EDR Insight Webinar
June 24, 2014
Vapor migration is part of the new Phase I environmental site assessment protocol from ASTM, E 1527-13. In December, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency blessed the new standard as compliant with the federal All Appropriate Inquiries rule, emphasizing the importance of assessing vapor migration risk as a standard part of Phase I ESAs. US EPA went even further in the December preamble and stated that vapor migration has always been a part of conducting AAI. In light of US EPA’s statements and the emphasis that assessing vapor migration is current standard practice for AAI-compliant Phase I ESAs, how is vapor being addressed in the field? If a Phase I ESA report identifies vapor migration as a Recognized Environmental Condition, or REC, what next? In today’s market of intensely short turnaround times for property transactions, is a vapor migration issue a deal killer? What are the current tools and options to investigate a vapor migration REC under transactional time constraints? When should a buyer walk away from a site potentially impacted by vapor migration? When to mitigate? How are environmental due diligence firms establishing consistent processes for recommending “next steps” for clients when vapor migration issues arise?
This timely webinar will bring together an attorney and two leading technical experts to address head-on the various avenues that firms are taking to assist end users of Phase I ESA reports on how to address vapor migration risk during the deal making process.
Speakers:
-David Gillay, Partner and Chair of Brownfields & Environmental Transactional Diligence Practice Areas, Barnes & Thornburg LLP
-John B. Sallman, P.G., Senior Principal, Assistant Director of Environmental Services, Terracon Consultants, Inc.
-Blayne Hartman, Ph.D., Hartman Environmental Geoscience, Vapor Intrusion, Soil Gas & Analytical Support
Vapor Migration Is Identified as a Recognized Environmental Condition: Now What?
1. Presented by:
• David Gillay, Partner and Chair of Brownfields & Environmental
Transactional Diligence Practice Areas, Barnes & Thornburg LLP
• John B. Sallman, P.G., Senior Principal, Assistant Director of
Environmental Services, Terracon Consultants, Inc.
• Blayne Hartman, Ph.D., Hartman Environmental Geoscience, Vapor
Intrusion, Soil Gas & Analytical Support
Vapor Migration Is Identified as a Recognized
Environmental Condition: Now What?
Smart Data. Smarter Workflow.
17. Vapor Migration Is Identified as a Recognized
Environmental Condition: Now What?
Presented by:
John B. Sallman, P.G.,
Senior Principal, Assistant Director of Environmental Services
Terracon Consultants, Inc.
jbsallman@terracon.com
June 24, 2014
18. What is the EP Community doing to evaluate
vapor?
19. Evaluating Vapor
Now a pathway for consideration under
ASTM E 1527-13
EPA published a proposed rule to remove
reference to E 1527-05 as AAI-compliant
A REC is still a REC
– Vapor is rarely the sole potentially complete
pathway.
Typically a Phase II issue
EP
Commu
nity
21. Guidance
Two recent informal polls:
– E-2600 not being used by the EP community
– E-2600 only used when required by client
ASTM E 1527-13 requires a method be used
– Most EPs conduct a modified E-2600 scope
EPA guidance deals with intrusion, not
encroachment
E-2600
22. Guidance
Lender Community
– Many lenders have developed their own vapor
SOWs.
– Many lenders require a vapor section in ESAs.
Client
SOW
24. Clients
Start at the proposal stage
Know your state vapor guidance
Know EPA vapor guidance
Understand ASTM E 1527-13 vapor
requirements
Vapor
Talk
25. Clients
Avoid pitfalls of report updates/redos
– Vapor may not have been considered before
– HREC definition has changed
– New CREC definition
– Non-issues before may be issues now
Avoid
Traps
26. Clients
File Reviews
– Vapor may not have been considered for closure
– Old HRECs may now be RECs
– Many risk-based closures may still have vapor
concerns
– Non-issues before may be issues now
Avoid
Traps
27. How do you ensure consistency across the
company?
28. Consistency
Develop an internal method
Conduct training
Form workgroups
Once and done is
probably not enough
Keep up with changes
Training
Training
Training
30. Client Reactions
Better than a few years ago
More clients are expecting vapor issues
Still a lot of misunderstanding
Requires teaching by consultants
Getting
Better
31. Addressing Vapor Issues in the Field
Blayne Hartman Ph.D.
858-204-6170
www.hartmaneg.com
June 2014
EDR Webinar
32. Step 1: Chlorinated or Petroleum Site?
yesno
no yes
Start
Petroleum Site?
Whew!
(If Tank Site)
Gulp!
TCE Site?
Ouch
33. Step 2: What Agency Has Oversight?
States with VI Guidance in 2013
States with VI Guidance in 2004
36 States Now Have VI Guidance
34. EPA Guidance Updates
(Release Date: 2014?)
• EPA (OSWER & Superfund)
– Multiple lines of evidence (more expense & chances to fail)
– Preference for soil gas near source (terrible for HCs!)
– Longer indoor air sampling period (terrible for HCs!)
– Fixed Att factor of 0.1 for shallow SG (~50x drop in SLs)
– Sub-slab Att factor of 0.03 (3.3x increase in SLs)
– Sampling protocols inconsistent with EPA-ORD studies!!
http://www.epa.gov/oswer/vaporintrusion
Comment Period Ended 6/24/13
35. EPA Guidance Updates
(Release Date: 2014?)
• EPA-OUST: Guidance for HCs
– Exclusion criteria? Proposed
– Testing/Adoption of Biovapor model - Done
– PVIscreen Model
– No Screening Levels
http://www.epa.gov/oust/cat/pvi/index.htm
Comment Period Ended 6/24/13
36. Step 3: What Levels Are OK?
• PCE
– 22x Increase in Allowed Levels in 2012
• TCE
– 3x Decrease in Allowed Levels in 2013
Indoor Air Standards: EPA RSLs
http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/rb-concentration_table
38. Ingredients for Effective
VI Assessments
• Investigatory Approach
• Determine Correct Screening Levels
• Sample & Analyze Properly
• Know & Use Supplemental Tools
• Chlorinated vs Petroleum Sites
39. The Most Important Ingredient
• Experience:
– Consultant
– Collector – done soil gas before?
– Lab – certified for methods?
– Regulator
– Public
– YOU!
What level person is going in the field?
40. Most Common VI Bloopers
• Unit Confusion
– Assuming ug/L equivalent to ppbv
– Assuming ug/m3 equivalent to ppbv
• Screening Levels
– Comparing to generic screening levels
– Not calculating correct levels
• Sampling & Analysis Errors
– Program design: soil gas? GW? SS? IA?
– Using wrong hardware
– Using wrong analysis
41. Approach Generalizations
• Indoor Air
– Always find something
– Multiple sampling rounds 6 months Apart!!
• Groundwater Data
– Typically over-predicts risk
• Soil Phase Data
– Typically not allowed; over-predicts risk for HCs
• Soil Gas Data
– Transfer rate unknown
– Sub-slab intrusive
42. Indoor Air Measurement
• Pros:
– Actual Indoor Concentration
• Cons:
– Where From?
–Inside sources (everything!)
–Outside sources (exhaust)
–People activities – NO CONTROL!
Biggest Problem with Transactions:
Most Agencies Require Min 2 Sampling Rounds!!
47. ASTM E2600 VI Standard
• Tiers 1: Screening (Phase 1)
• Tier 2: Non-invasive & Invasive Screening
• Tier 3: Investigation – no details
• Tier 4: Mitigation
Can Jump to Tier 4 at Any time
48. Strategy of the E2600 Tier 2 Screen
• Check the number of
potential sources (PS)
remaining from Tier 1/Tier 2
• Design sampling to see if
vapors from PS have made it
to the target property
• Tier 2 focus is at property
border
• Agency likely not involved
TP
PS
PS
X X X
XX
Most Common Data Collected: Soil Gas
49. Strategy for Tier 3 VI Assessment
• Tier 3 focus is on the
property
• Track contamination
detected at property
border towards on-
site receptors
• Assess Receptors, if
necessary
• Agency may be
involved
TP
Tier 3 Likely to Take Longer
51. Previews of the VI Future
• VI Likely to be a Concern at Your Sites
• Variable Regulatory Guidance Makes
Assessment Tricky & Slow
• New EPA OSWER Guidance to be Stricter
• ASTM Standard Increase # of Sites
• Hydrocarbons to be Less of a Concern
52. Forthcoming VI Events
• 2-Day VI Course – Missouri July 9 & 10, 2014
– Regulators from MO, NE, EPA Region 7
– Go to www.hartmaneg.com
• AWMA VI Conf – Cherry Hill NJ, Sept 2014
• 2-Day SE VI Convention – Atlanta Oct 2014
• 2-Day VI Course – TN Nov 18 & 19, 2014
– For TN DEC