[CPEO-MEF] Army Interim Vapor Intrusion Policy

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org>]

On November 6, 2006, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army 
(Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health) Tad Davis signed out an 
Interim Vapor Intrusion Policy for Environmental Response Actions. The 
five-page document is not technical guidance: The Tri-Service 
Environmental Risk Assessment Working Group hopes to issue such guidance 
"within the year."

The policy is fairly straightforward. It notes that vapor intrusion 
investigations may be mounted under the Superfund Law or RCRA (Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act) Corrective Action. It states: "While the 
federal and State guidances may be a useful resource, they do not 
qualify as an Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements under 
CERCLA or as a 'media cleanup standard' under RCRA corrective action."

Modeling based on soil gas or groundwater measurements may indicate 
whether a potential risk exists, but "Army components are discouraged from
using model output to derive quantitative risk estimates." Subsurface 
sampling results, the policy explains, " should be used as the basis to 
indicate whether indoor air and ambient/background sampling is appropriate.

The Army discusses possible land use controls, but like documents from 
other agencies it does not provide sufficient tools to decided whether 
construction should take place at a potential vapor intrusion site: "If 
… modeling indicates a potential risk at an
active installation, the Army may chose to amend its installation master 
plan, file a deed  notice in accordance with State law, or utilize other 
appropriate land use controls, such as  dig restrictions or a 
construction review process.  Such forms of notice would inform Army 
employees, contractors and others that the issue of vapor intrusion must 
be considered if a building were to be constructed on the site in question."

If decision documents at a site have not addressed potential vapor 
intrusion risks, then those risks will be studied as part of a Five-year 
Review or, at active installations, an industrial hygiene survey.

At Formerly Used Defense Sites, "If volatile chemicals being addressed 
under FUDS are commingled with waste from other Potentially Responsible 
Parties, per FUDS policy, the Army would not pursue unilateral 
investigation."

According to Defense Environmental Alert (February 20, 2007), this 
provision created complications at the former Schilling Air Force Base, 
in Salina, Kansas. Reportedly the Army Corps Kansas City District 
received a waiver from Army headquarters to continue its vapor 
investigation in Salina, even though it has not yet established a 
cost-charing agreement with other potentially responsible parties.

Defense Environmental Alert says that the Army Corps is hampered by the 
Cooper v. Aviall court decision, which makes it difficult to recover 
remediation costs from other responsible parties in the absence of a 
government cleanup order. Ironicially, the Defense Department - through 
the U.S. Department of Justice - has reportedly been blocking a 
legislative "fix" to Aviall because it is concerned that other 
responsible parties will come looking for cleanup funds in the 
Department's deep pockets

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
<lsiegel@cpeo.org>
http://www.cpeo.org


_______________________________________________
Military mailing list
Military@list.cpeo.org
http://www.cpeo.org/mailman/listinfo/military