Comments

Comments

  • JG

    I say "you're correct".   I would do an entirely new Phase I and include the 2009 Phase I as a reference.

  • Here2Learn

    There he is!

    AH I see. The parcel that the gas station is now located on was most recently wooded land (1990s). Prior to that (1980s) it included a residence and even further back (1950s) it was cultivated land. The gas station appears in 2012. So nothing of concern regarding the site's history. 

    If the site is not a REC based on regulatory status and it's recent development.... what sort of conclusion would have have regarding vapor?

  • JG

    A material threat of a release means that a release is imminent not that a release could happen someday.  It's not likely that a 2 year old UST has leaked already so it's not a REC.  I would pay close attention to the historic use of the property though.  Is it an old garage that was recently converted to a new gas station?

  • Tom Speight

    I apologies for the ramifying tangents here, but..... I have worked on and fixed card punchers and card readers. 

  • King of Snark
    .
  • King of Snark

    Yes, above ground or below ground. 

  • maverick

    In California, the water application on the log decks would require a WDR permit from the RWQCB.  Call your local water quality folks and ask them.  Such a permit would be allowed for clean water uses only.  If the water is contaminated, the aerial application for the water would likely be a big no-no (in California for sure).  I don't know if I would call it a REC (need more info), but I would want to know if it was allowed without permit?

    For the tanks, for sure you are looking at a Phase II.  The other messy areas might also be included in the Phase II. If the site is on septic, watch out for industrial wastewater drains that discharge to the septic.  On a property like this my biggest concerns beside the fuel tanks would be history solvent usage and degreasing parts and septic systems that were used for industrial disposal.     

    Good luck on this mess! 

  • JG

    I would assume below ground.

  • spucketts

    What I've since found out, not a lot of restrictions on sawdust-can't use it as fill. As for the spray nozzles, sawmills keep the wood wet as it is easier to mill, keeps it from splitting, prevents certain fungal growth and keeps beetles out. Fire prevention is a bonus. What they've done on this property is to excavate linear drainage ditches across three parcels to collect and create the detention pond for the supply for spraying. Problem is it's collecting runoff from the northern parcel which contains his vehicle maintenance building, underground storage tanks (one series of tanks installed in '66 and removed in '91 and closure info can't be found), no safety bollards around unlabeled aboveground tanks (which are surrounded by black stains), no secondary containment under anything, empty (with residue) grease drums lying on their sides with the tops open, a truck wash bay that drains into an open detention pond then into the collection ditches, broken equipment and parts scattered and leaking all over, vehicle work bay floors you can skate on, just a general mess. Basically he's collecting his runoff from this property and is spraying it on his other property.

    But back to one of my original questions, would a municipal wastewater spray field present an environmental concern? Lets say its on an adjacent property up gradient, an REC?

  • maverick
    I would not consider wood to be a REC. It might cost somebody a pretty penny to move it, but that does not make it a REC. The spray nozzles were likely use to keep wood wet in advance of it being milled. The drainage creeks may have been part of a water recycling operation and maybe there is a pond or detention area on site at the end of the drainage area? I would doubt any sewer plant involvement in your site.
  • TESKCMO

    That make sense,it is the signature date vs the acquisition date.

     

    I have experienced the same the update cost issue, I have explained the cost of the database search, tracking down the interviews and/or finding other interviewees and the time (especially if it requires travel) for the site visit plus my time to write up the new report are costs. 

  • JG

    It could be read either way.  The standard does read that an ESA completed less than 180 days of acquisition is presumed valid.  However, further down it reads that an ESA completed within 1 year is valid if the interview, database search, file review, site visit, and EP declaration have been completed within 180 days.  Read strictly it does create a strange loophole in cases where the site visit, etc. were conducted >180 days ago but the report was completed <180 days ago.  To interpret it safely I advise my clients to follow the second, more detailed, part of the standard.

    I've also changed my approach to Phase I "Updates" over the years based on this standard.  I tell my clients that if a Phase I is over 1 year old it can't really be "updated", they need a new Phase I. However, the cost is reduced because the historic research is done and if I wrote the first report a lot of the writing is done too.  A report can be updated if it's less than 1 year old.  In this case I'll update the 5 components and document it in a letter.

  • FStephenMasek
    At one point in the task group discussions I suggested getting rid of all of the alphabet soup and simply requiring that the EPA provide a section on each issue identified. How many of you would prefer that approach?
  • MaxEng

    I seldom disagree with JG, but I will do so here.  The critical time for Property acquisition is 180 days; in other words, if acquisition occurs within 180 days of the "completed" report (which I agree is the date of the signature by the EP), the report is valid to satisfy AAI.  In the case of a report in which a records search was done 190 days ago and report was signed yesterday, according to the Standard the report technically remains valid for another 179 days.

    Personally I think this is a flaw in the current language of the Standard, but that's what it says.  I think language should be added relative to the "shelf life" of information collected during the Phase I process but prior to the report's being finalized.  But as it stands, there is no such language in the Standard.

    Off-topic, but I also think it's hilarious that many clients expect a Phase I "update" to be done for essentially nothing.  The "update" requires new interviews, a new database search, and new site reconnaissance.  Aside from getting historical records and actual writing of the report (which assuming conditions haven't materially changed should be minimal effort), the EP essentially has to re-do the entire assessment.

  • WG

    Globally, a draft, draft final and final report should each be titled so and reflect the date of production/issue.   Draft reports are just that, draft reports which indicate an in-progress work product with possible outstanding information gaps, yet-to-be assessed findings and is protective of both parties.  Report dates should reflect the date on which each version of a report irregardless of status is issued.   A report titled "final" is the report that the provider is rep/warranting/providing reliance on - if applicable.