A “Clean” Phase I Environmental Assessment of Industrial Sites Is Just the Start
Why a Phase I ESA Doesn’t Tell the Whole Story
The American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) developed Standard E1527 to provide guidance on how a Phase I ESA investigation should be conducted and reported. This standard only calls for investigation at a superficial level. While the scope of a Phase I is designed to determine the potential for contamination, there’s no sampling of soil or groundwater to affirmatively prove whether contamination actually exists.
A Phase I ESA typically consists of an on-site visit to inspect present conditions at the site and neighboring properties, interviews with persons with knowledge of the site, a file review of municipal records, aerial photographs, chain of titles, and a database review of state and federal records for the site. Depending on accessibility, some of these inquiries may be curtailed or not completed. In addition, the quality of the inquiries can vary. For example, inspectors are limited to interviewing the “most qualified persons available” during their investigation, and these individuals are not always those with deep historic knowledge of the property and its previous usage.
In addition, critical records like underground storage tank registrations might be missing — either they were not filed before legally required, or were never transferred to the new owner when the site was sold. Inspectors also have the latitude to determine whether the cost or time required to obtain the information outweighs the benefits, and they may cut the inquiry short. The personal opinions of the environmental consultant conducting the Phase I can also have a bearing on the ultimate conclusions. Industrial companies can utilize environmental insurance coverage, in addition to a “clean” Phase I and/or Phase II ESA, to effectively manage environmental risks at properties where they want to build and operate in the future.
Even if a Phase II Site Assessment is conducted in areas of concern (collection/analysis of soil and/or groundwater samples), the accuracy of the ultimate conclusions is highly dependent on how comprehensive the Phase II study was. Variabilities in Phase IIs include sampling location, number of samples collected, which media sampled, constituents sampled, subsurface depth of sample collection, and the consultant’s interpretation of the data. If any of these variables are inappropriately determined by the environmental consultant, the results can present a misleading picture of actual conditions.
These inherent limitations and variability can add up and lead an environmental consultant to come to a conclusion that is far from accurate and leaves companies exposed.
How Do You Avoid This Trap?
Industrial companies can utilize environmental insurance coverage, in addition to a “clean” Phase I and/or Phase II ESA, to effectively manage environmental risks at properties where they want to build and operate in the future. The combination of a Phase I and/or Phase II assessment and environmental insurance provides protection from unknown contamination that environmental assessments, on their own, may not reveal and helps keep potential liabilities in check.
Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products Group Plans $100 Million Expansion at Bowling Green, Kentucky Plant
Canada-Based Advanced Design Solutions Chooses Lawrenceburg, Tennessee, for Manufacturing Facility
2018 Leading Metro Locations: Pacific and Mountain Metros Dominate the List
33rd Annual Corporate Survey & the 15th Annual Consultants Survey
2018 Top States for Doing Business: Georgia Ranks #1 Fifth Year in a Row
Made in America: An Outlook for Manufacturing in the U.S.
Location USA 2018
A Changing Food Manufacturing Industry
2017 Food Processing
Opportunity Zones Can Uplift Communities and Investors Alike