This paper presents a quantitative method for the risk-based evaluation of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) in vapor intrusion investigations. Vapors from petroleum fuels are characterized by a complex mixture of aliphatic and, to a lesser extent, aromatic compounds. These compounds can be measured and described in terms of TPH carbon ranges. Toxicity factors published by USEPA and other parties allow development of risk-based, air and soil vapor screening levels for each carbon range in the same manner as done for individual compounds such as benzene. The relative, carbon range makeup of petroleum vapors can be used to develop weighted, site-specific or generic screening levels for TPH. At some critical ratio of TPH to a targeted, individual compound, the overwhelming proportion of TPH will drive vapor intrusion risk over the individual compound. This is particularly true for vapors associated with diesel and other middle distillate fuels, but can also be the case for low-benzene gasolines or even for high-benzene gasolines if an adequately conservative, target risk is not applied to individually targeted chemicals. This necessitates a re-evaluation of the reliance on benzene and other individual compounds as a stand-alone tool to evaluate vapor intrusion risk associated with petroleum.
References
[1]
Potter, T.L.; Simmons, K.E. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Working Group Series. In Composition of Petroleum Mixtures; Association for Environmental Health and Sciences: Amherst, MA, USA, 1998; Volume 2.
[2]
Characterizing Risks Posed by Petroleum Contaminated Sites (Policy No. WSC-02-41-1); Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection: Boston, MA, USA, 2002.
[3]
Risk-Based Decision Making for the Remediation of Petroleum-Contaminated Sites; Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Environmental Cleanup and Tanks Program: Portland, OR, USA, 2003.
[4]
Screening for Environmental Concerns at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater; California Environmental Protection Agency, Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Area Region: Oakland, CA, USA, 2005.
[5]
Cleanup Levels and Risk Calculations Focus Sheets: Reference Doses for Petroleum Mixtures; Washington Department of Ecology: Lacey, WA, USA, 2006.
[6]
Cleanup Levels Guidance; Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Spill Prevention and Response: Juneau, AK, USA, 2008.
[7]
Guidelines for Utah’s Corrective Action Process for Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites; Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Environmental Response and Remediation: Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 2010.
[8]
Evaluation of Environmental Hazards at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater; Hawaii Department of Health, Office of Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response: Honolulu, HI, USA, 2011.
[9]
Guidelines for TPH Fractionation at Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites; Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Environmental Response and Remediation: Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 2012.
[10]
Field Investigation of the Chemistry and Toxicity of TPH in Petroleum Vapors: Implications for Potential Vapor Intrusion Hazards; Hawaii Department of Health, Office of Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response: Honolulu, HI, USA, 2012.
[11]
Kelly, M.J.; Brewer, R.; Rigby, M. Use of TPH Carbon Range Data to Guide Remediation of Petroleum Contamination for Vapor Intrusion. Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Battelle Conference, Monterey, CA, USA, 21–24 May 2012.
[12]
Long-Term Management of Petroleum-Contaminated Soil and Groundwater; Hawaii Department of Health, Office of Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response: Honolulu, HI, USA, 2007.
[13]
Kaplan, I.R.; Galperin, Y.; Lu, S.T.; Lee, R.U. Forensic environmental geochemistry: Differentiation of fuel types, their sources and release times. Org. Geochem. 2007, 27, 289–317.
[14]
Chevron and Texaco Premium Unleaded Gasolines; Chevron: San Ramon, CA, USA, 2011. MSDS No. 2653.
[15]
Transport and Fate of Non-BTEX Petroleum Chemicals in Soils and Groundwater; American Petroleum Institute, Health and Environmental Sciences Department: Washington, DC, USA, 1994. Publication No. 4593.
[16]
Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values for Complex Mixtures of Aliphatic and Aromatic Hydrocarbons; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Superfund Health Risk Technical Support Center, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development: Washington, DC, USA, 2009.
[17]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Control of hazardous air pollutants from mobile sources. Fed. Regist. 2007, 72, 8428–8570.
[18]
Gasoline Composition Regulations Affecting LUST Sites; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development: Washington, DC, USA, 2010.
[19]
Updated Petroleum Hydrocarbon Fraction Toxicity Values for the VPH/EPH/EPH Methodology; Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup: Boston, MA, USA, 2003.
[20]
Gustafson, J.; Tell, J.G.; Orem, D. Selection of Representative TPH Fractions Based on Fate and Transport Considerations. In Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Working Group Series; Association for Environmental Health and Sciences: Amherst, MA, USA, 1997; Volume 3.
[21]
Risk Integrated System of Closure, Technical Resource Guidance Document; Indiana Department of Environmental Management: Indianapolis, IN, USA, 2010.
[22]
Screening Levels for Chemical Contaminants at Superfund Sites (Soil, Air, Tapwater.); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2012.
[23]
Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund Sites; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Solid Waste and Emergency Response: Washington, DC, USA, 2002. OSWER 9355.4–24.
[24]
Hartman, B. The great escape—From the UST. LUSTLine 1998, 30, 18–20.
[25]
BIOVAPOR—A 1-D Vapor Intrusion Model with Oxygen-Limited Biodegradation (Version 2.0); American Petroleum Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2010.
[26]
Hayes, H.C.; Benton, D.J.; Grewal, S.; Khan, N. Evaluation of Sorbent Methodology for Petroleum-Impacted Site Investigation. In Proceedings of the Air and Waste Management Association, Providence, RI, USA, 26–27 September, 2007.
[27]
Hazardous Substances Database; U.S. National Library of Medicine (Toxnet): Bethesda, MD, USA, 2012.
[28]
Tveit, A.; Hayes, L.A.; Youngren, S.H.; Nakles, D.V. Development of Fraction Specific Reference Doses (RfDs) and Reference Concentrations (RfCs) for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons. In Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Working Group Series; Association for Environmental Health and Sciences: Amherst, MA, USA, 1997; Volume 4.
[29]
Toxicological Profile for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry: Atlanta, GA, USA, 1999.
[30]
Evaluating Human Health Risks from Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons; California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Human and Ecological Risk Division: Sacramento, CA, USA, 2009.
[31]
DeVaull, G.E. Indoor vapor intrusion with oxygen-limited biodegradation for a subsurface gasoline source. Environ. Sci. Tech. 2007, 41, 3241–3248, doi:10.1021/es060672a.
[32]
Evaluation of Empirical Data to Support. Soil Vapor Intrusion Screening Criteria for Petroleum Hydrocarbon Compounds (EPA 510-R-13-001); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Underground Storage Tanks: Washington, DC, USA, 2013.
[33]
Standard Guide for Risk-Based Corrective Action Applied at Petroleum Release Sites; American Society for Testing and Materials: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2010.
[34]
Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Chlorinated Hydrocarbons Differ in their Potential for Vapor Intrusion; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Underground Storage Tanks: Washington, DC, USA, 2012.
