Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix F-2 - Limited Phase II ESA Appendix F-2 Limited Phase II ESA LIMITED PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT PROPOSED FONTANA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF JUNIPER AVENUE AND VALLEY BOULEVARD, FONTANA, CALIFORNIA Prepared For: JPI REAL ESTATE ACQUISITION, INC.11988 El Camino Real, Suite 200San Diego, California 92130 Prepared By: LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 10532 Acacia Street, Suite B-6Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Project No. 13584.002 July 14, 2022 Subject: Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Proposed Fontana Residential Development Southwest of the Intersection of Juniper Avenue and Valley Boulevard Fontana, California INTRODUCTION Leighton and Associates, Inc. (Leighton) presents this report summarizing the results of a Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) conducted at the proposed Fontana residential development, located southwest of the intersection of Juniper Avenue and Valley Boulevard, Fontana, California, herein referred to as the Site (see Site Location Map – Figure 1). The San Bernardino County Assessor’s Office identifies the Site as Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 0251-321-35; 0251-321-17, -18, -19, -20, -21, -22, -23, -24, -25, -26, and -27; and 0251-171-19. SCOPE AND BACKGROUND The scope of the Phase II ESA was based on findings and recommendations in our Phase I ESA, dated July 6, 2022 (Leighton, 2022). Key findings and recommendations presented in the draft Phase I ESA included the following: • Former Agricultural Usage: Based on historical Site usage for agriculture, the presence of residual organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) and metals are an environmental concern for future residential use. Soil sampling for OCPs and arsenic is recommended throughout the Site to assess for residual impacts from former agriculture use on the Site. • Tar Container: A container filled with what appeared to be a tar-like material was observed dumped in the east of center portion of the Site. While some of this tar-like material appeared to have spilled outside of the container, there was no noticeable staining in the underlying soil. This condition is considered a REC and soil sampling is recommended beneath the container to assess for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs). The tar/container July 14, 2022 Project No. 13584.002 JPI Real Estate Acquisition, Inc. 11988 El Camino Real, Suite 200 San Diego, California 92130 Attention: Mr. Jay Adamowitz Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Project No. 13584.002 Fontana, CA July 14, 2022 2 itself may not be a REC; however, its proper disposal is an environmental liability, and its removal from the Site is recommended. • Soil Stockpile: A soil pile mixed with demolition debris (i.e. concrete and asphalt fragments) was observed east of center. Dumped soil from an unknown source is considered a REC, and a soil sample is recommended to assess for potential contaminants such as TPH, metals, OCPs, and SVOCs. • Soil Staining: Stained soil was observed in the northwestern and southeastern portions of the Site. These are considered a REC, and soil sampling is recommended to assess for potential contaminants such as TPH, metals, OCPs, and SVOCs. OBJECTIVES The objectives of this limited Phase II ESA were as follows: • To investigate the shallow soil at the Site for residual pesticides such as arsenic and OCPs; • To investigate the soil beneath the tar container for TPH and SVOCs; • To investigate the soil and debris stockpile on eastern portion of the Site for TPH, Title 22 Metals, OCPs and SVOCs; and • To investigate the soil staining on the northwestern and southeastern portions of the Site for TPH, Title 22 metals, OCPs, and SVOCs. PRE-FIELD ACTIVITIES A site-specific Health and Safety Plan (HSP) was prepared for work performed at the Site. The HSP was prepared in compliance with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulation 29 CFR 1910.120. The document was kept onsite at all times during the field activities. Onsite personnel signed the HSP acknowledging acceptance. Underground Service Alert (USA) was contacted at least 72 hours prior to the commencement of fieldwork to mark for underground utility locations. The proposed sampling areas were marked in white paint prior to contacting USA. FIELD ACTIVITIES On June 24, 2022, Leighton staff mobilized to the Site to perform soil sampling activities. All samples were collected using a hand auger with the exception of the soil and debris stockpile which was obtained using a stainless steel hand trowel. Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Project No. 13584.002 Fontana, CA July 14, 2022 3 Sampling for Residual Pesticides Six hand auger borings (HA1 through HA6) were advanced to 1.5 feet bgs across the Site to investigate for soil impacts related to former agricultural use (Figure 2). Soil samples were collected at depths of approximately 0.5 and 1.5 feet below ground surface (bgs) at each location. Soil samples were collected from the tip of the hand auger and retained in laboratory-supplied 4-ounce glass jars with Teflon®-lined lids. Sampling Beneath the Tar Container One hand auger boring (TR1) was advanced to 1.5 feet bgs adjacent to the tar container in the east of center portion of the Site (Figure 2). Soil samples were collected at depths of approximately 0.5 and 1.5 feet bgs. Soil samples were collected from the tip of the hand auger and retained in laboratory-supplied 4-ounce glass jars with Teflon®-lined lids. Stockpile Sample One soil stockpile sample (SP1) was collected from the small soil and construction debris stockpile on the central-eastern portion of the Site (Figure 2). The sample was collected from approximately 6 inches below the surface of the stockpile. The soil sample was collected in a laboratory-supplied 4-ounce glass jar with a Teflon®-lined lid. The soil stockpile sampling location is shown on Figure 2. Stained Soil Samples Two hand auger borings (SS1 and SS2) were advanced to 2.0 feet bgs in areas of stained soil on the northwestern and southeastern corners of the Site (Figure 2). Soil samples were collected at depths of approximately 0.5 and 2.0 feet bgs. Soil samples were collected from the tip of the hand auger and retained in laboratory-supplied 4-ounce glass jars with Teflon®-lined lids. General Sampling Procedures All soil sample containers were clearly marked with sample identification number, date, and time of collection, and placed in an ice-cooled chest for temporary storage. Samples were transported under chain of custody protocols to Enviro-Chem Laboratories, Inc. (Enviro-Chem) in Pomona, California for analyses. Enviro-Chem has California Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP) certifications for the analyses completed. All sampling equipment was decontaminated between samples by washing in a solution of non- phosphate detergent and water, rinsing with potable water, and a final rinsing with distilled water. ANALYTICAL METHODS – SOIL SAMPLES Soil samples collected for residual pesticides were analyzed for the following constituents: • Arsenic by EPA Method 6010B; and Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Project No. 13584.002 Fontana, CA July 14, 2022 4 • OCPs by EPA Method 8081A. Soil samples collected from beneath the tar container were analyzed for the following constituents: • TPH by EPA Method 8015M; and • SVOCs by EPA Method 8270C. The soil sample collected from the soil and construction debris stockpile was analyzed for the following constituents: • Title 22 Metals by EPA Methods 6010B and 7471A; • OCPs by EPA Method 8081A; • TPH by EPA Method 8015M; and • SVOCs by EPA Method 8270C. Soil samples collected from the stained soil areas were analyzed for the following constituents: • Title 22 Metals by EPA Methods 6010B and 7471A; • OCPs by EPA Method 8081A; • TPH by EPA Method 8015M; and • SVOCs by EPA Method 8270C. ANALYTICAL RESULTS Soil sample analytical results are summarized on Tables 1 through 3. The laboratory analytical reports are included in Appendix B. The results indicate the following: • Title 22 Metals – Title 22 metals were not reported at concentrations exceeding the US EPA Residential Screening Levels (US EPA RSLs) or DTSC Modified Screening Levels (DTSC- Modified SLs) for residential land use, with the exception of arsenic. However, arsenic concentrations were all below the more appropriately applied DTSC Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) Note 11 Southern California Ambient Arsenic Screening Level of 12 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) (DTSC, 2020b) (Table 3). • OCPs – OCPs were not reported at concentrations exceeding the residential US EPA RSLs or DTSC-Modified SLs (Table 1). • TPH – Gasoline-range TPH was not reported in any of the samples analyzed. Diesel-range TPH, exceeding the residential US EPA RSLs and DTSC-Modified SLs, was reported in surficial soil samples SS1-0.5 and SS2-0.5. Oil-range TPH, exceeding the residential US EPA RSLs and DTSC-Modified SLs, was also reported in sample SS2-0.5. All of above-mentioned samples are underlain by a deeper 2.0 foot bgs sample reported to contain no detected TPH (gasoline, diesel or oil range), indicating shallow soil impacts (i.e. between 0.5 and 2.0 feet bgs) in these sampled areas. Other reported detections of TPH were all below US EPA RSLs or DTSC-Modified SLs (Table 2). Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Project No. 13584.002 Fontana, CA July 14, 2022 5 • SVOCs – SVOCs were not reported at concentrations exceeding the laboratory method detection limits in any of the soil samples analyzed (Table 2). CONCLUSIONS Former Agricultural Usage: Based on the analytical results of the samples collected in the former agricultural areas of the Site (HA1-0.5 through HA6-0.5), the Site does not appear to have been impacted with OCPs or arsenic at concentrations exceeding residential soil screening levels. Tar Container: Based on the analytical results of the sample collected near the tar container (TR1-0.5), the underlying soil does not appear to have been impacted with TPH or SVOCs as a result the presence of, or a release from, the tar container. Stockpiled Soils: Based on the analytical results of the sample collected from the soil stockpile (SP1), the stockpiled soils do not appear to be impacted with Title 22 metals, OCPs, SVOCs, or TPH exceeding residential soil screening levels. Soil Staining: Diesel-range TPH impacts exceeding US EPA RSLs and DTSC-Modified SLs for residential land use were reported in samples collected from the northwestern (SS1-0.5) and southeastern (SS2-0.5) areas of soil staining. Additionally, the sample from the southeastern stained area also contained oil-range TPH in excess of the US EPA RSLs and the DTSC-Modified SLs for residential land use. TPH was not detected in the underlying deeper soil samples from approximately 2.0 feet, indicating shallow soil impacts (i.e. between 0.5 and 2.0 feet bgs) in these sampled areas. No SVOCs were reported in samples of the stained soil. The areas of stained soil are each 10 feet by 10 feet or less. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of this Phase II ESA, Leighton recommends the following actions be taken prior to Site development: • The tar container and its contents should be removed by a licensed hazardous materials disposal contractor, and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations; • The visually stained soils on the northwestern and southeastern portions of the Site should be remediated. The most feasible method is excavation and off-site disposal. Additional waste characterization testing of the TPH-impacted soil may be required by the disposal facility prior to acceptance. In general, as with all sites, observations should be made during future development activities for features of concern or areas of possible contamination such as, but not limited to, the presence of underground facilities, buried debris, waste drums, tanks, soil staining or odorous soils. Further investigation and analysis may be necessary, should such materials be encountered during grading and/or construction activities. Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Project No. 13584.002 Fontana, CA July 14, 2022 6 Should you have any questions regarding this report, please contact the undersigned at (909) 527-8782. Respectfully submitted, LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. James P. Cunneen JD, PE Tracy Roberts Managing Director / Principal Engineer Staff Geologist TMR/JPC/rsm Attachments: Figure 1 - Site Location Map Figure 2 - Sample Location Map Table 1 - Summary of OCPs in Soils Table 2 - Summary of TPH, and SVOCs in Soil Table 3 - Summary of Title 22 Metals in Soil Appendix A - References Appendix B - Laboratory Reports and Chain of Custody Documentation Appendix C - GBA Important Information About Geoenvironmental Reports Distribution: Addressee ³ 0 2,000 4,000 Feet Scale:1 " = 2,000 ' Project: 13584.002 Eng/Geol: RBH Map Saved as J:\Drafting\13584\002\Maps\13584-002_F01_SLM_2022-07-07.mxd on 7/7/2022 10:50:28 AM Author: KVM (btran) Date: July 2022 SITE LOCATION MAP Proposed Fontana Mixed-use Residential Development Southwest of the Intersection ofJuniper Avenue and Valley BoulevardFontana, California Approximate Site Boundary FIGURE 1 Reference: © 2022 Microsoft Corporation © 2022 Maxar ©CNES (2022) Distribution Airbus Map Saved as J:\Drafting\13584\002\Maps\13584-002_F02_SP_2022-07-07.mxd on 7/7/2022 5:08:19 PM SAMPLE LOCATION MAP Proposed Fontana Mixed-use Residential Development Southwest of the Intersection of Juniper Avenue and Valley Boulevard Fontana, California ³ 0 100 200 Feet Scale: Base Map: Site Plan, Sheet A1.0, dated 05/23/2022 by Architecture Design Collaborative (ADC) 1 " = 100 ' Project: 13584.002 Eng/Geol: RBH Author: (btran) Date: July 2022 LEGEND &<Approximate location of former agricultrue boring &(Approximate location of stained soil boring &?Approximate location of soil pile boring "**Ñ Approximate location of tar container boring Approximate Site Boundary FIGURE 2 HA6 SS1 SP1 TR1 Table 1Summary of OCPs in Soil Proposed Jefferson Fontana Mixed Use Residential DevelopmentFontana, California 13584.002 Page 1 of 1 Leighton and AssociatesJPIPhase II ESAJuly 2022 Sample ID Number Depth (ft bgs) Date Sampled alpha- Chlordane gamma- Chlordane Technical Chlordane 4,4'- DDE All Other OCPs (mg/kg) Dilution Factor SS1-0.5 0.0-0.5 6/24/2022 ND>0.0020 ND>0.0010 ND>0.0050 ND>0.0030 ND>0.0010 - 0.1000 10 SS1-2.0 1.5-2.0 6/24/2022 ----- SS2-0.5 0.0-0.5 6/24/2022 ND>0.0002 ND>0.0001 ND>0.0005 0.003 ND>0.0001 - 0.0100 1 SS2-2.0 1.5-2.0 6/24/2022 ------ SP1 N/A 6/24/2022 0.014 0.004 0.031 0.005 ND>0.0001 - 0.0100 1 HA1-0.5 0.0-0.5 6/24/2022 ND>0.0002 ND>0.0001 ND>0.0005 ND>0.0003 ND>0.0001 - 0.0100 1 HA1-1.5 1.0-1.5 6/24/2022 ------ HA2-0.5 0.0-0.5 6/24/2022 0.001 0.0006J 0.004J ND>0.0003 ND>0.0001 - 0.0100 1 HA2-1.5 1.0-1.5 6/24/2022 ------ HA3-0.5 0.0-0.5 6/24/2022 ND>0.0002 ND>0.0001 ND>0.0005 ND>0.0003 ND>0.0001 - 0.0100 1 HA3-1.5 1.0-1.5 6/24/2022 ------ HA4-0.5 0.0-0.5 6/24/2022 ND>0.0002 ND>0.0001 ND>0.0005 ND>0.0003 ND>0.0001 - 0.0100 1 HA4-1.5 1.0-1.5 6/24/2022 ------ HA5-0.5 0.0-0.5 6/24/2022 0.036 0.011 0.106 0.035 ND>0.0010 - 0.1000 10 HA5-1.5 1.0-1.5 6/24/2022 ------ HA6-0.5 0.0-0.5 6/24/2022 0.006 0.002 0.020 0.011 ND>0.0002 - 0.0200 2 HA6-1.5 1.0-1.5 6/24/2022 ------ 36 36 1.7 2 Various - NL NL 1.7 2 Various - Notes:All samples analyzed by US EPA Method 8081A ft bgs = feet below ground surface mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram<0.0001 = concentration is less thanthe specified laboratory method detection limit NL = Screening level not listed Samples for Stained Soil - =Not Analyzed Stockpile Sample Samples for Residual Pesticides US EPA Residential RSLs DTSC Modified Residential SLs DTSC Modified Residential SLs = Department of Toxic Substances Control Human Health Risk Assessment Note 3 Screening Levels for residential land use (June 2020) US EPA Residential RSL = United States Environmental Protection Agency Residential Regional Screening Level (November 2021) Table 2 Summary of TPH and SVOCs in Soil Proposed Jefferson Fontana Mixed Use Residential Development Fontana, California 13584.002 Page 2 of 3 Leighton and Associates JPIPhase II ESAJuly 2022 Sample ID Number Depth (ft bgs)Date Sampled TPH C4-C10 (mg/kg)TPH C10-C28 (mg/kg)TPH C28-C35 (mg/kg)Dilution Factor SVOCs (mg/kg)Dilution Factor SS1-0.5 0-0.5 6/24/2022 ND>10 138 196 2 ALL ND>0.028-0..774 2 SS1-2.0 1.5-2.0 6/24/2022 ND>5 ND>5 ND>25 1 -- SS2-0.5 0-0.5 6/24/2022 ND>250 1,550 15,800 50 ALL ND>0.028-0.774 2 SS2-2.0 1.5-2.0 6/24/2022 ND>5 ND>5 ND>25 1 -- TR1-0.5 0.0-0.5 6/24/2022 ND>5 17.1 71.7 1 ALL ND>0.028-0.314 2 TR1-1.5 1.0-1.5 6/24/2022 ------ SP1 0.0-0.5 6/24/2022 ND>5 10.2 124 1 ALL ND>0.028-0.314 2 82 96 2400 -Various -NL 97 2400 -Various - Notes: All TPH sample analyses performed using US EPA Method 8015MAll SVOC sample analyses performed using US EPA Method 8270Cft bgs = feet below ground surfacemg/kg = milligrams per kilogram<0.014 = concentration is less than the specified laboratory method detection limit NL = Screening level not listed US EPA Residential RSL = United States Environmental Protection Agency Residential Regional Screening Level (November 2021) SVOCs = Semi-Volatile organic compoundsTPH = Total petroleum hydrocarbons - = Not Analyzed Detection above Screening Level DTSC Modified Residential SLs = Department of Toxic Substances Control Human Health Risk Assessment Note 3 Screening Levels for residential land use (June 2020) Stockpile Sample Samples for Stained Soil Samples for Tar-Like Container US EPA Residential RSLs DTSC Modified Residential SLs Table 3Summary of Title 22 Metals in Soil Proposed Jefferson Fontana Mixed Use Residential Development Fontana, California 13584.002 Page 3 of 3 Leighton and Associates JPI Phase II ESA July 2022 Sample ID Number Depth (ft bgs) Date Sampled An t i m o n y (m g / k g ) Ar s e n i c ( m g / k g ) Bar i u m ( m g / k g ) Be r y l l i u m (m g / k g ) Ca d m i u m (m g / k g ) To t a l C h r o m i u m (m g / k g ) Co b a l t ( m g / k g ) Co p p e r ( m g / k g ) Le a d ( m g / k g ) Me r c u r y ( m g / k g ) Mo l y b d e n u m (m g / k g ) Ni c k e l ( m g / k g ) Se l e n i u m ( m g / k g ) Si l v e r ( m g / k g ) Th a l l i u m ( m g / k g ) Va n a d i u m (m g / k g ) Zi n c ( m g / k g ) Dil u t i o n F a c t o r SS1-0.5 0-0.5 6/24/2022 <0.250 5.75 43.2 <0.180 <0.119 31.0 7.51 10.5 7.34 <0.0062 <0.274 5.66 <0.234 <0.414 <0.432 29.8 37.4 1 SS1-2.0 1.5-2.0 6/24/2022 ------------------ SS2-0.5 0-0.5 6/24/2022 <0.250 3.62 41.8 <0.180 <0.119 32.2 7.02 11.6 13.6 0.021 <0.274 6.22 <0.234 <0.414 <0.432 28.9 59.8 1 SS2-2.0 1.5-2.0 6/24/2022 ------------------ SP1 0.0-0.5 6/24/2022 <0.250 6.79 49.0 <0.180 0.596 36.2 8.15 15.1 26.5 0.027 <0.274 7.68 <0.234 <0.414 <0.432 32.5 102 1 HA1-0.5 0.0-0.5 6/24/2022 -3.48 ---------------1 HA1-1.5 1.0-1.5 6/24/2022 ------------------ HA2-0.5 0.0-0.5 6/24/2022 -3.86 ---------------1 HA2-1.5 1.0-1.5 6/24/2022 ------------------ HA3-0.5 0.0-0.5 6/24/2022 -3.77 ---------------1 HA3-1.5 1.0-1.5 6/24/2022 ------------------ HA4-0.5 0.0-0.5 6/24/2022 -4.04 ---------------1 HA4-1.5 1.0-1.5 6/24/2022 ------------------ HA5-0.5 0.0-0.5 6/24/2022 -4.17 ---------------1 HA5-1.5 1.0-1.5 6/24/2022 ------------------ HA6-0.5 0.0-0.5 6/24/2022 -4.98 ---------------1 HA6-1.5 1.0-1.5 6/24/2022 ------------------ 31 0.68 15,000 160 7.1 120,000 23 3,100 400 11 390 1,500 390 390 0.78 390 23,000 - NL 0.11 NL 16 71 NL NL NL 80 1 NL 820 NL NL NL NL NL - -12 ---------------- Notes: All samples analyzed by US EPA Method 6010B, mercury analyses were performed using US EPA Method 7471A ft bgs = feet below ground surface mg/kg = milligrams per kilograms <0.274 = concentration is less than laboratory method detection limit of 0.274 mg/kg NL = Screening level not listed US EPA Residential RSL = United States Environmental Protection Agency Residential Regional Screening Level (November 2021) DTSC Modified Residential SLs = Department of Toxic Substances Control Human Health Risk Assessment Note 3 Screening Levels for residential land use (June 2020) DTSC Ambient As Screening Level = Department of Toxic Substances Control Human Health Risk Assessment Note 11 Ambient Arsenic Screening Level (December 2020) - = Not analyzed DTSC Ambient As Screening Level Samples for Stained Soil Samples for Residual Pesticides US EPA Residential RSLs DTSC Modified Residential SLs Stockpile Sample APPENDIX A REFERENCES Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Project No. 13584.002 Fontana, CA July 14, 2022 APPENDIX A References DTSC, 2022, Human Health Risk Assessment Note 3 DTSC-Modified Screening Levels, dated May 2022. DTSC, 2020, Human Health Risk Assessment Note 11 Southern California Ambient Arsenic Screening Levels, dated December 2020. Leighton and Associates, Inc., 2022, Draft Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Jefferson Fontana Residential Development, Southwest of the Intersection of Jurupa Avenue and Valley Boulevard Fontana, California, Project No. 13584001, dated July 6, 2022. US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency), 2021, Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) Summary Table, http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/rb-concentration_table/Generic_Tables/docs/master_s l_table_run_MAY2014.pdf, November 2021. APPENDIX B Laboratory Analytical Reports and Chain of Custody Documentation APPENDIX C GBA Important Information About Geoenvironmental Reports Geoenvironmental Report Geoenvironmental studies are commissioned to gain information about environmental conditions on and beneath the surface of a site. The more comprehensive the study, the more reliable the assessment is likely to be. But remember: Any such assessment is to a greater or lesser extent based on professional opinions about conditions that cannot be seen or tested. Accordingly, no matter how many data are developed, risks created by unanticipated conditions will always remain. Have realistic expectations. Work with your geoenvironmental consultant to manage known and unknown risks. Part of that process should already have been accomplished, through the risk allocation provisions you and your geoenvironmental professional discussed and included in your contract’s general terms and conditions. This document is intended to explain some of the concepts that may be included in your agreement, and to pass along information and suggestions to help you manage your risk. Beware of Change; Keep Your Geoenvironmental Professional Advised The design of a geoenvironmental study considers a variety of factors that are subject to change. Changes can undermine the applicability of a report’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Advise your geoenvironmental professional about any changes you become aware of. Geoenvironmental professionals cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because a report fails to consider conditions that did not exist when the study was designed. Ask your geoenvironmental professional about the types of changes you should be particularly alert to. Some of the most common include: • modification of the proposed development or ownership group, • sale or other property transfer, • replacement of or additions to the financing entity, • amendment of existing regulations or introduction of new ones, or • changes in the use or condition of adjacent property. Should you become aware of any change, do not rely on a geoenvironmental report. Advise your geoenvironmental professional immediately; follow the professional’s advice. Recognize the Impact of Time A geoenvironmental professional’s findings, recommendations, and conclusions cannot remain valid indefinitely. The more time that passes, the more likely it is that important latent changes will occur. Do not rely on a geoenvironmental report if too much time has elapsed since it was completed. Ask your environmental professional to define “too much time.” In the case of Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs), for example, more than 180 days after submission is generally considered “too much.” Prepare To Deal with Unanticipated Conditions The findings, recommendations, and conclusions of a Phase I ESA report typically are based on a review of historical information, interviews, a site “walkover,” and other forms of noninvasive research. When site subsurface conditions are not sampled in any way, the risk of unanticipated conditions is higher than it would otherwise be. While borings, installation of monitoring wells, and similar invasive test methods can help reduce the risk of unanticipated conditions, do not overvalue the effectiveness of testing. Testing provides information about actual conditions only at the precise locations where samples are taken, and only when they are taken. Your geoenvironmental Important Information about This professional has applied that specific information to develop a general opinion about environmental conditions. Actual conditions in areas not sampled may differ (sometimes sharply) from those predicted in a report. For example, a site may contain an unregistered underground storage tank that shows no surface trace of its existence. Even conditions in areas that were tested can change, sometimes suddenly, due to any number of events, not the least of which include occurrences at adjacent sites. Recognize, too, that even some conditions in tested areas may go undiscovered, because the tests or analytical methods used were designed to detect only those conditions assumed to exist. Manage your risks by retaining your geoenvironmental professional to work with you as the project proceeds. Establish a contingency fund or other means to enable your geoenvironmental professional to respond rapidly, in order to limit the impact of unforeseen conditions. And to help prevent any misunderstanding, identify those empowered to authorize changes and the administrative procedures that should be followed. Do Not Permit Any Other Party To Rely on the Report Geoenvironmental professionals design their studies and prepare their reports to meet the specific needs of the clients who retain them, in light of the risk management methods that the client and geoenvironmental professional agree to, and the statutory, regulatory, or other requirements that apply. The study designed for a developer may differ sharply from one designed for a lender, insurer, public agency...or even another developer. Unless the report specifically states otherwise, it was developed for you and only you. Do not unilaterally permit any other party to rely on it. The report and the study underlying it may not be adequate for another party’s needs, and you could be held liable for shortcomings your geoenvironmental professional was powerless to prevent or anticipate. Inform your geoenvironmental professional when you know or expect that someone else— a third-party—will want to use or rely on the report. Do not permit third-party use or reliance until you first confer with the geoenvironmental professional who prepared the report. Additional testing, analysis, or study may be required and, in any event, appropriate terms and conditions should be agreed to so both you and your geoenvironmental professional are protected from third-party risks. Any party who relies on a geoenvironmental report without the express written permission of the professional who prepared it and the client for whom it was prepared may be solely liable for any problems that arise. Avoid Misinterpretation of the Report Design professionals and other parties may want to rely on the report in developing plans and specifications. They need to be advised, in writing, that their needs may not have been considered when the study’s scope was developed, and, even if their needs were considered, they might misinterpret geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Commission your geoenvironmental professional to explain pertinent elements of the report to others who are permitted to rely on it, and to review any plans, specifications or other instruments of professional service that incorporate any of the report’s findings, conclusions, or recommendations. Your geoenvironmental professional has the best understanding of the issues involved, including the fundamental assumptions that underpinned the study’s scope. Give Contractors Access to the Report Reduce the risk of delays, claims, and disputes by giving contractors access to the full report, providing that it is accompanied by a letter of transmittal that can protect you by making it unquestionably clear that: 1) the study was not conducted and the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development, and 2) the findings, conclusions, and recommendations included in the report are based on a variety of opinions, inferences, and assumptions and are subject to interpretation. Use the letter to also advise contractors to consult with your geoenvironmental professional to obtain clarifications, interpretations, and guidance (a fee may be required for this service), and that—in any event—they should conduct additional studies to obtain the specific type and extent of information each prefers for preparing a bid or cost estimate. Providing access to the full report, with the appropriate caveats, helps prevent formation of adversarial attitudes and claims of concealed or differing conditions. If a contractor elects to ignore the warnings and advice in the letter of transmittal, it would do so at its own risk. Your geoenvironmental professional should be able to help you prepare an effective letter. Do Not Separate Documentation from the Report Geoenvironmental reports often include supplemental documentation, such as maps and copies of regulatory files, permits, registrations, citations, and correspondence with regulatory agencies. If subsurface explorations were performed, the report may contain final boring logs and copies of laboratory data. If remediation activities occurred on site, the report may include: copies of daily field reports; waste manifests; and information about the disturbance of subsurface materials, the type and thickness of any fill placed on site, and fill placement practices, among other types of documentation. Do not separate supplemental documentation from the report. Do not, and do not permit any other party to redraw or modify any of the supplemental documentation for incorporation into other professionals’ instruments of service. Understand the Role of Standards Unless they are incorporated into statutes or regulations, standard practices and standard guides developed by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and other recognized standards-developing organizations (SDOs) are little more than aspirational methods agreed to by a consensus of a committee. The committees that develop standards may not comprise those best-qualified to establish methods and, no matter what, no standard method can possibly consider the infinite client- and project-specific variables that fly in the face of the theoretical “standard conditions” to which standard practices and standard guides apply. In fact, these variables can be so pronounced that geoenvironmental professionals who comply with every directive of an ASTM or other standard procedure could run afoul of local custom and practice, thus violating the standard of care. Accordingly, when geoenvironmental professionals indicate in their reports that they have performed a service “in general compliance” with one standard or another, it means they have applied professional judgement in creating and implementing a scope of service designed for the specific client and project involved, and which follows some of the general precepts laid out in the referenced standard. To the extent that a report indicates “general compliance” with a standard, you may wish to speak with your geoenvironmental professional to learn more about what was and was not done. Do not assume a given standard was followed to the letter. Research indicates that that seldom is the case. Realize That Recommendations May Not Be Final The technical recommendations included in a geoenvironmental report are based on assumptions about actual conditions, and so are preliminary or tentative. Final recommendations can be prepared only by observing actual conditions as they are exposed. For that reason, you should retain the geoenvironmental professional of record to observe construction and/or remediation activities on site, to permit rapid response to unanticipated conditions. The geoenvironmental professional who prepared the report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report’s recommendations if that professional is not retained to observe relevant site operations. Understand That Geotechnical Issues Have Not Been Addressed Unless geotechnical engineering was specifically included in the scope of professional service, a report is not likely to relate any findings, conclusions, or recommendations about the suitability of subsurface materials for construction purposes, especially when site remediation has been accomplished through the removal, replacement, encapsulation, or chemical treatment of on-site soils. The equipment, techniques, and testing used by geotechnical engineers differ markedly from those used by geoenvironmental professionals; their education, training, and experience are also significantly different. If you plan to build on the subject site, but have not yet had a geotechnical engineering study conducted, your geoenvironmental professional should be able to provide guidance about the next steps you should take. The same firm may provide the services you need. Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Geoenvironmental studies cannot be exact; they are based on professional judgement and opinion. Nonetheless, some clients, contractors, and others assume geoenvironmental reports are or certainly should be unerringly precise. Such assumptions have created unrealistic expectations that have led to wholly unwarranted claims and disputes. To help prevent such problems, geoenvironmental professionals have developed a number of report provisions and contract terms that explain who is responsible for what, and how risks are to be allocated. Some people mistake these for “exculpatory clauses,” that is, provisions whose purpose is to transfer one party’s rightful responsibilities and liabilities to someone else. Read the responsibility provisions included in a report and in the contract you and your geoenvironmental professional agreed to. Responsibility provisions are not “boilerplate.” They are important. Rely on Your Geoenvironmental Professional for Additional Assistance Membership in the Geoprofessional Business Association exposes geoenvironmental professionals to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a geoenvironmental project. Confer with your GBA-member geoenvironmental professional for more information. 8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: 301/565-2733 Facsimile: 301/589-2017 e-mail: info@geoprofessional.org www.geoprofessional.org Copyright 2015 by the Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, copying, or storage of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with GBA’s specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only GBA-Member Firms may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geoenvironmental report. Any other firm, individual, or entity that so uses this document without being a GBA-Member Firm could be committing negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.