Batteile
The Business of Innovation
Environmental Technology
Verification Program
Advanced Monitoring
Systems Center
Quality Assurance Project Plan
for Verification of Building Pressure
Control for the Assessment of Vapor
Intrusion
-------
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN
for
Verification of
Building Pressure Control
for the Assessment of Vapor Intrusion
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
Prepared by
Battelle
505 King Avenue
Columbus, OH 43201-2693
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 2 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
SECTION A
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Al VENDOR APPROVAL PAGE
ETV Advanced Monitoring Systems Center
Quality Assurance Plan for Verification of
Building Pressure Control for the
Assessment of Vapor Intrusion
Version 1.0
October 1,2010
APPROVAL:
Name
Company
Date
Disclaimer
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, through its Office of Research and Development, partially funded,
managed, and collaborated in, the research described herein. It has been subjected to the Agency's peer and
administrative review. Any opinions expressed in this report are those of the author (s) and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the Agency, therefore, no official endorsement should be inferred. Any mention of trade names
or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 3 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
A2 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
PROJECT MANAGEMENT 2
Al Vendor Approval Page 2
A2 Table of Contents 3
A3 List of Acronyms and Abbreviations 6
A4 Distribution List 8
A5 Verification Test Organization 9
A5.1 Battelle 10
A5.2 U.S. Navy 12
A5.3 Vendor 13
A5.4 EPA 14
A5.5 Verification Test Stakeholders 15
A6 Background 15
A6.1 Technology Need 15
A6.2 Technology Description 16
A7 Verification Test Description and Schedule 22
A7.1 Verification Test Description 22
A7.2 Proposed Testing Schedule 23
A7.3 Field Testing Site Selection 24
A7.3.1 ASU Research House, near Hill Air Force Base, Utah 25
A7.3.2 Moffett Field, California 25
A8 Quality Objectives and Criteria for Measurement Data 25
A9 Special Training/Certification 27
A10 Documentation and Records 27
MEASUREMENT AND DATA ACQUISITION 29
Bl Experimental Design 29
Bl.l Test Procedures 31
B 1.1.1 Decision-Making Support 37
Bl.1.2 Comparability 43
Bl.l.3 Operational factors 44
B1.2 Validation of Mosley Model Assumptions 45
B1.3 Reporting 47
B2 Reference Sample Collection 47
B3 Sample Handling and Custody Requirements 48
B4 RefErence Method REquirements 48
B5 Quality Control Requirements 48
B6 Instrument/Equipment Testing, Inspection, and Maintenance 51
B7 Instrument Calibration and Frequency 52
B8 Inspect!on/Acceptance of Supplies and Consumables 52
B9 Non-Direct Measurements 53
BIO Data Management 53
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 4 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
Section Page
ASSESSMENT AND OVERSIGHT 56
Cl Assessments and Response Actions 56
Cl.l Performance Evaluation Audit 56
C1.2 Technical Systems Audits 57
C1.3 Audits of Data Quality 57
C1.4 QA/QC Reporting 58
C2 Reports to Management 58
DATA VALIDATION AND USABILITY 60
Dl Data Review, Verification, and Validation Requirements 60
D2 Verification and Validation Methods 60
D3 Reconciliation with User Requirements 61
REFERENCES 63
Appendix A: Technical Panel Participants 65
Appendix B: Mosley Vapor Intrusion Model 66
Appendix C: Error Analysis to Support Selection of Acceptance Criteria for the DQI
Accuracy 77
Appendix D: Data Collection Forms 81
Appendix E: Example Chain of Custody Form 103
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 5 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
Section
Page
FIGURES
Figure 1. Organizational Chart 10
Figure 2. Basis of Building Pressure Control Technique for the Assessment of the Impact of
VI on Concentrations of COCs in Indoor air 17
Figure 3. Fan Installed in Building Doorway to Manipulate Building Pressure 18
Figure 4. SFe Tracer Gas Delivery System for Determination of Building AER 19
Figure 5. Real Time Pressure Transducer Installed to Measure Cross-Foundation Pressure
Differential 20
Figure 6. Delivery of SF6 to the Building Atmosphere; Collection of SS Air Sample with a
PVF Bag; and Collection of an IA Sample into a Stainless Steel Canister 21
Figure 7. Proposed Test Schedule at Each Building 31
Figure 8. Specifications for Construction of SS Sampling Points for Air Sampling and
Pressure Differential Measurements 32
Figure 9. Installed SS Sampling Points 33
TABLES
Table 1. Mosley Model Notation Used for Description of Several Verification Parameters 23
Table 2. Planned Verification Test Schedule 24
Table 3. DQIs and Acceptance Criteria for Critical Pressure Control Technology
Measurements 26
Table 4. Types of Air Samples Collected During Each of the Three Pressure Perturbation
Periods 35
Table 5. Methods for the Analysis of Air Samples in Canisters and Tedlar Bags 37
Table 6. Summary of Quality Control Procedures and Samples 50
Table 7. Summary of Data Recording Process 55
Table 8. Summary of Assessment Reports 59
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 6 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
A3 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
1,1 -DCE 1,1-dichloroethylene
AP differential pressure
AFvi error in FVI
AA ambient air
AER air exchange rate
ADQ audit of data quality
AMS Advanced Monitoring Systems
ASU Arizona State University
BL baseline
COA certificates of analysis
CoC(s) contaminant(s) of concern
DQIs data quality indicators
DQOs data quality objectives
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESTCP Environmental Security Technology Certification Program
ETV Environmental Technology Verification
FVI fractional contribution of vapor intrusion to the indoor concentration of a CoC
GC/ECD gas chromatography with electron capture detection
GC/MS gas chromatography/mass spectrometry
Hg mercury
IA indoor air
IO indoor/outdoor
LRB laboratory record book
MDL method detection limit
NAVFAC Naval Facilities Engineering Command
NIOSH National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health
NP negative pressure
pCi L"1 picocuries per liter
Pa pascal
PCE perchloroethylene (tetrachloroethylene)
PP positive pressure
PVF polyvinyl fluoride
QA quality assurance
QAO Quality Assurance Officer
QAPP quality assurance project plan
QC quality control
QMP Quality Management Plan
RPD relative percent difference
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
SIM single ion monitoring
SPAWAR Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command
SS subslab
TCE trichloroethylene
TSA technical systems audit
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 7 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
ug m"3 microgram per cubic meter
VI vapor intrusion
VOC volatile organic compound
VTC Verification Test Coordinator
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 8 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
A4 DISTRIBUTION LIST
(See Appendix A for technical panelists and QAPP contributors)
Verification Organization
Battelle
Ian MacGregor
Amy Dindal
Rosanna Buhl
505 King Ave.
Columbus, OH 43201
U.S. EPA
John McKernan, Sc.D., CIH
Michelle Henderson
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Risk Management Research
Laboratory
26 W. ML King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Vendor
Thomas McHugh, Ph.D.
GSI Environmental, Inc.
2211 Norfolk, Suite 1000
Houston, TX 77098
U.S. Navy
Bart Chadwick, Ph.D.
Ignacio Rivera-Duarte, Ph.D.
SPAWAR Systems Center Pacific
Code 71750, Environmental Analysis and
Compliance
53560 Hull Street
San Diego, CA 92152-5001
Jonathan Tucker
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Atlantic
EV32
6506 Hampton Blvd., Bldg. A
Norfolk, VA 23508
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 9 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
A5 VERIFICATION TEST ORGANIZATION
The verification test described in this document will be conducted under the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's) Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program. Testing
will be performed by the technology vendor with direction and oversight from Battelle, which is
managing the ETV Advanced Monitoring Systems (AMS) Center through a cooperative
agreement with the EPA. The scope of the AMS Center covers verification of monitoring
technologies for contaminants and natural species in air, water, and soil. In addition to
participation by the technology vendor, Battelle and a representative from the U.S. Navy Naval
Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Atlantic will provide independent quality
assurance (QA) oversight for this verification test. The EPA AMS Center Quality Manager may
also provide independent QA oversight, at her discretion. This testing has been established as an
EPA Quality Category III. The subject technology is concurrently being evaluated in a project
sponsored by the Environmental Security Technology Verification Program (ESTCP) Project
ER-0707. The subject verification effort has received funding from the Navy Environmental
Sustainability Development to Integration Program, as part of Project 424 on "Improved
Assessment Strategies for Vapor Intrusion (VI)."
This verification test will be coordinated and directed by Battelle in cooperation with the EPA,
with the support of the technology vendor staff and the NAVFAC QA Auditor, at two different
field sites. Field testing at two different buildings will be conducted over two separate, three-day
periods: at the VI research house owned by Arizona State University (ASU) near Hill Air Force
Base in Utah; and at Building 107 located at the Navy facilities in Moffett Field, CA. The
technology testing will involve the sequential implementation of a set of indoor air (IA), ambient
air (AA), and subslab (SS) air monitoring and sampling procedures while the candidate buildings
are under three different pressures: baseline (no pressure manipulation), negative pressure, and
positive pressure. Building pressures will be manipulated and controlled over the duration of
each 24-hour pressure testing period and samples will be collected as designated in this plan.
The technology vendor, GSI Environmental Inc., will install/operate the equipment, and conduct
the testing at each site as part of the vendor's ESTCP project (ESTCP Project ER-0707); Battelle
staff will provide oversight during the verification test.
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 10 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
The organization chart in Figure 1 identifies the responsibilities of the organizations and
individuals associated with the verification test. Roles and responsibilities are defined further
below.
Battelle
Management
Battelle AMS Center
Quality Manager
Rosanna Buhl
NAVFAC Atlantic
Quality Assurance
Officer
Jonathan Tucker
AMS Center
Stakeholders
Battelle AMS
Center Manager
Amy Dindal
Verification Test
Coordinator
Ian MacGregor
EPA AMS Center
Project Officer
John McKernan
EPA AMS Center Quality
Manager
Michelle Henderson
GSI Environmental
(Technology vendor)
Tom McHugh
Figure 1. Organizational Chart
A5.1 Battelle
Mr. Ian MacGregor is the AMS Center Verification Test Coordinator (VTC) for this test. In this
role, Mr. MacGregor will have overall responsibility for ensuring that the technical, schedule,
and cost goals established for the verification test are met. Specifically, he will:
Coordinate with the technology vendor to ensure that a team of qualified technical
staff is in place to conduct the verification test;
Hold a kick-off meeting approximately one week prior to the start of the verification
test to review the critical logistical, technical, and administrative aspects of the
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 11 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
verification test. Responsibility for each aspect of the verification test will be
confirmed;
Oversee the technology vendor staff and the vendor's subcontractors, as appropriate,
to perform verification test in accordance with this Quality Assurance Project Plan
(QAPP);
Ensure that all quality procedures specified in the QAPP and in the AMS Center
Quality Management Plan1 (QMP) are followed;
Maintain real-time communication with the Battelle AMS Center Manager and EPA
AMS Center Project Officer and QA Manager on any potential or actual deviations
from the QAPP;
Provide test data, including data from the first day of testing, to the Battelle AMS
Center Manager and EPA AMS Center Project Officer and QA Manager;
Conduct a technical review of all test data. Designate an appropriate Battelle
technical staff member to review any data generated by the VTC, if applicable;
Revise the draft QAPP, verification report, and verification statement in response to
stakeholder, collaborator, vendor, and reviewer comments;
Respond to any issues raised in assessment reports and audits, including instituting
corrective action as necessary;
Serve as the primary point of contact for the vendor representatives;
Coordinate distribution of the final QAPP, verification report, and statement; and
Establish a budget for the verification test and manage staff to ensure the budget is
not exceeded.
Ms. Amy Dindal is Battelle's manager for the AMS Center. Ms. Dindal will:
Review the draft and final QAPP;
Review the draft and final verification report and verification statement;
Ensure that necessary Battelle resources, including staff and facilities, are committed
to the verification test;
Ensure that confidentiality of sensitive vendor information is maintained;
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 12 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
Maintain communication with EPA's AMS Center Project Officer and Quality
Manager; and
Facilitate a stop-work order if Battelle, EPA, or NAVFAC Atlantic QA Officer
(QAO) discovers adverse findings that will compromise data quality or test results.
Ms. Rosanna Buhl is Battelle's Quality Manager for the AMS Center. Ms. Buhl will:
Review the draft and final QAPP;
Coordinate audits with the NAVFAC Atlantic QAO for this verification test,
including providing example checklists and audit reports for use as a template;
Review any audit checklists prepared by the QAO for completeness and detail;
Review draft and final audit reports prior to release to the VTC and/or EPA for clarity
and appropriate assessment of findings;
Review audit responses for appropriateness;
Review and approve any deviations, if applicable;
Review the draft and final verification report and verification statement;
Maintain real-time communication with the QAO on QA activities, audit results, and
concerns;
Work with the QAO, VTC, and Battelle's AMS Center Manager to resolve data
quality concerns and disputes; and
Recommend a stop-work order if audits indicate that data quality or safety is being
compromised.
A5.2 U.S. Navy
Mr. Jonathan Tucker of NAVFAC Atlantic will be the QAO for this test. Mr. Tucker will:
Participate in the verification test kick-off meeting and co-lead, along with Ms. Buhl,
the discussion of the QA elements of the kick-off meeting checklist;
Verify the presence of applicable training records prior to the start of verification
testing;
Conduct a technical systems audit (TSA) during the first of the two field campaigns;
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 13 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
Conduct a TSA at the second of the two field campaigns should any quality issues be
identified during the first field campaign;
Conduct audits of data quality (ADQs) for both field campaigns to verify data quality;
Prepare and distribute an audit report to the Battelle Quality Manager for each audit;
Verify that audit responses for each audit finding and observation are appropriate and
that corrective action has been implemented effectively;
Communicate to the VTC and/or vendor technical staff the need for immediate
corrective action if an audit identifies QAPP deviations or practices that threaten data
quality, including recommending the need for a stop-work order if audits indicate that
data quality or safety is being compromised;
Provide a summary of the QA/quality control (QC) activities and results for the
verification reports;
Review the draft and final QAPP, verification report, and verification statement; and
Maintain real-time communication with the Battelle Quality Manager on QA
activities, audit results, and concerns, including potential schedule and budget
problems.
A5.3 Vendor
GSI Environmental, Inc. is the VI pressure control technique vendor. Dr. Thomas McHugh will
be the lead for GSI. GSI's responsibilities will be as follows:
Review and provide comments on the draft QAPP;
Approve the final QAPP prior to test initiation;
Carry out testing exactly as described in the QAPP, and notify the Battelle VTC of
any non-conformance to QAPP procedures;
Provide all equipment, supplies, sampling vessels, and monitoring instruments needed
to carry out the pressure control sampling methodology for the duration of the
verification test;
Prepare all SS sample points, carry out building pressurization/depressurization,
collect all air samples, and perform all real-time monitoring for the testing at the two
field sites, as described in this QAPP;
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 14 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
Provide the data from the real-time monitoring instruments to the Battelle VTC
within one week of collection;
Provide the data from all off-site laboratory analyses within one week after the results
of the analyses are delivered to the vendor; and
Review and provide comments on the draft verification report and statement.
A5.4 EPA
EPA's responsibilities are based on the requirements stated in the "Environmental Technology
Verification Program Quality Management Plan"2 (ETV QMP). The roles of specific EPA staff
are as follows:
Ms. Michelle Henderson is EPA's AMS Center QA Manager. Ms. Henderson will:
Review the draft QAPP;
Review the first day of data from the verification test and provide immediate
comments if concerns are identified;
Perform, at her option, one external TSA and/or ADQ during the verification test;
Notify the EPA AMS Center Manager of the need for a stop-work order if the
external audit indicates that data quality or safety is being compromised;
Prepare and distribute an assessment report summarizing results of the external audit;
and
Review the draft verification report and statement.
Dr. John McKernan is EPA's Project Officer for the AMS Center. Dr. McKernan will:
Review the draft QAPP;
Approve the final QAPP;
Review and approve deviations to the approved final QAPP;
Appoint a delegate to review and approve deviations to the approved final QAPP in
his absence, so that testing progress will not be delayed. Review the first day of data
from the verification test and provide immediate comments if concerns are identified;
Review and approve the draft verification report and statement;
Oversee the EPA review process for the verification report and statement; and
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 15 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
Coordinate the submission of verification report and statement for final EPA
approval.
A5.5. Verification Test Stakeholders
A Technical Panel of stakeholders was specifically assembled for the preparation of this QAPP.
Appendix A presents a list of participants in the Technical Panel. This QAPP and the
verification report and verification statement that will be generated based on the testing
described in this document will be reviewed by experts in VI. The following experts provided
input to this QAPP:
Paul Johnson, Arizona State University;
Todd McAlary, Geosyntec Consultants;
Ronald Mosley, private citizen;
Lynn Spence, Spence Environmental Engineering;
Donna Caldwell, U.S. Navy/NAVFAC Atlantic;
Doug Grosse, U.S. EPA/ORD/NRMRL;
Mathew Plate, U. S. EPA/Region 9;
Brian Schumacher, U.S. EPA/ORD/NERL/ESD-LV.
In addition, the VI technology category was reviewed with the broader AMS Center Stakeholder
Committees during regular stakeholder teleconferences, including the November 5 and 12, 2009
meetings, and input from those committees was solicited.
A6 BACKGROUND
A6.1 Technology Need
The ETV Program's AMS Center conducts third-party performance testing of commercially-
available technologies that detect or monitor natural species or contaminants in air, water, and
soil. Stakeholder committees of buyers and users of such technologies recommend technology
categories, and technologies within those categories, as priorities for testing. Among the
technology categories recommended for performance testing are methods that can be used to
determine whether VI is occurring.
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 16 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
VI is the migration of volatile chemicals from the subsurface (from soils and/or groundwater)
into the air of overlying buildings.3 Known health risks result from inhalation exposure to
certain volatile contaminants of concern (CoCs) such as the volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
trichloroethylene (TCE), tetrachloroethylene (perchloroethylene, PCE), 1,1-dichloroethylene
(1,1-DCE), and benzene. Reducing or controlling the risk to human health related to inhalation
exposure of CoCs due to VI is the stated goal of many regulatory and governmental agencies.
That said, many building owners and regulated entities (such as the U.S. Navy)4'5 have
developed policies and guidance to state that they are not responsible for the mitigation of CoCs
in the indoor air of structures in cases where the CoCs are present due to natural or
anthropogenic background sources." Thus, the ability to distinguish concentrations of CoCs in
background indoor air - defined for CoCs as everything unrelated to the vapors that migrate into
the overlying structure (from sources such as household activities, consumer products, and
building materials)6 - from CoCs present due to vapor intrusion is of key importance so that
regulated entities can appropriately manage their limited resources when making remediation
and mitigation decisions. However, at present there is a lack of regulatory guidance to determine
the impact of VI compared to the impact of natural or anthropogenic background sources on
indoor concentrations of CoCs. One technique that has shown promise for distinguishing
background indoor sources of CoCs from those present due to VI is the manipulation of building
pressure.7'8'9 Verifying the performance of the building pressure control technique for the
assessment of the impact of VI on the concentrations of CoCs in indoor air is the subject of the
ETV test described in this QAPP.
A6.2 Technology Description
At buildings with concrete (i.e., impermeable) foundations, intentionally inducing negative or
positive building pressure - by use of a fan to drive indoor air out of the building, or ambient air
into the building, respectively - should enhance or reduce VI. This is the conceptual basis for
the building pressure control technique and is shown in Figure 2. Under conditions of induced
negative building pressure (top panel), VI should be enhanced; under induced positive building
pressure, VI should be stopped or reduced, as shown in the bottom panel. Arrows in the figures
Navy guidance states that chemicals from background sources should not be considered CoCs. However, for the purpose of this
document, the term CoC may refer to chemicals from either background or VI sources.
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 17 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
indicate the expected direction of air flows. Also during implementation of the building pressure
control method, various types of air samples are collected to demonstrate VI manipulation, as
shown by the various symbols in the figure.
Induced
NEGATIVE
Building
Pressure
Induced
POSITIVE
Building
Pressure
. I
Figure 2. Basis of Building Pressure Control Technique for the Assessment of the Impact
of VI on Concentrations of CoCs in Indoor air
(Figure courtesy Dr. Thomas McHugh, GSL)
To implement the pressure control technique for the assessment of the impact of VI on the indoor
air at a given building, testing is planned to take place over approximately 3.5 days. Over the
first day and a half, the building is prepared for testing and then operated under baseline (BL)
pressure conditions, where building pressure is not manipulated. Over the next 24 hours, a
negative pressure (NP) is induced in the building. Over the final 24 hours, a positive pressure
(PP) is induced in the building. To accomplish building pressurization and depressurization,
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 18 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
building egresses, windows, and other openings are closedb and a doorway fan is installed as
shown in Figure 3. A window fan may also be used. Fan size and speed will be roughly
commensurate with building size.
Figure 3. Fan Installed in Building Doorway to Manipulate Building Pressure
(Photo courtesy Dr. Thomas McHugh, GSL)
During each day of testing, the inert tracer gas sulfur hexafluoride, SFe, is released at a known
concentration and flow rate from a centralized location in the building. To the extent possible,
indoor doors will remain open throughout testing to enhance mixing of the indoor air. The tracer
Doors and windows are closed, but sealing egresses and vents is not attempted.
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 19 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
gas release system used for this purpose is shown in Figure 4.ฐ Using the known flow rate of SF6
and measurements of indoor SF6 concentrations, building air exchange rate (AER) is determined.
Figure 4. SFe Tracer Gas Delivery System for Determination of Building AER
(Photo courtesy Dr. Thomas McHugh, GSL)
A number of different measurements must also be made to implement the building pressure
control technique for assessment of the impact of VI on the concentration of CoCs in indoor air.
For instance, real-time measurement of the differential pressure (AP) across the building
envelope and the building foundation are performed throughout BL, NP, and PP testing. A
pressure transducer as shown in Figure 5 records the pressure measurements. To perform the
cross-building foundation pressure measurements and other air sampling beneath the building
foundation, SS sampling points must be installed prior to implementation of the pressure control
technique for assessment of VI.
c Tube shown in photo is for subslab sampling and is not part of tracer gas release system.
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 20 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
Figure 5. Real Time Pressure Transducer Installed to Measure Cross-Foundation Pressure
Differential
(Photo courtesy Dr. Thomas McHugh, GSL)
Finally, several different types of air samples from inside, outside, and below the building - IA,
AA, and SS gas, respectively - must also be collected to characterize concentrations of various
CoCs, SF6, and radon in these various compartments. The measurement of CoCs is required so
that contributions of VI and ambient sources to concentrations in IA may be determined.
Determination of SF6 in IA allows for building AER to be calculated, and measurement of SF6 in
SS gas allows for lA-to-SS infiltration (if any) to be determined. Finally, radon occurs naturally
in soil gas due to the radioactive decay of uranium; as a result, radon can be present in ambient
air at concentrations of 0.2 to 0.7 picocuries per liter (pCi L"1).10 Measurement of indoor and
ambient radon under the different conditions of building pressure allows for the determination of
whether vapor intrusion is enhanced or reduced. For instance, if indoor radon concentrations are
greater under negative pressure conditions than under BL conditions, then VI has been
enhanced/
Note that this concentration comparison assumes that both building air exchange rates and ambient radon concentrations are similar
under both baseline and negative pressure conditions. Thus, such a comparison is oversimplified and a more robust analysis must be
conducted to determine if VI has been enhanced under NP conditions.
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 21 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
On the other hand, if indoor radon concentrations under positive pressure conditions are equal to
ambient air radon concentrations, then VI has effectively been 'turned off
Gas samples for analysis of CoCs and SF6 are collected into stainless steel sampling canisters,
whereas samples for radon analysis are collected into polyvinyl fluoride (PVF) DuPont
Tedlarฎ gas sampling bags, or radon is measured in near real-time using an instrument designed
for this purpose. While the building is under each of the three pressure conditions (BL, NP, and
PP), IA and SS concentrations of CoCs, SFe, and radon are measured at three different spatially
distributed locations throughout the building; in addition, CoCs and radon in AA are also
measured in one outdoor sample collected while the building is under each of the three different
pressure conditions. Shown schematically in Figure 6 is the SF6 delivery system, SS sampling
for radon into PVF bags, and IA sampling for VOCs and SF6 into a stainless steel canister.
Canisters and PVF bags are delivered to separate off-site contract analytical laboratories for gas
analysis.
SFg tracer gas
released to atmosphere
SF6
1.8-in Nylaflow tubing
to sample depths
- Modeling clay
Gauge
Flow regulator
6 L Summa canister
Figure 6. (Left to right) Delivery of SFe to the Building Atmosphere; Collection of SS Air
Sample with a PVF Bag; and Collection of an IA Sample into a Stainless Steel Canister
(Figure courtesy of Dr. Thomas McHugh, GSI.)
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 22 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
A7 VERIFICATION TEST DESCRIPTION AND SCHEDULE
A7.1 Verification Test Description
The purpose of this verification test is to generate performance data on the use of the building
pressure control technique as a method to assess the impact of VI on the concentrations of CoCs
in indoor air. Quantitative performance metrics will be based on assessing how well a building's
pressure can be controlled using an installed fan; if vapor intrusion can be enhanced and reduced
using building pressure control; and what fraction of a given CoC's indoor air concentration is
due to VI. Furthermore, the magnitude of the building pressure that can be induced under
negative and positive pressure conditions will be compared at two different buildings. Finally,
operational factors will be considered, i.e., what is the cost, time, and level of expertise required
to implement the building pressure control technology for the assessment of the impact of VI on
concentrations of CoCs in indoor air. The data generated from this verification test are intended
to provide organizations and users interested in building pressure control for VI assessment with
information on the potential use of this methodology.
The IA model11 developed by Dr. Ronald Mosley, EPA (retired), will be utilized to calculate one
of the quantitative verification parameters for this ETV test, namely FVi, the fraction of CoCs in
IA concentration that is due to VI. The Mosley model is presented and described in Appendix B
of this QAPP. Furthermore, several other verification parameters will be stated mathematically
using the Mosley model notation, as this will facilitate the presentation and calculation of these
verification parameters. Performance parameters also include other notation developed based on
Mosley's use of superscripts and subscripts to specify building pressure, as shown in Table 1.
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 23 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
Table 1. Mosley Model Notation Used for Description of Several Verification Parameters
Parameter, units
R = radon concentration, pCi m"3
Q = flow rate, m3h"1
C = CoC concentration, |jg m"3
T = tracer gas concentration, |jg m"3
G = generation rate of a compound by
indoor sources, ug If1 or pCi If1
E = entry rate of a compound from a
subsurface source, ug If1 or pCi h"1
F = fractional contribution of the
concentration of a CoC, unitless
Subscripts
i = indoor air
a = ambient air
s = soil gas
T = tracer
C = CoC
R = radon
VI = vapor intrusion
Superscripts
+ = positive pressure
- = negative pressure
(no superscript) = baseline conditions (no
pressure perturbation)
Other symbols and values:
V = building volume, m3
A = radioactive decay constant for radon, 0.1805 d"1 = 0.007251 h"1
Qi/V = air exchange rate (AER), h"1
Subsequent to the verification test, Battelle will draft a verification report and verification
statement for the pressure control technology. The report will be reviewed by the technology
vendor and by peer reviewers, revised, and submitted to EPA. In performing the verification
test, Battelle will follow the technical and QA procedures specified in this QAPP and will
comply with the data quality requirements in the AMS Center QMP.1
A7.2 Proposed Testing Schedule
Technology vendor staff, with oversight from Battelle, will implement the building pressure
control test at two different buildings. At each building, a single pressure control test will last
approximately 3.5 days.
Table 2 shows the planned schedule of testing and data analysis/reporting activities to be
conducted in this verification. The verification test is planned to begin in October 2010 and be
completed in February 2011.
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 24 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
Table 2. Planned Verification Test Schedule
Test
1
2
Approximate
Date(s)
October 2010
October -
November
2010
December
2010
January 2011
February
2011
Building
ASU VI
Research
House, near
Hill Air Force
Base, UT
Moffett Field,
California
Building 107
Testing Activities
Perform a single building
pressure control
experiment over three
and one half days
Perform a single building
pressure control
experiment over three
and one half days
Data Analysis and Reporting
Begin preparation of report
template
Conduct ISA
Review and summarize testing
staff observations
Compile data from real-time
analyzers
Conduct ADQ
Review and summarize testing
staff observations
Conduct ISA
Compile data from real-time
analyzers
Conduct ADQ
Begin data analysis
Complete draft report(s)
Conduct ADQ
Complete peer review of draft
report(s)
Revise draft report(s)
Submit final report for EPA
approval
A7.3 Field Testing Site Selection
Field tests of the building pressure control technique for the assessment of VI will be conducted
at two different buildings. To increase the likelihood that the building pressure control
methodology can determine the extent to which VI is impacting concentrations of CoCs in
indoor air, two buildings at which VI is fairly well characterized have been selected for testing.
The selected buildings overlay plumes of CoCs dissolved in underground water, and both
buildings are fairly small; thus, building pressure should be fairly easy to control. Access to the
buildings and cooperation of the building owners/operators have been arranged in order to install
SS gas sampling points, to collect IA and SS samples over several days, and to install a fan in a
window or door to manipulate the building pressure. The buildings may remain occupied during
testing and the disruption to building occupants will be kept to a minimum.
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 25 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
A7.3.1 ASU Research House, near Hill Air Force Base, Utah
ASU purchased this research house for use on Strategic Environmental Research and
Development Program Project ER-1686. It has a partially below-grade finished basement with a
single story living space above the basement. This building overlies a dissolved plume of TCE
and 1,1-DCE, and as part of the work on ER-1686, ASU has confirmed that VI of these
compounds is occurring at this building. Furthermore, ASU has deployed a near real-time gas
chromatograph mass spectrometer (GC/MS), the HAPSITEฎ Smart Chemical Identification
System (Inficon, East Syracuse, New York), with which the IA concentrations of CoCs can be
monitored every two hours. Tracking IA CoC concentrations with respect to time during
building pressurization/depressurization will allow the confirmation that new steady state
building conditions have been achieved over the 12-hour equilibration period.
A7.3.2 Moffett Field, California
A number of buildings at Moffett Field are impacted by subsurface sources of TCE and PCE.12
The proposed site for testing is at Building 107, which is used by the U.S. Navy. It is a single
story slab on-grade structure, approximately 500 ft2 in area.
A8 QUALITY OBJECTIVES AND CRITERIA FOR MEASUREMENT DATA
The primary objective of this verification test is to evaluate the capability of the building
pressure control technique to provide decision-makers with the quantitative information required
to determine the extent to which CoCs are present in indoor air as a result of VI. Thus, to ensure
that this verification test provides suitable data for a robust evaluation of performance, a data
quality objective (DQO) has been established. Under building and site conditions where VI
contributes substantially to indoor air concentrations, FVi, the factional contribution of VI to a
CoC's indoor air concentration, will be greater than the estimated error in FVI, AFvi. If such a
relationship holds, then decision-makers will have a reasonable degree of confidence that the
building pressure control technique provides robust evidence for use in a VI investigation.
To ensure that this verification test meets the above DQO and provides suitable data for a robust
evaluation of performance, data quality indicators (DQIs) have been established. DQIs are
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 26 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
established for the accuracy of the tracer gas flow rate, as well as for the measurements of the IA
concentrations of SF6 and CoCs. The DQIs are presented in Table 3 along with the test-specific
acceptance criteria for each DQI. The acceptance criteria for the various DQIs are based on
knowledge of the typical accuracy limits of flow rate measurements and instrumental analysis.
Based on these acceptance criteria, a detailed error analysis is presented in Appendix C to
determine how large FVI must be in order to reasonably conclude that VI is impacting the IA
(i.e., under what conditions is FVI > AFvi, based on reasonably attainable acceptance criteria for
the DQIs). Other quantitative performance parameters for vendor technology performance are
discussed in Section B.
Table 3. DQIs and Acceptance Criteria for Critical Pressure Control Technology
Measurements
DQI
Accuracy of SF6
tracer gas delivery
ratp
Accuracy of the
measurement of the
concentration of SF6
in indoor air
Accuracy of the
measurement of the
concentration of
CoCs in indoor and
ambient air
Method of
Assessment
Comparison to
independent
flow transfer
standard
Inspection of
recovery of
matrix spikes
Inspection of
recovery of
matrix spikes
Frequency
Before and after
each pressure
perturbation test
at each building
One matrix spike
generated with
each sample
batch3
One matrix spike
generated with
each sample
batch
Acceptance
Criteria
ฑ 1 0%
percent
rliffprpnrp
80 to 120%
recovery
70 to 130%
recovery
Corrective Actions
Investigate discrepancy.
Inspect rotameter and
repair/replace, as
needed.
Investigate discrepancy.
Request reanalysis of
sample batch, if
possible. Determine
impact that greater
analytical variability has
on DQO.
Investigate discrepancy.
Request reanalysis of
sample batch, if
possible. Determine
impact that greater
analytical variability has
on DQO.
' A batch of samples is defined to comprise no more than 20 individual samples.
The accuracy of the rotameter that delivers the SF6 tracer gas will be verified using an
independent, calibrated flow transfer standard. If greater than 10% difference is found, Battelle
will investigate the discrepancy and oversee the appropriate remedial action, such as repairing or
replacing the rotameter. Additionally, Battelle will ensure that matrix spikes performed during
the off-site analyses of SF6 and VOCs show recoveries between 80 and 120% and 70 to 130%,
respectively.
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 27 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
The NAVFAC Atlantic QAO will perform a ISA of field-based testing activities to augment
these QA/QC requirements. A ISA of the testing activities at the first and second test building
will be performed. The NAVFAC Atlantic QAO will also perform an ADQ to verify attainment
of the acceptance criteria for the accuracy of the SF6 and VOC matrix spikes. The EPA Quality
Manager also may conduct an independent TSA, at her discretion.
A9 SPECIAL TRAINING/CERTIFICATION
Documentation of training related to technology testing, field testing, data analysis, and reporting
is maintained in the Battelle VTC's training file. Battelle technical staff supporting this
verification test has a minimum of a bachelor's degree in science/engineering. Battelle technical
staff involved in this verification test will have experience with the collection of air samples and
a background in analytical chemistry. Site owners/operators will provide technology vendor and
Battelle staff with any relevant safety information for the two field sites.
A10 DOCUMENTATION AND RECORDS
The documents for this verification test will include this QAPP, certificates of analysis (COA),
analytical methods or standard operating procedures, instrument calibration records, vendor
instructions, verification reports, verification statements, and audit reports. The project records
will include laboratory record books (LRBs), chain-of-custody forms, data collection forms,
results of any and all laboratory analyses, supporting laboratory records, training records,
electronic files (both raw data and spreadsheets), and QA audit files. Section BIO summarizes
data management for the test and the types of data to be recorded. All of these records will be
maintained by the VTC during the test and will be transferred to secure storage at Battelle's
Records Management Office at the conclusion of the verification test. The VTC will not be
present to oversee testing during the second field test at Moffett Field. However, the VTC will
conduct a daily debrief with vendor staff (and the NAVFAC Atlantic QAO, if present) during the
second field campaign. Daily activities will be summarized and pertinent data will be shared. In
addition, if the NAVFAC QAO is not onsite during field testing at the second building, Battelle
will arrange to have a staff person at the site for one day to provide independent observations and
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 28 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
oversight. Documents and records generated during this second test will be stored by the
technology vendor in a secure location until they can be transferred to the VTC within one week
after generation of the records in question. Furthermore, the technology vendor will share all
results of subcontract analytical work within one week of receipt of such results. Electronic
documents and records will also be uploaded to a SharePoint site designated for this test and will
be provided to EPA upon request. All Battelle LRBs are stored indefinitely by Battelle's
Records Management Office; raw data and supporting records are maintained for 10 years and
the final report and verification statements for 20 years. EPA will be notified before any files are
disposed.
All data generated during the conduct of this project will be recorded directly, promptly, and
legibly in ink. All data entries will be dated on the date of entry and signed or initialed by the
person entering the data. Any changes in entries will be made so as not to obscure the original
entry, will be dated and signed or initialed at the time of the change and shall indicate the reason
for the change. Section BIO further details the data recording practices and responsibilities.
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 29 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
SECTION B
MEASUREMENT AND DATA ACQUISITION
Bl EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
The building pressure control technique will be evaluated on the following performance
parameters:
Decision-making support;
Comparability; and
Operational factors.
Three different sub-parameters comprise the performance parameter decision-making support.
The ultimate goal of carrying out a building pressure control test is to determine what fraction, if
any, of a given CoC's concentration in IA is due to VI. However, to achieve this goal, it first
must be understood whether the pressure control technique has indeed manipulated the building
pressure to the extent that VI can be enhanced (under negative pressure) and reduced (under
positive pressure). Thus, the first sub-parameter under decision-making support is to understand
if the building pressure was in fact changed over the course of the building depressurization and
pressurization cycles, and if the average pressure differential within each pressure perturbation
cycle is greater than 1 Pa. The next step is to consider, by inspection of the IA and AA radon
data and building flow rates, whether VI was in fact enhanced under negative pressure conditions
and reduced (or stopped) under positive pressure conditions. The last sub-parameter under
decision-making support is to calculate the fractional contribution of VI (FVi) for each of several
different concentrations of indoor CoCs. FVI will be calculated for four different CoCs at each of
the two test buildings. Of the four CoCs, two will be among those expected to have subsurface
sources, such as TCE and 1,1-DCE at the ASU VI research house and TCE and PCE at Moffett
Field, and two others will be CoCs not expected to be present in IA as a result of VI, such as
benzene and toluene. Further, FVI for each CoC will be calculated at each of the two buildings
under both positive and negative pressure conditions according to the Mosley model. These
conditions are (1) under negative pressure, equation B-25 (see Appendix B) will be combined
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 30 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
with equation B-27 to determine FVi; and (2) under positive pressure, depending on the indoor
radon concentration results, either equation B-18 (VI reduced) or equation B-32 (VI 'turned off)
will be combined with equation B-27 to determine FVI. The error in each FVI (AFyi) calculation
will also be estimated based on propagation of errors. The error in VI will determine the degree
of confidence with which the pressure control technique can ascribe a CoC's indoor
concentration to VI; for instance, if FVI > AFvi, then there exists a reasonable degree of
confidence that VI is contributing to a CoC's indoor air concentration. Furthermore, a p-value
and statistical power will be calculated to provide quantitative measures of the confidence in this
determination. Given FVI ฑ AFVi (and the quantitative statistics), decision-makers may evaluate
the impact of VI on the indoor atmosphere by calculation of the indoor concentration of each
CoC attributable to VI and comparison of concentration contribution to risk-based residential
screening levels.
Comparability of the pressure control technique as implemented between buildings will be
determined by observing the difference between building differential pressures achieved under
positive and negative pressure conditions at each building. Other metrics, such as comparison of
radon concentrations, CoC concentrations, and building air exchange rates are more site-specific
and, therefore, inter-site comparisons of these parameters will not be conducted.
Operational performance parameters such as ease of implementation of the pressure control
technology and expertise required to carry out the field work and interpret the results will be
determined from observations by the Battelle VTC. Information on costs will be provided by the
technology vendor.
Throughout the verification test, the building pressurization/depressurization fans, pressure
differential monitoring instruments, and tracer gas release system will be operated by the
vendor's staff with oversight provided by Battelle staff. In addition, vendor staff will prepare all
SS sample points, collect all air samples, operate all air sampling systems, and procure all
analytical services. Battelle will interpret the results of all analyses and calculate the quantitative
performance parameters and appropriate statistics.
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 31 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
Bl.l Test Procedures
The proposed testing schedule at each of two buildings is shown in Figure 7. Testing will be
conducted in concert with sampling and analysis activities that are occurring on the ESTCP
project (ESTCP Project ER-0707).
Activity
Dayl
Day 4
1. Sample point installation/AP instrument setup
2. SF6 Release and Pressure Measurement
3. Collection of BL Samples: VOCs/SF6/radon
4. Begin Depressurization and NP Equilibration
5. Collection of NP Samples: VOCs/SF6/radon
6. Begin Pressurization and PP Equilibration
7. Collection of PP Samples: VOCs/SF6/radon
Figure 7. Proposed Test Schedule at Each Building
Over three consecutive days, the building will be maintained for 24 hours at each of the three
pressure perturbation conditions. During the first 12 hours at each pressure condition, the
building atmosphere will be allowed to come to equilibrium, after which the next 8 to 12 hours
will be taken to characterize the concentrations of various species in the building atmosphere.6
Work at the field site will begin in the afternoon on the first day of testing, when SS sampling
points will be installed. In a given building, three different SS sampling points for air sampling
and one SS sampling point for measurement of differential pressure will be installed below the
concrete slab. The SS sampling locations will be spatially interspersed throughout the building,
and may be located in unobtrusive places such as inside closets. See Figure 8 for installation and
construction specifications of the SS sampling points.
e Twelve hours is the minimum time for equilibration following a change in building pressure: at a minimum air exchange rate of 0.25 h"
\ 3 air changes would occur over 12 hours, after which indoor air concentrations would be (1 - e~3)*100% = 95% of their expected final
equilibrium concentrations. Moreover, given that integrated and other air sampling must occur over the next twelve hours following
establishment of the new indoor equilibrium concentrations. 24 hours may be interpreted as the minimum required time for testing at each
pressure condition.
-------
Modeling
clay seal
in. NylaFlow
tubing
Bsntonite seal
Modeling
clay seal
Sand backfill
filter pack,
(e.g., U.S. mesh;
interval 20-40) -
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 32 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
1/4 in. Nylallow
tubing
Etentonite seal
Sub-Slab Sampling Point
Sub-Slab Sampling and
Pressure Measurement Point
Figure 8. Specifications for Construction of SS Sampling Points for Air Sampling (Left
Panel) and Pressure Differential Measurements
(Figure courtesy Dr. Thomas McHugh, GSL)
Holes extending to a depth of approximately 9 inches below ground surface will be drilled into
the concrete using a hammer drill with a 1 inch drill bit. Either 1/8 inch or 1A inch Nylaflowฎ
(nylon) tubing will be inserted to extend into the length of the borehole. Sand of 20/40 mesh will
be packed into the bottom few inches of the borehole and the borehole will be filled with
bentonite chips. Water will be added to the bentonite, and the top of the borehole will be sealed
with modeling clay to prevent incursion of indoor air into the sub slab, or vice-versa. Completed
SS sampling points are shown in Figure 9.
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 33 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
Figure 9. Installed SS Sampling Points
(Photo courtesy Dr. Thomas McHugh, GSL)
The location of the four different SS sampling points will be documented on the "Site
Description and Sampling Locations" data collection form (see Appendix D). The SS point for
differential pressure monitoring will be more centrally located within the building. Note that SS
sampling points have already been installed at the ASU VI research house, thus this preparation
step may be bypassed at this test building.
Following installation of the SS sampling points, indoor/outdoor (IO) building and cross-
foundation SS pressure differential measurements will commence using two separate calibrated
Omni guard 4ฎ (Engineering Solutions Inc., Tukwila, WA) real-time differential pressure
instruments. For the IO measurement, one pressure port on the Omniguard 4ฎ will be open to
the indoor atmosphere and the other port will be connected to 1A inch tubing placed outside of the
building envelope, for instance, through a slightly opened window. For the SS measurement,
one port on the second Omniguard 4ฎ will be connected to the 1A inch tubing extending from a
SS differential pressure sampling port and the other port will be open to the IA. The same
connections to the instruments will be maintained throughout testing so as to maintain
consistency with the observed sign of AP (negative under NP conditions, and positive under PP
conditions). All pertinent data will be recorded on the data collection form entitled "Pressure
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 34 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
Differential Measurements," (see data forms in Appendix D). The minimum and maximum
measured pressure differential will be recorded to an internal instrument datalogger every five
minutes for the duration of testing (a total of-84 hours).
The next step in implementing the building pressure control methodology is to begin the release
of the tracer gas. The target flow rate of the tracer gas is approximately 50 rnL min"1 (based on
release of 1% SFe). The flow rate will be independently verified before and after each of the
three pressure conditions at each building. Note that the accuracy of the tracer gas flow rate
measurement is one of the DQIs discussed in Section A8. The tracer will be released from a
central location inside the test building, and will be continued overnight (-12 hours) to allow
equilibration of its concentration throughout the building under each of the building pressure
conditions/ Pertinent details of the operation of the tracer gas release system, including COA
information of the certified SF6 gas standard, and expected and observed flow rates of the tracer
gas delivery system will be documented on the "Tracer Gas Release" data collection form
(Appendix D). Delivery of the tracer gas will continue for the duration of testing (a total of-72
hours). Maintaining a steady tracer gas release rate is critical in order to obtain an accurate
estimate in the building air exchange rate; thus, the SF6 release rate will be checked
approximately every 16 hours and adjusted if found to have drifted by more than 10%. Drift
may occur due to fluctuations in building temperature or gas cylinder pressure. Any such flow
rate adjustments will be recorded on the "Tracer Gas Release" data collection form.
In the late afternoon on Days 2 and 3, building pressure will be changed using a fan installed in
an outside window or door. NP and PP pressure conditions will be maintained for at least 12
hours before sample collection the next morning to allow the concentrations of the various gas-
phase species to come to equilibrium. At the ASU VI research house, the attainment of new
equilibrium concentrations for various CoCs will be verified by inspection of IA CoC
concentrations as measured by the on-site portable near-real time HAPSITEฎ GC/MS. Data
generated from the HAPSITEฎ GC/MS will be used as a diagnostic indicator and will not be
used to calculate verification parameters.
Such assumes that after 12 hours the atmosphere of the test buildings is well-mixed.
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 35 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
Beginning on the morning of Days 2, 3, and 4 (for BL, NP, and PP sampling, respectively), after
the tracer gas has been well-mixed throughout the test building, and after the indoor chemicals
have reached new equilibrium concentrations, gas samples from IA, AA, and the SS will be
collected to measure CoCs (VOCs), SF6, and radon. The numbers of samples and sampling
locations are given in Table 4. Specific indoor sampling locations points will be selected as a
compromise between attaining spatial representativeness while minimizing disturbance to
building occupants and activities. Ambient sampling locations will be selected nominally
upwind of the test building, away from obvious VOC sources. Sampling procedures and types of
samples collected are described in additional detail below. Pertinent observations and sampling
data will be documented as outlined on the "Air Sampling Information" data collection form
(Appendix D).
Table 4. Types of Air Samples Collected During Each of the Three Pressure Perturbation
Periods
Matrix
Indoor air
Ambient air
Subslab
Number of
Locations
3
1
3
Analyte
VOCs, SF6, radon
VOCs, radon
VOCs, SF6, radon
Location
Open area on lowest building
level plus two additional samples
based on building layout.
Upwind location
Three locations distributed
across the building foundation.
In order to characterize the concentrations of VOCs, SF6, and radon in IA, two different types of
air samples will be collected at each of three spatially distributed locations throughout the
building. At each indoor location, one 8-hour time integrated air sample for analysis of trace
level VOCs and SF6 will be collected into an evacuated 6-L stainless steel canister. Sampling
will commence early on Days 2, 3, and 4 and be complete early in the afternoon on each day.
Moreover, at each indoor sampling location, a grab sample for radon analysis will be collected
into a 500-mL PVF bag using a 60-mL polyethylene syringe and a polymer three-way valve.
Each PVF bag will be filled with approximately 250 mL of air in less than five minutes, and the
IA grab sampling will be conducted in the afternoon of Days 2, 3, and 4.
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 36 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
Collection of samples for the characterization of the concentrations of VOCs and radon in AA
will be performed identically to the sample collection in IA. For VOCs, a single 8-hour
composite sample will be collected into an evacuated 6-L stainless steel canister at one outdoor
sampling location. For radon, a single PVF bag grab sample will be collected. As with the IA
sampling, AA sampling will be performed on Days 2, 3, and 4 of testing.
The measurement of the concentrations of VOCs, SFe, and radon in SS gas will require
collection of several different types of samples. Beginning on the afternoon of Days 2, 3, and 4,
one grab sample will be collected at each SS sampling point into an evacuated 1-L stainless steel
canister for the measurement of VOC and SF6 concentrations. Canister grab sampling at each
location will be completed in less than one minute. Radon concentrations at each location will
be measured using a near real-time instrument, the Durridge (Bedford, MA) RAD7ฎ radon
detector. Typically, a total of five readings will be collected, and each reading will be performed
over 5 minutes. The average of the final three readings will be used as the radon concentration at
that sampling point. Prior to initiating SS sampling at a given sample point, approximately 50
mL of gas will be withdrawn from the sample point using a polyethylene syringe. This SS purge
gas will be collected into a PVF bag (for discharge outdoors at a later time) so as to avoid
artificially elevating IA concentrations.
At the completion of testing on Day 4, the canister samples will be shipped by common carrier to
Columbia Analytical Services (Simi Valley, California) for analysis of VOCs and SF6, and the
PVF bags will be similarly shipped to the University of Southern California (Pasadena),
Department of Earth Sciences for radon analysis. Analyses will be performed as specified in
Table 5.
Analysis of canister samples for CoCs will be performed using cryogenic preconcentration
(GC/MS) according to the procedures outlined in EPA Compendium Method TO-15.13 The
standard full scan TO-15 method will be employed for analysis of CoCs in SS gas. To increase
the likelihood that the low levels of CoCs in IA and AA samples will be detected, these samples
will be analyzed using TO-15 with single ion monitoring (SIM). The SIM method typically can
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 37 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
-3
achieve reporting limits of approximately 0.04 ug m" . Canister samples for SF6 will be analyzed
using GC/electron capture detection (BCD) according to procedures in National Institute of
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Method 6602.14 Radon concentrations will be
measured by way of alpha scintillation counting following established EPA protocols.15
Additional details of this method are described by McHugh et al.16
Table 5. Methods for the Analysis of Air Samples in Canisters and PVF Bags
Sample type
Canister
Canister
Canister
PVF bag
Target Analyte(s)
VOCs
VOCs
SF6
radon
Matrix
SS
IA, AA
IA, SS
IA, AA, SS
Analytical Method
U.S. EPATO-15
U.S. EPATO-15
SIM
NIOSH 6602
alpha scintillation
Analytical Laboratory
Columbia Analytical
Services
Columbia Analytical
Services
Columbia Analytical
Services
University of Southern
California, Department of
Earth Sciences
Bl.1.1 Decision-Making Support
Bl. 1.1.1 Building Pressure Differential
One metric for the verification of the performance of the building pressure control methodology
is whether the building pressure could be decreased and subsequently elevated at each of the two
buildings under NP and PP conditions, respectively. Building pressure control will be verified
by inspection of the mean pressure differential across the building envelope that was attained for
the 24-hour negative and positive pressure perturbations at each of the two buildings. The
Omniguard 4ฎ pressure differential instrument is configured to measure and record the minimum
and maximum AP every five minutes. The average AP for this five minute time interval will be
calculated as the arithmetic mean of the minimum and maximum AP. Over the approximate 24-
hour sampling period for NP and PP, there will be approximately 288 such 5 min arithmetic
mean AP values. The arithmetic mean of these 288 values will be calculated, and a total of four
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 38 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
mean overall pressure differentials will be determined for the two different buildings: (1) APf
and APi+, the mean differential pressure at building 1 (ASU VI House) under NP and PP
conditions, respectively; and (2) AP2" and AP2+, the mean differential pressure at building 2
(Moffett Field) under NP and PP conditions, respectively. The standard deviation for each
overall mean will also be calculated using the 288 data points. Observed mean pressure
differentials less than 1 Pa (under NP conditions) and greater than 1 Pa (under PP conditions)
verify that some degree of building pressure control has been attained.
Bl. 1.1.2 VI Enhancement and Reduction
Under conditions of negative building pressure, the mass transport of chemicals with subsurface
sources - including radon and CoCs - into the building atmosphere should be enhanced. Direct
measurement of SS to indoor air flow rates is quite difficult; consequently, it is difficult to
directly measure SS to IA mass transport. Instead, the radon concentration in indoor air is used
as a proxy for subsurface to indoor air transport since the primary source of radon to indoor air is
via intrusion from the subsurface (ambient and indoor sources of radon are taken to be negligible
compared to subsurface sources). Thus, the performance of the pressure control technique will
be investigated at each of the two test buildings as to whether such an enhancement of subsurface
to IA chemical transport was observed by comparing the product of the building air flow rate and
the IA radon concentration under NP conditions to the product of the building air flow rate and
the IA radon concentration under BL conditions. The product of air flow rate (m3 h"1) and radon
concentration (pCi m"3) is an effective generation rate (pCi h"1) of radon in IA.
For each building, the mean indoor radon concentration under BL and NP pressure conditions (R;
and R;", respectively, in the notation of the Mosley model) will be determined as the arithmetic
mean of the three IA measurements under BL and PP. Qj, the building air flow rate between
indoors and ambient for BL conditions, will be determined from the tracer gas release data:
where
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 39 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
GT = generation rate of SF6 under BL conditions (ug h"1);
CT = source concentration of the SF6 tracer gas (ug m"3);
QT = flow rate of the SF6 tracer gas from the source bottle into the indoor air under BL
conditions (m3 h"1); and
T; = the mean concentration of the three IA SF6 measurements under BL conditions (ug m"3).
Qi", the building air flow rate between indoors and ambient for NP conditions will be similarly
determined by way of CT, QT", and Tf.
The degree to which VI has been enhanced under NP conditions will be investigated by
comparison of Q;" * R;" to Q; * R;. IfQi * Ri > Qi * Ri, then under NP conditions some degree of
enhancement of VI has been verified. A one-sided hypothesis test will provide the statistical
support of the comparison of Qf * R;~ and Q; * R;; and a p-value will be calculated and reported
in order to provide a quantitative measure of the statistical confidence of the comparison. Failure
to find a statistically significant difference between these two quantities could result from either
the absence of any underlying difference, or from small sample size and high variability in the
data. A retrospective calculation will be employed to estimate the minimum detectable
difference with the observed sample size and variability, with 80% power (20% probability of
Type II error) and 5% probability of Type I error. To enable the statistical evaluation,
propagation of errors will be performed to provide estimates of errors in Q;" * R;" and Q; * R;.
The standard deviation of the three individual indoor air measurements under BL and NP
conditions will be used for the errors in R; and R;", respectively; error estimates in Q; and Qf will
be based on percent error estimates of CT, acceptance limit of the percent error in QT, and the
standard deviation of the three IA measurements for SFe under BL and NP conditions,
respectively. (See Appendix B for more information on error estimation techniques.) The
comparison described here assumes that Ra = Ra", i.e., that the ambient radon concentration
measured under BL conditions is equal to the ambient radon concentration under NP conditions.
Ra and Ra" are determined by single grab sample measurements of ambient air.
Similarly, under conditions of positive building pressure, the mass transport of chemicals with
subsurface sources - including radon and CoCs - into the indoor air of the building should be
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 40 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
reduced. Moreover, if transport of chemicals from the subsurface to IA ceases completely under
PP conditions, vapor intrusion may be said to be "turned off." Similar to the data treatment for
NP conditions, the performance of the pressure control technique will be investigated as to
whether such a reduction or elimination of subsurface to IA chemical transport was observed.
To do so, the product of the building air flow rate and the IA concentration of radon under PP
conditions Q;+ * R;+ will be compared to the product of the building air flow rate and the IA
radon concentration under BL conditions, Q; * R;.
The building air flow rate between indoors and ambient for PP conditions (Q;+), will be
determined using CT, QT+, and T;+, as described above and in a manner similar to Q; and Q;". R;+
will be calculated as the mean of the three IA concentrations measurements of radon under PP
conditions. The degree to which VI has been reduced under PP conditions will be investigated
by comparison of Q;+ * R;+ to Q; * R;. IfQ,+ * R,+ < Qt * Rt, then under PP conditions some
degree of reduction of VI has been verified. A one-sided hypothesis test will provide the
statistical support of the comparison of Q;+ * R;+ and Q; * R;, and a p-value will be calculated and
reported in order to provide a quantitative measure of the statistical confidence of the
comparison. Failure to find a statistically significant difference between these two quantities
could result from either the absence of any underlying difference, or from small sample size and
high variability in the data. A retrospective calculation will be employed to estimate the
minimum detectable difference with the observed sample size and variability, with 80% power
(20% probability of Type II error) and 5% probability of Type I error. To enable the statistical
evaluation, propagation of errors will be performed to provide estimates of errors in Q;+ * R;+ and
Qi * R;. Error estimates for Q; and R; will be the same as those described earlier in this section.
For the estimated error in R;+, the standard deviation of the three individual indoor air
measurements under PP conditions will be calculated. The estimated error in Q;+ will be based
on percent error estimates of CT, acceptance limit of the % error in QT, and the standard
deviation of the three IA measurements for SF6 under PP conditions. The comparison described
here assumes that Ra = Ra+, i.e., that the ambient radon concentration measured under BL
conditions is equal to the ambient radon concentration under PP conditions. (Ra and Ra+ are
determined by single grab sample measurements of ambient air.) It also assumes that the
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 41 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
building foundation's concrete slab is cracked or otherwise permeable enough to allow VI to
occur.
If some degree of reduction of VI is observed under PP, then an additional comparison will be
performed to ascertain whether VI was 'turned off under PP conditions. Under the assumption
that the only source of radon to the IA is the subsurface, and if under PP conditions the radon
concentration in IA (R;+) drops to the ambient radon concentration measured under PP conditions
(Ra+), then there is some degree of confidence that VI has been stopped or 'turned off by the
application of additional pressure to the building atmosphere. That is, ifRj+ = Ra+, then there is
some degree of confidence VI been halted under PP conditions. A two-sided t-test will provide
the statistical support for such a comparison, and a p-value will be calculated and reported in
order to provide a quantitative measure of the statistical confidence of the comparison. Failure to
find a statistically significant difference between R;+ and Ra+ could result from either the absence
of any underlying difference, or from small sample size and high variability in the data. A
retrospective calculation will be employed to estimate the minimum detectable difference with
the observed sample size and variability, with 80% power (20% probability of Type II error) and
5% probability of Type I error. The error in R;+ will be as previously described; the relative error
in the single measurement of Ra+ will be estimated as the relative error observed in the three IA
radon measurements.
Note that if the radon and/or SF6 concentration measurements in IA are highly variable, the
outcome of the comparisons described in this section may produce equivocal data of limited
utility for quantitative verification of the performance of the pressure control technology.
Also note that for instances where measurement of concentrations yield non-detects, the value of
the estimated detection limit will be substituted for the non-detect, as appropriate.
Bl. 1.1.3 Fractional contribution of VI to indoor CoC concentrations
For each of the two buildings, the fractional contribution of VI (FVi) to the IA concentration of
four different CoCs will be calculated under both NP and PP conditions - Fvf and FVi+,
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 42 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
respectively. Moreover, the error in each FVi (AFVi) will be estimated. Thus, a total of 16
different FVI ฑ AFVi will be determined (2 buildings* 2 pressure conditions* 4 CoCs).
At each test building, two CoCs will be selected that are expected to have subsurface sources,
and two CoCs will be selected that are not expected to be present in the subsurface. At the ASU
research house, the four CoCs will be TCE and 1,1-DCE (expected in the subsurface) and
benzene and toluene (not expected in the subsurface). At Moffett Field Building 107, the four
CoCs will be TCE and PCE (expected in the subsurface) and benzene and toluene (not expected
in the subsurface).
At each of the two buildings under NP conditions, FVI" for each of the four CoCs will be found
according to the Mosley model by combining equation B-25 with equation B-27. Q;, Q;", R;, R;",
Ra, and Ra" will be calculated as described in Section B1.1.1.2. Q and Q" will be calculated for
each of the four CoCs at each building as the arithmetic mean of the three IA concentration
measurements under BL and NP conditions, respectively. Ca and Ca" are the concentrations of
each of the CoCs in the single AA sample collected under BL and NP conditions, respectively.
The error in FVI, AFvi, will be determined for each of the eight FVI" values by propagation of the
estimated errors in all of the applicable variables, according to the general principles of error
propagation as described in Appendix C. Estimated errors in Q;, Q;", R;, and R;" will be
determined as given in Section B1.1.1.2. Errors in C; and Of will be estimated as the standard
deviation of the three IA concentration measurements under BL and NP conditions, respectively.
Errors in the single measurements of Ra and Ra" will be assumed to be equal to the relative error
in the corresponding triplicate R; and R;" measurements, respectively. The relative error in Ca
and Ca" will be assumed to be equal to the accuracy limit for the TO-15 volatiles analysis, ฑ30%.
At each of the two buildings under PP conditions, FVi+ for each of the four CoCs will be found
according to the Mosley model by combining either equation B-18 (if VI is only reduced under
PP) or equation B-32 (if VI is 'turned off) with equation B-27. If R;+ = Ra+, i.e., these quantities
cannot be distinguished statistically, then the simplified VI 'turned off equations will be used to
find FVI+. Qi, Q;+, R;, R;+, Ra, and Ra+ will be calculated as described in Section B1.1.1.2. Q and
Ca are determined as described above. C;+ will be calculated for each of the four CoCs at each
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 43 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
building as the arithmetic mean of the three IA concentration measurements under PP conditions,
respectively. Ca+ is the concentration of each of the CoCs in the single AA sample collected
under PP conditions. The error in FVi, AFVi, will be determined for each of the eight FVi+ values
by propagation of the estimated errors in all of the applicable variables, according to the general
principles of error propagation as described in Appendix C. Estimated errors in Q;, Q;+, R;, and
R;+ will be determined as given in Section B1.1.1.2. Errors in C; and C;+ will be estimated as the
standard deviation of the three IA concentration measurements under BL and PP conditions,
respectively. Errors in the single measurements of Ra and Ra+ will be assumed to be equal to the
relative error in the corresponding triplicate R; and R;+ measurements, respectively. The relative
error in Ca and Ca+ will be assumed to be equal to the accuracy limit for the TO-15 volatiles
analysis, ฑ30%.
The 16 FVI ฑ AFVi values will be reported. Reported along with these FVi ฑ AFVi will be an
estimate of the statistical confidence that FVI is larger than AFvi (a p-value or confidence
interval). Failure to find statistically significant differences could result from either the absence
of any underlying differences, or from small sample size and high variability in the data.
Retrospective calculations will be employed to estimate the minimum detectable differences with
the observed sample sizes and variabilities, with 80% power (20% probability of Type II error)
and 5% probability of Type I error. Taken together, these values will determine the degree of
confidence with which the pressure control technique can ascribe a CoC's indoor concentration
to VI; for instance, if FVI > AFVi, then there exists a reasonable degree of confidence that VI is
contributing to a CoC's indoor air concentration.
As with the calculations described in Section B 1.1.1.2, for instances where measurement of
concentrations yield non-detects, the value of the estimated detection limit will be substituted for
the non-detect, as appropriate.
Bl.1.2 Comparability
The comparability of the building pressure control methodology will be assessed by comparison
of the differential pressures across the building envelope under negative and positive pressure.
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 44 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
Specifically, the relative percent difference (RPD) of the mean differential pressure under NP
and PP conditions (RPD,AP" and RPD,AP+, respectively) will be calculated and reported as:
100
100
Bl.1.3 Operational factors
Operational factors for implementation of the entire building pressure control technology will be
evaluated based on Battelle's observations with input from the technology vendor. General
operational factors include the knowledge, expertise, training, and costs required to carry out all
aspects of the field sampling campaign, including installation of the SS sampling points,
measurement of pressure differentials, and collection of all of the various air samples. The
vendor will provide cost information, including information on rental/purchase prices of the real-
time monitoring instrumentation, charges for off-site analysis of VOCs and SF6 in canisters and
radon in PVF bags, and costs for the vendor's time in the field to carry out the sampling
campaign. Other factors include the maintenance needs, calibration requirements and
frequencies for the real-time pressure differential and radon instruments, data output and
analysis, and sustainability factors, such as consumables required and used (if any), ease of use,
and repair requirements (if any) of the real-time pressure differential and radon monitoring
instruments. Examples of information that would be recorded include the number of canisters
received from the analytical laboratory that are deemed unacceptable for field collection, effort
or cost associated with maintenance or repair of real-time instruments, vendor effort (e.g., time
on site) for repair or maintenance, the duration and causes of any downtime for real-time
instruments, Battelle's observations about ease of use, clarity of the vendor's instruction manual,
overall convenience of the technologies and accessories/consumables. Battelle will summarize
any and all observations to aid in describing the technology performance in the verification
report.
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 45 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
B1.2 Validation of Mosley Model Assumptions
A number of different assumptions are stated in the Mosley IA model, several of which may be
explicitly tested using the data collected in this verification of the pressure control methodology.
Verifying the validity of the assumptions will help to explain the outcomes of the FVi
calculations, since these rely directly upon these simplifying assumptions. Assumptions will be
tested at each building, and for each of the four CoCs. One- and two-sided t-tests, as
appropriate, will be performed for the statistical comparisons. Failure to find statistically
significant differences could result from either the absence of any underlying differences, or
from small sample size and high variability in the data. Retrospective calculations will be
employed to estimate the minimum detectable differences with the observed sample sizes and
variabilities, with 80% power (20% probability of Type II error) and 5% probability of Type I
error. Estimated errors in each of the parameters will be found as described below. See Table 1
and Appendix B for explanation of the notation.
Assumptions that may be explicitly tested include:
Cs, Cs", and Cs+for each CoC will be calculated as the mean of the three SS concentration
measurements under BL, NP, and PP conditions, respectively. Errors in these quantities will be
estimated as the standard deviations.
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 46 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
2. Rs Rs Rs
Rs, RS", and Rs+ will be calculated as the mean of the three SS radon concentration measurements
for radon under BL, NP, and PP conditions, respectively. Errors in these quantities will be
estimated as the standard deviations.
3. RaซRs
4. Ra'ซRs-
5. Ra+ซRs+
The values of Ra, Ra", and Ra+ are based on a single grab sample of AA; the estimated relative
error in their concentrations will be assumed to be equal to the relative error in the corresponding
triplicate R;, R;", and R;+ measurements, respectively.
6.
7.
8.
Each of the two building's volumes will be estimated based on interior dimensions. The values
of Qi, Qi", and Q;+ and estimates of their errors will be calculated as given in section B 1.1. 1.2.
Note that it is unnecessary to validate assumptions 1 and 2 above under PP conditions when it is
determined that VI has been 'turned off, i.e. when R;+ = Ra+, since the calculation of FVI
(equation B-32 combined with B-27) no longer depends on the simplifying assumption that Cs =
Cs+ and Rs = Rs+.
Based on the proposed field measurements described in this QAPP, assumptions that cannot be
explicitly verified include:
9. GC = G; = GC+
10. Q;ปQS
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 47 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
ll.QfปQs
12. Q;+ ป Q
The inability to explicitly verify these four assumptions will add to the overall uncertainty of the
test outcomes.
B1.3 Reporting
The data reduction and statistical comparisons will be conducted as described above, and
information on the operational performance will be compiled and reported. A verification report
will be prepared that presents the test procedures and test data, as well as the results of the
statistical evaluation of those data.
Battelle staff will record operational aspects of the building pressure control methodology at the
time of observation during the first field test at the ASU research house. These observations will
be summarized in the verification report. For example, descriptions of the logistics required to
conduct the sampling program, site access requirements, use of the real-time differential pressure
and radon concentration monitoring instrumentation, consumables used, repairs and maintenance
required for any of the air monitoring equipment and instrumentation, and the nature of any
problems will be presented in the report. The verification report will briefly describe the ETV
program, the AMS Center, and the procedures used in verification testing. The results of the
verification test regarding the performance of the building pressure control technique will be
stated quantitatively. Each draft verification report will be subjected to review by the vendor,
U.S. Navy, EPA, and other peer reviewers. The resulting review comments will be addressed in
a subsequent revision of the report, and the peer review comments and responses will be
tabulated to document the peer review process and submitted to EPA. The reporting and review
process will be conducted according to the requirements of the ETV/AMS Center QMP.1
B2 REFERENCE SAMPLE COLLECTION
Extensive analysis will be conducted at off-site laboratories to confirm the conditions at the sites
(concentrations of CoCs, SF6, and radon) as part of the vendor's technology that is being tested;
however, traditional reference samples will not be collected during this test.
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 48 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
B3 SAMPLE HANDLING AND CUSTODY REQUIREMENTS
For all canister and PVF bag samples collected to characterize concentrations of CoCs, SF6, and
radon in IA, AA, and SS gas, sample custody will be documented throughout collection,
transport, shipping, and analysis of the samples on standard forms provided by the contract
analytical laboratories performing the analyses, or by forms provided by Battelle. The chain-of-
custody form will track sample release from the sampling location to the testing laboratory.
Technology vendor staffer Battelle staff will complete the appropriate chain-of-custody forms
using the sample IDs defined on the field collection data sheets in Appendix D. The custody
form will include details about the sample such as the time, date, location, and person collecting
the sample. The chain-of-custody form will be signed by the person relinquishing samples once
that person has verified that the form is accurate. The original chain-of-custody form will
accompany the samples during shipment to the off-site laboratories, one copy will be retained by
the technology vendor, and one copy will be retained by Battelle for archival in the project files.
Upon arrival at each testing laboratory, custody forms will be signed by the person receiving the
sample once that person has verified that all samples identified on the chain-of-custody forms are
present. Copies of the completed chain-of-custody forms will be forwarded to the technology
vendor and to the Battelle VTC for inclusion in the project files. PVF bags will be placed in a
hardsided container for shipment so as to better protect the integrity of the sample containers.
Air samples will be shipped by common carrier and temperature control is not required. The
common carrier's bill of lading/package routing documentation will also be retained and
archived along with the chain-of-custody form.
B4 REFERENCE METHOD REQUIREMENT S
No reference method is being used for this test.
B5 QUALITY CONTROL REQUIREMENTS
A variety of QC measures will be implemented to ensure that data of the highest quality are
generated during this verification test. They are described below and in Table 6.
Generic laboratory QC requirements are established for the analysis of VOCs, SFe, and radon.
These include checks on instrument calibration, laboratory blanks, replicate analyses, and spikes.
Specific QC measures and acceptance criteria are given in Table 6.
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 49 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
Pressure transducers will be zero checked before beginning differential pressure measurements
for BL, NP, and PP conditions.
The pressure of all evacuated canisters will be checked using a calibrated gauge before sampling
is initiated to ensure that the canisters did not leak during transport from the analytical laboratory
to the field. At the conclusion of sampling, canister pressures will also be recorded so that it can
be determined, by way of comparison to canister pressure upon receipt at the analytical
laboratory, if the canisters leaked during return shipment. Acceptance criteria for canister
pressures are given in Table 6. Pre- and post-sampling canister pressures will be measured using
a separate calibrated gauge and will be recorded as absolute pressure measurements. If relative
pressure measurements are recorded (as is the case with most analog pressure gauges), they will
be corrected for altitude, as appropriate.
Canister cleanliness is of the utmost importance given the very low concentrations of CoCs that
are expected in IA and AA samples. For the five CoCs pertinent to this verification test (TCE,
PCE, 1,1-DCE, benzene, and toluene), Columbia Analytical Services will certify that all
canisters used for such sampling are clean to the level specified in Table 6.
Once canister and PVF bag samples are collected, they will not be held for analysis longer than
the times specified in Table 6.
A variety of duplicate samples will be collected during the field campaigns, as given in Table 6.
Frequencies for duplicates are specified such that one duplicate is generated at each test building
for each type of applicable media/matrix combination.
One PVF bag blank for radon analysis will be generated during air sampling at each test
building. An empty PVF bag will be filled with a three-way valve and syringe, similar to how
IA and AA samples are collected. The source of the radon-free air will be a PVF bag filled with
AA aged at least 21 days. PVF is impermeable to radon, thus by allowing AA (with a radon
concentration not exceeding -0.7 pCi L"1) to age in a bag for 21 days, the radon concentration in
the bag will be reduced to 0.7 pCi L"1 * [exp (-21 d * 0.18 d"1)] = 0.02 pCi L"1, which is an order
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 50 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
of magnitude lower than the estimated detection limit of the alpha scintillation measurement
method for radon.
Matrix spikes will be generated and analyzed at each of the analytical laboratories. For VOCs
and SF6, a matrix spike is the analysis of a known concentration of a standard gas mixture to an
evacuated canister. The gas mixture is independent of the standard gas for instrument
calibration. For radon, the matrix spike is generated by the exposure of the alpha scintillation
counting cell to a known activity of radon or other radioactive gas.
Table 6. Summary of Quality Control Procedures and Samples
QC Sample Type
Initial calibration
(applicable to VOC
and SF6 analyses)
Continuing calibration
standard (applicable
to VOC and SF6
analyses)
Laboratory blank
(VOC, SF6, and radon
analyses)
Replicate analysis
(VOC, SF6, and radon
analyses)
Calibration of radon
counting cells
Zero check of
differential pressure
instrument
Canister pressure
Canister pressure
difference (as
received at analytical
lab compared to at
conclusion of
sampling)
Frequency
With each sample
batch3
1 per sample
batch, after
analysis of all
samples
1 per sample
batch
1 per sample
batch
Within the last 6
months prior to
sample analysis
Before beginning
AP measurements
under BL, NP, and
PP conditions
Before beginning
sampling, every
canister
Every IA and AA
sample
Spike level
Varies
Near
midpoint of
calibration
range
N/A
N/A
-lOOOpCiL'1
(SS) or
~1 pCi L"1 (IA
and AA)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Acceptance
Criteria
r2>0.99or%
RSD < 30%
Calculated
concentration
within ฑ 20% for
SF6 and ฑ 30% for
VOCs
concentration <
estimated method
detection limit
RPD < 30%
VOCs, < 20% SF6,
< 1 0% radon
RPD < 1 0%
compared to
previous
calibration
AP < 0.001" H2O =
0.25 Pa
P < 27" Hg
vacuum
|AP|<1"Hg
Corrective Action
Request reanalysis;
flag data
Request reanalysis;
flag data
Request reanalysis;
flag data
Request reanalysis;
flag data
Request reanalysis.
Flag data.
Recheck. Verify the
same pressure is
applied to both
ports. Repairer
replace instrument.
Do not use
canister. Request
replacement from
laboratory.
Flag data.
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 51 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
QC Sample Type
Canister cleanliness
Canister hold time
PVF bag hold time
Canister duplicate for
VOCs/SF6 in IA & AA
Canister duplicate for
VOCs in SS vapor
PVF bag duplicate for
radon in IA & AA
PVF bag duplicate for
radon in SS vapor
PVF bag blank
Canister matrix spike,
VOCs at IA/AA levels
Canister matrix spike,
VOCs at SS levels
Canister matrix spike,
SF6 at IA levels
Alpha scintillation cell
matrix spike, radon at
IA/AA levels
Frequency
Every IA and AA
sample
Every canister
Every PVF bag
1 in 12 samples (1
per test building)
1 in 9 samples (1
per test building)
1 in 12 samples (1
per test building)
1 in 9 samples (1
per test building)
1 in 12 samples (1
per test building)
1 per sample
batch
1 per sample
batch
1 per sample
batch
1 per sample
batch
Spike level
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
~1 ug m'3
-500 ug m"3
-1 00 ug m"3
-0.7 pCi L1
Acceptance
Criteria
CoC concentration
< 0.025 ug m"3
time < 30 days
time < 10 days
RPD < 30% VOCs
RPD < 20% SF6
RPD < 30%
RPD < 10%
RPD < 10%
Radon
concentration <
0.2 pCi L1
Recovery between
70 to 130%
Recovery between
70 to 130%
Recovery between
80 to 120%
Recovery between
70 to 130%
Corrective Action
Reject canister.
Flag data.
Flag data.
Request reanalysis.
Flag data.
Request reanalysis.
Flag data.
Request reanalysis.
Flag data.
Request reanalysis.
Flag data.
Request reanalysis.
Flag data.
Request reanalysis.
Flag data.
Request reanalysis.
Flag data.
Request reanalysis.
Flag data.
Request reanalysis.
Flag data.
A batch of samples is defined to comprise no more than 20 individual samples.
B6 INSTRUMENT/ EQUIPMENT TESTING, INSPECTION, AND MAINTENANCE
Operation and maintenance of all air sampling and monitoring equipment and instrumentation
will be the responsibility of the technology vendor. Pressure transducers will be calibrated by
the instrument manufacturer or appropriately accredited third party and will be zero checked
before and after differential pressure measurements for BL, NP, and PP conditions. The near
real-time radon instrument will be calibrated by the manufacturer or appropriately accredited
third party prior to use in the field. Proof of their calibration will be obtained from the
technology vendor and included in the project files. The contract analytical laboratories are
responsible for the operation and maintenance of all instrumentation employed for the off-site
analysis of air samples collected in canisters (GC/MS and GC/ECD) and PVF bags.
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 52 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
B7 INSTRUMENT CALIBRATION AND FREQUENCY
The calibration of instrumentation used in this verification test, such as Omniguard 4ฎ pressure
differential instruments, the RAD7ฎ near real-time radon concentration instrument, and ancillary
equipment such as the rotameter for delivery of the SF6 tracer gas, and the pressure gauge for
initial and final canister pressure checks, will be verified immediately prior to use in this
verification test.
The GC/MS instrument used for the analysis of canister samples for CoCs will be calibrated
according to the procedures generally outlined in EPA Compendium Method TO-15.13 The
standard full scan TO-15 method will be employed for analysis of SS gas, with TO-15 with SIM
for IA and AA samples. Reporting limits for the TO-15 SIM method will be approximately 0.04
ug m"3 for each CoC. The GC/ECD instrument used for the analysis of the canister samples for
SF6 will be calibrated according to the procedures as given in NIOSH Method 6602. 14 TO-15
scan, TO-15 SIM, and SF6 analysis procedures are maintained by the contract analytical
laboratory Columbia Analytical Services. Radon concentrations will be measured by way of
alpha scintillation counting following established EPA protocols15; more detail of the method is
described by McHugh et al.16 The radon analytical instrument will be calibrated according to
procedures as outlined by the contract analytical laboratory at the University of Southern
California, Department of Earth Sciences. The reporting limit for the radon in air analysis is not
greater than approximately 0.4 pCi L"1. All documentation of instrument calibration and internal
QC procedures will be provided to the vendor and to Battelle. Such documentation may include
information on method detection limits, method blanks, calibration curves, calibration checks,
and secondary source checks.
B8 INSPECTION/ACCEPTANCE OF SUPPLIES AND CONSUMABLES
All materials, supplies, and consumables to support all field testing activities will be supplied by
the technology vendor and the technology vendor's contracted analytical laboratories. During
testing at the first building, the Battelle VTC will visually inspect and ensure that the materials
and consumables used by the vendor are acceptable for their intended use and that there are no
visual signs of damage that could compromise the suitability of the air sampling equipment,
supplies, and consumables. If damaged or inappropriate goods and supplies are received for use
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 53 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
in the field, they will be returned or disposed of and arrangements will be made to receive
replacements. The COA or other documentation of analytical purity will be checked for the SF6
tracer gas.
B9 NON-DIRECT MEASUREMENTS
No indirect measurements will be used during this verification test.
B10 DATA MANAGEMENT
Various types of data will be acquired and recorded electronically or manually by Battelle and
vendor staff during this verification test. All manually-recorded data will be recorded in
permanent ink. Corrections to records will be made by drawing a single line through the entry to
be corrected and providing a simple explanation for the correction, along with a date and the
initials of the person making the correction. Table 7 summarizes the types of data to be
recorded. All maintenance activities, repairs, calibrations, and operator observations relevant to
the operation of the building pressure control methodology, including installation of SS sampling
points, operation of fans for building pressure control, and deployment of the air monitoring
systems will be documented by Battelle or vendor staff in the Battelle LRB. All calibration
documentation for the real time monitoring instruments, flow control devices, and pressure
gauges will be stored and maintained in the project files. Any such report formats will include
all necessary data to allow traceability from the raw data to final results. Reports from the
analytical laboratories will include results of laboratory quality control checks and calibrations,
in addition to results of analysis of samples. Raw data will also be included, if available.
Records received by or generated by the vendor or Battelle staff during the verification test will
be reviewed by a Battelle staff member within two weeks of receipt or generation, respectively,
before the records are used to calculate, evaluate, or report verification results. If a Battelle staff
member generated the record, this review will be performed by a Battelle technical staff member
involved in the verification test, but not the staff member who originally received or generated
the record. The review will be documented by the person performing the review by adding
his/her initials and date to the hard copy of the record being reviewed. In addition, any
calculations performed by Battelle will be spot-checked by Battelle technical staff to ensure that
calculations are performed correctly. Calculations to be checked include any statistical
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 54 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
calculations described in this QAPP. Some of the other data management and review tasks that
will be performed include:
Verifying that QC samples and calibration standards were analyzed according to the
test/QA plan, compared against acceptance criteria, and results were reported;
Confirming that corrective action(s) for exceedances was taken;
Checking for accuracy 100% hand-entered and/or manually calculated data ;
Verifying calculations performed by software at a frequency sufficient to ensure that the
formulas are correct, appropriate, and consistent;
Checking for accuracy the first and last data value for each cut and paste function; and
Confirming that data are reported in the units specified in the test/QA plan.
A dedicated shared folder within the ETV AMS Center SharePoint site will be established for all
project records. Battelle will provide technology test data (including records; data sheets;
notebook records) from the first day of testing within one day of receipt to EPA for simultaneous
review. The goal of this data delivery schedule is prompt identification and resolution of any
data collection or recording issues. These data will labeled as preliminary and will not have had
a QA review before their release.
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 55 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
Table 7. Summary of Data Recording Process
Data to Be Recorded
Dates, times, and
details of test events,
including sample
collection
Maintenance/repair of
instruments in the field
Results of analysis of
air collected in
canisters for CoCs and
SF6
Results of the analysis
of air collected in PVF
bags for radon
concentrations
Pressure differential
measurements
Near-real time subslab
radon concentration
measurements
Where
Recorded
Field data
collection forms,
ETV LRB (if
required)
Field data
collection forms,
or ETV LRB
Data generated
at Columbia
Analytical
Services, the
contract
analytical
laboratory
performing the
analyses
Data generated
at the University
of Southern
California Earth
Sciences Lab,
the contract
analytical
laboratory
performing the
analyses
On instrument
datalogger
On hardcopy
printout recorded
by instrument;
manually
transferred to
data collection
forms
How Often
Recorded
Start/end of
test event
When
performed
Recorded
samples are
analyzed
Recorded
samples are
analyzed
Minimum and
maximum
observed AP
recorded into
memory every
five minutes
Instrument
output
generated
every 5 to 20
minutes, based
on selected
integration time
By Whom
Vendor and
Battelle staff
Vendor and
Battelle staff
Subcontractor
staff
Subcontractor
staff
Automatically
logged by
instrument
Automatically
generated by
instrument
Disposition of Data
Used to
organize/check test
results; manually
incorporated in data
spreadsheets as
necessary
Incorporated in
verification report as
necessary
Hardcopy and
electronic files with
all results sent to
vendor and to
Battelle
Hardcopy and
electronic files with
all results sent to
vendor and to
Battelle
Battelle or vendor
staff will download
datalogger data onto
computer hard drive
or memory stick at
the end of every day
of testing
Battelle or vendor
staff will transfer
instrument output to
data collection form;
hardcopy "receipt"
generated by
instrument will be
archived
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 56 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
SECTION C
ASSESSMENT AND OVERSIGHT
Cl ASSESSMENTS AND RESPONSE ACTIONS
Every effort will be made in this verification test to anticipate and resolve potential problems
before the quality of performance is compromised. One of the major objectives of this QAPP is
to establish mechanisms necessary to ensure this. Internal QC measures described in this QAPP,
which is peer reviewed by a panel of outside experts, implemented by the technical staff and
monitored by the VTC, will give information on data quality on a day-to-day basis. The
responsibility for interpreting the results of these checks and resolving any potential problems
resides with the VTC, who will contact the Battelle AMS Center Manager, Battelle AMS Center
Quality Manager, EPA AMS Center Project Officer, and EPA AMS Center Quality Manager if
any deviations from the QAPP are observed. In particular, the VTC will be in at least daily
contact with site personnel during the second field campaign when he will not be in attendance
so that the VTC can be closely monitoring the progress of the verification test and report any
deviations to EPA. The VTC will describe the deviation in a teleconference or by e-mail, and
once a path forward is determined and agreed upon with EPA, the deviation form will be
completed. Technical staff has the responsibility to identify problems that could affect data
quality or the ability to use the data. Any problems that are identified will be reported to the
VTC, who will work with the Battelle Quality Manager to resolve any issues. Action will be
taken by the VTC and Battelle testing staff to identify and appropriately address the issue, and
minimize losses and correct data, where possible. Independent of any EPA QA activities,
Battelle will be responsible for ensuring that the following audits are conducted as part of this
verification test.
Cl.l Performance Evaluation Audit
Since no reference measurements will be conducted, no performance evaluation audits are
planned for this verification test. Although several analytical methods will be operated to
generate data for this verification test, the quality of the measurements will be the responsibility
of the technology vendor since these data are being generated as part of the vendor's pressure
control technique.
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 57 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
C1.2 Technical Systems Audits
The NAVFAC Atlantic QAO will perform a TSA during the field activities at the first test
building. The NAVFAC Atlantic QAO or a Battelle representative will perform a TSA at the
second test building. The purpose of these audits is to ensure that the verification test is being
performed in accordance with the AMS Center QMP1 and this QAPP. During the TSA, the
NAVFAC Atlantic QAO will compare actual test procedures to those specified or referenced in
this plan, and review data acquisition and handling procedures. The NAVFAC Atlantic QAO
will prepare a project-specific checklist based on the QAPP requirements to guide the TSA,
which will include a review of the test building and general testing conditions; observation of the
testing activities; and review laboratory record books and data collection forms. He will also
check the gas standard certification for the SF6 tracer gas; verify that real-time instruments,
pressure gauges, and flow control devices are calibrated; check data acquisition procedures; and
may confer with the vendor staff. The NAVFAC Atlantic QAO will prepare an initial TSA
report and will submit the report to the Battelle AMS Center Quality Manager. The Battelle
AMS Center Quality Manager will review, resolve questions and issues with the NAVFAC
Atlantic QAO, then submit the draft report to the EPA Quality Manager (with no corrective
actions documented) and VTC within 10 business days after completion of the audit. A copy of
each final TSA report (with corrective actions documented) will be provided to the EPA AMS
Center Project Officer and Quality Manager within 20 business days after completion of the
audit. At EPA's discretion, EPA QA staff may also conduct an independent on-site TSA during
the verification test. The TSA findings will be communicated to technical staff at the time of the
audit and documented in a TSA report.
C1.3 Audits of Data Quality
The NAVFAC Atlantic QAO will audit at least 10% of the sample results data acquired in the
verification test and 100% of the QC and calibration data versus the QAPP requirements. Three
ADQs will be conducted for this project: one following the completion of field testing and
completion of the analysis of canister and PVF bag samples collected at the first test building;
another following completion of all field and subsequent offsite analytical activities related to the
testing at the second test building; and the third following completion of the draft verification
report. Within 10 business days of receipt of all required field and laboratory data for each test
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 58 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
building, data quality will be assessed using a project-specific checklist. During these audits, the
NAVFAC Atlantic QAO will trace the data from initial acquisition through reduction and
statistical comparisons, to final reporting. All calculations performed on the data undergoing the
ADQ will be checked. Data must undergo a 100% validation and verification by technical staff
(i.e. VTC or his designee) before it will be assessed as part of the data quality audit. All QC data
and all calculations performed on the data undergoing the audit will be checked by the NAVFAC
Atlantic QAO. Results of each ADQ will be documented using the checklist and reported by the
Battelle Quality Manager to the VTC and EPA within 10 business days after completion of the
audit. A final ADQ that assesses overall data quality, including accuracy and completeness of
the technical report, will be prepared as a narrative and distributed to the VTC and EPA within
10 business days of completion of the audit.
C1.4 QA/QC Reporting
Each assessment and audit will be documented in accordance with Section 3.3.4 of the AMS
Center QMP.1 The results of all audits will be submitted to EPA within 10 business days as
noted above. Audit reports will include the following:
Name, affiliation, and responsibility of each person interviewed during audit;
Identification of any adverse findings or potential problems;
Recommendations for resolving problems. (If the QA audit identifies a technical
issue, the VTC or Battelle AMS Center Manager will be consulted to determine the
appropriate corrective action;
Response to adverse findings or potential problems;
Confirmation that solutions have been implemented and are effective; and
Citation of any noteworthy practices that may be of use to others.
C2 REPORTS TO MANAGEMENT
During the field and laboratory evaluation, any QAPP deviations will be reported immediately to
EPA. The NAVFAC Atlantic QAO and/or VTC, during the course of any assessment or audit,
will identify to the technical staff performing experimental activities any immediate corrective
action that should be taken. A summary of the required assessments and audits, including a
listing of responsibilities and reporting timeframes, is included in Table 8. If serious quality
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 59 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
problems exist, the Battelle Quality Manager will notify the Battelle AMS Center Manager, who
is authorized to stop work. Once the audit reports have been prepared, the VTC will ensure that
a response is provided for each adverse finding or potential problem and will implement any
necessary follow-up corrective action. The Battelle Quality Manager will ensure that follow-up
corrective action has been taken. The QAPP and final report are reviewed by the EPA AMS
Center Quality Manager and the EPA AMS Center Project Officer. Upon final review and
approval, both documents will then be posted on the ETV Web site (www.epa.gov/etv).
TableS. Summary of Audit Reports1
Audit
Each ISA
(Initial)
Each ISA
(Final)
ADQs (for testing
at field sites)
ADQ
(Final)
Prepared By
NAVFAC
Atlantic QAO
Battelle and
NAVFAC
Atlantic QAO
NAVFAC
Atlantic QAO
NAVFAC
Atlantic QAO
Report Submission
Timeframe
1 0 business days after ISA is
complete
Battelle's ISA response is due
to QAO within 10 business
days of receipt from QAO
ISA responses will be verified
by the NAVFAC Atlantic QAO
and provided to EPA ETV AMS
Center within 20 business days
Within 10 business days after
all data for a test area
submitted
10 business days after
completion of the verification
report review
Submitted To
EPA ETV AMS Center
EPA ETV AMS Center
EPA ETV AMS Center
EPA ETV AMS Center
Any QA checklists prepared to guide audits will be provided with the audit report.
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 60 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
SECTION D
DATA VALIDATION AND USABILITY
Dl DATA REVIEW, VERIFICATION, AND VALIDATION REQUIREMENTS
The key data review and data verification requirements for this test are stated in Section BIO of
this QAPP. In general, the data review requirements specify that data generated during this test
will be reviewed by a Battelle technical staff member within two weeks of generation of the data.
The reviewer will be familiar with the technical aspects of the verification test but will not be the
person who generated the data. This process will serve both as the data review and the data
verification, and will ensure that the data have been recorded, transmitted and processed
properly. Furthermore, this process will ensure that the monitoring systems data were collected
under appropriate testing.
The data validation requirements for this test involve an audit of the quality of the data relative to
the DQI for this test referenced in Table 3. Any deficiencies in these data will be flagged and
excluded from any statistical calculations for the building pressure control technology unless
these deviations are accompanied by descriptions of their potential impacts on the data quality.
D2 VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION METHODS
Data verification is conducted as part of the data review as described in Section BIO of this
QAPP. A visual inspection of handwritten data will be conducted to ensure that all entries were
properly recorded or transcribed, and that any erroneous entries were properly noted (i.e., single
line through the entry, with an error code, such as "wn" for wrong number, and the initials of the
recorder and date of entry). Electronic data from the pressure differential monitors will be
inspected to ensure proper transfer from the datalogging system. All calculations used to
transform the data will be reviewed to ensure the accuracy and the appropriateness of the
calculations. Calculations performed manually will be reviewed and repeated using a handheld
calculator or commercial software (e.g., Excel). Calculations performed using standard
commercial office software (e.g., Excel) will be reviewed by inspection of the equations used for
the calculations and verification of selected calculations by handheld calculator. Calculations
performed using specialized commercial software (i.e., for analytical instrumentation) will be
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 61 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
reviewed by inspection and, when feasible, verified by handheld calculator, or standard
commercial office software.
To ensure that the data generated from this test meet the goals of the test, a number of data
validation procedures will be performed. Sections B and C of this QAPP provide a description
of the validation safeguards employed for this verification test. Data validation efforts include
the completion of QC activities and the performance of a TSA as described in Section C. The
data from this test will be evaluated relative to the measurement DQIs described in Section A8 of
this QAPP. Data failing to meet these criteria will be flagged in the data set and not used for
evaluation of the building pressure control technology, unless these deviations are accompanied
by descriptions of their potential impacts on the data quality.
The NAVFAC Atlantic QAO will perform several ADQs to ensure that data review, verification,
and validation procedures were completed, and to ensure the overall quality of the data.
D3 RECONCILIATION WITH USER REQUIREMENTS
This purpose of this verification test is to evaluate the performance of the building pressure
control technique to assess the impact that vapor intrusion has on the indoor air concentrations of
various contaminants of concern. In part, this evaluation will include the investigation of the
performance of the building pressure control methodology, at sites expected to be impacted by
VI, to determine the fractional contribution of VI to the indoor CoC concentrations at these sites.
Verification of the ability to provide such information will be of direct use for decision-makers
responsible for the potential remediation of impacted sites. To meet the requirements of the user
community, input on the tests described in this QAPP has been provided by users, Agency, and
external experts. Additional performance data regarding operational characteristics of the
building pressure control technique will be collected by verification test personnel. To meet the
requirements of the user community, these data will include thorough documentation of the
performance of the monitoring systems during the verification test. The data review,
verification, and validation procedures described above will assure that data meeting these
requirements are accurately presented in the verification reports generated from this test, and will
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 62 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
assure that data not meeting these requirements will be appropriately flagged and discussed in
the verification reports.
This QAPP and the resulting ETV verification report(s) will be subjected to review by the
vendor, EPA, and expert peer reviewers. The reviews of this QAPP will help to improve the
design of the verification test and the resulting report(s) such that they better meet the needs of
potential users of this building pressure control technique for the assessment of the impact of VI
on CoCs in indoor air.
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 63 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
SECTION E
REFERENCES
1. Battelle, Quality Management Plan for the ETV Advanced Monitoring Systems Center,
Version 7.0, U.S. EPA Environmental Technology Verification Program, prepared by
Battelle, Columbus, Ohio, November 2008.
2. U.S. EPA, Environmental Technology Verification Program Quality Management Plan, EPA
Report No: 600/R-08/009 EPA/600/R-03/021, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, January 2008.
3. U. S. EPA (2002). OSWER Draft Guidance for Evaluating the Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air
Pathway from Groundwater and Soils (Subsurface Vapor Intrusion Guidance). November
2002 EPA 530-D-02-004.
4. U.S. Navy (2004). Memorandum entitled "Navy Policy on the Use of Background Chemical
Levels." January 30, 2004. Available at
http://web.ead.anl.gov/ecorisk/policy/pdf/Final_Navy_Background_Policy.pdf, accessed
September 4, 2010.
5. U.S. Navy (2008). Memorandum entitled "Navy/Marine Corps Policy on Vapor Intrusion."
April 29, 2008.
6. Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC) 2007. "Vapor Intrusion Pathway: A
Practical Guideline." Washington, DC, January 2007.
7. GSI Environmental, Inc. (2009). "Results and Lessons Learned Interim Report; Proposed
Tier 2 Screening Criteria and Tier 3 Field Procedures for Evaluation of Vapor Intrusion."
ESTCP Project ER-0707, October 30, 2009.
8. McAlary T., R. Ettinger, P. Johnson, B. Eklund, H. Hayes, D.B. Chadwick, I. Rivera-Duarte
(2009). Review of Best Practices, Knowledge and Data Gaps, and Research Opportunities of
the U.S. Department of Navy Vapor Intrusion Focus Areas. Technical Report 1982,
SPAWAR Systems Center Pacific, May 2009. Available at
http://www.spawar.navy.mil/sti/publications/pubs/tr/1982/trl982cond.pdf, accessed
September 27, 2010.
9. McAlary, T. A., R. Ettinger and P. Johnson, 2005, "Reference Handbook for Site-Specific
Assessment of Subsurface Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air," EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, 2005, EPRI
Document #1008492.
10. U.S. EPA (1993). A Physician's Guide to Radon. U.S. EPA Office of Air and Radiation,
EPA-402-K-93-008, Washington, DC, September 1993. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/radon/pubs/physic.html, accessed September 1, 2010.
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 64 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
11. Mosley, R.B., D. Greenwell, and C. Lutes. "Use of Integrated Indoor Concentrations of
Tracer Gases and Volatile Organic Compounds to Distinguish Soil Sources from Above-
Ground Sources." Poster #968, Presented at Seventh International Conference, Remediation
of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds, Monterey, CA, May 24-27, 2010. Record ID:
220117.
12. Brenner, D. (2010). "Results of a Long-Term Study of Vapor Intrusion at Four Large
Buildings at the NASA Ames Research Center." Journal of the Air & Waste Management
Association 60: 747-758.
13. U.S. EPA Compendium Method TO-15, "Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOCs) In Air Collected In Specially-Prepared Canisters and Analyzed By Gas
Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS)." Second edition. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/ttnamtil/files/ambient/airtox/to-15r.pdf, accessed September 4, 2010.
14. NIOSH Method 6602, "Sulfur hexafluoride by portable GC." Available at
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2003-154/pdfs/6602.pdf accessed September 4, 2010.
15. U.S. EPA (1992). Indoor Radon and Radon Decay Product Measurement Device Protocols.
Washington, DC: U.S. EPA Office of Air and Radiation, 402-Rr-92-004, July 1992.
Available at http://www.epa.gov/radon/pubs/devprotl.html, accessed September 4, 2010.
16. McHugh, I.E., Hammond, D.E., Nickels, T, and Hartman, B. (2008) "Use of radon
measurements for evaluation of volatile organic compound (VOC) vapor intrusion."
EnvironmentalForensics 9: 107-114.
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 65 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
APPENDIX A: TECHNICAL PANEL PARTICIPANTS
Bart Chadwick, U.S. Navy/SPAWAR
Ignacio Rivera-Duarte, U.S. Navy/SPAWAR
Doug Grosse, U.S. EPA/ORD/NRMRL
Ronald Mosley, private citizen
Henry Schuver, U.S. EPA/OSWER/ORCR
Mathew Plate, U.S. EPA/Region 9
Donna Caldwell, U.S. Navy/NAVFAC Atlantic
Jenn Corack, U.S. Navy/NMCPHC
Amy Hawkins, U.S. Navy
Melinda Trizinsky, U.S. Navy/NAVFAC SW
Dan Waddill, U.S. Navy/NAVFAC Lant
Vera Wang, U.S. Navy/NMCPHC
Brian Schumacher, U.S. EPA/ORD/NERL/ESD-LV
Ed Corl, U.S. Navy/LQAO
Paul Johnson, Arizona State University
Dave Mikunas, U.S. EPA/Environmental Response Team
Lynn Spence, Spence Environmental Engineering
Todd McAlary, Geosyntec Consultants
PANELISTS THAT CONTRIBUTED TO TEST PLAN
Paul Johnson, Arizona State University
Todd McAlary, Geosyntec Consultants
Ronald Mosley, private citizen
Lynn Spence, Spence Environmental Engineering
Donna Cal dwell, U.S. Navy/NAVFAC Atlantic
Doug Grosse, U.S. EPA/ORD/NRMRL
Mathew Plate, U.S. EPA/Region 9
Brian Schumacher, U.S. EPA/ORD/NERL/ESD-LV
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 66 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
APPENDIX B: MOSLEY VAPOR INTRUSION MODEL
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 67 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
A Method for Analyzing Vapor Intrusion Problems
Using Indoor Radon and a Second Tracer Gas to
Distinguish Soil Sources from Above-Ground Sources
of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
Ronald B. Mosley
INTRODUCTION
By measuring the indoor concentration of the chemical of interest over a relatively long time
(two weeks) during each season of the year, a reasonable estimate of the annual average
appropriate for estimating long-term risks can be obtained. While this approach may provide a
good estimate of the occupant's risk from the chemical, it does not necessarily associate all the
risk with chemicals emanating from the soil. Such measurements do not distinguish between
chemicals arising from the soil and from indoor sources. Better methods for identifying the
sources of these indoor contaminants are needed. This paper will describe a method of using
steady-state (time-integrated) measurements of indoor radon and a volatile organic compound
(VOC) in a house under three different ventilation scenarios to distinguish between soil and
above-ground sources of the chemical of interest. This method does not require measurement of
sub-slab concentrations, and consequently will not require drilling holes in the floor.
There has been much discussion of the variability of indoor measurements of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs). Short-term sampling with either canisters or PVF bags is the common
practice for these measurements.
Using longer-term integrated samples on sorptive media may be a way to reduce the variability
by increasing the sensitivity and averaging over short-term variations. We will talk about the use
of integrated samples to evaluate the severity of health risks from an indoor VOC contaminant
and to determine the fraction of the indoor concentration that is a consequence of vapor intrusion
(VI). Samples integrated over one to several weeks offer more reliable measurements through
both increased sensitivity and reduced variability.
Once a health risk from indoor VOCs has been established, it may be desirable to determine
whether VI is the source of the problem. If indeed the soil gas is the source of the contaminants,
mitigation methods are readily available to reduce exposures. However, if the sources of the
VOCs are indoors, the soil gas mitigation methods may not be effective.
Since the polluter is liable only for problems that originate from the soil, methods are needed to
distinguish between VI sources and indoor sources. One approach for making this distinction
without drilling holes in the floor is to compare indoor measurements under normal
circumstances with similar measurements when the house is perturbed to have nominally
different operating conditions induced by increasing the air exchange rate and soil gas entry rate.
This perturbation could result from a fan exhausting air from the ground-floor level. Such an
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 6 8 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
increase in exhalation of air would increase the air exchange rate and should also reduce the
indoor pressure relative to the sub-slab region resulting in an increased infiltration of soil gas.
Alternatively, the fan could be used to blow ambient air into the house thus increasing the indoor
pressure relative to the sub-slab region resulting in a lower entry rate of soil gas. We will look at
both types of perturbations. These perturbations must be controlled so that the contaminant
concentration in the sub-slab region does not change.
To develop such a method, we need to know the air exchange rate and the soil gas entry rate. To
determine these quantities, we will introduce an indoor tracer gas with a constant emission rate
and a soil gas tracer to measure the soil gas entry rate. In the present case sulfur hexafluoride
(SF6) has been suggested as the tracer. For a soil gas tracer we choose to use naturally occurring
radon.
DEVELOPMENT OF EQUATIONS
As a first approach we will consider buildings that can be represented by a single zone
interacting with its environment. The building will exchange air with the surrounding ambient
air as well as with the soil gas that is considered to enter from below. To develop the pertinent
equations we will refer to the schematic drawing of a house shown in Figure 1 . The house
consists of a single zone with the ambient air and the soil gas constituting the interacting zones.
Houses with multiple Zones will be more complex and may be considered later. For our
purposes, we will characterize the house and its surroundings in an idealistic manner. The single
zone of the house will be represented by the subscript "i" for indoor. The air in zone "i" is
considered to be well mixed. The ambient air constitutes zone "a" which is also well mixed.
Zone "S" is the sub-slab region in which the soil gas is not assumed to be well mixed. We only
consider interactions between the house and the other two zones individually. We envision the
floor of the building to contain a number of distinct openings that constitute entry routes for soil
gas. Effective value of concentration means the value of uniform concentration that would
produce the actual entry rate when multiplied by the total soil gas entry rate. That is
with
where Qs is the total flow rate of soil gas into the house, cy is the flow rate through the jth entry
route, and GSJ is the concentration at the jth entry route, Cseff is not a directly measurable
quantity, but is a useful concept for mathematical purposes. All sub-slab concentrations
discussed in this formulation will be effective values. Consequently, the subscript "eff" will not
be necessary to identify these values as mathematical constructs. Note that if the soil gas
concentration were uniform, then the effective value and the actual value would be the same.
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 69 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
Qi
Qs
Figure 1. Schematic of a slab-on-grade house with a single zone
Zone i = Indoor air in the building;
Zone s = Soil gas beneath the building; and
Zone a = Ambient air.
Conservation of mass requires the following relationship between the flows.
Qi = Qa+QS
Where typically
QaปQsandQ1^Qa
B-l
3 i -1
Qa = the air flow rate (m h" ) from ambient to the indoors,
3 i -1
Qi = the air flow rate (m h" ) from indoors to the ambient, and
,3 u-1
Qs = the soil gas flow rate (m h") from the sub-slab to the indoors.
The approach to analyzing the movement of gases and contaminants into and out of the building
is to apply the principle of mass balance to account for gains and losses of materials. For each
gas or contaminant to be studied, one equation of mass balance will result. We will inject a
unique tracer gas into the building in order to determine the ventilation rate.
The conditions of mass balance for the three gasses are expressed as:
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 70 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
- = -
dt V V ' B'2
B-
dt V V
and
dC, =Ec+QaCa+Gc Q,c B_4
dt V V '
where
T; is the concentration (|j,g m"3) of the indoor tracer;
GT is the generation rate (ng h "*) of the indoor tracer gas;
V is the volume (m3) of the building;
R; is the indoor concentration (pCi m"3) of radon;
ER is the entry rate (pCi h"1) of radon from soil gas;
Ra is the ambient concentration (pCi m"3) of radon;
X is the decay constant (h"1) of radon;
C; is the indoor concentration (|j,g m"3) of the contaminant of concern (CoC);
Ca is the ambient concentration (jig m"3) of the CoC;
EC is the entry rate (|j,g h"1) of the CoC from the soil; and
Gc is the generation rate (|j,g h"1) of the CoC by the indoor sources.
The first term on the right hand side of each equation represents increases due to generation or
entry of the contaminant, while the second term on the right represents losses by dilution or
decay.
Primary assumptions built into the above mass balance equations include:
1. Soil gas or background indoor source strengths of the tracer gas are negligible compared
to the generation rate of the tracer gas.
2. The background indoor source strength of radon is negligible compared to soil gas and
outdoor sources.
3. For the tracer gas, radon, and the volatile CoCs, the rate of indoor loss processes such as
chemical reaction or sorption to surfaces is negligible compared to air change rates.
Under normal circumstances, the environmental influences such as meteorology acting on the
building can be considered to change slowly enough that the building can be considered to be in
a steady state. These conditions will be referred to as the baseline case, meaning there has been
no intervention in the normal processes of the building-environment interaction. In this event,
the steady state representation of equations B-2, B-3, and B-4 can be rewritten as:
GT = QtTt B-5
ER + QaRa = (Q, + ^V}Rt = Q,R, + QR B-6
K z-sa a \z-^i / i -s^-o o z-sa a
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 71 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
Where
GT is the generation rate (ng h"1) of the indoor tracer;
Qi is the baseline air flow rate (m"3 h"1) from indoors to the ambient;
T; is the baseline concentration (|j,g m"3) of the indoor tracer gas;
ER is the baseline generation rate (pCi h"1) of radon entering from the sub-slab;
Qa is the baseline air flow rate (m"3 h"1) from ambient to the indoors;
Ra is the baseline concentration (pCi m"3) of radon in ambient air;
R; is the baseline concentration (pCi m"3) of radon indoors;
Qs is the baseline flow rate (m3 h"1) of soil gas into the building;
Rs is the baseline concentration (pCi m"3) of radon in the sub slab soil gas;
EC is the baseline entry rate (|j,g h"1) of the CoC from soil gas;
Ca is the baseline concentration (|j,g m"3) of the CoC in ambient air;
Gc is the baseline generation rate (ng h"1) of the CoC by the indoor sources; and
C; is the baseline concentration (|j,g m"3) of the CoC in indoor air.
We will refer to this steady state condition as the baseline situation in which the normal
environmental influences serve as the driving forces that induce soil gas to enter the building.
We can write the entry rate of the soil gas contaminant as the product of the soil gas entry rate
and the concentration of the contaminant.
Ec = QSCS B-8
The generation rate of the indoor sources is given by substituting equation B-8 into equation B-7.
Gc =Q,C, -QsCs-QaCa=Q,C, -QSCS -(Q, -Qsyca B-9
where
Cs is the baseline concentration (|j,g m"3) of the CoC in the sub slab soil gas (an effective value of
concentration.). All other terms are as defined above.
Positive Pressure Perturbation
In order to infer something about the soil gas entry rate without having to sample the sub-slab
soil gas, we will perturb the building by blowing air into the building from outdoors using a fan.
The perturbing air-flow-rate will be limited to values that do not disturb the sub-slab
concentrations of contaminants while changing the air exchange rate significantly. A plus sign
will be used as a superscript to denote conditions under applied positive pressure. Under the new
flow conditions, we can write a new set of steady state equations as:
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 72 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
G+ /^~i+TT+ ID 1 Cl
T = *li i JJ-1U
EC +Qa^~'a + ^C =Qi^~-^ B-12
E+=Q+C+ B-13
(_, *'O O
where :
GT+ is the generation rate (ug h"1) of the indoor tracer during this perturbation period;
Qi+ is the perturbed rate of flow (m3 h"1) of air from indoors to the ambient;
T;+ is the concentration (ug m"3) of the indoor tracer gas during the perturbation period;
ER+ is the entry rate of radon (pCi h"1) during the perturbation period;
Qa+ is the perturbed rate of flow (m3 h"1) of air from ambient to indoors;
Ra+ is the ambient concentration (pCi m"3) of radon during the perturbation period;
R;+ is the indoor concentration (pCi m"3) of radon during the perturbation period;
Qs is the rate of soil gas flow (m3 h"1) from the sub-slab region into the building during the
perturbation period;
RS+ is the sub-slab concentration (pCi m"3) of radon during the perturbation period;
Ec+ is the entry rate (ug h"1) of the CoC from soil gas during the perturbation period;
Ca+ is the indoor concentration (ug m"3) of the CoC during the perturbation period;
Gc+ is the generation rate (ug h"1) of the CoC by indoor sources during the perturbation period;
Qi+ is the rate of soil gas flow (m3 h"1) from indoors to the ambient during the perturbation
period;
C;+ is the indoor concentration (ug m"3) of the CoC during the perturbation period; and
Cs+ is the sub-slab concentration (ug m"3) of the CoC during the perturbation period.
The viability of this approach is based on the assumptions that GT is known during both steady
state periods and that the sub-slab concentrations of radon and the contaminant remain the same
during both steady state periods. It is further assumed that the generation rate of the indoor
sources do not change during the two periods. If Ra ซ RS, R* ซ R^ , and R+ = Rs , equations
B-6 and B-l 1 can be combined to yield:
^+ ^ , -fl
Qs=Qs ^^ B-15
(Q.+WR.-Q.R.
Combining equations B-9 and B-l4 withG^ = Gc , C+s = Cs, Q, ป Q, and g+ ป Qs
yields:
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 73 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
(Qs -QS)CS=[Q:(C: -c;)-a(c, -cj] B-ie
Substituting eq. B-15 into B-16, and B-16 into B-8 yields:
E =gc JQ:(c;-c+j-Ql(Cl-caMQ,+^R,-Q,Ra]
Using equations B-5 and B-10 we can eliminate the flow rates Q; and Q;+. Also, since Q;+ > Q;,
"1
and typically Q; > 30 * XV (baseline building air change rates are generally no less than 6 d", and
X(222Rn) = 0. 18 d'1), we state Q; ป XV and Q;+ ป XV and obtain:
R, -Ray\ _
-CJ-HC; -C)][|f (^ -RJ] B-IS
This is an expression for the steady-state entry rate of a soil gas contaminant that depends only
on measurements performed in indoor and ambient air. The quantities T; , Tf+ , C;, C;+ , R; , R;+,
Ca, Ca+, Ra, and Ra+ are steady state values under baseline and positive pressure perturbation
conditions. GT and GT+ are the generation rates of the inert indoor tracer compound under
baseline and positive pressure perturbation conditions calculated from the mass flow rates of the
gas and its concentration.
From equation B-7 we can also compute the generation rate of the indoor sources.
GC *Q,C, ~EC -Q,Ca =Q,(C, -CJ-EC B-19
In this result Qs has been neglected relative to Q; (Qt ป Qs ). Since the indoor steady-state
concentration is proportional to the sum of the soil gas entry rate, the ambient entry rate, and the
indoor generation rate, the fractional contribution from vapor intrusion is given by:
F F F
F= - - = J^ = -^L_ B-20
cca i
C C rri a rri 1
the fractional contribution from indoor sources is given by:
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 74 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
B-21
and the fractional contribution from ambient air is given by:
c ->C c
where FVi + Fin + Fa = 1 . B-23
To the extent that the steady-state concentration can be replaced by the integrated average, the
fraction of the average indoor concentration that originated in the soil gas is given by equation B-
20.
Negative Pressure Perturbation
An alternative approach would be to apply a negative pressure to the house to increase the air
exchange rate and possibly the entry rate of soil gas. This perturbation will be accomplished by
exhausting air from inside the house using a fan. The perturbing air-flow-rate will be limited to
values that do not disturb the sub-slab concentrations of contaminants while increasing the air
exchange rate significantly. Under the new flow conditions, we can write a new set of steady
state equations. Expressions analogous to those in eqs. B-10 - B-23 can be obtained by
replacing the plus signs by negative signs. These negative signs indicate quantities
corresponding to conditions under negative applied pressure. For brevity, I will not repeat all
the intermediate equations, but will simply give the results that may be useful.
= QC __ .
----
B-25
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 75 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
Gc*QlCl-Ec-QiCa B-26
F F F
- = _^ = _^L_ g-27
a
rrt a rrr
F = - B-28
,
B-29
And equation B-23 still applies.
These two sets of results (eqs. B-18 through B-23 and eqs. B-24 through B-29) provide
somewhat independent estimates of the same quantities, Ec, Gc, FVi, Fin, and Fa. It is also
possible to evaluate the effective values of sub-slab concentrations Cs and RS to determine
whether the assumptions that they remain nearly constant are satisfied.
Positive Pressure with Critical Value
There is a third approach to evaluating these quantities that does not require the assumption of
constant sub-slab concentrations. This condition is a special case of the positive pressure
scenario described above in which a critical value of applied pressure is used. The critical value
of positive pressure is the value that yields zero exchange with the sub-slab region. It is the
value of pressure that makes Q+ zero. Under these circumstances, Q+ =Q+a and E^ =0.
From equation B-l 1 we obtain
R,+ = ^ R+a B-30
and from either equation B-12orB-14
This result depends on the assumption thatg+ = 0 . The baseline entry rate can be computed
from equation B-7 and from the assumption that Gc = Gc+:
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 76 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
EC * a (Q - ca) - GC = a (c, - cfl) - g+ (c,+ - c; > 8-32
Note that equation B-32 may also be obtained by substitution of the equality R;+ = Ra+ into
equation B-18; under positive pressure perturbation conditions in which VI is effectively "turned
off," this equality holds.
SUMMARY
This presentation proposes a cost-effective screening method to identify houses with
concentrations above specified action levels that result from vapor intrusion. The method
accounts for confounding issues associated with background concentrations. It has the potential
to minimize imposition on the homeowners and to be more acceptable to responsible parties by
avoiding drilling holes in the slabs. This method might provide more confidence in the resulting
VI evaluation if longer term (integrated) steady state measurements were used. This increased
confidence would result from reduced variability in the measured results.
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 77 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
APPENDIX C: ERROR ANALYSIS TO SUPPORT SELECTION OF ACCEPTANCE
CRITERIA FOR THE DQI ACCURACY
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 78 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
The purpose of this Appendix is to provide the rationale for the selection of the acceptance
criteria for the accuracy DQIs listed in Section A8 of this QAPP. The selection was based on the
combination of what is practically attainable given limits of instrumental analysis and also on
estimation of concentrations that may be measured during testing at a building where vapor
intrusion is obviously a source of CoCs.
For addition and subtraction such as
w = x + y +z pi
the error in the result, Aw, is given by
(Aw)2 = (Ax)2 + (Ay)2 +(Az)2 c_2
Note that Aw is the absolute error in w and
Aw ซ aw C3
where aw is the standard deviation in w. Note as well that
Aw = %ew w c_4
where %ew is the percent relative error in w.
For multiplication and division such as
, a-b
d = C-5
The percent error in the result, %e
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 79 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
Where GT and T; are as defined in the Mosley model and
CT = source concentration of the SF6 tracer gas (ug m"3 or mol fraction); and
QT = flow rate of the SF6 tracer gas from the source bottle into the indoor air (m3 h"1).
Qi" and Q;+ are calculated similarly. The error in Q; is found by way of the knowledge and/or
estimation of the relative errors in CT, QT, and T;:
Assuming that
%ecT = 5 %, the error in the SF6 concentration in the source bottle (5 % is typically the stated
analytical accuracy of a certified gas standard);
%6QT =10 %, the proposed acceptance criterion for the error limit on the flow rate of the SF6
tracer gas (the SF6 flow rate will be checked using a calibrated flow meter before and after each
building pressure perturbation is started and completed);
%e"n = 20 %, the proposed acceptance criterion for the error limit in the measurement of the
concentrations of SF6 at trace (parts per trillion by volume) levels (this acceptance criterion will
be verified by the analysis of matrix spikes of SFe in stainless steel canisters);
Then %eQl = 23 %.
To estimate the error in the fractional contribution of vapor intrusion to the concentration of a
CoC measured in indoor air, FVi, assume that under positive pressure conditions, R;+ = Ra+,
meaning that VI was "turned off." As such, equation B-32 may be substituted into equation B-
20 and simplified to calculate FVI:
F _,_C^_Q^C: ,a+c;
-*r/7 A
71 ~ C, Q,C, Q,C, C-9
Assuming that Q;+/Q; = 5 (compared to baseline conditions, the building AER is five times
higher under positive pressure conditions because of the action of the fan blowing air into the
building); Ca = Ca+ = 0.04 ug m"3 (very low concentrations of the CoC are found in ambient air;
0.04 ug m"3 is a typical MDL of the TO-15 SIM analysis for VOCs); C; = 0.4 ug m"3 and C;+ =
0.05 ug m"3 (there is an obvious source of the CoC to the indoor air, and the CoC concentration
dropped substantially with the building under positive pressure, indicating that VI may be a
significant source), then FVI = 0.775, or ~ 80% of the indoor concentration of the CoC is due to
vapor intrusion.
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 80 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
To estimate the error in FVI under these conditions, the absolute errors in the three right-most
terms in equation C-9 must be calculated and added in quadrature. Using equations C-2, C-4,
and C-5, the absolute error in FVi is
c-io
Assuming that %6Q; = %6Q1+ = 23 % and %eca = %eca+ = %CG = %eci+ = 30 % (the proposed
acceptance criterion for the error limit in the measurement of the concentration of a CoC, which
is the typical acceptance limit for matrix spikes in the TO-15 SIM method) then AFVi = 0.6 and
the FVI would be reported as 0.8 ฑ 0.6.
Note that equation C-8 assumes that all of the quantities (Cx, QT, and Qj) are statistically
independent. In fact, QT and T; are likely to have a positive covariance which would result in an
additional negative term in the calculation of the error estimate. Omitting this negative term in
the estimate of error (i.e., ignoring the covariance) is conservative in that it overstates the
expected error in Qj. With experimental data in hand, it will be possible to estimate the
covariance from the data and include it in error calculation.
-------
APPENDIX D: DATA COLLECTION FORMS
-------
Project title: Vapor Intrusion Pressure Control ETV Test
Name and location of building:
Test number:
Person(s) completing this forms:
Date(s) form completed:
SITE DESCRIPTION AND SAMPLING LOCATIONS
Draw a 2-dimensional building layout (top view) roughly to scale in the box below.
o Indicate scale and compass direction.
o Indicate the locations of the following:
Three indoor air sampling locations (IA-1, IA-2, IA-3)
Three subslab air sampling locations (SS-1, SS-2, and SS-3)
One ambient air sampling location (AA-1)
One indoor/outdoor pressure sampling location (IO-P)
One cross foundation subslab pressure sampling location (SS-P).
o Note the location and identity of building pressurization and depressurization
device(s) (e.g., box fan, blower door, etc.).
Collect photographs of all measurement locations and pressure control devices.
Abbreviations:
SS = subslab; IA = indoor air; AA = ambient air, IO = indoor/outdoor;
1 = gas sampling point 1; 2 = gas sampling point 2; 3 = gas sampling point 3;
P = sampling point for pressure
Form Rev. 0
Form Rev. Date: 08/31/2010
Page 1 of 1
-------
Project title: Vapor Intrusion Pressure Control ETV Test
Name and location of building:
Test number:
Building Pressure: | | Baseline | | Negative | | Positive
Person(s) completing this forms:
Date(s) form completed:
PRESSURE DIFFERENTIAL MEASUREMENTS
Date/time (MM/DD/YYYY HH:MM) pressure perturbation begun:
Date/time (MM/DD/YYYY HH:MM) pressure perturbation complete:
Indoor/Outdoor Pressure Differential (IO-P)
Pressure transducer information (manufacturer, model #, serial #, calibration
information, calibration due date, etc.):
Pressure transducer zero check. Successful? O Yes O No. If No, describe remedial
action(s).
Date/time (MM/DD/YYYY HH:MM) IO-P measurements begun:
Date/time (MM/DD/YYYY HH:MM) IO-P measurements complete:
Filename7 (example: 1-BL-IO-P):
Cross-Foundation Pressure Differential (SS-P)
Pressure transducer information (manufacturer, model #, serial #, calibration
information, calibration due date, etc.):
Pressure transducer zero check. Successful? I I Yes I I No. If No, describe remedial
action(s).
Date/time (MM/DD/YYYY HH:MM) SS-P measurements begun:
Date/time (MM/DD/YYYY HH:MM) SS-P measurements complete:
Filename7 (example: 1-BL-SS-P):
Collect photographs of pressure transducers in installed locations.
File naming convention is "Test # - Pressure Perturbation - Location - P"
(1 or 2) - (BL, NP, or PP) - (IO or SS)
Form Rev. 0
Form Rev. Date: 08/31/2010
Page 1 of 1
-------
Project title: Vapor Intrusion Pressure Control ETV Test
Name and location of building:
Test number:
Q Baseline Q Negative Q Positive
Person(s) completing this forms:
Date(s) form completed:
TRACER GAS RELEASE
Tracer gas compound: Concentration (units):
Certificate of analysis information:
Flow rate setpoint (units):
Flow control device information:
Mass flow controller: O Yes O No
Rotameter: Q Yes Q No
Description of flow control device (manufacturer, model #, serial #, calibration
information, etc.):
Initial flow check:
Date/time (MM/DD/YYYY HH:MM):
Flow (units):
% difference from set point:
Final flow check:
Date/time (MM/DD/YYYY HH:MM):
Flow (units):
% difference from set point:
Describe remedial action(s) if % difference of flow rate check compared to setpoint is
Description of flow control device (manufacturer, model #, serial #, calibration date,
calibration due date, etc.):
Date/time (MM/DD/YYYY HH:MM) tracer gas release begun:
Date/time (MM/DD/YYYY HH:MM) tracer gas release stopped:
NOTE: Photograph SF6 delivery system
Form Rev. 0
Form Rev. Date: 08/31/2010
Page 1 of 1
-------
Project title: Vapor Intrusion Pressure Control ETV Test
Name and location of building:
Test number: Test 1
Building Pressure: X Baseline | | Negative
Person(s) completing this forms:
Date(s) form completed:
Positive
The following sample naming convention is to be followed when collecting all air samples.
Identifiers are shown below the sample naming convention:
Target Sampling Miscellaneous
Compound Location Information
Test#
Pressure
Media Type
1
2
-
BL
NP
PP
IA
AA
SS
voc
Rn
-
1
2
3
1
2
3
Where: BL = baseline IA = indoor air NP = negative pressure
PP = positive pressure SS = subslab Rn = radon
VOC = volatile organic compounds (includes SF6 for IA, SS samples)
Misc info: 1 = duplicate sample 2 = blank sample 3 = recollected sample
AIR SAMPLING INFORMATION
Indoor Air (IA) Samples
Grab samples in PVF bags for radon (Rn), 8-hr time integrated samples into stainless steel
canisters for VOC and
Sample ID
-BL-IA-Rn-1
-BL-IA-Rn-2
-BL-IA-Rn-3
-BL-IA-Rn- -1
-BL-IA-Rn- -2
Date/Time Collected8
Volume Collected (units)
New Syringe Used?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Note: for duplicate sample, add sample location where sample was collected
Sample ID
1-BL-IA-VOC-l
l-BL-IA-VOC-2
l-BL-IA-VOC-3
1-BL-IA-VOC- -1
Canister
Serial No.
Flow
Cont. #
Pres.
Gauge
#
Initial Vacuum
Pres.
("Hg)
Date/ Time8
Stopped
Final Vacuum
Pres.
("Hg)
Date/ Time8
Stopped
Note: for duplicate sample, add sample location where sample was collected
Identity of pressure gauge used for vacuum measurement (manufacturer, model #, serial #,
calibration date, calibration due, etc.):
Notes/comments:
8 Date and time to be recorded using a MM/DD/YYYY HH:MM format
Form Rev. 0
Form Rev. Date: 08/31/2010
Page 1 of 3
-------
Project title: Vapor Intrusion Pressure Control ETV Test
Name and location of building:
Test number: Test 1
Building Pressure: X Baseline | | Negative
Person(s) completing this forms:
Date(s) form completed:
Positive
AIR SAMPLING INFORMATION (Continued)
Ambient Air (AA) Samples
Grab samples into a PVF bag for radon (Rn), 8-hr time integrated samples into a stainless steel
canister for VOC.
Sample ID
1-BL-AA-Rn-l
1-BL-AA-Rn-l-l
l-BL-AA-Rn-1-2
Date/Time Collected9
Volume Collected (units)
New Syringe Used?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Sample ID
1-BL-AA-VOC-l
1-BL-AA-VOC-l-l
Canister
Serial No.
Flow
Cont. #
Pres.
Gauge
#
Initial Vacuum
Pres.
("Hg)
Date/ Time9
Stopped
Final Vacuum
Pres.
("Hg)
Date/ Time9
Stopped
Identity of pressure gauge used for vacuum measurement (manufacturer, model #, serial #,
calibration date, calibration due, etc.):
Notes/comments:
9 Date and time to be recorded using a MM/DD/YYYY HH:MM format
Form Rev. 0
Form Rev. Date: 08/31/2010
Page 1 of 3
-------
Project title: Vapor Intrusion Pressure Control ETV Test
Name and location of building:
Test number: Test 1
Building Pressure: X Baseline | | Negative
Person(s) completing this forms:
Date(s) form completed:
Positive
AIR SAMPLING INFORMATION (Continued)
Subslab (SS) Samples
Grab samples into stainless steel canisters for VOCs and SF6; sampling using real-time radon
instrument; grab sampling into PVF bags for radon (duplicate).
VOC Grab Samples
Sample ID
1-BL-SS-VOC-l
l-BL-SS-VOC-2
l-BL-SS-VOC-3
1-BL-SS-VOC- -1
Canister
Serial No.
Flow
Cont. #
Pres.
Gauge
#
Initial Vacuum
Pres.
("Hg)
Date/ Time10
Stopped
Final Vacuum
Pres.
(" Hg)
Date/
Time10
Stopped
Note: for duplicate sample, add sample location where sample was collected
Identity of pressure gauge used for vacuum measurement (manufacturer, model #, serial #,
calibration date, calibration due, etc.):
Real Time Radon Measurement
Sample ID
1-BL-SS-Rn-l
l-BL-SS-Rn-2
l-BL-SS-Rn-3
1-BL-SS-Rn- -1
Date/Time10 Sampling
Started
Date/Time10 Sampling
Stopped
Flow Rate (units)
Note: for duplicate sample, add sample location where sample was collected
Information on real-time radon instrument:
Manufacturer: Model #:
Serial #:
Calibration date:
Caibration Due:
Radon in PVF Bags
Sample ID
1-BL-AA-Rn-l
1-BL-AA-Rn-l-l
Date/Time Collected10
Volume Collected (units)
New Syringe Used?
D Yes D No
1 1 Yes 1 1 No
1 1 Yes 1 1 No
D Yes D No
Note: sample location for SS PVF bag duplicate must be the same as for the location of duplicate real-time Rn
measurement.
Use back of form for any additional notes or comments.
10 Date and time to be recorded using a MM/DD/YYYY HH:MM format
Form Rev. 0
Form Rev. Date: 08/31/2010
Page 1 of 3
-------
Project title: Vapor Intrusion Pressure Control ETV Test
Name and location of building:
Test number: Test 1
Building Pressure: | | Baseline X Negative
Person(s) completing this forms:
Date(s) form completed:
Positive
The following sample naming convention is to be followed when collecting all air samples.
Identifiers are shown below the sample naming convention:
Target Sampling Miscellaneous
Compound Location Information
Test#
Pressure
Media Type
1
2
-
BL
NP
PP
IA
AA
SS
voc
Rn
-
1
2
3
1
2
3
Where: BL = baseline IA = indoor air NP = negative pressure
PP = positive pressure SS = subslab Rn = radon
VOC = volatile organic compounds (includes SF6 for IA, SS samples)
Misc info: 1 = duplicate sample 2 = blank sample 3 = recollected sample
AIR SAMPLING INFORMATION
Indoor Air (IA) Samples
Grab samples in PVF bags for radon (Rn), 8-hr time integrated samples into stainless steel
canisters for VOC and
Sample ID
-NP-IA-Rn-1
-NP-IA-Rn-2
-NP-IA-Rn-3
-NP-IA-Rn- -1
-NP-IA-Rn- -2
Date/Time Collected11
Volume Collected (units)
New Syringe Used?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Note: for duplicate sample, add sample location where sample was collected
Sample ID
1-NP-IA-VOC-l
l-NP-IA-VOC-2
l-NP-IA-VOC-3
1-NP-IA-VOC- -1
Canister
Serial No.
Flow
Cont. #
Pres.
Gauge
#
Initial Vacuum
Pres.
("Hg)
Date/ Time8
Stopped
Final Vacuum
Pres.
("Hg)
Date/ Time8
Stopped
Note: for duplicate sample, add sample location where sample was collected
Identity of pressure gauge used for vacuum measurement (manufacturer, model #, serial #,
calibration date, calibration due, etc.):
Notes/comments:
11 Date and time to be recorded using a MM/DD/YYYY HH:MM format
Form Rev. 0
Form Rev. Date: 08/31/2010
Page 1 of 3
-------
Project title: Vapor Intrusion Pressure Control ETV Test
Name and location of building:
Test number: Test 1
Building Pressure: | | Baseline X Negative
Person(s) completing this forms:
Date(s) form completed:
Positive
AIR SAMPLING INFORMATION (Continued)
Ambient Air (AA) Samples
Grab samples into a PVF bag for radon (Rn), 8-hr time integrated samples into a stainless steel
canister for VOC.
Sample ID
1-NP-AA-Rn-l
1-NP-AA-Rn-l-l
1-NP-AA-Rn-l -2
Date/Time Collected12
Volume Collected (units)
New Syringe Used?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Sample ID
1-NP-AA-VOC-l
1-NP-AA-VOC-l-l
Canister
Serial No.
Flow
Cont. #
Pres.
Gauge
#
Initial Vacuum
Pres.
("Hg)
Date/ Time9
Stopped
Final Vacuum
Pres.
("Hg)
Date/ Time9
Stopped
Identity of pressure gauge used for vacuum measurement (manufacturer, model #, serial #,
calibration date, calibration due, etc.):
Notes/comments:
12 Date and time to be recorded using a MM/DD/YYYY HH:MM format
Form Rev. 0
Form Rev. Date: 08/31/2010
Page 1 of 3
-------
Project title: Vapor Intrusion Pressure Control ETV Test
Name and location of building:
Test number: Test 1
Building Pressure: | | Baseline X Negative
Person(s) completing this forms:
Date(s) form completed:
Positive
AIR SAMPLING INFORMATION (Continued)
Subslab (SS) Samples
Grab samples into stainless steel canisters for VOCs and SF6; sampling using real-time radon
instrument; grab sampling into PVF bags for radon (duplicate).
VOC Grab Samples
Sample ID
1-NP-SS-VOC-l
l-NP-SS-VOC-2
l-NP-SS-VOC-3
1-NP-SS-VOC- -1
Canister
Serial No.
Flow
Cont. #
Pres.
Gauge
#
Initial Vacuum
Pres.
("Hg)
Date/ Time13
Stopped
Final Vacuum
Pres.
(" Hg)
Date/
Time10
Stopped
Note: for duplicate sample, add sample location where sample was collected
Identity of pressure gauge used for vacuum measurement (manufacturer, model #, serial #,
calibration date, calibration due, etc.):
Real Time Radon Measurement
Sample ID
1-NP-SS-Rn-l
l-NP-SS-Rn-2
l-NP-SS-Rn-3
1-NP-SS-Rn- -1
Date/Time10 Sampling
Started
Date/Time10 Sampling
Stopped
Flow Rate (units)
Note: for duplicate sample, add sample location where sample was collected
Information on real-time radon instrument:
Manufacturer: Model #:
Serial #:
Calibration date:
Caibration Due:
Radon in PVF Bags
Sample ID
1-NP-AA-Rn-l
1-NP-AA-Rn-l-l
Date/Time Collected10
Volume Collected (units)
New Syringe Used?
D Yes D No
1 1 Yes 1 1 No
1 1 Yes 1 1 No
D Yes D No
Note: sample location for SS PVF bag duplicate must be the same as for the location of duplicate real-time Rn
measurement.
Use back of form for any additional notes or comments.
13 Date and time to be recorded using a MM/DD/YYYY HH:MM format
Form Rev. 0
Form Rev. Date: 08/31/2010
Page 1 of 3
-------
Project title: Vapor Intrusion Pressure Control ETV Test
Name and location of building:
Test number: Test 1
Building Pressure: | | Baseline | | Negative
Person(s) completing this forms:
Date(s) form completed:
X Positive
The following sample naming convention is to be followed when collecting all air samples.
Identifiers are shown below the sample naming convention:
Target Sampling Miscellaneous
Compound Location Information
Test#
Pressure
Media Type
1
2
-
BL
NP
PP
IA
AA
SS
voc
Rn
-
1
2
3
1
2
o
5
Where: BL = baseline IA = indoor air NP = negative pressure
PP = positive pressure SS = subslab Rn = radon
VOC = volatile organic compounds (includes SF6 for IA, SS samples)
Misc info: 1 = duplicate sample 2 = blank sample 3 = recollected sample
AIR SAMPLING INFORMATION
Indoor Air (IA) Samples
Grab samples in PVF bags for radon (Rn), 8-hr time integrated samples into stainless steel
canisters for VOC and SF6.
Sample ID
-PP-IA-Rn-1
-PP-IA-Rn-2
-PP-IA-Rn-3
-PP-IA-Rn- -1
-PP-IA-Rn- -2
Date/Time Collected14
Volume Collected (units)
New Syringe Used?
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Note: for duplicate sample, add sample location where sample was collected
Sample ID
1-pp-IA-VOC-l
l-pp-IA-VOC-2
l-pp-IA-VOC-3
1-pp-IA-VOC- -1
Canister
Serial No.
Flow
Cont. #
Pres.
Gauge
#
Initial Vacuum
Pres.
(" Hg)
Date/ Time8
Stopped
Final Vacuum
Pres.
(" Hg)
Date/ Time8
Stopped
Note: for duplicate sample, add sample location where sample was collected
Identity of pressure gauge used for vacuum measurement (manufacturer, model #, serial #,
calibration date, calibration due, etc.):
Notes/comments:
14 Date and time to be recorded using a MM/DD/YYYY HH:MM format
Form Rev. 0
Form Rev. Date: 08/31/2010
Page 1 of 3
-------
Project title: Vapor Intrusion Pressure Control ETV Test
Name and location of building:
Test number: Test 1
Building Pressure: | | Baseline | | Negative
Person(s) completing this forms:
Date(s) form completed:
X Positive
AIR SAMPLING INFORMATION (Continued)
Ambient Air (AA) Samples
Grab samples into a PVF bag for radon (Rn), 8-hr time integrated samples into a stainless steel
canister for VOC.
Sample ID
1-PP-AA-Rn-l
1-PP-AA-Rn-l-l
l-PP-AA-Rn-1-2
Date/Time Collected15
Volume Collected (units)
New Syringe Used?
_
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
_
No
No
No
No
No
Sample ID
1-PP-AA-VOC-l
1-PP-AA-VOC-l-l
Canister
Serial No.
Flow
Cont. #
Pres.
Gauge
#
Initial Vacuum
Pres.
(" Hg)
Date/ Time9
Stopped
Final Vacuum
Pres.
(" Hg)
Date/ Time9
Stopped
Identity of pressure gauge used for vacuum measurement (manufacturer, model #, serial #,
calibration date, calibration due, etc.):
Notes/comments:
15 Date and time to be recorded using a MM/DD/YYYY HH:MM format
Form Rev. 0
Form Rev. Date: 08/31/2010
Page 1 of 3
-------
Project title: Vapor Intrusion Pressure Control ETV Test
Name and location of building:
Test number: Test 1
Building Pressure: | | Baseline | | Negative
Person(s) completing this forms:
Date(s) form completed:
X Positive
AIR SAMPLING INFORMATION (Continued)
Subslab (SS) Samples
Grab samples into stainless steel canisters for VOCs and SFe; sampling using real-time radon
instrument; grab sampling into PVF bags for radon (duplicate).
VOC Grab Samples
Sample ID
1-PP-SS-VOC-l
l-PP-SS-VOC-2
l-PP-SS-VOC-3
1-PP-SS-VOC- -1
Canister
Serial No.
Flow
Cont. #
Pres.
Gauge
#
Initial Vacuum
Pres.
("Hg)
Date/ Time16
Stopped
Final Vacuum
Pres.
(" Hg)
Date/
Time10
Stopped
Note: for duplicate sample, add sample location where sample was collected
Identity of pressure gauge used for vacuum measurement (manufacturer, model #, serial #,
calibration date, calibration due, etc.):
Real Time Radon Measurement
Sample ID
1-PP-SS-Rn-l
l-PP-SS-Rn-2
l-PP-SS-Rn-3
1-PP-SS-Rn- -1
Date/Time10 Sampling
Started
Date/Time10 Sampling
Stopped
Flow Rate (units)
Note: for duplicate sample, add sample location where sample was collected
Information on real-time radon instrument:
Manufacturer: Model #:
Serial #:
Calibration date:
Caibration Due:
Radon in PVF Bags
Sample ID
1-PP-AA-Rn-l
1-PP-AA-Rn-l-l
Date/Time Collected10
Volume Collected (units)
New Syringe Used?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Note: sample location for SS PVF bag duplicate must be the same as for the location of duplicate real-time Rn
measurement.
Use back of form for any additional notes or comments.
16 Date and time to be recorded using a MM/DD/YYYY HH:MM format
Form Rev. 0
Form Rev. Date: 08/31/2010
Page 1 of 3
-------
Project title: Vapor Intrusion Pressure Control ETV Test
Name and location of building:
Test number: Test 2
Building Pressure: X Baseline
Person(s) completing this forms:
Date(s) form completed:
I | Negative
Positive
The following sample naming convention is to be followed when collecting all air samples.
Identifiers are shown below the sample naming convention:
Target Sampling Miscellaneous
Compound Location Information
Test#
Pressure
Media Type
1 - BL
2 - NP
PP
IA
AA
SS
voc
Rn
-
1
2
3
B
1
2
o
5
Where: BL = baseline IA = indoor air NP = negative pressure
PP = positive pressure SS = subslab Rn = radon
VOC = volatile organic compounds (includes SF6 for IA, SS samples)
Misc info: 1 = duplicate sample 2 = blank sample 3 = recollected sample
AIR SAMPLING INFORMATION
Indoor Air (IA) Samples
Grab samples in PVF bags for radon (Rn), 8-hr time integrated samples into stainless steel
canisters for VOC and SF6.
Sample ID
2-BL-IA-Rn-l
2-BL-IA-Rn-2
2-BL-IA-Rn-3
2-BL-IA-Rn- -1
2-BL-IA-Rn- -2
Date/Time Collected17
Volume Collected (units)
New Syringe Used?
_
_
_
_
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
_
_
_
_
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Note: for duplicate sample, add sample location where sample was collected
Sample ID
2-BL-IA-VOC-l
2-BL-IA-VOC-2
2-BL-IA-VOC-3
2-BL-IA-VOC- -1
Canister
Serial No.
Flow
Cont. #
Pres.
Gauge
#
Initial Vacuum
Pres.
(" Hg)
Date/ Time8
Stopped
Final Vacuum
Pres.
(" Hg)
Date/ Time8
Stopped
Note: for duplicate sample, add sample location where sample was collected
Identity of pressure gauge used for vacuum measurement (manufacturer, model #, serial #,
calibration date, calibration due, etc.):
Notes/comments:
17 Date and time to be recorded using a MM/DD/YYYY HH:MM format
Form Rev. 0
Form Rev. Date: 08/31/2010
Page 1 of 3
-------
Project title: Vapor Intrusion Pressure Control ETV Test
Name and location of building:
Test number: Test 2
Building Pressure: X Baseline
Person(s) completing this forms:
Date(s) form completed:
I | Negative
Positive
AIR SAMPLING INFORMATION (Continued)
Ambient Air (AA) Samples
Grab samples into a PVF bag for radon (Rn), 8-hr time integrated samples into a stainless steel
canister for VOC.
Sample ID
2-BL-AA-Rn-l
2-BL-AA-Rn-l-l
2-BL-AA-Rn-l-2
Date/Time Collected18
Volume Collected (units)
New Syringe Used?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Sample ID
2-BL-AA-VOC-l
2-BL-AA-VOC-l-l
Canister
Serial No.
Flow
Cont. #
Pres.
Gauge
#
Initial Vacuum
Pres.
(" Hg)
Date/ Time9
Stopped
Final Vacuum
Pres.
(" Hg)
Date/ Time9
Stopped
Identity of pressure gauge used for vacuum measurement (manufacturer, model #, serial #,
calibration date, calibration due, etc.):
Notes/comments:
18 Date and time to be recorded using a MM/DD/YYYY HH:MM format
Form Rev. 0
Form Rev. Date: 08/31/2010
Page 1 of 3
-------
Project title: Vapor Intrusion Pressure Control ETV Test
Name and location of building:
Test number: Test 2
Building Pressure: X Baseline
Person(s) completing this forms:
Date(s) form completed:
I | Negative
Positive
AIR SAMPLING INFORMATION (Continued)
Subslab (SS) Samples
Grab samples into stainless steel canisters for VOCs and SFe; sampling using real-time radon
instrument; grab sampling into PVF bags for radon (duplicate).
VOC Grab Samples
Sample ID
2-BL-SS-VOC-l
2-BL-SS-VOC-2
2-BL-SS-VOC-3
2-BL-SS-VOC- -1
Canister
Serial No.
Flow
Cont. #
Pres.
Gauge
#
Initial Vacuum
Pres.
("Hg)
Date/ Time19
Stopped
Final Vacuum
Pres.
(" Hg)
Date/
Time10
Stopped
Note: for duplicate sample, add sample location where sample was collected
Identity of pressure gauge used for vacuum measurement (manufacturer, model #, serial #,
calibration date, calibration due, etc.):
Real Time Radon Measurement
Sample ID
2-BL-SS-Rn-l
2-BL-SS-Rn-2
2-BL-SS-Rn-3
2-BL-SS-Rn- -1
Date/Time10 Sampling
Started
Date/Time10 Sampling
Stopped
Flow Rate (units)
Note: for duplicate sample, add sample location where sample was collected
Information on real-time radon instrument:
Manufacturer: Model #:
Serial #:
Calibration date:
Caibration Due:
Radon in PVF Bags
Sample ID
2-BL-AA-Rn-l
2-BL-AA-Rn-l-l
Date/Time Collected10
Volume Collected (units)
New Syringe Used?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Note: sample location for SS PVF bag duplicate must be the same as for the location of duplicate real-time Rn
measurement.
Use back of form for any additional notes or comments.
19 Date and time to be recorded using a MM/DD/YYYY HH:MM format
Form Rev. 0
Form Rev. Date: 08/31/2010
Page 1 of 3
-------
Project title: Vapor Intrusion Pressure Control ETV Test
Name and location of building:
Test number: Test 2
Building Pressure: | | Baseline X Negative
Person(s) completing this forms:
Date(s) form completed:
Positive
The following sample naming convention is to be followed when collecting all air samples.
Identifiers are shown below the sample naming convention:
Target Sampling Miscellaneous
Compound Location Information
Test#
Pressure
Media Type
1 - BL
2 - NP
PP
IA
AA
SS
voc
Rn
-
1
2
3
B
1
2
o
6
Where: BL = baseline IA = indoor air NP = negative pressure
PP = positive pressure SS = subslab Rn = radon
VOC = volatile organic compounds (includes SF6 for IA, SS samples)
Misc info: 1 = duplicate sample 2 = blank sample 3 = recollected sample
AIR SAMPLING INFORMATION
Indoor Air (IA) Samples
Grab samples in PVF bags for radon (Rn), 8-hr time integrated samples into stainless steel
canisters for VOC and SF6.
Sample ID
2-NP-IA-Rn-l
2-NP-IA-Rn-2
2-NP-IA-Rn-3
2-NP-IA-Rn- -1
2-NP-IA-Rn- -2
Date/Time Collected20
Volume Collected (units)
New Syringe Used?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Note: for duplicate sample, add sample location where sample was collected
Sample ID
2-NP-IA-VOC-l
2-NP-IA-VOC-2
2-NP-IA-VOC-3
2-NP-IA-VOC- -1
Canister
Serial No.
Flow
Cont. #
Pres.
Gauge
#
Initial Vacuum
Pres.
(" Hg)
Date/ Time8
Stopped
Final Vacuum
Pres.
(" Hg)
Date/ Time8
Stopped
Note: for duplicate sample, add sample location where sample was collected
Identity of pressure gauge used for vacuum measurement (manufacturer, model #, serial #,
calibration date, calibration due, etc.):
Notes/comments:
20 Date and time to be recorded using a MM/DD/YYYY HH:MM format
Form Rev. 0
Form Rev. Date: 08/31/2010
Page 1 of 3
-------
Project title: Vapor Intrusion Pressure Control ETV Test
Name and location of building:
Test number: Test 2
Building Pressure: | | Baseline X Negative
Person(s) completing this forms:
Date(s) form completed:
Positive
AIR SAMPLING INFORMATION (Continued)
Ambient Air (AA) Samples
Grab samples into a PVF bag for radon (Rn), 8-hr time integrated samples into a stainless steel
canister for VOC.
Sample ID
2-NP-AA-Rn-l
2-NP-AA-Rn-l-l
2-NP-AA-Rn-l -2
Date/Time Collected21
Volume Collected (units)
New Syringe Used?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Sample ID
2-NP-AA-VOC-l
2-NP-AA-VOC-l-l
Canister
Serial No.
Flow
Cont. #
Pres.
Gauge
#
Initial Vacuum
Pres.
(" Hg)
Date/ Time9
Stopped
Final Vacuum
Pres.
(" Hg)
Date/ Time9
Stopped
Identity of pressure gauge used for vacuum measurement (manufacturer, model #, serial #,
calibration date, calibration due, etc.):
Notes/comments:
21 Date and time to be recorded using a MM/DD/YYYY HH:MM format
Form Rev. 0
Form Rev. Date: 08/31/2010
Page 1 of 3
-------
Project title: Vapor Intrusion Pressure Control ETV Test
Name and location of building:
Test number: Test 2
Building Pressure: | | Baseline X Negative
Person(s) completing this forms:
Date(s) form completed:
Positive
AIR SAMPLING INFORMATION (Continued)
Subslab (SS) Samples
Grab samples into stainless steel canisters for VOCs and SFe; sampling using real-time radon
instrument; grab sampling into PVF bags for radon (duplicate).
VOC Grab Samples
Sample ID
2-NP-SS-VOC-l
2-NP-SS-VOC-2
2-NP-SS-VOC-3
2-NP-SS-VOC- -1
Canister
Serial No.
Flow
Cont. #
Pres.
Gauge
#
Initial Vacuum
Pres.
("Hg)
Date/ Time22
Stopped
Final Vacuum
Pres.
(" Hg)
Date/
Time10
Stopped
Note: for duplicate sample, add sample location where sample was collected
Identity of pressure gauge used for vacuum measurement (manufacturer, model #, serial #,
calibration date, calibration due, etc.):
Real Time Radon Measurement
Sample ID
2-NP-SS-Rn-l
2-NP-SS-Rn-2
2-NP-SS-Rn-3
2-NP-SS-Rn- -1
Date/Time10 Sampling
Started
Date/Time10 Sampling
Stopped
Flow Rate (units)
Note: for duplicate sample, add sample location where sample was collected
Information on real-time radon instrument:
Manufacturer: Model #:
Serial #:
Calibration date:
Caibration Due:
Radon in PVF Bags
Sample ID
2-NP-AA-Rn-l
2-NP-AA-Rn-l-l
Date/Time Collected10
Volume Collected (units)
New Syringe Used?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Note: sample location for SS PVF bag duplicate must be the same as for the location of duplicate real-time Rn
measurement.
Use back of form for any additional notes or comments.
22 Date and time to be recorded using a MM/DD/YYYY HH:MM format
Form Rev. 0
Form Rev. Date: 08/31/2010
Page 1 of 3
-------
Project title: Vapor Intrusion Pressure Control ETV Test
Name and location of building:
Test number: Test 2
Building Pressure: | | Baseline | | Negative
Person(s) completing this forms:
Date(s) form completed:
X Positive
The following sample naming convention is to be followed when collecting all air samples.
Identifiers are shown below the sample naming convention:
Target Sampling Miscellaneous
Compound Location Information
Test#
Pressure
Media Type
1
2
-
BL
NP
PP
IA
AA
SS
voc
Rn
-
1
2
3
1
2
3
Where: BL = baseline IA = indoor air NP = negative pressure
PP = positive pressure SS = subslab Rn = radon
VOC = volatile organic compounds (includes SF6 for IA, SS samples)
Misc info: 1 = duplicate sample 2 = blank sample 3 = recollected sample
AIR SAMPLING INFORMATION
Indoor Air (IA) Samples
Grab samples in PVF bags for radon (Rn), 8-hr time integrated samples into stainless steel
canisters for VOC and
Sample ID
2-PP-IA-Rn-l
2-PP-IA-Rn-2
2-PP-IA-Rn-3
2-PP-IA-Rn- -1
2-PP-IA-Rn- -2
Date/Time Collected23
Volume Collected (units)
New Syringe Used?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Note: for duplicate sample, add sample location where sample was collected
Sample ID
2-pp-IA-VOC-l
2-PP-IA-VOC-2
2-PP-IA-VOC-3
2-pp-IA-VOC- -1
Canister
Serial No.
Flow
Cont. #
Pres.
Gauge
#
Initial Vacuum
Pres.
("Hg)
Date/ Time8
Stopped
Final Vacuum
Pres.
("Hg)
Date/ Time8
Stopped
Note: for duplicate sample, add sample location where sample was collected
Identity of pressure gauge used for vacuum measurement (manufacturer, model #, serial #,
calibration date, calibration due, etc.):
Notes/comments:
23 Date and time to be recorded using a MM/DD/YYYY HH:MM format
Form Rev. 0
Form Rev. Date: 08/31/2010
Page 1 of 3
-------
Project title: Vapor Intrusion Pressure Control ETV Test
Name and location of building:
Test number: Test 2
Building Pressure: | | Baseline | | Negative
Person(s) completing this forms:
Date(s) form completed:
X Positive
AIR SAMPLING INFORMATION (Continued)
Ambient Air (AA) Samples
Grab samples into a PVF bag for radon (Rn), 8-hr time integrated samples into a stainless steel
canister for VOC.
Sample ID
2-PP-AA-Rn-l
2-PP-AA-Rn-l-l
2-PP-AA-Rn-l-2
Date/Time Collected24
Volume Collected (units)
New Syringe Used?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Sample ID
2-PP-AA-VOC-l
2-PP-AA-VOC-l-l
Canister
Serial No.
Flow
Cont. #
Pres.
Gauge
#
Initial Vacuum
Pres.
("Hg)
Date/ Time9
Stopped
Final Vacuum
Pres.
("Hg)
Date/ Time9
Stopped
Identity of pressure gauge used for vacuum measurement (manufacturer, model #, serial #,
calibration date, calibration due, etc.):
Notes/comments:
24 Date and time to be recorded using a MM/DD/YYYY HH:MM format
Form Rev. 0
Form Rev. Date: 08/31/2010
Page 1 of 3
-------
Project title: Vapor Intrusion Pressure Control ETV Test
Name and location of building:
Test number: Test 2
Building Pressure: | | Baseline | | Negative
Person(s) completing this forms:
Date(s) form completed:
X Positive
AIR SAMPLING INFORMATION (Continued)
Subslab (SS) Samples
Grab samples into stainless steel canisters for VOCs and SF6; sampling using real-time radon
instrument; grab sampling into PVF bags for radon (duplicate).
VOC Grab Samples
Sample ID
2-PP-SS-VOC-l
2-PP-SS-VOC-2
2-PP-SS-VOC-3
2-pp-SS-VOC- -1
Canister
Serial No.
Flow
Cont. #
Pres.
Gauge
#
Initial Vacuum
Pres.
("Hg)
Date/ Time25
Stopped
Final Vacuum
Pres.
(" Hg)
Date/
Time10
Stopped
Note: for duplicate sample, add sample location where sample was collected
Identity of pressure gauge used for vacuum measurement (manufacturer, model #, serial #,
calibration date, calibration due, etc.):
Real Time Radon Measurement
Sample ID
2-pp-SS-Rn-l
2-pp-SS-Rn-2
2-pp-SS-Rn-3
2-pp-SS-Rn- -1
Date/Time10 Sampling
Started
Date/Time10 Sampling
Stopped
Flow Rate (units)
Note: for duplicate sample, add sample location where sample was collected
Information on real-time radon instrument:
Manufacturer: Model #:
Serial #:
Calibration date:
Caibration Due:
Radon in PVF Bags
Sample ID
2-PP-AA-Rn-l
2-PP-AA-Rn-l-l
Date/Time Collected10
Volume Collected (units)
New Syringe Used?
D Yes D No
1 1 Yes 1 1 No
1 1 Yes 1 1 No
D Yes D No
Note: sample location for SS PVF bag duplicate must be the same as for the location of duplicate real-time Rn
measurement.
Use back of form for any additional notes or comments.
Date and time to be recorded using a MM/DD/YYYY HH:MM format
Form Rev. 0
Form Rev. Date: 08/31/2010
Page 1 of 3
-------
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 103 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
APPENDIX E: EXAMPLE CHAIN OF CUSTODY FORM
-------
/~f Columbia
c_^ Analytical Services
2655 Park Center Drive, Suite A
Simi Valley, California 93065
VI Building Pressure Control
QAPP
Page 104 of 104
Version 1.0
October 1, 2010
Air - Chain of Custody Record & Analytical Service Request
Rage.
of
Phone (805) 526-7161
Fax (805) 526-7270
Company Name & Address (Reporting Information)
Project Manager
Phone
Email Address for Result Reporting
Client Sample ID
Report Tier Levels - please selec
Tier I - Results (Default if not specified)
Tier II (Results +QC Summaries)
Fax
Laboratory
ID Number
Date
Collected
Time
Collected
Requested Turnaround Time In Business Days (Surcharges) please circle
1 Day (100%) 2 Day (75%) 3 Day (50%) 4 Day (35%) 5 Day (25%) 10 Day-Standard
Project Name
Project Number
P.O. # 1 Billing Information
Sampler (Prints Sign)
Canister ID
(Bar code* -
AC,SC,etc.)
:t
_ Tier III (Results + QC & Calibration Sur
Tier IV (Data Validation Package) 10%
Reliquished by: (Signature)
Reliquished by: (Signature)
Date:
Date:
Time:
Time:
FlowCont roller ID
(Barcode #-
FC#)
nmaries)
Surcharge
Canister
Start Pressure
"Hg
Canister
End Pressure
"Hg/psig
Sample
Volume
CAS Project No.
CAS Contact:
Analysis Method
EDO required Yes / No
Type:
Received by: (Signature)
Received by: (Signature)
Date:
Date:
Time:
Time:
Comments
e.g. Actual
Preservative or
specific instructions
Project
Requirements
(MRLs, QAPP)
Cooler / Blank
Temperature ฐC
------- |