Topic

    Summary of ASTM Spring 2010 Meeting
    Topic posted Apr 27 by Lauren617Elite Contributor
    313 Views, 3 Comments
    Title:
    Summary of ASTM Spring 2010 Meeting
    Content:

    Last week was the ASTM E50 committee's semi-annual meeting, which took place in St. Louis.  Below are very brief summaries of the meetings I attended.

    It was a great meeting. And I have to say, the people who get involved in ASTM are some of the best in the industry and it is great to see competitors, providers and clients come together to create standards that help the entire industry.

    If you want to get involved in E50, send me a message and I'll connect you with the right people! The next meeting will take place in San Antonia this fall. It will be a special meeting, as it marks the 20th Anniversary of the E50 Committee!  What better time to get involved?

    ~Lauren

    E1527-05: Phase I ESAs
    Following a public listening session on EPA’s AAI rule in mid-March, the task group discussed the possibility of making changes to the E1527-05 Standard. Because E1527-05 is referenced in EPA's rule as being "as least as stringent" as the rule itself, the task group faces the hurdle that EPA may need to go through the public comment process if revisions are made to the standard. While the task group and EPA both feel that there may be reason to reopen the rule and the standard, it was determined that rebolloting the E1527-05 standard as it is today to reapprove the standard by its 2013 expiration would be prudent. Once the standard is reconfirmed, the task group would have ample time to make revision in concert with EPA. Focus groups have been set up to discuss revisions to several areas of the standard including: report shelf life, recommendations, and database report.

    E2600: Vapor Encroachment Screens
    The new E2600 Standard includes several changes that resulted from two years of industry feedback on the original standard. The revised standard went out for ballot from March to April and was officially approved during Committee Week, after one remaining negative vote was resolved. Once entitled the Standard Practice for Vapor Intrusion Assessments the standard is now called the Standard Guide for Vapor Encroachment Screens. The new version of the standard omits the "presumption" of a vapor intrusion conditions, eliminates the secondary area of concern from Tier 1, moves the risked based concentration tests to the appendix, and also better explains the connection between E1527 and E2600. In some cases, a Vapor Encroachment Condition (VEC) may also be a Recognized Environmental Condition (REC). The newly approved standard will likely be published by June 2010.

    E1903: Phase II ESAs
    A task group is coming close to the finish line in writing a Standard Practice for conducting Phase II ESAs in a scientifically defensible and reproducible fashion. One issue discussed at the meeting was the inclusion of a recommended report format. While the users in the task group found the particularly helpful, consultants fear it would lead to commoditization. The compromise was to include a suggested table of contents with additional items that may be included in a Phase II ESA as part of the appendix. After negative comments are resolved, the task group aims to reballot the standard in June.

    Continuing Obligations
    ASTM is another step closer to having its first Continuing Obligations standard. After a significant re-write, the task group is now handling negatives and comments from its March 2010 ballot. Language related to Land Use Restrictions and Activity and Use Limitations continue to be problematic to the task group. The group hopes to revise several aspects of the standard in response to negative votes and send it back out for balloting this summer.

    Building Energy Performance Assessments
    This new standard aims at creating a standardized method for benchmarking and disclosing building energy performance. After a mid-March ballot, minor negatives were resolved at the meeting. The most contentious was the process of "carbon footprinting" a building, which the task group is considering moving to an appendix and possibly renaming. A new ballot for the standard is expected this summer and the task group hopes to have the standard approved by October 2010.

    Comments

    • posted Apr 27 by MaxEngSuper Contributor

      It would be good to know whether USEPA considers a "vapor intrusion condition" to be ipso facto a "recognized environmental condition."  The differentiation is causing a couple of my clients some heartburn at the moment.

      Reply to this Comment

      • posted Apr 28 by abuonicoreSuper Contributor

        The newly revised ASTM E 2600 standard no longer uses the term "vapor intrusion condition." The revised standard instead seeks to identify if a "vapor encroachment condition (VEC)" exists, i.e., if contaminant vapors can encroach upon or otherwise reach the target property that is the subject of the Phase I. If they can, whether or not they may represent a possible vapor intrusion problem for a structure(s) on the target property requires further investigation (beyond the Phase I). Notwithstanding, the decision as to whether or not a VEC represents a "recognized environmental condition (REC)" in an ASTM E 1527 Phase I is left to the environmental professional. It may not represent a REC if, for example, the depth to the contaminated groundwater (from which the volatile vapors are eminating) is greater than the "critical distance" identified in E 2600; or if the distance between the nearest structure on the target property and the nearest edge of the contaminated groundwater or soil plume is greater than the "critical distance" in E 2600; or if the volatile contaminant's concentration in the contaminated groundwater plume is below the state's risk screening level; or if the structure on the target property has been designed to be intrinsically safe from chemical vapor intrusion (i.e., there is no pathway for volatile vapors to reach human receptors); or for any number of additional reasons. An environmental professional can eliminate such conditions as RECs under the de mimimis condition clause of the REC definition in E 1527.

        Reply to this Comment

    • posted Apr 28 by Tom SpeightElite Contributor

      Just out of curiosity, is the distinction between 'vapor intrusion' and 'vapor encroachment' semantic or significant?

      Reply to this Comment