Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet
Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals
-
Congratulations waross on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
- Thread starter calgeo
- Start date
A phase II can be anything you negotiate. The Phase I environmental site assessment was developed as a screening tool to consider if there is any reason a prudent business owner should suspect a site to be contaminated to such an extent that the owner would have CERCLA liability.
Phase I's scope is "visually inspect", review site's and environ's history, check government records to see if its on any list of suspect contamination. One might argue looking at government lists is actually part of the historical review. Phase I was "No testing". If the Phase I concludes that the site may be contaminated, the Phase II tests to confirm or refute what the Phase I speculates.
One does not need a Phase II to look for lead-based paint, asbestos, radon, hazardous waste depositories, or petroleum releases. The list of "environmental liabilities" goes on and on. Most owners cannot afford to look for everything. The Phase I comes up with a short list of "maybes". The Phase II tests for the "maybes". The key point of Phase I and II is to avoid CERCLA liability.
Other items of interest to a buyer are flood plains, wetlands, underground mine subsidence, noise, etc. These are not related to CERCLA liability but could cause problems for a buyer.
Phase I's scope is "visually inspect", review site's and environ's history, check government records to see if its on any list of suspect contamination. One might argue looking at government lists is actually part of the historical review. Phase I was "No testing". If the Phase I concludes that the site may be contaminated, the Phase II tests to confirm or refute what the Phase I speculates.
One does not need a Phase II to look for lead-based paint, asbestos, radon, hazardous waste depositories, or petroleum releases. The list of "environmental liabilities" goes on and on. Most owners cannot afford to look for everything. The Phase I comes up with a short list of "maybes". The Phase II tests for the "maybes". The key point of Phase I and II is to avoid CERCLA liability.
Other items of interest to a buyer are flood plains, wetlands, underground mine subsidence, noise, etc. These are not related to CERCLA liability but could cause problems for a buyer.
Yeah, I agree with Hotgas, you make the Phase II anything you want from the findings in your Phase I.
Obviously you want to catch every type of contaminate that could be on the site, however, budget and time play a role in that determination.
The problem I've seen is that if you clean up a site for a, b, and c contaminates, and 10 years later contaminate x,y,z show up, the company that bought the land under the consent order from the State or EPA, is now liable for it.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t matter if the new company put the contaminates in the ground or they were already there, the previous Site Assessment/Clean Up missed it and the company is now stuck with the responsibility of cleaning it up.
I hope that helps.
Obviously you want to catch every type of contaminate that could be on the site, however, budget and time play a role in that determination.
The problem I've seen is that if you clean up a site for a, b, and c contaminates, and 10 years later contaminate x,y,z show up, the company that bought the land under the consent order from the State or EPA, is now liable for it.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t matter if the new company put the contaminates in the ground or they were already there, the previous Site Assessment/Clean Up missed it and the company is now stuck with the responsibility of cleaning it up.
I hope that helps.
I agree with the above posts, but would add that it also depends on the intention of your client. If the client is only concerned with meeting qualifications for a loan to purchase the property, you may not need to look at these things. More likely, the client wants to be sure that the property is free of contaminants that will cause him harm or liability down the road. If the latter is the case, you definitely want to include lead and asbestos testing in your Phase II scope IF it was identified in the Phase I or IF you strongly suspect it's presence.
If you have no particular reason to suspect these materials based on the Phase I and your site inspection, there is no regulatory obligation to test for them -- this is where the professional judgement part of the process comes in. If you think something may be asbestos based on your inspection, good conscience and ethics should tell you to recommend testing to your client.
If you have no particular reason to suspect these materials based on the Phase I and your site inspection, there is no regulatory obligation to test for them -- this is where the professional judgement part of the process comes in. If you think something may be asbestos based on your inspection, good conscience and ethics should tell you to recommend testing to your client.
On Thursday, August 26, 2004, the USEPA proposed in the Federal Register, rules they believe one should follow to obtain the "Innocent landowner defense" of CERCLA. They contend the ASTM Standard for Phase I ESA is not in complete accordance with the intent of CERCLA and SARA.
Yeah, I just saw a similar issue when I was reading up on the CERCLA/SARA regs under the innocent landowner clause.
But I didn't know that EPA addressed it again in the FR. That's interesting. I goes to show that EPA is aware of the issue.
Did they propose any recommended symmetry between CERCLA and the ASTM? Or any more clarification?
But I didn't know that EPA addressed it again in the FR. That's interesting. I goes to show that EPA is aware of the issue.
Did they propose any recommended symmetry between CERCLA and the ASTM? Or any more clarification?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
