When I broke into the profession in 1991, a typical Phase I environmental site assessment was called any number of names: Phase I audit, Phase I Site Investigation, Environmental Site Review, Environmental Site Evaluation, etc. Back then, there was no messing around. Your original scope of assessment work included six monitoring wells and soil samples to check off-site concerns a thousand feet away. These Phase I ESAs were called “expanded” or “enhanced” or environmental site assessments with “limited environmental testing.” Those were hysterical days. But now, the tolerances have been reduced to razor thin. No one really wants to add testing to the environmental site assessment, even when our findings indicate potential issues. I see two types of environmental assessment companies out there. The first calls everything a recognized environmental condition and tosses around the ASTM standard like its going out of style. There is little opining to support conclusions. The thinking is, if we call it a REC, we won’t get sued. LAS does not operate like that. We carefully discuss what we see as “environmental conditions” in our assessments, and then offer careful, thoughtful, understandable reasons for why these conditions are or are not “recognized” environmental conditions. Since the Phase I environmental site assessment is so broad and sweeping, our conclusions need to synthesize a multitude of factors. There should be no nuances. If it is a REC, there should be no equivocation. If it isn’t, the same. To be a professional in the environmental assessment business these days, requires a depth of experience and an awareness of what is at stake in the deal, and the complications that result from “cover yourself” conclusions. Ask for a redacted conclusion page from your environmental consultant to see what the end of the story will look like before you sign up.