A Life Cycle and Cost Analysis of Preemptive Mitigation,
Site Characterization, and Vapor Source Reduction
Strategies at Industrial VI Sites with Multiple Buildings
Loren Lund, Christopher Lutes, and John Lowe – CH2M HILL
March 23, 2015 – USEPA Vapor Intrusion Workshop
AEHS 25th Conference on Soil, Water, Energy, and Air, San Diego, CA
Objective and Method


Objective: Determine if preemptive mitigation is most effective
strategy at industrial sites with multiple buildings
Method: Quantitative Decision Analysis
– Define alternatives
1. Preemptively mitigate all buildings
2. Characterize all and mitigate a few
3. Characterize, mitigate a few, and remediate source
– Define criteria for making decision
–
–
–
–
2
Experts objectively score how well alternatives achieve criteria
Stakeholders subjectively weight importance of criteria
Scores and weights combined for overall values for each alternative
Overall values compared with life cycle costs
Results and Conclusions




3
Investigate all, mitigate VI and
60
reduce VOC source at a few
50
Investigate/
buildings was optimal strategy
Mitigate/ SVE/LTM
40
considering value/cost
Preemptively
30
Mitigate
Preemptive mitigation with
Investigate/
20
Mitigate/ LTM
limited site characterization
10
may not be optimal strategy
0
at sites with multiple buildings
$0 M
$10 M
$20 M
$30 M
Method allows consideration
of multiple decision criteria
Stakeholder subjective weights depend on their preferences
It is important to consider applicable scenarios, suitability, and
sustainability prior to preemptively mitigating
Value Score
