Talk:Phase I environmental site assessment

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Phase I environmental site assessment appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 18 September 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment is a tool largely developed in the USA for analysis of real estate toxic liability, but its use has spread to much of the developed world?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2006/September.

Wikipedia

Intro

This article should make it clear in the introduction that a Phase I doesn't include actual sampling work. Argyriou 14:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

addressed now Anlace 14:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The person who wrote this article has little or NO knowledge of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessemt process as detailed in ASTM Standard E 1527-05 or the EPA Final Rule for All Appropriate Inquiries effective November 1, 2006.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dismukes (talk • contribs) 17:44, 6 December 2006

Well, then, fix the article! Argyriou (talk) 02:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed -- do not trust this article. Submitter should summarize from the practices that govern the Phase I ESA process and not guess or opine. Refer to ASTM E1527-05: Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments; Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process and 40 CFR Part 312: Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Iniquiries; Final Rule. Jon Welge (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have ASTM 1527-13 in front of me, but I am pretty well versed in ASTM 1527-05, and I don't believe that the preparer qualifications have changed. Someone please correct me if I am wrong but I believe that the qualifications listed as 1,2, and 3 are actually 'or' and not 'and' requirements. There are four categories actually and those are roughly: 1- A prof. engineer license and 3 years exp. 2- or licensed specifically by a government controlling authority and 3 years exp. 3- or an engineering degree and 5 years exp. 4- or 10 years relevant exp.

environmental pollution photos recently added

this article is about toxic liability and not just pollution. while these topics are clearly related, their emphasis is clearly different. i would suggest these photos be moved to another topic...possibly water pollution. the photos are interesting but possibly misleading to readers of this article. Anlace 15:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merger

logical, since the articles are on the identical topic. logical also to merge the stub into the fully developed article. further the ESA in the title is not appropriate. further the stub article has no photos, proper sources and virtually no incoming links or redirects. Anlace 23:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. There's no point in keeping the (TLA) version of the article, and there's almost nothing not repeated here. Argyriou (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Anlace 00:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reverting

I've reverted the changes made by 74.94.248.41 in the past few days, because while there may be a factual basis to his claims, the tone of the edits was significantly unprofessional and unencyclopedic. Part of the reverts also lost a spam link inserted by Bluebunneh. Αργυριου (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The person who wrote the current discussion of the Phase I Environmental Assessment report is providing a disservice to the public by not knowing what he/she is talking about and putting inaccurate information out on the web, which people are likely depending on. I suggest you do your homework. The previous discussion was professional and accurate. The current information is flat out wrong and should either be removed or corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 08:49, 5 June 2007 (talk • contribs) 74.94.248.41

Since you provided no evidence or citations to back up your outlandish claims, we're not going to treat them seriously. The edits you made were just short of vandalism. Αργυριου (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding recent rule changes

I've started adding information on the 40 CFR 312 rule. I'm not that great at references though, so it's not as smoothe as I'd like. but the current text only discussing the astm guide is out of date. Though this whole thing might be to technical for an encyclopedia. --Rocksanddirt 03:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Federal vs State, Private vs Public

This article has a disambiguation problem. I would need to do some more research into other states to be certain, but in Massachusetts a Phase I site assessment is most definately intrusive and is the first part in the remediation process. The article should be renamed to indicate the specific standard described. TreacherousWays (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

American Article

This article should be retitled "American Phase I Environmental Site Assessment." Other countries have their own regulatory bodies and legislation governing these assessments.Landroo (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{sofixit}} Argyriou (talk) 04:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or, just remove the global information out of this article, and set up a new link separately. --Silverbullet527 07:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Out-of-date

In this article, rather than simply cases arrange in the triggering actions, it is better for article to join the problems, lessons with historical evidence together. In addition, the international context section is weak, which requires further evidence and comprehensive explanation. --Silverbullet527 07:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverbullet527 (talk • contribs)

i am sorry but the second paragraph under "background" is not very well written with what I think are snytax errors and the like. I just corrected "manduke" to what I assume should have been "Manduke" as it is someone's name. i dont have the time to fix up the rest of the paragraph because i dont know much about the topic--i went to wikipedia to learn about it but am not that confident of what wiki has to say. 24.187.74.161 (talk) 01:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]