Topic
REC vs BER vs de minimis
1715 Views, 19 Comments
Title:
REC vs BER vs de minimis
Content:
Where do you draw the line between a recognized environmental condition (REC), a business environmental risk (BER) and a de minimis condition? I may include your comment in a future article.
Comment
Amy, I want to make sure you are aware of a very lively thread on this very subject here in the community. Here's the link: http://commonground.edrnet.com/posts/35799579d7
Be the first to rate this
|
Sign in to rate this
Based on your McDonalds example in other post, I don't think you understand some of these terms either. For example, a previous gasoline station that was redeveloped into a McDonalds without any regulatory oversight or investigation is not a historical REC.
Some things are cut and dry....calling asbestos a REC is a rookie mistake that should red flag a report as being done by a rookie without very much senior oversight.
The line between REC and de minimis condition, not so black and white. I know this will be difficult for you to understand, but just because you have one opinion and I have another opinion does not mean that you are right and I am wrong.
Average Rating:
3 ratings
|
Sign in to rate this
Again, go read the definition. It's clear that Historical REC refers to a REC that has been remediated or otherwise rendered a non-issue. It has nothing to do with a REC that was associated with the historical use of the property. In other words an issue cannot be a REC and Historic REC at the same time.
Matt
Average Rating:
2 ratings
|
Sign in to rate this
I will try one more time, then I give up. See if you can understand the difference between the following two scenarios.
Scenario 1 - A gasoline station operates on a property until 1985. No investigation or remediation is ever conducted regarding the former gasoline station. The property is then redeveloped with a McDonalds. In this case, the former gasoline station is a REC.
Scenario 2 - A gasoline station operates on a property until 1985. The USTs are removed under the supervision of the local agency. Contaminated soil is removed, confirmation soil samples are collected and found to be clean. The Environmental Health Department issues a closure letter. The property is then redeveloped with a McDonalds. In this case, the former gasoline station is a Historic REC.
Do you see the difference??
You mistakenly assume that the number of years that has passed since the incident occured somehow determines whether it is "historical" or not. You are wrong. What makes it historical is that it is no longer a REC. It was a REC at one time, but then something happened and it is not an REC. I suppose in rare circumstances, it could become a REC again, but unlikely.
Average Rating:
5 ratings
|
Sign in to rate this
Instead of calling me names, why don't you answer my question? In the two scenarios I provide above, do you think they are both Historical RECs? Where in the ASTM definition of Historical REC does it say anything about the land use changing? Please quote me the standard!!!
Ok....here I will quote the standard....Section 3.2.39 says "If a past release of any hazardous substance or petroleum products has occurred in connection with the property and has been remediated, with such remediation accepted by the responsible regulatory agency, this condition shall be considered an historical recognized environmental condition."
I don't know how it could be any clearer. It has nothing to do with WHEN the incident occured. If it happened 2 years ago or 30 years ago and was never remediated, then it is NOT a historical REC. You can call me all the names in the book, you'll still be wrong.
Average Rating:
5 ratings
|
Sign in to rate this
I already corrected myself and said that a historical REC can become an REC in rare circumstances. For example, if a site gets closure, then the agency reopens the case for some reason. You see, I have the ability to admit a mistake. Something you're obviously not able to do.
I would be happy to reproduce the entire section, but I'm not able to copy/paste out of the PDF and don't see the point when it doesn't mention anything about length of time or changing land use being a factor in determining if a REC is historical. Also, the simple fact that you have not provided any text from the standard tells me you really do know that you're wrong on this topic, but just can't bring yourself to admit it.
I'm certain you will never admit you're wrong. The only reason I'm even continuing this conversation is because I get a certain satisfaction out of watching you dig yourself deeper and deeper into your hole.
Matt
Average Rating:
1 rating
|
Sign in to rate this
3.2.39 historical recognized environmental condition—an environmental condition which in the past would have been considered a recognized environmental condition, but which may or may not be considered a recognized environmental condition currently. The final decision rests with the environmental professional and will be influenced by the current impact of the historical recognized environmental condition on the property. If a past release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products has occurred in connection with the property and has been remediated, with such remediation accepted by the responsible regulatory agency (for example, as evidenced by the issuance of a no further action letter or equivalent), this condition shall be considered an historical recognized environmental condition and included in the findings section of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment report. The environmental professional shall provide an opinion of the current impact on the property of this historical recognized environmental condition in the opinion section of the report. If this historical recognized environmental condition is determined to be a recognized environmental condition at the time the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment is conducted, the condition shall be identified as such and listed in the conclusions section of the report.
Here is the referenced section of the ASTM.
I am inclined to agree with the punishing one. Not on the inflammatory remarks (you have my respect, Matt). Rather, on the HREC definition I concur. The historic use as a gas station, based on other historic gas stations, qualifies as a material threat of a release (in the past). It would have been considered a REC, had we evaluated it during its time of operation. This past use may or may notbe considered a REC today, that would remain to be seen, but the historic gas station under the McDonalds is an HREC. Do you see how I got my conclusion?
I welcome more discussion. I am listening with both ears and I won't call you names.
Be the first to rate this
|
Sign in to rate this
As I do not know what the McDonalds situation is (no one has linked back to the post, please do and I'll review), a previous discussion (and my interpretation) on HRECs can be found at http://commonground.edrnet.com/posts/328e526530.
Though I'm not completely up on the McDonalds issue, in my interpretation of HREC, unless you have documentation that the site is cleaned-up, a filling station (or any UST site) is a REC. HREC will only apply when a former REC has been cleaned up to regulatory standards. Standards do change though. A site with known contamination at levels just above an old standard may become an HREC if the new standards are higher, and the constituents no longer surpass the threshold (this assumes the impact is well defined and you do not question the potential for higher concentrations).
Scott
Be the first to rate this
|
Sign in to rate this
Scott,
Thanks for the post. You said...
"HREC will only apply when a former REC has been cleaned up to regulatory standards."
Why do you think that?
Be the first to rate this
|
Sign in to rate this
Read through the HREC link above. I basically addressed your question there in length.
Be the first to rate this
|
Sign in to rate this
I finally read your link: great discussion. I can see where you are coming from. Thanks for that, Scott.
Be the first to rate this
|
Sign in to rate this