Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Revisions to the ASTM E 1527 Standard: Are You Ready?


Published on

Anthony Buonicore's webinar presentation on 4/23/13

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Revisions to the ASTM E 1527 Standard: Are You Ready?

  1. 1. Upcoming Revisions to the ASTM E1527Phase I StandardbyAnthony J. Buonicore, P.E., BCEE, QEPCEO, The Buonicore Groupfor presentation atEDR Insight WebinarApril 23, 2013
  2. 2. • Key Revisions to E1527 Phase I Standard• Anticipated Publication Schedule• Use of E2600-10 for Vapor Migration Assessment in Phase IsOverview
  3. 3. Key Revisions to ASTME1527 Phase I ESA Standard
  4. 4. Major• Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs)• Vapor Migration• Regulatory File ReviewMinor• User Responsibilities• Industrial/Manufacturing Properties• AppendicesKey Revisions to E1527-05 Impacting Phase IInvestigations
  5. 5. • REC definition “simplified”• Revised definition of HREC• New definition for a “controlled” REC (CREC)RECs
  6. 6. Old Definition:“the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances orpetroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate anexisting release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of anyhazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on theproperty, or into the ground, ground water, or surface water of theproperty. The term includes hazardous substances or petroleumproducts even under conditions in compliance with laws.”New Simplified Definition:“the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances orpetroleum products in, on, or at a property: (1) due to any release to theenvironment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to theenvironment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of afuture release to the environment.”Simplified REC Definition
  7. 7. 42 U.S.C. § 9601(22) defines a “release” as “any spilling, leaking,pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting, escaping,leaching, dumping, or disposing into the environment (including theabandonment or discharging of barrels, containers, and other closedreceptacles containing any hazardous substances or pollutant orcontaminant”(refer to New Legal Appendix in Revised E 1527, XI.1.1)CERCLA Definition of a “Release”
  8. 8. The term “environment” includes (A) the navigable waters, the waters ofthe contiguous zone, and the ocean waters…and (B) any other surfacewater, groundwater, drinking water supply, land surface or subsurfacestrata…”(refer to New Legal Appendix in Revised E 1527, XI.1.1.1)CERCLA Definition of “Environment”
  9. 9. Old Definition:“an environmental condition which in the past would have been considered aREC, but which may or may not be considered a REC currently.”New Definition:“a past release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products that hasoccurred in connection with the property and has been addressed to thesatisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or meeting unrestrictedresidential use criteria established by a regulatory authority, without subjectingthe property to any required controls (e.g., property use restrictions, AULs,institutional controls, or engineering controls). Before calling the past releasean HREC, the EP must determine whether the past release is a REC at thetime the Phase I ESA is conducted (e.g., if there has been a change in theregulatory criteria). If the EP considers this past release to be a REC at thetime the Phase I ESA is conducted, the condition shall be included in theconclusions section of the report as a REC.”Revised HREC Definition
  10. 10. “a REC resulting from a past release of hazardous substances orpetroleum products that has been addressed to the satisfaction of theapplicable regulatory authority (e.g., as evidenced by the issuance of aNFA letter or equivalent, or meeting risk-based criteria established byregulatory authority), with hazardous substances or petroleum productsallowed to remain in place subject to the implementation of requiredcontrols (e.g., property use restrictions, AULs, institutional controls, orengineering controls)… a CREC shall be listed in the Findings Sectionof the Phase I ESA report, and as a REC in the Conclusions Section ofthe…report.”New CREC Definition
  11. 11. REC-HREC-CREC RelationshipContaminationin, at or on thetarget property.Is it de minimis? Has it beenaddressed?Wouldregulatoryofficials viewcleanup asinadequatetoday?Are thererestrictions?YESNONOYESREC(“Bad REC”)De minimis(“Not a REC”)NOCREC(“Good REC”)HREC(“Not a REC”)YESYESNO
  12. 12. • List in Findings‒ Known or suspect RECs‒ CRECs‒ HRECs‒ De minimis conditions• List in Conclusions‒ Known or suspect RECs‒ CRECsFindings and Conclusions Sections
  13. 13. • CERCLA/AAI do not differentiate the form (e.g., solid, liquid, vapor) ofthe release to the environment (refer to CERCLA definition of“release” and “environment”)• Migrate/migration now defined in E1527 (as it is used in many placesin E1527)• E2600-10 is a referenced document in E1527• Addressed in revised AUL definition• Contaminated vapor migration/intrusion now specifically excludedfrom IAQ (which is a non-scope consideration)Vapor Migration Clarified as Included in PhaseI Investigation
  14. 14. “refers to the movement of hazardous substances or petroleum productsin any form, including, for example, solid and liquid at the surface orsubsurface, and vapor in the subsurface.”Migrate/Migration Definition Added
  15. 15. • Referenced in Section 2.1 of ASTM E1527 Standard**Vapor migration must be considered no differently than contaminatedgroundwater migration in the Phase I investigation. While E2600-10provides an industry consensus methodology to assess vapormigration, use of E2600-10 methodology is not required to achievecompliance with AAI – an EP may use alternative methodology asdeemed appropriate, but this must be documented in the Phase Ireport (i.e., it must be “capable of being reconstructed by an EP otherthan the EP responsible for the Phase I”).E2600-10 Included as a Referenced Document
  16. 16. “activity and use limitations – legal or physical restrictions or limitationson the use of, or access to, a site or facility: (1) to reduce or eliminatepotential exposure to hazardous substances or petroleum products inthe soil, soil vapor, groundwater, and/or surface water on theproperty…”Revised AUL Definition
  17. 17. • IAQ exclusion had been used as a rationale NOT to consider vapormigration/intrusion in the Phase I investigation, e.g., vapormigration/intrusion is an IAQ issue and as such is a non-scopeconsideration in the Phase I• The following words were added after IAQ: “unrelated to releases ofhazardous substances or petroleum products into the environment”• The words imply that if the IAQ issue is related to releases ofhazardous substances or petroleum products into the environment(i.e., vapor intrusion), then this would be within the scope of thePhase I – however, if vapor migration is eliminated as a concern (andvapor migration must now be considered in the Phase Iinvestigation), then the issue of there being a vapor intrusion problemis a moot point!IAQ Non-Scope Consideration Clarified
  18. 18. • New section 8.2.2 added on Regulatory Agency File and RecordsReview• If the TP or any adjoining property is identified in government recordssearch, “pertinent regulatory files and or records associated with thelisting should be reviewed” - at the discretion of the environmentalprofessional• If in the EP’s opinion such a file review is not warranted, the EP mustprovide justification in the Phase I report• EPs may review files/records from alternative sources such as on-siterecords, user-provided records, records from local governmentagencies, interviews with regulatory officials, etc.• Summary of information obtained from the file review shall beincluded in the Phase I report and EP must include opinion on thesufficiency of the information obtainedRegulatory File Review
  19. 19. • Environmental liens and AULs are commonly found in recorded landtitle records.• Environmental liens and AULs recorded in any place other thanrecorded land title records are not considered to be reasonablyascertainable - unless applicable statutes or regulations specify aplace other than recorded land title records.• Environmental liens and AULs imposed by judicial authorities may berecorded or filed in judicial records only.• In jurisdictions where environmental liens and AULs are onlyrecorded or filed in judicial records, these records must be searched.• Chain of title reports will not normally disclose environmental liens.Revisions to User Responsibilities
  20. 20. •Although user is responsible to provide known environmental lien andAUL information to EP (unless EP given responsibility through a changein the scope of work), the search for environmental liens and AULsunder User Responsibilities Section does not preclude the EP from stillconducting a search of institutional control and engineering controlregistries in the EPs government records search (under 8.2).•Commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information within thelocal community about the property which could be material to the RECdetermination by the EP must be taken into account by the user andcommunicated to EP•If user does not communicate to the EP the information in Section 6,User Responsibilities, the EP needs to consider the significance of thisshortcoming similar to any other data gap.Revisions to User Responsibilities cont’d
  21. 21. • If property use is/has been industrial or manufacturing, then“additional standard historical sources shall be reviewed if they arelikely to identify a more specific use and are reasonablyascertainable, subject to the constraints of data failure.”• Standard historical sources include: aerials, fire insurance maps,property tax files, recorded land title records, USGS topo maps,street directories, building department records, zoning/land userecords, and “other historical sources” such as newspaper archives,internet sites, etc.Industrial/Manufacturing Properties
  22. 22. • Completely re-written Legal Appendix• Minor revisions to User Questionnaire Appendix• Simplified Recommended Table of Contents and Report FormatAppendix• New Appendix discussing Non-Scope Business Environmental RiskConsiderationsRevisions to Appendices
  23. 23. • Ballot closed October 17, 2012• Negatives ruled non-persuasive in follow-on ballot that closed January9, 2013• Final standard submitted to EPA for formal approval (to issue a rulingthat the standard is AAI-compliant)• EPA plans to publish both the proposed rule (with a 30 day publiccomment period) and the final rule simultaneously in early summer• Assuming there are no objections to the proposed rule, the alreadypublished final rule becomes effective 30 days after the public commentperiod ends (likely becoming effective around Labor Day)• ASTM would then immediately publish the standard (as E1527-13) andthe standard would be effective immediatelyStatus of ASTM E 1527 Revision Process
  24. 24. Use of ASTM E2600-10 for Vapor MigrationAssessment in Phase Is
  25. 25. Vapor Intrusion Chronology1991 J&E Model published1993 MA includes VI pathway in MCP1998 Redfield Rifles VI case receives national publicity2002 EPA publishes its DRAFT VI Guidance document2006 Kiddie Kollege VI Case hits the national media2007 NYDEC re-opens 438 closed sites2007 ITRC publishes VI Guidance for states2002-2008 approximately 26 states publish VI guidance documentsASTM publishes VI/Migration Assessment methodology (E2600-08) - vapormigration investigation identified as optional in a Phase I (up to the client)Lawyers in E2600-10 remove the “optional” provision, must assess vapormigration in Phase I to be consistent with CERCLA and AAIE1527 Phase I revision process begins in 2010 – addressing vapor migrationissue (to be treated no differently than contaminated GW migration)Revisions to E1527 completed at the end of 2012 - incorporate vapor migrationEPA plans to publish Final VI Guidance document “imminent”
  26. 26. Phase I Environmental Consultants RoundtableIndustry Survey in August-September 2012Did you typically include vapor migrationscreening in your Phase I scope of workprior to 2010 (prior to E2600-10 beingpublished)?Yes 11.8%No 88.2%
  27. 27. Phase I Environmental Consultants RoundtableIndustry Survey in August-September 2012Today do you typically include vapormigration screening in your Phase Iscope of work?Yes 21.7%Only When Requested 49.2%No 29.1%
  28. 28. Phase I Environmental Consultants RoundtableIndustry Survey in August-September 2012When you conduct vapor migrationscreening today as part of your Phase I,what methodology do you follow?Tier 1 in E2600-10 59.0%In-house methodology 10.9%EP Professional Judgment 30.1%
  29. 29. 1. Identify AOC and minimize to the maximum extent possible based onexperience• Start out with 1/3rd mile or 1/10th mile (for petroleum hydrocarbons), BUT• Can reduce significantly when GW flow direction known or can be inferred(from topographical data or nearby Phase II data or hydrologic data, etc.)• Can further reduce by using professional judgment based on localknowledge‒ Hydraulic barriers (such as rivers and wetlands)‒ Sub-surface man-made physical barriers (preventing vapors from reaching TPsuch as utility lines in a main road that can intercept migrating vapors movingtoward a TP)‒ Sub-surface natural barriers (preventing vapors from reaching the TP such asconfining layers, e.g., low permeability soil (e.g., clay layer) or fresh water lensSteps for Conducting a Tier 1 VEC Screen in a Phase I(assuming no preferential pathways direct to the TP from contaminated sites)
  30. 30. E 2600-10 w/Source Location E 2600-10 Buonicore Methodology*Up-gradient 1,760’ 1,760’Down-gradient 1,760’ 100’Cross-gradient 1,760’ 365’*Buonicore, A.J. , Methodology for Identifying the Area of Concern Around a Property PotentiallyImpacted by Vapor Migration from Nearby Contaminated Sources, Paper No. 2011-A-301,Proceedings, Air & Waste Management Association, 104th Annual Meeting, Orlando, Florida, June20-24, 2011.Net Reduction in AOC for Tier 1 Screening of Known or SuspectCOC SOURCES if Groundwater Flow Direction is Known or CanBe Inferred
  31. 31. E 2600 Revised w/Source Location E 2600-08 Buonicore Methodology*Up-gradient 528’ 528’Down-gradient 528’ 100’ (LNAPL)30’ (dissolved)Cross-gradient 528’ 165’ (LNAPL)95’ (dissolved)*Buonicore, A.J. , Methodology for Identifying the Area of Concern Around a Property PotentiallyImpacted by Vapor Migration from Nearby Contaminated Sources, Paper No. 2011-A-301,Proceedings, Air & Waste Management Association, 104th Annual Meeting, Orlando, Florida, June20-24, 2011.Net Reduction in AOC for Tier 1 Screening of Known or SuspectPHC SOURCES if Groundwater Flow Direction is Known or CanBe Inferred
  32. 32. 2. Are there any known or suspect COC-contaminated sites in the EP-defined AOC?• Government records• Historical research• Other (?)3. Evaluate each site remaining in the EP-defined AOC• Remediation status?• Did remediation consider vapor pathway?• Regulatory file review may help• Review AULs – contamination left on-site?• Other (?)Conducting a Tier 1 VEC Screen cont’d
  33. 33. 4. Identify VEC status• exists (physical evidence)• likely (within close proximity, e.g., two properties?)• can not be ruled out (further away, beyond two properties?)• can be ruled out because it does not or is unlikely to exist5. If VEC can be ruled out, vapor migration evaluation is completedConducting a Tier 1 VEC Screen cont’d
  34. 34. • State VI Guidance• E 1527-05 de minimus criteria in REC definition• Soil characteristics, subsurface confining layers and depth to watertable• Hydraulic barriers• Physical barriers• Building design and location on property• Building operation (positive pressure?, etc.)• Chemical vapor barrier already exists?• Other?6. If VEC exists/likely/cannot be ruled out, determine ifVEC is a REC
  35. 35. • Down-gradient known or suspect contaminated sites with volatiles• Cross-gradient known or suspect contaminated sites with volatiles• Vapor migration takes the path of least resistance no matter whatdirection it is!Where are there more likely to be RECs basedsolely on vapor migration considerations?
  36. 36. • Up-gradient known or suspect contaminated sites with volatilesWhere is it more likely that what caused aVEC would have been viewed as a RECanyway even if vapor migration was notconsidered?
  37. 37. 7. If VEC is a REC, E2600-10 Tier 2 provides a suggested vapormigration scope-of-work for follow-on investigation in Phase IIConducting a Tier 1 VEC Screen cont’d
  38. 38. • Vapor migration should be treated no differently than the waycontaminated groundwater migration is considered in a Phase I• EP can evaluate vapor migration using whatever methodology the EPdetermines to be appropriate (if not E 2600-10, then EP needs todocument “alternative” methodology and include documentation inthe Phase I)• E 2600-10 Tier 1 screening methodology is an industry consensusmethodology• E 2600-10 allows for EPs professional judgment and is therefore ableto “cover” virtually any “alternative” vapor migration methodology(making a strong case for using Tier 1 in E 2600-10)Bottom Line