The recent changes to the ASTM E1527-13 standard may affect turnaround time and costs of Phase I environmental site assessments (ESA), PM Environmental says.
The ASTM updates consist of simplifications, clarifications and increased detail or guidance on provisions that were already in E1527-05. They are intended to allow environmental professionals (EPs) to better discuss and categorize concerns found during the completion of Phase I ESAs.
Modification 1: Regulatory File Reviews
Previously, EPs performing Phase I ESAs were not required to perform regulatory file reviews. The new standard states the EP “should” review pertinent regulatory files or justify the reason why the regulatory file was not reviewed.
How does this affect you?
Known scope of work: This may simplify comparing the price and delivery time of a Phase I ESA. For some companies, including PM, file reviews are standard procedure. Others, however, can leave this step out to provide a lower cost bid. Make sure to compare “apples to apples” bids.
Increased costs: Reviewing regulatory files often increases the cost of a Phase I ESA. This is why some companies that do not do it as part of their standard scope of services appear to have lower prices.
More thorough information: Reviewing regulatory files often results in more thorough information, allowing the EP to make conclusions and eliminate Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs).
Longer turnaround time: In many instances, reviewing regulatory files may extend the delivery time for a Phase l ESA. This is due to reviewing the files at regulatory agencies, which takes additional time. The standard industry turnaround time is three to four weeks. Consultants who do not include regulatory file reviews as part of their standard scope of service may offer a shorter lead-time.
Modification 2: Vapor Intrusion
The impact of vapor intrusion is now a consideration when performing Phase I ESAs. Along with soil and groundwater, an EP must consider the contamination in the soil vapor phase. E1527-13 includes vapor in the definition of “migration” and also clarifies that vapor intrusion/migration does not fall under the category of an Indoor Air Quality concern (which is out of the ASTM E1527 scope of work).
How does this affect you?
Phase II ESAs will often include vapor sampling. The EPA and state environmental regulatory agencies have been developing vapor intrusion guidance for the last few years. The change to E1527-13 will result in vapor concerns being evaluated as a relevant contaminant pathway in Phase II ESAs. If vapor impacts are present, costs will increase to monitor and/or mitigate (i.e. engineering controls) to meet due care/continuing obligations.
Modification 3: New Terminology
Several key definitions within E1527-2013 have been added and revised for greater clarity. A key new term is “controlled recognized environmental condition” or “CREC.” The CREC definition can be used to describe a site that has been cleaned up but not to unrestricted use criteria, and it remains restricted for certain applications (such as building an apartment complex or housing unit), unlike an HREC (historical recognized environmental condition) where a site has unrestricted use.
How does this affect you?
The new term gives EPs more flexibility in describing RECs and assessing whether the REC is an issue that needs to be dealt with immediately, is a controlled REC that is acceptable based on land use, or is an historical REC that no longer presents an issue.
As discussed in a recent EL Analysts issue, the EPA uses the ASTM E1527-05 standard to determine whether companies have met the “All Appropriate Inquiry” requirement under the Superfund law. The agency is expected to rule by the end of the year on whether both 1527 versions, 2005 or 2013, will be acceptable for that purpose, Pierce Atwood LLP says. Until the EPA officially adopts the new standard, companies should continue to follow the 2005 version to meet the AAI requirement, McGuireWoods LLP says.
