ASTM VAPOR INTRUSION TASK GROUP (E 50.02.06)
As you have probably heard by now, the ASTM E 50 Board on October 18, 2005 approved establishing a Task Group (E 50.02.06) to develop a standard to assess vapor intrusion as it relates to property transactions. It is this Task Group’s intention to develop a reasonable approach to evaluate the vapor intrusion issue, while at the same time avoiding the addition of an undue cost burden on the real estate transaction, or worse, causing the deal to be killed. At the same time, if there indeed are genuine issues of health and safety, it is important that these become known in the property acquisition due diligence process. As is already evident from our Task Group membership to-date (almost 70 individuals and organizations – refer to the attachment), ASTM is able to bring all sides to the table, hopefully to develop a consensus. As we all know, now the hard work begins.
There are a number of things we as a Task Group must first do before getting down to the actual job at hand.
(1)Establish common objectives
(2)Agree on the focus of the Standard
(3)Determine a preliminary title for the Standard
(4)Agree in general on the contents (format) of the Standard
(5)Form appropriate working committees (sub-groups)
(6)Develop a schedule for next year
Each of these items is briefly discussed below.
(1)Establish common objectives
It is expected that each Task Group stakeholder group will have objectives. We must first identify those that we all can agree with, and then discuss among ourselves those we can not all agree with and why. Some of the objectives that have already been suggested by stakeholder groups include:
Users
-there should be a relatively inexpensive screen that can be included as part of a environmental site assessment to determine whether or not VI is a high or low probability for a particular property transaction (This suggests a tiered process similar to ASTM’s RBCA Standard – perhaps Tier 1 is a lookup table (factoring such things as depth to groundwater, soil type, building construction, distance from contaminant source, etc.); Tier 2 might include some inexpensive testing and Tier 3, more aggressive testing?)
-whatever is done should not materially increase the time for environmental due diligence
-the real estate industry should not needlessly be pushed into the conduct of unnecessary (and expensive) field investigations brought on, for example, by an overly conservative approach to assessing vapor intrusion (since most Phase Is are conducted for or on behalf of the buyer, if a Phase II is recommended that requires sampling, it is not unusual to find that permission must be given by the seller – this is where the problem lies because if the Phase II shows a problem, the prospective buyer can walk away from the deal, but the seller can be left “holding the bag” – the deal then can go into “never-never land”)
-we should asses how real a problem vapor intrusion is in the absence of free product
-genuine issues of health and safety should be identified in the property acquisition due diligence process
-a “range of answers” (e.g., for the attenuation factor) will be unacceptable if this will result in the most conservative answer likely to be selected and acted upon
Producers
-the approach taken for VI assessment should have a sound and defensible
technical basis
-controversial issues such as vadose zone bioattenuation (particularly with petroleum contaminated sites), heterogeneity vs. homogeneity in soil characteristics and contaminant concentrations, uni- versus multi-directional transport, background concentrations, site-specific versus default values, sampling validity and variability (depending upon location and type method used), etc. should be addressed with implications identified
- uncertainty analysis should considered
- the approach taken should treat commercial/industrial transactions different from
residential (single or multi-family)
- only “qualified environmental professionals” should conduct vapor intrusion
assessments (certainly beyond any initial screening)(Should this go back to the AAI
definition of who a qualified environmental professional is?)
Government
-the protection of public health and safety is of paramount importance
-when there is a high degree of uncertainty, particularly as it relates to public health, it makes sense to be conservative, but realistic
-any approach should be based on sound science
Lawyers
-any standard developed should have a proper legal/regulatory basis
-responsibility for indoor air issues, i.e., EPA versus OSHA, should be clear
Please review and comment on the suggested objectives noted above. Are there other
objectives? Are there objectives that should not be on this list?
(1)(2)Agree on the focus of the Standard
The focus of the Standard as I see it is on vapor intrusion as it impacts real estate
transactions (although its use, of course, may be more widespread). Several real estate
transaction scenarios where vapor intrusion can come into play are presented in the
Appendix A. Your comment and input would be appreciated, particularly if you have
additional scenarios.
(2)(3)Determine a preliminary title for the Standard
At this time, the suggested title is: “Vapor Intrusion Assessment In Property Transactions”.
The title is certainly open for discussion and is subject to change, but it does set the tone. Your comments here would be helpful as well.
(4)Agree in general on the contents of the Standard (subject to change)
The outline proposed would follow the general way that ASTM standards are published.
-1.0 Scope
1.1Purpose
1.2Objectives
1.3Considerations Beyond Scope
1.4Organization of This Practice
-2.0 Referenced Documents
-3.0 Terminology (definitions and acronyms)
-4.0 Significance and Use
-5.0 Delineation of Responsibilities
-6.0 Vapor Intrusion Assessment (all the elements are identified)
-7.0 - ? Explanation of each Element
-? Evaluation and Report Preparation
-? Non-scope Considerations
- Appendices
X1 Legal Background
X2 Recommended Report Format
X3 - ? Other tables, models, etc.
Comments would be welcome. This, of course, will be a working document.
(3)(5)Form appropriate working group committees
The following areas have been suggested:
(1) Technical
- Existing Vapor Intrusion Guidance and Policy (to summarize and compare what
exists at the federal and state levels)
- Volatile Chemical Criteria Assessment (to develop the volatile chemical list)
- Vapor Intrusion Models Assessment (to determine the appropriate model(s) to
be used for the assessment)
- Model Validation/Calibration Assessment
- Assumptions, Uncertainty and Limitations Identification
- Plume Migration and Soils Assessment (to determine appropriate search
distances to known or suspect contaminated sites)
- Recommended Tiered Vapor Intrusion Assessment Approach
(2) Government Records (to determine what type known or suspect contaminated sites
should be included in the screening analysis)
(3) Terminology
(4) Legal
(5) Report Format
(6) Drafting and Proof-reading
(7) Government Liaison (federal/state)
(8) Trade Association Liaison
Please give some thought to the committee structure for the Task Group. Are these eight
appropriate? Do we have too many? Should we have more?
If you would liketo volunteer to head a committee, please so indicate. It is expected that
Task Group committee chairs will have a monthly conference call to discuss progress,
issues, schedules, etc. Chairs will be responsible for establishing their committee’s work
scope, schedule and deliverables.
(6)Development of a tentative schedule for the next year
Your comments on the following suggested schedule are requested.
December 31, 2005 Task Group Develops the Common Objectives Document,
Identifies Individual Committees and Chairs
January 31, 2006 Individual Committees Lay Out Their Agenda, Deliverable(s)
Expectationand Tentative Schedule
February 7-9, 2006 First Task Group Meeting during the ASTM E 50 Meeting in
Phoenix, AZ at the Hyatt Regency (agenda goes out by 1/15/06)
October 24-26, 2006 Second Task Group Meeting in Atlanta, GA at the Hyatt Regency
While there likely will be much that takes place via email and phone calls by Task Group committees, the Task Group will also formally meet during the following future ASTM E 50 Meetings. Thus far, these already are scheduled as follows:
April 17-19, 2007 Norfolk, VA at the Waterside Convention Center
October 2-4, 2007 Tampa, FL at the Tampa Marriott Waterside
Depending on how things progress, it is entirely possible that select interim face-to-face meetings may be necessary. However, most of the real work is expected to be conducted via the web.
An ambitious goal is to have the first draft for a standard by the summer of 2006. This would go out to all E 50 members via a ballot to get their input. Comments, suggestions, etc. would be discussed at the October 24-26 ASTM meeting inAtlanta.
Appendix A
Example Vapor Intrusion in Real Estate Transaction Scenarios
The following are viewed as typical real estate transaction situations that may be impacted by
vapor intrusion.
(1) A Phase I ESA identifies a REC because of a drycleaner across the street from the target
property, a condominium complex. The drycleaner is hydrogeologically upgradient from
the target property. No data is available on whether or not perc has been released at the
drycleaner site, and there is no on-going soil/groundwater investigation. The environmental
professional recommends to the client that limited sampling be conducted along the
perimeter facing the drycleaner. (This is a classic case where it is highly likely the
prospective buyer will want to proceed to a Phase II.) Assuming the seller permits the
limited sampling to take place (so long as the results remain with the prospective buyer
and are kept confidential), the environmental consultant should be able to(1) determine if
a contaminant plume has migrated from drycleaner property onto the target property, and
(2) identify the contaminants of concern and their respective concentrations in the
Groundwater on the target property. The environmental consultant should then have
sufficient data to determineif vapor intrusionmight be a problem.
Guidance Questions
1.What conditions might rule out the need for a VI assessment?
2.What testing should be performed in the Phase II to help in the VI assessment?
2.3.What other information should be collected in the Phase II to help in the VI assessment?
4.What preferential pathways such as sewers, underground utility lines, etc. need to be considered?
(2)A Phase I identifies a state hazardous waste site as a RECbecause of its
hydrogeologically upgradient location and close proximity to the target property, an office
building. The environmental consultant checks the state files to obtain
information on the hazardous waste site. The file has information on the extent of
contamination. The environmental consultant should have sufficient data to determine if
vapor intrusion might be a problem.
Guidance Questions
- What information should the consultant extract from the file to help in the VI assessment?
(3)A small apartment building is being evaluated by a prospective purchaser's building
inspector. A drycleaner is located in the shopping center across the street and is
hydrogeologically upgradient from the building. There is no data available
on the dycleaner. Soil and groundwater sampling costs (relative to the size of the deal)
preclude this as a viable option.
Guidance Questions
- Short of actual testing, howcanone determine if apotential vapor intrusion problem might exist inbuilding?
- Is it possible to conduct a screen (without any testing)that might be able to determine that a vapor intrusionproblem is a very low probability?If such a screen existed and the number of false positives was not significant, testing could be done only when a failure occurred, assuming the existing owner allows such testing.
- Is it possible to work backwards from “acceptable indoor air levels” to associated contaminant levels in groundwater and then assess if these contaminant groundwater concentrations are likely (based on industry experience) at such a distance from the source?
- Is it possible to determine a groundwater depth below the surface such that the probability of a vapor intrusion issue is low? For example, states such as Connecticut, Michigan and Pennsylvania address volatilization issues when contaminated groundwater is within 30 feet of the surface. What about for conditions of free product versus no free product?
(4) A Phase I and Phase II are conducted at a former industrial site that is for sale. The
results of the Phase II indicate that the contaminant plume is headed in the direction of a
nearby residential development. The environmental consultant recommends to his
developer client (prospective purchaser) that evaluation of the potential for a vapor
intrusion problem in the residential complex should be conducted.
Guidance Questions
- What approach should be taken to address the potential for vapor intrusion? There is a clear preference not to do any sampling indoors in the residential complex for obvious reasons.(Interestingly, and of concern if it becomes a trend, Tom DiNapoli, Chairman of NY’s Legislative Environmental Conservation Committee, is currently drafting a bill for introduction in the next legislative session that would require landlords to advise tenants of a vapor intrusion hazard.)
(5)A Phase I identifies a nearby old municipal landfill site as a REC. The consultant is concerned about landfill gases reaching the target property, a condominium complex, and recommends Phase II testing.
Guidance Questions
- What should the consultant test for and where should the testing be conducted?
- How close do landfills have to be to present a potential problem (how far can landfill gases migrate)?
- Could this effectively put a damper on real estate sales within the alleged impact zone? Would lenders be less inclined to lend in this zone, without perhaps an adequate ventilation system installed (e.g., similar to mitigation for radon problems)?
Your comments on these scenarios and other scenarios you have encountered would be appreciated. Please feel free to add, delete or revise guidance questions (which are there solely to remind us of things that should be considered. Remember, it is not necessary to resolve the VI approach issue now, only identify what might be encountered so that the Task Group can ensure that these situations and questions are addressed.
Anthony J. Buonicore, P.E.
Task Group Chairman
Task Group E 50.02.06 for Development of a Standard for Vapor Intrusion
Assessment in Real Estate Transactions
(11/9/05)
Organizing Committee
Anthony J. Buonicore, Chairman (800-238-1841, )*
Producers
Mike Abramowitz, PSI (212-889-0493, )
Geoffrey Back, Excalibur Group (610-280-9997, )*
Gene Belli, Land America Assessment Corp. (732-942-6200, )*
Eric Block, Block Environmental (949-455-0325, )
Lisa Bradley, ENSR (978-589-3059, )
Joe Burstiner, EDR (800-352-0050, )*
Jeff Citrone, Higgin & Associates (303-708-9846, )
Geordie Clyde, Jacques Whitford Environment Ltd. (403-263-7113, )
Mike Covert, Terracon (214-630-1010, )*
Pat Coyne, EDR (800-352-0050, )*
Bart Eklund, URS Corp. (512-419-5436, )
Robbie Ettinger, GeoSyntec (805-897-3800, )
David Folkes, EnviroGroup Ltd. (303-790-1340, )
Larry Froebe, MACTEC Engineering & Consulting (949-224-0050, Ext. 261, )*
Steve Harris, Conestoga-Rovers & Associates (519-884-0510, )
Bill Hogg, PSI (770-424-6200, )*
Dale Horna, S&ME (704-523-4726, )
Julie Kabel, ENSR (978-589-3708, )
Julie Kilgore, Wasatch Environmental (801-972-8400, )*
Bob Koto, Langan ()*
Chuck Licht, Licht Engineering (708-323-7053, )*
Steve Long, PSI (813-886-1075, )
John Manzo, Avanti Environmental ()*
Todd McAlary, GeoSyntec (519-822-2230, )
Tom McHugh, Groundwater Services, Inc. (713-522-6300, )
Steve Menkus, Menkus & Associates (818-203-0930, )*
Mike Mooradian, PSI (562-597-0658, )
Eric Nichols, LFR Levine Frick, Inc. (603-773-9779, )
Stu Rixman, Earth Tech (518-951-2281, )*
John Sallman, Terracon (214-630-1010, )*
Mike Scott, Environ ()*
Lance Stokes, ECI Environmental ()*
Carol Anne Taddeo, ENSR ()*
Mike Tartanella, Blake Technical Services (212-868-1447, Ext. 213,
)*
Fred Vanderploeg, PSI (770-424-9982, )
Jon Walker, EDR (800-352-0050, )*
Steve Washburn, Environ ()*
Bob Wenzlau, Terradex (866-461-5100, )
Mike Wolf, ATC Associates (410-381-8908, )*
John Worlund, Converse Consultants (360-592-3080, )*
James Young, Environ Corp. (978-448-8788, ext. 25, )
Users
Kevin Bisaccio, Chittenden Bank (802-442-7619, )
Rick Ferguson, US Bank (503-275-7840, )*
Harley Hopkins, American Petroleum Institute (202-682-8318, )
Bill McKinstry, TIAA-CREF (212-916-4429, )*
Bill Muzychko, PNC Bank (732-220-3506, )
Ken Penny, Harbor Federal Bank (321-848-4770, )
Steve Pipes, Grand Bank (972-735-1070, )
Cathy Pickrel, Ashland, Inc. (614-790-4555, )
Harris Sanders, Prudential Real Estate Investors (973-734-1397, )*
Katie Schwarting, Mortgage Bankers Association (202-557-2742, )*
Jeff Telego, Environmental Bankers Association (703-549-0977, )
Sharon Valverde, JP Morgan Chase (918-586-5248, )
Damian Wach, EuroHypo Bank (212-479-5756, )*
Brian Walker, Washington Mutual (714-428-4801, )
Legal
Alan Blotch, Esq. (360-710-5899, )*
Abbi Cohen, Esq., Dechert LLP (215-994-2352, )*
Amy Edwards, Esq., Holland and Knight (202-457-5917, )*
Lawrence Schnapf, Esq., Schulte Roth & Zabel (212-756-2205, )*
Susan Phillips, Esq., Mintz Levin (617-348-1713, )
Bill Weissman, Esq., Piper Rudnick Gray Cary (202-861-3878, )*
Government/Academic
Robin Davis, Utah DEQ (801-536-4177, )
Paul Johnson, ASU (480-965-3895, )
Henry Schuver, USEPA, OSWER-OSW (703-308-8656, )
ASTM Coordinator
Dan Smith, ASTM (610-832-9727, )*
1