This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work. This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.

Vapor intrusion (VI) pathway assessment often involves the collection and analysis of groundwater, soil gas, and indoor air data. There is temporal variability in these data, but little is understood about the characteristics of that variability and how it influences pathway assessment decision-making. This research included the first-ever collection of a long-term high-frequency indoor air data set at a house with VI impacts overlying a dilute chlorinated solvent groundwater plume. It also included periodic synoptic snapshots of groundwater and soil gas data and high-frequency monitoring of building conditions and environmental factors. Indoor air trichloroethylene (TCE) concentrations varied over three orders-of-magnitude under natural conditions, with the highest daily VI activity during fall, winter, and spring months. These data were used to simulate outcomes from common sampling strategies, with the result being that there was a high probability (up to 100%) of false-negative decisions and poor characterization of long-term exposure. Temporal and spatial variability in subsurface data were shown to increase as the sampling point moves from source depth to ground surface, with variability of an order-of-magnitude or more for sub-slab soil gas. It was observed that indoor vapor sources can cause subsurface vapor clouds and that it can take days to weeks for soil gas plumes created by indoor sources to dissipate following indoor source removal. A long-term controlled pressure method (CPM) test was conducted to assess its utility as an alternate approach for VI pathway assessment. Indoor air concentrations were similar to maximum concentrations under natural conditions (9.3 [micro]g/m3 average vs. 13 [micro]g/m3 for 24 h TCE data) with little temporal variability. A key outcome was that there were no occurrences of false-negative results. Results suggest that CPM tests can produce worst-case exposure conditions at any time of the year. The results of these studies highlight the limitations of current VI pathway assessment approaches and demonstrate the need for robust alternate diagnostic tools, such as CPM, that lead to greater confidence in data interpretation and decision-making.

For decades, scientists have propounded on the risks of vapor intrusion, the process by which contaminants present in soil and groundwater migrate, via volatilization, into buildings and affect indoor air quality. After years of deliberation, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has now added a vapor intrusion component to the Hazard Ranking System (HRS). The USEPA uses the HRS to evaluate whether a site warrants inclusion on the agency's National Priorities List (NPL) for Superfund sites. While the inclusion of vapor intrusion on the HRS is a positive, albeit overdue, development in Superfund law, how USEPA structures and implements the vapor intrusion component into the existing HRS will determine whether this new enhancement will actually prove to be protective of human health. First, this note will examine the concept of vapor intrusion. Included in this discussion will be a description of the contaminants at play, how vapors enter buildings, where vapor intrusion sites are located, what the human health risks are and, lastly what is done to mitigate the risks that vapor intrusion presents. The note will then discuss the importance that vapor intrusion plays in the Brownfields, Superfund and the LEED-certified building discussion and why vapor intrusion is often identified as an environmental justice issue. Next, the note will discuss many of the difficulties facing vapor intrusion regulation and the roadblocks that may have inhibited the promulgation of federal regulation earlier. I will then describe the different ways states have regulated vapor intrusion by assessing two enforcement mechanisms used by states in regulating sites where vapor intrusion may be an issue. First, I will evaluate how states initially assess vapor intrusion versus how states assess other more regulated exposure pathways (such as ingestion of contaminated drinking water). If there is some sort of ranking or prioritization of sites, what weight, if any, is given to sites where vapor intrusion is an issue? Secondly, I will look at what steps states take, or require potentially responsible parties or responsible parties to take, when vapor intrusion has been identified. Lastly, based on components of state regulation, I will propose a regulatory framework for addressing vapor intrusion.