Stakeholders’ Views on Vapor Intrusionby Lenny Siegel

In the evening of March 12, 2008, five community stake-holders gave presentations to a roomful of more than 100vapor intrusion professionals at the National Stakeholders’Forum on Vapor Intrusion, sponsored by U.S. EPA in con-junction with the Association for Environmental Health andSciences Spring 2008 meeting in San Diego, California.Each stakeholder represented a neighborhood contaminatedwith volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Written answersfrom four of the stakeholders—to questions provided byevent organizers—were handed out. The community present-ers were Debra Hall from Hopewell Junction, New York;Bruce Oldfield from Hillcrest, New York; Mary Moore fromPhoenix, Arizona; Jane Horton, from Mountain View, Cali-fornia; and Robert Dorr, from Providence, Rhode Island.

The event provided an unusual opportunity for consul-tants, government officials, and others to hear from thepeople directly affected by vapor intrusion contamination,investigation, and response. The speakers were selected fortheir level of experience; they demonstrated a technicalsophistication not normally found when the vapor intrusionquestion is first introduced into any community. Despitethe late hour, the audience was attentive. In general, evalu-ations showed that the audience was impressed by thestakeholder presentations. For many, this was an unusualopportunity. One of the people who completed an evalua-tion form explained, ‘‘I have been in the VI industry forover 6 years and [have] never seen the personal side of myindustry.’’ A number of evaluators (as well as the stake-holders) expressed concern that too much time was spenton the introductory overview of recent technical advancesin vapor intrusion, which, along with the late hour of theforum, did not allow adequate time for discussion andsharing at the end of the forum.

Bruce Oldfield, of the Hillcrest Environmental ActionTeam, summarized the community attitude: ‘‘VOCs in ourhomes are no different than having a killer enter ourhomes unbeknownst to us. We did not bring them intoour homes, we do not want them in our homes.’’ He ex-plained that the vapor intrusion investigation in Hillcrestwas apparently triggered by the New York State

Department of Health’s recognition of an unusual, elevatedpattern of childhood cancers in his neighborhood.

Mary Moore is a leader of the Lindon Park Neighbor-hood Association and a member of the EPA-sponsored Com-munity Advisory Group overseeing the cleanup ofthe Motorola 52nd Street Superfund site in Phoenix. She ex-pressed frustration that 19 years after being listed onthe National Priorities List, the site still has had novapor intrusion studies. A work plan for a Vapor IntrusionRisk Assessment for Operable Unit 1 was submitted in Sep-tember 2003, but nothing has been done. Moore said she wastold that the delay was because U.S. EPA has no finalizedvapor intrusion guidance. The Arizona Department of Envi-ronmental Quality is lead regulator for that operable unit.

Robert Dorr is a leader of the Adelaide Avenue Envi-ronmental Justice Coalition, which oversees the cleanup ofthe former Gorham Silver property in Providence. TextronInc. is the responsible party, but it no longer owns theland. The property currently contains an abandoned super-market with elevated levels of VOCs and a high schoolunder construction. He warned that large contaminatedproperties such at Gorham Silver often wind up owned bylocal governments and are likely to be used for publicstructures such as schools. He reported that regulatoryagency employees tried to be helpful, but their knowledgeof the vapor intrusion pathway was not up to date.

Jane Horton, board member of the now disbandedNortheast Mountain View Advisory Council, described herhouse, on the edge of the Middlefield-Ellis-WhismanSuperfund Study Area in Mountain View—the birthplaceof the semiconductor industry. Despite a long history ofinvestigation, remediation, and public involvement acrossthe street, her home was belatedly addressed:

Indoor air testing was never offered, discussed, or explained untilafter I had lived across the street from a Superfund Site for decades.Only a slight redrawing of the plume gave me the perceived right tostrongly request indoor air testing. At that point the site was 75%remediated, with approximately 75,000 tons of TCE removed, andmy home indoor air tested high enough to recommend remediation,which was designed and installed.

Debra Hall, founder of Hopewell Junction Citizens forClean Water, told how EPA’s mobile real-time sensor, thetrace atmospheric gas analyzer, had been used to test the

Copyright ª 2009 The Author(s)Journal compilationª 2009National GroundWater Association.

NGWA.org Ground Water Monitoring & Remediation 29, no. 1/ Winter 2009/pages 53–57 53

air in her home. She explained, ‘‘The TAGA has the abilityto find sources of TCE/PCE and other VOCs other thanvapor intrusion. It is also more cost efficient to test usingthe TAGA when there are many structures close together.’’She also compiled a table showing how TAGA results, justnine days apart, showed dramatically different level ofTCE in her indoor air.

Communicating with the PublicThe panelists agreed that outreach to people whose

homes are directly affected is different from involving thepublic at large. Hall warned:

Vapor intrusion investigations must be discussed as soon as possi-ble. Residents will be mistrustful if they find out about possiblevapor intrusion from a newspaper or television news program. Resi-dents and anyone involved should be sent information, and a meet-ing should be scheduled so everyone can learn about this together.

Oldfield compared the experiences of two communitiesin his part of New York:

When vapor intrusion is detected in an area/building, the occupantsof the area/building need to be first notified in a timely fashion bycertified mail or personal contact from the appropriate agency beforeinformation is released to the media. In Hillcrest residents were ini-tially, personally notified by mail and/or personal contact from theNew York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS-DEC). Hillcrest residents reported feeling more at ease with the situa-tion once vapor intrusion issues were broadcast by local media. Innearby Endicott NY, impacted residents often were not notified andtheir first information about contamination issues came from a localnewspaper and/or television source. Endicott residents who learnedabout possible contamination issues by watching the eleven o‘clocklocal news were often upset that earlier notification was not available.

He added,

This notification needs to extend beyond the owners of the build-ings impacted by vapor intrusion issues to inform employees andlessees of said buildings. The owners of businesses should holdemployee meetings to discuss the issues and post a notice of possi-ble contamination and mitigation. Landlords should be responsiblefor conveying information about possible contamination and miti-gation of both commercial and residential rental properties.

Moore warned, however, that information needs toreach more than those people currently affected. Shestated, ‘‘However, people living adjacent to the contami-nated area also need to be notified since VOCs may bemigrating off the site by preferential pathways and thoseadjacent areas should be considered an extension to thesource area.’’ She also suggested, ‘‘The agencies need torely on (and support) the local neighborhood groups toassist in conveying this information to the concernedcommunity.’’

Horton agreed, but she recommended:

Where there is no existing group, the regulatory agency should beobligated to help form and support groups.. This is an over-whelming and daunting experience to go through, and without sup-port forming and maintaining groups, people who have alreadybeen victimized by faceless polluters still have very few tools todeal with their situation.

She also declared it important that those officials or con-sultants assigned to take inquiries be adequately prepared:

TAGA Results Nine Days Apart

Room 1/26/04 1/26/04 2/4/04 2/4/04ppbv lg/m3 ppbv lg/m3

Computer Room 3.3 17.72 5.0 26.85Family Room 3.0 16.11 5.0 26.85Expansion Joint 17.0 64.44 8.9 47.25Game Room 3.3 17.72 3.7 19.86Laundry Room 3.4 18.25 7.7 41.34

Summa Results

ppbv lg/m3

Downstairs 3.4 18.25Summa Sub-Slab 1,200 6,444

L. Siegel/ Ground Water Monitoring & Remediation 29, no. 1: 53–5754 NGWA.org

Only those contacts that represent real persons who actually knowwhat is happening specific to that neighborhood should be listed.Imagine how frustrating it is to be brave enough to finally makethat call and then get a voice mail and no one ever returns the call,or to get through to a person who hasn’t got a clue about what ishappening in that neighborhood!

Dorr called for creative approaches to reach out to com-munities of color, such as the Dominicans and Cambodiansin his neighborhood. He said that extra efforts are necessaryto overcome language barriers.

SamplingThe other panelists shared Hall’s concern that vapor

levels vary over time. They suggested recurring samplingboth before and after mitigation. None suggested relianceon subsurface sampling; they all focused on indoor air,complemented by outdoor and subsurface testing.

Hall explained the benefits of retesting:

The EPA sampled all homes a year after the original testing,whether they had a mitigation system installed or not. This washelpful for a few reasons. For homes that had systems installed,homeowners had their mind at ease knowing the system was work-ing.. For homes that did not have a system installed, their mindswere put to ease that their air continued to be safe.

Based on the interpretation of ground water data thathad kept her house from being tested—that is, it was justbeyond the interpolated plume boundary—Hortonsuggested:

With all the variability in soils and preferential pathways, it shouldbe mandated that indoor air testing happen for any inhabited build-ing within several hundred feet of volatile organic contamination,and that the perimeter for testing expand outward until no contami-nated indoor air is found.

She further explained:

As soon as it is determined that there is contaminated ground waterand that the indoor air has not been tested, all efforts should bemade to start the indoor air testing immediately. ‘‘Immediately’’ inthese instances does not mean that it happens quickly; canistersneed to be available, labs for testing have to be scheduled, andhomeowners and testing staff need to coordinate their efforts. Withall the steps that homeowners/renters need to do prior to testing toensure the accuracy of the test, people living in the affected areasreally need to be brought on board the process without delay.

Oldfield agreed with Horton:

It is vital that the boundaries of a VOC plume be accurately definedso that occupants of building over this plume are all being caredfor. Therefore it is essential that testing be comprehensive enoughto discover vapor intrusion that may defy a preliminary geologicmodel of an underground plume.

MitigationMitigation—such as vapor membranes, radon-type sub-

slab depressurization systems, and other forms of ventila-tion—is important, according to the panelists. Theyexpressed concern, however, that it is offered unevenly.Hall opined:

I think any home that is between two other homes needing mitigationshould be mitigated. I have come to that conclusion by putting myselfin that person’s place. How would I feel knowing that all around methe air is contaminated and my home is not protected should the toxicvapors decide to invade my home? I feel the same way for homes thatare considered just outside the contaminated area. The only way to

breathe easy is to clean the plume that is the cause of the contamina-tion.. I still do not understand why agencies decide to monitor andnot mitigate should they find contamination since in many cases itcosts less to mitigate than it does to monitor.

Oldfield made a similar point:

Under New York State‘s guidelines, if three homes are located ona toxic plume and the outer homes qualify for mitigation, VOCindoor levels in the middle home may not be high enough duringa test to warrant mitigation. The middle homeowner has to sufferunacceptable anxiety during the period between tests to see if thelevels may rise to the action level for mitigation. Therefore, toreduce anxiety of residents in a ‘‘monitor’’ phase, any home withvapor intrusion from an outside source should be mitigated. TheHillcrest Environmental Action Team strongly supports blanketmitigation. All homes, schools, and businesses on a known VOCplume should be mitigated to ensure against future intrusions ofthese unwanted toxins.

Each of the presenters from communities with residen-tial mitigation in place described shortcomings. Hall, forexample, reported, ‘‘For a few homes, the results were notlow enough. In this case the EPA was able to reinstalla larger fan, retest, and then assure residents that their airwas safe. Had they not retested, the EPA would never haveknown that a more powerful fan was needed.’’

Horton recounted her personal experience:

My home initially had the levels of TCE increase after the first sys-tem was installed: My earthen cellar had a system installed thatsucked air in from my cellar and out through a newly made exithole in the exterior wall, up to an above-roof-gutter vent. However,this design was flawed, and they had to create a system that suckedoutdoor air into the cellar as well as blowing the air out; this re-sulted in TCE levels that were ‘‘acceptable,’’ although not ‘‘0.’’

She also discussed the costs of mitigation: ‘‘The pollut-ers should have to pay for everything; homeowners withremediation should not have to beg to have these big com-panies pay for the electricity that is needed to run thesefans..’’

Oldfield made a more general observation:

Conflicting information about the effectiveness of radon-system-type mitigation systems do not make myself or my neighbors confi-dent that these systems are a long term solution to vapor intrusionproblems. Although the [New York State Department of Environ-mental Conservation] swears that these systems remove toxic va-pors, in our climate changes to the subslab and basement walls overtime are such that new pathways are likely to open and renewindoor air contamination.

Source ControlDorr spoke for the entire group when he warned that

there is a danger that those responsible for cleanup ‘‘willsee mitigation as a permanent substitution for remediation.Mitigation should be temporary.’’ Moore stated, ‘‘However,mitigation is not the answer to the underlying problem.Clean-up of contamination in the soil, ground water, and/or bedrock, the cause of the problem, is the only real solu-tion.’’ Horton said, ‘‘Polluters need to pay for remediationuntil the ground water is clean. The person whose homehas been contaminated should not have to pay, should nothave to nag, and should not have to be the one makingsure that the polluters and the management companies dowhat is right.’’ Hall agreed, ‘‘Mitigation is one thing butthe only true way to cut the expense and protect people isto clean the source of contamination.’’

NGWA.org L. Siegel/ Ground Water Monitoring & Remediation 29, no. 1: 53–57 55

Oldfield summarized:

Since new vapor pathways may open in the future, we need perma-nent remedies to contamination. To truly remediate the problem,environmental agencies must act to reduce indoor air intrusion byreducing the source of vapors. Efforts should be made to remove ortreat contaminants below residences so that future intrusion will notoccur. We recognize that remediation cost is often a factor in reduc-ing the source of vapor intrusion, but it should not always be the onlycriterion that drives remediation. Remediation costs to business andindustries responsible for contamination should be secondary to pro-tecting public health.

Long-Term Maintenance and MonitoringMoore explained the need for long-term assurances:

‘‘Once vapor intrusion issues have been identified andequipment for mitigation and monitoring is in place, long-term monitoring will be necessary to help ensure that thevapor intrusion equipment is working and being main-tained properly.’’

Hall was more specific about long-term monitoring:‘‘After mitigation systems are proven to work, testing shouldthen take place every 3 to 4 years to make sure levels in thehome continue to be protective.’’ Oldfield differed slightly:‘‘Yearly tests on both mitigated and unmitigated buildingswithin and near the edge of known contamination plumesshould be conducted to ensure public health.’’

Moore further discussed long-term requirements:

If engineering controls or institutional controls are in place, theyneed to be monitored with a well-thought-out contingency plan inplace in case of failure. Failures do happen. The lack of appropri-ate contingency and communication plans or a break-down intheir execution is not acceptable.. The assumption must not bemade that once controls are in place the problem has been ade-quately addressed. Failures do happen and must be planned forfrom the start.

She called for alarms to warn of system failure: ‘‘Sen-sors and alarms should be part of the mitigation systemdesign. Residents need to know immediately if a mitigationsystem fails and is no longer working properly.’’ Hallagreed: ‘‘As for a building which is definitely impactedand where a system is installed, some sort of alarm systemshould be installed should the active mitigation system(blowers, etc.) shut off or burn out.’’

Horton expressed dissatisfaction with the maintenanceof her mitigation system:

I think that there is a long way to go as far as polluters acceptingresponsibility; I believe it is only done when the pressure is on themand there is public outcry. In an ideal world a person’s whose homeis under remediation would have scheduled maintenance with check-ing of the equipment and air testing. What I have experienced is thatI get a phone call to schedule maintenance; I return the call, leavevoice mails, leave messages, and months go by where I have to con-tinue proactively contacting the go-between company—the companythat mediates between me and the polluters—to try and get mainte-nance and testing done. I think I am at about four months into this lat-est ‘‘telephone-tag’’ process.. The person whose home has beencontaminated should not have to pay, should not have to nag, andshould not have to be the one making sure that the polluters and themanagement companies do what is right.

Land Use and New ConstructionPanelists were worried that new land uses and construc-

tion at contamination sites would put sensitive populations,

such as children, at risk. However, none of the speakersreferred to the new ASTM Standard Practice on vapor intru-sion and property transactions (ASTM 2008), released lessthan two weeks earlier, designed to incorporate vapor intru-sion risks into real estate development. Dorr questioned ofthe safety of the new high school at Gorham Silver. Hallwondered how gymnastic students in a building near thesource of VOC contamination in Hopewell Junction wouldbe protected from potential changes in indoor air. Oldfieldconcluded:

Since we know little about the effects of VOCs on our most sensi-tive population, our children, we need to be the most protective ofchildren‘s health as possible. If a school is sited on a contaminatedsite, Herculean efforts should be made to reduce exposure for thesechildren.

Hall is concerned about new residential construction inher neighborhood:

There are proposals for more homes to be built in the Superfundarea. There is no legislation for this type of circumstance: nothingto force new homes on vapor sites to be built with mitigation de-vices already installed. There is no law that says potential home-owners must be made aware of this ‘‘potential’’ environmentalproblem. You do not know unless you test. There is nothing forcingsellers to do the test. Therefore sellers do not have to disclose thisinformation. I would like to see mitigation systems required fornew construction at or close to vapor sites.

Moore’s position was similar, but more general:

Redevelopment should not be allowed to go forward in a contami-nated area, especially a Superfund site, before vapor intrusion in-vestigations are completed. Building codes and zoning processesneed to address vapor intrusion when proposals are made for newconstruction, uses or redevelopment. Cities need to become a part-ner in the vapor intrusion mitigation process and support responsi-ble development/redevelopment at these sites.

If vapor intrusion is suspected or known, then permits that are con-ditional upon installation of pre-emptive mitigation techniquesshould be the minimal guideline for new construction at contami-nated sites. Questions about vapor intrusion should come up as partof development on properties with residual VOC contamination.Addressing this issue prior to final building design and constructionmay provide more options to address vapor intrusion. With knowl-edge of the extent of contamination, additional remediation workcan be done to accommodate building construction, or buildingdesign can be modified to address the residual contamination left inplace. If residential or commercial development is to be allowed, itis important prospective developers know that extensive investiga-tion and remediation may be necessary. Public health must be ade-quately protected.

Oldfield stated a similar, perhaps stronger, position:

If vapor intrusion is suspected or known, contamination should beremoved or reduced to the lowest extent possible before construc-tion of new buildings. If contamination cannot be reduced toacceptable levels to ensure future indoor air intrusion, new con-struction should not be permitted. We should never think that vaporbarriers or radon mitigation type systems are acceptable long-termsolutions for permitting new construction on contaminated sites. Inthe Northeast U.S., ground and building heaving from freezingcontinually opens pathways for vapor intrusion. Allowing new con-struction on areas of known contamination by using radon-typemitigation systems is insensible. Vapor barriers and radon mitiga-tion type systems are not permanent solutions to vapor intrusion is-sues.

Horton discussed the need to regulate new constructionas well:

I think that there is so much known now about vapor intrusion thatcities can have responsible building codes to require vapor intrusionpads in new construction where homes will be built over contaminated

L. Siegel/ Ground Water Monitoring & Remediation 29, no. 1: 53–5756 NGWA.org

ground water. Much of what happens in Mountain View now is dueto partnerships that have developed among the EPA, the citizens’advisory group, and Mountain View City Council members and citystaff. For example, if I see new construction, I follow up with a callto Kevin Woodhouse in the City Manager’s office and ask him if heis aware of the construction and if vapor intrusion pads are needed,etc. A partnership process had developed which allows much saferbuilding of new construction.

In fact, Horton suggested that properly protected andmonitored construction at a potential vapor intrusion sitemay be better than some of the alternatives. She explained:

There are homes and buildings made from materials that outgasand pollute the indoor air so that the quality is worse than outdoorair. People use dry cleaners, solvents, chemicals and have carpetsand material that pollute them with a plethora of chemicals everyday. So would I want my day care center in a brand-new portableclassroom, a classroom that will outgas tremendous amounts for atleast seven years, or would I want my day care over a contaminatedsite remediated and built in a style to ensure acceptable air quality?

Future ForumsPanelist Bruce Oldfield noted that members of the public

often find themselves at the end of a tight agenda dominatedby experts and officials. In San Diego, he joined audienceparticipants in pointing out there was inadequate time, at theend of a long day, to engage in full-fledged discussion of theissues that the stakeholders raised. Indeed, audience mem-bers, though attentive, did not ask questions. Thus, while theSan Diego forum laid the groundwork for a larger forum inPhiladelphia in January 2009, it also demonstrated the needto create an agenda that doesn’t delay stakeholder represen-tatives to the end and instead provides adequate time, earlyenough, to stimulate full discussion and debate.

After the panel, stakeholders and other met informallyto compare notes and discuss the issues raised during theirformal presentations. It was clear that the people who liveand work at vapor intrusion sites have lessons for eachother. Any future forum should be structured to encouragesuch sharing of experience.

Lessons LearnedThe stakeholder panelists in San Diego demonstrated

forcefully that the people directly affected by vapor intru-sion are capable of understanding the technical and policyissues. As Debra Hall’s table illustrated, they pay closeattention to the data describing the air in their homes.They also have informed, useful views about how toimprove the policies and procedures that govern vaporintrusion responses.

The forum also showed that U.S. EPA’s focus on theattenuation factor, discussed earlier in the evening, was ofrelative minor interest to the affected public. It’s not thatthey reject the value of improved data bases and mathemati-cal models. Rather, they seek real data on indoor air concen-tration, and they have repeatedly opened their homes andcleaned out their closets to ensure accurate sampling.

Communicating with the PublicStakeholder panelists agree that outreach to people

whose homes are directly affected is different than involvingthe public at large. Furthermore, they want the officials or

consultants assigned to take public inquiries to be adequatelyprepared and be prompt in notifying residents whose indoorair quality may be affected by vapor intrusion.

SamplingPanelists, some of whom have repeatedly allowed sam-

pling crews into their homes, find indoor air sampling—including real-time sampling—to be the best measure ofvapor intrusion. Noting the temporal and spatial variationsin both soil-gas and indoor air sampling, they advocaterecurring sampling.

MitigationAgain noting variations in sampling results, the stake-

holders like the blanket approach to mitigation, and basedon their own experiences they argued for confirmatorysampling to ensure that mitigation is working.

Source ControlThe panelists strongly argue that mitigation is not

a long-term solution to vapor intrusion. They advocate fullcleanup of contamination in the soil and ground water.

Long-Term Maintenance and MonitoringStakeholders want recurring monitoring to ensure systems

are working, and they look forward to alarm systems that canwarn of breakthrough. Some want better support from thoseresponsible for maintaining active mitigation systems.

Land Use and New ConstructionParticipants want investigations and, in some cases,

cleanup completed before new buildings are built at siteswith potential vapor intrusion. Mitigation should berequired, but it is not enough.

Future ForumsAt future vapor intrusion forums, stakeholder presenta-

tions should be placed near the start of the program, andthere should be ample time set aside for public participantsto informally share their experiences and concerns.

Some of the stakeholder observations in San Diego rein-force current state and federal policy, while others suggesta need for change. The stakeholders don’t expect an instantadoption of their recommendations. But they deserve to playa role in all future discussions of vapor intrusion policy.

ReferenceASTM. 2008. Standard practice for assessment of vapor intrusion

into structures on property involved in real estate transactions.West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania: ASTM International.

Biographical SketchLenny Siegel, is Executive Director of the Center for Public

Environmental Oversight. He can be reached at Center for PublicEnvironmental Oversight, a project of the Pacific Studies Center,278-A Hope St., Mountain View, CA 94041; (650) 961-8918 or(650) 969-1545; fax 650/961-8918; lsiegel@cpeo.org

NGWA.org L. Siegel/ Ground Water Monitoring & Remediation 29, no. 1: 53–57 57