Phase I ESA Quirks Volume II: Stained Concrete

To continue with our Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) “Quirk” series, let’s take a quick look at a common issue that is often overlooked or under-valued: Stained Concrete. Similar to our previous post (Phase I ESA Quirks Volume I: Historic Deeds), many times when conducting Phase I ESAs or Preliminary Assessments (New Jersey) you encounter interesting bits of information, or scenarios, but how you interpret and utilize it can significantly impact your project, including that small concrete stain that appears insignificant.

Generally when conducting due diligence you encounter stained concrete.  It’s fairly common, and could be in an auto repair shop, manufacturing facility, or any number of other facilities with varying uses. Usually the occasional small spill that is cleaned up rather quickly, could fall under a de minimis category, or an Environmental Professional (EP) may deem it a Recognized Environmental Concern (REC) depending on the severity.  In either situation, this should prompt the investigator to the next round of questions (or considerations) including:

 How did it get there?

What caused the stain?

How large of an area is stained?

Duration?

Condition of the concrete?

The ultimate goal is to ascertain the likelihood of the contents of that stain or spill getting to the subsurface soils (or groundwater), but take into consideration the goals of your client, especially the future end use(s) and whether that stained concrete will be removed as part of a site’s redevelopment.  This doesn’t necessarily mean you need to recommend an elaborate Phase II investigation; however, you also shouldn’t assume that the stain is insignificant.  Many inexperienced professionals (or experienced individuals for that matter) tend to overlook that fact that concrete is porous, which could be costly in some circumstances.   It may be in great condition, but even small spills that occur over a long period of time should be given close consideration.  Similarly, the complications of testing, handling, and disposing of PCB-impacted concrete (for example) could have drastic effects on a project’s cost and schedule.

Along with the above, and possibly more concerning are the brand new concrete floors or floors with that nice and shiny epoxy coat: Why were they repaired or replaced? What happened at those locations previously?

All of the above questions are those that need to be answered regardless of the due diligence platform if one is to provide true value to their client. Know where to look, who to ask, and don’t fall into the “Concrete is in good condition, no additional investigation necessary” trap.  Taking a deeper look usually isn’t that difficult, and you’ll thank yourself later if you were able to discover an issue early in the process.

Stay tuned for future Phase I ESA tips and tidbits in the upcoming weeks…as there are plenty of lessons and unique observations to be shared, which could ultimately make our jobs easier!  

We hope that you find these posts informative, and relatively useful, and your feedback is always welcome. For further information, or for assistance on your next project, please don't hesitate to contact us at tfrancis@cardinallsrp.com, or www.cardinalLSRP.com.

How Much and How Long Will it Take: Volume III-Phase II ESA’s

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.