ASTM Standard Practice for Assessment of Vapor Intrusion Into Structures on Property Involved in Real Estate Transactions: Status Report presented by Anthony J. Buonicore, P.E., DEE,QEP Chairman, Environmental Data Resources, Inc. and Chairman, ASTM VI Task Group at Brownfields 2006 Conference Boston, MA November 13-15, 2006

Overview Need for a Standard Need for a Standard Task Group Objective Task Group Objective Methodology Methodology Where We’re Going Where We’re Going

Need for a Standard ASTM E , Section 1.1.1, REC definition…“means the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release…or a material threat of a release…into structures on the property…not intended to include de minimis conditions” ASTM E , Section 1.1.1, REC definition…“means the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release…or a material threat of a release…into structures on the property…not intended to include de minimis conditions” “release” is not defined “release” is not defined

Need for a Standard cont’d ASTM E , Section 13, Non-Scope Considerations… “following [is a]… non- scope consideration… Indoor air quality” ASTM E , Section 13, Non-Scope Considerations… “following [is a]… non- scope consideration… Indoor air quality” “Indoor air quality” is not defined “Indoor air quality” is not defined Vapor intrusion is recognized as an indoor air quality issue Vapor intrusion is recognized as an indoor air quality issue

Need for a Standard cont’d Depending on viewpoint (plaintiff vs. defendant), E 1527 Phase I can be viewed as both including and excluding vapor intrusion Depending on viewpoint (plaintiff vs. defendant), E 1527 Phase I can be viewed as both including and excluding vapor intrusion Confusion must be resolved Confusion must be resolved in addition……… in addition………

Need for a Standard cont’d 19 states already have specific vapor intrusion policies (AK, CA, CO, CT, ID, IN, LA, MA, ME, MI, MN, NH, NJ, NY, OH, OR, PA, SC and WI) – 4 are developing policies (AZ, FL, UT and WA) 19 states already have specific vapor intrusion policies (AK, CA, CO, CT, ID, IN, LA, MA, ME, MI, MN, NH, NJ, NY, OH, OR, PA, SC and WI) – 4 are developing policies (AZ, FL, UT and WA) More states are expected to “get on the bandwagon” and develop vapor intrusion policies More states are expected to “get on the bandwagon” and develop vapor intrusion policies VI concerns impact every state program (RCRA, CERCLA, UST, Dry-cleaning, Brownfields, etc.) VI concerns impact every state program (RCRA, CERCLA, UST, Dry-cleaning, Brownfields, etc.) Properties with NFA letters are being re-opened in NY, CA and NJ because of potential vapor intrusion issues (generally related to chlorinated VOCs) Properties with NFA letters are being re-opened in NY, CA and NJ because of potential vapor intrusion issues (generally related to chlorinated VOCs)

Need for a Standard cont’d Bottom Line… Bottom Line… Vapor intrusion is being perceived as an Vapor intrusion is being perceived as an issue that can impact property valuation and issue that can impact property valuation and therefore needs to be considered in a Phase I therefore needs to be considered in a Phase I (much the same way asbestos or radon is viewed) (much the same way asbestos or radon is viewed)

Liability Implications Vapor intrusion can present liability to: Vapor intrusion can present liability to: environmental consultants who conducted the Phase I (and did not consider vapor intrusion) environmental consultants who conducted the Phase I (and did not consider vapor intrusion) the current property owner and previous property owners the current property owner and previous property owners e.g., when “closed” sites with NFAs are re-opened to investigate vapor intrusion and the need for mitigation e.g., when “closed” sites with NFAs are re-opened to investigate vapor intrusion and the need for mitigation current property owners due to liability arising from tenant suits current property owners due to liability arising from tenant suits

Liability Implications cont’d Vapor intrusion can present liability to: (cont’d) Vapor intrusion can present liability to: (cont’d) insurance companies providing liability coverage to environmental consultants and property owners, and specialized environmental policies such as “re-opener” and “unknown” insurance to these same groups insurance companies providing liability coverage to environmental consultants and property owners, and specialized environmental policies such as “re-opener” and “unknown” insurance to these same groups owners of properties with releases that have been “remediated,” but where vapor intrusion was not considered owners of properties with releases that have been “remediated,” but where vapor intrusion was not considered

Task Group Objective Vapor intrusion specifically as it can impact real estate transactions Vapor intrusion specifically as it can impact real estate transactions Establish (as a supplemental part of the Phase I ESA process) whether or not there is a reasonable probability that VI could present an environmental risk and liability (aka asbestos) Establish (as a supplemental part of the Phase I ESA process) whether or not there is a reasonable probability that VI could present an environmental risk and liability (aka asbestos) Provide guidance on further investigation (Phase II) and mitigation alternatives Provide guidance on further investigation (Phase II) and mitigation alternatives

Methodology Tiered process Tiered process Designed to quickly and cost effectively screen out properties with a low risk of vapor intrusion Designed to quickly and cost effectively screen out properties with a low risk of vapor intrusion Applies to Volatile (V-COC) and Petroleum Product Chemicals of Concern (PP-COC) Applies to Volatile (V-COC) and Petroleum Product Chemicals of Concern (PP-COC) “Concern” based upon volatility and toxicity criteria “Concern” based upon volatility and toxicity criteria As proceed from a Tier 1 to Tier 4 investigation, process becomes more and more site-specific with less and less conservativism As proceed from a Tier 1 to Tier 4 investigation, process becomes more and more site-specific with less and less conservativism

Methodology cont’d First three tiers designed to identify a potential vapor intrusion condition (p-VIC) First three tiers designed to identify a potential vapor intrusion condition (p-VIC) Fourth tier identifies if vapor intrusion condition (VIC) actually results in an indoor air quality level that can threaten human health Fourth tier identifies if vapor intrusion condition (VIC) actually results in an indoor air quality level that can threaten human health From Tier 1 you can proceed to any of the other tiers, or directly to mitigation From Tier 1 you can proceed to any of the other tiers, or directly to mitigation

Where we’re going… December 31, 2006 – Completion of first draft of the ASTM Vapor Intrusion Standard December 31, 2006 – Completion of first draft of the ASTM Vapor Intrusion Standard February 2007 – Draft Standard out for first ballot (within E 50.02) February 2007 – Draft Standard out for first ballot (within E 50.02) April 17-19, 2007 (Norfolk, VA) – Vote on Negatives and prepare second draft for ballot in Summer 2007 April 17-19, 2007 (Norfolk, VA) – Vote on Negatives and prepare second draft for ballot in Summer 2007 October 2-4, 2007 (Tampa, FL) – Vote on Negatives and prepare third draft for ballot, if necessary October 2-4, 2007 (Tampa, FL) – Vote on Negatives and prepare third draft for ballot, if necessary Process Continues Until Consensus Reached (expected by Spring 2008) Process Continues Until Consensus Reached (expected by Spring 2008)