As a continuation of our discussion on Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (Phase 1’s), we’ll take a brief look at the next step, or Phase II Environmental Site Assessments (Phase II’s). As always, there is plenty of research, data, and guidance on this topic but the objective of this series is to simplify the discussion, and provide some essential recommendations).
Phase I’s are often the due diligence starting point for a broad range of properties both inside and outside of New Jersey and are generally conducted to o enable a party to satisfy one the CERCLA landowner liability protections. Phase I’s also follow a more standardized approach, and essentially mean the same to property owners, insurers, lenders, etc.; however, the same cannot be said for Phase II’s. When initially established in 1997, the ASTM standard (E1903-97) linked “follow-up” investigations to a Phase I. Over time, and through numerous discussions & iterations, a new ASTM standard was established for Phase II’s (E1903-11) which allowed practitioners and users to “tailor” the approach to their specific goals and objectives.
As any practitioner can attest to, it is rare that any two (2) sites are alike and standardizing an approach was neither practical, or in most cases, cost-effective, but what about differences in professional judgment? We looked at this topic in a previous post “LSRPs & Professional Judgment,” and there are similarities when conducting Phase II’s, as the variable nature in professional judgment will dictate how much will it cost and how long a Phase II will it take. Prior to starting any Phase II, the key points / questions to consider include:
· Who is the “User” and what is their risk tolerance?
· What are the goals and objectives of your client (“User”)?
· What prior site information is available (e.g. Phase I ESA) and what is its quality? (Note: relying on a poorly conducted Phase I by another consultant / investigator is never recommended!)
Any practitioner can look at a recent Phase I (and the twenty [20] or so Recognized Environmental Conditions [RECs] that may have been identified) and recommend a subsurface investigation including soil borings and sampling, or groundwater sampling. Seasoned professionals will answer the above questions first, and through mutual agreement with the User, define an appropriate scope of work, and on many occasions reduce the cost and duration of a Phase II investigation. Those individuals or corporations that are more risk-averse may want all the bells and whistles, which is fine, as that generally correlates with an increased level of confidence for any given site, but it’s not always necessary. Many Users are willing to accept manageable liabilities or risks, but unwilling to accept others (e.g. PCB or Chlorinated Solvent contamination). As a result, it is imperative for the investigator to understand this in advance of conducting a Phase II investigation.
These limited scope investigations that only take between 1-day and 1-week can be quite beneficial to the User, provided they meet the objectives of the Phase II and the results obtained are usable and/or consistent with expectations. Conversely, an unfocused (and poorly conducted) investigation that investigates every REC, takes over 4 weeks, and costs upwards of $50,00, may not provide the information that your client (or User) was looking to obtain…which gets you back to the topic of “quality over quantity,” and stresses the importance of effective communication.
We hope that you find these posts informative, and relatively useful, and your feedback is always welcome. For further information regarding environmental investigations and/or environmental business practices, please don't hesitate to contact us at tfrancis@cardinallsrp.com or www.cardinalLSRP.com.