{"title":"Overview of State Approaches to Vapor Intrusion: 2023 Update","authors":"Bart Eklund, Catherine Regan, Rich Rago, Lila Beckley","doi":"10.1111/gwmr.12627","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Site owners, regulators, and consultants now have decades of experience with vapor intrusion (VI), but guidance for the evaluation of VI continues to vary significantly among states. For those with sites in different regulatory jurisdictions, one challenge is addressing how the requirements or expectations for VI investigation and mitigation differ from one jurisdiction to the next. The overall lack of consensus can make it difficult to manage sites in a consistent manner between jurisdictions. This paper takes into account VI guidance, petroleum hydrocarbon-specific VI guidance, and/or media-specific volatilization criteria found in broader regulatory programs. This is an update of the author's previous reviews published in 2007, 2012, and 2018. Since our most recent update, 30 states have revised their guidance, issued new guidance or updated criteria or other VI-related information. For each State and the District of Columbia, the review includes tabulations of the available types of screening values (e.g., soil, groundwater, soil gas, and indoor air), the screening values for selected chemicals that commonly drive VI investigations (e.g., trichloroethylene [TCE], tetrachloroethylene [PCE], benzene, and other selected volatile organic compounds [VOCs]), and the basis of risk levels used for cancer and non-cancer risk. Federal values are also included for comparison. In addition, we summarize available key policy criteria for each state including: trigger distances, default subsurface to indoor air attenuation factors, policies for evaluation of petroleum VI, strategies for preferential pathways, and policies for mitigation of VI. The details presented in this paper provide a useful technical reference and regulatory summary for practitioners and the regulated community nationwide.</p>","PeriodicalId":55081,"journal":{"name":"Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation","volume":"44 3","pages":"76-93"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/gwmr.12627","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gwmr.12627","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"WATER RESOURCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Site owners, regulators, and consultants now have decades of experience with vapor intrusion (VI), but guidance for the evaluation of VI continues to vary significantly among states. For those with sites in different regulatory jurisdictions, one challenge is addressing how the requirements or expectations for VI investigation and mitigation differ from one jurisdiction to the next. The overall lack of consensus can make it difficult to manage sites in a consistent manner between jurisdictions. This paper takes into account VI guidance, petroleum hydrocarbon-specific VI guidance, and/or media-specific volatilization criteria found in broader regulatory programs. This is an update of the author's previous reviews published in 2007, 2012, and 2018. Since our most recent update, 30 states have revised their guidance, issued new guidance or updated criteria or other VI-related information. For each State and the District of Columbia, the review includes tabulations of the available types of screening values (e.g., soil, groundwater, soil gas, and indoor air), the screening values for selected chemicals that commonly drive VI investigations (e.g., trichloroethylene [TCE], tetrachloroethylene [PCE], benzene, and other selected volatile organic compounds [VOCs]), and the basis of risk levels used for cancer and non-cancer risk. Federal values are also included for comparison. In addition, we summarize available key policy criteria for each state including: trigger distances, default subsurface to indoor air attenuation factors, policies for evaluation of petroleum VI, strategies for preferential pathways, and policies for mitigation of VI. The details presented in this paper provide a useful technical reference and regulatory summary for practitioners and the regulated community nationwide.
目前,场地所有者、监管者和顾问在处理蒸汽入侵(VI)方面已有几十年的经验,但各州对 VI 评估的指导仍然存在很大差异。对于那些在不同监管辖区内有场地的人来说,面临的一个挑战是如何解决不同辖区对 VI 调查和缓解的要求或期望有何不同。由于总体上缺乏共识,因此很难在不同辖区之间以一致的方式管理遗址。本文考虑了更广泛的监管计划中的 VI 指南、石油烃特定 VI 指南和/或特定介质挥发标准。本文是对作者之前于 2007 年、2012 年和 2018 年发表的评论文章的更新。自我们最近一次更新以来,已有 30 个州修订了其指南、发布了新指南或更新了标准或其他 VI 相关信息。对于每个州和哥伦比亚特区,审查包括可用筛查值类型(如土壤、地下水、土壤气体和室内空气)的表格、通常推动 VI 调查的特定化学品的筛查值(如三氯乙烯 [TCE]、四氯乙烯 [PCE]、苯和其他特定挥发性有机化合物 [VOC]),以及用于癌症和非癌症风险的风险水平基础。其中还包括联邦数值,以供比较。此外,我们还总结了各州可用的关键政策标准,包括:触发距离、默认的地下至室内空气衰减因子、石油 VI 评估政策、优先途径战略以及 VI 减缓政策。本文提供的详细信息为全国的从业人员和监管机构提供了有用的技术参考和法规摘要。
期刊介绍:
Since its inception in 1981, Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation® has been a resource for researchers and practitioners in the field. It is a quarterly journal that offers the best in application oriented, peer-reviewed papers together with insightful articles from the practitioner''s perspective. Each issue features papers containing cutting-edge information on treatment technology, columns by industry experts, news briefs, and equipment news. GWMR plays a unique role in advancing the practice of the groundwater monitoring and remediation field by providing forward-thinking research with practical solutions.