Comments

Comments

  • King of Snark
    Good work so far, nice move bringing the ranch man with you, that sunken bathtub for beef may be regulated as a UST, you might want to double check that. What's the reason for the phase I? Sale? Re-fi? What's the proposed use? The same? What's depth to first groundwater? Is that bathtub in the middle of nowhere? Depending, I would just be careful not to over sample or over analyze ... double check that UST definition.
  • King of Snark
    Good work so far, nice move bringing the ranch man with you, that sunken bathtub for beef may be regulated as a UST, you might want to double check that. What's the reason for the phase I? Sale? Re-fi? What's the proposed use? The same? What's depth to first groundwater? Is that bathtub in the middle of nowhere? Depending, I would just be careful not to over sample or over analyze ... double check that UST definition.
  • Z. Heine

    Typically I agree with you on the AST in an basement on concrete.  The key factors that concern me are the construction, obstruction and volume.  There are two smaller AST (150 gal), which are elsewhere that are not RECs, I am just concerned about the construction of the big one.  Thanks for the input.

  • JG

    I'm not a fan of that either.  Although I have used that as an opportunity to explain why I decided a potential REC is not actually a REC.

    I really don't like the requirement to explain de minimis conditions.  De minimis is by definition the things you typically ignore. It's one thing to say the small oil stains on the garage floor are de minimis but it's not realistic to describe every de minimis condition and that door shouldn't be opened.  I'm not going to describe every stain in the parking lot, every bottle of nail polish found in the grass, etc.   Of course it would be ridiculous to even attempt reading into the requirement this closely but that's how it's written.

  • MaxEng

    Without seeing the tank, it's obviously hard to say with certainty, but an AST in a basement with concrete flooring is not something from which I'd necessarily believe a release to have been "likely."  I couldn't criticize a contrary finding, though.

  • MaxEng

    Again, if the EP has not elected to subdivide RECs into CRECs and otherwise, then the Findings will only mention RECs without further discussion of whether they've been "controlled."

    I don't like the weasel-wording in 12.5 relative to "known or suspect" RECs.  Either you've found a REC or you haven't.  It's inappropriate to talk about "suspect RECs" in my opinion.

  • JG

    If the building was in rough shape and falling apart then I might consider it "imminent".  Otherwise, no.  If the building is demo'd properly and the waste is handled correctly than there would be no REC.

  • JG

    It's hard to say without seeing it but I think you've made a good case.  Make sure you lay out your argument in the opinion section.  I wouldn't expose yourself by qualifying the risk as "highly likely" though. "Likely" is all you need to be a REC.

  • Will Mast

    MaxEng - How do you parse Section 12.5 that states "The report shall have a findings section which identifies known or suspect recognized environmental conditions, controlled recognized environmental conditions, historical recognized environmental conditions, and de minimis conditions."? I am not trying to be argumentative here, just looking for guidance from other EPs. Thanks.

  • Z. Heine

    Point well received and I agree with your perspective.  So in conducting a Phase I prior to property transfer in which you know demolition is imminent, thus a likely release, would you identify suspect asbestos and lead-based paint as RECs?

  • JG

    The adjacent property is not actually the REC.  It's the actual or likely release to the site from the adjacent property that is the REC.  It would not be correct to say that "the adjacent dry cleaner is a REC in connection with the Site".  It would be correct to say "the likely presence of CVOCs on the property due to a release from the adjacent dry cleaner facility is a REC". 

    Just remember that the REC is the actual or likely release of OHM on the property not the source of the release.  A UST is not a REC, the likelihood of a release from the UST is a REC; the use as a junkyard is not a REC, the actual lead concentrations detected during previous investigations is a REC.

    As EP's we can say to each other that the UST is a REC and the junkyard is a REC because we know what that means.  But when documenting it you should use the correct language.  Thinking this way also helps simplify the REC/no REC decision.

    (stepping down from soapbox.)

  • Brittany G

    From the ASTM E1527-13 Standard and ASTM Training it is my understanding that you cannot directly call something that is not on the site being assessed a REC. You have to word it in a way such as, 'the (dry cleaner, gas station, etc.) on the adjoining property is a REC in connection with the site.' 

     

  • JG

    To your second question, if the site has been remediated to unrestricted use then it's an HREC.  (Assuming it the standards haven't changed since it was remediated.) If there are restrictions on the property (eg, commercial use only, no drinking the water) then it's a CREC.

    If there's an internal debate than refer the debaters to E1527, all of the references and webinars provided by EDR, and all of the previous discussions on commonground. This subject is has been very thoroughly documented and explained.  There's no debate.

  • jgwatkins

    it always relates to the property being asessed - so if you feel there is an issue on an adjoining property that is/has created a release or threat of release to your property being assessed than yes that is a REC for the property being assessed.   

  • Melanie

    Thanks gentlemen, for the feedback and examples this has really helped.