Introduction

Redevelopment of contaminated land and land adjacent to contaminated sites can be a relatively straightforward process when you work with a good environmental consultant that understands the special risks and concerns a developer faces. However, there is one issue that can get any consultant tied up in knots because of the increasing attention given to it by regulators: vapor intrusion.

What’s the Concern?

Vapor intrusion occurs when certain types of contaminants in the soil or groundwater evaporate (volatilize) and migrate through spaces in the soil into occupied spaces within a building on the property. The type of contaminants that tend to evaporate are called volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and include substances such as benzene, toluene, xylene, acetone, and perchloroethylene (dry cleaning solvent). The scientific studies that regulators rely on suggest that the presence of such VOCs in indoor air can adversely affect the health of building occupants. Because of potential health risks, regulators, especially the EPA, are increasingly focusing their attention on vapor intrusion issues. Therefore, purchasers and redevelopers can be exposed to liability (both regulatory and for personal injuries) if they acquire property with vapor intrusion issues that are not abated. A good consultant should identify such potential risks during the pre-acquisition due diligence process and, depending on site location, the consultant might use one or a combination of the following screening methodologies.

ASTM Assessment

The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) has developed a recommended vapor intrusion standard (E 2600: “Assessment of Vapor Intrusion into Structures on Property Involved in Real Estate Transactions”) which is beginning to be followed by many consultants. ASTM E2600 prescribes a tiered approach to the vapor intrusion risk assessment. The first tier (Tier 1) of the analysis relies solely on documentary evidence. If information shows that there is a contaminated plume or potential plume within 100 feet of a proposed or existing building or property boundary (or within 30 feet for dissolved petroleum hydrocarbons), then a potential vapor intrusion concern (pVIC) is presumed to exist. (The consultant can modify these distances based on site specific conditions such as groundwater flow, depth to groundwater, vapor conduits, etc.). When a pVIC is identified, the consultant moves on to Tier 2 of the analysis, which can include sampling. If sampling is performed as part of Tier 2, the consultant compares the results to determine if any of the contaminants (within the 100 or 30 foot radius) exceed risk-based concentrations (RBCs) established by federal or state policy or site-specific RBCs established by the consultant. If there are any RBC exceedances, then further testing is undertaken during the Tier 3 analysis to confirm the presence of a VIC. If the presence of a VIC is confirmed in Tier 3, the consultant can propose a mitigation strategy using the Standard’s Tier 4 process.

EPA Assessment (Proposed)

On March 17, 2011 the EPA issued draft guidance for evaluating vapor intrusion entitled “Evaluating the Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air Pathway from Groundwater and Soils” (which can be accessed here). EPA’s goal is to finalize the guidance by November 30, 2012. The guidance will be used at RCRA Corrective Action, CERCLA and Brownfield sites but it will not supersede state guidance. Like the ASTM assessment, the EPA guidance is to be used to determine if there is a potential for an unacceptable risk. While this risk assessment approach is not appropriate at sites where employees are working with hazardous substances similar to those that are contaminating the site, the guidance is intended for use in other situations.

Like the ASTM standard, EPA’s VI guidance relies on a tiered analysis and the first step (Tier 1) is very similar to the first tier of the ASTM standard. In this step, the consultant determines if existing data indicates that VOCs are near (within 100 feet) of occupied buildings. If they are, then the consultant proceeds to the next step (Tier 2) which can include comparison of available indoor air concentrations to generic criteria established by the EPA or the collection of soil gas samples and comparison of that data to the generic criteria. Site specific factors such as depth of the contamination and soil type are also considered. Based on the results of Tier 2, the consultant will then move to Tier 3 to further refine the assessment by collecting site specific data such as collecting indoor air and/or sub-slab air samples. The consultant can also use modeling techniques to factor in variables such as soil type, depth to groundwater, and various building characteristics that can impact indoor air such as type of ventilation, air exchange rates, etc.

Michigan DEQ Assessment

Michigan, under Part 201 of its Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA), has promulgated specific numerical screening criteria for many hazardous substances. The generic criteria that are used to assess vapor intrusion to indoor air for residential and non-residential properties are the groundwater volatilization to indoor air inhalation criteria (GVIIC) and soil volatilization to indoor air inhalation criteria (SVIIC). (These generic criteria would be the RBCs relied on if the consultant uses ASTM E 2600). If soil and groundwater testing identifies an exceedance of the GVIIC or SVIIC criteria on property where buildings are or will be located, then there is a potential risk to indoor air quality. If site-specific factors such as lack of cement or block foundation, shallow groundwater plume, or preferential pathways, the rules preclude reliance on the generic criteria and the consultant must perform a site specific analysis to determine if a vapor intrusion (indoor inhalation) risk is present that must be abated.

To clarify the process set forth in its rules, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality has prepared draft vapor intrusion guidance (“Guidance Document for the Vapor Intrusion Pathway“) that sets forth the steps that can be taken to evaluate the potential for a vapor intrusion risk. In its current form, the guidance is structured in a 4-step process like ASTM E 2600, however, it uses a 100 foot receptor radius for the preliminary screening area. Step 2 involves the collection of soil-gas data and Step 3 involves the refinement of that data through sampling of indoor air and sub-slab soil gas as well as an evaluation of conditions such as the presence of cracks, utility lines and operational uses of hazardous substances. If a vapor intrusion risk is confirmed, a remediation strategy is developed in Step 4.

As you can see, when consultants encounter a site that may have a vapor intrusion risk there are several ways of approaching the assessment that are similar but at the same time have subtle differences. Although each of the approaches allows consultants to consider site specific factors and the consultant’s professional judgment, a consultant’s ultimate conclusion could be different depending upon the assessment methodology used.

The post Vapor Intrusion Assessment – an Overview appeared first on Dawda PLC.

In conjunction with remediation projects, many property owners are recording Restrictive Covenants which set forth limitation on the future use of the property. Pursuant to MCL 324.20114(c), a copy of the recorded Restrictive Covenant that is part of a post-closure plan or an MDEQ approved remediation must be filed with the MDEQ.

Provisions of the Restrictive Covenant may include limitations on future use such as installation of drinking water wells, testing of soils during development, maintaining exposure barriers, restricting site use for commercial or industrial purposes only. The Restrictive Covenant constitutes one element of giving public notice on the limitations of the property.

This online database is available on the MDEQ web site under “environmental mapper” which can be accessed here. The database can be searched by city and county. Sites can be identified within a radius of a specific location.

It has been a concern of MDEQ that without plotting this information and reporting use restrictions, the Agency has never had a complete inventory on all the parcels within the state that may be subject to certain future use restrictions. This inventory also provides an accounting of sites subject to continuous inspection and monitoring.

This source of information may also prove to be a helpful tool for prospective purchasers that undertake Baseline Environmental Audits or Phase I Environmental Audits. We would anticipate that this database will take several years to be comprehensive or reliable as an investigative tool.

The post New Mdeq Database – Recorded Restrictive Covenants appeared first on Dawda PLC.

A party undertaking a remediation can now make a formal request for a “Certificate of Completion” to the MDEQ. The applicant would complete a form, which is to be prepared by the MDEQ and will be made available on the MDEQ’s website. The MDEQ can either grant the Certificate, deny the request, or notify the submitter that there is insufficient information on which the Department can make a decision. The Department shall specify what information is missing and is necessary for a decision. In the event of a denial, the Department is to provide specificity as to the reasons for the denial.

The amendments set forth an initial review period by the MDEQ of 150 days upon receipt of the form. There is only a 90 day review period in the event the submitter is requesting the Certificate of Completion after completing an MDNR approved remedy remedial action. In the event the Department fails to provide notice within the review time periods provided, a response activity is considered approved.

In the event there is a denial by the Department of a request for a Certificate of Completion, the amendments provide the submitter with opportunities to pursue an appeal of the MDNR’s decision to the Response Activity Review Panel. The submitter would file a petition appealing the decision to the MDEQ Director and pay a fee of $3,500.

In the December 2010 amendments to Part 201, the process for issuing a No Further Action Letter (NFA) was first developed. The NFA Letter has been only granted in a few occasions, and has generally been reserved for small clean-ups achieving residential criteria. This was not consistent with the intended purpose of the NFA review process, and the MDEQ has, at least informally, suggested it is more open now to the evaluation of No Further Action Reports upon completion of more remedial action projects.

By contrast, the NFA review process is much more complex than the request for a Certificate of Completion. If a party is concerned about the administrative costs associated with pursuing an NFA Letter, the Certificate of Completion does provide a much needed acknowledgement from MDEQ and a defined “end point” for parties undertaking clean-up.

The recent amendments to the provisions associated with the NFA request is a clarification that a party can pursue an NFA letter for a specific portion of a whole site, or specific media or exposure pathway. While many believe that the NFA provisions as originally drafted did allow for such limited requests, it took these amendments to make that clarification.

The post Is It Clean? – Michigan Certificates of Completion and No Further Action Letters appeared first on Dawda PLC.

Although the agencies tried to make it a general discussion on oil and gas, the presentation and most of the questions from the audience focused on the controversial topic of fracking….and it was clear the local police and the agencies were prepared for potential trouble as there were six conservation officers and three police cruisers in the parking lot. (A clear difference from other DNR/DEQ presentations I’ve attended in the past!) Despite the controversial topic, decorum was maintained and there were no disturbances.

The issue of fracking has been getting a lot of press recently but companies have been doing it in Michigan in a lesser but somewhat comparable form since 1952. Since that time more than 10,000 fracking wells have been installed in Michigan, mostly in a geological formation called the “Antrim Shale.” Since 1925 a total of 60,000 oil and gas wells have been drilled; of those 4,500 have been for oil, 11,000 have been for gas and 3,000 have been for gas storage.

About 80% of the wells drilled in Michigan (and the U.S.) recently have been fracking wells and the natural (methane) gas produced from those wells have caused the price of natural gas to plummet in the U.S. to $2 per million British thermal units (compared to $10 in the U.K.) According to some analysts (as noted in this recent Washington Post article), this gas boom is fueling a revival in American manufacturing – something we desperately need in this country.

Naturally, this flush of inexpensive gas doesn’t come without weighty public policy issues, and the issues the attendees focused on during last night’s forum are the same being raised elsewhere in the country: contamination of groundwater aquifers and depletion of fresh groundwater.

According to the DEQ, vertical fracking wells use between 50,000 to 100,000 gallons while some horizontal wells (like most of the current wells) can use up to 20 million gallons of water. In comparison, total water withdrawals in Michigan in 2010 amounted to 267 billion gallons. (However, the DEQ admitted that most of the later amount returns to the environment while the millions of gallons of water used in fracking are permanently removed from and never return to the watershed due to the contaminants in it.) Although groundwater used for oil and gas production are exempt from Michigan’s water withdrawal legislation, the Supervisor of Wells issued Well Instruction 1-2011 which allows the DEQ to use Michigan’s water withdrawal assessment tool to determine if a proposed gas well will have an adverse impact on stream flow. If such an impact is identified, the DEQ does not issue a permit.

The DEQ also asserted that claims about “flaming tap water” (as seen on YouTube) due to fracking are false and the instances where it has occurred are not due to the fracturing of bedrock but methane leaking around improper well casings (or methane naturally seeping into an overlying aquifer). According to the DEQ, Michigan’s well casing requirements prevent this from happening. In Michigan, drillers are required to use several corrosion resistant metal casings (conductor, surface, intermediate, and production casings) that are cemented together to seal off the well from the surrounding environment. (A diagram of the typical well is depicted to the right.)gas well

If these requirements are followed, according to the DEQ, the risk of a well contaminating groundwater is very low.

All in all I think the DEQ/DNR did a good job at trying to explain the issues and point out some facts to ameliorate the public’s concerns but I don’t think the issues, especially the water withdrawal issue, will be going away any time soon. As with everything, the goal will be trying to find the right balance.

Additional information about the location and type of wells currently in Michigan can be accessed here and the DEQ’s GIS database (GeoWebFace) of oil and gas related information can be accessed here.

The post Observations: MDEQ/DNR Presentation on Oil and Gas Production in Michigan appeared first on Dawda PLC.

MDEQ requests access regardless of previous environmental reports showing no levels of contamination. While the prior reports do not constitute a final closure of a LUST site, they may demonstrate that these old sites do not pose a threat. Presumably, the MDEQ’s effort will result in a reduction in the number of listed contaminated sites throughout Michigan.

If an owner requests additional information, such as a work plan, or somehow delays a response to the request, the MDEQ may classify such a response as a “denial”. In the case of a denial for access, the MDEQ will refer the matter to its Compliance and Enforcement Section for further evaluation. The MDEQ may then conduct a liability determination, which may take several months, to determine if the owner is a liable party. If liable parties are identified, the MDEQ will issue a request under Part 213 for the owner to conduct an initial assessment report or a final assessment report regarding the open LUST release.

If a liable party cannot be found, the site will revert to “orphan” status and the State will continue to spend resources to investigate the LUST release at the site. Court proceedings may be necessary to obtain access.

The MDEQ will typically not provide a complete work plan to the Owner when it requests site access due to time and budget constraints. The owner is typically allowed to take split samples of soil or groundwater samples. Owners have an option to conduct additional work at their sites to control information and otherwise acquire information relevant to the MDEQ’s request. Where time has lapsed and other contaminants may become relevant, it is important to enlist the support of a competent environmental consultant as well as a lawyer to determine the best course of action.

The post Old Tank Sites Subject to New DEQ Initiative appeared first on Dawda PLC.

Through the process of compulsory pooling, oil and gas interests in a given area can be pooled into one drilling unit, regardless of whether a property owner agrees. Part 615 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act designates the Director of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality as the “Supervisor of Wells” and provides the legal authority of the Supervisor of Wells pool properties to form drilling units for private developers.

The concept of compulsory pooling was originally, among other purposes, intended to protect property owners from having oil and gas drained from the underground portion of their property without being compensated for it. However, it is also used by the MDEQ to combine the mineral rights of a property owner who refuses to lease their land with other property owners in a drilling unit. It is typically applied to a situation where surrounding property owners have signed leases and there are a few holdouts who refuse.

As a result of this Michigan law, property owners who do not consent to sign an oil or gas lease may nevertheless be compelled to allow a private developer to remove oil and gas from beneath the property. Also, compulsory pooling may allow the controversial process of “fracking”, regardless of the property owner’s desires. Although the property owner will be compensated; usually, receiving 1/8th of the royalty from the well’s production, the idea of compulsory pooling seems contrary to long held common notions of private property rights.

Property owners are, therefore, in a conundrum: whether it is better to negotiate a lease with a mineral rights developer or whether to risk the potential for compulsory pooling. Although property owners can participate in a hearing before the MDEQ and provide input, the Supervisor of Wells has the power to establish a formula for sharing costs and revenues and takes the negotiation of any particular lease out of the hands of a property owner who refuses to sign a lease. The terms of a compulsory pooling order could be different from what was originally offered in a mineral lease.

Recently, this issue arose in a case in Saline Township, Michigan. The property owner was surprised when it turned out that regardless of an adamant refusal to sign oil and gas leases, the oil and gas developer initiated a compulsory pooling process to do just that without the property owner’s consent.

Property owners who are approached by oil and gas developers should be aware of compulsory pooling and the potential ramifications of refusing to sign oil and gas leases under Michigan law, especially when they are the last holdout. While saying “no” to a oil and gas company may be within the rights of a landowner, “no” may not always mean “no” when one considers the concept of compulsory pooling in Michigan.

The post When It Comes to Mineral Rights, “No” May Not Mean “No” appeared first on Dawda PLC.

Michigan’s Section 404 Wetland Program is one of only two wetland permitting programs approved by the EPA under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Michigan originally sought to implement its own program to speed up the permitting process and have greater local control given Michigan’s unique water resources. If EPA revokes its approval, the permitting process would revert to the U.S. Corps of Engineers and, based on our experience in other states, the processing time for permit applications would likely increase dramatically.

Those who are interested in submitting comments have until December 18, 2013. Comments can be submitted by going to the Regulations.gov website.

The post Alert: Michigan’s Section 404 Wetland Program appeared first on Dawda PLC.

Michigan residents are paying close attention to gas and pipeline transport issues in the region because of our water resources.

What is the main issue in Michigan? Two words – groundwater withdrawal. Many Michigan rivers and streams are fed by groundwater. With fracking pads using up to 20 million gallons of water, the concern is fracking near waterbodies will result in reducing water levels to a point that fishing and boating will be adversely impacted. Recently, because of local opposition to oil and gas leases along the “Holy Waters” section of the AuSable River, the DNR designated those leases as non-production leases. In addition, the sensitivity of this issue for Michigan residents has prompted the MDEQ to re-evaluate its fracking rules.

Michigan residents are also concerned about oil transport through the Great Lakes region. Companies like Enbridge are building or expanding pipelines in Michigan to handle the increased production of oil elsewhere. There are also plans to build an oil shipping port in Superior Wisconsin so that up to 35,000 barrels (about 1.4 million gallons) of oil from Alberta’s tar sands can be shipped to refineries around the Great Lakes.

As many recall, in 2010 one of Enbridge’s oil pipelines near Marshall, Michigan ruptured spilling over one million gallons (about 24,000 barrels) of diluted bitumen (“dilbit”) oil into the Kalamazoo River – a spill that Enbridge is still cleaning up. While Michigan residents understand the need for oil, they are not interested in a repeat of the Enbridge spill – especially one that would involve one of the Great Lakes.

Although water is abundant around the Great Lakes, it is used by many for recreational purposes in addition to industrial/commercial uses. As a result, there is significant interest and demands for it to be managed so that it can be enjoyed by the greatest number of people.

The post The United States of Energy (Part 2): Concerns in Michigan and the Great Lakes appeared first on Dawda PLC.

The following is a transcript of my interview with Gary on Groundwater/Surfacewater Interface (“GSI”):

Q 1. You have followed the issue of GSI for many years. Please give us a brief overview of what GSI is and what is the scope of this exposure pathway?

GSI in the context of contaminated properties is a potential exposure or hazard pathway at locations where site groundwater provides a transport mechanism to move hazardous substances into surfacewater. It is not a relevant pathway at all properties but is frequently the case at hundreds if not thousands of Part 201 and Part 213 sites in Michigan. Michigan’s site remedial action program has for years required groundwater quality to meet standards established to protect surface water resources, and these standards, along with drinking water standards, regularly determine whether or not groundwater cleanup is required. Because it is often the case that potential drinking water pathway hazards are addressed by imposing restrictions on the use of site groundwater as a water supply source, the “GSI” criteria regularly becomes the most challenging (and costly) aspect of completing site cleanup obligations.

As GSI focuses on the “interface” between groundwater and surface water, variable groundwater, and particularly surface water, hydrologic factors (flow, elevations, etc.). At sites in Michigan, the GSI is often a dynamic transition zone between groundwater and surface water. Within this zone various geochemical and biological reactions can be acting to transform the nature of substances originating from upland locations.

Q 2. MCL 324.20120e sets forth Michigan’s statutory requirements regarding “Groundwater Venting into Surfacewater”. Under the current statute, what problems has the regulated community had with complying with this exposure risk pathway and criteria?

The generic criteria for the GSI pathway is the most stringent of all the Part 201 groundwater cleanup criteria, along with the drinking water pathway criteria. But in many cases drinking water exposure is not an exposure pathway of concern due to available alternate water supplies at the sites, so the GSI criteria routinely determines what can be a sufficient completion endpoint for closure for Part 201 sites.

I characterize two primary problems in complying with the GSI pathway and criteria as:

(a) the application of a “permitable surface water discharge paradigm” to the decision making relative, to the need for a groundwater cleanup to protect surface water resources; and

(b) the application of the GSI criteria in groundwater near sewer systems even when there is no chance for substances at that location to adversely impact surfacewaters.

The “permitable surfacewater discharge paradigm” evaluates groundwater venting to surface water as if a groundwater plume is a point source discharge for which an NPDES permit would need to be issued. The consequences of this approach have been that surfacewater quality standards that are meant to protect surfacewater flora and fauna have to be met in the groundwater even though no such resource exists at that location. This has been a large barrier to getting cleanups completed because parties are unwilling to invest the resources necessary to meet standards for which there will not be any demonstrated environmental improvement and benefit.

Q 3. You have been involved with multiple discussion groups regarding these problems with regulating the GSI pathway. Are there any groups currently reviewing statutory revisions that would affect the GSI pathway regulations or criteria?

There are two recent efforts: one is the review by the Office of Regulatory Reinvention that was initiated per the Governor’s Executive Order in 2011. The second is the Collaborative Stakeholders Initiative (“CSI”) that was initiated by the MDEQ at the start of this year. Follow up on the recommendations of those two efforts is continuing. (The recommendations are summarized here.) Draft amendments to Part 201 to address these issues and this pathway have been developed and are poised for consideration by the legislature. (A recent version of the draft legislation appears here.)

Q 4. Can you provide us with a brief overview of the overall goals of your CSI issue group, in proposing revisions to MCL 324.20120(e)?

The overall goal of our work group was to revise and improve the way the GSI pathway is addressed in order to facilitate closure and final cleanups, rather than the pathway being the issue that prevents closures and completion of actions.

Q 5. How would these proposed changes affect the efficiency and reliability of site remediation?

It will be possible to more efficiently reach appropriate decisions as to the need for groundwater cleanup to protect surfacewater resources. As a result, there will be earlier and sooner closure of site cleanups and a better return on investments and stewardship of legacy site conditions. There are certainly hundreds to thousands of sites that face this issue.

Q 6. What is your understanding as to the status of any legislative efforts to pass a statutory change to GSI?

There is a very good prognosis for future legislative action to address the issue, perhaps even before the summer recess of the current legislature. I understand there is at least one sponsor of the legislation of potential amendments that has been identified. .

Q 7. What might these proposed statutory changes mean to the regulated community if they’re passed?

In my mind it means that many long-standing, unresolved site cleanups could be brought to a closure with a reasonable investment of additional resources. The key will be Remediation Division recognizing the “permitable surface water discharge paradigm” is not applicable to decision-making for this pathway, a position acknowledged by MDEQ and stakeholders participating in the CSI.

Q 8. What sites do you think would benefit the most from this statutory change?

Any sites that are unresolved due to the groundwater/surfacewater interface pathway. This is certainly the case most often at sites that are adjacent to rivers, lakes and other waterways of the state. It will also include many sites that have been held up on this issue even if they aren’t near a waterway, but they happen to be near an indirect conveyance to waterways such as storm and sanitary sewers. These sites have essentially been held hostage to the old approach on the issue, for which the proposed legislative changes provide a much better basis for appropriate protection of surface water resources along with completing site cleanups.

Q 9. What were the big highlights of the recommendations that came out of your CSI issue group?

There were several. The recommendations include

(1) The addition of two other methods for evaluating whether or not there is a need to do groundwater cleanup to bring a site to closure relative to the GSI pathway by:

• Performing an ecological evaluation of the surfacewater conditions;
• Performing an modeling evaluation to determine the potential for adverse impacts to the surface water.

(2) Focus evaluation of conditions relative to indirect pathways to surfacewater such as via storm and sanitary sewers based upon whether or not the groundwater contamination has the potential to adversely impact the surfacewater resources, instead of focusing on whether or not the groundwater may enter the stormwater sewer at a concentration above surfacewater standards.

(3) Evaluate conditions relative to mercury based upon laboratory methods which achieve a quantitation limit of 0.2 ppb rather than the methods developed for ultra-low detection limits. This will assure that significant sources of potential release of mercury from groundwater into surfacewater are addressed. This will avoid having to address cases where mercury is detectable, but concentrations are so low that there really isn’t any benefit in investigating them further.

Q 10. What do we hope to see over the six months?

We hope that the legislation is enacted to affirms a sound scientific foundation and public policy for making decisions about whether cleaning up groundwater is needed to protect a surfacewater resource. This would put into practice evaluating the potential impacts to surfacewaters based upon the actual surface water impact rather than conditions in groundwater having to meet surface water quality standards.

What remains to be seen after such a foundation is laid out in the statute is exactly how that ends up being implemented by the agency. One issue not fully sorted out that may end up being an impediment to swiftly addressing the GSI issues is the issue of securing MDEQ’s approval for using the alternative methods proposed to be enacted in the statute.. The CSI work group wrestled with this a bit, but so far the proposal does not encompass any real changes from existing protocols for parties needing to secure MDEQ approval. There will certainly be ample opportunity to see how things actually work out, and whether or not the requirement for MDEQ approvals in certain cases ends up being an additional step that causes further delays in achieving closures at sites.

I’d like to thank Gary Klepper for providing this information on the status of proposed changes to Part 201 and regulation of the GSI in Michigan. We will continue to watch this issue as it evolves over the next 6 months.

The post Interview: Regulatory Change for Michigan’s Gsi Criteria appeared first on Dawda PLC.

reinvent government
create more and better jobs
restore our cities
enhance our national and international image
protect our environment
solve problems through relentless, positive action
In support of the Governor’s goals, the MDEQ has partnered with stakeholders to formulate a plan for improvements in Michigan’s environmental programs. This effort is referred to as the Collaborative Stakeholders Initiative (“CSI”). CSI grows out of a series of recommendations prepared by the Office of Regulatory Reinvention and that was submitted to the Governor’s office.

Participants in CSI are taking a closer look at seven key issues facing Michigan’s cleanup and redevelopment programs. They include:

(1) Groundwater and Surfacewater Interface (GSI) pathway;

(2) Cleanup criteria;

(3) Vapor intrusion;

(4) Free product, source removal and Csat;

(5) Brownfield redevelopment;

(6) Part 201 Rules/Operational Memorandum Guidance; and

(7) Due care obligations.

As a backdrop to reviewing these issues and developing recommendations, participants also hope to derive the benefits of an opportunity for exchange and cooperation between the MDEQ, the regulated community and other public stakeholders. Each issue subgroup is in the process of refining their recommendations and developing action plans after having completed several intensive sessions both in Lansing and during a three-day working program at the Kellogg Biological Station on Gull Lake. There will be a public session to present these recommendations on March 15, 2012.

The action plans will include recommendations with respect to Part 201 and Part 213, Part 201 Rules, applicable Operational Memorandums, Guidance Documents, and other policies affecting the implementation of these programs. There will be an opportunity learn more about these recommendations and action plans during a webcast scheduled for March 15, 2012. More details on connecting to the webcast to follow.

As someone involved in the CSI process, it is my belief that the process and this initiative has the potential for being extremely beneficial, and may lead to many changes within Michigan’s cleanup and redevelopment program that will facilitate expedited cleanups and redevelopment while protecting the environment.

The post Reinventing Michigan’s Cleanup and Redevelopment Programs appeared first on Dawda PLC.