Presentation by: Pat Coyne Fall 2013 DDD Tour One key area of revision in E 1527-13 clarifies when a review of agency files should be conducted during a Phase I environmental site assessment. For some consultants, the clarifying language on AFRs may raise the bar of what is typically conducted during a Phase I ESA. Agency file reviews can bring valuable information to a Phase I ESA investigation, but are not without their challenges. Depending on the target property involved, AFRs can vary in complexity, obtainability, location of files and level of effort. When the revised E 1527 standard takes effect later this year, you need to ensure that your reports adequately reflect the new language about when an agency file review should be conducted—and what to do if one cannot be conducted. This timely track will address the concerns and areas of confusion raised about the new requirements, including: What’s changing? Current industry practice in performing AFRs Differences from state to state in terms of availability of files, travel time required, responsiveness of agencies, and inconsistent/incomplete data Determining when an agency file review is and is not “reasonably ascertainable” Adequately pricing Phase I ESAs given the significant variability in the level of effort required How best to educate your clients about the new language

1. © 2012 Environmental Data Resources, Inc.
2014 DDD Tour
Agency File Review

2. Agenda
• Challenges associated with
performing agency file
reviews.
• Results of two surveys
2

3. What’s in them?
• Source files
• Other examples
Page 3

4. Details
• I’m doing a Phase I, and
can account for the closure
of four tanks. How many
were originally installed?
Page 4

5. Beyond the database report
• This is what was in the DB Report
Page 5

6. Details vs. DETAILS
• Two waste oil tanks
• 500 & 250 gallons
• Removed in ‘91
• Filled w/ sand & gravel
• Oversight by FD
• ESA performed
• No contamination observed
Page 6

7. Driver of Agency File Reviews
• As I think you will see from the survey, it’s best practice for
closing loops.
• It is a core ASTM 1527 data element, even before the 1527-
13 revision.
• That is why the task group included it as a clarification in the
ASTM 1527-13 standard.
Page 7

8. ASTM 1527-13
8

9. Summary of 8.2.2
• Property or adjoining “hit” in any 8.2.1 database
• Agency files should be reviewed
• Subject to 8.1.1-7 (reasonably ascertainable, reasonable time
and cost)
• If not warranted, EP must explain
• Alternative sources
• Shall include summary of the information reviewed
• EP must comment on sufficiency
9

10. Purpose
We wanted to learn, and communicate
to you, how the market utilizes this
practice, and the impact of the 1527-13
standard.
10

11. Market Research
• Survey of EP’s.
• Calling campaign to all 50 state agencies to document
processes.
• ASTM task group participation.
• EP interviews
• Discussions with lenders
Page 11

12. Survey
• National: 335 total complete surveys PRE 1527-13
• 250 total surveys POST 1527-13
• CA DDD attendees
12

13. When do you do it?
• When do they conduct them?
• 62% with the Phase I
• 31% afterwards
13

14. How far?

15. Available Online?

16. • I had to make an appointment 76%
• Hours are limited 37%
• 56% make copies
• 60% review and abstract
17
Once you’re there…

17. Subject or Adjacent?
• What are they looking for?
• Not subject property only
• Either subject property, or both TP and adjoining
18

18. 19
How long does it take?

19. How do you charge for it?
20

20. A lot of variability
• In reading the qualitative responses, a majority of the
respondents mention a very high variability in information
available, quality of information, access to information.
22

21. • Operational
• Disparate
• No standardization
• Multiple programs
• Different accessibility
• Not to mention local
• Report templates
• Business
• Educating clients
• Fees
Challenges
23

22. Sample of CA Agencies
Page 24
CAL EPACALEPA, Dept. of Toxic SubstancesCalifornia Natural Resources AgencyCalifornia Spatial Information LibraryCentral Coast Region (3)Central Valley Region (5)County of SAC/HMDCounty of San DiegoDepartment of ConservationDepartment of Fish & GameDepartment of HealthDepartment of Toxic Substances ControlDepartment of Water ResourcesDept of Env. HealthLA CO Dept. of Public WorksLahontan Region (6)Los Angeles Region (4)North Coast Region (1)Office of Emergency ServicesOffice of Historic PreservationPublic Works, Waste Management
San Diego County Department of
Environmental Health
San Diego Region (9)San Francisco Bay Region (2)San Jose Fire DepartmentSanta Ana Region (8)Solid Resources Eng. & Cons.SWRCBSWRCB, Aboveground Petroleum SSWRCB, Info Services BranchVictorville Branch Office (6)

23. CA DDD Attendees
• “Are you aware of the changes that E 1527-13 made
regarding AFR requirements?”
• 33% are NOT aware.
25

24. CA DDD
Attendees
• “How often do you attempt to access agency files for Phase I
ESA projects?”
• 74% “always” do
• 92% “always” or “often”
26

25. CA DDD
Attendees
• “Have your AFR practices changed since the publication of
ASTM 1527-13?”
• 83% “No, I did them before, and I do them now.”
• 15% “Yes, I am conducting AFR’s more now.”
27
Have your AFR practices changed since the publication of ASTM
E1527-13
No, I did them before and I
do agency file reviews now
Yes, I am conducting
agency file reviews more
frequently now than i did
before
Yes, I didn’t do agency file
reviews before but I do now
Yes, I'm doing agency file
reviews less frequently now
than I did before

26. Qualitative Results
28
• We always did them for the site and nearby listings of
significant concern. Now we complete them for a lot more
adjoining properties.
• I've always conducted them, but I have been requesting more
files than usual for off-site properties.
• Yes, for adjoining properties. No change for Subject Property
• If sites of concern are identified within radii of concern to the
Subject Property, then we review the files.
• If there are indications of past investigations or assessment
and the client has not provided the documentation, file review
is a must.
• GeoTracker has made this easier, but lots of local CUPAs do
not put their information on line and a trip to the agency is
required (and often requires a change order)

27. Questions Lenders are asking EP
Firms
• “Remind me…are you completing AFR’s as a standard part of
the Phase I scope of work you conduct for me?”
• “Will completing a file review affect the TAT and price of my
Phase I?”
• “Should we be revising our scope of work to make it more
clear whether we expect AFR?”
• Regardless of the answers, they want to feel confident that
their EP partner has a rock solid understanding of the details
of the changes.
29

28. NFA
Page 30