Comments
- 1-15 of 15
Matt, I beg to differ. Whether Phase II is needed does not depend on the questions you posed (e.g., who you are in relation to property, what your plans are). If RECs are present (and I think all responders should agree RECs are present), Phase II is needed to establish the absence or presence of a release. Whether a release is present cannot be proven (i.e. demonstrated beyond doubt) without proper sampling and laboratory analysis.
Once the need is established (by the presence of RECs), whether to proceed with Phase II is up to the user. Perhaps that's what you meant by your response. If so, please excuse this post!
Bruce Savage
So, what was said to EPA about this issue on the March 17 call?
emilybo902 - the gas company drilled the well to extract gas, then converted its use to storage. It is an open borehole, uncased, open to the geologic formation. It extends below the aquifer(s). The geology is esstentially flat-laying sedimentary rock (shales, sandstones). We contacted the gas co. who provided this information.
To me, it's akin to gas in its native condition. Only that its been extracted and then re-piped into the ground - intentionally - and hence came my question whether a REC. Natural gas is petroleum, and in this case it has been placed in the ground....
Don't know about permit requirements or EPA regulatory status for certain. I would think gas co. checked that out and made sure to be in compliance beforehand though.
Bruce
It's always been and will continue to be a buyer-beware world out there. You can have all the boards and exams you want. You can bemoan all the Phase I factories, poor performers, and unqualified providers you want. The under-qualified and poor performers will always exist within all professions. And EDR has every right to make a living selling database info., to whomever is willing to buy it. In the end the consumer must make their choice of professionals with care (docs, lawyers, EPs, etc.)
I see my job as an EP to do good work, accurately, deliver my work when promised and within budget. If I do I'll be successful. And if I don't I'll be out of work soon enough. I don't relish working for purchasers of my services as a commodity, but I don't try to be low bidder, and I do try to treat all clients with equal respect regardless of their purchasing habits. I see it as my job to determine whether RECs are present, determine their extent, and find the effective solution(s) at least cost while protecting public health. As an Ohio EPA Certified Professional, I am a proxy of Ohio EPA when it comes to the public.
As for whether the Phase I provider should be barred from Phase II work (or work beyond Phase II?), that's just plain non-sense. Would the otherwise fully qualified lawyer/doctor/dentist/mechanic (name your profession) recuse him/herself from "phase 2" of a case, based solely on the fact they performed "phase 1"? Not bloody likely, and why should they be barred? It's the not just the client the EP serves, but ultimately it's the public we as EPs are responsible for. If you doubt this, ask yourself: If I fail to identify something that ultimately results in loss of innocent health/life, am I not guilty of failing to protect the public? A qualified trier of fact would almost certainly argue that against me (and an unqualified trier may not). If you're an EP that's not in it with this as your most foundational motive, I think you owe it to the public to find yourself a new profession.
Thanks all for the input.
ASTM E1527-05 specifically includes the term natural gas within the petroleum definition.
To clarify the issue, I may have improperly implied that intentional disposal was occurring when I used the word 'injection'. This is actually a natural gas storage well.
The question to me then, is: does this meet the definition of a REC within the context of ASTM E1527? In my mind, since petroleum (i.e., natural gas) is being put ("released"?) into the ground, it can be argued this is a REC. But reasonably speaking I don't like that idea because injection for storage, even if it is into the ground, to me just doesn't fit the meaning of the term "release". And no, there are no indications of a release at ground surface (e.g., staining, stressed vegetation, etc.)
While they were busy defining terms, I think ASTM should have included a definition of 'release'. (Wonder if that's ever come with to the committee?) Leaving it up to professional judgement is fine with me, since I believe the whole industry is better off using more professional judgement and fewer cookbooks.
Just my 2 cents.
- Nat gas is petroleum though, which is included in REC definition.
David V, I agree with you. It's a free market. The trick is going to be differentiating ourselves from the competition. And that's always going to be the case.
Can't stop laughing at Willy's quips. Anyhow (Willy), it's a free country. If folks want a product they'll buy it. You have the choice of working in this marketplace or not.
Check out ASFE's guidances at www.asfe.org. Specifically: http://www.asfe.org/index.cfm?cd=NAA&cdid=11037&pid=10344. This is a great resource.
I think this site is not social networking, but rather an open discussion forum for professional discourse. Twitter and Facebook are social networking sites in my view.
Sup-par work is that which fails to meet the current standard of care for a given area and time period, and the standard of care must be established by a trier of fact. Fact is, according to a study by ASFE a while back, it appears to be next to impossible to fully comply with all requirements of the ASTM standard. (a link to obtain the publication is https://www.netforumondemand.com/eweb/shopping/shopping.aspx?site=asfe&webcode=shopping&shopsearch=&shopsearchcat=merchandise&productcat=&prd_key=0f0c7c67-3e13-4f5e-8044-19e4d5107eb0&ssoToken=0)
My experience is the latter: that I'm contacted about SBA participation well after negotiating my agreements for Phase I ESAs with my clients, not before. That's why it's so important to ask questions of my clients during contract formation, such as: "Who will be the lender(s), if any?"
If I know of SBA involvement beforehand, I can prepare my contracts accordingly. As an EP with potential personal liability, and with E&O insurance that's claims-made, I can set fees in accordance with the risk. Sadly, I know there are a number of fools out there that won't take such care, but will get the work based on low fee.
Unfortunately lenders are feeling the pinch from the poor economy too. I think they're unlikely to spend $ on something like this, unless they go the property and see something they don't like.
Lots of good posts. Here's another, not by me but from AIPG:
http://www.aipg.org/StaticContent/anonymous/state_and_federal/Climate%20Change%20Letters.pdf
I would recommend contacting ASFE (www.asfe.org) for their "State of the Practice" publications concering Phase I ESA practices before ASTM. In any case, it's the standard of care that applies, which requires research as to what professionals were doing at the same time and in the same area as the ESA in question.