From: | Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org> |
Date: | 24 Jun 2005 19:35:59 -0000 |
Reply: | cpeo-brownfields |
Subject: | Re: [CPEO-BIF] Vapor intrusion at new Bronx school |
I believe such engineering controls should be supported by monitoring and institutional controls, since they might not remain protective for the life of the contamination. In fact, at many sites with effective engineering controls, such as vapor barriers and positive air pressure, I still argue for accelerated source remediation. Lenny Lenny Siegel wrote: > > Submitted by Neal Frink <NFRINK@DINSLAW.com> > > I'm not sure why prophylactic measures are not more frequently > incorporated into reuse/redevelopment of impacted properties. I've been > involved two sites where protection against POTENTIAL vapor intrusion > was addressed in the design phase for new buildings on re-use sites. > Both were adjacent to dry cleaner sites with residual groundwater > contamination slowly being addressed by PRPs. Conservative modeling > (pre-build) showed POTENTIAL vapor intrusion risks. To address, both > properties were built on slab with passive barrier systems that could be > monitored and actively vented if post-construction monitoring showed the > need. This "precautionary" approach increases cost somewhat, but it > also reduces downstream human health (and therefore financial) risk. In > one case, my client (who is developing urban condos) settled with the > neighbor PRP for the cost of the barrier/abatement system and > monitoring. This creative solution worked for the PRP because they > could then show that the groundwater-soil vapor-indoor air pathway was > incomplete, at least as to the immediate downgradient neighbors. Oh, > and it resolved some threatened litigation as well. ;) > > This prophylactic or precautionary approach helps manage risk and allow > re-use of properties while longer term remediation (whether active or > monitored NA) of the underlying contamination advances. Seems like a > good tool to have in the toolbox, particularly in light of the Bronx > High School example. > > Neal Frink > Dinsmore & Shohl LLP > 1900 Chemed Center > 255 East Fifth Street > Cincinnati, OH 45202 > > (513) 977-8359 > (513) 977-8141 (paper fax) > (513) 744-3168 (e-fax) > -- 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 |
Follow-Ups
|
References
| |
Prev by Date: Re: [CPEO-BIF] Vapor intrusion at new Bronx school Next by Date: Re: [CPEO-BIF] Vapor intrusion at new Bronx school | |
Prev by Thread: Re: [CPEO-BIF] Vapor intrusion at new Bronx school Next by Thread: Re: [CPEO-BIF] Vapor intrusion at new Bronx school |