This document discusses case studies related to REC, HREC, and CREC determinations. It presents six hypothetical cases involving different properties and prior uses, and poses questions to a panel of experts about whether each case represents a REC, HREC, or CREC based on the definitions in the E1527-13 standard. The cases involve issues such as a former dry cleaner, gas stations, industrial usage, and more. The panelists provide their opinions on the classification for each case. The document also reviews the relationship between RECs, HRECs, and CRECs.

1. Smart Data.
Smarter Workflow.
Case Studies:
HREC-CREC-
REC
Determinations

2. Moderated by: Anthony J. Buonicore, P.E., BCEE, QEP
Panelists:
Rich Geisler, P.G., LSP/Vice President of Environmental
Service, Green Seal Environmental
Dan Jaffe, President, IES Inc.
Michael Gitten, Division Manager-Environmental Services,
ATC Group Services

3. 1.
REC-HREC-CREC
Definitions in E1527-13

4. REC-HREC-CREC E1527-13 Definitions
▸ REC – presence or likely presence of
any hazardous substances or
petroleum products in, on, or at a
property: (1) due to any release to the
environment; (2) under conditions
indicative of a release to the
environment; or (3) under conditions
that pose a material threat of a future
release to the environment.

5. REC-HREC-CREC E1527-13 Definitions
HREC – a past release of any hazardous
substances or petroleum products that has
occurred in connection with the property and
been addressed to the satisfaction of the
regulatory authority or meeting unrestricted
criteria established by a regulatory authority,
without subjecting the property to any
controls.

6. REC-HREC-CREC E1527-13 Definitions
▸ CREC – a REC resulting from a past release of
hazardous substances or petroleum products that
has been addressed to the satisfaction of the
applicable regulatory authority (e.g., as evidenced by
issuance of a NFA letter or equivalent, or meeting
risk-based criteria established by the regulatory
authority), with hazardous substances or petroleum
products allowed to remain in place subject to the
implementation of required controls.

7. 2.
Session Format
▸ Facts of Each Case
▸ Panelists’ Opinions
▸ Audience Participation

8. Case One
▸ TARGET PROPERTY: 20 year old multifamily housing complex (six stories,
no basement below the building, gas heating)
▸ LOCATION: on a commercial main street
▸ GOVERNMENT RECORDS: No “hits” on the target property
▸ SITE VISIT: no evidence of contamination on the property
▸ PRIOR USE: vacant land
▸ Abutting the property (cross-gradient topographically) is a shopping center that
according to the city directory search had a dry cleaner that cleaned on-site for
more than 30 years but which closed approximately ten years ago
▸ SOIL TYPE: loamy sandy soil

9. THE
QUESTION
Does the former dry cleaner create a REC-HREC-CREC on the
target property?

10. Case Two
▸ TARGET PROPERTY: 40 year old shopping center built slab-on-grade
▸ LOCATION: on a busy, commercial main street
▸ GOVERNMENT RECORDS: disclose a former gas station on the target
property that had a LUST, but which was cleaned up (USTs removed and
replaced, contaminated soil removed and contaminated groundwater cleaned
to state industrial/commercial standards, state issued an NFA letter)
▸ PRIOR USES: did not reveal any other uses that might have had an
environmental concern
▸ No environmental concerns were uncovered in the surrounding area
▸ SOIL TYPE: silty clay

11. THE
QUESTION
Does the former gas station create a REC-HREC-CREC on the
target property?

12. Case Three
▸ TARGET PROPERTY: an office building built on a brownfield site (former
industrial site that operated from 1930s to the 1960s)
▸ PRIOR USE: Former industrial site manufactured cosmetic applicators, tubes
and dispensers for the cosmetics industry and used chlorinated solvents
principally for cleaning
▸ The site was investigated in the late 1980 and early 1990s.
▸ Metals and VOCs were found in the soil and VOCs in the groundwater, above
state commercial/industrial cleanup standards.
▸ The state allowed the use of RBCA to establish soil and groundwater cleanup
levels.
▸ State issued an NFA letter.

13. THE
QUESTION
Does the former industrial site create a REC-HREC-CREC on the
target property?

14. Case Four
▸ TARGET PROPERTY: a shopping center with no tenants having
environmental issues
▸ PRIOR USE: A gas station that previously existed on the property was in the
LUST database
▹ Contaminated soil with BTEX was excavated and removed from the site.
▹ Contaminated groundwater with BTEX was treated with an SVE system until
levels were demonstrated below the existing residential cleanup level.
▹ The state issued an NFA letter.

15. THE
QUESTION
Does the former gas station create a REC-HREC-CREC on the
target property?

16. Case Five
▸TARGET PROPERTY: has been a shopping center for more than 50
years with no current tenants having environmental issues.
▸The property is being sold.
▸PRIOR USE: vacant land
▸The last Phase I (conducted in accordance with E1527-05 in 2006 by
a reputable Phase I firm) did not indicate evidence of any RECs
associated with the property or in the surrounding area.
▸You are asked to “update” the last Phase I.

17. THE
QUESTIONS
Would you agree to update the previous Phase I?
Would there still be any potential REC issues or would this likely be a
case of no RECs?

18. Case Six
▸TARGET PROPERTY: a newly constructed office building in the CBD
built on a property that included a former gas station.
▸The former gas station had USTs that were removed.
▸Sampling indicated BTEX contaminated soil that was excavated and
taken off-site.
▸Groundwater was not sampled.
▸The property received an NFA letter from the state.
▸The new office building included a multi-level (four levels)
underground parking garage.
▸No other environmental issues were uncovered in the site inspection,
or the government and historical records check.

19. THE
QUESTION
Would the former gas station represent a REC on the property?

20. REC-HREC-
CREC
Relationship
Presence, or likely
presence, of
contamination in,
at or on the
target property.
Is it de minimis? Has it been
addressed?
Would
regulatory
officials view
cleanup as
inadequate
today?
Are there
restrictions?
YES
NO
NO
YES
REC
(“Bad REC”)
De minimis
(“Not a REC”)
NO
CREC
(“Good REC”)
HREC
(“Not a REC”)
YES
YES
NO

22. Thanks to today’s panelists!
Rich Geisler, P.G., LSP/Vice President of Environmental Service,
Green Seal Environmental
Dan Jaffe, President, IES Inc.
Michael Gitten, Division Manager-Environmental Services, ATC
Group Services