Re: [CPEO-BIF] Vapor intrusion at new Bronx school

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org>]

Submitted by Neal Frink <NFRINK@DINSLAW.com>

I agree that ideally the engineered fix would be memorialized in some
type of IC feature.  As more states adopt UECA, I would hope that this
becomes more common and the level of comfort goes up with ICs being
enforceable/recorded.  The problem, of course, is that owners do not
want their titles sullied by references to environmental problems that
may be fully abated by the time they are selling.

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 wrote:
> 
> 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

-- 


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