Mr. McGuire: I just want to say one word to you. Just one word.
Benjamin: Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire: Are you listening?
Benjamin: Yes, I am.
Mr. McGuire: Vapor.
Benjamin: Exactly how do you mean?
An ever so slight variation of the dialogue from the movie, “The Graduate.”
To be more specific, it would be two words, Vapor Intrusion.
Vapor Intrusion, or VI, is the watch word or phrase in the environmental assessment world right now. Furthermore, because the “intrusion” of vapors into buildings can affect the health of the occupants, property transactions, and new developments, it is receiving more than a little press coverage of late.
Perhaps the advice for today’s “Graduates” would simply be, “vapor” (Image used under terms with Pixabay).
Just in the past couple of weeks, we’ve noted at least three stories in the mainstream media including, “Poison vapor evacuations increase as old chemical threats resurface.”
On February 23rd, my colleagues, Matthew Schroeder and Jeffrey Bolin, spoke to The Energy, Sustainability, and Environmental Law Committee of the Oakland County Bar Association. The topic, no surprise, was vapor intrusion.
We have written a number of blogs and articles on vapor intrusion over the past several years. In 2013, we wrote an article (Vapor Intrusion – A New and Challenging Issue) with Tom Wilczak and Todd Fracassi of Pepper Hamilton that appeared in the Michigan Defense Quarterly.
Vapor Intrusion at the Top of the News Cycle
So what has caused vapor intrusion to hit the top of the news cycle lately? Likely a number of factors, including:
- The United States Environmental Protection Agency adding Vapor Intrusion to the Hazardous Ranking System for potential Superfund Listing (this rule is currently delayed with the new administration)
- ASTM adding Vapor Intrusion and the threat of Vapor Intrusion (vapor encroachment) to the Phase I standard
- A heightened focus on the potential short-term health effects of common VI contaminants (such as trichloroethylene, or TCE) by the regulatory agencies
Last year, Michigan announced a “Tiered Approach” to vapor assessment. More recently, Michigan appears to be using the public health departments in some cases to force evacuations until response activities have been completed. Additionally, states such as Ohio have revised their approach to responding to vapor intrusion requiring, in some cases, mitigation within days or even hours.
In a February 16, 2017, article in the Detroit News, the Director of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Heidi Grether, said that there may be 4,000 sites in Michigan that could pose a vapor intrusion health threat. The DEQ Director has included budget requests to allow for VI assessments.
Finally, it should be no surprise considering the number of sites with the potential for vapor intrusion that there is increased discussion about third-party and/or class-action litigation.
Vapor Intrusion in Transactions
Factoring the assessment of vapor into the due diligence “equation” will be important for anyone buying or selling commercial/industrial property or involved in merger/acquisitions. For those historical sites that have the potential for off-site consequences, keep a watchful eye on the development of third-party litigation.
For these and other reasons, VI has been making news a lot lately. Undoubtedly, VI will continue to play an increasingly important role in environmental site assessments, site closures, and the environmental “arena” in general. For those in the regulated community, it will be important to listen, stay involved in the scientific and regulatory processes, be prepared for whatever may develop next, and know what to do if an issue arises.
If you have questions about vapor intrusion (regulatory/assessment/technical support in litigation or potential litigation), contact Matthew Schroeder, M.S., P.E., (mschroeder@dragun.com) or Jeffery Bolin, M.S., CHMM (jbolin@dragun.com) at 248-932-0228.