ASTM’s E1527 Task Group held a conference call today to discuss various legal aspects of the standard that might be considered during revisions to E1527. You have probably read in previous posts and articles that ASTM’s Phase I ESA standard due to be revised or reinstated by 2013 per ASTM’s bylaws.  Here is a quick summary of the main topics of today’s call.

Reliance: Eric Benderson of SBA brought up the subject of reliance, which has been an ongoing sticking point between EPs and the Administration. Specifically, it was suggested that the Standard be edited to include language about who can rely on an EP’s report.

Findings and Opinions There was an interesting discussion about EPs qualifying their opinions. While the standard’s objective is to identify RECs, the task group questioned the fact that the findings section of the standard includes conflicting language about “evidence of RECs” rather than calling RECs out explicitly. The group questioned whether the objective should be edited to reflect this language in the findings section.

Oil Pollution Act: Larry Schnapf noted that the Oil Pollution Act was amended in 2004 to include a secured creditor exemption and innocent owner protection provided that an OPA regulation very similar to CERCLA’s AAI rule is met.  He suggested that E1527 might be expanded to include OPA, especially since the Coast Guard has already said that E1527 would satisfy these requirements. Other callers brought up the logistical problems that are obvious: E 1527 would not work well on sites like the Deep Water Horizon, for example.

Indoor Air Exclusion: Reiterating what he told us in a recent blog post, Larry discussed the history of the CERCLA Indoor Air Exclusion.  I’ll let you read all of the details on the subject in his blog post, but this started an interesting debate about indoor releases and what constitutes a REC. I believe the consensus was that if there is a release indoors somehow escapes the environment, it should be considered a REC if it is not a deminimus condition. It seems like consultants are really questioning topics like this lately in light of the recent the E2600 Vapor Encroachment standard. There was a related debate about when lead and asbestos are considered RECs, despite the fact that they can also be non-scope considerations. The task group mentioned it might be worthwhile to clarify this. 

The task group is going to meet again next week to continue discussions. It seems like all options are still on the table: revising the standard, creating new standards to further explore environmental business risks and issues that are specific to certain user groups, or leaving the standard as is for a few years to avoid complications of having AAI amended until there is more clarity in the market place.

Were you on the call? What did I miss? I know this is a very broad and brief overview so I welcome your questions and please fill in the any gaps I left...