Is Your Environmental Due Diligence Really Diligent Enough?

Today’s savvy buyer of commercial and industrial real estate will always perform environmental studies, and even testing, as part of the due diligence process prior to completing a real estate transaction.  If a financial lender is involved, it’s a must. Due diligence most often starts with a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment.  If the assessment points to potential subsurface impacts from past onsite or nearby operations, a subsurface investigation (or Phase II investigation) is generally necessary to confirm site conditions.  The Phase II consists of a limited sampling event designed toward the specific concerns identified in the Phase I.  Phase II projects are often performed within a constrained budget established by the buyer, or being paid for by a seller who wants to spend as little money as possible, who hopes that the concerns identified in the Phase I are unfounded.  Phase II investigations are typically seen as high-level presence/absence assessments rather than complete quantitative investigation of the extent of any identified impacts.  In essence, a Phase II is utilized to metaphorically check a box “Yes” or “No” as an answer to whether or not a subsurface release has occurred from each identified historical concern.  For the Phase I and Phase II process to be successful indicators of the environmental conditions of subject properties, it is important for the consultant performing the due diligence activities to understand the how many different types of past operations could potentially result in releases. Additionally, due diligence professionals must have adequate expertise with designing minimal work plans, that will still answer the important questions related to getting the transaction deal done.

When performing Phase II assessments at properties involving a current or former dry cleaning or manufacturing facility with impacts from past usage of chlorinated solvents (i.e. PCE or TCE), a specific expertise is required. Releases of TCE and PCE can be difficult to detect with a limited investigation since these contaminants may migrate downward from a surface source in very narrow pathways that are hard to find.  A truly experienced environmental professional can also identify hidden areas where chlorinated solvents may have been released due to an intimate knowledge of historical solvent use and disposal practices.  There can never be enough existing information about site geology and the configuration of potential contaminant migration pathways prior to conducting a Phase II, if the consultant has not done sufficient research and planning on surrounding geological conditions, or doesn’t have significant industry knowledge of the contaminant behaviors. If borings are not placed in the appropriate locations or are not advanced deep enough to detect these sometimes sneaky contaminants, you might get a “clean” environmental report, when you actually have a problem that just went undetected due to an inadequate investigation.

An environmental due diligence investigation is only as good as the expertise that goes into the planning.  Although all parties involved in a real estate transaction hope for the best during the due diligence process, no one wins if existing contamination isn’t identified. This is especially true for properties where chlorinated solvents may have historically been used.  Sites impacted with chlorinated solvents typically can be exponentially more expensive to cleanup than other types of contamination.

EnviroForensics Assists Hoosier Environmental Council & Blackford County Concerned Citizens Group to Identify Heavy Metals in Surface Soils in Hartford City and Montpelier, IN

UPDATED

The County of Blackford has experienced alarming statistics in cancer and other serious health ailments cases in recent history. For 2003-2007, Blackford County’s cancer rate was higher than any other County in Indiana, and it is still within the top percentile. In 2009, Blackford County Concerned Citizens (BCCC) formed when local residents that have grown up and/or lived in Blackford County most of their lives aimed to address the high rates of cancer and neurologic diseases cases within Blackford County. Their primary mission is “to improve the quality of life of Blackford County’s residents by reducing the incidence of diseases, primarily through citizen action, and advocating to have diseases investigated.”

In 2014, the BCCC partnered with the Hoosier Environmental Council (HEC) and other environmental specialist organizations to evaluate if there’s a link between existing contamination and the serious illnesses. That’s where EnviroForensics stepped in. Alongside EnviroForensics, Pine Environmental Services, Inc., SCS Environmental Contractors, Inc. and Envision Laboratories, Inc. generously donated their time and resources to help the BCCC and HEC with these investigations.

The HEC reports that Blackford County has a long history of industrial operations that produced hazardous waste, such as lead oxide and arsenic, which could be a contributing factor to current health concerns among its residents. In the 1900s, there were glass factories that used arsenic and lead oxide in their process. Lead oxide was used to enhance the look and make the glass easier to melt. Arsenic helped clear the glass of bubbles and discoloration. However, both lead oxide and arsenic are toxic heavy metals that are harmful to human body nervous system, especially young children. Arsenic is a known carcinogen; exposure is often associated with an increased risk of cancer of the lung, bladder, kidney and skin. Some studies have suggested that it also has an association with colon, prostate and liver cancers.

Since there were no handling or waste disposal regulations for materials containing these toxins  in the early 20th century, hazardous materials and waste often were haphazardly discarded, resulting in contaminated soil. The toxins typically concentrated near the ground surface where chances of  human exposure through direct contact is most likely.

During the HEC study, EnviroForensics assisted in evaluating historical resources to identify the precise locations of these historical industrial operations.  HEC identified numerous old glass factories and gained access for testing soils at three (3) locations for the presence of lead and arsenic. EnviroForensics devised a Sampling and Analysis Plan that included collecting up to twenty, 2-foot long soil cores per Site for analysis of lead and arsenic.  On April 17, 2015, Darci Thomas and Michele Murday of EnviroForensics spent the day at the three (3) Blackford County locations collecting soil cores, and geocoding each sample location by GPS.  The sampling was completed courtesy of SCS Environmental Contractors, Inc. using a track-mounted direct-push coring machine.  A total of 42 soil cores were collected and brought back to the EnviroForensics warehouse for preparation to be analyzed with an X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) instrument, courtesy of Pine Environmental Services, Inc.  The following week, as a quality control measure, 16 soil samples were selected for laboratory analysis of lead and arsenic by Envision Laboratories, Inc., per U.S. EPA SW-846 Method 6010B.  All data was recorded on spreadsheets and maps were produced for each property with all corresponding sample locations.  All of the raw data was then provided to HEC for further analysis and consideration.

HEC presented preliminary findings to the BCCC at a local meeting on April 25, 2015. In June, HEC released further results in a press release, reporting that soil samples from Montpelier and Hartford City’s Southside Elementary School contained about the same levels of arsenic and lead as soil generally does in that part of Indiana. But, “A few deposits of arsenic and lead were found at Hartford City’s baseball field, high enough to exceed Indiana’s residential standard, but well within the standard for recreational fields.”

“Dr. Indra Frank, environmental health project director with the Hoosier Environmental Council, said that while levels are acceptable according to state standards, they are high enough to exercise caution when at the baseball fields. Dr. Frank recommends parents do a few simple things to limit exposure to the soil:

·       Don’t let children get the soil in their mouths
·       After spending time there, wash your hands and children’s hands
·       Wash clothes that have soil on them (like baseball uniforms)
·       Leave shoes that have been to the site at the door, don’t wear them into your home

“Dr. Frank indicated that while sports are fine at the site, the Hartford City property that has the Babe Ruth field should not be used for housing or growing food crops in the future unless the soil is remediated.  Additional soil tests are planned to better define the locations of the heavy metals.”

In an interview with EnviroForensics, Dr. Frank says residential sites near the baseball fields should also be tested, and she thanked EnviroForensics for what she called “a tremendous service to Blackford County.”

EnviroForensics is honored to have been asked to be part of such an important study, and we look forward to continued participation in support of HEC and the people of Blackford County, Indiana.

The Simple Science and Economics of Cleaning up Subsurface Pollution

The fundamental, hard-fast goals of a subsurface remediation project are to stop any current human or ecological exposure; and to avoid any potential future human or ecological exposure. Here are some of the basic concepts and economic considerations used to determine effective site cleanup strategies to attain regulatory closure at contaminated sites.

There are essentially three ways to achieve remediation project objectives:

  1. Physically remove the contamination
    1. Soil Excavation
    2. Soil Vapor Extraction
    3. Groundwater Extraction
    4. Electrothermal Heating
  2. Chemically, or biochemically destroy, or immobilize the contamination in place
    1. Chemical Oxidation, Permanganate, Persulfate, Ozone
    2. Chemical Reduction, Zero-Valent Iron, Enhanced biotic reduction
    3. Bioattenuation (microbes)
    4. Soil Stabilization
  3. Eliminate the potential for exposure to occur by use of either Engineered or Institutional Controls
    1. Impermeable Cap
    2. Big Fence
    3. Long-Term Vapor Mitigation Systems
    4. Control Land Use Activities through Deed Restrictions
    5. Ordinances to disallow use of groundwater resources

Small subsurface releases of contamination can be completely cleaned up by direct removal techniques, such as excavating the entire area, but larger releases where soil, groundwater and vapor phase impacts are present are much more difficult to remediate.  It is common that a complete remediation is not technically feasible, or financially possible, as the amount of money available is always finite.

As such, the long-term monitoring of Engineered or Institutional Controls is nearly always a component of remedial planning.  This is necessary to ensure that it doesn’t cause exposure problems in the future.  This monitoring is known as Long-Term Stewardship, and it can greatly impact not only the overall costs of addressing contaminated sites, but also the type of remedy selected. The duration and necessary intensity of Long-Term Stewardship activities is determined by balancing the cost of active remediation activities with the costs associated with the monitoring of exposure conditions into the future.

Understanding that the first course of business in performing an environmental cleanup is the elimination of current human or ecological exposure, then doing what work can be afforded to improve site conditions, while following that up with monitoring to make sure that future exposure concerns will be avoided. Many times, the cost of more active remediation and less long-term monitoring makes the most sense economically. It definitely does from a perspective of reducing the total amount of harmful hazardous wastes in the natural environment.


About the author:
mainjeffEnvironmental Expert

Jeff Carnahan, L.P.G.
866-888-7911
jcarnahan@enviroforensics.com

 Jeffrey Carnahan is a Vice President and the Director of Technical Services at EnviroForensics, Mr. Carnahan holds a M.S. in Geology and is a Licensed Professional Geologist (LPG) with 17 years of environmental consulting and remediation experience.  Mr. Carnahan’s expertise has focused on the investigation and interpretation of subsurface releases of hazardous substances for the purpose of evaluating and controlling the risk and cost implications to his clients.  While managing sites ranging in size from retail gas stations and dry cleaners to large manufacturing facilities, Mr. Carnahan has amassed extensive experience working with releases of chlorinated solvents within voluntary and enforcement cleanup programs for various State agencies and the U.S. EPA.  In his role as Director of Technical Services, Mr. Carnahan leads, supports and encourages the entire EnviroForensics team of experts as they guide their clients through the process of turning environmental liabilities to assets.


EnviroForensics® is an environmental engineering firm specializing in soil and groundwater investigation and remediation and vapor intrusion assessment and mitigation. EnviroForensics has all have the tools available to us to perform the highest caliber science in the market today, which allows designing and implementing clever, innovative and effective solutions to PCE and TCE contamination. EnviroForensics® has pioneered and perfected the utilization of Commercial General Liability insurance policies as a resource to pay for the high costs associated with soil and groundwater investigations, remediations, and legal defense. 

Out with the Old, In with the New: EPA Drops 2005 ASTM Standard from AAI Rule

EPA LogoThe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has amended the standards and practices for conducting Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) for satisfying All Appropriate Inquiry (AAI) under CERCLA. The final rule, published October 6, 2014, officially removed the reference to the previously accepted ASTM E1527-05, making ASTM E1527-13 the acceptable standard for completing Phase I ESAs. The new rule will become effective October 6, 2015.

Consultants, landowners, and prospective purchasers have been walking the confusing line of using both ASTM E1527-05 and ASTM E1527-13 to satisfy AAI since the EPA adopted a new rule in December 2013, which allowed for the use of either standard to satisfy AAI. The effective date of the recent amendment to no longer allow the use of the 2005 standard gives interested parties one (1) year to make the transition to exclusive use of the 2013 standard.

The primary differences between E1527-05 and E1527-13 are:

  1. The 2013 standard specifically identifies vapor migration as a type of release and potential source of impact to the subsurface, making vapor migration a potential recognized environmental condition.
  2. The 2013 standard clarifies definitions within the 2005 standards and adds new definitions, revising the potential scope of assessment. Notably, the term “Controlled Recognized Environmental Condition” was added to include past releases that have satisfied regulatory requirements, but left contaminants in place, such as the use of an Environmental Restrictive Covenant (ERC).
  3. The 2013 standard requires a more extensive regulatory file review for the site and surrounding properties.

The Final Rule is published in the Federal Register.


About the Author

Project Manager and Due Diligence Expert

Midwest, East Coast & South East
Darci Thomas, L.P.G.
866.888.7911
dthomas@enviroforensics.com

Darci Thomas has over 16 years of experience in environmental management, geologic studies, and associated fields. Darci has focused her career on working closely with stakeholders in real estate transactions to manage environmental risk and liability during due diligence activities. She is proficient in field activity management from soil and groundwater sampling events to well installation, site investigation activities, indoor air quality monitoring, and building investigations for lead based paint, asbestos, and microbial contamination. Darci works hard to provide aggressive and innovative solutions. Contact Darci Thomas for more information on  Environmental Due Diligence.


EnviroForensics is an environmental engineering firm specializing in soil and groundwater investigation and remediation and vapor intrusion assessment and mitigation. EnviroForensics® is the leading environmental engineering company in the country addressing environmental liabilities and finding funding by locating and bringing to your defense old insurance policies. EnviroForensics® has pioneered and perfected the utilization of Comprehensive General Liability insurance policies as a resource to pay for the high costs associated with soil and groundwater investigations, remediations, and legal defense.

Increased Attention To Dry Cleaners Likely Under New Property Due Diligence Requirements

Written by Steve Henshaw, President & CEO, EnviroForensics

As seen in the December 2013 issue of Cleaner & Launderer

PDF Version

On November 6, 2013 ASTM E1527-13 became official as the guidance standard used by environmental consultants for conducting Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessments.  Environmental Site Assessments are required by banks and lenders before those entities loan money on real estate holdings and they are designed to identify potential or existing environmental liabilities associated with the subject properties.  The reason that this is important to dry cleaners is that the new guidance puts greater emphasis on assessing the potential impacts from vapor intrusion and vapor migration on the property.  In fact, the definition of a “release” within the guidance has been changed to include contamination in the subsurface vapor phase, in addition to the soil and groundwater.

Continue reading “Increased Attention To Dry Cleaners Likely Under New Property Due Diligence Requirements”

Here Comes the Next Game Changer; Phase I Environmental Site Assessments

Written by Darci Cummings, L.P.G., Project Manager, EnviroForensics

Revisions to the standard by which Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) are performed are currently in review by the U.S. EPA with some significant proposed modifications that are expected to have a considerable impact on the environmental due diligence process as we know it.  In 2005, we saw a major revamping of the Phase I ESA process in response to the 2002 enactment of the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act.  Under this law, the US EPA was charged with establishing by rule the “generally accepted good commercial and customary standards and practices” that had to be followed by a party seeking immunity to CERCLA liability.  The EPA responded by establishing the All Appropriate Inquiry (AAI) rule, which went into effect on November 1, 2006. Prior to establishment of the rule, Phase I ESAs were generally performed to the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E 1527 Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process.  To meet the requirements of the EPA’s AAI rule, ASTM rolled out E 1527-05.  The varied interpretations of portions of the rule have sparked debate amongst Environmental Professionals (EPs) and other interested stakeholders over the past 7 years.  These debates have ranged from determining what really constitutes a Recognized Environmental Condition (REC), to whether or not soil vapor should be considered as a potential source of impact, to when EPs are required to do a file review.  The ASTM E 1527 standard is currently undergoing revisions that will serve to clarify the process and comply more closely with the AAI rule as it was intended.  The revised standard, to be known as ASTM E 1527-13, is currently under review by the EPA and is expected to be finalized within the first half of 2013, when it will officially replace E 1527-05.  Continue reading “Here Comes the Next Game Changer; Phase I Environmental Site Assessments”

Identifying Environmental Risk Through Appropriate Due Diligence

Written by Darci Cummings, L.P.G., EnviroForensics

There are many situations that may merit environmental due diligence considerations.  Whether you’re considering purchasing, selling, or re-financing a property; expanding or renovating an existing facility; or just ensuring that your facility is compliant with the myriad of current environmental, health and safety regulations, it is vital that you understand all of the environmental and financial risks involved.

When considering environmental due diligence, it is often thought that a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) is sufficient to discover environmental liabilities during a property transaction.  While a Phase I ESA may be sufficient to satisfy a lender or other interested party, environmental due diligence needs can be much more complex and cover a wide variety of potential environmental liabilities that may not be discovered during a Phase I ESA.  EnviroForensics will work with you to develop the appropriate scope of services to help you understand and consider the financial implications of all types of environmental risk, not just CERCLA (superfund) liability, which is the general objective of a Phase I ESA.  EnviroForensics can assess, manage, mitigate, or remediate those environmental risks to ensure that your transaction is a success.