Pennsylvania Brownfields 2013 PRACTICAL APPROACH TO MANAGING THE UNCERTAINTIES OF VAPOR INTRUSION IN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS December 10, 2013 Christopher.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
2014 Vapor Intrusion Guidance Amendments Discussion Points Waste Site Cleanup Advisory Committee Meeting May 22, 2014.
Advertisements

Vapor Intrusion. What is Vapor Intrusion? The migration of volatile chemical vapors from the subsurface to overlying buildings.
Vapor Intrusion: When to Worry? NAREIM National Assn of Real Estate Investment Managers Las Colinas, TX September 26, 2012 Beverlee E. Silva, Esq. Alston.
ASTM Changes in Presented By Dan Richardson BB&T Roundtable Nashville, Tennessee July 2013.
ASTM Phase I Changes and AAI Webinar Elizabeth Limbrick Bob Blauvelt March 13, (Hotline) Technical Assistance for Brownfields (NJIT TAB)
BoRit Superfund Site Timeline
Brownfields Brownfields are real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of.
Introduction to Brownfields New Partners for Community Revitalization, Inc. June 29, 2009.
Basic Economic Development Course in Pennsylvania Environmental and Commercial Real Estate Legal Issues Surrounding Economic Development Act 2 Issues Scott.
PA One Cleanup and Land Use Controls The “Business of Brownfields” Conference April 17, 2008 Terri Smith Environmental Liability Management, Inc.
Joseph G. Maternowski Minneapolis, MN March 9, 2011.
Further Site Investigation Sutton Walls Former Landfill
EPS Alumni Student Forum EPS - Beyond the Degree: Perspectives on Environmental Consulting Mauricio Escobar and Nick Walchuk February 25, 2010.
+ Water Quality & Human Health: From Arsenic Exposure to Biological Response Understanding how contaminants move through the environment UNC Superfund.
CE 510 Hazardous Waste Engineering
Legal Trends – Part II © 2012 Fox Rothschild Atlantic Builders Convention Legal Trends – Part II Environmental Law Site Remediation Reform Act (SRRA) and.
Environmental Investigation by Con Edison Former E115th Street Gas Works November 13, 2007.
Considerations for Transactions with Environmental Issues Richard M. Fil, Esq.
Vapor Intrusion Workgroup July 29,
EnviroSense, Inc. An Overview of Environmental Factors in Developing Brownfields Sites in Massachusetts Presented By: Eric S. Wood, P.Hg., PG, LSP President.
Vapor Intrusion Guidance Proposed Updates
Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments Environmental Specialist Brownfields/Voluntary Cleanup Program June 2014.
1 Risk Assessment Develop Objectives And Goals Develop and Screen Cleanup Alternatives Select Final Cleanup Alternative Communicate Decisions to the Public.
Module 4: Getting Ready: Scoping the RI/FS. 2 Module Objectives  Explain the purpose of the scoping phase of the RI/FS  Identify existing data which.
Vapor Intrusion Evaluation Strategy and Modeling Developments
Revised TCE Fact Sheet (a.k.a. “Status Update”) Q&A’s & Template IH Notice Form March 27, 2014 Paul W. Locke MassDEP Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup (617)
Overview of US EPA’s Vapor Intrusion Guidance VAP CP Summer Coffee July 14 th, 2015 Carrie Rasik Ohio EPA CO- Risk Assessor
Final Rule Setting Federal Standards for Conducting All Appropriate Inquiries U.S. EPA Brownfields Program.
1 Facilitating Reuse at RCRA Sites: Innovative Technologies for Groundwater Characterization and Cleanup Introduction Walter W. Kovalick Jr., Ph.D. Associate.
Do It Right or Pay the Price! AAI Property Transfer Environmental Assessments.
Of Massachusetts Department ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Soil Vapor Intrusion... A Decade of Regulatory Requirements & Experiences Paul W. Locke MA DEP Bureau.
DTSC VAPOR INTRUSION GUIDANCE California Industrial Hygiene Council 16 th Annual Conference Dan Gallagher Department of Toxic Substances Control California.
COMMITMENT & INTEGRITY DRIVE RESULTS WAITING TO EXHALE – OR HOW TO MANUEVER THROUGH THE INDOOR AIR MAZE Vapor Intrusion Pathway By: Lisa Campe, MPH, LSP.
Brandon Real Estate Board - June 19/20031 Your Logo Here ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENTS Phase I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENTS Phase I.
Vapor Intrusion and Environmental Liability Learning From Past Mistakes EDR Insight Webinar, February 12, 2013 Presented by: Joseph Maternowski Hessian.
Overview of Regulatory Changes, Policy and Implementation Colleen Brisnehan Colorado Department of Public Health And Environment Hazardous Materials and.
Overview of the Land Recycling Program (Voluntary Cleanup Program)
Fairbanks Areawide Industrial Reclamation Project ADEC AREAWIDE MANAGEMENT GOALS Janice Wiegers ADEC.
THE GEORGIA BROWNFIELD PROGRAM MAY 22, BROWNFIELD: FEDERAL DEFINITION Real property, the expansion, development or reuse of which may be complicated.
VI Draft Guidance: Overview of Comments to November, 2002 OSWER VI Guidance Michael Sowinski DPRA, Inc.
Monitored Natural Attenuation and Risk-Based Corrective Action at Underground Storage Tanks Sites Mike Trombetta Department of Environmental Quality Environmental.
USEPA Region 2 Vapor Intrusion Study Cayuga Groundwater Contamination Site March 4, 2009.
Module 6: Alternatives. 2  Module 6 contains three sections: – 6.1 Development and Screening of Alternatives – 6.2 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives.
© 2008 Fox Rothschild MANDATORY GOVERNMENTAL REQUIREMENTS AND INCENTIVES: VAPOR INTRUSION June 25, 2008 By David Restaino, Esq. and Burton J. Jaffe, Esq.
Potential Addition of Vapor Intrusion to the Hazard Ranking System U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response February 24, 2011 Listening Session.
Area I Burn Pit Santa Susana Field Laboratory RCRA Facility Investigation Work Plan February 19, 2008 Laura Rainey, P.G. Senior Engineering Geologist California.
Vapor Intrusion Guidance Updates VAP CP Training October 27, 2015 Audrey Rush Ohio EPA DERR
Environmental Considerations prior to purchasing Properties Sabine E. Martin, Ph.D., P.G. Center for Hazardous Substance Research Kansas State University.
Closing Session Modeling Vapor Attenuation Workshop Annual International Conference on Soils, Sediments, and Water October 19, 2004 Amherst, MA.
November Final Rule Setting Federal Standards for All Appropriate Inquiries Patricia Overmeyer EPA Office of Brownfield Cleanup and Redevelopment.
By Ben Bentkowski, P.G. Scientific Support Section, R4 Superfund Presented at the March 29, 2016 Air & Waste Management Association Regulatory Update Conference.
Vapor Study Informational Meeting General Mills/Henkel Corp. Superfund Site Van Cleve Recreation Center November 12, 2013 Minnesota Department of Health.
Brownfields 2004, “Light or Heavy Starch: Cleaning the Cleaners” September 2004 Presented by Matt Shurtliff Roosevelt Towne Apartments.
The World of AUL Presentation by: Atul Pandey, P.E. PANDEY Environmental, LLC 2016 Ohio Brownfield Conference April 7, 2016.
Institutional Controls in Pennsylvania’s Brownfields Program Presented by: Jill Gaito Director, Brownfields Action Team Office of Community Revitalization.
Welcome to the World of AUL Avoiding the voidance of your CNS.
What’s the Problem: The Vapor Intrusion Issue Brownfields 2008 Heavy Starch: Cleaning the Dry Cleaners Detroit, MI May 5, 2008 Presented by: Henry Schuver,
ASTM Standard Practice for Assessment of Vapor Intrusion Into Structures on Property Involved in Real Estate Transactions: Status Report presented by Anthony.
ASTM E1527 (Phase I Environmental Site Assessments) ASTM E1528 (Transaction Screen Process) ASTM 1903 (Phase II Environmental Site Assessments) ASTM Standards.
Brownfields 101: Liability EPA Brownfields 2006 Conference November 12, 2006 Barbara Kessner Landau, Esq. Bernstein, Cushner & Kimmell, P.C.
Proposed Plan for No Further Action
Minnesota CLE June Webcast Extravaganza Environmental Law Basics for the Business and Real Estate Practitioner Joseph G. Maternowski, Hessian & McKasy,
Chemical Metals Industries, Inc. (CMI)
Sean Anderson, P.Eng., QPESA Steve Russell, B.Sc., QPRA
Jay Peters Gina M. Plantz Richard J. Rago
UNC Superfund Research Program
Hold Your Breath—Ohio EPA’s TCE Initiative
A&WMA Regulatory Conference Symposium UST Risk Based Corrective Action
Chemical Metals Industries, Inc. (CMI)
Environmental Considerations prior to purchasing Properties
Presentation transcript:

Pennsylvania Brownfields 2013 PRACTICAL APPROACH TO MANAGING THE UNCERTAINTIES OF VAPOR INTRUSION IN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS December 10, 2013 Christopher M. Roe, Esq. Vincent M. Carbone, P.G. Presented by

Introductions Christopher Roe, Esq. Mr. Roe is co-chair of the Environmental Practice of Fox Rothschild. He represents and counsels clients on a wide range of environment-related matters, including VI investigations and sales of property with VI risks in several states. He filed comments on USEPA’s April 2013 Draft VI Guidance, serves on a VI subcommittee of the Pa. CSSAB, and assisted ASTM with its vapor encroachment guide and its revised Phase I standard. Vincent Carbone, P.G. Mr. Carbone is a senior geologist and Due Diligence Technical Service Lead at HDR with over 20 years of experience in hazardous waste and petroleum spill site investigations and remediation in eastern United States. 2

Our Goals To provide:  Latest on federal and state vapor intrusion guidance and regulations  Insights on how to identify risk and reduce uncertainty in evaluating properties for acquisition  Information the developer needs to understand to manage vapor intrusion during site redevelopment  Opportunity to ask and get answers to questions from both a lawyer and a consultant Dialogue and Questions are encouraged. 3

Overview – Federal Developments USEPA Vapor Intrusion Website ( ) : Background Indoor Air Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in North American Residences (1990–2005): A Compilation of Statistics for Assessing Vapor Intrusion, June 2011 Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Chlorinated Hydrocarbons Differ in Their Potential for Vapor Intrusion, September 2011 Conceptual Model Scenarios for the Vapor Intrusion Pathway, February 2012 Superfund Vapor Intrusion FAQs, February 2012 Evaluation and Characterization of Attenuation Factors for Chlorinated Volatile Organic Compounds and Residential Buildings, March 16, 2012 Vapor Intrusion Screening Level (VISL) Calculator; User’s Guide, March 2012 Assessing Protectiveness at Sites for Vapor Intrusion, Supplement to the “Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance,” OSWER Directive Indoor Air Vapor Intrusion Mitigation Approaches Vapor Intrusion Database 4

5 Overview -- Federal Developments IRIS Health Risk Assessments for TCE and PCE Short Term Non-Cancer Action Levels and Guidance for TCE Proposed Hazard Ranking System Amendment

OSWER VI Guidance – Key Issues Scope -- Where Is VI Evaluation Needed?  Potential vapors/potential buildings  No bright lines – distance/phasing and worst case  Unrealistic screening levels  Brownfields and AAI? Duration -- How Much Study Is Enough?  Multiple lines v. screening values  Multiple locations/multiple rounds  Worst case conditions – HVAC off Significance -- Characterizing Risk  Cancer/Non-Cancer/Short-term/Long Term  Background/Indoor sources  OSHA and other Understanding -- Communicating about Risk and Results Opportunity -- Gaining Access – In light of all of the above Challenges to Mitigation Option – Monitoring and Legal Mechanisms 6

OUST PVI Guidance for UST Sites 7

8 State Developments -- Pennsylvania Statewide Health Standard  VI exposures are not considered in development Statewide Health MSCs  § : “The final report must include, as appropriate, an assessment of the vapor intrusion pathway.”  Land Recycling Program TGM, Section IV.A.4, Vapor Intrusion into Buildings from Groundwater and Soil under the Act 2 Statewide Health Standard, Jan. 24, 2004 Site Specific Standard – VI one exposure pathway Land Recycling Program Q&A Database, Category: Vapor Intrusion Preliminary Draft Revision of SHS VI Guidance, Mar (generally):  Where gw meets used aquifer standard (or new gw to indoor air screening values) – no further evaluation – if not, evaluation required for inhabited buildings within 100 feet of elevated level (unless preferential pathway)  Soil contamination more complicated, general distrust of soil screening values  Evaluation options include gw to indoor air modeling; sub-slab sampling (10x attenuation); at least two rounds of indoor air  Distrust of external soil gas, only for offsite when building access unavailable  Option to go straight to mitigation and covenant in lieu of study  Evaluation for release of liability limited to existing buildings  Environmental covenant or re-openers can be used to address new buildings

Scope -- Where Is VI Evaluation Needed? From the beginning… Sales Agreement – Legal Review  Appropriate Scope of Diligence and Disclosures  Reps and Warranties  Indemnification  Escrow/Price Reduction  Buyer-Seller Agreements/Covenants Appropriate Due Diligence – Technical Review  Does your EP have VI experience?  ASTM  Scope of additional work 9

Vapor/Phase I’s and the Revision of ASTM E 1527 Revised ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process (“E 1527 ‑ 13”) issued Nov. 6; EPA AAI rule change expected this year.  Definition of migrate/migration was added primarily for reference to vapors  Indoor air quality non-scope item has been clarified as limited to air quality unrelated to a Superfund release  References to E , Vapor Encroachment Standard Guide Does E require vapor intrusion evaluation -- No -- or a vapor encroachment analysis using E , Standard Guide for Vapor Encroachment Screening on Property Involved in Real Estate Transactions? No. Should environmental professionals consider vapor in performing Phase I’s? Yes.  Vapor intrusion evaluations are beyond the level of information/analysis in a Phase I.  Speculating about VI should not be part of a Phase I report.  E Standard Guide for Vapor Encroachment is not part of AAI or a Phase I.  Nothing in E carves hazardous substances in vapor form out of recognized environmental condition ("REC") (or AAI or CERCLA jurisdiction).  Developments in VI science and related regulations/guidance should inform professionals' judgments about: 1) whether hazardous substances are likely present; 2) whether a volatile can be considered a de minimis condition. Phase I Report (-05 or -13) should not disclaim all consideration of vapors. 10

Scope Where Is VI Evaluation Needed? What we need to know…. Residential or Commercial? Regulatory Status  Act 2  Deed Restrictions  Engineering or Institutional Controls Future Intended Use  Re-use or re-development?  Manufacturing?  School? Timeframe for Redevelopment or Reuse 11

Duration -- How Much Study Is Enough? Previous Reports and Investigations... Things to Consider.... Soil Data and Depth  Soil stratigraphy – Are Soils Clean?  Vadose Zone Groundwater Data and Depth  Hydrogeology & depth to water table  Plume location and movement Exposure Routes  Preferential Pathways  Receptors? Soil/Gas Data  Sub Slab/Breathing Zone Sampling  Multiple lines v. screening values  Multiple locations/multiple rounds  Worst case conditions – HVAC off  Limits of source area and contaminates of concern Data Collection vs. Remediation  Extra data is not necessarily meaningful data  Remediation: Passive and Active venting systems, existing & potential future buildings Construction of buildings Type of HVAC system 12

Significance – Characterizing/Communicating Risk Risk Analysis  Cancer/Non-Cancer/Short-term/Long Term  Background/Indoor sources  OSHA and other Communicating about Risk and Results  To agencies  To building users (buyers, tenants, employees, tenants)  To the community 13

What You Should Know VI science and VI regulation are still changing You can’t necessarily rely on old risk determinations, including under Act 2, especially at solvent sites Chlorinateds more of a concern than petroleum VI studies and results can generate significant concerns about health EPA may soon raise stakes higher for TCE More data may generate more questions and not provide answers VI can be effectively mitigated in new construction and often in existing buildings VI mitigation may require a legal as well as technical mechanism 14

What You Should Do Engage consultants and counsel who understand and appreciate VI complications Be alert to chlorinated solvents at the property and adjoining properties If volatiles are present, require re-evaluation of NFAs or Act 2 sign-offs Only allow or require thoughtful testing Encourage mitigation rather than study 15

16 Contact Information Christopher M. Roe, Esq Vincent M. Carbone, P.G Bloomberg BNA Environment Report, Lawyers’ View of EPA’s Draft Final Guidance for Vapor Intrusion: Public Comments Are Needed to Advocate for a More Practical Approach Fox Rothschild LLP Public Comment Submission on OSWER Guidance: