The California Legislature has passed and sent to the Governor AB 2092, regarding indoor hazardous-substance "vapor intrusion". The introduction to the bill states:
This bill would require the [California Environmental Protection] [A]gency, by January 1, 2008, in coordination with [among others] the [D]epartment [of Toxic Substances Control], the state water board, the regional boards, the California Integrated Waste Management Board, and specified local agencies, to compile, using existing data sources, a summary of sites with known or potential vapor intrusion, as defined, from a hazardous substance release on the site or migrating onto the site. The bill would require the
agency to post the summary and related information collected on the agency's Internet Web site and to update the information by January 1, 2009, and annually thereafter.
"Vapor intrusion" is defined as "the accumulation of vapor from soil or groundwater, or both, that may enter indoor air and impact human health."
The bill provides only for information gathering and does not provide for remedial action. However, the introductory language to the bill suggests that the State EPA, DTSC and Regional Water Quality Control Boards already have authority to require remediation of "vapor intrusion" once it is identified.
The most intriguing language in the bill is the provision that information be gathered as to vapor intrusion (or even "potential" vapor intrusion) "from a hazardous substance release on the site or migrating onto the site." So, for example, a building or home being affected by some other property will now be spotlighted in the public records. This may be a good thing insofar as providing information is concerned; but this may also have a dramatic effect on the value of that building or home.
The bill provides that, by January 1, 2009, the State EPA is to submit to the Legislature a report on a strategy for remediation and engineering and use controls regarding affected properties. Thus, yet more regulation awaits.
The bill does not provide any additional staffing or funding to the State EPA for implementing the bill's provisions. We may find that, as has been the case with other past environmental legislation, as a practical matter, the State agencies charged with carrying out the bill's mandates cannot meet the 2008 and 2009 deadlines the bill would impose.
The full text of the bill can be found here. For arguments in opposition to and in support of the bill see, respectively, www.cclr.org/pdfs/AB2092_Coalition_Opposition_Letter.pdf or go here.
