An October 26th post on the blog Common Ground addresses a question regarding underground storage tanks (“USTs”) that have been closed in accordance with the relevant regulations stating:
… I have a site that had three USTs (two gasoline and one waste oil) removed in 1997 and an NFA issued later that year. The location of soil samples in each tank pit seemed to be the same as regulations required today and analyzed for only BTEX and TPH GRO. There were no analyses for the additional required current COCs of MTBE, PAHs, chlorinated hydrocarbons or the full spectrum for TPH.
The question posed is:
Even though the state issued NFA in 1997 (before those COCs were required I believe) I would consider this to be a REC rather than a historical REC… Agreed? Samples should be collected for all current required COCs, correct? I would also request analysis of lead since the tanks are shown on sanborns since at least 1951. Anyone think differently?
A Historical Recognized Environmental Condition (“HREC”) is defined under ASTM as “an environmental condition which in the past would have been considered a Recognized Environmental Condition (“REC”), but which may or may not be currently considered a REC.” Differentiating between a HREC is typically a determination made by the environmental professional undertaking the environmental assessment.
The responses to the October 26th post varied. One commenter noted:
In most cases, I’d probably identify this as a de minimis condition or business risk. There was no release in 1997, it wouldn’t be a HREC.
Another commenter stated:
I could see this being a REC, a de minimis condition, or a CREC (if the NFA were to specify commercial land use, for instance). But contamination has been found, so some sort of mention must be made and the reasoning should be presented for whatever conclusion he believes most appropriate.
An additional commenter notes:
ASTM 1527 doesn’t define “threat to the environment”. My interpretation is that if a state issues an unconditional NFA letter then there is no threat to the environment. The state doesn’t think these old closed UST sites are significant enough to re-open today, therefore, still no threat to the environment. There may be exceptions to this in unusual situations. If you or your client wants 100% certainty that there is no contamination, that’s fine, but you don’t have to identify it REC because you cannot reach a level of certainty that is not required by ASTM 1527. You can identify de minimis condition and/or business risk and still recommend a Phase II. There is nothing that says you must identify a REC in order to recommend a Phase II and there’s nothing to say every REC warrants a recommendation at this time. In other words, the REC recommendation should be independent of what client plans on doing at the site. The Opinions/Recommendations section or (side letter) is where planned use, client’s sensitivities, etc. should be addressed.
The Between the Lines blog is made available by Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard, P.L.L.C. and the law firm publisher. The blog site is for educational purposes only, as well as to give general information and a general understanding of the law. This blog is not intended to provide specific legal advice. Use of this blog site does not create an attorney client relationship between you and Mitchell Williams or the blog site publisher. The Between the Lines blog site should not be used as a substitute for legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.