1. 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

2. 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

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

4. 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.

5. 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

6. 17 November 2018
Title of Presentation

7. 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

8. 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.

9. 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

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

11. Findings upon comparison to 3rd party provider database11

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

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