Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
VAPOR INTRUSION UPDATE AND OVERVIEW
MECC Conference
Sarah Toevs SullivanMay 13, 2015
2
VAPOR INTRUSION – A RAPIDLY EXPANDING ISSUE
• 13 years after issuing its first draft guidance EPA still has not finalized a VI guidance
• After being strongly criticized by its Inspector General in 2009 EPA:
▫ Issues wholly new draft VI guidance; final guidance expected soon.
▫ Now requires VI be assessed in five-year reviews
▫ EPA proposes to include VI pathway in HRS scoring
▫ Orders regions to identify potential VI sites
▫ Pressures states to do the same
VAPOR INTRUSION – A RAPIDLY EXPANDING ISSUE
• EPA adopts ASTM E1527-13 as regulatory standard for conducting “all appropriate inquiry.”
• Requires assessment of whether vapor intrusion risk constitutes a “recognized environmental condition”
• Puts VI issue front and center in real state transactions nationwide
3
4
OTHERS STEP IN TO FILL EPA’S VOID
• As of January 2014, up to 46 states have issued some form of VI guidance
• In 2007 ITRC, with state, federal and industry representatives, issued its VI guide; in 2014 ITRC issued new petroleum VI guide.
• EPA Regions develop varying approaches and screening levels
• Resulting in a patchwork of widely varied and diverse set of investigation, screening level, remediation and monitoring approaches.
5
State Update State Update State Update
Alabama Apr 2008 Maine May 2013
Oregon Mar 2010
Alaska Oct 2012 Maryland Aug 2008 Pennsylvania Jan 2004
Arizona May 2011 Massachusetts
Feb 2013 Rhode Island Sept 2012
California Apr 2012 Michigan May 2013
South Carolina^
May 2001
Colorado Mar 2012 Minnesota Oct 2010 South Dakota*
Mar 2003
Connecticut
May 2013 Mississippi May 2002
Tennessee Sept 2006
Delaware Mar 2007 Missouri Apr 2006 Texas June 2012
Florida* Oct 2013 Montana Apr 2011 Utah* Oct 2005
Hawaii Feb 2014 Nebraska* Sept 2012
Vermont Apr 2012
Idaho Aug 2012 Nevada Oct 1012 Virginia Apr 2014
Illinois May 2013 New York Oct 2006 Washington May 2010
Indiana July 2012 New Hampshire
Feb 2013 West Virginia Nov 1999
Iowa^ 2013
New Jersey Mar 2013 Wisconsin July 2012
Kansas June 2007 North Carolina
Apr 2014 Wyoming Dec 2013
Kentucky^ Apr 2011 Ohio May 2010
Louisiana Jan 2014# Oklahoma July 2008
* Storage Tank Guidance ^ Petroleum Guidance # Draft Guidance
46 STATES WITH SOME FORM OF VAPOR INTRUSION GUIDANCE
6
EPA AND STATE GUIDANCES VARY WIDELY
• Screening values
▫ Groundwater, subslab, indoor levels
• Sampling Techniques
▫ No. of samples – spatial and temporal
• Attenuation Factors
• Distance (Exclusion ) Criteria
• MLE Evaluations
• Long-term monitoring requirements
• Differing requirements for tank releases and other releases
7
EXCLUSION DISTANCE
Eklund, et al. 2014
8
SCREENING LEVELS
Eklund, et al., 2014
9
SELECTED SCREENING VALUES - TCE
Media California
New Jersey
Illinois Range of Values
Groundwater(µg/L)
NA 1 1,600 33,000x
Soil Gas(µg/m3)
528 27 546,000 2,500,000X
Indoor Air(µg/m3)
1.2 3 12.8 2,700x
Eklund, et al., 2014
10
SELECTED SCREENING VALUES - PCE
Media California
New Jersey
Illinois Range of Values
Groundwater(µg/L)
NA 1 260 55,000x
Soil Gas(µg/m3)
180 34 66,000 49,000x
Indoor Air(µg/m3)
0.41 3 NA 270x
Eklund, at al., 2014
11
ATTENUATION FACTORS
• Groundwater values generally 0.001
• Deep soil gas generally 0.01
• Shallow soil gas values are more variable: 0.001 to 0.1
▫ One Western state uses 1 as a default assumption
• Crawl space values are 1 in all 10 states that give values.
Eklund, et al., 2014
12
EPA REGION 9 APPROACH TO VAPOR INTRUSION OF TCE
• July and August 2014 memos – Region 9 doubles down on short-term risk
• Presents dramatic departure for Superfund program by focusing on short-term risk of low-level TCE exposure
• Calls for “accelerated” response for 2 ug/m3 (residential); 7 ug/m3 “commercial” and “urgent” response action for 6 ug/m3 (residential) and 21 ug/m3 (commercial)
13
CONFLICTING STANDARDS – TCE
Commercial/worker Standard
Level
Region 9 VI from Groundwater – urgent response required
21 ug/m3 (10-hour work day)24 ug/m3 (8-hour workday)
ATSDR Minimum Risk Level
11,000 ug/m3
ATSDR Intermediate Risk Level
540 ug/m3
OSHA PEL (8-hour time-weighted avg.)
537,000 ug/m3 (8-hour work day)
NIOSH (10-hour time-weighted avg.)
134,000 ug/m3 (10-hour day)
14
EPA HQ AUGUST 23, 2014 MEMO ON TCE EARLY ACTIONS • In response to Regional inquiries arising
from Region 9’s action, EPA HQ issues memo: “Compilation of Information”
▫ Cites to EPA’s 2011 TCE Assessment, setting 2 ug/m3, based on chronic inhalation concentration based on both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic exposures;
▫ Memo notes that while single exposure risk may exist, but admits EPA hasn’t set single exposure level.
15
WHERE DOES THIS LEAVE US?
• As of 2007, TCE was found at 1,022 out of a total of approximately 1,600 NPL sites.
• PCE, benzene and other VOCs are found at countless other sites.
• What do regulators, PRPs, property owners, and prospective purchasers do in with these confusing and conflicting standards?
16
IS A NATIONAL STANDARD THE BEST POLICY?
• Both industry and environmental groups asked EPA HQ to negate or affirm Region 9’s actions.
• EPA’s action must be based on sound science and be subject to rulemaking.
• Our environmental statutes are generally based on “cooperative federalism” - on the principle that states should be protectors of their local resources and economic needs.
17
WHAT DO PRP’S DO IN THE FACE OF INCONSISTENT STANDARDS?
• Engage VI experts with broad understanding of policy and science issues
• Engage risk assessors to evaluate site-specific data
• Engage risk communications experts to assist.
• VI issues require more nuanced approach than typical response actions require.
18
WHAT DO PROSPECTIVE PURCHASERS DO IN THE FACE OF INCONSISTENT STANDARDS?
• Careful and thoughtful scoping of Phase I. Look first to state guidance/policy. Absent clear standards, look to EPA standards.
• May need more time to conduct testing/evaluation
• Carefully evaluate liability concerns (both CERCLA continuing obligations and tort liability).
• Agreement language- as is? Reopeners?
19
WHAT DO CONSULTANTS DO IN FACE OF INCONSISTENT STANDARDS
• Careful and thoughtful scoping of Phase I’s. Be mindful that property other than subject property may pose VI risk
• Be prepared to advise clients on standards or lack of thereof.
20
WHAT DO REGULATORS DO IN THE FACE OF SUCH INCONSISTENT STANDARDS?
• Be mindful of the lack of scientific consensus on so many VI issues. Be open to dialogue with the regulated community and with regulators.
• Acknowledge that science is evolving rapidly.
• Understand the importance not only of identifying and responding to potential risk, but communicating that risk in appropriate context to prevent unnecessary concern and fear.
