Pollution Engineering - November 2008 - (Page 30)

INTRUSION edrnet.com/Discussions/tabid/1692/view/ topics/forumid/394/Default.aspx ). 3. So-called “No Further Action” letters from regulatory agencies should be less than reassuring and cannot necessarily be blithely accepted. Usually, they allow reopeners, i.e. the opportunity for the regulatory agency to revisit the issues related to the site if cleanup thresholds change, the risk associated with contaminants changes, or for other reasons. 4. Vapor intrusion issues can affect any kind of property, depending on the historic land use of the subject site, and/or adjacent or nearby land uses. The concept that undeveloped land, offices or residential properties are unlikely to present RECs has always been a cautionary tale, more so now that awareness of vapor intrusion issues has grown. 5. Vapor intrusion issues do not occur only as a result of CERCLA-listed volatile organics, but obviously also from petroleum products. Remember, the EPA’s AAI rule considers only CERCLA hazardous substances and not petroleum compounds; ASTM 1527-05 includes petroleum compounds. Therefore, the practice that is applied at a site not only influences findings relating directly to RECs, but also to potential vapor intrusion issues associated with the source compound underlying the REC. As a result, when reviewing the work prepared by others, the underlying standard of practice that was applied may be critical to the findings (or lack of findings). If the standard of practice was AAI, it may not be sufficient to address site issues or the client’s needs. 6.Clients often are inexperienced and uncertain with respect to environmental risk, and look to consultants to assist them in their decision-making. Issues and potential issues related to vapor intrusion only complicate matters. That causes problems for both parties. If the consultant participates in the decision-making regarding the acquisition of a property, or in defining the risk posture of the client, the consultant opens itself to liability with respect to unsatisfactory outcomes. If the client (buyer) depends on the consultant, the implication is that the consultant is qualified to make the technical and business decision, a chancy situation. General or real estate counsel may not be in a better position to intervene. WIND EFFECTS AIR STREAMLINES BUILDING ZONE OF INFLUENCE TOP OF CAPILLARY ZONE ENCLOSED SPACE CONVECTION VADOSE ZONE DIFFUSION WATER TABLE DISSOLVED CONTAMINATION Vapors can move through the soils to invade other buildings in a process known as vapor intrusion. The above graphic illustrates how vapors can be transported. tial exposures that may pose an environmental risk and/or liability are adequately evaluated as part of the property acquisition due diligence process. The interrelationships between Phase I ESAs and vapor intrusion, and between their respective practice standards, are still new and evolving. In the past, issues that have arisen in the context of conducting Phase I ESAs have been resolved by the needs of the market, the experience of the practitioners, and by the courts. Ten considerations With respect to vapor intrusion, an entirely new dynamic has arisen, that of a co-existing practice standard; this has been interpreted by some as an integrated practice standard, which is not strictly true nor appropriate. Only time and experience will define how these practice standards will interrelate in the real world. Here are 10 considerations and 30 Pollution Engineering NOVEMBER2008 cautions to consider when these practices are implemented. 1. Vapor intrusion as a potential REC is not new. Experienced practitioners always have been aware of the potential for release of organic vapors into a building, causing an indoor air quality issue and degrading the potential safe use of the building. It is receiving greater attention, but has always been a potential consideration. 2. Vapor intrusion is a non-scope item in ASTM E 1527-05. It can be a Phase II activity if the potential for a vapor intrusion issue is identified as a recognized environmental condition (REC) during the Phase I ESA. Then a vapor intrusion screening investigation (at the least) may be recommended as a follow-up Phase II activity. However, there is no implication in ASTM E 2600-08 that a vapor intrusion screen must be prepared as part of a Phase I ESA. The authors of the practice standards are firm on this issue (see the discussions at http://commonground. http://commonground.edrnet.com/Discussions/tabid/1692/view/topics/forumid/394/Default http://commonground.edrnet.com/Discussions/tabid/1692/view/topics/forumid/394/Default http://commonground.edrnet.com/Discussions/tabid/1692/view/topics/forumid/394/Default

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Pollution Engineering - November 2008

Pollution Engineering - November 2008 Contents The Editor's Desk EnviroNews PE Events Legal Lookout Casebook Canada Environment Management The Green Files Waste Island Phase I ESAs and Vapor Intrusion Meeting the Mercury Target Wet ESPs - The Sky's the Limit Most Successful IFAT China Ever Thermoplastic to the Rescue Install a Trench Without Open Excavations Remediate Impacted Soils Without Accumulation of Metabolites Apply an Alternative to Wet ESP Solve These Common Pump Problems Minimize Risks Handling Ammonia Monitor International Regulatory Developments for Audits Skim Oil and Save Prevent Chemical Vapor Intrusion Spill Control and Containment Products Pumps and Systems Equipment PE Products Classified Marketplace Advertisers Index State Rules

Pollution Engineering - November 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.