Skip to main content

The MPCA has developed best practices for vapor intrusion mitigation and public communication work used by the agencies and our contractors. The procedures and documents were developed working closely with the Minnesota Department of Health, environmental consultants under contract to MPCA, and expert practitioners in radon mitigation.

Investigation and mitigation decision

Map templates

Building mitigation

Parking facilities and vapor mitigation

Soil vapor contaminated with non-petroleum and petroleum related VOCs may enter parking facilities and then adjacent occupied spaces. The MPCA has developed a summary of readily available literature, codes, parking facility products, experiences with parking facility forensic investigations, and discussions with design engineers.

Intrusion screening values

Chemical-specific, risk-based inhalation screening criteria for volatile compounds, used to evaluate indoor air quality.

Communications and public outreach

Communications resources

Vapor intrusion guiding principles

These vapor intrusion guiding principles are the basis for the more detailed direction and guidance outlined in the vapor intrusion BMPs.

  • Underground chemical vapors can migrate from the source of contamination through the soil and building foundations into indoor air creating a health concern.
  • The primary goal of vapor intrusion work is to identify and address potential human health risks.
  • Effective public communication is an essential aspect of vapor intrusion work. This includes public awareness of health risks from vapor intrusion, vapor intrusion areas of concern, areas where mitigation has been installed and areas where more testing is needed.
  • All people should be notified when they own or spend significant time in a building with a potential vapor intrusion risk.
  • Prompt and effective notifications are needed when indoor air data shows that vapor intrusion may affect the quality of the air people breathe.
  • All people should be given the opportunity to self-identify as a sensitive individual.
  • Building mitigation decisions are based on current and future possibilities of a health risk from vapor intrusion.
  • Multiple factors contribute to variations in soil vapor contaminant levels.
  • Seasonal sampling from multiple sampling points are needed to determine there is no vapor intrusion risk.
  • The effectiveness of a mitigation system needs to be verified with confirmation testing.
  • Expedited action is needed when the data indicates the potential for a short-term health risk.
  • A plan is needed to assure continued operation of mitigation systems until data shows continued operation is no longer needed.
  • Future property owners need to be notified of the presence and need for continued operation of mitigation systems or unresolved vapor intrusion risks.
  • When there is a source creating vapor contamination, the best practice is to remediate the source if feasible.
  • The obligation for addressing the possibility of vapor intrusion into a building and the source of the contamination are different for Superfund responsible parties compared to non-responsible voluntary parties and property owners.
  • A clear and predictable process is important for timely facilitation of property transactions.