New Jersey-Hazardous Discharge Site Remediation Fund (HDSRF) Update-July 2016

Remedial cases in New Jersey in New Jersey often stall out due to the lack of available funds.  This is no secret, as the costs to investigate and/or remediate cases thought to be relatively benign can sometimes sky-rocket 10x, and no responsible party (or homeowner) wants to get that news.  In similar fashion, when looking for some form of assistance or relief from the state, there was the similar doom & gloom scenario where no money was available, or the funds were all dried up.  However, recent inquiries by Cardinal Environmental Consulting to the NJDEP have produced a shimmer of hope with the Hazardous Discharge Site Remediation Fund (HDSRF)…and ultimately a few of our clients.

The HDSRF fund is doing quite well with about $12 million remaining through June 2016, with another $11 million coming in July.  Review times are averaging about 30 days; however, there is still a lengthy backlog so the number one tip that we give all our clients is:

 1.      Assess whether they qualify and if so, get an application in as quickly as possible. 

Applications may take some time to complete, as a number of things are required (e.g. remedial cost estimates, funding type, demonstrated need, etc.) but be sure to take full advantage of the HDSRF County Coordinators.  They are always available to assist with the applications, and are excellent resources.  Allocating valuable time and a relatively small monetary investment to get through the process could save you thousands of dollars later on, so don’t delay!

At Cardinal Environmental, we have the experience to get you through your remedial situation and provide realistic costs up-front, regardless of the size, or scope.  Additionally, with over two decades in the industry, we have established relationships in the environmental community to get your project on a cost-effective remedial course that meets your long-term goals. For further information on how we can assist you with remedial funding solutions and/or LSRP services, please don’t hesitate to contact us at tfrancis@cardinalLSRP.com or www.cardinalLSRP.com. 

Photo of Lake Pemberton, NJ /  Courtesy of Kimberly Green Kaeser

New Jersey Residential Underground Storage Tanks: Contractor Tips Volume 1: “Contracts”

Last month, Cardinal Environmental Consulting discussed the topic of Unregulated Heating Oil Tanks (UHOT) in New Jersey, and the forthcoming legislation that will allow for small amounts of contamination to be left behind (see New Jersey Unregulated Heating Oil Tanks & The Deed Notice “Light”), but for this post, we decided it was important to list some key points for homeowners to consider when having an Underground Storage Tank (UST) removed and some tips to be aware of when hiring a contractor:                                                                            

• Ensure that the UST contractor you’re hiring is certified & insured…and ask for copies.
• Ensure that the UST contractor calls for a utility mark-out (and get a copy of the mark-out ticket). It’s the law in New Jersey.
• Let your contractor know where all of the “private” utilities are on your property beforehand, including irrigation and electric lines if you know where they are.  Contractors are not (and shouldn’t be) responsible for unknown utilities…but they are very skilled and avoiding them if they are told ahead of time.
• Read the fine print at the end of the contract.  Often times a residential UST contractor will provide a price to coordinate, remove, and dispose of the UST only.  If contaminated soils are identified, it will be an added cost to remediate.  For example: If the contract price you received says $5,000…that doesn’t usually include the excavation, transportation, and disposal of contaminated soils.  However, ask what will happen if contaminated soils are discovered, and discuss the price per ton if soils need to be excavated.  This generally ranges between $75 and $95 per ton. 
• Analysis costs for soil samples are often not included. Waste classification (WC) samples are sometimes collected, but the actual analysis may be an added cost. Discuss sampling and analysis prior to selecting your contractor. Note: the WC samples are used to let a disposal facility know what they are “accepting.” 

And last, but not least:

• Have the contractor include the cost to include mats or other means of protecting your lawn when the work is being performed. This includes keeping the removed UST on heavy plastic after it’s pulled.  It’s understandable that there may be some minor disturbances to the grass and/or ground surface, but there’s no reason for two (2) foot deep ruts!

As we’ve stressed in the past, there are many good, reputable environmental consulting and contracting firms that do honest work and put in the effort to minimize the stress of removing USTs, however, you should also understand the proposed scope of work and costs, prior to signing any contract.  Understand what you’re paying for and what the expectations are.  Stay tuned for future discussions on this topic as there are plenty of items to cover!

At Cardinal Environmental, we have the experience to get you through your remedial situation and provide realistic costs up-front, regardless of the size, or scope.  Additionally, with over two decades in the industry, we have established relationships in the environmental community to get your project on a cost-effective remedial course that meets your long-term goals. For further information on how we can assist you with Underground Storage Tank solutions and/or LSRP services, please don’t hesitate to contact us at tfrancis@cardinalLSRP.com or www.cardinalLSRP.com. 

SRPLB Rule Adoption Review- Volume V: Responsibilities of Successor LSRPs

On January 4th, 2016, newly adopted rules by the New Jersey-Site Remediation Professional Licensing Board-N.J.A.C. 7:26I ("Regulations of the New Jersey Site Remediation Professional Licensing Board") were published in the NJ State Register.  The effective date is January 4th, 2016 / expiration date is January 4th, 2023.  This is the fifth part of this blog series where we continue to look at some of the changes, and look at the public comments / questions and Board responses...and try to "simplify" what they mean.  For this post, we’ll take a brief look at the responsibilities of a “Successor” Licensed Site Remediation Professional (LSRP), as discussed in the General Comments section of the Adoption Document: 

N.J.A.C. 7:26I-6.7 Responsibility of Successor LSRP

52. COMMENT: The commenters opine that the Board requires a successor LSRP to question and potentially "redo" the work of a previous LSRP in N.J.A.C. 7:26I-6.7. This will result in duplication of prior work and potentially greatly increase the costs of a remediation. The Board should revise the proposed new rules to reflect that a new LSRP may utilize his or her professional judgment to determine if any deficiencies in work previously done by another LSRP are valid environmental concerns that will impact the effectiveness of the remediation to protect public health and safety and the environment. A new LSRP should only "redo" previous work when there is a legitimate and justifiable environmental concern. (8, 9, and 17).

RESPONSE: The Board agrees with the commenters that a successor LSRP should have discretion to determine when work completed by a previous site remediation professional may be relied on. However, the Board believes the commenters are incorrect that N.J.A.C. 7:26I-6.7 requires a successor LSRP to "redo" or duplicate the work of a previous LSRP. N.J.A.C. 7:26I-6.7(a) specifically provides that a successor LSRP may complete any phase of remediation based on the work of another LSRP, provided that the successor LSRP abides by the requirements of paragraphs (a) 1, 2, and 3. A successor LSRP is responsible for correcting deficiencies in documents submitted by previous site remediation professionals, including deficiencies identified by the Department or the LSRP himself or herself. It is incumbent upon the LSRP to use his or her professional judgment to identify deficiencies not identified by the Department in documents that warrant correction. Although correcting a deficiency may indeed require additional work and expenditure of additional funds, such measures may be necessary to protect public health and safety and the environment. However, the Board recognizes that there may be deficiencies that are not "material" to the remediation, and that the LSRP is in the best position to evaluate deficiencies and whether or not they are material, and thus warrant correcting. Therefore, the Board will add "material" before "deficiencies" in N.J.A.C. 7:26I-6.7(b).

The Board notes that N.J.A.C. 7:26I-6.7(c) includes the term "material" in referring to "facts, data, or other information concerning any phase of the remediation for which a report was submitted to the Department." The term "material" indicates that the LSRP should evaluate the facts, data, and other information and decide if they are significant or relevant or important to "any phase of the remediation." The Board disagrees that only those facts, data, and other information that are so important that failure to disclose them will impact the effectiveness of the remediation to protect public health and safety and the environment warrant notification. However, the LSRP does have the discretion to use his or her professional judgment to decide if the facts, data, and other information are material and, thus, to decide if they warrant notification. Therefore, the Board declines to make any additional revisions to the proposed new rules as the commenter suggests

What does that really mean?  Again, to simplify the matter...an LSRP is required to correct all “material” deficiencies in prior submittals by site remediation professionals.  These could be reports by LSRPs or non-LSRPs.  The key factor here is the use of “Professional Judgment,” which will vary between individuals, and was discussed in our prior blog topic “LSRPs & Professional Judgment.” In the environmental consulting world, professional judgment will dictate how much “supportive” information, or lines of evidence, are necessary to render a decision.  However, does that mean you need to re-create or re-do the prior work of the previous consultant?  Of course not…but you should be prepared to carefully review all available documents, and it is highly recommended that a NJDEP file review be conducted.  Once done, the LSRP can use all of the facts to make a sound decision, and ultimately determine what can be relied on. 

The easiest way to avoid complicating matters, is to complete this first step (which would take a financial and time commitment from the PRCR), and not rush back into the field to start collecting more, and more data (soil, groundwater, etc.) Oftentimes, there is plenty of information already available…you just need to find it.  Conversely, if there are significant gaps in prior reports (or even questionable decisions by regulators from years past) it may be in the best interest of the LSRP to open up their tool box, and be prepared to conduct supplemental field activities.

Stay tuned for future posts as we’ll continue to dissect and try to simplify more items on the new NJDEP SRPLB Rule Adoptions. We hope that you find these posts informative, and relatively useful, and your feedback is always welcome. For further information regarding LSRP services, and/or environmental business practices, please don’t hesitate to contact us at tfrancis@cardinalLSRP.com or www.cardinalLSRP.com. 

New Jersey Unregulated Heating Oil Tanks & The Deed Notice “Light”

There are essentially no bigger headaches when purchasing or selling a residential property, than the infamous Underground Storage Tank (UST).  Whether identified intentionally or unintentionally, the presence of a UST stirs up confusion, and anxiety for all parties involved…realtors included.  Of course, someone always knows “a guy” that can take care of the situation and makes things right, so to speak, but be on the lookout for firms or individuals that are not certified.  In accordance with the Underground Storage of Hazardous Substances Act and UST Rules (N.J.S.A. 58:10A-21, N.J.A.C. 7:14B-16.1)-Individuals or business firms providing services for unregulated heating oil tanks must be certified.  In addition, UST work must be completed in accordance with the New Jersey Uniform Construction Code (NJUCC), and local permits are required prior to the removal of a tank.  Simply put…don’t let the guy, who knows a guy with a backhoe, perform any work on your property without the proper credentials and permits. 

For many practitioners in the environmental consulting world, and the Unregulated Heating Oil Tank (UHOT) community, small heating oil tanks have the potential to cause incredibly costly headaches with remediation fees skyrocketing to well over $100,000 in many cases, just to scrape out every last bit of contaminated soil.  Oftentimes, the chase takes you under a house and structural supports are required, which just adds to the anxiety of a homeowner.  Fortunately, some insurance carriers pick up the tab, but some don’t, and some stick their head in the sand (which is the topic for another day); however, New Jersey is in the process of proposing new rules and guidance that may offer an alternative:  the Deed Notice “Light”

The new rule (“N.J.A.C. 7:26F”) has been in the hopper for several years and is slated to be proposed in the next year. Once promulgated, it would allow for small amounts of residual contamination to remain in-place…with no restrictions and a No Further Action (NFA) issued by the NJ Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP).  Small amounts means ≤ 15 cubic yards (e.g.  +/- 9ft. long x 7.5 ft. deep x 6ft. wide).  In addition, when contamination is not accessible a homeowner will be allowed to pursue a UHOT Deed Notice or the Deed Notice “Light.”  Of course there are many caveats that would need consideration, but this option gives the homeowner an opportunity to put the brakes on “chasing” contamination and end the remediation, with no requirement for NJDEP Remedial Action Permits or future inspections and/or certifications.  It’s estimated that the Deed Notice “Light” would be a less than desirable outcome because it will reduce the value of a property, but when faced with steep remedial expenses, it’s a viable option.  

When the new rule comes out and these options are available for consideration, do yourself a favor and utilize the services of experienced and certified consultants and contractors to help you make a sound decision, and above all else…make sure you don’t use the guy who knows a guy that has a backhoe.  Odds are they are only going to compound the situation. Nobody needs that.

Stay tuned for future updates and musings, as well as others, from Cardinal Environmental. We hope that you find these posts informative, and relatively useful, and your feedback is always welcome. For further information please don't hesitate to contact us at tfrancis@cardinallsrp.com, or www.cardinallsrp.com.  

Don't Overlook Long Term Remedial Costs!

There are numerous occasions throughout New Jersey (and other states or countries for that matter) where the placement of an engineering control is selected as a remedial measure.  Typically, this is agreed to by an owner of the property as part of a remedial action, and can come in many forms including (but not limited to) caps, slurry walls, pavement, vapor barriers, and building slabs.  Even a chain link fence can be considered a viable engineering control, provided access to the “restricted area” is eliminated or reduced.   

As expected, the cost to implement a specific measure is contingent upon the type of contaminant, size of the affected area, and the long-term or end-use of the property. Capital costs can be quite steep for some complicated applications, but most estimators are quite adept at identifying them up front (and are careful to add a hefty contingency…just in case).  However, there are times when even the most skilled estimator gets hung up on the details of the remedy AND overlooks the long-term Operating & Maintenance (O&M) costs associated with the project. These costs, combined with regulatory fees could end up exceeding the actual costs of the remedy, especially for those that are on the smaller scale.

 Here’s a brief example:  

Commercial Site (Contaminant of Concern: Historic Fill)

Installation of Engineering Control (25,000 SF of Asphalt Pavement, Clean Fill, etc.): $150-$200,000

Environmental Consultant Oversight, Project Management, Deed Notice, Reporting, Etc.: $40-60,000

 Long-Term O&M & Permitting

Environmental Consultant Inspections, Project Management, Annual Repairs, Reporting, Etc.: $300-400,000

Remedial Action Permit fees (NJ), Financial Assurance (FA), Etc.: $75-$150,000

All things considered, the primary reason for the significant “long-term” cost is essentially that the remedy must be maintained for the life of the engineering control or for a 30-year duration.  Now, would it have made more economical sense to simply remove and/or treat the affect area rather than continually paying those fees…year…after year…after year?  Possibly.  For larger properties with much more significant environmental liabilities, long-term costs may be insignificant compared to the anticipated ROI. In either scenario, it is incumbent upon all practitioners (e.g. environmental professionals, engineers, property owners, developers, etc.) to capture all remedial costs early in the process…even the “lifetime” costs associated with a restricted use remedy.  **It’s also extremely beneficial for professionals in the real estate industry to have a generalized knowledge of the potential costs in their selected location and area of expertise.

Stay tuned for future posts on this topic in the upcoming weeks…as there are plenty of lessons and unique observations to be shared, which could ultimately make our jobs easier and each of us a little wiser as we move to revitalize those properties in the need of the most help.

We hope that you find these posts informative, and relatively useful, and your feedback is always welcome. For further information, or for assistance on your next project, please don't hesitate to contact us at tfrancis@cardinallsrp.com, or www.cardinalLSRP.com.

N.J.A.C. 7:26I- SRPLB Rule Adoption Review- Volume IV: Deviation from Technical Guidance

On January 4th, 2016, newly adopted rules by the New Jersey-Site Remediation Professional Licensing Board-N.J.A.C. 7:26I ("Regulations of the New Jersey Site Remediation Professional Licensing Board") were published in the NJ State Register.  The effective date is January 4th, 2016 / expiration date is January 4th, 2023.  This is the fourth part of the blog series where we continue to look at some of the changes, and look at the public comments / questions and Board responses...and try to "simplify" what they mean.  For this post, we’ll take a brief look at Professional Competency (of a Licensed Site Remediation Professional-LSRP) and deviation from technical guidance, as discussed in the General Comments section of the Adoption Document: 

N.J.A.C. 7:26I-6.3 Professional Competency

47. COMMENT: The commenters state that proposed N.J.A.C. 7:26I-6.3(c) requires an LSRP to explain why Department technical guidance is "inappropriate or unnecessary" if not used. The SRRA does not authorize this requirement and thus it exceeds the Board's authority. This section should be modified to remove the requirement that an LSRP provide a written rationale concerning why the technical guidance issued by the Department is inappropriate or unnecessary, and instead require the LSRP to explain the rationale for use and provide adequate justification to document that the decisions made remain protective of public health and safety and the environment. (8 and 17)

RESPONSE: The Board disagrees that it exceeded its authority including this requirement in its proposed new rules. The Legislature included a requirement for the LSRP to set forth the justification for using either U.S. EPA guidance or other relevant, applicable, and appropriate methods and practices, and the Board has reflected that requirement in its proposed new rules. Furthermore, there is nothing in the SRRA that supports the commenters' contention that while the Legislature took pains to specifically identify certain requirements that ensure the protection of the public health and safety and the environment, that it intended to have an LSRP simply ignore them without comment or justification. Consequently, the proposed new rules require that the LSRP include in the appropriate report a written rationale that explains why the technical guidance issued by the Department is inappropriate or unnecessary to meet the remediation requirements and which justifies the use of the guidance or methods that were utilized. This requirement is in sync with the Technical Requirements for Site Remediation (N.J.A.C. 7:26E-1 et seq.) and the Administrative Requirements for Site Remediation (N.J.A.C. 7:26C-1 et seq.). (see N.J.A.C. 7:26E-1.5, which requires that "any person conducting remediation pursuant to this chapter shall apply, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:26C-1.2(a)3, any available and appropriate technical guidance concerning site remediation as issued by the Department, or shall provide a written rationale and justification for any deviation from guidance.") Therefore, the Board declines to revise the proposed new rules as the commenters suggest.

What does that really mean?  Again, to simplify the matter...an LSRP is required to justify why there was a deviation from applicable NJDEP guidance when conducting an investigation, remediation, etc.  Most practitioners in New Jersey conduct themselves with the utmost integrity and honesty, and keep protection of human health, safety, and the environment there top priority; however, there are over twenty (20) technical guidance documents in New Jersey and the NJDEP Field Sampling Procedures Manual is over five-hundred pages (500)…so the odds of deviating from guidance are pretty high…and really not quite as simple as one would hope or expect.  Similarly, from a business perspective, if one were to follow every detail in every “guidance,” the potential costs for an otherwise routine project could be significant…and potentially cause a prospective client to search for less expensive options. 

Fortunately, technical guidance is (on most occasions) relatively easy to abide by, with deviations generally minor and easy to (technically) justify.  Professional judgement and experience(s) will always vary between individuals, and there is more than enough information available outside of New Jersey to support a remedial decision that deviates from guidance including technical documents from the EPA, ITRC, and ASTM (to name a few), all of which should become part of an LSRP’s toolbox.  More importantly, the easiest way to avoid having a remedial phase report scrutinized, or even having your Response Action Outcome (RAO) potentially rescinded, is to simply “explain” the reason for the deviation in your submission(s) and provide the appropriate technical document to back it up.  Generally the time requirement is minimal, and would save you from a lot of headaches later on…and save you or client a lot of money.   

Stay tuned for future posts as we’ll continue to dissect and try to simplify more items on the new NJDEP SRPLB Rule Adoptions.

We hope that you find these posts informative, and relatively useful, and your feedback is always welcome. For further information regarding LSRP services, and/or environmental business practices, please don’t hesitate to contact us at tfrancis@cardinalLSRP.com or www.cardinalLSRP.com.

N.J.A.C. 7:26I-SRPLB Rule Adoption Review- Vol. I

On January 4th, 2016, newly adopted rules by the New Jersey-Site Remediation Professional Licensing Board-N.J.A.C. 7:26I ("Regulations of the New Jersey Site Remediation Professional Licensing Board") were published in the NJ State Register.  The effective date is January 4th, 2016 / expiration date is January 4th, 2023.  As part of this series we'll take a brief look at some of the changes, and also take a look at the public comments / questions and Board responses...and try to "simplify" what they mean. 

N.J.A.C. 7:26I-6.10 Responsibility to Report a Discharge

60. COMMENT: The commenter questions whether N.J.A.C. 7:26I-6.10(a) requires an LSRP to report an unrelated discharge on an off-site property that he or she discovers while delineating a plume originating on-site. For example, if the contaminated site the LSRP is remediating has a BTEX plume, but an offsite well placed by the LSRP indicates VOC contamination, should the LSRP report it? (18)
 

RESPONSE: Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:26I-6.10(a), an LSRP has an obligation to report a previously unreported discharge when the LSRP obtains specific knowledge that a discharge has occurred on a contaminated site for which he or she is responsible. "Contaminated site" is defined by the Technical Requirements for Site Remediation as "all portions of environmental media and any location where contamination is emanating, or which has emanated there from, that contain one or more contaminants at a concentration above any remediation standard or screening criterion." See N.J.A.C. 7:26E-1.8. A contaminated site does not stop at the property boundary. The commenter presumes that because a monitoring well is not within the property boundary, it is not on the contaminated site, and, therefore, the LSRP is not responsible for it. That does not comport with the definition of "contaminated site" quoted above. The Board expects an LSRP to report any discharges on a contaminated site that were not previously reported.

What does that really mean?  Again, to simplify the matter...if contamination is detected in an "off-site" monitoring well it must be reported.  That's the easy explanation as to what must be done.  The difficult explanation is with the off-site property owner that had no idea they had (or expected to have) a groundwater contamination issue.  Now they are potentially a Responsible Party, if the contamination at their property is unrelated to the contamination at their neighbor's property.  To avoid surprises later, it is highly recommended that proper communication / discussions take place well in advance, and that access agreements are agreed upon prior to installing any off-site monitoring wells and collecting any samples. Retaining a skilled environmental attorney would also be beneficial, as off-site contamination matters (and the finger-pointing) often times get muddled in regulation and litigation, and ultimately stall out site and/or remedial investigations, thus complicating matters even further.

Stay tuned for future posts as we'll dissect and try to simplify more items on the NJDEP SRPLB Rule Adoptions.  

We hope that you find these posts informative, and relatively useful, and your feedback is always welcom.  For further information regarding environmental investigations and/or environmental business practices, please don't hesitate to contact us at tfrancis@cardinaLSRP.com or www.cardinalLSRP.com. 

Revival On Bayonne's West Side

After being stalled out for several years due to the 2008 recession, it's nice to see that Baker Residential is ready to re-start its redevelopment of the former Hi-Hat Caterers Club on Bayonne's west side.   The Hi-Hat was a fixture in Bayonne for several decades, and the tenants of the future residential development will be able to enjoy a gem on Bayonne's west side...Richard Rutkowski Park...named after the former owner of the Hi-Hat, and former Mayor of Bayonne.

Is Your Consultant Finding a Solution?

The length of an environmental investigation, review, or remediation will vary.  Nothing surprising there, as each site has its own specific details that will ultimately impact decision making and outcomes; however, how do you assess whether your environmental consultant is actually finding a solution, or merely complicating an otherwise simple situation…or trying to increase their sales numbers?   The easiest answer is determine how long your project is taking.  One (1) month? One (1) year? Ten (10) years?  Like anything, the longer cases or projects drag on (and they sometimes do), the greater the impact on your bottom-line. Again, nothing surprising there, but here are some basic items/questions for consideration:

• Has your consultant outlined the path forward for your project?
• Does your consultant show inconsistencies in their decision-making?
• Are there discrepancies in invoicing?
• Is your consultant readily available to answer questions or….are they generally slow to respond?

Answer these questions early on in the process, and you should be able to gauge the direction of your project…and potentially be able to correct course before disaster strikes.  However, when confronted with a potentially costly remedial effort, the unfortunate truth is that many responsible parties generally feel that they are at the mercy of their consultant and are hesitant to correct deficiencies, or simply ask the difficult questions.  Spin this another way, and ask yourself how you’d like a medical professional to handle your personal situation. The similarities are striking.

Much like we’ve discussed in our earlier posts, getting from Point A to Point B in a remedial project should be discussed early on so that the process is clearly mapped out along with the anticipated costs and contingencies, as nobody likes surprises (unless it’s your birthday…but even that’s debatable). The simplest way to avoid a potential significant (“negative”) impact on your project is to have Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, and Time-Related objectives.  That’s right folks…SMART goals. Pretty common in the business world, and very relevant in the environmental industry.  By utilizing this basic approach, you should be able to assess whether your consultant is working on your behalf, and finding solutions, or if they are simply making your project their cash cow. 

We hope that you find these posts informative, and relatively useful, and your feedback is always welcome.  For further information regarding environmental remediation and/or environmental business practices, please don't hesitate to contact us.  tfrancis@cardinallsrp.com

Background Contamination-Vapor Intrusion Investigations-Volume IV

As a continuation of our Vapor Intrusion Investigation (VII) series, it is vital to understand the residence / structure you are investigating prior to the collection of Indoor Air (IA) samples, and more importantly what may be stored and/or used by the occupants. For this, post we’ll take a quick look at a common household contaminant that could show up in your analysis…and leave the investigator scratching their head.  (As always, there is plenty of research, data, and guidance on this topic but the objective of this series is to simplify the discussion using typical and “hypothetical” scenarios).  

For this post, our objective is the collection of IA samples, and to identify whether a connection (or complete VI pathway) exists to the reported tetrachloroethylene (“PCE”) groundwater contamination nearby. The potential fears associated with the results of IA sampling include reduced property value and the impact on your kids’ health, so it’s understandable that some (if not most) homeowners are reluctant to follow-through, and allow such a test.  This is where experienced professionals usually excel…as they are typically able to effectively communicate and provide the sampling rationale with occupants, and conduct a thorough indoor air quality survey (or questionnaire) to identify potential background contaminants.    

Similar to prior posts, most technicians want to get in and get out, set up the required sampling canister, and not be hindered by having to complete a survey and inventory every potential indoor air contaminant. This can be time consuming, but there’s always value to being methodical.  

Start with the why: A poorly conducted indoor air survey will inhibit an investigator’s ability to assess whether sample results are “representative” of actual vapor intrusion conditions, or merely the result of background compounds or contaminants. As we’ve stressed in prior posts, this is why hiring that skilled practitioner is a good idea…as they’ll understand the value in spending the extra time completing a survey and product inventory, and also communicating with the occupant(s).    

Correlation of Results: Upon completion of a “properly” conducted IA sampling event, which included the collection of an ambient (outside) air sample, basement, first floor and second floor sample, numerous compounds were detected in the (EPA Method) TO-15 analyses including PCE.  PCE is the primary contaminant of concern in this scenario and was identified above action levels in a nearby groundwater monitoring well, and from a subsurface soil-gas sample collected in the basement.  With this information, it’s then up to the investigator to evaluate if the VII pathway is “complete.”  A quick look at the PCE data revealed the following:

• MW-1 (groundwater): 75(ug/L)
• Sub-Slab Soil Gas: 620 (ug/m3)
• Basement-Indoor Air: 0.6 (ug/m3)
• First Floor-Indoor Air: 10.2 (ug/m3)
• Second Floor-Indoor Air: 7.6 (ug/m3)
• Ambient (outside) Air: Not Detected.

The groundwater and sub-slab soil gas results displayed fairly high levels of PCE (which are likely above state action levels), but the indoor air results tell a different story. The expected highest concentrations of PCE would have been in the basement, not the first or second floors.  The first floor result is also potentially above an indoor air screening level.  At this point the experienced investigator would have to refer back to the completed building survey and product inventory to determine what potential background sources were present, and if the occupants followed the instructions that were provided (e.g. use of fireplaces, air fresheners, cleaning products, etc.).  IF the survey and inventory was completed properly, and IF the occupants were forthright, the answers will come quickly and potential follow-up activities and decisions (including any regulatory reporting) could be completed without delay.

For this scenario, no recent dry cleaned clothes were brought to the residence, no individuals worked at facilities where PCE may be used (and inadvertently brought home), and no interior cleaning products were used. However, the occupants indicated that they didn’t use air fresheners; but they frequently used various types of scented candles on both floors AND mistakenly used a scented candle on the first floor at the time of the sampling event.  Unbeknownst to some, scented candles may contain several organic compounds including (but not limited to) PCE, Formaldehyde, Acetaldehyde, Naphthalene, and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs).  Based on this information, and also due to elevated levels of Formaldehyde in the IA analyses, the logical conclusion in this scenario was to attribute the indoor PCE concentrations to the background contaminant, and not the nearby groundwater contamination.  More importantly, the Vapor Intrusion pathway was deemed incomplete, and mitigation was not unwarranted (using the state’s regulations and guidelines). 

Although mitigation is not warranted, staying abreast of remedial activities in the neighborhood, and the actions of responsible parties, would be advisable based on the contaminant concentrations in the groundwater and the sub-slab soil gas.  Re-testing may also be recommended if any changes occur in the residence that could complete the VI pathway (e.g. installation of a sump pit, french drain, etc.).  Additionally (and unofficially), providing some literature to the occupants on the long-term use of candles (and other indoor air contaminants including mothballs, nail polish, etc.) may also be a nice gesture!

In future posts for this VII series, we’ll take a look at some mitigation options, and elaborate on “effective communication techniques” with homeowners.  Stay tuned.  

We hope that you find these posts informative, and relatively useful, and your feedback is always welcome. For further information regarding the Vapor Intrusion Investigation process, please don't hesitate to contact us. tfrancis@cardinallsrp.com     

DowDupont Merger "Environmental" Expectations

With news of the merger / $130Billion "Megadeal" between Dupont and Dow Chemical, and proposal to split into three groups (specialty products, agriculture, materials), job reductions are anticipated, 16 directors would be established, and shareholders would hold 50% of DowDupont.  However, what should be expected for the environmental liabilities associated with each "former" Giant?  Should we expect the same optimism for Pompton Lakes that was presented for Dupont's proposed Chemours spinoff company earlier in the year?   How about in West Virginia?  Realistically, let’s hope that there are minimal delays in the remedial progress (including assignments of the remedial managers), as the corporate lawyers, regulators, consultants, and experts sort it out, and most importantly let's hope that the safety (and future) of those that are/were directly affected from past environmental releases are kept paramount.