It seems that you know that you should sample the soil, but you have already concluded that the former agricultural usage of the site is not a REC.  Why is it not a REC?

Start with your finding: "there is no evidence of improper applications or spills."  You then conclude: "the proper application of agricultural chemicals in accordance with their intended uses is not a REC."

What evidence of improper applications or spills would you expect to find?  Are they self-evident?  With that logic, is a UST a REC only when you have evidence of a leak?

The problem is that you do not want to say that this agricultural usage is a REC, because then you would have to say that every Ag usage is REC (and that would upset some clients).

Unless the agricultural user declares that they have full knowledge of the agricultural practices used on the land since first development, and they have never used pesticides, then I would call agricultural usage that included the application of pesticides, herbicides, or fertilizers a REC.  If you go down that road, I would get the agricultural user's declaration in writing.  However, I think a jury may still hold the consultant negligent if sampling was not recommended for a school and contaminants were found.

I don't see anything wrong with calling it a REC given the circumstances.  If you're concerned about the double standard.....call the proper application of ag chemicals a de minimis condition for commercial developments and REC for residential/school development.  That should be consistent with ASTM.

Three issues here I think. First, depending on the acreage, what is a scientifically defensible and statistically significant sampling protocol? The range could be enormous. Second, what is the intended future use and hence the complete exposure pathways (ie. can you engineer a barrier for exposure control? Third, what will you sample for and what will you do with the data (a question to always ask in a Phase II)? If you limit to pesitcides/herbicides/metals, how do you decide which ones to analyze (lab bill can be pretty big here on a 20+ acre site)? Whether you chose to call it a REC, hREC or potential REC; all of the above needs to be considered an discussed with the client as simply calling it a REC with no action plan is not helpful to an investor (but you raise a very complex and interesting question).

Let's go back to the beginning. You are doing a phase 1 pursuant to ASTM. A REC is a term of art under ASTM E1527. It is evidence of a release that is not "de minimus". That definition, in turn, refers to conditions that if brought to the attention of a regulator would not be subject to an enforcement action.

If farm products such as pesticides were properly applied in accordance with their labeling, then there is no CERCLA release. Of course, the enviro consultant may conclude that it cannot determine that the pesticide/farm product was properly applied and therefore cannot rule out a REC.

That being said, the presence of pesticides can certainly be an environmental business risk. It would make sense to discuss with the client. Given the end use as a school and that there will likely be lots of exposed soil, it is really important to identify the client risk tolerance and to document your discussions with your client  

"Potential REC" is not an ASTM term and I don't use it either.  The previous commenter stated "I'm also not sure that the intended use should have any bearing on whether you term it a REC." but then goes on to describe a situation where non-REC potential residual contamination could become a REC.  So if the future use of the subject property is known, it should be considered in the EP's opinion regarding the findings.  The problem comes if there is potential residual contamination that is not called a REC, but sometime in the future some development occurs that may change the classification, such as excavation and disposal.  We won't hear about the land use change and have an opportunity to revise our conclusion; we will only hear from the developer's lawyers when he has a big investigation/remediation bill.  Since we can't always predict the future with certainty, this leads to EP's calling things RECs when strictly in accordance with ASTM, they may not be.

I think that it's very important to incorporate the perspective of the regulatory agency, because if they would not regulate it, the issue would be de minimis and not a REC. 

I am working on a school where there are two issues: an area that was historically used to stockpile coal ash from the heating system and a former sewage lagoon (which was poentially used for disposal of who-knows-what) which was closed without being documented by the regulatory agency.  After speaking with representatives at the DEQ, I found that they do not consider either issue, as is, something that is subject to regulation; however, they noted that, if the soils were disturbed and the potential contaminants concentrated, that would be a REC.  Consequently, we are saying that both areas are currently de minimis conditions which, given the right circumstances, could be a REC.  Since the school is being demolished and another one is being built, and the problem areas are going to be where ball fields are, we'll probably recommend sampling for a baseline characterization and, if the area will be disturbed, we'll recommend the generation of a comprehensive soils management plan.

Regarding MJohnson's post, I would confirm with DEQ/DEP/etc representatives about whether the issue would (theoretically) be the subject of regulation, and make conclusions as needed.

After re-reading the standard, I'll cede the point; gladly (it's good to understand the standard correctly).  Here is my line of understanding:

  The definition states that recognized environmental conditions are "not intended to include de minimis conditions that generally do not present a threat to human health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies.  Conditions determined to be de minimis are not RECs.” 

So, even if an issue would not be the subject of enforcement action, if that issue presents a threat to human health or the environment, it is still a REC.  It appears that both conditions must be met.  If the standard said “do not present a threat to human health or the environment or that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action,” then my previous stance may be justified; as it is, I must say that, since the coal ash storage and the sewage lagoon each constitute “the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the property,” each issue constitutes a REC. 

Better safe than sorry.  Sometimes it’s a fine line between alarmism and rationality.  Hopefully, the client will understand the difference. 

 Thanks for your advice!