Comments
What evidence does the current property owner present to back his case? Many property owners do not want to admit that their property could be contaminated. I would value the Sanborn map over the property owner's desire that his property wasn't a gas station.
Like jessedphillips, I've never encountered something wrong like that on a Sanborn map and have seen grocery stores selling gasoline in that time period. I'm also not surprised that the DEQ and assessor's office do not have any record of a gas station since it was there in 1948. Same thing with the database search. That just means its not a known site because no one has discovered a release there, or looked for it.
In my opinion, you have a preponderence of evidence that the site was a filling station. If it was my site, I'd need to see a lot of evidence to prove that the Sanborn map was wrong.
Also, I agree with jessedphillips about checking the city directories (if available) to see if they list a filling station or grocery store.
One of the most difficult tasks of a consulting is telling a client or property owner something that they don't want to hear and don't want to believe. Stick with what you know and can prove. You'll be sorry if you cave into the pressure and someone else finds USTs and contamination a few years later.
From my understanding of the previous posts on this topic, a large firm subcontracts out the Phase I work while providing the database report, aerials, sanborns, etc. So their client is probably paying at least $1200 for the Phase I. $700 for the subcontractor work, around $300 for the database report and historicals, and say 20% markup for profit.
While $1200 is still extremely low, I think its a bit sensationalistic to say that $700 Phase Is are being offered.
I think Mr. Schultz's position is valid. It doesn't matter if its purely supply and demand or the result of the driving forces that Mr. Welge describes. We have to deal with the cards we're dealt since they aren't likely to change anytime soon.
That leaves us with competing in the current market place, finding clients that value us, or finding another line of work.
I can think of a few reasons a Phase I would be warranted. Has any cleanup been conducted? Is contamination still present? Are there other potential sources of contamination at the site? A Phase I could assist with answering some of these questions.
Also, a Phase I would likely be a started point for liability protection or insurance. It also might assist with a new users evaulation of the business risk associated with the site. If theres financing, a Phase I may be required by the lender.
To sum up, Phase Is are oftened performed on sites already identifed as brownfields for a whole list of reasons. Of course, a Phase I might not be warranted for a new user depending on their needs. It would be something that would have to be evaulated at a case by case basis.
Whats the question? Is this for a specific site or just an "in general" question?
You might get more of a response if you provide a little more detail and specify what questions you have or what you'd like discussed.
You are the only one that can answer that question since it depends on your risk tolerance. Some of the issues you identified are potential concerns. Did the Phase I discuss these issues and give their opinion on why these issues are not a concern? All of these issues should have been identified in the report with the consultants opinion on if they are a REC. If they haven't done this, ask them to do it.
All of the issues you identified have the potential for a historical release. None of them seam typical of an issue that the EPA would currently get involved in. I've never done any work in Colorado, so I don't have any opinion on how they would see this site. Regardless of liability, these issues could also affect your use of the site. You may want to know about these before you purchase it.
Have you discussed your concerned with your consultant? If you feel they aren't addressing your issues, you may want to find another consultant and have them review the report. Did you hire the consultant?
If I was purchasing this site, I would want to have a Phase II done.
Degradation of PCE
PCE (tetrachloroethylene) --> TCE (trichloroethylene) --> dichloroethylene --> vinyl chloride
- The 80% would be for gasoline and/or diesel releases. Another concern is that the tanks may still be in the ground. If your not intending to use them, they would have to be removed. With repair work, you have additional concerns such as used oil and solvents (the PCE). I've attached a couple of links and you can find a lot of information with some google searches. http://www.environmentalpollutioncenters.org/auto/repair-shops/ http://www.environmentalpollutioncenters.org/gas-stations/ I hope this helps. I'd recommend that anyone purchasing a gas station talk to an environmental attorney and an environmental consultant. What state is your site located in?
You stated that the UST and ASTs had some PCE. That would seem to indicate that he did use chlorinated products.
Releases are common at gas stations and repair shops. In Michigan, almost 80% (according to the MDNRE) of gas stations have had one or more release.
You should hire a consultant a consultant to discuss your concerns with the site. A Phase I ESA and likely Phase II is probably your best route.
How long have the tanks been there?
Most underground storage tank systems eventually leak. I've heard that 4 out of 5 gas stations in Michigan have had one or more release.
So unless those tanks are really recent, I would call them a REC.
Theres some good past discussion of similar topics:
http://commonground.edrnet.com/posts/db09b7113c
http://commonground.edrnet.com/posts/c0d144d6b4
Your asking two questions now. The first is what percentage of Phase I's are done for qualifying for CERCLA innocent land owner defense, the second is what percentage of Phase I's are done to AAI standards.
To the first question, I agree with EdG and Tom Speight that the number is very low. Tom's experience of 4 sites out of 1300 is less than 1%. That seems about right to me.
To the 2nd question, I would say that most Phase I's we do generally conform to AAI. Like pcoyne said, the standard of care is usually to follow the ASTM standard, which compies with AAI. So these Phase Is are not done with any expectation of CERCLA involvement, yet we still follow AAI.