We are doing the same as PhilipZ. Addressing it as it comes up...if it does.
Thanks. I'll check that out.
That looks like a sewer access to me. Do you have any other info to suggest why a UST might have been present-- e.g. was the building furnace known to have been oil-fueled at one point?
I think this is an example of consultants not thinking enough about what the definition of a REC is.
Remember that the criterion for classification as a REC is "likely contamination." You have no real evidence that a UST was ever at this location, you have a surface feature that could conceivably be a fill pipe ... but more likely is not (given the broad range of things it might be). And you conclude that contamination is likely?
I don't suggest that the Phase I report ignore this feature, and perhaps surface geophysics would be a good idea to evaluate whether there's a tank underneath the feature. But calling it a REC isn't appropriate in my view. If you were to discuss the possibility of a tank as a BER, I could be happy with that.
2) Voice dictation software.
Let us know how it turns out. My money is still on sewer cleanout
Thank you for your input! Although the cover locations were consistent with the likely location of the sewer line to the adjacent street, we called them a REC because we couldn't rule out the possibility that they were fill ports.
We decided to recommend a phase II for lead, chromium, and other heavy metals, and for VOCs. The buyer engaged our services for the phase II, and we took four soil samples. One of these showed over 15,000 ppm for lead! We then took eight more samples to map the extent of the lead contamination.
Because the lead was present beneath the original concrete slab, we don't believe that anyone was exposed to lead who occupied the building. However, our customer found the knowledge that there was extensive lead contamination that would have to be addressed if a new building was constructed to be very helpful.
By the way, one of the office tenants that had occupied the site in the past was the county environmental services department.
The buyer went ahead and purchased the building. Don't know if they got a price reduction.
Printers' ink also commonly contained PCBs, as did some of the oils used on the various machines, so this may be an issue.
Yes, great point, and put a brief couple of sentences right up front in your report, in the Exec Sum and Intro. Many reports I have read don't have any description of the site or what it was used for until page 6 or 8, or even later, after quite a bit already has been written. As a result, if I don't have any of that information, I can't evaluate what I'm reading. Getting to the description should not be an "aha!" moment.
We have taken several steps: (1) Be sure that your proposal is tight, and that you are not being ambiguous in what the report will contain; try a standard proposal so that you and others are not tempted to arbitrarily alter it.That way extraneous topics can't work their way in, or be interpreted to have been promised. (2) Prepare a Phase I report template and stick to it; start with what you consider one of your best reports and use it. While it is true that some sites may raise issues not explicitly covered, even in a good template, they should be the exception, not the rule, so be prepared to tweak your template a bit in the first month or two. (3) Be descriptive and thorough in your coverage, but get to the point. There is a fine line between including the full extent of the Phase I assessment (what you saw, what sources you used, what you did and didn't obtain from those sources, your evaluation and the rational for conclusions) and just being wordy. Start asking yourself which is which - before you spend the time writing it! (4) Don't let a client arbitrarily dictate the extent of the text description in a report. However, if a client's comment about the level of detail in a portion of text is reasonable, determine whether your template should reflect that comment for the long term. You still have to write the report, but a template really speeds the process.
Murry, any update to this story?
Paul, do you have any update to this post? How did the Phase I conclude? Was a Phase II done? Can you share results?
Old Phase II data is always useful...just make sure the data presented is relevant to your site and your concerns. If there are no Obvious signs of leaking fuel, fluid, oil, etc. then the RVs are not RECs. Just like above ground fuel tanks are not necessarily RECs.
Arsenic, lead and other heavy metals?