Editor's perspective—vapor intrusion issues challenged by an ever-changing regulatory and technical landscape

Remediation

Volumn 21, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 1-7

  Simon, John A ^a  

^a WSP Cantor Seinuk   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84869229147     PISSN: 10515658     EISSN: 15206831     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/rem.20278     Document Type: Editorial

References (5)

1. Dawson, H. E., & McAlary, T. (2009). A compilation of statistics for VOCs from post-1990 indoor air concentration studies in North American residences unaffected by subsurface vapor intrusion. Ground Water Monitoring & Remediation, 29(1), 29–1.
2. Johnson, P. C., & Ettinger, R. A. (1991). Heuristic model for predicting the intrusion rate of contaminant vapors into buildings. Environmental Science & Technology, 25, 25–1445.
3. McHugh, T., Gorder, K., Kuder, T., Philp, R., Fiorenza, S., O'Neill, H., & Odencrantz, J. (2010, September). Use of CSIA to distinguish between vapor intrusion and indoor sources of VOCs. Presented at the Air & Waste Management Association Vapor Intrusion 2010 Conference, Chicago, IL. Retrieved from http://www.awma.org/education/vapor-proceed.html
4. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (2002). OSWER draft guidance for evaluating the vapor intrusion to indoor air pathway from groundwater and soils (subsurface vapor intrusion guidance). EPA 530-D-02-004. Washington, DC: Author.
5. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (2009). Lack of guidance on vapor intrusion impedes efforts to address indoor air risks. Report No. 10-P-0042. Washington, DC: Author.