Search Result
Technology Innovation News Survey Feed (RSS)
VERIFICATION OF BUILDING PRESSURE CONTROL AS CONDUCTED BY GSI ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF VAPOR INTRUSION: ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION REPORT
MacGregor, I., M. Prier, D. Rhoda, A. Dindal, and J. McKernan.
ETV Advanced Monitoring Systems Center, 148 pp, Dec 2011
The purpose of this verification test was to generate performance data on the use of the building pressure control technique as a method to understand the impact of vapor intrusion (VI) on the concentrations of indoor air contaminants of concern (COCs). In general, the data generated from this verification test are intended to provide organizations and users with information on the ability of this methodology to assess VI impacts. The building pressure control technique was implemented in the autumn of 2010 at each of two buildings over the course of 3.5 days. The effectiveness of the building pressure control method to support decision-making was evaluated through three different metrics. The first metric under decision-making support was to understand if the building pressure could be decreased, controlled, and subsequently elevated and controlled at each of the two buildings under induced negative and positive pressure (NP and PP) conditions, respectively. The next metric was to determine, by inspection of the mass discharge of radon from subsurface sources, whether VI was enhanced under NP and reduced (or stopped) under PP. Demonstration of control of radon VI by manipulation of building pressure should allow for concomitant control of COC VI. The last sub-parameter under decision-making support is the calculation of the fractional contribution of VI for each of several different concentrations of indoor COCs, two of them expected to have subsurface sources (TCE and either 1,1-DCE or PCE), and two others not expected to be present in indoor air as a result of VI (benzene and toluene). While pressure control was achieved at both buildings, the magnitude of the induced pressure gradients varied, likely due to differences in building characteristics, such as HVAC systems. Moreover, testing the pressure control method in only two buildings provided a limited dataset for evaluation of comparability. http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r12007/600r12007vr.pdf
ETV Advanced Monitoring Systems Center, 148 pp, Dec 2011
The purpose of this verification test was to generate performance data on the use of the building pressure control technique as a method to understand the impact of vapor intrusion (VI) on the concentrations of indoor air contaminants of concern (COCs). In general, the data generated from this verification test are intended to provide organizations and users with information on the ability of this methodology to assess VI impacts. The building pressure control technique was implemented in the autumn of 2010 at each of two buildings over the course of 3.5 days. The effectiveness of the building pressure control method to support decision-making was evaluated through three different metrics. The first metric under decision-making support was to understand if the building pressure could be decreased, controlled, and subsequently elevated and controlled at each of the two buildings under induced negative and positive pressure (NP and PP) conditions, respectively. The next metric was to determine, by inspection of the mass discharge of radon from subsurface sources, whether VI was enhanced under NP and reduced (or stopped) under PP. Demonstration of control of radon VI by manipulation of building pressure should allow for concomitant control of COC VI. The last sub-parameter under decision-making support is the calculation of the fractional contribution of VI for each of several different concentrations of indoor COCs, two of them expected to have subsurface sources (TCE and either 1,1-DCE or PCE), and two others not expected to be present in indoor air as a result of VI (benzene and toluene). While pressure control was achieved at both buildings, the magnitude of the induced pressure gradients varied, likely due to differences in building characteristics, such as HVAC systems. Moreover, testing the pressure control method in only two buildings provided a limited dataset for evaluation of comparability. http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r12007/600r12007vr.pdf
The Technology Innovation News Survey welcomes your comments and
suggestions, as well as information about errors for correction. Please
contact Michael Adam of the U.S. EPA Office of Superfund Remediation
and Technology Innovation at adam.michael@epa.gov or (703) 603-9915
with any comments, suggestions, or corrections.
Mention of non-EPA documents, presentations, or papers does not constitute a U.S. EPA endorsement of their contents, only an acknowledgment that they exist and may be relevant to the Technology Innovation News Survey audience.
