Re: [CPEO-BIF] Vapor Intrusion and Redevelopment

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org>]

Ken Kamlet and Jesse Hiney's article, "Evaluating the Potential for
Vapor Intrusion Impacts to Indoor Air," raises several important
questions, both about New York's programmatic approach and regarding, in
general, investigating and responding to the vapor intrusion (VI)
pathway. I would like to focus on one essential issue, the applicability
of the Brownfields model to sites that pose a heretofore unrecognized
risk. I encourage subscribers to read the article, review my response,
and offer your own views.

Kamlet and Hiney ask, "How, then, can DEC [New York's Department of
Environmental Conservation] subject a volunteer to additional cleanup or
mitigation at sites where cleanup has been completed, especially when
the link among site contaminants, indoor air quality, and adverse human
health impacts remains so tenuous?"

They add, "Far from providing added protection against VI, an approach
that discourages voluntary cleanups and investment in brownfields
redevelopment will only ensure more brownfield sites with
VOC-contaminated soil and ground water will be left to fester and spread
contamination. This is self-defeating and bad public policy."

They are invoking the basic concept of brownfields. By relaxing the
procedures required to redevelop property contaminated, or even possibly
contaminated, but lacking a viable responsible party, government makes
it possible for both public and private parties  to redevelop such
property, making it safe for human use. In essence, the expenses of
investigation, mitigation, and/or remediation are paid for out of the
increased value of the property generated by redevelopment.

I support that concept, but what happens when its implementation
conflicts with the imperative to protect public health?

That is, at some level, the presence of toxic vapors, such as TCE, PCE,
or petroleum products in indoor air is likely to pose an unacceptable
risk to the people who live, work, or study inside. The authors and I
appear to disagree about where that threshold of acceptability lies, but
it's likely that most observers of the vapor intrusion phenomenon agree
that there are numerous buildings in this country where indoor air
readings exceed the legally safe level. In addition, some of those
buildings have been constructed after the property was "cleaned up" by
an innocent party - that is, someone other than the polluter - under a
state voluntary or Brownfields cleanup program.

So, let's assume that there are people living in new homes, on property
that supposedly was cleaned up to the satisfaction of regulatory
authorities, and that these people are breathing air which may be
harmful, particularly to children, if exposure continues. What do we do?

Do we beg for Superfund-type money from state or federal legislatures? I
don't oppose this tack, but I'm not optimistic, either. 

Or do we require those who have created the situation to go back and
conduct further work? Where there is a viable responsible party - the
original polluter - this is relatively easy. That's what we've done in
Mountain View, with some success. But what if the only parties capable
of funding a response are the developers - perhaps with the help of
their insurance companies. (In a sense, they have created the situation
by opening up the vapor intrusion pathway.) If the answer is no, then
the Brownfields model has broken down. The process that was supposed to
make underutilized properties ready for reuse has not made them
suitable, and the residents must pay the price.




About ten years ago, I supported the construction of hundreds of new
residential units on GTE's former manufacturing site here in Mountain
View. Hundreds of families paid top dollar to live in this award-winning
housing complex, only to find out two or three years ago that unsafe
levels of TCE might be entering their homes. After extensive sampling,
it turned out that only one home had very high levels of TCE inside,
requiring venting, but lower levels persist both indoors and outdoors.
Residents are worried that the impermeable slabs (plastic-lined
concrete) that are designed to prevent vapor intrusion might not be
permanently effective, particularly after the next big earthquake. And
the mere knowledge the TCE soil gas readings are high, at several
locations, may be holding down the market value of their homes.

Fortunately, GTE stepped up to the plate, and conducted an investigation
under U.S. EPA oversight. The home that required mitigation received it
quickly. We are still working out what additional remediation might be necessary.

But what if GTE had not been on the hook? What would we tell my new
neighbors? Could we honestly say that they must be exposed to TCE
because we want to operate programs that encourage development on other
former industrial sites?

Lenny Siegel
February 2, 2005



Lenny Siegel wrote:
> 
> [The article linked below provides an informative, provocative
> alternative to my own perspective about how state regulators should
> address vapor intrusion issues, particularly at redevelopment sites. - LS]
> 
> Evaluating the Potential for Vapor Intrusion Impacts to Indoor Air:
> New York State DEC Issues New Draft Policy
> 
> by Kenneth S. Kamlet and Jesse Hiney
> 
> This article examines New York state's draft policy focusing on vapor
> intrusion issues that was issued in November 2004. Although the authors
> commend the state for its efforts in issuing the draft policy, they
> believe the policy fails to address some key issues that must be
> considered if the policy is to be successful. Furthermore, the authors
> particularly are concerned about the potential chilling effect the
> policy might have on the redevelopment of brownfields properties in New
> York if the state agencies fail to address the issues identified in this article.
> 
> http://www.ny-brownfields.com/PDF_Files/Final_Art_012005.pdf
> 
>
-- 


Lenny Siegel
Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight
c/o PSC, 278-A Hope St., Mountain View, CA 94041
Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545
Fax: 650/961-8918
<lsiegel@cpeo.org>
http://www.cpeo.org
_______________________________________________
Brownfields mailing list
Brownfields@list.cpeo.org
http://www.cpeo.org/mailman/listinfo/brownfields