This Phase 1 environmental site assessment evaluated the 12 acre property at 321 W. California Avenue in Ruston, LA for potential environmental concerns. The assessment identified 11 potential problems at the site including transformers lacking PCB labels, vehicle spillage in parking areas, an upstream fertilizer plant, and a past underground storage tank removal. Soil and groundwater sampling were recommended to test for contaminants around the transformers, in parking areas, along the on-site waterway, and at the former underground storage tank location. The report provided details on the assessment process, site features and history, and recommendations for addressing identified environmental issues.

1. Phase 1
Site Assessment
321 W. California Avenue
Ruston, LA 71272
Prepared for:
Dr. Gary Zumwalt
Louisiana Tech University
2015
Prepared by:
Nolan Glenn
Louisiana Tech University
2015
Preface
A Phase 1 Site Assessment was conducted by Nolan Glenn, in February 2015, at the
corner of 321 W. California Avenue in Ruston, LA. This Site Assessment was approved
by Dr. Gary Zumwalt, Professor at Louisiana Tech University. All evaluations were
prepared using the Standard Practice Guidelines of the American Society of Testing
and Materials.

2. The assessment was conducted using the appropriate judgement in accordance with
the guidelines given to him. The findings recorded in this assessment are appropriate to
this specific property and the surrounding liabilities that may be associated with it. There
may be other environmental risks that are not listed in this assessment and Nolan Glenn
is not responsible for any unreported liabilities. Further testing may be required by the
client after analyzing the report and understanding the liabilities.
By:
_______________________________ __________
Nolan Glenn, Environmental Science Student Date
Phase 1 Field Inspector
Louisiana Tech University
Summary
The 12 acre property of 321 W California Ave. was visited to inspect all parts of the
property and the surrounding property. A full walk around the property was done first
while recording any possible problems. Then, to ensure the entire boundary was
inspected, the team used a spiral search pattern to cover more ground. The apparent
and/or possible problem that were found at the site are listed below. To assist the
reader in visualizing these problems the site map is provided on the following page and
will be labelled according to the list below.
1

3. 1. Transformers with no PCB label
2. There is a patch of dirt that is used by the auto shop for parking. Vehicle tracks
indicate frequent trips through the property where it was not intended. This also
suggests gasoline leakage in that patch.
3. Parking lot used by 18 wheelers possibly carrying connate water.
4. There is an auto shop uphill from property which could possibly mean
downgradient flow of vehicle fluids.
5. Site of past UST removal is found on the corner opposite of Taco Bell. There is
an auto shop at this location currently.
6. A waterway drainage pipe is in the southwest corner of the property. On some
visits to the site, there was trash in and around the pipe (see Appendix 7.4).
7. A railroad once passed through the north and south ends of the property. It is
unknown what type of product was carried through the site.
8. There is a foundation in the southwest corner of the property that is unidentified.
9. An accumulation of vegetation is found all along the south border of the property.
It was later discovered that this section of the site was once a series of buildings
that included a cinema, a real estate office, a clothing store, a supermarket, and
a drug store. No foundation is apparent however the possibility of remains is
likely.
10.The waterway is downstream from an old fertilizer plant downtown. This plant
has long been shut down but remains from the discharge may be harmful.
11.California Ave. runs along the northern border of the site and is the waste
transport route.
Recommendations:
Addressing the environmental problems in this site will require various tests. Soil testing
around the transformers will be required to search for any polychlorinated biphenyls. By
law all transformers must now be labelled if there are no PCBs used in the electrical
transformer. The two transformers in this property (one on the west end and one on the
east end) lack the PCB label and therefore they could be potentially dangerous.
The parking areas in this lot need to be sampled for any spilled contaminants. This is
specifically important for the parking sites of 18 wheelers that could have spilled
connate water. Another concern in regards to vehicle spillage is the dirt patch in the
southeast corner. Samples will be needed to determine if any damaging fluids have
entered the soil and to what extent. These samples can also measure to what extent the
downgradient spillage occurs from the auto shop.
2

4. There were no USTs found on this site in any records. However, the auto shop on the
corner diagonal from Taco Bell once held a LUST. It has since been removed from the
site but the reason for removal was a widespread leak that could have possibly invaded
the property and those surrounding it. It is therefore recommended to have samples
taken from both the site of the LUST and the corner across from it.
Lasting deposits could be left along the banks of the waterway through the west side of
the property. It is recommended that multiple samples be taken along the sides of the
water to test for any insecticide remains as well as any leaks from the gas line adjacent
to it. When the agrochemical factory upstream from the site was still in operation, DDTs
may not have been banned yet. It is also necessary to take samples along the waste
transport route to calculate for any waste deposits.
Table of Contents
Preface .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
Summary.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Site Map.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.0 Scope.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
1.1 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
1.2 Objectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
1.3 Considerations Beyond the Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
3

5. 1.4 Organization of This Practice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
2.0 Referenced Documents.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
2.0 ASTM Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
3.0 Terminology.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1 Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
3.2 Acronyms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.0 Significanceand Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1 Uses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2 Two Related Practices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
4.3 Additional Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
4.4 Continued Viability of Environmental Site Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.5 Prior Assessment Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
5.0 User’s Responsibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1 Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
5.2 Checking Title Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
5.3 Specialized Knowledge or Experience of the User . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
6.0 Records Review.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
6.2 Environmental Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
6.3 Historical Use Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.4 Prior Assessment Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.0 Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.1 Aerial Photos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
7.2 Fire Map (1922) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.3 Historical Photos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

6. 7.4 Site Reconnaissance Photos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
7.5 Soil Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
7.6 East-West Geohydrologic Section. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
1.0 Scope
1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this document is to provide an accurate and detailed Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment Process in accordance with ASTM standards. This
means that all liabilities associated with the 321 W. California Avenue property will be
reported and evaluated in accordance with the scope of CERCLA. Accomplishing this
will allow for the client to determine if they would like to continue to pursue this property
and if so, allow them to take remedial measures.
1.2 Objectives
The clear objectives in this assessment are (1) to give the client a written document of
all reported problems, (2) to provide visuals to aid the reader in understanding the
problems, and (3) to give professional recommendations on how to clean up the
problems.
1.3 Considerations Beyond the Scope
The specific site in this assessment, and environmental conditions with it, are defined by
the scope in this report. There may be some investigation that goes beyond the scope
defined by the assessor if it is in relation to this property. Any additional off-site research
must be agreed upon between the environmental professional and the client.
1.4 Organization of This Practice

7. This report follows a specific structure to ensure the reader can follow and understand
the potential liabilities. This report first gives a summary of the property to openly
address the problems found. A sitemap is given to help visualize the problems. Then, a
detailed report follows this introduction with the scope of the assessment. The rest of
the document follows standard Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Processes. It
ends with appendices that include any referenced maps of photos.
2.0 Referenced Documents
2.1 ASTM Standards
To emphasize accuracy, this document was written in reference to the ASTM
Standards: E 1528 Practice for Environmental Site Assessment Transaction Screen
Process
3.0 Terminology
3.1 Definitions
liability- any environmental problem that is associated with the property can be legally
applied to any current or past owners.
basemap- a map of the property drawn by the site assessor that clearly shows all
problems associated with the property
cistern- an underground holding cell for liquid (usually water); often referred to as a well.
3.2 Acronyms
ASTM- American Society for Testing and Materials
CERCLA- Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
UST- underground storage tank
LUST- leaking underground storage tank
PCB- polychlorinated biphenyls
DDT- dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
TB- Taco Bell
4.0 Significance and Use
6

8. 4.1 Uses
The use of this practice is to refer to a professional analysis of the property of 321 W.
California Avenue and those liabilities associated with it. It is understood and trusted
that this practice took all aspects of the property and surrounding property into
evaluation. This report is site-specific and is not mainly concerned with business history
other than to confirm an environmental suspicion.
4.2 Two related Practices
The two practices used in this assessment are the Phase I Site Assessment and the E
1528 Transaction Screen Process. Together these practices allow for an official
document that follow legal standards.
4.3 Additional Services
Some additional services may be desired by the client. It is therefore stated that further
services may be conducted if agreed upon by the assessor and the client that address
areas outside of this scope.
4.4 Continued Viability of Environmental Site Assessment
The length to which this assessment is valid is defined by the ASTM Standards of 180
days.
4.5 Prior Assessment Usage
This practices may be desired by previous owners or subsequent persons involved with
this property to ensure legal awareness and appropriate liability information.
5.0 User’s Responsibility
5.1 Scope
The purpose of this section is to define the responsibilities of the user of this practice.
The person using these remediation strategies will need to familiarize themselves with
the terminology used this report. No professional environmental knowledge will be
necessary for the user to understand the implied environmental liabilities.

9. 5.2 Checking Title Records
The environmental professional conducting this assessment is only required to report
the possible problems. It is then recommended that the user request and obtain any
titlerecords associated with the property. This will help to confirm any implications by the
assessor as well as inform the user of any blatant land use limitations.
5.3 Specialized Knowledge or Experience of the User
This section defines the responsibility of the user to communicate any specialized
knowledge to the environmental professional. This specialized knowledge includes any
previous information pertaining to the property that will assist the professional in
conducting the assessment. Another example of this action would be if there were any
safety hazards that the professional should know about prior to conducting the report.
6.0 Records Review
6.1 Introduction
This section begins the specific evaluation of the 321 W. California Avenue site. There
are historical records in this section to help support any reported liabilities. Many of
these report have already been stated in the summary of this document but, they must
be report to support the ASTM Standards.
6.2 Environmental Information
The environmental uses of this property were researched as far back as 1922. This was
done by using the Lincoln Parish GIS District website. This site included many historical
maps as well as aerial view photos taken from the past (see Appendix 7.2). Additional
environmental information about this site was found when researching the soil.
Our team used the Web Soil Survey website to find that this property sits on a 12 acre
Angie very fine sandy loam (see Appendix 7.5).
6.3 Historical Use Information
The historical use of this property was determined using a fire map from 1922. This
information was found on the Lincoln Parish GIS District website. This specific property
once had a railroad running through from the north and south edges of the property.
Further sample need to be taken to determine if any traces of this railway is left.

10. This website also showed a school on the west side of the property. A photo from 1922
was also given to show the exact location of the building. This fire map also shows more
than 10 residential buildings in 1922 as well as 3 industrial buildings. The uses of these
industrial buildings were not found in the research in this assessment (see Appendix
7.2).
The south end ot the property was revealed to be a strip mall containing a cinema, a
real estate office, a clothing store, a supermarket, and a drug store. This information
was obtained from an interview with Dr. Zumwalt after class. Soil samples are
recommended at these locations to test for improper chemical disposal.
The property is currently occupied by a Taco Bell, a Dollar General, and a closed bank.
It is also being used by a local auto shop business for parking.
6.4 Prior Assessment Usage
The only prior assessment usage that was reported to the environmental professionals
in this assessment was the knowledge of the stip mall on the southh end of the
property. It was assumed to be a field of overgrown vegetation until the client (Dr.
Zumwalt) informed the team that there used to be business there.
7.0 Appendices
7.1 Aerial Photos
10

11. most recent aerial view

12. aerial view from 1949
7.2 Fire Map (1922)

13. historical map created from fire maps (1922)
7.3 Historical Photos

14. historical school that stood on the property in 1922
7.4 Site Reconnaissance Photos
view from the southeast corner of the property

15. view from south center of the site
view of waterway drainage ditch
7.5 Soil Map

17. 7.6 Geohydrologic Section