I'm guessing, but there would probably be a fine assessed to the non-certified individual. Here's some information regarding the CEM:
In California, whoever currently owns the street is first in line for the UST regulatory liability (assuming the GT described is a UST). They then could go after previous owners of that portion of the property re: any release(s) occurred during the time period(s) of previous ownership(s). Often, it is important to get all potential responsible parties identified and legally obligated in the event that as yet to be identified 3rd-party liability exposure shows up. Of course, it's a case by case evaluation.
Fantastic! Thanks for sharing.
What would happen if someone prepared an ASTM Phase I ESA in Nevada and they were not a CEM?
Risk tolerance plays into the Phase II not the REC/no REC decision. If a condition does not rise to the level of "likely" then it's not a REC. However, if the condition is a borderline "fairly possible but not quite likely" and the risk tolerance is low, say for an apartment, then that would be a BER. There's nothing that says a client can't do a Phase II just to be safe even if there's no REC.
This is why Phase II recommendations should be kept separate. A REC may not be worth investigating if it's a low risk industrial site but may be worthwhile for a proposed day care. Either way, the REC exists but it's the risk tolerance that drives the Phase II.
I'm of the opinion the when it comes to purchasing an apartment complex (I see it's not the case here)there should be a very low tolerance for risk. People, and a lot of people/square foot (relative to other types of buildings) spend a lot of time in apartments (potentially along with kids) and the business of apartments is to keep or be able to get tenants. Let one problem, or the perception of a problem crop up, not only will the owner have to defend themselves against existing and potentially previous tenants, their ability to use the property as apartments in the future may disappear.
I just finished a Phase I on a 10 building, 40 unit apartment complex that's being resold after having been bought out of foreclosure. I had concerns and expressed them to the buyer who stated that nothing was said about any of that in the previous ESA completed last year. That ESA concluded that the subject site could have been impacted by the application of arsenic containing pesticides and herbicides on the rail line located across the street and they collected five surface soil samples which all were found to be below reporting concentrations for arsenic. They stated that the rail line was then an HREC and no RECs were identified in the scope of their project. So haven't they produced a document that contradicts themselves in a few short pages? Then they failed to make any mention of a tannery that was located just over 600 feet away that operated at that location from 1873 until it burned in 1981.
In Nevada you have to have the Certified Environmental Manager credential issued by the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection to sign off on a Phase I. California used to have the Registered Environmental Assessor (REA) program that many EPs used as sort of unofficial credential for conducting Phase I ESAs. Not sure what, if any, credential requirements apply in Washington or Arizona.
Looks like a grounding wire to me.
Decisions regarding whether a Phase II investigation must be made by the client, not by the EP -- but the EP should communicate the issues clearly to the client so they can make a properly informed decision. I agree with JG that recommendations should not appear in the Phase I report, unless the client specifically requires that they be there.
Sounds like a REC(s) IMO, but be honest with the client that the historic property use is the issue, and if you're confident that it is, provide the justification and know that your making a decision you can sleep on.
Recommendations for a Phase II don't typically belong in a Phase I report. A REC is a REC regardless of the Client. However, Phase II recommendations are very dependent on the needs of the Client. This is why Phase II recommendations should typically be included in a separate letter after a conversation with the client.
Thank you for your comments.
Your statement "Decisions on Phase II go beyond identification of RECs, including risk tolerance of the client" is very interesting. I honestly always feel the burden on myself as the professional to make or not make the recommendation for the Phase II. I know the client (the current owner in this case) will have a high tolerance for risk and will not want to see a recommendation for Phase II. On the other hand, the owner has agreed to have the lender listed as a "User" of the ESA and they will certainly have a much lower risk tolerance.
Thank you again for your insight. I will weigh it accordingly.
based on the sanborn maps the garage does appear to have been used for maintenance and yes the railroad is adjacent.
More details are needed, but based on this description, it's hard to imagine not recommending a Phase II. Was the garage a maintenance garage or a parking garage? Is the railroad adjacent?
Not an HREC, since we don't know whether contamination was once present, let alone whether it has now been reduced to meet unrestricted use standards.
I'd be tempted to identify one or more RECs, depending on how much information is available regarding specific processes employed by the furniture and automobile manufacturers and what exactly the city garage activities comprised. Also need to do a file review on the north adjoining property to evaluate the potential for contaminant migration onto the subject Property.
Decisions on Phase II go beyond identification of RECs, including risk tolerance of the client.