[CPEO-BIF] Siegel testimony on New York regs

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org>]

[Earlier this week I testified at a hearing of the New York Department 
of Environmental Conservation about its draft environmental cleanup 
regulations. I called upon New York to directly address vapor intrusion 
in its regs. Below is the introduction to my testimony, followed by a 
link to the entire document. - LS]



NEW YORK'S BROWNFIELDS AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP REGULATIONS SHOULD 
DIRECTLY ADDRESS VAPOR INTRUSION:
Testimony before the New York Department of Environmental Conservation
Lenny Siegel
March 15, 2006


New York State agencies are among the leaders in addressing vapor 
intrusion, the surfacing of toxic gases into our homes and communities. 
The state's new environmental cleanup regulations should directly 
address issues associated with the vapor intrusion pathway, particularly 
the questions of where, when, and how to approve development on 
properties with a potential for vapor intrusion.

My name is Lenny Siegel. As Executive Director of the Center for Public 
Environmental Oversight, I work with community groups throughout New 
York state and across the nation on vapor intrusion and other 
environmental health threats. As a resident of Mountain View, 
California, site of at least four ongoing vapor intrusion 
investigations, I deal directly with these issues in my own community.

New York's brownfield law requires cleanups at contaminated brownfield 
sites to be protective of public health and the environment, including 
indoor air. In addition to other remedies, the law requires the New York 
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and the New York 
Department of Health (DOH) to develop contaminant-specific soil cleanup 
objectives (SCOs) that are protective not only of future users of 
contaminated sites but also of adjacent residential uses.  Because of 
uncertainties associated with off-site exposure models, the DEC and DOH 
opted to not address vapor intrusion in the draft SCOs and instead to 
address contamination on a case-by-case basis pursuant to DOH's February 
2005 draft "Guidance for Evaluating Soil Vapor Intrusion in the State of 
New York." I have reviewed and commented on that document as well as the 
Department of Environmental Conservation's November 2004 draft Program 
Policy, "Evaluating the Potential for Vapor Intrusion at Past, Current, 
and Future Sites." Both serve as excellent practical handbooks for 
conducting vapor intrusion investigations, but in themselves they do not 
provide sufficient protection to the people who now or in the future 
will live, work, study, and play in or near contaminated areas.

Therefore, I suggest that New York's environmental remediation 
regulations incorporate the following three approaches:

* The known or likely presence of any volatile organic compound below or 
near a property should trigger a tiered vapor intrusion screening, based 
upon vapor-phase sampling, and the SCO's required by statute should err 
on the side of caution.

* York should impose short-term institutional controls, requiring vapor 
intrusion investigations, upon any property participating in its cleanup 
programs that is suspected of current or future vapor intrusion.

* New York should convene community advisory groups at vapor intrusion 
investigation sites where there is sufficient public interest.

...

For the entire testimony, see
http://www.cpeo.org/pubs/SiegelNYRegs.doc


--
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