3. Overview
• Vapor Intrusion Risk and Liability
• Vapor Migration Screening Using the ASTM E 2600-10 Standard
• Methodology to Manage the Vapor Migration/Intrusion Risk
• Benefits to Risk Management
4. Vapor Intrusion Risk and Liability
• Multimillion dollar toxic tort class action lawsuits now common
• RCRA citizen suit provision, CERCLA and traditional common law
claims (negligence, nuisance, trespass, etc.)
• Typically involve chlorinated solvent and petroleum contaminant
migration off-site
• Nearby residential properties impacted
5. VI Class Action Lawsuits Growing
Sampling of Some of the More Publicized Cases
• Ball v. Bayard Pump & Tank (petroleum from gas station)(1999)(PA)
• Avila v. Willits Environmental Remediation Trust (chlorinateds)(1999)(CA)
• Antolovich v. Brown Retail Group (chlorinateds)(2000)(CO)
• Muniz v. Rexnord (Chlorinateds)(2004)(IL)
• Ward/Bradley v. Lockheed Martin (chlorinateds)(2005)(FL)
• Martin v. Foster Wheeler (TCE)(2006)(PA)
• Aiken, et al. v. General Electric (TCE)(2006)(NY)
• Branham/Booth v. Rohm & Haas (chlorinateds)(2006,2010)(PA)
• Baumbach v. ExxonMobil (petroleum)(2006)(NY)
• Nnadili v. Chevron (petroleum)(2006)(D.C.)
• Grace Christian Fellowship v. KJG Investments (petroleum) (2008)(WI)
6. VI Class Action Lawsuits Growing cont’d
• Spears v. Chrysler (chlorinateds)(2008)(OH)
• Blaine v. IBM (chlorinateds)(2008)(NY)
• Sher v. Raytheon (chlorinateds)(2008)(FL)
• U.S. v. Apex Oil (petroleum)(2008)(IL)
• Voggenthaler v. Maryland Square (PCE)(2008)(NV)
• KB Home v. Rockville TBD Corp.(chorinateds)(2009)(IN)
• West Coast Home Builders v. Aventis Cropscience
(chlorinateds)(2009)(CA)
• Martin v. Behr Dayton Thermal Products (chlorinateds)(2009)(OH)
• Weitz & Luxenberg (on behalf of Pompton Lakes Residents) v.
DuPont and Royle Systems (chlorinateds)(2010)(NJ)
• Stoll v. Kraft Foods Global (chlorinateds)(2010)(IN)
7. ASTM E 2600-10 Standard
• Consensus standard published in June 2010
• Developed to facilitate screening for vapor migration potential onto
a property or away from a property
• Environmental professionals are using it for:
- Due diligence in Phase Is associated with
property acquisition
- Vapor intrusion risk assessment screening (on-site
and off-site)
- Contaminated property remediation (vapor
pathway now routinely considered in developing a
remediation strategy)
8. Vapor Migration Screening Using the ASTM E
2600-10 Standard
Key ASTM E 2600-10 Screening Terms
• Chemicals of Concern (volatiles/semi-volatiles)
• Area of Concern for Plume Migration Screening
• Critical Distance for Vapor Migration Screening
10. Area of Concern
• COC Plumes
- 1,760 feet in direction of groundwater flow
- reflects 90th percentile plume length
- also reflects vapor migration distance in reasonably
permeable soil
- 530 feet plume width at 90th percentile*
• Petroleum Hydrocarbon Plumes
- 528 feet in direction of groundwater flow
- reflects 90th percentile plume length
- also reflects vapor migration distance in reasonably
permeable soil
- 130 feet plume width at 90th percentile*
• Buonicore, A.J. , Methodology for Identifying the Area of Concern Around a Property Potentially Impacted by Vapor Migration
from Nearby Contaminated Sources, Paper No. 2011-A-301, Proceedings, Air & Waste Management Association, 104th Annual
Meeting, Orlando, Florida, June 20-24, 2011.
11. Critical Distance
• Travel distance of vapor volatilized from COC-
contaminated groundwater in reasonably permeable
soil
• 100 feet for COCs
• 100 feet for petroleum contaminants floating on the
water table (LNAPL)
• 30 feet for petroleum contaminants dissolved in
groundwater
12. Standardized Methodology to Manage the Vapor
Migration Risk
1. Data Collection
2. Identification of Plume Migration Impact Zone Associated with
Known or Potential Contaminant Release
3. Property Prioritization Sequence
4. On-going Portfolio Monitoring
13. Data Collection
• Contaminated groundwater plume data
- groundwater flow direction
- COC concentrations and trend
- remediation status
- current plume length and width
- plume status (migrating? attenuating? etc.)
• Surrounding area
- nearest residential development
- nearest sensitive receptors (including schools, day care centers, nearby wetlands
and surface waters, etc.)
- nearby known or suspect COC-contaminated sites (possible
PRPs?)
• COC contaminant concentration screening thresholds for vapor intrusion (RSLs – risk screening
levels)
• Soil characteristics impacting permeability (clay, sandy, silty, etc.)
14. Plume Migration Impact Zone
“Zone containing [known or
potential] COC-contaminated
groundwater plume plus a distance
to account for potential vapor
migration”
15. Plume Migration Impact Zone cont’d
• Established considering known, inferred or assumed groundwater flow direction for either a known
release or a potential release
• For known releases: edge of contaminated plume (where state RSL exceeded) plus the critical
distance
For COC-contaminated groundwater
- 100 feet (critical distance) beyond the plume edge in the
direction of groundwater flow
For petroleum-contaminated groundwater
- 100 feet (critical distance) beyond the plume edge when
LNAPL exists
- 30 feet (critical distance) beyond the plume edge when
only dissolved petroleum contamination exists
16. Plume Migration Impact Zone:
Property
Known Release Boundary
Residential
Source Contaminated
Groundwater
Plume
Legend Vapor Migration
Zone
Groundwater Migration Zone
Vapor Migration Zone
100 ft. for COC – contamination
100 ft. for Petro-contamination with LNAPL
30 ft. for Petro-contamination Dissolved
(only)
17. Plume Migration Impact Zone cont’d
• For potential releases (or where groundwater plume delineation has not been
done):
From the source of a potential COC release
- 1,760 feet length in the direction of groundwater flow (90th
percentile plume length plus critical distance)
- 730 feet width (90th percentile plume width plus critical distance)
From the source of a potential petroleum release
- 528 feet length in the direction of groundwater flow (90th
percentile plume length plus critical distance)
- 330 feet width (90th percentile plume width plus critical distance)
Distances may be reduced based upon site-specific soil
characteristics, e.g., relatively impermeable soil (such as silty-clayey)
18. Plume Migration Impact Zone:
Potential Release Property
Boundary
Groundwater Flow Direction Residential
B
Source
A
Contaminated
Groundwater
Plume
Legend
Plume Migration Impact Zone
(including 90th percentile groundwater plume length + vapor migration zone)
COC – Release: A = 1760 ft.
B = 730 ft.
Petro – Release: A = 528 ft.
B = 330 ft.
19. Property Prioritization Sequence
1. Known Release: COC-Contaminated groundwater
plume under residential or sensitive receptors
(R/SR)
- no other PRPs
- other PRPs
2. Known Release: Vapor volatilized off groundwater
plume (vapor migration zone) impacting R/SR
- no other PRPs
- other PRPs
20. Property Prioritization Sequence cont’d
3. Known Release: Groundwater plume migrating
toward R/SR with potential vapor migration impact
- no other PRPs
- other PRPs
4. Potential Release: R/SR in direction (down-gradient)
of potential contaminant release
- no other PRPs
- other PRPs
21. On-going Portfolio Monitoring
• New on-site contaminant releases
• New off-site contaminant releases
• Changes in contaminated plume migration
• Changes in contaminant concentrations in plume
• Changes in remediation status
• Changes in status with respect to other PRPs
• Changes in nearby residential
• Changes in nearby sensitive receptors
• Changes in contaminant releases/spills at source
• Changes is state RSLs for vapor intrusion
22. Key Benefits to Risk Management
• Facilitate property clean-up prioritization
• Undertake most effective risk mitigation measures
• More effective use of monies available for cleanup
23. Conclusions
• Vapor intrusion represents a significant potential risk and liability to
facility owners
• Risk can be managed
• ASTM E 2600-10 can assist in screening and risk assessment
• Screening will allow for cost effective property prioritization by
focusing where potential risk is the greatest
