Main Newsletter Page

The Standard
February 2010 - Page 3

“Our Data Are Good – We Use An Accredited Laboratory”
In accordance with a variety of environmental regulations, industrial parties are required to collect samples for compliance or characterization purposes. These samples are typically submitted to a commercial analytical laboratory and the data generated become the basis for critical project decision-making. There are thousands of commercial environmental laboratories in the United States, many of which tout the fact that they are accredited. Industrial parties should be aware that laboratories (accredited or not) are not the same in terms of analytical offerings, compliance with methods, exercising “best practices,” and most importantly, generating legally defensible data.

State laboratory accreditation, particularly in those states that have endorsed National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation (NELAC), has some meaning relative to the quality management systems that are practiced at the laboratory; however, the possession of a NELAC, DoD, or any other accreditation for that matter should only be considered a preliminary screening tool with regard to the selection of a laboratory. More to the issue, laboratory accreditation should not be interpreted to mean that the laboratory is able to meet the analytical needs in properly addressing environmental liabilities.

Prior to contracting with environmental laboratories, corporate prudence dictates that industrial parties (or their qualified consultants) perform due diligence on their contracted laboratories, particularly if the laboratory will be analyzing samples upon which critical decisions will be based. As part of due diligence in the laboratory selection process, Environmental Standards conducts on-site laboratory audits every year on behalf of various industrial parties. If you require assistance in the selection of laboratory services to meet your project needs, contact Technical Director of Chemistry, Rock J. Vitale, CEAC, CPC, at
610-935-5577 for assistance.

US EPA Criticized For Draft VI Guidance
The US EPA Office of Inspector General (OIG) recently criticized the US EPA for its draft 2002 vapor intrusion guidance, which has not been updated or finalized since its publication 7 years ago. In a December 2009 document titled “Lack of Final Guidance on Vapor Intrusion Impedes Efforts to Address Vapor Intrusion Risks,” the OIG stated that the absence of a final US EPA guidance on vapor intrusion risks has been a barrier to the protection of human health.

The OIG noted that the US EPA’s draft 2002 guidance, titled “OSWER Draft Guidance for Evaluating the Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air Pathway from Groundwater and Soils” (Subsurface Vapor Intrusion Guidance) had limited purpose and scope, represented aged science, and contained outdated toxicity values (in particular, updated toxicity values for trichloroethene [TCE] and tetrachloroethene [PCE]). Furthermore, the OIG cited the absence in the US EPA guidance of a discussion about mitigating vapor intrusion risks or the effectiveness of monitoring vapor intrusion mitigation efforts of particular concern.

As pointed out by the OIG, the use of multiple lines of evidence for evaluating vapor intrusion and the current state of the science are not included in the 2002 draft document. Such lines of evidence were discussed in a January 2009 US EPA memorandum on interim TCE toxicity values (see the March 2009 issue of The Standard), but that memorandum has since been withdrawn.

US EPA’s draft 2002 guidance applies only to CERCLA sites and, therefore, is not recommended for use with petroleum releases at underground storage tank (UST) sites, according to the OIG. US EPA’s draft document refers the public to UST guidance from 1995, but the 1995 guidance does not discuss vapor intrusion. Additionally, it is noteworthy that the 2002 guidance applies only to residential scenarios.

In the absence of final and current guidance and toxicity values,
26 states and many other parties have developed their own vapor intrusion guidance documents, resulting in the use of a variety of toxicity values for determining human health risks from vapor intrusion. At this point, each state has a different approach to vapor intrusion concerns. Some US EPA enforcement staff members believe that draft vapor intrusion toxicity values and requirements may limit the US EPA’s ability to enforce compliance with those standards and may encourage compliance with toxicity values that may not be universally viewed as safe. Incomplete assessment and cleanup actions to address vapor intrusion risks may also continue, and vapor intrusion risk assessments at petroleum-contaminated sites may not be conducted. Further, some US EPA enforcement staff member contend that the uncertainties created by the 2002 draft guidance could also limit efforts to enforce responsible party cleanup actions.

The US EPA headquarters response is that (among other reasons) its guidance has not been finalized because a 2007 ITRC guidance (“Vapor Intrusion Pathway: A Practical Guideline”), partly funded and supported by the US EPA, addresses many issues the US EPA would have included in a final guidance.

The OIG concluded that the US EPA does not have final guidance to establish current policy on the evaluation and mitigation of vapor intrusion risks and suggests that the US EPA issue a final guidance that includes up-to-date toxicity values, the recommendation to use multiple lines of evidence, and guidance on the assessment of risks from petroleum-contaminated sites in addition to other recommendations. Also, the OIG strongly encourages the development of final toxicity values for TCE and PCE. The US EPA has agreed to these corrective actions and their implementation is ongoing. According to the OIG report, the projected completion date for the finalization of the TCE and PCE toxicity values is December 2010 with final vapor intrusion guidance potentially available in November 2012.

Zvarick Appointed To IEAM Editorial Board
Risk Assessment Manager Kathy Zvarick, LEED AP, was recently appointed to the Editorial Board of the peer-reviewed publication Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management (IEAM), an international journal of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). The journal’s mission is to provide a peer-reviewed forum for original scientific environmental research and regulatory analysis that bridges the gap between technical research and the use of science in decision-making, regulation, and environmental management. Ms. Zvarick’s appointment to the Editorial Board is for a 3-year term.