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- Volume III: IEC Reporting

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 third part of this 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 Licensed Site Remediation Professional-LSRP) to report an Immediate Environmental Concern (IEC), as discussed in the General Comments section of the Adoption Document: 

N.J.A.C. 7:26I-6.9 Responsibility to Report an Immediate Environmental Concern

60. COMMENT: The commenter is concerned with the duty to report a discharge by an LSRP that is not retained as the LSRP for a site or area of concern. The commenter opines that an LSRP who is not so retained should not be obligated to act upon information that he or she learns, because he or she would not have all of the necessary information to make any informed regulatory decisions for a potentially complex regulatory action or property transaction. The commenter requests that the Board clarify this issue. (7)

RESPONSE: The commenter asks for clarification of an LSRP's duty of disclosure when the LSRP "comes across information but is not retained as the LSRP for the site [or] area of concern." If an LSRP that is not responsible for a site or area of concern identifies a previously unreported condition that the LSRP considers to be an immediate environmental concern, the LSRP shall immediately advise the person responsible for conducting the remediation and immediately notify the Department, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:26I-6.9. The Board considers it of utmost importance that the LSRP report the existence of the immediate environmental concern in order to protect public health and safety and the environment. It is not necessary for the LSRP to have information to make informed regulatory decisions prior to making such a report. In the case of a contaminated site or area of concern for which the LSRP is responsible, if the LSRP obtains specific knowledge that a previously unreported discharge has occurred on the contaminated site or area of concern, the LSRP shall immediately notify the person responsible for conducting the remediation, the Department, and any other LSRP working on the site, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:26I-6.10.

What does that really mean?  Again, to simplify the matter...an LSRP must report previously unreported discharges for sites for which they are responsible.  Contractually, an LSRP and their client (Person Responsible for Conducting the Remediation) can establish the terms if such an instance arises and make the call to the NJDEP Hotline (1-877-WARNDEP); however, the challenge occurs when the LSRP has not yet been retained or contracted.  For those instances the LSRP still has an obligation to report the IEC in order to protect public health and safety and the environment, regardless of retention or any contractual arrangement(s).  Unfortunately, with that reporting requirement, there is also an increased chance that you could lose a potential client in the process if not handled appropriately.

As outlined in our previous posts; it is highly recommended that proper communication / discussions take place well in advance, so that if there is a potential reporting requirement and/or IEC, it can be addressed in accordance with N.J.A.C 7:26I-6.10.  This is the easiest way to avoid complicating matters, and potentially retain what may be a great client that is looking to “do the right thing.”  Conversely, if the individual or organization is adamant and does not want to report anything, it may be in the best interest of the LSRP (or any environmental consultant for that matter) to not conduct business with them.  Although this would likely impact the financial aspects of the LSRP’s business, it would preserve professional credibility, and also be in line with N.J.A.C. 7:26I-6.14-Responsibility to Disassociate from Unscrupulous Persons. 

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. 

Should Small Businesses Pursue Requests For Proposals (RFP)?

Requests for Proposals (RFPs) come in many forms, from a broad range of organizations with the ultimate goal being to procure the best-valued contractor.  The evaluation criteria is also quite variable, and responses to RFPs mimic this variability. What about Lowest-Price-Technically Acceptable (LPTA) criteria?  What about incumbent bidders and potential advantages?  Small business of all shapes, sizes, and forms sometimes (generally) view RFPs as onerous with low conversion or win rates…but they still pursue them.  Some folks, including Seth Godin mention that “The RFP is an organization punt, it’s way of saying, it’s all a commodity, we can’t decide, the cheap guy wins.  The cheap guy, of course, never wins.”    

So what does that mean for small environmental businesses? 

·       Small businesses can be the “Cheap Guy” and they sometimes can win; however,

·       Understand and know who and where the RFP is coming from,

·       Be wary and selective of all RFPs, Request for Qualifications (RFQs), etc...as you’re being judged on your credentials and cost,

·       The time investment responding to an RFP could be significant to the business, and negatively impact the projects for your other good “paying” clients,

·       Be wary of the organization that severely and consistently underbids RFPs (these organizations undermine the intent of selecting “best-value”),

·       Do a relatively painless “go / no-go” analysis beforehand, and,

·       Know your firm’s competitive advantages over others (including costs) beforehand.

Low-bid contracts can sometimes be disastrous to small businesses, but the biggest success stories (for both the business and organization that puts out the RFP) are from those where there is a mutual understanding of the “goals” of the project, and an understanding that there are many environmental variables that oftentimes aren’t presented until a project is initiated.  That being said, don’t fear the RFP, but know when to pass on an opportunity…and if you do pass, send it along to someone with more interest; you never know when the favor will be returned. Happy hunting!

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

Flint, Michigan Water Disaster

There are plenty of articles on this current, major catastrophe concerning the Flint, Michigan water supply issues, and in the coming months there will be significant ramifications for all involved: Politicians, Michigan DEQ, EPA, Local Officials...but the long-term impacts to the young folks affected is heart-breaking.  For a great article on a different (grounded) perspective, please read this Rolling Stone article from January 22, 2016.

N.J.A.C. 7:26I- SRPLB Rule Adoption Review- Volume II: OPRA Requests

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 second part of this 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, OPRA requests and LSRP's "records" are reviewed: 

General Comments: 

9. COMMENT: The commenter expresses concern with how the public will access the data and records an LSRP holds related to ongoing remediation, and whether such data and records are subject to the Open Public Records Act, as well as when an LSRP should release such data and records. Of particular concern to the commenter is how data and records can be accessed when conducting due diligence in property transactions, for example, pursuant to the "Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process," ASTM E1527-13, which provides guidance for compliance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's "all appropriate inquiry" rule. (7)

RESPONSE: An LSRP's data and records are not "public records" as defined in the Open Public Records Act (OPRA), N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 et seq. As a result, an LSRP has no obligation under OPRA to provide the public with access to his or her records. An OPRA request for such records is available after the LSRP has submitted them to the Department along with a response action outcome. Until that time, the person interested in such records will have to contact either the LSRP or the person responsible for conducting the remediation to gain access to those records.

What does that really mean?  To simplify the matter...only documents that are submitted by the LSRP to the NJDEP (e.g. Preliminary Assessment Reports, Remedial Action Reports, etc.) are public documents that can be obtained through an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request.  Although this is a fair response, the difficulties will be realized when an Environmental Professional (EP) conducting a Phase I ESA attempts to obtain information from an on-going or incomplete investigation, where reports were not yet submitted to the NJDEP.  It is estimated that an EP may attempt to obtain the information from the LSRP or Responsible Party but the likelihood of that information being shared would potentially be low and/or difficult to obtain. Most RP's are concerned about the unwarranted or unauthorized dissemination of confidential information, so their reluctance is understandable.  Conversely, the opposite could be true for certain property transactions where a seller may disclose all information to a potential buyer (and EP) prior to closing a sale and/or submitting reports to the NJDEP. 

That's the easy explanation as to what one could expect.  It's a little more complicated though when conducting due diligence and you are unable to obtain what may be identified as critical information.  Using current ASTM standards, this could be classified as a significant data gap and your Phase I ESA report could still be issued; however, in New Jersey, when conducting a Preliminary Assessment, this lack of information could be vital...and costly if the issuance of the report is delayed. The costs would continue to increase (significantly) if an investigation would need to be completely re-done due to the Site's report(s) not being public records, and an RP's unwillingness to provide them. 

Fortunately, most consultants and RP's generally are willing to share some information, provided certain contractual arrangements are agreed to (in advance)...but there will be those that won't budge or simply cannot be located (creating another roadblock).  Hopefully, those situations are few and far between, but be prepared for a little resistance should they arise.

Stay tuned for future posts as we’ll dissect and try to simplify more items on these 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 the LSRP program, environmental investigations 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. 

How Much and How Long Will it Take: Volume III-Phase II ESA’s

As a continuation of our discussion on Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (Phase 1’s), we’ll take a brief look at the next step, or Phase II Environmental Site Assessments (Phase II’s).  As always, there is plenty of research, data, and guidance on this topic but the objective of this series is to simplify the discussion, and provide some essential recommendations).  

Phase I’s are often the due diligence starting point for a broad range of properties both inside and outside of New Jersey and are generally conducted to o enable a party to satisfy one the CERCLA landowner liability protections.  Phase I’s also follow a more standardized approach, and essentially mean the same to property owners, insurers, lenders, etc.; however, the same cannot be said for Phase II’s.  When initially established in 1997, the ASTM standard (E1903-97) linked “follow-up” investigations to a Phase I.  Over time, and through numerous discussions & iterations, a new ASTM standard was established for Phase II’s (E1903-11) which allowed practitioners and users to “tailor” the approach to their specific goals and objectives.  

As any practitioner can attest to, it is rare that any two (2) sites are alike and standardizing an approach was neither practical, or in most cases, cost-effective, but what about differences in professional judgment? We looked at this topic in a previous post “LSRPs & Professional Judgment,” and there are similarities when conducting Phase II’s, as the variable nature in professional judgment will dictate how much will it cost and how long a Phase II will it take.  Prior to starting any Phase II, the key points / questions to consider include:  

·       Who is the “User” and what is their risk tolerance? 

·       What are the goals and objectives of your client (“User”)?

·    What prior site information is available (e.g. Phase I ESA) and what is its quality? (Note: relying on a poorly            conducted Phase I by another consultant / investigator is never recommended!)

Any practitioner can look at a recent Phase I (and the twenty [20] or so Recognized Environmental Conditions [RECs] that may have been identified) and recommend a subsurface investigation including soil borings and sampling, or groundwater sampling.  Seasoned professionals will answer the above questions first, and through mutual agreement with the User, define an appropriate scope of work, and on many occasions reduce the cost and duration of a Phase II investigation. Those individuals or corporations that are more risk-averse may want all the bells and whistles, which is fine, as that generally correlates with an increased level of confidence for any given site, but it’s not always necessary.  Many Users are willing to accept manageable liabilities or risks, but unwilling to accept others (e.g. PCB or Chlorinated Solvent contamination).  As a result, it is imperative for the investigator to understand this in advance of conducting a Phase II investigation.

These limited scope investigations that only take between 1-day and 1-week can be quite beneficial to the User, provided they meet the objectives of the Phase II and the results obtained are usable and/or consistent with expectations.  Conversely, an unfocused (and poorly conducted) investigation that investigates every REC, takes over 4 weeks, and costs upwards of $50,00, may not provide the information that your client (or User) was looking to obtain…which gets you back to the topic of “quality over quantity,” and stresses the importance of effective communication.   

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

NYC Cutting the Red Tape on Solar

Positive solar news out of NYC: "As of Jan. 1, most new residential sun-power projects will be eligible for professional certification, rather than requiring approval from DOB plan examiners."  The goal is to streamline the process by allowing P.E's and Architects to certify that plans are in compliance.   

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

Free RadonTest Kits

Following up on our prior post "National Radon Action Month: But Don't Forget Your Well Water," please check with your local health departments (Townships/Municipal/Counties) as many are offering free radon test kits to residents.  Somerset County (NJ) health departments are offering kits on a first come, first-serve basis so certainly take advantage of it. 

A listing of health departmtents in Somerset County, New Jersey can be found at: www.co.somerset.nj.us/health/localhealth.aspx. 

The Future of Site Inspections?

Drones are here to stay.  The FAA just announced that 181,000 were registered (as required now); however, how many environmental / construction / surveying / wetlands / agricultural professionals are embracing this (not so) new technology?  More importantly, would you need to hire your 18 year old nephew to operate it OR invest your own valuable time and resources so that you can master it, implement it, and make it an important (and profitable) cog in your business.  

In case you're curious...the secret is out about drones on construction sites!  Better hurry...and better talk with your insurance broker as well.  

Effective Communication-Vapor Intrusion Investigations Vol. V

As a continuation of our Vapor Intrusion Investigation (VII) series, we’ll take a quick look at one of the basic fundamentals for conducting a thorough VII:  effective communication with a homeowner.  Whether you’re collecting exterior soil gas samples, running 24-hour indoor air tests, or completing a building survey/questionnaire with a homeowner, if you cannot properly communicate what you’re doing and why, then you significantly decrease your odds of conducting a successful VII.  You may also never get past the front door! (As always, there is plenty of research, data, and guidance on this topic but the objective of this series is to “simplify” the discussion).  

It is vital to understand your client, who may also be the homeowner and/or occupant of where a VII may be necessary.  Put aside your budget, and that you only have 1-hour for an interview, and actually focus on your client’s concerns, fears, and questions.  Don’t just hear them, but actually listen!  Chances are, they are more confused than you realize, and to build their trust, here are some basic tips:

•  Explain the rationale for the testing…clearly, and minimize the “technical jargon.”
• Answer all questions directly…don’t deviate, or be cryptic. 
• If you don’t know the answer, tell them that, but be sure to tell them that you’ll follow-up with an answer (and make sure you follow-up right away!).
• Ask permission for everything in advance.  This includes inspecting closets, basements, cabinets, and generally anywhere where you suspect potential background contaminants may be present.  No homeowner or occupant wants a nosy stranger going through their house or personal belongings.
• Schedule everything in advance…and be prompt.
• Dress professionally…yes, this makes a difference.
• And most importantly, be polite.  (You’d be surprised how often people forget this one)

As discussed and stressed in our prior posts, this is why hiring that skilled practitioner is a good idea…as they’ll understand the value in spending the extra time communicating with the homeowner / occupant(s) / client, and building their trust.  Taking along younger staff members to observe and assist is also strongly recommended. Barring any contractual or confidentiality issues, always share your analytical results promptly. Once you have earned your client’s trust (and respect), any necessary follow-up activities, which could include mitigation, will be that much easier to discuss and potentially implement.   

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     

National Radon Action Month: Don't Forget Your Well Water!

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has designated January as “National Radon Action Month,” and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has indicated that radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer in the U.S. The natural decay of uranium causes radioactive particles to be produced, resulting in a colorless, tasteless gas.  Out of sight, and out of mind?  Not exactly… especially after several years of exposure. Not everyone will get lung cancer, but why take the risk? Test kits are readily available, easy to use, and analysis costs are low (generally <$100). Mitigation is also relatively affordable. However, don’t overlook radon in ground water!   

The CDC has indicated that in areas with high radon levels in groundwater your private well may be affected, and simple, everyday tasks (e.g. showering, washing dishes, etc.) can release radon gas. Testing is affordable, and the long-term benefits significantly outweigh mitigation costs (if needed).  Common mitigation techniques include aeration, or filtering water through Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) at the Point-of-Entry.  Pretty simple.

Testing for radon gas is relatively easy and can be completed by the homeowner, but hiring a certified laboratory to collect a groundwater (well-water) sample is advisable, along with contracting a reputable mitigation specialist. Re-test annually and/or after any changes occur in the residence (e.g. installation of a sump pit, French drain, etc.)… And don’t forget to conduct proper maintenance on any mitigation systems! 

We hope that you find Cardinal Environmental Consulting's (NJ) posts informative, and relatively useful, and your feedback is always welcome. For further information regarding radon testing and/or mitigation, 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     

How Much and How Long Will It Take? Vapor Intrusion Investigations-Volume III

To continue with our Vapor Intrusion Investigation (VII) series, let’s do a quick comparison of two common leak-detection tests: Helium vs. Isopropyl Alcohol (IPA).  Short disclaimer: 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 “exterior” soil gas samples, and the debate is whether to conduct our “field” leak detection using helium (with a shroud, and He meters, etc.) or to just use IPA.  Conducting leak detection test in the field are often viewed as time consuming and not worth the effort, with the purpose to just to check the box on some regulatory Vapor Intrusion Guidance document.  Technicians want to get in and get out and not be hindered by some unimportant QA/QC methods…hurry, hurry, hurry.  But wait.  There’s value to being methodical, and doing a thorough job in the field and this needs to be stressed to new field team members…and even veteran technicians!  Now onto the comparison.

 Start with the why: Leakage in the soil gas sampling train (e.g. loose fittings, improper seals around sampling points, etc.) will draw in background compounds or contaminants and essentially generate results that are not “representative” of actual conditions. Hence the need to perform some measure of leak detection testing.

 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 conducting a proper leak test. They’ll also know which tests to avoid!

 How much and how long will it take? Every site is different, so let’s keep it simple again and assume that the site in question is a vacant lot, is located next to a gasoline station (with leaking USTs), three (3) soil gas sampling points will be installed, target depths are roughly ten (10) below grade, and our driller or Geoprobe® costs (with supplies) are the same.

1.  Isopropyl Alcohol (IPA)Tracer- Leak Detection:

a.   Additional supplies: $25 +/-

b.   Additional field time (per Soil Gas Sampling Point): 5 minutes +/-  (15 minutes total)

1.  Helium Tracer- Leak Detection:

a.   Additional supplies: $200 +/-

b.   Additional field time (per Soil Gas Sampling Point): 15-30 minutes +/- (45-90 minutes total)

Overall, that’s not too much difference, right?  A few extra dollars for the Helium set-up and a little extra time; however, if you’re seeing leaks in the sampling train, and/or the bentonite you used to seal everything isn’t setting up quickly, then you need to add more valuable time to the process.  Time is money, but it pays to be methodical. Check your fittings, seals, helium meter, etc.   Here’s why:

1. The soil gas data when using a “properly” conducted helium tracer /leak detection produced results that (when thoroughly reviewed) appear representative.  An ambient air sample, collected concurrently with your soil gas samples, picked up numerous “common” compounds that are typical for your site’s location…none of which were detected in the soil gas which targeted a depth ten (10) feet below grade.  This is positive news as the data can be relied upon to make future decisions, especially if mitigation is warranted. 

Conversely; 

Assume that the few extra dollars for the helium set-up and likely extra time to conduct the leak detection test isn’t worth the effort (or in the budget), so you opt to use Isopropyl Alcohol.  It’s faster, easier, cheaper, and you know what you’re doing, so leaks shouldn’t be an issue. Faster and cheaper is always better, correct?  Let’s take a look at a potential outcome:

1. The soil gas data when using IPA as a tracer / leak detection method produced inconsistent results.  The TO-15 analysis displayed fairly high levels of IPA in the soil gas samples, and detections were also identified in that ambient air sample (which wasn’t surprising).  In addition, a few of the common ambient (or outside air) compounds were picked up in the soil gas analysis. But how can that be?  Everything looked good in the sampling train: all the fittings were tight (and not overtightened), the bentonite seals appeared okay, however, after reviewing the available data, too many discrepancies were identified and the levels of IPA were indicative of leakage “somewhere.”  The resultant decision was to repeat the sampling, which (as one could imagine) was a difficult discussion with the client.  Additional costs to re-sample including laboratory, driller, and labor costs:  $3,000-$4,500.   

The process identified above will typically take about one (1) day to complete in the field (using temporary probes) with the laboratory analysis being approximately (two) weeks.  The challenge is whether or not the sampling team and/or environmental professional is willing to budget a few hundred extra dollars to conduct a leak detection test using helium, and allot an extra hour or two to complete it effectively.  The risk of using IPA may be too significant if leaks are detected, and it’s too late to correct the issue. Now the cost and time to conduct a soil gas sampling program could double.  No client wants to hear that you have to re-do something on their dime, so when given a choice, opt to use a helium leak detection test or similar “field” test where leaks or other issues associated with a soil gas sampling event can be corrected prior to submitted samples to the laboratory.   

In future posts for this VII series, we’ll take a look at some common background contaminants, mitigation options, and 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

How Much and How Long Will It Take? Vapor Intrusion Investigations-Volume II

As a follow-up to our first Vapor Intrusion Investigation (VII) post, let’s take a quick look at the collection of Indoor Air (IA) samples.  As discussed previously, there is plenty of research, data, and guidance on this topic but let’s simplify it. For this post, lets’ assume that Sub-Slab Soil Gas samples were already collected, and the laboratory has provided data.  This is why hiring that skilled practitioner was a good idea…as they’ll know if the data obtained is representative, if it’s garbage, and how to effectively interpret what the results “mean.”  *Demonstrating if there is a connection to that gas station next door is like connecting the dots, but hopefully the environmental professional you hire understands that that connector line may be crooked, diagonal, blocked, under water, in fractured bedrock…you get the picture (and maybe not as simple as you’d like).   

For example:  The station next door leaked gasoline into the groundwater, so the primary compounds to be on the lookout for would include Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylenes (BTEX).  There are some others that would likely turn up, but let’s focus on the primary players.  To “connect the dots” or to evaluate the “pathway,” look to see if your Sub-Slab Soil Gas samples have detections of those BTEX compounds.  If they do, and the results are above a regulatory screening level, you potentially need to go to the next step and collect Indoor Air samples.   Your client won’t be thrilled, but let’s answer their question…“How much will it cost and how much longer will it take?”  

Start with the why: Compounds were detected in Sub-Slab Soil Gas samples and the collection of Indoor air samples are necessary to assess if the vapor intrusion pathway is complete or incomplete. In laypersons speak: Gasoline vapors were identified below that basement slab, and you need to make sure they’re not getting into the house.

How much and how long will it take? Every Site is different, so let’s keep it simple again and assume that the Site in question contains a small house, is located next to that gasoline station (with leaking USTs), and you’ve already obtained the appropriate access from the property owner (and notified the regulatory agencies-if applicable).  A typical approach is outlined as follows:  

1. Review all available Sub-Slab Soil Gas data, and compare it to the product inventory collected during the initial walk-though (hopefully the investigator didn’t cut that initial corner). If those samples were collected properly, you probably shouldn’t see 1, 4 Dichlorobenzene (typically found in mothballs) in your results.  If you see large detections of typical “Common Household” contaminants in your results, there was probably some leakage in the Sub-Slab Soil Gas sampling train (e.g. loose fittings, improper seal around sampling point, etc.). At that point, the investigator should decide if re-sampling is necessary.  Don’t go to the next step (and collect Indoor Air samples) and don’t waste your clients’ time and money, if you can’t justify that your data is representative.    
2. Assuming that all prior data is “useable,” Indoor Air sampling points should be identified.  The number and locations should be based on professional judgment and in accordance with accepted guidance documents.  Assume one (1) sample is needed from the basement, and one (1) from the first floor.  Tip: Try to place the sample canisters in areas where they won’t be disturbed or knocked over. 
3. Identify Ambient Air Sampling points.  (This is a control sample to see if outside or ambient conditions are contributing to the quality of the indoor conditions.). Assume one (1) sample is needed and make sure you check the weather forecast.
4. Set-up and collect Indoor/Ambient Air samples (EPA Method TO-15).  In most states, this generally takes about 24-hours for each, using certified-clean, 6-liter Summa Canisters.   Collect / record the appropriate data (start and stop times, vacuum pressure, weather conditions, etc.) and submit to a certified Laboratory.  Tip: Be extremely thorough and methodical; pre-arrange sample pick-up times with your client / homeowner in advance as you’ll need to return to the property the next day; don’t overtighten the Summa Canister regulators…that would be bad.
5. Assuming that standard analytical turnaround times are used, the data should be received in about two (2) weeks, at which time the investigator can review and compare the data to the appropriate screening levels.

So, after considering all of the above, the process identified above will typically take about three (3) to four (4) weeks and cost between $3,000 and $4,000.  Additional costs should be considered if an Immediate Environmental Concern (IEC) is identified.  In the next post for this VII series, we’ll dissect the data review component, as future mitigation (if necessary) will rely on it. Stay tuned.  

For further information regarding the Vapor Intrusion Investigation process, please don't hesitate to contact us. tfrancis@cardinallsrp.com

How Much and How Long Will It Take? Vapor Intrusion Investigations- Volume I

To continue with the previous “How Much and How Long Will It Take?” posts, we’ll take a quick look at conducting Vapor intrusion Investigations (VII), and specifically two (2) initial phases of a VII (Building Survey and Sub-Slab Soil Gas Sampling).  There is plenty of research, data, and guidance on this topic but let’s simplify it.  Generally, a VII is conducted after some preliminary work (Phase I or II ESA, Preliminary Assessment, Groundwater Sampling, etc.) has already been completed at a specific site (or adjacent site), and the investigator “suspects” that harmful vapors emanating from the subsurface soil or groundwater are entering the indoor air of a structure.  Skilled practitioners, using a multiple lines of evidence approach, know how to gather the data needed to “properly” assess whether a true issue is present (and if mitigation is needed).  So...why conduct a VII and "How much will it cost and how long will it take?" 

Start with the why: the purpose of a VII is to evaluate whether volatile chemicals are entering indoor air (or have the potential to enter indoor air). In laypersons speak: Is the air you breathe safe? This is what a properly conducted VII should hopefully answer.

How much and how long will it take? Every Site is different, so let’s keep it simple again and assume that the site in question contains a structure that is less than 1,500 square feet, is located next to a gasoline station (with leaking USTs), and you’ve already obtained the appropriate access from the property owner (and notified the regulatory agencies-if applicable).  Note: If you’re the homeowner, and an environmental professional tells you $500 and it will take 1-week to complete, seriously consider showing them the door within 15 minutes.  Conversely, if you’re told that it’ll take 3-months and the costs will exceed $20k, tell them you never liked Cadillacs.  Everything takes time and comes at a cost, but keep it simple, work methodically, and commit to the process.  A typical approach is outlined as follows:

 1.     Review all available site data, complete a building survey and evaluate what (background) indoor contaminants may be present. Complete a product inventory (e.g. mothballs, ASTs, cleaning products, candles, etc.).  Talk with the homeowner. Look at preferential pathways. Look at building structure, type and age.  Slab-on-grade? Basement?  Before any samples are even collected, this is the starting point and it needs to be done thoroughly.   Don’t skimp here.  It’ll cost you later if you do.

2.     Identify Sub-Slab Soil Gas Sampling points.  The number and locations should be based on professional judgment and in accordance with accepted guidance documents.  Assume a minimum of two (2) are needed.

3.     Install “temporary” soil gas probes below the slab, conduct appropriate leak testing (e.g. Helium tracer, etc.), and purge the lines.  Spend the extra time ensuring a tight seal, and that tracer tests are accurate. It pays off later.

4.     Collect sub-slab soil gas samples.  In New Jersey, this generally takes about 5-minutes per location using certified-clean, 1-liter Summa Canisters.   Collect / record the appropriate data (start and stop times, vacuum pressure, etc.) and submit to a certified Laboratory for (EPA Method TO-15) analysis.  

5.     Assuming that standard analytical turnaround times are used, the data should be received in about two (2) weeks, at which time the investigator can review and compare the data to the appropriate screening levels, and (hopefully) determine if the VI pathway is complete or incomplete with a high degree of confidence.

So, after considering all of the above, a properly conduced VII of this nature will typically take about four (4) weeks, and cost between $3,500 and $5,000.  Additional costs should be considered if indoor air and ambient air samples are collected concurrently with sub-slab soil gas samples.  In the next post for this VII series, we’ll take a deeper look at the process, the collection of indoor air samples…and how a background contaminant source can throw a pretty good curveball.  Stay tuned.

For further information regarding the Vapor Intrusion Investigation process, please don't hesitate to contact us. tfrancis@cardinallsrp.com

Shop Local!

As we enter the final weekend before Christmas and mad-dash for last minute gifts, it’s an ideal time to stress the value in shopping locally.  There are many well documented financial benefits to our communities, and to us individually, but there are environmental impacts as well, including:

·       Requiring less transportation

·       Less sprawl

·       Less congestion

·       Reduced habitat loss and pollution

Many of us will still use on-line sources as well, but have you ever considered what the impacts are to get that package to your front door? That travel required could amount to thousands of miles and the obvious increased use of fossil fuels (that’s a topic for a different day), and increased emissions. Let’s also not forget how increased traffic, and those poorly maintained vehicles (e.g. leaking oil pans or radiators), are able to affect that that nearby stream.

Several townships and municipalities across the nation, including Bridgewater Township in New Jersey, have recently initiated programs to give property tax credits to homeowners for shopping locally at participating businesses.  Kudos to those folks! So for this holiday season, and into 2016, let’s hope more towns join the movement which will ultimately strengthen the economic base of our local communities, and reduce the impact(s) on our environment.  

*photo courtesy of Lake Forest Graduate School of Management. 

NJ Governor's Environmental Excellence Awards

Congratulations to all of this year's winners, and more importantly for going above and beyond the call to protect our environment and futures.  The winners include: 

• Clean Air:  Salem Community College, Carneys Point

• Water Resources: Raritan Headwaters Association, Bedminster

• Healthy Ecosystems: American Littoral Society, Highlands

• Innovative Technology: Stony Brook-Millstone Watershed Association, Pennington

• Land Conservation: Bloomfield Township

• Healthy and Sustainable Business: Wyndham Worldwide, Parsippany

• Healthy and Sustainable Communities: Long Beach Township

• Environmental Education (Adult-led): Galloway Township Public Schools – Mr. B’s Backyard Classroom

• Environmental Education (Youth-led): Connor Señor, Glenwood

• Environmentalist of the Year: Wall Township Environmental Advisory Committee

For full details on the Governor's awards, check out the NJDEP's post.