Soil Vapor Intrusion as Studied with a Three-Dimensional Model. Environ. Sci. Technol., 39, 4550-4561. American Petroleum Institute (API) (2005). Collecting and Interpreting Soil Gas Samples from the Vadose Zone: A Practical Strategy for Assessing the Subsurface Vapour-toIndoor-Air Migration Pathway at Petroleum Hydrocarbon Sites. November 2005. American Society of Heating Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. (ASHRAE), 2001. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62-2001. Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality. American Society of Heating Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. (ASHRAE), 2001. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62-2001. Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality. American Society of Heating Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. (ASHRAE), 2007. Standard 62.1-2007. Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality. American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM), 2010. Standard Guide for Vapor Encroachment Screening on Property Involved in Real Estate Transactions.American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM), 2003. ASTM Standard E-2121. Standard Practice for Installing Radon Mitigation Systems in Existing Low-Rise Residential Buildings. February 10. American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM), 2001. ASTM E1465 - 08a Standard Practice for Radon Control Options for the Design and Construction of New Low-Rise Residential Buildings American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM), 2000. Standard E-741-00 - Standard Test Method for Determining Air Change in a Single Zone by Means of a Tracer Gas Dilution. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1995. Standard Guide for RiskBased Corrective Action Applied at Petroleum Release Sites. E-1739-95. American Standards for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1992. Standard Guide for Soil Gas Monitoring in the Vadose Zone. D5314-92 (Re-approved 2001). pp. 1161-1196. Andino, J.M. and J.W. Butler. 1991. A study of the stability of methanol-fueled vehicle emissions in Tedlar bags. Environ. Sci. Technol. 25: 1644-1646. Atlantic Partnership in RBCA Implementation (Atlantic PIRI). 2003. Atlantic RBCA (Risk-Based Corrective Action) Version 2.0 for Petroleum Impacted Sites in Atlantic Canada. User Guidance.
2010
Baehr, A. L., and M.F. Hult, 1991, Evaluation of unsaturated zone air permeability through pneumatic tests, Water Resources Research, 27, 2605-2617. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, 2010. Technical Guidance on Contaminated Sites: Vapour Investigation and Remediation. September. Available at: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/remediation/guidance/index.htm Bruno, P., M. Caputi, M. Caselli, G. de Gennaro, M. de Rienzo, 2004. Reliability of a BTEX radial diffusive sampler for thermal desorption: field measurements. Atmospheric Environment 39(2005): 1347-1355. Burken, et al. 2010. Draft Report: Phytoforensics: Investigating Subsurface Impacts of Chlorinated Solvents Using Tree Coring. Environmental Research Center, Missouri University of Science and Technology. California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA). 2005. Guidance for the Evaluation and Mitigation of Subsurface Vapour Intrusion to Indoor Air. Interim Final. Department of Toxic Substances Control. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 2000. Canada-wide Standards for Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHCs) in Soil: Scientific Rationale. Supporting Technical Document. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 2000. Canada Wide Standards for Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHCs) in soil: Scientific Rationale. Supporting Technical Document. December 2000. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 2008. Canada-wide Standards for Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHCs) in Soil: Scientific Rationale. Supporting Technical Document. Cody, R. 2003. Soil Vapour Sampling and Analysis: Sources of Random and Systematic Error in the Characterization of Low Level Organohalide Sources. In: US EPA Seminar on Indoor Air Intrusion, January 14-15, 2003. Fairmont Hotel, Dallas, Tx. Coyne, L., et. al., 2002. Using Diffusive Samplers for Monitoring ppb Levels of Volatile Organic Compounds in Indoor Air, presented at AirMon 02, Lillehammer, Norway. Creamer, T., and T. McAlary, 2006, The Effects of Purge Rate and Volume on Sub-slab Soil Gas Samples, A Platform Presentation at the Battelle Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds, Monterrey CA, May 2006. CRWQCB (California Regional Water Quality Control Board Los Angeles Region) and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2003. Advisory Active Soil Gas Investigations. January. CSDDEH (County of San Diego, Department of Environmental Health). 2002. Site Assessment and Mitigation Manual. San Diego, CA. Dahlen, P. Characterization of Petroleum Hydrocarbon Impacts to Arizona Groundwater Resources from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUSTS). Ph.D. Dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ. 2004.
2010
Dahlen, P., Henry, E., Matsumura, M., and Johnson, P., 2003. Impacts to Arizona's Groundwater Resources from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUSTs). Report to Arizona Dept. of Environmental Quality and Arizona State Legislature. Davis, C.S. and R. Otson, 1996. Estimation of Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) from Canadian Residences. Volatile Organic Compounds in the Environment, ASTM STP 1261. Dawson, H.E. and T.A. McAlary, 2009. A Compilation of Statistics from Post 1990 Indoor Air VOC Concentration Studies in North American Residences Unaffected by Subsurface Vapor Intrusion. Groundwater Monitoring and Remediation, Winter Vol. 29(1): 60-69. Dawson, H.,2006. Updated J&E Model - VIAModel.xls [OnlineWWW] Available URL. http://iavi.rti.org/attachments/WorkshopsAndConferences/1115_-_Dawson.pdf Slide 15 [Accessed May 11, 2010] DeVaull, G, Ettinger, R & Gustnfson, J 2002, Chemical Vapor intrusion from soil or groundwater to indoor air: significance of unsaturated zone biodegradation of aromatic hydrocarbons, Soil and Sediment Contamination 11(4), 625-641. DeVaull, GE 2007, Indoor vapour intrusion with oxygen-limited biodegradation for subsurface gasoline source. Environmental Science and Technology 41(9), 32413248. DiGiulio, D. 2003. Raymark Site Preliminary Results. Proceedings of US EPA Work Shop on Draft Vapour Intrusion Guidance, Atlanta, February 2003. Diguilio, D., C. Paul, R. Cody, R. Willey, S. Clifford, R. Moseley, A. Lee and K. Christensen, 2006. Comparison of Geoprobe PRT and AMS GVP soil-gas sampling systems with dedicated probes in sandy soils at the Raymark Superfund site. USEPA ORD draft report, 6/5/06. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), 2005. Reference Handbook for Site-Specific Assessment of Subsurface Vapor Intrusion in Indoor Air. Palo Alto, California, 1008492. Entech, 2007. Application Note 902: Improving the Performance of Time Integrating Sampling of TO14 Compounds in Stainless Steel Canisters, Entech Instruments, Inc., Simi Valley, California, Accessed May 7, 2007.http://www.entechinst.com/pdf/902AppNote.pdf Figley, D.A. A Guide for Estimating Indoor Concentrations of Soil Gas Pollutants in Houses. Prepared for CMHC, 1997. Fischer, M.L., A.J. Bentley, K.A. Dunkin, A.T. Hodgson, W.W. Nazaroff, R.G. Sextro, and J.M. Daisay. 1996. Factors affecting indoor air concentrations of volatile organic compounds at a site of subsurface gasoline contamination. Environ. Sci. Technol. 30:2948-2957.
2010
Font, L.L; C. Baixeras, C. And C. Domingo, 2001. Uncertainty, Variability, and Sensitivity Analysis Applied to the RAGENA Model of Radon Generation, Entry, and Accumulation Indoors; Sci. Total Environ. 272, 25-31. Fugler, D. and M. Adomait. 1997. Indoor Infiltration of Volatile Organic Contaminants: Measured Soil Gas Entry Rates and Other Research Results for Canadian Houses. J. of Soil. Contamination. 6 (1), 9-13. Garbesi, K., R.G. Sextro, A.L. Robinson, J.D. Wooley, J.A. Owens, and W.W. Nazaroff. (1996). Scale dependence of soil permeability to air: Measurement method and field investigation Water Resources Research. 32: 547-560. Garbesi, K., R.G. Sextro, W.J. Fisk, M.P. Modera, and K.L. Revzan. 1993. Soil-Gas Entry into an Experimental Basement: Model Measurement Comparisons and Seasonal Effects. Environ. Sci. Technol. 27(3): 466-473. Garbesi, K., et al. 1995. Scale dependence of soil permeability to air: Measurement method and Field Investigation. Water Resources Research, Vol. 32, No. 3, March, 1996. Geoprobe, 2006. Direct-Push Installation of Devices for Active Soil Gas Sampling and Monitoring, Technical Bulletin #3099, May, 2006. Geosyntec Consultants. 2008. Final Scoping Assessment of Soil Vapour Monitoring Protocols for Evaluating Subsurface Vapour Intrusion into Indoor Air. Prepared for CCME. July 18, 2008. Geosyntec Consultants, 2010. A Protocol for the Development of Soil Vapour Quality Guidelines For Protection of Human Exposures Via Inhalation of Vapours, Final Draft. Prepared for Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). July 27, 2010. Golder Associates Ltd. 2004. Soil Vapour Intrusion Guidance for Screening Level Risk Assessment (SLRA) (Draft). Prepared for Health Canada. November. Golder Associates Ltd. 2006. Influence of Bioattenuation on Vapor Intrusion into Buildings Model Simulations Using Semi-Analytical One-Dimensional Model. Prepared for New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection September 2006. http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dsr/air/yr2-part3-biomodeling.pdf Golder Associates Ltd. 2007. Updated Soil Vapour Intrusion Guidance for Screening Level Risk Assessment (SLRA) (Draft). In-process guidance being prepared for Health Canada. Golder Associates Ltd. 2008. Scoping Report for the Development of a Protocol for Developing Soil Vapour Guidelines for Volatile Substances. Prepared for CCME. November. Golder Associates Ltd. 2008a. Evaluation of Vadose Zone Biodegradation of Petroleum Hydrocarbons: Implications for Vapour Intrusion Guidance. Golder Associates Ltd. 2008b. Soil Vapour Intrusion Guidance for Health Canada, Final Draft. Prepared for Health Canada, February 2008.
Grecki, T., J. Namiesnik, 2002. "Passive Sampling", Trends in Analytical Chemistry, 21(4), p 276-291. Groves-Kirkby, C.J., C.J., Denman, A.R., Crockett, R.G.M., Phillips, P.S., Woolridge, A, Gillmore, G.K., 2006. Time-Integrating Radon Gas Measurements in Domestic Premises: Comparison of Short-, Medium and Long-Term Exposures, J.Environ. Radioactivity, 2006, 86 (1), 92-109. Harper, M., 1994. Novel Sorbents for Sampling Organic Vapours. Analyst, January, Vol. 119. Hartman, B. 2002. How to Collect Reliable Soil-Gas Data for Risk-Based Applications, Part I: Active Soil-Gas Method. LUST Line Bulletin 42. October. www.tegenv.com/articles. Hayes, H., D. Benton, S. Grewal, N. Khan (2005). A comparison between EPA compendium method TO-15 and EPA method 8260 for VOC determination in soil gas. Paper #46. AWMA symposium, San Francisco, CA, April 2005. Hayes, H., D.J. Benton and N. Khan, 2006. The Impact of Sampling Media on Soil Gas Measurements. Proc. Of AWMA Vapor Intrusion The Next Great Environmental Challenge An Update, September 13-15, Los Angelos, California. Hayes, H., 2007. Evaluation of Disposable Syringes for the Collection of Soil Gas. Air Toxics Ltd. Health Canada (HC). 2004. Soil Vapour Intrusion Guidance for Health Canada Screening Level Risk Assessment (SLRA). Prepared by Golder Associates Ltd. November. Health Canada (HC) 2008. Final Draft on Soil Vapour Intrusion Guidance For Health Canada. Prepared by Golder Associates Ltd. February Hendricks, W., 2003. Performance of SKC Ultra Passive Samplers Containing Carboxen 1016, CarbotrapZ, or Chromosorb 106 When Challenged with a Mixture Containing Twenty of OSHA SLTCs Top Solvent Analytes, Method Development Team, Industrial Hygiene Division, OSHA, SLTC Salt Lake City, UT.. Hers, I., Atwater, J., Li, L. and Zapf-Gilje, R. 2000. Evaluation of vadose zone biodegradation of BTEX vapours. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 46, 233-264. Hers, I., Evans, D, Zapf-Gilje, R. and Li, L. 2002. Comparison, Validation and Use of Models for Predicting Indoor Air Quality from Soil and Groundwater Contamination. Journal of Soil and Sediment Contamination, 11 (4): 491-527. Hers, I., Zapf-Gilje, R., Johnson, P.C. and Li, L. 2003. Evaluation of the Johnson and Ettinger model for prediction of indoor air quality. Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation, Summer 2003. Hers, I., R. Zapf-Gilje, L. Li, L. and J. Atwater, 2001. The use of indoor air measurements to evaluate exposure and risk from subsurface VOCs. J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc. 51: 174-185.
2010
Hillel, D. 1980. Introduction to Soil Physics. Academic Press. New York, NY. ITRC (Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council), 2002. Technical Decision Analysis for the Potential Use of Passive Diffusion Bag Samplers for Long-Term Monitoring, Prepared by The Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council, Diffusion Sampler Team, May. ITRC (Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council), 2007. Vapor Intrusion Pathway: A Practical Guideline. VI-1. Washington, D.C.: Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council, Vapor Intrusion Team. www.itrcweb.org. ITRC (Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council), 2007a. Vapor Intrusion Pathway: Investigative Approaches for Typical Scenarios. VI-1A. Washington, D.C.: Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council, Vapor Intrusion Team. www.itrcweb.org. Jia, C., Batterman, S. and Godwin, C., 2007. Continuous, intermittent and passive sampling of airborne VOCs, J Environ Monit 9 (2007), pp. 12201230. Johnson, P.C., C. Bruce. R.L. Johnson, and M.W. Kemblowski. 1998. In Situ Measurement of Effective Vapor-Phase Porous Medium Diffusion Coefficients. Environmental Science and Technology. 32. 3405-3409. Johnson, P.C. 2005. Identification of application-specific critical inputs for the 1991 Johnson and Ettinger vapor intrusion algorithm. Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation, 25(1): 63-78. Johnson, P.C. and R. Ettinger 1991. Heuristic Model for Predicting the Intrusion Rate of Contaminant Vapours into Buildings. Environmental Science and Technology, 25 #8, 1445-1452. Johnson, P.C., Bruce, C., Johnson, R.L., and M. W. Kemblowki, 1998, In situ measurement of effective vapor-phase porous media diffusion coefficients, ES&T, 32, 3405-3409. Johnson, P.C., C.C. Stanley, M.W. Kemblowski, D.L. Byers, and J.D. Colthart. 1990. A practical approach to the design, operation, and monitoring of in-situ soil venting systems, Ground Water Monit. Rev., 10(2), 159-178, 1990. Johnson, P.C. 2005. Identification of application-specific critical inputs for the 1991 Johnson and Ettinger vapor intrusion algorithm, Groundwater Monitoring and Remediation, v.25, no.1, pp 63 to 78. Johnson, P.C., 2008. Introduction to the Vapor Intrusion Pathway, Platform Presentation at the USEPA National Stakeholders Forum on Vapor Intrusion, AEHS Conference, San Diego, CA http://iavi.rti.org/Resources.cfm?PageID=documentDetails&AttachID=370 Kreamer, D., 2001. Field Innovation Forum: Down the Rabbit Hole with Alice Sucking Soil Gas All the Way. Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation. Fall. Lahvis, M.A. 2002. Guidance on Use of Soil-Gas Surveys to Assess Vapour Transport to Indoor Air. Shell Global Solutions (U.S.), Inc., Houston, TX.
2010
Lahvis, M., A. Baehr and A. Baker, 1999. Quantification of aerobic and volatilization rates of gasoline hydrocarbons near the water table under natural attenuation conditions, Water Resources Research, 35, 753-765. Laubacher et al., 1997 R.C. Laubacher, P. Bartholomae, P. Velasco and H.J. Reisinger, An evaluation of the vapor profile in the vadose zone above a gasoline plume, The petroleum hydrocarbons and organic chemicals in ground water: prevention, detection and remediation conference, Houston, Tx (1997), pp. 396409. Lewis, R.G., S.D. Folsom, and B. Moore, 2004. Modified Active Gas Sampling Manual, prepared by HAS Engineers and Scientists for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Lewis, R.G., S.D. Folsom, and B. Moore, 2005. Modified Active Gas Sampling (MAGS), presentation at the Florida Dry Cleaners Solvent Cleanup Program Workshop 2005. ftp://ftp.dep.state.fl.us/pub/reports/wc/conwkshop2005/MAGSPresentationRichardLewis.ppt Luo, E., P. Dahlen and P.C. Johnson, T. Peargin and T.Creamer, 2009. Spatial Variability of Soil Gas Concentrations Near And Beneath A Building Overlying Shallow Petroleum Hydrocarbon-Impacted Soils, Ground Water Monitoring & Remediation 29, no. 1/ Winter 2009/pages 8191 Massman, J. and D.F.Farrier. 1992. Effects of Atmospheric Pressures on Gas Transport in the Vadose Zone. Water Resources Research 28: 777-791. McClenny, W.A., Oliver, K.D., Jacumin, H.H., Jr., and Daughtrey, E.H. and Whitaker, J. 2005. 24-Hour diffusive sampling of toxic VOCs in air onto Carbopack X solid adsorbant followed by thermal desorption GC/MS Analysis Laboratory studies. Environ. Monit., 7, 248-256. McClenny, W.A., Oliver, K.D., Jacumin, H.H., Jr., and Daughtrey, E.H., Jr., 2002, Ambient volatile organic compound (VOC) monitoring using solid adsorbants - recent U.S. EPA developments, JEM 4(5) 695 705.
McHugh, T., K. Gorder, T. Kuder, R. Philp, S. Fiorenza, H. ONeill and J. Odencrantz. 2010. Use of CSIA to Distinguish Between Vapor Intrusion and Indoor Sources of VOCs. Proc. of AWMA Vapor Intrusion Conference, Chicago, Il., Sept. 29-30.Murray, D.M. and D.E.
Burmaster. 1995. Residential air exchange rates in the United States: empirical and estimated parametric distributions by season and climatic region. Risk Anal. 1995. 15:459-465. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 2004. Analysis of Ventilation Data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Building Assessment Survey and Evaluation (BASE) Study, Prepared by Andrew Persily and Josh Gorfain, NISTIR Report 7145. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES). 2006. Vapour Intrusion Guidance. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OHSA), 2003. Performance of SKC Ultra Passive Samplers Containing Carboxen 1016, Carbortap Z, or Chromosorb 106 When
Challenged With a Mixture Containing Twenty of OSHA SLTCs Top Solvent Analytes. Prepared by Warren Hendricks for Organic Methods Evaluation Branch, OSHA Salt Lake Technical Center, Salt Lake City, Utah 84115-1802. February. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OHSA), 1998. Determination of the Sampling Rate Variation for SKC 575 Series Passive Samplers. Prepared by Warren Hendricks for Organic Methods Evaluation Branch, OSHA Salt Lake Technical Center, Salt Lake City, Utah 84115-1802. April. Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE). 1996. Rationale for the Development and Application of Generic Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Criteria for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario. Criteria Development Subgroup of the Criteria Development, Site Assessment, and Site Specific Risk Assessment Work Group. Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy (MOEE). 1996a. Rationale for the Development and Application of Generic Soil, Groundwater and Sediment Criteria for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario 1996". Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy (MOEE). 1996b. Guidance on Sampling and Analytical Methods for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario. Standards Development Branch. Version 1.1. Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE). 2005. Procedures for use of Risk Assessment under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act. Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE). 2009. Rational for Development of Generic Soil and Groundwater Standards for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario. Dated December 22, 2009. Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE). 2009a. Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act. Dated July 27, 2009. Ostendorf, D.W. and D.H. Kampbell. 1991. Biodegradation of hydrocarbon vapours in the unsaturated zone. Water Resources Research. 27 (4):453-462. Otson, R. and J. Zhu. 1997. I/O Values for Determination of the Origin of Some Indoor Organic Pollutants. Proc. Air & Waste Managements Associations 90th Annual Meeting and Exhibition, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, June 8 to 13, 1997. Province of Ontario (Ontario). 2004. Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act. Dated March 9, 2004. Queens Printer for Ontario. Puls, R.W. and M. J. Barcelona, 1996. Low-Flow (Minimal Drawdown) Ground-Water Sampling Procedures, Ground Water Issue, EPA/540/S-95/504, April 1996. Robbins, G.A., B.G. Deyo, M.R. Temple, J.D. Stuart, and M.J. Lacy. 1990. Soil-Gas Surveying for Subsurface Gasoline Contamination Using Total Organic Vapour Detection Instruments Part I. Theory and Laboratory Experimentation. Groundwater Monitoring and Remediation. Summer.
2010
Sanders, P. and I. Hers, 2006. Vapor Intrusion in Homes over Gasoline-Contaminated Groundwater in Stafford, NJ. Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation, Spring 2006. Saskatchewan Research Council (SRC), 1992. Volatile Organic Compound Survey and Summarization of Results. Report I-4800-1-C-92. Prepared for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. April. Scobie, H., Bailey, S., and Fellin, P. 2008. The Use of Passive Sampling Devices in a Vapour Intrusion Study. AWMA Vapour Intrusion Workshop, Ottawa, Ontario, October 28, 2008. SKC, 2006. Measuring sub-ppb levels of VOCs in Indoor Air. Technical Note. Publication 1720, Issue 0611. Strandberg, B., Sunesson, A-L., Olsson, K., Levin, J-O., Ljungqvist, G., Sundgren, M., Saellsten, G. and Barregard, L. (2005). Evaluation of two types of diffusive samplers and adsorbents for measuring 1,3-butadiene and benzene in air. Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 39, pp.41014110. Struckhoff, G.C., Burken, J.G. and Schumacher, J.G. 2005. Vapor-phase exchange of perchloroethene between soil and plants. Environ. Sci. Technol., 39(6), 1563-1568. Suthersan, S.S. 1997, Remediation Engineering: Design Concepts, CRC Press LLC, USA. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), 2008. U.S. EPAs Vapor Intrusion Database: Preliminary Evaluation of Attenuation Factors (Draft). Office of Solid Waste. March 4, 2008. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), 2006. Assessment of Vapor Intrusion in Homes Near the Raymark Superfund Site Using Basement and Sub-Slab Air Samples, EPA/600/R-05/147, March 2006 United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2004b. Users Guide for Evaluating Subsurface Vapor Intrusion Into Buildings. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2004a. Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Installation of Sub-Slab Vapor Probes and Sampling Using EPA Method TO-15 to Support Vapor Intrusion Investigations. Draft. Office of Research and Development, Ada, OK. February 12. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2003. Vapour Intrusion and RCRA Corrective Action (CA); Environmental Indicators (EI) Fact Sheet. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2002. Draft Guidance for Evaluating the Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air Pathway from Groundwater and Soils (Subsurface Vapour Intrusion Guidance). Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
2010
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1999a. Compendium of Methods for Toxic Air Pollutants, Second Edition, Method TO-14A. Center for Environmental Research Information, Office of Research and Development. Cincinnati, OH. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1999b. Compendium of Methods for Toxic Air Pollutants, Second Edition, Method TO-15. Center for Environmental Research Information, Office of Research and Development. Cincinnati, OH. Vroblesky, D. A., Clinton, B. D., Vose, J. M., Casey, C. C., Harvey, G. J., and Bradley, P. M., 2004, Ground Water Chlorinated Ethenes in Tree Trunks: Case Studies, Influence of Recharge, and Potential Degradation Mechanism, Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation. Summer 2004, p. 124138. Vroblesky, D.A., Hyde, W.T., 1997, Diffusion samplers as an inexpensive approach to monitoring VOC's in ground water: Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation, Summer 1997, p. 177-184. Waitz, M.F.W., J.I. Freijer, P. Keule and F.A. Swartjes. 1996. The VOLASOIL risk assessment model based on CSOIL for soils contaminated with volatile compounds. National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands. Walkinshaw, D.S. 1987. Indoor Air Quality in Cold Climates: Hazards and Abatements Measures Summary of an APCA International Speciality Conference, J. Air Pollut. Control Assoc., 36, 235-241. Wang, Y., T.S. Raihala, A.P. Jackman, and R. St. John. 1996. Use of Tedlar Bags in VOC Testing and Storage: Evidence of Significant VOC Losses. Enviro Science and Technology 30: 3115-3117. Western Australian Department of Environment (WADE). 2004. Petroleum and Solvent Vapours: Quantifying their Behaviour, Assessment and Exposure. CSIRO Land and Water. Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services. 2003. Chemical Vapour Intrusion and Residential Indoor Air; Guidance for Environmental Consultants and Contractors. State of Wisconsin, Department of Health and Family Services, Division of Public Health. Zabiegaa, B., M. Partyka, T. Grecki, J. Namienik, 2006. Application of the GC retention index system for the determination of the calibration constants of permeation passive samplers with PDMS membranes, Journal of Chromatography A, 1117 p 19-30. 3M Technical Data Bulletin, 2000. Organic Vapor Monitor Sampling and Analysis Guide (1028); 3M: St. Paul, MN, 2000. Available at: http:// www.3m.com/intl/ca/english/market/traffic/ohes/pdf_pub/1028.pdf (accessed 2006).
2010
___________________________________________________________________________
2010
CHAPTER 10 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

CHAPTER 10 ................................................................................................................ 10-2 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ............................................................ 10-2
2010
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 10. List of Abbreviations and Acronyms 10-2
CHAPTER 10 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ACH AEC API APHA APEC AST ASTM AAP ATSDR bgs BTEX CAEAL CCV CPPI CPT Carcinogenic CCME CEQG CEAA CEM CH4 CO2 COPC CSM CSA CV CWS-PHC DQI DNAPL DRA ECD F2 F3 F4 FID GC/FID GC/MS HVAC HI air change per hour area of environmental concern American Petroleum Institute American Public Health Association Area of Potential Environmental Concern Above Ground Storage Tank American Society Testing Materials atomic adsorption spectrometry US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry below ground surface benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes Canadian Association for Environmental Analytical Laboratories Continuing Calibration Verification Canadian Petroleum Producers Institute cone penetrometer test cancer-causing chemical Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines Canadian Environmental Assessment Act conceptual exposure model methane carbon dioxide contaminant of potential concern conceptual site model Canadian Standards Association coefficient of variation (standard deviation divided by mean), same as relative standard deviation) Canadian Wide Standards - Petroleum Hydrocarbons (CCME guidance) data quality indicators dense non-aqueous phase liquid (i.e., liquid that is more dense than water) detailed risk assessment electron capture detector Petroleum Hydrocarbons in the carbon range of C11-16 (CCME) Petroleum Hydrocarbons in the carbon range of C17-34 (CCME) Petroleum Hydrocarbons in the carbon range of C35+ (CCME) flame ionization detector gas chromatography/flame ionization detection gas chromatography/mass spectrometry building heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems hazard index (sum of HQs)
2009
HQ HVAC IAQ I.D. INAC IRIS J&E LCS LIF LRL LNAPL MDL mg/kg mg/L MIP MNA MTBE NAPL NDMA NOAEL PAH PCE PhaseIESA PhaseIIESA ppm ppb PQL OSHA O2 PARCC PID PVC QAPP QA/QC Qsoil Qbuild RA redox RL RPD RSD SABCS SCC SF
hazard quotient heating, ventilation and air conditioning indoor air quality inside diameter Indian and Northern Affairs Canada Integrated Risk Information System Johnson and Ettinger laboratory control sample laser-induced fluorescence laboratory reporting limit light non-aqueous phase liquid (i.e., liquid that is less dense than water) Method Detection Limit milligrams per kilogram milligrams per litre membrane interface probe Monitored Natural Attenuation methyl tert-butyl ether non-aqueous phase liquid N-nitrosodimethylamine No Observed Adverse Effect Level Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons perchlorethylene Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Phase II Environmental Site Assessment parts per million (equivalent to mg/kg or mg/L) parts per billion (equivalent to ug/Kg or ug/L) practical quantification limit Occupational Safety and Health Administration Oxygen Five principal DQIs consisting of Precision, Accuracy, Representativeness, Comparability, and Completeness photo ionization detector polyvinyl chloride quality assurance project plan quality assurance/quality control advective soil gas flow rate into building building ventilation rate risk assessment oxidation reduction potential reporting limit relative percent difference relative standard deviation (standard deviation divided by mean), same as coefficient of variation) Science Advisory Board for Contaminated Sites (British Columbia) Standards Council of Canada slope factor
2009
SFR SLRA SOP SSD
single family residence screening level risk assessment suggested operating procedure subslab depressurization (i.e., an example of a vapour intrusion mitigation system) TC tolerable concentration TCE trichloroethene (trichloroethylene) TIC tentatively identified compound TRV toxicity reference value Type 1 error Null hypothesis (baseline condition) is rejected when it is actually true. Probability of this error occurring is called alpha () or level of significance. Type 2 error Null hypothesis is not rejected when it is actually false. Probability that this error will occur is called beta () or statistical power. UR unit risk USEPA US Environmental Protection Agency USSCS US Soil Conservation Service (for soil texture classification) UST Underground Storage Tank g/g micrograms per gram (Soil) g/L micrograms per litre (Water) UV ultraviolet VOC volatile organic compound WHO World Health Organization XRF x-ray fluorescence
2009
2010
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AI-1-
APPENDIX I CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL FOR VAPOUR INTRUSION AND CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL CHECKLIST This appendix is taken from draft Health Canada Guidance Manual for Environmental Site Characterization in Support of Human Health Risk Assessment, September 2008 (prepared by Golder Associates Ltd.). This Appendix is included with Health Canada permission, but may not necessarily reflect its policy at this time. A conceptual site model (CSM) is a visual representation and narrative description of the physical, chemical, and biological processes occurring, or that have occurred, at a contaminated site. A well developed CSM provides decision makers with an effective tool that helps to organize, communicate and interpret existing data, while also identifying areas where additional data is required. The CSM should be considered dynamic in nature and should be regularly updated and shared as new information becomes available. An example of a CSM for soil vapour intrusion is shown in Figure 1 below. The following sections present an overview of contamination sources and fate and transport processes, followed by specific CSMs of interest for vapour intrusion (Exhibit 1).
2010
FIGURE 1: Example of a Conceptual Site Model for Vapour Intrusion into a Residential Building (adapted from US EPA, 2002) Contamination Sources Common contaminants of potential concern for soil vapour intrusion comprise a range of organic chemicals including petroleum hydrocarbons from fuel products, coal-tar or creosote, and chlorinated solvents. Petroleum hydrocarbons are associated with fuels such as gasoline, jet fuel and diesel and are mixtures of hundreds of compounds. While often the focus of risk assessments are benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes (BTEX), these compounds only represent a small fraction of hydrocarbon vapours and there may be other specific compounds of interest such as hexane, decane, trimethylbenzenes and naphthalene, depending on the fuel type. Typically, analytical
2010
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AI-3tests for hydrocarbon vapours will also include hydrocarbon fractions based on carbon chain length (e.g., F1 and F2 as defined in CCME (2001)) and aromatic and aliphatic fractions. Coal-tar, associated with former manufactured gas plants (MGP), and creosote, associated with wood preservation, have similar organic contaminants of potential concern composed of monocyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, such as BTEX, and PAHs. There is significant variation in the volatility and mobility of PAH compounds ranging from naphthalene, considered a semivolatile, to five- and six-ring PAHs, which are essentially non-volatile. While some of the heavier PAH compounds are identified as COPCs for the vapour intrusion pathway based on conservative screening approaches (e.g., Health Canada and USEPA vapour intrusion guidance), their vapour concentrations are relatively low and organic carbon partitioning coefficients (Koc) tend to be higher. As a consequence, the mobility of heavier molecular weight PAHs via soil vapour transport is limited and, for practical purposes, is not of potential concern for vapour intrusion. Similar considerations apply to other heavier molecular weight organic chemicals with similar properties. Common chlorinated solvents include tetrachloroethylene or perchloroethylene (PCE), trichloroethylene (TCE) and 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA), and associated breakdown products of biodegradation or abiotic transformation (e.g., cis- and trans-1,2-dichloroethylene (cis-1,2-DCE), 1,1-dichloroethylene (1,1-DCE) and vinyl chloride). Most chlorinated solvents are relatively mobile and persistent within the unsaturated zone due to their relatively low solubility, high volatility and their resistance to degradation under aerobic conditions. Inorganic chemicals such as mercury may also pose a potential vapour inhalation risk since elemental mercury has a high vapour pressure and mercury vapours are relatively toxic. Soil gases such as methane, carbon dioxide and, in some cases, hydrogen sulphide, may be generated as a by-product of the anaerobic decomposition of organic chemicals such as petroleum fuels, waste material (e.g., refuse) and/or native organic matter (e.g., peat). The presence of these gases may represent a potential safety hazard through explosion or asphyxiation. Methane is explosive in the range of 5 to 15 percent by volume in air. Gas produced by microbiological activity may generate pressure gradients that enhance subsurface vapour migration through advection. Another source of pressure-driven gas is leaking natural gas lines. The CSM subsequently described in this chapter does not address assessment of sites where there is potential for significant pressure-driven gas flow. Chemical Transfer to Vapour Phase (Volatilization) Chemical transfer to the vapour phase may occur through partitioning of NAPL present above the water table into soil gas (vapourisation) or partitioning of dissolved chemicals in soil-water
2010
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AI-4above the water table into soil gas (volatilization). The NAPL is referred to as a primary source of vapours while a dissolved phase plume is referred to as a secondary source. Soil contamination within the unsaturated zone also represents a potential source of vapours. The distribution of NAPL relative to the water table will have a large influence on its potential to volatilise and migrate to indoor air. If the NAPL is situated below the water table, then volatilisation will be relatively limited since, as subsequently discussed in this chapter, the mass transport through groundwater is relatively slow due to the low diffusion rate in water, and since vertical dispersion tends to be limited. For a secondary source where chemicals are present only as a dissolved phase in groundwater, their distribution below the water table will also determine their potential to volatilize. If volatile chemicals are present near the surface of the water table, volatilization will readily occur. In contrast, if there is a layer of clean groundwater above contaminated water, then the rate of volatilization will decrease. Equilibrium partitioning models are typically used to estimate the distribution of chemicals between different phases. Where NAPL is present above the water table, a two-phase model based on the vapour pressure of the chemical is used to estimate the soil vapour concentration. Raoults Law is used to account for partitioning for a multi-component mixture of chemicals, which is a function of the mole fraction and vapour pressure, as follows: Cv = 1000 * MW * X * VP / (R * T) [1]
where Cv is the soil vapour concentration (mg/m3), MW is the molecular weight (g/mole), X is the mole fraction (dimensionless), VP is the vapour pressure (atm), R is the gas constant (m3-atm/Kmole), and T is the temperature (K). For dissolved chemicals in groundwater, the Henrys Law constant is typically used to estimate the vapour concentration in equilibrium with water, as follows: Cv = 1000 * Cg * H [2]
where Cg is the groundwater concentration (mg/L) and H is the dimensionless Henrys Law constant. Since it is not possible to obtain a soil gas sample at the water table (i.e., due to the capillary transition zone), the measured soil vapour concentration should be lower than that predicted using the Henrys Law constant. This is because there will be attenuation of chemical concentrations by diffusion (and possibly biodegradation) within the capillary fringe and transition zone between the water table and region where there are continuous gas-filled soil
2010
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AI-5pores. The attenuation within the capillary zone has implications for soil vapour intrusion modeling and comparison of measured and predicted soil vapour concentrations. Where there is soil contamination, but no NAPL, a three phase model 1 for partitioning between sorbed, aqueous, and vapour phases can be used to estimate the soil vapour concentration, as follows: Ct = Cw (Kd + (w + a*H/b)) Kd = Koc * foc [3]
where Ct is the total soil concentration (mg/kg), Cw is the soil-water concentration (mg/L), Koc is the organic carbon-water partition coefficient (L/kg), foc is the fraction organic carbon (dimensionless), w is the water-filled porosity (dimensionless), a is the air-filled porosity (dimensionless), H is the Henrys Law constant (dimensionless) and b is the bulk dry density (kg/L). If, under equilibrium, the three phases become saturated by the chemical, then the remainder of the chemical will be in its pure form (i.e., NAPL). Guidance on calculation of the soil saturation (Csat) concentration for NAPL is provided in USEPA (1996). For non-ionizing organic chemicals, a linear equilibrium partitioning model is widely used to predict absorption of organics into native organic carbon. Studies have shown that the sorption of organics by soils is highly correlated with the foc (e.g., Chiou et al., 1979; Hassett et al., 1980; Hassett and Banwart. 1989), provided the foc is above a critical level. USEPA (1996) suggests that when foc is below about 0.001, adsorption to inorganic mineral surfaces becomes important. While soil partitioning models are well established, the accuracy of such models to predict soil vapour concentrations is poor. Therefore, it is generally not good practise to try to estimate soil vapour concentrations from soil concentration data. Instead, they should be predicted from groundwater data using Henrys Law constant (when appropriate) or directly measured. Vadose Zone Fate and Transport Processes Fate and transport processes in the vadose zone that influence the movement of chemicals from a contamination source toward a building include: diffusion; advection; dispersion; partitioning between soil, water and gas phases; and, biodegradation reactions. Several of the fate and transport processes that influence soil vapour intrusion are conceptually shown in Figure 1. In this example, volatilization is occurring just above the top of the capillary fringe to create soil vapours. These vapours are subsequently transported upwards toward the ground surface via
A four-phase model for partitioning between the sorbed, aqueous, soil-air and NAPL phases has been developed and applied to the vapour intrusion pathway (Park and San Juan, 2000). The four-phase model better accounts for mass and volume conservation between all four phases and may enable more accurate estimation of mole fraction in the NAPL phase, for a multi-component mixture.
2010
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AI-6diffusion. Closer to the building, if the building is depressurized relative to atmospheric pressure, advective soil gas transport may be the dominant process. The rate of volatilization at the contamination source is controlled by the mass flux rate for chemical migration away from the source. This will vary temporally as a result of fluctuations in various factors such as moisture content, temperature and elevation of the water table. Diffusion Diffusion is the movement of molecules from an area of higher concentration to an area of lower concentration, as influenced by their kinetic energy. The rate that a chemical will diffuse is a function of the concentration difference, or gradient, and the compound- and temperaturedependent diffusion coefficient. The mass flux, J (M/L2-T), is calculated by Ficks Law, as follows: J = -Deff * C / Z [4]
Where Deff is the effective diffusion coefficient (L2/T), C is the vapour concentration (mass/volume of gas) and z is the distance over which the concentration change is measured (L). The diffusive flux is less in soil than in a gas-filled volume as a result of the tortuosity or nonlinear migration path for diffusing gas species. Mathematically, this is expressed as the effective diffusion coefficient, typically estimated from the Millington-Quirk relationship (1961): Deff = Da * a 3.33. / 2 + Dw/H * w 3.33. / 2 [5]
Diffusion coefficients in air (Da, L2/T) are about four orders-of-magnitude higher than in water (Dw, L2/T); therefore, diffusion is much faster through the air-filled soil pores, than through water-filled soil pores, and the second term in equation 4-9 tends not be important except under nearly saturated conditions or for compounds with very low Henrys Law constant (i.e., dimensionless H less than 0.001) (EPRI, 2005). When contamination is limited to dissolved chemicals in groundwater, diffusion through the capillary fringe is often the rate-limiting process because the moisture content in the capillary fringe is high, and may even be completely saturated. The thickness of the capillary fringe increases with decreasing soil grain size. Diffusion rates may also be highly sensitive to the presence of fine-grained, high moisture content soil layers within the vadose zone. There may also be a rain-shadow below a building with locally drier soils beneath the building (although drains and gutters may influence the soil moisture distribution).
2010
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AI-7Sorption As soil vapours migrate away from contamination source zones, the transport of soil vapours will be retarded due to sorption to the soil matrix and transfer of chemicals into soil water. Soils with higher native organic carbon will tend to have a greater sorption capacity. While partitioning into soil water will occur rapidly, for some chemicals biodegradation may occur simultaneously to reduce the concentration in soil water. This allows for the continuous partitioning of the chemical into the soil water, thus reducing the concentration in the vapour phase. Biodegradation Different organic compounds will biodegrade at different rates, and with various oxygen demands. For example, the aerobic biodegradation of volatile petroleum hydrocarbons in the vadose zone (e.g., BTEX) has been demonstrated through several investigations (Ostendorf and Campbell, 1991; Ririe et al., 1998; Roggemans et al., 2002; Hers et al., 2000; Hers et al., 2002). Several of these studies indicate orders-of-magnitude bioattenuation of hydrocarbon vapour concentrations over relatively small distances within the vadose zone. Since chlorinated solvents such as PCE and TCE degrade primarily under anaerobic conditions through reductive dechlorination (Wiedemeier et al., 1999), biotransformation of these compounds will usually be limited due to the presence of oxygen within the unsaturated zone. There is evidence of aerobic biodegradation of vinyl chloride. Vadose Zone Advection Gas-phase advective transport can occur as a result of fluctuations in atmospheric pressure (e.g., barometric pumping), water movement, water table fluctuations, and density gradients due to composition and temperature variations (soil gas advection due to building depressurization is discussed in Section 4.4.4). For most geologic environments, diffusion is the dominant vadose zone transport process; however, soil gas advection can be important where there are high permeability, relatively deep unsaturated zone deposits (i.e., tens of metres deep) and/or methanogenesis is significant. Choi and Smith (2005) through a modeling study found that pressure-driven advective flux increased for deep, drier, permeable deposits; nevertheless, for all combinations of scenarios, the diffusive flux was at least one order-of-magnitude greater than the advective flux. Where there are relatively high soil gas advection rates, dispersion may also be important. Dispersion is a mixing process that is caused by small-scale variations in air velocities in soil. The effects of these velocity variations are similar to the effects of diffusion (Auer, 1996).
2010
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AI-8Near-Building Processes for Soil Vapour Intrusion The primary process for soil vapour intrusion into buildings is typically soil gas advection, although vapour migration will also occur as a result of diffusion through the building foundation. Model sensitivity analyses suggest that soil gas advection will be the dominant mechanism when the building depressurization (relative to ambient air) is greater than about 1 Pascal (Hers et al., 2003; Johnson, 2005), which will be exceeded at many residential buildings. Soil gas advection can occur through untrapped floor drains, edge cracks at the building wall and floor slab interface (shown in Figure 1), unsealed entry points for utilities, expansion joints and other cracks and openings, if present. Field research programs that include pressure data for soil adjacent to the residential building foundation indicate that most of the soil gas flow occurs within 1 to 2 m of the foundation (Garbesi et al, 1993; Hers et al., 2002). Therefore, the properties of the backfill surrounding the foundation are important, as well as any nearby utility corridors. Field measurements and model simulations indicate that for most sites, the permeability of soil near the building will control the rate of soil gas flow, as opposed to the permeability of the building foundation. Depressurization of the building airspace relative to the ambient (outdoor) air pressure can be caused by a number of factors including temperature differences between indoor and outdoor air (i.e., stack effect), wind-loading and operation of the building heating, ventilation and airconditioning (HVAC) systems. The operation of HVAC systems can cause a building to be depressurized through insufficient combustion air for furnaces or unbalanced heating and ventilation systems where the exhaust air flow rate exceeds the intake flow rate. Commercial buildings may be either positively or negatively pressurized depending on HVAC system design, operation and environmental conditions. Diffusion through the building foundation will readily occur through cracks and openings in the foundation. Diffusion rates through intact building materials are relatively low, but will depend somewhat on material type (e.g., poured concrete slab, concrete block wall). Plastic moisture vapour barriers placed during the construction of slabs may reduce diffusion to some degree, but will have little effect on reducing advection, since significant soil gas flows can occur through small openings. Summary Diffusion is the dominant process for soil vapour transport in many geologic settings, although aerobic biodegradation of hydrocarbon vapours can be an important mechanism for vapour attenuation. Closer to a building, advective processes may be dominant. Soil vapour intrusion is influenced by building characteristics, geologic setting and anthropogenic features. There can be significant temporal variation in soil vapour intrusion due to environmental and building related
2010
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AI-9conditions. Long-term transient effects may be important if there is depletion of the contamination source through volatilization, leaching and/or biodegradation. Resources, References and Links The USEPA has developed a number of on-line assessment tools for groundwater and soil vapour that include, for example, calculators for determining the groundwater hydraulic gradient, retardation factors for solute transport, plume diving, diffusion coefficients, Johnson and Ettinger alpha calculator and unit conversions. (http://www.epa.gov/athens/onsite/) EXHIBIT 1: Conceptual Site Scenarios for Vapour Intrusion Fresh-Water Lens For chemicals present only in groundwater (i.e., dissolved phase sources), their distribution below the water table will determine their potential to volatilize and migrate to indoor air. If volatile chemicals are present near the surface of the water table, volatilization will readily occur. In contrast, if there is a layer of clean groundwater above contaminated water, then the rate of volatilization will decrease since mass transport is controlled by diffusion and dispersion in groundwater. At some sites in wetter areas, the layer of clean water has been observed to increase in thickness with increasing down-gradient distance from a contamination source (i.e., fresh-water lens formation) (Figure 2). Water table fluctuations and upward vertical gradients may prevent the formation of a fresh water lens. FIGURE 2. Fresh Water Lens
Precipitation
infiltration
Fresh-water lens (noncontaminated groundwater) Capillary Transition Zone NAPL Source
2010
Interface Plume Development If vapours are diffusing from contamination in the unsaturated zone, they will partition into groundwater (Figure 3). This process combined with water table fluctuations can result in an interface zone groundwater plume, which is a shallow plume located within the capillary fringe and groundwater just below the water table (Rivett, 1995). There is both lateral and vertical flow and solute transport within the capillary fringe (Silliman et al., 2002), which contrasts with the common conceptualization of primarily downward vertical fluid flow through the unsaturated zone, with a transition to fully three-dimensional flow only below the water table. Volatilisation from an interface plume may be significant.
Vapour Diffusion NAPL Source
Mass transfer between groundwater and vadose zone
Fluctuating water table
FIGURE 3. Interface Plume Development
Falling Water Table If there is a water table decline of sufficient extent, higher levels of dissolved contamination or NAPL, if present, will become exposed to soil gas (Figure 4). This will result in increased volatilization rates. In addition, the beneficial effect of a fresh water lens may be lost if there is a significant drought and the water table drops by a distance larger than the thickness of the freshwater lens. Long-term water level data should be reviewed where available to assess the potential significance of water table fluctuations on volatilization rates and when to sample soil gas.
2010
Falling water table Capillary Transition Zone NAPL Source
FIGURE 4. Falling Water Table
2010
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AI-12Lateral Soil Vapour Diffusion Organic chemicals released near ground surface may result in a contamination source in the unsaturated zone, which can potentially diffuse laterally toward adjacent buildings (Figure 5). For unsaturated zone sources, vapour diffusion in all directions will occur, which tends to result in a rapid decline in soil vapour concentrations with increasing lateral distance from the source, particularly for smaller contamination sources. The presence of anthropogenic features such as paved surfaces, concrete slabs and fine-grained fill materials can reduce soil vapour flux to the atmosphere and may promote lateral diffusion of soil vapour. There will also tend to be greater lateral than vertical diffusion due to depositional history and soil layering, although the effect for most soils is relatively minor. For the Health Canada vapour intrusion guidance, buildings more than 30 m from contamination were excluded from the screening process partly based on modeling studies that included lateral diffusion and which indicated a significant decline in predicted vapour concentrations over this distance (Mendoza, 1995; Abreu, 2005; Lowell and Eklund, 2004). A semi-logarithmic chart of concentration versus log of distance may help estimate the distance where soil vapour concentrations fall below levels of potential concern. Preferential Pathways The presence of preferential pathways such as utility conduits with granular backfill, which intersect a contamination source and connect to the building, may result in enhanced soil vapour intrusion. Since most buildings have subsurface utility penetrations, their presence alone is not typically of concern. Of relevance are pathways that facilitate enhanced movement of soil vapour toward and into a building. VOCs will readily partition into air when contaminated groundwater is in contact with sumps or drain tiles, which is a scenario of concern for indoor air quality.
NAPL Source
Capillary Transition Zone
FIGURE 5. Lateral Diffusion and Preferential Pathways
2010
Transient Soil Vapour Migration After a spill has occurred, sorption into native organic carbon will initially cause concentrations to be transient as soil vapour migrates from the source. After a period of time, an approximate steady state vapour profile will develop after sorption sites are filled (assuming no biodegradation). There are also transient effects through partitioning into soil moisture, which may be significant for soluble chemicals such as MTBE. The time for a steady state profile to develop will depend on chemical and soil properties and the thickness of the uncontaminated soil layer. The time for steady state conditions can be estimated through an analytical solution for one-dimensional steady-state diffusion and sorption based on linear partitioning into native organic carbon. For example, based on solutions to this equation provided by Johnson et al. (1998), for trichloroethylene, the approximate time required for a steady state diffusion profile to develop would be approximately 0.5 years, for a depth to contamination of 3 m, and 5.7 years, for a depth to contamination of 10 m. 2 The time to steady state may have implications for design of soil gas sampling programs (i.e., sampling location and when to sample). Hydrocarbon Vapour Biodegradation Many petroleum-based hydrocarbons are readily degraded to carbon dioxide (CO2) in the presence of oxygen (O2) and ubiquitous soil microbes. Oxygen is supplied from the atmosphere through diffusion, barometric and diurnal pumping, and infiltrating water containing dissolved oxygen. Aerobic biodegradation of petroleum hydrocarbons is a rapid process and often occurs over relatively thin layers within the subsurface (Figure 6). Aerobic biodegradation is typically primarily controlled by oxygen levels; other potentially important factors include the presence of requisite microbes, moisture content, availability of nutrients and pH. Since anaerobic biodegradation of hydrocarbons may also occur in oxygen-depleted zones, methane (CH4) may be generated. Methane will also undergo aerobic biodegradation, so its presence represents an addition demand on oxygen within the subsurface environment. Significant bioattenuation of hydrocarbon vapours will occur when the downward flux of oxygen is sufficient to satisfy the requirements for aerobic biodegradation. Where the hydrocarbon flux exceeds the oxygen supply, for example, below a building, an anaerobic zone (sometimes referred to as an oxygen shadow) may develop. The key factors affecting biodegradation are source concentrations (strength) and separation distance between the source and building. The size and depth of the building may also be important depending on whether oxygen can readily penetrate through the foundation or whether most oxygen replenishment is from beside the building. Processes such as barometric pumping may also serve to increase oxygen transfer to below the building. Sites with shallow and high levels of contamination with larger buildings or paved surfaces beside buildings conceptually present the greatest potential for an oxygen shadow to develop. Chlorinated solvents also can be biodegraded, but the process tends to occur under anaerobic conditions (except for vinyl chloride) and is much slower than the aerobic biodegradation of BTEX.
The input parameters for this calculation are water-filled porosity equal to 0.1, total porosity of 0.3 and organic carbon fraction of 0.006.
2010
FIGURE 6. Conceptual Model for Aerobic Biodegradation Barometric Pumping A potentially important mechanism for soil gas advection is barometric pumping, caused by cyclic changes in atmospheric pressure. These changes create a piston-like force on soil gas, causing compression of soil gas when the air pressure increases, and expansion when it decreases. This may result in a cyclic up and down movement of contaminant vapours in the affected interval. Typically, the maximum variation in barometric pressure is about three percent over a 24-hour period (Massman and Farrier, 1992). Assuming gas compression according to the ideal gas law, atmospheric air will be pushed into surface soil to a depth up to about three percent of the total depth of the unsaturated zone. For a 10 m thick homogeneous unsaturated soil column, this means that the top 0.3 m of soil would be affected by the complete barometric flushing of soil gas. The magnitude of the pumping effect decreases with increasing depth, and also is affected by pressure dampening and time-lag in the pressure response, which can be significant for finergrained deposits. There are unpublished accounts of barometric pumping causing significant movement of soil gas in deep (greater than 100 m), unsaturated, fractured bedrock deposits where a breathing phenomena has been observed (i.e., air flowing in and out of wells). Breathing wells have been linked to several deaths in Canada (see the Canadian Ground Water Agency website for a link to an associated article on this phenomena: http://www.cgwa.org/press/breathing_wells.htm ). Close to a building, barometric pumping may result in the movement of atmospheric air in and out of foundation subsoils. Barometric pressure fluctuations may also result in episodic soil gas intrusion. If there is a low permeability surface seal adjacent to buildings, cross-foundation slab pressure gradients may be generated when the barometric pressure decreases. One study reported
2010
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AI-15measured transient cross-slab differential pressures of up to 500 Pascals (Adomait and Fugler, 1997). Stack and Wind Effect The heating of a building, either by furnace, radiator, or other sources (i.e., sunlight on the roof) creates a stack effect as warm air rises in the building (Figure 7). This causes an outward air pressure in upper storeys and inward air pressure near the base of the building. Warm air that escapes is replaced by air infiltrating through doors and windows and soil gas migrating through the foundation. The magnitude of the depressurization at the base of the building is proportional to the height of the building, although tall buildings are designed with features to minimize crossfloor leakage of air and excessive depressurization. Elevator shafts may represent both a preferential pathway for soil gas intrusion at the base of the building (a drain is often present in the elevator pit) and for upward movement of air within the building. The force of wind on the side of a building will cause a positive pressure on the windward side of the building and a negative pressure on the lee side thus potentially resulting in a depressurised building.
FIGURE 7. Stack and Wind Effect on Depressurisation (NPL = neutral pressure line)
2010
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AI-16Foundation Construction Conceptually, different foundation construction could lead to different processes for soil vapour intrusion. For example, higher soil gas advection rates would be expected for houses with basements, due to higher depressurization and larger subsurface foundation surface area for intrusion. For houses with crawlspace foundations, the degree to which the crawlspace is ventilated by outside air and the influence of cross-floor mixing and leakage between the crawlspace and main floor could affect soil vapour intrusion rates. In cold climate areas, crawlspaces are more likely to be well sealed to reduce the influx of cold air into the house. Buildings with earthen floors are especially prone to vapour intrusion since there is a large surface area for migration of soil vapour into the overlying structure; however, openings around utilities and a perimeter crack, often observed at the interface between the foundation wall and floor slab, also represent potentially significant entry routes for soil gas migration. Although working hypotheses have been developed, the influence of foundation type on soil vapour intrusion is still poorly understood. However, there is empirical data indicating that soil vapour intrusion can be significant for several different types of building foundations including basements, crawlspaces and slab-on-grade construction. The importance of the foundation for vapour intrusion may depend on the distance from the contamination source to the building; for larger distances the foundation may have little effect on vapour intrusion rate; for smaller distances or where contamination is close to or in direct contact with the building (e.g., sumps, wet basements), the foundation properties will tend to be significant. Condominiums or commercial buildings may have one or more levels of below-grade parking. Since ventilation rates are high for parking garages, there will tend to be greater dilution of vapours that may migrate into the garage than for other building types. Temporal and Seasonal Considerations Potential temporal factors influencing soil vapour intrusion are complex. Higher building depressurization and soil gas intrusion rates would be expected during the heating season. Winter frost or higher soil moisture in near surface soils may limit the surface flux of volatiles to the atmosphere. As a consequence, the migration of soil vapour toward drier soils below the building may be enhanced. In some cases, intensive snowmelt or rain and wetting fronts can induce advective movement of soil gas, which may, in turn, cause nonequilibrium mass transfer of the contaminants between the water and the gas phases (Cho et al., 1993). Surface soils with high moisture content may also reduce migration of atmospheric oxygen into soil, which may reduce aerobic biodegradation of hydrocarbon vapours. An off-setting factor is that during summer, near surface ground temperatures may be higher leading to slightly higher volatilization rates, since the Henrys Law Constant is temperature dependent. The amplitude in seasonal temperature variation decreases with increasing depth below ground surface, and at many sites, temperature effects will be insignificant. The influence of seasonal factors on building ventilation, which acts to dilute vapours, is difficult to predict. While natural ventilation through open doors or windows may be reduced in winter, there may be increased air exchange through building depressurization and operation of a furnace. There can also be significant short-term variability unrelated to seasonal factors caused by diurnal temperature fluctuations, occupant use (e.g., opening windows and doors), wind, and barometric
2010
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AI-17pressure variations. On balance, the above factors suggest that in Canada, soil vapour intrusion would tend to be greatest during winter months based on climatic conditions. Buildings and Tanks as Soil Vapour Sources While the usual paradigm for soil vapour transport is upward migration from a contamination source located at or near the water table, if there is a surface contamination source, vapours will migrate in all directions, including downwards. Indoor air that is affected by contamination sources within a building may affect subsurface vapour concentrations if the building is positively pressurized (McHugh et al., 2006). In this case, air will move downwards through the foundation. Once below the building, vapours could diffuse away from the building, thus creating a zone of impacted soil vapour. While it would be rare for buildings to have a significant effect on subsurface soil vapour concentrations, a dry cleaner is one possible example of where this could occur. Leaking underground storage tanks also represent potential soil vapour sources.
2010
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AI-18SoilVapourIntrusionConceptualSiteModel Checklist Project:___________________________________________________________________ Preparedby:___________________________________________________________________ Dateprepared:___________________________________________________________________
INTENDED PURPOSE: This checklist is intended to address conceptual model development for soil vapour intrusion studies, but does not include considerations relating to characterization of indoor air quality. It is recognized that some of the information on buildings may not be available in the absence of indoor air sampling. Information Sources and Status Summarize the information sources that have been used to develop the conceptual site model Summarize the status of investigations completed at the site Summarize the status of remediation completed at the site including contamination source zone, groundwater or vapour remediation Contamination Source Characteristics Describe the type, source and history of the contamination release Describe the presence, distribution and composition of LNAPL and/or DNAPL, if present at the site, describe whether LNAPL and/or DNAPL is potential mobile Describe the distribution and extent of dissolved organic chemicals in groundwater Describe whether there could be transformations to daughter products of potential concern (e.g., chlorinated solvents) Describe the migration characteristics of the dissolved plume, and whether the plume is expanding, stable or shrinking, Describe possible evidence for natural attenuation and bioattenuation in both saturated and unsaturated zones Geology/Hydrogeology Describe the physical properties of soil in the unsaturated zone and shallow saturated zone (grain size, moisture content, porosity, density, permeability) Describe the natural organic carbon (or organic matter) content in soil Describe the soil lithology (i.e., type of soil) with particular attenuation to soil layering Describe the bedrock with particular attenuation to fracture occurrence and orientation, if bedrock is present
2010
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AI-19 Describe the depth to groundwater and fluctuations in the water table (e.g., seasonal, tidal, long-term due to pumping) Describe the hydrostratigraphic units and shallow groundwater flow system, and perched water table, if present Describe hydrogeological parameters ( e.g., groundwater flow direction, hydraulic conductivity, vertical and horizontal hydraulic gradients) Describe foundation subsoils Utilities Identify the location of subsurface utilities; indicate the type of utility, the plan location, depth, and backfill properties, as available Identify the location of any utilities that intersect the vapour contamination zone and directly connect to buildings Site Characteristics and Anthropogenic Features Describe the surface cover in the area of the vapour contamination source(s) and nearby buildings Estimate the vertical and lateral distances from the vapour contamination source(s) to nearby buildings. Estimate distances for soil, groundwater (dissolved) and NAPL contamination sources. Describe potential future changes to land use and implications for surface cover Buildings Identify location of existing buildings Identify potential future buildings Describe the occupancy and use of the buildings (residential, institutional, recreational, commercial, industrial) Approximate age of building Describe characteristics of the building Size of building Number of storeys Height of storeys Foundation type (e.g,. basement, crawlspace, slab-at-grade); if combination of foundations, indicate percentage for each type Depth below grade to base of foundation Foundation construction for both floor and subsurface walls (e.g., poured concrete, concrete block, brick, wood) General condition of foundation (cracks, openings) Building construction (e.g., wood frame, concrete, brick)
2010
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AI-20
Elevator shafts Moisture vapour barrier below building Sumps or drains Wells inside the building Attached garage (i.e., single family residential) Below building parking (i.e., apartment, commercial building) Chemical use and storage.
Describe the HVAC system in the building including: Type of heating system (natural gas, oil, radiant, steam, electrical) Type of air conditioning system Location of heating and air conditioning units For commercial buildings, air intake and exhaust units For residential buildings with forced air furnace systems, return air ducting, does furnace have source of combustion air Describe sub-slab ventilation systems or moisture barriers present on existing buildings, or identify building- and fire-code requirements for sub-slab ventilation systems (e.g., for methane) or moisture barriers below foundations.
2010
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AI-21CHECK LIST FOR SOIL GAS SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PROGRAMS CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL 1. Identification of contaminants of concern (COC), physical-chemical properties, and potential for biodegradation or biotransformation. 2. Information on concentration, phase, distribution and extent of COCs. 3. Hydrogeological information. 4. Depth to contamination source zones. 5. Distance (vertical, lateral) from building to contamination source zones. 6. Vadose zone properties. 7. Size, location and type of buildings. 8. Location of subsurface utilities. 9. Potential for meteorological or seasonal factors to influence soil vapour concentrations. SOIL GAS SAMPLING DESIGN (WHY, WHERE AND WHEN) 1. Identify objectives of the soil gas sampling. 2. Integrate CSM into soil gas sampling design. 3. Identify buildings of potential concern. 4. Identify soil gas probe locations; start with soil gas characterization near contamination source zone. Beyond source soil gas characterization; 5. Are transects needed? 6. Are vertical profiles needed? Is biodegradation assessment needed? 7. Are subslab soil gas probes needed? 8. When determining when to sample, consider possible temporal variations. Is repeat soil gas testing warranted? If so, what should monitoring frequency be? 9. Do not conduct sampling during and after heavy rain.
2010
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AI-22SOIL GAS PROBE INSTALLATION (HOW) 1. Review utility locations. 2. For subslab soil gas probes, evaluate safety issues and whether integrity of building envelope and structure will be affected. 3. Select probe type. 4. Select probe materials. 5. Test field blanks (ambient or zero air drawn through probe assembly) to evaluate whether probe materials are clean, prior to installing probe as warranted. 6. Install probe. 7. Complete soil gas probe with valve or stopcock at surface to prevent atmospheric air from entering probe. 8. Seal driven probes at ground surface. SOIL GAS SAMPLING PROCEDURES 1. Allow soil gas probe to equilibrate. 2. Select sampling container or device (in conjunction with analytical procedures). 3. Ensure sampling container or device, and sample tubing is clean. For sampling container or device supplied by laboratory, batch or individual certification of each container or device may be warranted. 4. Test sampling train excluding probe for leaks and short circuiting prior to sampling as warranted. 5. Purging and sampling of probe; a. Calculate dead volume of probe. b. Purge 2 to 3 purge volumes. c. Use relatively low flow rate (i.e., 100 to 200 ml/min). Pumps should be accurately calibrated prior to use. d. Monitor the vacuum during purging. Reduce the flow rate if the vacuum exceeds 10 inches water. e. When purging is complete, turn off pump and allow vacuum to dissipate. f. Collect soil gas sample using relatively low flow rate (i.e., 100 to 200 ml/min).
g. Use consistent procedures between probes at a site and record procedures.
2010
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AI-236. During sampling test integrity of probe surface seal using tracer as warranted. 7. Place sampling container or device in non-chilled container. 8. Record weather conditions during sampling. SOIL GAS ANALYTICAL METHODS 1. Determine data quality objectives. Establish required detection limits based on conservative vapour intrusion dilution factors and other factors. 2. Select analytical method and sampling container and device. 3. Determine sampling duration and flow rate for sorbent tube sampling. 4. Establish program quality assurance and quality control protocols. Analyze field duplicate, laboratory duplicate, blank and spiked samples as warranted. DATA INTERPRETATION AND ANALYSIS 1. Evaluate data quality. 2. Evaluate data quantity. 3. Evaluate whether results reasonably representative of site conditions. 4. Evaluate data completeness (were samples proposed actually collected and analyzed). 5. Evaluate data consistency with respect to data comparisons (i.e., self-consistent) and expected results based on CSM. 6. Plot plan maps and cross sections of soil vapour (and other) data to improve data interpretation. 7. Conduct any additional analysis needed based on program objectives.
2010
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AII-1 -
APPENDIX II IDENTIFICATION OF CONTAMINANTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN FOR VAPOUR INTRUSION Several different screening approaches that have been proposed for identification of contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) for vapour intrusion are summarized in this appendix. USEPA (2002) Draft Vapour Intrusion Guidance The approach described in draft USEPA (2002) Vapour Intrusion Guidance (also described in draft vapour intrusion prepared for Health Canada by Golder (2007)) identifies COPCs assuming that the receptor is subject to a lifetime of exposure to the near maximum theoretical vapour concentration. A chemical is identified as being of potential concern if the soil vapour concentration estimated from an equilibrium partitioning model multiplied by an attenuation factor exceeds an acceptable health based target indoor air concentration (CairT), defined below. The theoretical soil vapour concentration (Cv) is the greater of the concentration predicted for partitioning from a NAPL and dissolved contamination source (Exhibit 1). While the USEPA (2002) used a subslab to indoor air attenuation factor of 0.1, an attenuation factor of 0.02 is considered to be a reasonably conservative value for screening purposes. This is based on recent empirical attenuation factor data that indicates the 90th to 95th percentile subslab vapour attenuation factor is equal to about 0.02 for data that is filtered to remove low source strength data where subslab vapour concentrations are within 100 times literature background concentrations in air, and thus indoor air impacts are not expected, or where there is nonrepresentative soil vapour measurements (USEPA, 2007; Golder, 2007). For the calculation of target air concentration, it is recommended that the background concentration be set equal to zero for all chemicals, the rationale being that background concentrations for many chemicals are highly variable and not well established. The soil allocation factor (SAF) should be set equal to the value assumed for the derivation of the generic standards (MOEE, 1996a) to account for exposure via other pathways (e.g., food, soil, consumer products). The toxicity reference values (TRVs) should be obtained from sources approved by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. MOEE (2009) should be consulted for physical-chemical data, for chemicals with data. If not available, the recommended primary sources of physical-chemical parameters are those provided by Mackay, Shiu and Ma (2006), Montgomery (2006) and Syracuse Research Corporation (SRC) CHEMFATE database. Sources of compiled physical-chemical properties include: (1) US EPA
2010
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AII-2Superfund Johnson and Ettinger Spreadsheet 1 , (2) US EPA Region 9 2 , (3) Risk Assessment Information System (RAIS), a database of toxicity factor and physical-chemical parameters maintained by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Environmental Management, Oak Ridge Operations (ORO) Office, (4) U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (U.S. Commerce Department) 3 , EPIWIN SuitePcKoc developed by Syracuse Research Corporation (SRC) for USEPA 4 , and (5) Montgomery (2006). The screening process described above is relatively conservative in that a number of semi-volatile or essentially non-volatile chemicals (e.g., three and four-ring polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) compounds and polychlorinated biphenyls) are identified as potential chemicals of concern. USEPA Region 9 The USEPA Region 9 identifies a volatile chemical for the vapour intrusion pathway as having a Henrys Law Constant greater than 1x10-5 atm-m3/mol and molecular weight less than 200 g/mol. A threshold equal to a Henrys Law Constant of 1x10-5 atm-m3/mol results in chemicals such as naphthalene (4.2x10-4) 5 and fluorene (7.8x10-4) as being identified as volatile, but not chemicals such as pyrene (9.1x10-6) and benzo(a)anthracene (5.7x10-6). There is little apparent basis for the 200 g/mole threshold since some chemicals with molecular weights greater than 200 g/mole are relatively volatile. BC Environmental Laboratory Quality Assurance Advisory Committee In Summer 2008, the BC Ministry of Environment (MoE) commissioned the BC Environmental Laboratory Quality Assurance Advisory Committee (BCELQAAC) to define volatile substances for purpose of planned soil vapour standards in British Columbia. This work is not yet published, but a presentation by Mr. Mark Hugdahl (July 8, 2008) and subsequent discussions with the committee indicate the following: The proposed criteria for definition of volatile substance is a chemical with both a Henrys Law constant greater than 1x10-5 atm-m3/mol and vapour pressure greater than 0.05 Torr;
1 2 3 4 5
http://www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/airmodel/johnson_ettinger.htm (V.3.1 (February 2004)) http://www.epa.gov/region09/waste/sfund/prg/files/04physchem.pdf http://webbook.nist.gov/chemistry/ http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/exposure/pubs/episuitedl.htm All Henrys Law constants from Health Canada Preliminary Quantitative Risk Assessment (PQRA)
spreadsheet (June 2008)
2010
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AII-3 A threshold based on Henrys Law constant alone is considered impractical. For example most n-alkanes have Henrys Law constants that exceed 1x10-5 atm-m3/mol since they have low to moderate vapour pressures, but very low solubilities. The vapour pressure is considered to be a more effective measure of total volatility for screening purposes; Functionally, the above criteria results in naphthalene, 1-methylnaphthalene and 2methylnaphthane as being identified as volatile substances, but not PAHs with higher molecular weights. With respect to n-alkane compounds, tridecane (n-C13) is identified as the cut-off for volatile substances; A review of soil vapour data for semi-volatile analyses indicated at sites where PAHs heavier than methyl-naphthalenes were identified (acenaphthylene, acenaphthene and fluorine), they were usually found at concentrations that were below 2.5% of the naphthalene concentrations. With respect to n-alkane fractions, concentrations in soil vapour drop off significantly for alkanes heavier than n-C13. On average, the review of soil vapour data revealed that the nc13 to n-C16 fraction was 2-4% of the total volatile organic fraction, and never above 25%. A brief review of Golder Associates project files suggests similar trends as those described above. For example, soil gas monitoring conducted at a former manufactured gas plant (MGP) site indicated detectable naphthalene concentrations that were as high as 200 ug/m3 (and BTEX concentrations that were much higher), but non detect concentrations of heavier molecular weight PAHs including 2-methylnaphthalene. Mobility Considerations The above approaches do not consider the potential mobility of chemicals in the subsurface. Organic chemicals that are near neutral (i.e., relatively non-polar) such as PAH compounds absorb into native organic carbon present in subsurface soils and thus, the rate of soil vapour transport will be retarded through sorption until all the adsorptive sites are occupied. Although eventually soil vapour profiles will theoretically reach a steady state profile as sorption sites are filled, this process can be relatively slow. Equilibrium conditions may never be reached if there is an insufficient mass of chemicals or biodegradation occurring. Since the regulatory framework for this guidance assumes at least 1 m of unimpacted soil between the building and contamination source, there is at least a 1 m buffer for sorption to occur. The rate at which chemicals will move in subsurface will be dependent on the chemical, organic carbon-chemical (Koc) partitioning coefficient, the organic carbon content in soil, soil moisture and transport distance. For one-dimensional transient soil vapour transport by diffusion and sorption, the approximate time to reach steady state conditions for vapour transport within a soil
2010
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AII-4column, where the initial boundary condition is a step change increase in concentration at time zero can be approximated using the equations below (Johnson et al., 1999).
ss = Rv a L2 / Deff Rv = 1 + bKd/(aH) + w/( aH)

Kd = Koc * foc
[1] [2]
[3]
Deff = Da * a 3.33. / 2 + Dw/H * w 3.33. / 2
[4]
Where ss is the time to steady state (sec), L is the transport distance (cm), Rv is the retardation coefficient (dimensionless), a is the air-filled porosity (dimensionless), Deff is the effective diffusion coefficient (cm2/sec), Da is the free air diffusion coefficient (cm2/sec), Dw is the water diffusion coefficient (cm2/sec), w is the water-filled porosity (dimensionless), is the total porosity (dimensionless), Kd is the soil-water partitioning coefficient (cm3/g), Koc is the organic carbon water partitioning coefficient (cm3/g), H is the dimensionless form of the Henrys Law constant, b is the bulk dry density (g/cm3). The time to reach steady state conditions was evaluated for transport distances of 1 m and 5 m, and fraction organic carbons of 0.1% and 0.5% (Tables 1 to 3). A relatively dry sand soil was assumed with a water-filled porosity equal to 0.055 (Health Canada default for SCS Sand). For a transport distance of 1 m and relatively low fraction organic carbon of 0.1%, the time to reach steady state conditions is a few days for chemicals such as vinyl chloride, decane and tetrachloroethene, but is a few years for chemicals such as naphthalene and 2-methylnaphthalene (Table 1). The model predictions in Tables 2 and 3 illustrate how much longer times are predicted for larger transport distances and higher fraction organic carbon contents. The model predictions suggest that the mobility of polycylic aromatic hydrocarbon vapours will be low. Summary A number of approaches have been developed to identify COPCs for the vapour intrusion pathway. Although there is no simple threshold that can easily be applied, when volatility and mobility considerations are applied, combined with observations from soil vapour data from sites, a reasonable threshold may be a Henrys Law constant of 1x10-5 atm-m3/mol and vapour pressure of 0.05 Torr. This functionally results in 1- and 2-methylnaphthalene being the volatile cut-off for PAHs and tridecane for straight chain aliphatic hydrocarbon compounds. It may be possible to further refine lists of COPCs through consideration of relative volatility and toxicity for different contaminant types or mixtures. For example, for sites with coal-tar and
2010
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AII-5creosote contamination, a list of COPCs that consists of BTEX, styrene, trimethylbenzenes, naphthalene, 1- and 2-methylnaphthalene would likely capture most compounds of potential concern for the vapour intrusion pathway. Compounds heavier than naphthalenes would likely contribute very small additional risk relative to that represented by the lighter molecular weight compounds.
Table 1. Estimated Time to Steady State - Transport Distance of 1 m, foc = 0.1% Chemical Da
2
Dw
2
Deff
2
Koc
3
H' (-) 3.24 98 197 1.08 0.225 0.017 0.026
Rv (-) 1.079459 3.63874 2.312673 2.474096 3.584224 351.4284 1001.552
ss (days) 2.4 16.9 10.7 8.0 9.5 1384 4457
(cm /sec) (cm /sec) (cm /sec) (cm /g) Vinyl chloride Tridecane (n-C13) Decane (n-C10) Tetrachloroethene Benzene Naphthalene 2-Methylnaphthalene 1.06E-01 5.00E-02 5.00E-02 7.20E-02 8.80E-02 5.90E-02 5.22E-02 1.23E-05 1.00E-05 1.00E-05 8.20E-06 9.80E-06 7.50E-06 7.75E-06 1.69E-02 7.97E-03 7.97E-03 1.15E-02 1.40E-02 9.41E-03 8.32E-03 16.5959 50118.7 50118.7 275.423 79.4328 1122.02 5011.87
Notes: All physical-chemical parameters were from Health Canada PQRA spreadsheet, except for decane where H' is from Dr. Peter Grathwohl (HGC II 2006 lecture notes), Da and Dw assumed to be equal to CCME C10-12 aliphatic fraction properties, and Koc for decane from Montgomery (2006). Tridecane .Koc assumed to be equal to decane. Soil properties assumed were based on SCS Sand, with total porosity = 0.375, water-filled porosity = 0.055, air-filled porosity = 0.32 and soil bulk density = 1.65 g/cm3
Table 2. Estimated Time to Steady State - Transport Distance of 5 m, foc = 0.1% Chemical Da
2
Dw
2
Deff
2
Koc
3
H' (-) 3.24 98 197 1.08 0.225 0.017 0.026
Rv (-)
ss (days)
1.079459 59 3.63874 423 2.312673 269 2.474096 200 3.584224 237 351.4284 34590 1001.552 111422
2010
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AII-6Table 3. Estimated Time to Steady State - Transport Distance of 5 m, foc = 0.5% Chemical Da
2
Dw
2
Deff
2
Koc
3
H' (-) 3.24 98 197 1.08 0.225 0.017 0.026
Rv (-)
ss (days)
1.185104 65 14.18669 1648 7.559874 878 7.733908 624 10.86557 717 1712.701 168575 4977.316 553722
2010
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AII-7EXHIBIT 1. SCREENING PROCESS TO DETERMINE IF CHEMICAL IS VOLATILE AND TOXIC 1. Estimate Maximum Vapour Concentration NAPL Present: No NAPL Present: Maximum Vapour Concentration: Parameter Cv
NAPL
CvNAPL = UCF1 * MW*P/(R*T) Cv NO NAPL = UCF2 * S * H Cv = Max (CvNAPL, Cv NO NAPL) Default

3
= Vapour concentration NAPL is present (mg/m )
Calculated Calculated Chemical specific Chemical specific 8.21x10-5 288 Chemical specific Chemical specific 1,000 1,000 Calculated
Cv NO NAPL = Vapour concentration NAPL not present (mg/m3) MW = Molecular weight (g/mole) P = Pure chemical vapour pressure (atm) R = Gas constant (m3-atm/K-mole ) T = Absolute temperature (K, 273oC + T(oC)) H = Dimensionless Henrys Law Constant S = Pure chemical aqueous solubility (mg/L) UCF1 = Unit Conversion Factor (mg/g) UCF2 = Unit Conversion Factor (L/m3) Ca = Concentration in air (mg/m3) 2. Calculate Maximum Indoor Air Concentration Cair = Cv * where = 0.02
3. Calculate Target Air Concentration Carcinogen CaircT = ILCRT / (UR * ET) *Note: If UR is not available then convert SF to UR: UR = SF (mg/kg)-1 * IR / BW, use IR and BW for adult for COPC screening purposes. Non-carcinogen (TCair = RfC) CairncT = HQT * SAF * (TCair Cb)/ ET *Note: If TC not available then convert RfD to TC: TC = RfD(mg/kg-day) * BW / IR (use BW and IR for toddler for chemical screening purposes)
2010
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AII-8-
Parameter CairT = Target concentration of contaminant in air (mg/m3) Cb = background air concentration (mg/m ) DRIHV = Dose rate from inhalation of volatiles (mg/kg(BW)-day) ILCRT = Target incremental lifetime cancer risk (dimensionless) HQT = Target hazard quotient SF = Slope factor (mg/kg-day)-1 IR = Receptor air intake rate (m3/day) (toddler non carcinogens) IR = Receptor air intake rate (m3/day) (adult carcinogens) BW Body weight (kg) (toddler non carcinogens) BW = Body weight (kg) (adult carcinogens) UR = Unit risk factor (mg/m3)-1 ET = Fraction of time exposed (dimensionless) TCair = Tolerable concentration in air (mg/m ) 4. Determine if Chemical is Volatile and Sufficiently Toxic
3 3
Default Calculated Zero Calculated 10-6 1.0 Chemical Specific 9.3 15.8 16.5 70.7 Chemical Specific 1.0 Chemical specific
If Cair >= CaircT or CairncT then chemical is considered volatile for purpose of selecting COPCs. If Cair >= CaircT and CairncT then chemical is not considered volatile for purpose of selecting COPCs.
2010
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AIII-1APPENDIX III SELECTED LABORATORY ANALYTICAL METHODS Method No. TO-1 3 Type of Compounds VOC Collection Device Tenax solid sorbent Molecular sieve sorbent Canister, Tedlar Bag (Cryotrap) Polyurethan e foam (PUF) Canister or on-line Polyurethan e foam (PUF) Speciallytreated canister Speciallytreated canister Speciallytreated canister Single/multi -bed adsorbent sorbent, solvent extraction sorbent, solvent extraction Detection Limit2 0.02 - 200 ug/m3 (0.01-100 ppbv) 0.2 - 400 ug/m3 (0.1-200 ppbv) 0.2 - 400 ug/m3 (0.1-200 ppbv) 1 - 20 ug/m5 (0.4-2.5 ppbv) 200 - 400,000 ug/m3 (100-200,000 ppbvC) 0.5-500 ug/m3 (0.6 - 600 ppbv) 0.4 - 20 ug/m3 (0.2-2.5 ppbv) 30 days 0.4 - 20 ug/m3 (0.2-2.5 ppbv) 0.005 - 0.02 ug/m3 (0.002-0.04 ppbv) 0.4 - 20 ug/m3 (0.2-2.5 ppbv) 1 - 20 ug/m3 5 (0.4-2.5 ppbv) 100 - 400 ug/ m3 5
Method GC/MS or GC/FID GC/MS
Stability
Reference USEPA 1999 USEPA 1999 USEPA 1999 USEPA 1999
TO-2 3
VOC
TO-3 TO-9A, 10A
VOC
GC/FID
SVOC
GC/MS
TO-12
NMOC
FID
USEPA 1999
TO-13A 3 TO-14A
PAH VOC (nonpolar) VOC (polar/nonpol ar) VOC
GC/MS
USEPA 1999 USEPA 1999 USEPA 1999 USEPA 2000b USEPA 1999 OSHA (2000) NIOSH (1994)
GC/MS
TO-15
GC/MS GC/MS/S IM GC/MS, FID GC/MS, FID GC/FID
TO-15A
30 days
TO-17 3 Modified OSHA 7 Modified NIOSH 1550
VOC
30 days
VOC Hydrocarbon fractions
14 days
30 days 4
2010
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AIII-2-
Method No. Method 3C Method 16 8015B/80 51D
Type of Compounds N2, O2, CO2, and CH4 H2S
Collection Device Canister Tedlar Bag, Canister, Glass vials Tedlar Bag, Canister, Glass vials Tedlar Bag, Canister, Glass vials Tedlar Bag, Canister, Glass vials Tedlar Bag, Canister, Glass vials Tedlar Bag, Canister, Glass vials Tedlar Bag, Canister, Glass vials
Method
Stability
Detection Limit2 20,000 - 150,000 ug/m3 (10,000 ppbv) 100 - 700 ug/m3 (50 ppbv) 300 - 3000 ug/m3 (100 - 10,000 ppbv) 4.0 - 60 ug/m3 (0.3 ppbv to 30 ppbv) 10.0 - 50 ug/m3 (0.6 ppbv to 25 ppbv) 1,000 ug/m3 (20,000 ppbv to 100,000 ppbv) 800 - 29,000 ug/m3 (10,000 ppbv) 800 - 18,000 ug/m3 (10,000 ppbv)
Reference USEPA 2002a USEPA 2002a USEPA 1998 USEPA 1998 USEPA 1998 USEPA 1998 ASTM 2003
GC/TCD
GC/FPD
TPH/VOC
GC/FPD
8021B
VOC
GC/PID
8260B
VOC
GC/MS
8270C
SVOC
GC/MS
D194503
natural gases and mixtures H2, O2, CO2, CO, CH4, C2H6, and C2H4
GC/TCD
D194690(2000)
GC/TCD
ASTM 1990
Notes: Adapted from API (2005). 1 This is not an exhaustive list. Some methods may be more applicable in certain instances. Other proprietary or unpublished methods may also apply. 2 Detection limits are compound specific and can depend upon the sample collection and the nature of the sample. Detection limits shown are for the range of compounds reported by the analytical methods. 3 To achieve high sensitivity, the indicated methods utilize a trapping-type sampling method and relation of results to air-borne concentrations may not be possible. 4 Taken from NIOSH 1500 Hydrocarbons, BP 36-216 C and NIOSH 1501 Hydrocarbons, Aromatic. 5 Based on a sample volume of 50L. Larger volumes can be collected to improve sensitivity. GC/MS = Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry GC/FID = Gas chromatography/flame ionization detector GC/FPD = Gas chromatography/flame photometric detector GC/TCD = Gas chromatography/thermal conductivity detector VOC = Volatile organic compounds
2010
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AIII-3PAH = Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons NMOC = Non-methane organic compounds SVOC = Semi-volatile organic compounds Hydrocarbon Fractions include TVOC C6-10, TVOC C10-19, CCME CWS-PHC fractions for F1 and F2. METHODS FOR HYDROCARBON FRACTIONS The collection of soil vapour and/or air samples for analysis of hydrocarbon fractions is often required for risk assessments performed in Canada. The hydrocarbon fractions are described in the Canada Wide Standards for Petroleum Hydrocarbon Compounds (CCME, 2001) and consist of the F1 (C6-C10) and F2 (C10-C16) fractions, and aliphatic and aromatic subfractions. The aliphatic fractions of interest are C6-C8, C>8-C10, C>10-C12 and C>12-C16 1 . The aromatic fractions of interest are C>7-C8 2 , C>8-C10, C>10-C12 and C>12-C16. Canisters and Sorbent Tubes (Thermal Desorption Method) When canisters (USEPA TO-15) or thermal tubes (USEPA TO-17) are used, GC/MS analysis must be performed to obtain the aromatic and aliphatic subfractions. When GC/MS is used for analysis of hydrocarbon fractions, differences in MS operation (i.e., full scan versus selective ion mode (SIM)) and the number of and specific ions selected for quantification and calibration will influence the analytical results, which may vary significantly between analytical laboratories depending on the method used. Although quantitative studies have been limited, it appears that a full scan approach where data is obtained on all or most peaks is a more accurate method of quantification compared to SIM mode. Unfortunately, CCME (2001) does not prescribe methods for how GC/MS analysis should be performed since it is a soil method involving fractionation and GC/FID analysis. CCME (2001) defines F1 as the total area summation between the apex of the hexane and decane peaks, and F2 as between the apex of the decane and hexadecane peaks. The BTEX and naphthalene peak areas are removed from the total area summations for each fraction. The F1 is calibrated against toluene response generally obtained as a full scan GC/MS peak. The F2 is typically calculated against decane response as a full scan GC/MS peak. This is a slight deviation from CCME (2001), which indicates the average of the decane and hexadecane response should be used; however, laboratories find it is difficult to generate and maintain a known vapour concentration of hexadecane. Therefore the response of decane only is often used to calibrate for the F2 fraction. For the aliphatic/aromatic subfractions, one option is identify the peaks as being
In some cases C>16-C21 is also quantified, although the vapour-phase concentrations within this carbon range tend to be negligible. 2 This fraction is comprised mostly of toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes (TEX) and therefore is sometimes not quantified
2010
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AIII-4aromatic or aliphatic and then add full scan peak areas (not area summation) of the aliphatic and aromatic peaks within their respective carbon number ranges. Aliphatic subfractions are quantified against the full mass spectra response of n-hexane; aromatics against toluene. While CCME (2001) clearly defines the F1 and F2 fractions, no such guidelines exist for subfractions. This has lead to variable and uncertain definitions, for example, the C6-C8 aliphatic fraction is referenced as either C6-C8 or >C6-C8. The first implies including the n-hexane peak in the area summation. The second implies excluding n-hexane. The n-hexane peak should be included in the analysis considering it has a relatively high toxicity. Sorbent Tubes that are Solvent Extracted Sorbent tubes that are extracted with a solvent such as carbon disulphide (i.e., modified industrial hygiene methods) allow fractionation using silica gel columns and analysis using GC/FID methods. One method commonly used by laboratories in Canada involves fractionation of the carbon disulphide extract (i.e., sample) using a micro-silica gel column. After adding the carbon disulphide to the column, the column is successively eluted with pentane and a pentane/dichloromethane (60:40) mixture to collect the aliphatic and aromatic fractions, respectively. Each fraction is analyzed by GC/FID method for quantification. This method does not have the sensitivity that the USEPA TO-15 and TO-17 methods have because only a small fraction of the solvent extract is analyzed. References Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, 2001. Reference Method for Canada-Wide Standards for Petroleum Hydrocarbon (PHC) in Soil Tier 1 Method. Publication No. 1310, 2001, Winnipeg.
2010
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE AIV-1
APPENDIX IV RECOMMENDED HEALTH-BASED INDOOR AIR TARGET LEVELS FOR SELECTED VOC The following indoor air criteria were calculated as per the approach outlined in the Rationale for Development of Generic Soil and Groundwater Standards for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario (MOE 2009), Section 2.7.3. This approach was developed to calculate the generic soil and ground water standards according to the specific objectives and assumptions of O. Reg. 153/04 as amended. The health-based indoor air criteria below are presented to assist the evaluation of indoor air contamination resulting from subsurface vapour intrusion in Brownfields. The objectives and assumptions incorporated in the development of these indoor air target levels are specific to O. Reg. 153/04. As such, the indoor air levels provided below may not be appropriate to apply in situations where the objectives or assumptions of the health risk assessment diverge from those used in the derivation of the indoor air target levels below. In such situations, the risk assessor may consult the MOE for advice on appropriate screening levels for the specific case.
Brownfields Regulation Health-Based Indoor Air Criteria Industrial CommercialCommunity g/m3 8.58E+03 1.63E+00 3.25E+00 1.00E+00 1.43E+00 7.15E+02 6.75E-01 5.72E+00 4.29E+02 8.94E-01 1.18E+02 1.38E-01 4.29E+01 5.01E+01 1.07E+02 2.86E+00
CHEMICAL NAME
Henry's (atm-m3/mol) at 15oC
Vapour Pressure (mm Hg)
Residential g/m3 2.50E+03 5.06E-01 1.01E+00 1.00E+00 4.17E-01 2.09E+02 2.10E-01 1.67E+00 1.25E+02 2.78E-01 3.44E+01 4.28E-02 1.25E+01 1.46E+01 3.13E+01 8.34E-01
Acetone Benzene Bromoform Bromomethane Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorobenzene Chloroform Cyanide (CN-) Dichlorobenzene, 1,2Dichlorobenzene, 1,4Dichloroethane, 1,1Dichloroethane, 1,2Dichloroethylene, 1,2-transDichloroethylene, 1,1Dichloroethylene, 1,2-cisDichloropropane, 1,2-
3.96E-05 5.55E-03 5.36E-04 6.24E-03 2.77E-02 3.11E-03 3.67E-03 1.33E-04 1.92E-03 2.41E-03 5.63E-03 1.18E-03 9.37E-03 2.62E-02 4.09E-03 2.81E-03
2.31E+02 9.48E+01 5.40E+00 1.62E+03 1.15E+02 1.20E+01 1.97E+02 7.42E+02 1.47E+00 1.74E+00 2.27E+02 7.89E+01 2.01E+02 6.34E+02 2.01E+02 5.33E+01
2010
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE AIV-2
CHEMICAL NAME
Henry's (atm-m3/mol) at 15oC
Vapour Pressure (mm Hg)
Brownfields Regulation Health-Based Indoor Air Criteria Industrial CommercialCommunity g/m3 8.94E-01 2.01E+02 5.96E-03 1.63E-01 8.94E-01 1.79E+03 1.00E+03 6.02E+02 1.38E+01 1.55E+02 2.65E+00 2.13E+03 3.29E+04 1.79E+03 3.58E+02 3.65E+02 1.79E+03 3.58E+02 1.86E+02 4.83E-01 6.16E-02 1.79E+02 3.58E+03 5.72E+00 7.15E+02 2.23E-01 1.79E+00 4.06E-01 5.01E+02
Residential g/m3 2.78E-01 2.01E+02 1.85E-03 5.06E-02 2.78E-01 5.21E+02 1.00E+03 6.02E+02 4.28E+00 4.84E+01 7.72E-01 6.21E+02 9.59E+03 5.21E+02 1.04E+02 1.07E+02 5.21E+02 1.04E+02 5.42E+01 1.50E-01 1.92E-02 5.21E+01 1.04E+03 1.67E+00 2.09E+02 6.95E-02 5.56E-01 1.26E-01 1.46E+02
Dichloropropene, 1,3Ethylbenzene Ethylene dibromide Hexachlorobutadiene Hexachloroethane Hexane (n) Methyl Ethyl Ketone Methyl Isobutyl Ketone Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE) Methylene Chloride Naphthalene Petroleum Hydrocarbons F1 Aliphatic C6-C8 C>8-C10 Aromatic C>8-C10 Petroleum Hydrocarbons F2 Aliphatic C>10-C12 Aromatic C>10-C12 Styrene Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,1,2Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2Tetrachloroethylene Toluene Trichlorobenzene, 1,2,4Trichloroethane, 1,1,1Trichloroethane, 1,1,2Trichloroethylene Vinyl Chloride Xylene Mixture
3.55E-03 7.88E-03 6.68E-04 1.03E-02 3.89E-03 1.80E+00 5.70E-05 1.38E-04 5.87E-04 3.25E-03 4.40E-04 1.22E+00 1.96E+00 1.17E-02 2.94E+00 3.43E-03 2.74E-03 2.42E-03 3.67E-04 1.77E-02 6.63E-03 1.42E-03 1.72E-02 8.25E-04 9.86E-03 2.79E-02 6.63E-03
3.40E+01 9.60E+00 1.12E+01 2.20E-01 2.10E-01 1.51E+02 9.06E+01 1.99E+01 2.50E+02 4.35E+02 8.50E-02 4.80E+01 4.80E+00 4.80E+00 4.80E-01 4.80E-01 6.40E+00 1.20E+01 1.33E+01 1.85E+01 2.84E+01 4.60E-01 1.24E+02 2.30E+01 6.90E+01 2.98E+03 7.99E+00
2010

Technical Guidance For Vapour Intrsuion

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technical Guidance For Vapour Intrsuion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ISBN ###-#-####-####-#

Draft Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment November 2010

Ministry of the Environment

5.6.3 5.6.4 5.6.5 5.7 5.8 5.8.1 5.8.2 5.8.3 5.8.4

Comparison of Measured to Predicted Indoor Air Concentrations ...........................7-4

MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment

MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment

THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.3.1 1.3.2 1.4

MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment

DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 1. Introduction 1-2

MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment

DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 1. Introduction 1-3

MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment

DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 1. Introduction 1-4

DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 1. Introduction 1-5

MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment

DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 1. Introduction 1-6

MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment

DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 1. Introduction 1-7

MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment

THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment

CHAPTER 2 OVERVIEW OF THE SOIL VAPOUR INTRUSION ASSESSMENT PROCESS

MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment

MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment

Figure 1: Flowchart for Vapour Intrusion Assessment

Incomplete Exposure Pathway

Consider if No and well above SCS

2. Screening level Assessment

Obtain attenuation factor

Yes Adjust attenuation factor

Vapour pathway does not pose an unacceptable risk Yes

Calculate Site Specific Screening Levels

Are data adequate to screen out site? See Note

Are groundwater and/or soil vapour concentrations below screening levels?

Consider if No and well above SCS

Are data adequate to screen out site? See Note

MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment

Exposure Controls (e.g. institutional controls, barriers, venting systems)

Are data adequate to screen out site? See Note

MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment

MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment

MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment

MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment

MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment

THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment

CHAPTER 3 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL

3.1 3.2 3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4

MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment

DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 3. Conceptual Site Model 3-2

CHAPTER 3 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL

MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment

DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 3. Conceptual Site Model 3-3

MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment

DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 3. Conceptual Site Model 3-4

Soil Contamination (residual or mobile NAPL)

Chemical Vapour Transport

FIGURE 2: Conceptual Site Model for Vapour Intrusion Residential Scenario

MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment

DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 3. Conceptual Site Model 3-5