Former and current gasoline service stations are among the property uses that require careful evaluation during environmental due diligence.
The presence of underground storage tanks (USTs), petroleum product storage, dispensing systems, historical spills, and leaking underground storage tank (LUST) records can introduce potential environmental concerns involving soil and groundwater.
However, the presence of a UST or database listing does not automatically establish a Recognized Environmental Condition (REC).
Current Gasoline Stations
A current gasoline station may contain multiple USTs storing gasoline, diesel, or other petroleum products.
A Phase I ESA evaluation should consider available information regarding:
Where a current facility has documented releases or unresolved environmental issues, additional investigation may be warranted.
- Number and capacity of USTs
- Product stored
- Installation dates
- Tank construction
- Piping systems
- Release detection
- Spill and overfill protection
- Regulatory compliance
- Historical releases
- Previous inspections
- Closure records
Former USTs
Historical USTs require particular attention when evaluating redeveloped properties.
A former commercial property may have contained gasoline, heating oil, used oil, or other petroleum-related USTs that were subsequently removed.
The evaluation should consider whether:
- Removal documentation is available;
- Closure sampling was performed;
- Petroleum impacts were identified;
- Regulatory closure was obtained;
- Residual contamination remains;
- The former tank area was redeveloped; and
- Additional environmental documentation is available.
LUST Database Listings
A LUST listing indicates that a leaking underground storage tank has been reported or documented in a regulatory program.
However, the environmental significance of the listing depends upon site-specific factors.
Relevant considerations include:
Distance: How far is the facility from the subject property?
Direction: Is the facility located hydraulically upgradient or downgradient?
Groundwater: What is the likely direction of groundwater flow?
Release Type: What petroleum product was released?
Regulatory Status: Is the case active, closed, or subject to additional requirements?
Contaminant Distribution: Is there evidence that contamination migrated toward the subject property?
Geology: Do soil and subsurface conditions favor or limit contaminant migration?
Why Distance Alone Is Not Enough
A common mistake is to evaluate an environmental database listing primarily on the basis of distance.
For example, a LUST site located 0.10 mile from a subject property should not automatically be considered a REC.
If the LUST facility is hydraulically downgradient, the release has been remediated, no migration toward the subject property is documented, and regulatory closure has been obtained, the environmental significance may be limited.
Conversely, a release located farther away may warrant evaluation if groundwater flow is toward the subject property and documented contamination extends in that direction.
Evaluating Former Gas Stations
Former gasoline stations should be evaluated using multiple lines of evidence.
Historical aerial photographs, Sanborn maps, city directories, regulatory records, UST information, previous environmental reports, and redevelopment history can collectively provide a more complete understanding of the property.
The objective is to determine whether the historical petroleum use resulted in a release or represents a current material threat of release.
Conclusion
UST and LUST information should be interpreted rather than simply reported.
A technically defensible Phase I ESA should explain the relationship between the petroleum facility, the subject property, regulatory status, groundwater flow, historical use, and available environmental documentation.
This site-specific evaluation is essential when determining whether a petroleum-related condition represents a REC, HREC, BER, or another environmental concern.