PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL
SITE ASSESSMENT
Site History – Required Information
Aerial Photographs

Detailed site specific review and
discussion
◦ Identify land use and site configuration
◦ Potential sources of contamination





Areas of excavation
Drum storage
UST system, pumps islands
Changes to streams
Other suspect areas
1949 Proctorville
1983 Proctorville
Fire Insurance Maps
Detailed maps showing potential source
areas, types of activities & location of
activities
 Maps drawn to 1 inch = 400 feet
 May be obtained from commercial search
firm, libraries, historical societies,
universities
 Ohio Link Media Center site
http://www.oplin.org/content/sanbornmaps

1904
Walbridge
Park
1936
Walbridge
Park
1951
Walbridge
Park
City/County Directories
Lists tenant at the address by year
 Sources

◦ Commercial search companies
 Dependent on company’s contracts with directories
◦ Local libraries
◦ University libraries
◦ Historical societies
Site Ownership

List grantee and grantor by year
◦ List current owner and their grantor first
List transaction date
 State land use or lease tenant if provided
 Do NOT conduct a title search

Site History – Supplemental
Information
Property Deeds
Leases
 Sale of USTs system or other equipment
of concern
 Any environmental liens
 Deeds to be included in appendices

County Atlases & Plat Maps






Shows site ownership and property
boundaries
May include drawings of exterior of
manufacturing facilities
Plat maps may contain locations of historic
landfills, manufacturing and commercial
activities
Plat maps as maintain by counties
Atlases are available from libraries, counties,
historical societies & database search firms
Include raw data in appendix
Historical USGS Topos
Show site buildings and development
 Changes in elevation on sites
 Show mining areas
 Large storage locations
 Include raw data in appendix

Property Cards & Tax Files
Current and past ownership
 Appraisals
 Maps/sketches of site
 Photos
 Include raw data in appendix

Building Permits
Building construction
 Building modification
 Equipment installation
 Equipment modification
 Include raw data in appendix

Local History
Local historical groups write history of
area
 Typically includes discussion of local
businesses
 Pictures of local businesses
 Include raw data in appendix

Regulatory File Review
Regulatory File Review

Discussion of a site’s regulatory history
◦ Discuss all regulatory records by site and not
by business or parcel

Obtain files from BUSTR, OEPA and/or
USEPA
◦ Do not conduct another regulatory database
search

Regulatory database is NOT a substitute
for a regulatory file review unless directed
by ODOT
Basic questions
What is the site contamination
 Where is the contamination located
 Has the site delineation been completed
 Are there any open regulatory issues
 What are the deed restrictions
 Is there an Operation and Maintenance
Plan
 Are there institutional/engineering
controls

Regulatory File Review
Soil and groundwater analytical data
 Mapping showings source areas,
monitoring wells/boring locations, etc.
 Institutional/engineering controls
 Selected remedy
 Remedial equipment and their location
 RCRA Closures
 Documentation for regulatory issues,
deed restrictions,

Regulatory File Reviews
VAP Phase I, Phase II, Covenant Not Sue,
Operation and Maintenance Plan
 Documents showing no additional
investigation/remedial work required by
regulatory agency
 Other information as appropriate for the
site from the regulatory file
 May include files from local agencies
 Place raw data into appendix by site

Interviews
Interviews

Current tenant
◦ Conducted with current store/business manager
for the site
◦ Because site owned by large corporation that
doesn’t respond to mailed questionnaires is not
an excuse to skip the owner/tenant interview
Current property owner
 Adjacent tenants and/or property owners
 Local officials
 Include raw data in appendix

Interviews Methods
During site reconnaissance
 By phone
 Mailed questionnaire
 May use all 3 for site
 Document interviewee, association with
site, length of time associated with site,
and information from interview
 If refuses, document attempts and refusal

Site Reconnaissance
Site Reconnaissance
Detailed inspection of site for evidence of
contamination and/or potential
contamination
 Property owner notification highly
recommended
 If access to site denied, contact DEC

◦ ODOT will obtain access or provide direction
for the site
◦ Required for whole takes
Site Reconnaissance, cont.

Note locations of potential contamination
such as:
◦ UST systems
◦ Drum/battery storage, number and drum
contents or type of batteries
◦ All other chemical storage areas with chemicals
specified, number of containers, their contents
and amounts
◦ Monitoring wells/apparent soil borings
◦ Disposal areas
◦ Areas where chemicals are used
◦ Oil/gas wells
Site Reconnaissance, cont.

Note electrical transformers if owned by
site owner
◦ Typical for large manufacturing site
◦ Becomes an acquisition issue
If buildings to be acquired, then they
must be accessed and included as part of
site reconnaissance
 Pictures should be taken of all areas of
concern and included in the appendix

Site Reconnaissance of Adjacent Sites
Viewed from subject site or ROW
 Discussion should be in relation to
proposed ROW
 If site was investigated as part of ESA
Screening and was not advanced to Phase
I ESA or a Phase I ESA is being conducted,
do not provide a detailed discussion of
the site

Special Items
ESA/NEPA issue only if it is a disposal
issue
 Asbestos

◦ Discuss if potentially asbestos containing
material has been disposed of on a site
 Wrapped utility pipe laying underneath bridge

Lead paint
◦ Paint chips or black sand (Black Beauty) found
on ground
Mapping
Mapping
Map showing project location
 Provide map locating all Phase I ESA sites
 Aerials should note the project and the
Phase I ESA sites
 Site diagram showing all current and
historical potential source areas and the
proposed ROW
 Include most current plans

Conclusions & Recommendations
Conclusions & Recommendations
Provided on a site specific basis
 Based on detailed historical use, current
use and regulatory information and the
amount of proposed ROW
 For historical BUSTR sites, document last
apparent use of USTs

◦ If use discontinued after November 8, 1984
considered orphan tank
Recommendations

If Preferred Alternative has not been
selected, will go to Phase II ESA Work Plan
◦ Recommended sites for Phase II ESA by
alterative but do not provide site specific
sampling and testing recommendations

If Preferred Alternative has been selected,
include number and location of soil
borings/monitoring wells, analytical
testing, in relation to the proposed ROW
Recommendations, cont.



Borings/monitoring wells are to be placed
close to potential source areas if possible
Regulated sites that have been previously
investigated typically are not advanced to
Phase II ESA
Plan notes may be recommended based on
analytical from regulatory file
◦ Compare analytical to BUSTR PCS reuse levels or
VAP residential levels
◦ Do not recommend soil reuse for a site
 Don’t know if additional soils needed for project
Recommendations, cont.

Landfills require a 27-13 permit from
OEPA prior to Phase II ESA, geotechnical
investigations and construction
Phase I ESA Updates
Phase I ESA Updates

Decision for Phase I ESA Update is project
specific
◦ Not dependent on AAI tame limitations
District requests determination from OESESA Unit
 Districts monitors projects and notifies
the ESA Unit if there have been significant
changes

QUESTIONS?