[CPEO-BIF] Response to vapor intrusion comments

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org>]

On June 1 we posted the comments that Cambridge Environmental, Inc. sent 
the New York Department of Health about its draft vapor intrusion 
guidance. See
http://www.cpeo.org/lists/brownfields/2005/msg00210.html

I think the New York guidance is a strong practical guidance, and in my 
detailed comments I put forward some suggestions for making it more 
protective.

I strongly disagree with the Cambridge Environmental perspective. Not 
only am I offended, in this context, with the monetary valuation of 
human life, but it's important in reviewing costs and benefits to 
consider who bears the costs as well as who benefits from the 
environmental response.

The public benefits when people are exposed less to TCE and other vapor 
contaminants. The polluter must absorb the costs of cleanup. Spreading 
the costs to the public, in the form of disease and even death, benefits 
those who are responsible for toxic releases. That's why the "polluter 
pays" principle is fair.

It's also practical. The fact that users of hazardous substances have 
been made liable for cleanup has forced them to clean up their acts. 
That is, most industrial users of TCE have stopped using it. It hasn't 
been outlawed, but they wish to avoid the cost of future cleanup.

The Cambridge letter also misrepresents New York's interim 5 micrograms 
per cubic meter health standard for TCE in residential air. New York's 
findings are independent of EPA's 2001 Health Risk Assessment. EPA's 
study, if accepted, would justify a .017 micrograms per cubic meter 
health standard. New York's number is based upon non-cancer risks. The 
Department of Health considered a lower number than 5, based upon the 
cancer risk, but it decided without (in my opinion) adequate 
justification that the cancer data were too weak. Even though New York 
has aggressively investigated vapor intrusion at numerous sites, it "5" 
five is less protective than the action levels in many other states and 
regions.

Finally, consultants for some of the responsible parties in Mountain 
View, where I live, have found ways to lower the detection limit for TCE 
in air to the .017 standard. Those numbers are low, but contamination at 
that level needs to be found and measured as part of comprehensive 
efforts to control vapor exposures.

Lenny


--
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
http://www.cpeo.org


_______________________________________________
Brownfields mailing list
Brownfields@list.cpeo.org
http://www.cpeo.org/mailman/listinfo/brownfields