Developing-Draft … Still Learning from Rn, & now we’d like to use it Indoor Radon as an Option for On-going Screening/Monitoring of Short-Term Risks from Episodic C hemical V apor I ntrusion* 2014 International Radon Symposium (AARST) Charleston, SC – Sept. 30 Presented by Henry Schuver, DrPH (Epi), MS (Geology) USEPA – Office of Resource Conservation & Recovery (ORCR) Wash. DC Personal perspective by (does not represent Agency policy) See: http://iavi.rti.org and http://epa.gov/oswer/vaporintrusion 1 *Follows & evolved from: AWMA VI 2012 (MNA); AEHS EPA-Workshop 2014 (LTS as context); Battelle 2014 (LTS comparison to other pathways/policies); & AWMA VI 2014 – What is the Evidence for Stopping All Monitoring – of the VI pathway? - [for Recalcitrant vapors]
Developing-Draft … Still Learning from Rn, & now we’d like to use it Indoor Radon as an Option for On-going Screening/Monitoring of Short-Term Risks from Episodic C hemical V apor I ntrusion*. 2014 International Radon Symposium (AARST ) Charleston, SC – Sept. 30 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Developing-Draft … Still Learning from Rn, & now we’d like to use it Indoor Radon as an Option
for On-going Screening/Monitoring of Short-Term Risks from Episodic Chemical Vapor Intrusion*
2014 International Radon Symposium (AARST) Charleston, SC – Sept. 30
Presented by Henry Schuver, DrPH (Epi), MS (Geology) USEPA – Office of Resource Conservation & Recovery (ORCR) Wash. DC
Personal perspective by (does not represent Agency policy)
See: http://iavi.rti.org and http://epa.gov/oswer/vaporintrusion
1
*Follows & evolved from: AWMA VI 2012 (MNA); AEHS EPA-Workshop 2014 (LTS as context); Battelle 2014 (LTS comparison to other pathways/policies); & AWMA VI 2014 – What is the Evidence for Stopping All Monitoring – of the VI pathway? - [for Recalcitrant vapors]
Chemical Vapor Intrusion ‘Potential’ Defined by Source Area
Growing Awareness of Subsurface Vapor Sources - Especially in Non Drinking Water Aquifers If you look for low enough concentrations (DCE is ‘unique tracer’ of Groundwater) Proximity to a source appears to ‘determine’ its presence in indoor air (‘completeness’)
DCE – Dichloroethylene
Source definition can be a challenge - most of this plume found by indoor air
Indoor Radon is the ‘simplest’ part of this Conceptual Site Model of Soil-Gas Intrusion
[as an Outline of categories of variables 1-6]
Dissolved Contamination
LT Diffusion
Vadose zone
Building zone of influence
Wind effects
Indoor Air
CracksQsoil
Air streamlines
Convection
Top of capillary zone
Water Table
Stack effects
Mixing in indoor air and inhalation
Advection
Diffusion
Phase partitioningCgw to Csoil gas
Mod. from slide by M. Bolas, Ohio EPA, presented Jan. 2006
Fig. from Steck in draft Lessons from Radon Studies …
>4x variation in 17 years
Episodic Peaks Drive Exposure – Support SAM*?25 days (3.5%) present more exposure** than the other 698 days
Dr. Paul Johnson’s slide 20/48 - Note audio recording of presentation also available at:https://iavi.rti.org/attachments/WorkshopsAndConferences/05_Johnson_03-19-13.pdf
6
Chemical VI(TCE) at ASU’s ‘Sun Devil Manor’
* Stopping All Monitoring (see Schuver AWMA VI 2014)
– 3 Conotruncal** defects• RR = 4.91 (95% CI = 1.58-15.24)* Also a similar paper on increases in adult cancers
** “abnormal formation of the outflow tracts of the heart”(RR) Rate Ratios relative to the rest of NY state (excluding NYC) http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.1103884
“Conclusions: Maternal residence in both areas was associated with cardiac defects. Residence in the TCE area, but not the PCE area, was associated with low birth weight and fetal growth restriction.”
3 mos. after TCE in IRIS
Week 3: 15-21 days from fertilization - “Primitive heart tube is forming” Week 4: 22-28 days from fertilization - “The heart bulges, further develops, and begins to beat in a regular rhythm.”
Some [CVI] Options are Needed(and some Lessons from Radon would help)
• Current-Conventional CVI assessments take limited, but typically extended* amounts of time – Seeking permanent ‘walk-away’ decisions
• Based on ‘high-certainty’ samples for Predictions [for all future cond.]
– Leaving Un-Monitored Natural Attenuation as the only protection for all future conditions [not ok for GW]
1) Predictions are incompatible objective for the Radon (simpler) pathway (Schuver, Battelle 2014)
2) For short-term** effects extended study can be “a public health issue” [ORCR-Immediate-Office comment]
• Is it “Only a matter of time” … ?– i.e., Plausibly assoc. short-term health effects in home(s) under study for
‘potential’ VI• Plausible scenario since most time (under study) is un-sampled?
*Relative to the (short-term) exposure periods of concern**For example some effects (e.g., TCE in IRIS) plausibly assoc. with exposures as short as 1 to 21 days.
Option 1 .‘Ideal’ .
• Media/Location Indoor Air (exposure point) • % of Exposure Pt. (Bldg.) 100% of occupied buildings• Parameters/Analytes Site-specific CVOC-COCs• % time covered by samples 100% / Continuous
– Duration of samples– Frequency (/intervals between samples)
• Time to results (for responses) Immediate Real-time• Confidence Positive Screen-In (c/st)* 100% / 100%
• Didn’t miss any problems & no errors (0 False-Positives)
• Confidence Negative Screen-Out* 100% / 100%• Didn’t miss any non-exposed & no errors (0 False-Negatives)
• Overall duration of Monitoring As Long As VI Source Remains• Cost High ($$$$$$$$$)
Screening Result
Not Exposed
Exposed
Positive 0 100%
Negative 100% 0
* (c/st) = for Chronic / Short-Term risks
Comparison of Options 1 & 2, & their DownsidesCharacteristic Ideal Downsides
of IdealConventional Downsides
Of Conventional
Media/Location Indoor Air Background Indoor Air Background
% Building tested 100% Costs & access 15% Too few Bldgs.
% time sampled 100% Not practical 1% Missing peaks
Sample Duration & Frequency
Continuous Not Practical 1 day/3 mos. Unlikely to catch episodic peaks
Time b4 results Real time (0 d) Not Practical ~90 days > Exposure duration
Sensitivity*(c/nc) 100%/100% Not feasible <40%**/<<40% Too Ineffective ?
Specificity*(c/nc) 100%/100% Not feasible >95%?/99% High False-Neg. % ?
Total Duration of monitoring
As Long as Source Remain
High Costs 1 year Must predict future & no evidence it can
Cost/bldg. $$$$$$$$$ Too High/bldg.Not Realistic
$$$$$$ Moderate cost by adj. # Bldgs. & Freq.
*Sensitivity (TP/(TP+FN)) & Specificity (TN/(TN+FP)) per bldg. for Chronic / Short-Term risks**Interpretation from Holton et al., 2013 for chronic risk (for long-term avg. exposures)
Objectives for Hybrid – Decreasing the Downsides of Options 1 & 2Characteristic Downsides
• Intrusion of near-building soil gas is occurring* &– Probably including the VI-COCs in nearby soil gas
• CVI exposure pathway appears to be ‘probably complete’**• Not confirming ‘complete’ or unacceptable exposures • But Informative (evidence-based) priority-screening
*Note, indoor Rn is a ‘one-way’ indicator of SG/VI - Low indoor Rn is not as meaningful**At some conc. level (not necessarily at unacceptable conc.) 17
Hybrid Option – Step 2The Decision
• Finding Probable (‘low’/episodic) CVI conditions; – Further on-going-screening/monitoring could involve: – High-quality/confidence indoor air samples analyzed for
CVI-chemicals* and collected: • At an on-going-frequency appropriate for the shortest
exposure period of concern, [e.g., possibly 1/every day]– ~ ~Conventional assessment methods, amplified [both +/-]
• or
• Less frequently, when combined with intrusion-reducing Controls (of ~1/100x reduction factor)** & with ‘continuous’ Indoor-Radon (verification) monitoring =
A radon-monitored ‘Soil Gas Safe’ Option* Including addressing ‘Background’ concerns**Controls also allows further stress-testing of CVI source term, for confident ‘exit’ strategy
*Sensitivity& Specificity per building for Chronic and Non-Chronic risks (c/nc) **Interpretation from Holton et al., 2013 for chronic risk (long-term avg. exposures) ONLY***As Long as VI Source Remains (ALVISR); ****Incl. typical Res. Mitigation & some CVOCs
20
EPA-ORCR requested slide, by Dr. Hers from EPA VI workshop at AEHS 2014
Qualificationsfor this use:-Not incl. Step1 soil-gas-Not incl. LessFreq. IA CVOC samples w/ mitigation;- Assumes same Freq. of non-Mitigation samples over long periods; Decreases likely appropriate (as per CSM)
Unlikely true for short-term events
Only option providing continuous (short-term) protection is Lowest Cost
In Closing: Evidence Indicates:• Long-Term/On-going Monitoring/management – of ‘Low/episodic’ Chemical Vapor Intrusion • Is Appropriate/Needed (ALVISR)*
• Short-term exposure risk scenarios suggest:– Exposure-point monitoring on a frequency:• More frequent than shortest period of concern
• Less frequent chemical monitoring can be appropriate IF:– Soil-gas Intrusion is Prevented – Significantly-Reduced
• w/ ‘continuous’ validation of effectiveness (e.g., Rn tracer)
– Cost/Benefit Ratio << % by being ‘Soil Gas Safe’
Acknowledgements
• To those who have designed &/or collected some of the most important (& highest-quality) evidence for assessing/managing VI risks:– D. Steck– P. Johnson– B. Schumacher– C. Lutes– C. Holton– T. McAlary, H. Dawson, W. Wertz