Best Practices for Government Records Review Julie Kilgore, Wasatch Environmental Georgina Dannatt, Bank of the West Presented to: Environmental Bankers Association Technical/ASTM Member Development Group June 28, 2017

ASTM 1527-13 Required Databases Standard Environmental Record Sources (where available) (Section 8.1.2) & Minimum Search distances in miles (kilometers) ( Federal NPL site list 1.0 (1.6) Federal Delisted NPL site list 0.5 (0.8) Federal CERCLIS list Federal CERCLIS NFRAP site list Federal RCRA CORRACTS facilities list Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD facilities list Federal RCRA generators list property and adjoining properties Federal institutional control/engineering control registries property only Federal ERNS list State- and tribal-equivalent NPL 1.0 (1.6) State- and tribal-equivalent CERCLIS 0.5 (0.8) State and tribal landfill and/or solid waste disposal site lists State and tribal leaking storage tank lists   State and tribal registered storage tank lists property and adjoining properties State and tribal institutional control/ engineering control registries property only State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites State and tribal Brownfield sites

ASTM Approach for Reducing Search Distances Exercise of EP’s discretion Based on the following factors (Section 8.1.2.1) Density of the area Hydrogeologic conditions Other reasonable factors State reasons in the report

This EDR radius map was for a site on the south side of the Mississippi River, across from downtown St. Paul. The site was 40 acres, thus the “irregular” radius of the search boundary, to account for the distance from the property boundary, not the center of the site. In this instance, the EP could justify dismissing from consideration all listings on the north side of the river. The basis would be that the river is a major, regional groundwater discharge zone. Any releases on the north side of the river would pose a negligible risk of impacting a site on the south side of the river.

Review of Agency Files (Section 8.2.2) If property or adjoining property is identified on standard environmental record sources the agency file/records should be reviewed Purpose is to assist in determining if RECs, HRECs, CRECs, or de minimis conditions exist If EP determines review is not warranted, must state reason in report

17 November 2018 Title of Presentation

Consultant states “environmental records review is based on computerized data compiled by [database company]. Review of governmental agencies’ environmental databases identified 1 National Priority List Deletions (NPL), 2 The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS and CERCLIS-NFRAP), 3 CORRACTS, 4 RCRA SQG, 1 US ENG CONTROLS, 1 US INST CONTROLS, 1 CONSENT, 1 Records of Decisions (ROD), 27 LUST, 30 UST, 1 AST, 1 LAST,1 VCP, 1 Local BROWNFIELD, and 9 RCRA-NONGEN. Consultant states only 5 sites are located up-gradient and have a potential for environmental concern. “The remaining sites are cross- and/or down-gradient and the risk of environmental impairment for these sites is considered low.” Former [release site] is listed as a LUST and a UST site (Consultant does not identify where this site is in relationship to the subject property). Consultant states “All LUST and UST tanks have been closed by the agency and the risk of environmental impairment from this site is considered low due to the closure status.” Conclusion: No RECs

Currently, a business with a similar name as the [release site] adjoins the subject property. Consultant seems to assume that this is the release site location, although that is never stated. Pursuant to ASTM, Consultant should have reviewed agency file records. Historically, [release site] was listed as one of the occupants of the subject property in the historical section of Consultant’s report. Had Consultant made that connection, pursuant to ASTM, Consultant should have reviewed agency file records. Agency file records document 1) The tanks and the releases were on the subject property, 2) There were several releases, but the source of the most significant release was not related to a regulated UST, and 3) The release was “closed” in the tank program and was transferred to a different agency which did no follow up. Result: Buyer acquires property, has no idea there was significant contamination on-site, existing buildings were demolished, nice new shiny building was constructed, and buyer is now seeking permanent financing.

Data Filtering Removing sites from database reports Useful tool for removing non-relevant/redundant database listings However, potential for misuse… End-user of report may not be aware that database report has been truncated Closed case listings on database may be risk- based closure with residual contamination; especially pertinent if the site is being redeveloped

Sites reported as “Case Closed or “No Further Action” may not be listed in this report 10

Findings upon comparison to 3rd party provider database 11

Assessment Reproducibility Documentation for report (Section 12.2) “Relevant supporting documentation shall be included in the report or adequately reference to facilitate reconstruction of the assessment by an environmental professional other than the environmental professional who conducted it. Sources that revealed no findings also shall be documented.” Common situations Lack of reference section or source information Limited summary as the database report/ broken links Discussion of rationale not presented Bank needs all data for long-term archive and future audits

Other Government Records Review Challenges Pitfalls of not using a Commercial DB service and performing data gathering yourself Free on-line complied DB (not source DBs) stale and incomplete Compensating for and managing large size of database reports creates downstream problems for consultants, reviewers, and end users Data compression results in poor resolution Uncompressed reports transmitted in half a dozen PDF file pieces or more

This EDR radius map was for a site on the south side of the Mississippi River, across from downtown St. Paul. The site was 40 acres, thus the “irregular” radius of the search boundary, to account for the distance from the property boundary, not the center of the site. In this instance, the EP could justify dismissing from consideration all listings on the north side of the river. The basis would be that the river is a major, regional groundwater discharge zone. Any releases on the north side of the river would pose a negligible risk of impacting a site on the south side of the river. 1,925 Pages Database Report

EBA Database Provider Discussion EDR- Paul Schiffer ERIS- Mark Mattei GeoSearch-Scott Davis Envirosite- Mark Cereno