ATT D RFP-13DMD-2026-1.pdf

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT

Broad Ripple Fire Station #32 834 Westfield Boulevard

Indianapolis, Marion County, Indiana

October 30, 2025

Prepared For:

City of Indianapolis, Department of Metropolitan Development 200 E. Washington Street, Suite 2042

Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 Attn: Mr. Brandon Badger, Principal Project Manager – Brownfield Redevelopment

Prepared By:

IWM Consulting Group, LLC 7428 Rockville Road

Indianapolis, Indiana 46214 www.iwmconsult.com

IWM Project No. IN25073.01 http://www.iwmconsult.com/

Project No. IN25073.01

Page i

Table of Contents

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 Summary of the Site Description

1.2 Summary of Findings and Opinions

1.3 Significant Data Gap Summary

1.4 Summary of Conclusions and Opinions

2.0 INTRODUCTION

2.1 Property Location and Legal Description

2.2 Purpose

2.3 Scope of Work

2.4 Additional Non-Scope Considerations

2.5 Limitations and Exceptions

2.6 Significant Assumptions

2.7 Standard of Care and Viability

2.8 User/Client Reliance

3.0 USER PROVIDED INFORMATION

3.1 Title Records

3.2 Environmental Liens and Activity and Use Limitations (AULs)

3.3 Specialized Knowledge or Experience of the User

3.4 Significant Valuation Reductions for Environmental Issues

3.5 Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable Information

3.6 Degree of Obviousness of Contamination

3.7 Available Previous Environmental Reports or Additional User Provided Information

4.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE

4.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions

4.2 General Subject Property Setting

4.3 Current Property Use

4.4 Current Uses of Adjoining Properties

4.5 Site Reconnaissance Observations

4.5.1 Site Utilities

4.5.2 Underground Storage Tanks (USTs)

4.5.3 Aboveground Storage Tanks (ASTs)

4.5.4 Drums, Totes, and Intermediate Bulk Containers

4.5.5 Hazardous Substance and Petroleum Product Containers

4.5.6 Unidentified Substance Containers

4.5.7 Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Containing Items

4.5.8 Drains and Sumps

4.5.9 Solid Waste

4.5.10 Stains or Corrosion of Floors, Walls, or Ceilings

4.5.11 Stained Soil or Pavement, or Stressed Vegetation

4.5.12 Standing Surface Water and Pools or Sumps Containing Liquids Likely to be Hazardous

Substances or Petroleum Products

4.5.13 Pits, Ponds, or Lagoons

4.5.14 Septic Systems or Cesspools

4.5.15 Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Materials (ACM)

Page ii

4.5.16 Lead-Based Paint (LBP)

4.5.17 Visual Mold / Mildew Observations

5.0 RECORDS REVIEW

5.1 Physical Setting Sources

5.1.1 Topography

5.1.2 Soils

5.1.3 Geology

5.1.4 Hydrogeology

5.1.5 Flood Plains

5.1.6 Wetlands

5.1.7 Radon

5.2 Historical Use Information for the Site and Adjacent Properties

5.2.1 Fire Insurance Maps

5.2.2 Aerial Photographs

5.2.3 Recorded Land Title Records

5.2.4 Historic USGS Topographic Maps

5.2.5 City Directories

5.2.6 Summary of Historical Use of the Property

5.3 Environmental Records Sources

5.3.1 Standard Environmental Record Sources

5.3.2 Additional Federal, State, and Tribal Environmental Record Sources

5.3.3 Local Record Sources

5.3.4 Summary of Records for the Site

5.3.5 Summary of Records for Properties in Site Vicinity

5.3.6 Subsurface Vapor Migration Evaluation

5.3.7 Per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)

6.0 INTERVIEWS

6.1 Interview with Property Owner

6.2 Interview with Site Manager or Site Contact

6.3 Interviews with Occupants

6.4 Interviews with Local Government

6.5 Interviews with Others

7.0 EVALUATION

7.1 Findings and Opinions

7.2 Deviations and Significant Data Gaps

7.3 Conclusions and Opinions

8.0 STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONALS

9.0 REFERENCES

Page iii

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Referenced Maps Appendix B: Site Photographs Appendix C: Site Parcel Records Appendix D: Questionnaires and Provided Documents Appendix E: Soil Occurrences and Properties Appendix F: FEMA Flood Plain Map Appendix G: US FWS Wetlands Map Appendix H: Fire Insurance Maps Appendix I: Aerial Photographs Appendix J: Historic Topographic Maps Appendix K: City Directories Appendix L: Database Search Report Appendix M: Records of Communication and Agency Documents Appendix N: Qualifications

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment

834 Westfield Boulevard, Indianapolis, Marion County, Indiana October 30, 2025

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

IWM Consulting Group, LLC (IWM) was retained by Brandon Badger of the City of Indianapolis Department of Metropolitan Development (DMD) located at 200 E. Washington Street, Suite 2042, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204, to complete a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) of the property located at 834 Westfield Boulevard, Indianapolis, Marion County, Indiana (subject property).

IWM’s Phase I ESA included a physical inspection of the site and visual observations of adjacent properties, as well as a review of available, pertinent environmental and historical records. Current and prior site usage was not investigated for indications of compliance with state and federal environmental regulations. IWM also conducted visual assessments for other potential environmental conditions.

The primary objective of this Phase I ESA was to identify the presence or likely presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products, as defined in the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard Practice E1527-21 (also E2247-16 where applicable), in, on, or at a property: (1) due to any release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment.

1.1 Summary of the Site Description

The subject property is located within a predominantly commercially developed area on the north side of Indianapolis and is situated on the north side of East Westfield Boulevard and on the west side of Guilford Avenue, approximately7-miles north of Monument Circle, the center of the city.

At the time of the site inspection, the property was being used by Broad Ripple Fire Station #32, which housed one (1) fire engine. An ambulance was observed in the parking lot. The interior of the building provided on-call fire department personnel with housing, restroom and shower facilities, a kitchen, exercise space, and common areas.

The property covers approximately 0.48 acres located in the northwest corner of the intersection of East Westfield Boulevard and Guilford Avenue. At the time of the site inspections, a fire station, with a footprint of approximately 2,700-square feet occupied the east-central portion of the subject property. Asphalt pavement covered the majority of the ground surface to the west of the building;

with grass and concrete sidewalks located east of the building. A concrete driveway lead from the southeast corner of the subject property to the engine bay. Two (2) storage sheds were located near the northwest corner of the property. These sheds were used to store landscape equipment. A large cellphone tower was located near the northeast corner of the site building. The site building was a wood framed structure constructed on a concrete foundation. A partial basement was located under the southern portion of the building. The exterior walls were constructed with brick and stucco, with an asphalt shingled roof.

The engine bay was located on the first floor of the structure, along with the kitchen, restroom, common area, and exercise space. The basement was utilized for storage with building mechanicals (i.e., water heater, furnaces, etc.). The second story was utilized for restrooms with shower facilities, personnel lockers, sleeping quarters, and common areas.

Interior construction consists of: various carpet, vinyl tiles, and ceramic tile flooring, all underlain by a concrete slab; plaster and gypsum board walls; and gypsum board. Batted fiberglass insulation was observed within the attic of the structure. Further description of the site is provided in Section 4.0.

1.2 Summary of Findings and Opinions

Based on review of available documentation and physical inspection of the site, the following issues were identified as representing environmental concerns affecting, or having the potential of affecting, the site. An Opinion is provided following each identified Finding.

1. The subject property was not identified in searched databases as provided in the Environmental

Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) Radius Map™ Report with GeoCheck® (EDR Report). Nor was the subject property also identified in a search of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) Virtual File Cabinet (VFC) website (http://vfc.idem.in.gov/facility-search.aspx). As such, historical (resolved) recognized environmental conditions (HRECs) were not identified for the subject property within these sources.

• The lack of identified environmental government agency records is consistent with the observed current and reported historical subject property usage.

2. One-hundred and sixty-six (166) appearances by approximately eighty (80) addressed facilities were identified in the searched databases, within the target search distances from the site, as provided in the EDR Report. Facilities identified by EDR were not mapped as being adjacent, or nearly adjacent, to the subject property.

• Each of the properties or facilities was evaluated to determine its potential to impact the site. Based on distance from the site, ground surface topography, reported or assumed groundwater flow direction, current regulatory status and/or the absence of reported releases, the properties or facilities listed in the EDR Report are not considered to represent likely threats to the site at this time.

http://vfc.idem.in.gov/facility-search.aspx

3. During site reconnaissance, IWM noted a variety of containers of fluids related to routine fire engine maintenance within the engine bay.

• These containers did not appear to be an immediate threat to the environmental integrity of the site, nor did they appear to be stored in a manner that would lead to potential spillage at the site.

4. The floors of the engine showed typical signs of long-term use related to routine fire engine maintenance. Stains related to significant automobile fluid spills were not observed.

• The floors should be cleaned periodically to remove or mitigate future staining of the floor.

5. Two (2) floor drains were observed within the engine bay. Dark staining was observed surrounding the floor drains.

• The drains and inline oil/water separator appear to be working as designed; however, periodic monitoring of the separator to check for unintentional releases is recommended.

6. Asbestos has historically been present in a wide variety of building materials and the use of asbestos containing materials in buildings constructed prior to 1981 is suspected. An asbestos inspection was not part of the scope of work for this project. However, the assessed facility was constructed circa 1922 (with an 1980s addition). Therefore, there is some risk of the building materials within the building containing asbestos.

• In the event qualifying renovations to, or demolition of, the site building are planned, state and federal regulations requiring an asbestos inspection be conducted prior to the activities, should be notified to ensure compliance with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) Asbestos National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 61 and/or the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Construction Industry Asbestos Standard 29 CFR 1926.1101.

7. The use of lead-based paint or sealers on buildings constructed prior to 1978 is presumed.

Based on the age of the building, with a construction date prior to 1978, the use or presence of lead-based paint is suspected.

• Applicable regulators should be contacted to verify requirements; and local, state, and federal regulations must be followed during maintenance, renovation, or demolition activities, to protect workers, occupants, and the site from contaminants associated with lead-based paints/sealers.

1.3 Significant Data Gap Summary

According to ASTM Standard Practice E1527-21, a data gap is significant if it “affects the ability of the environmental professional to identify a recognized environmental condition.” In preparation of this Phase I ESA, data gaps, as defined by ASTM Practice E1527-21, were encountered:

• The local fire and county health department did not provide information regarding the property in response to an information request (Section 5.3.3 and Section 6.4).

• The ASTM Practice E1527-21 objective of determining property use back to 1940 or its first developed use, whichever is earlier, was not accomplished as the earliest provided fire insurance map (Section 5.2.1) depicted the subject property as already developed for commercial use by 1915.

• Aerial photographs earlier than 1936 were not available for review. In addition, the quality of some aerial photographs was poor, limiting some interpretation (Section 5.2.2).

• A completed owner questionnaire was not received prior to the completion of this report (Section 6.1).

In the opinion of the Environmental Professional, these limitations did not affect the overall interpretation of the data, prevent historic subject property usage from being determined, or reduce the capacity to identify RECs, and do not alter the conclusions of this report.

1.4 Summary of Conclusions and Opinions

IWM has performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the property located at 834 East Westfield Boulevard in Indianapolis, Indiana, in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E1527-21. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 2.0 and Section 7.2 of this report.

This assessment has not revealed evidence of Recognized Environmental Conditions, Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions, and/or significant data gaps in connection with the subject property.

However, as noted in Section 1.2, Items 6 and 7, asbestos-containing materials and lead-based paint may be present on and/or within the subject property building, due to the age of construction.

In the opinion of the environmental professional, these are considered to be business environmental risks at this time.

Reliance on the contents of this report after 180 days is at the user’s sole risk. Based on the earliest completion dates of the components listed in Section 2.7, this Phase I ESA is viable through April, 6, 2026.

2.0 INTRODUCTION

IWM was retained by Brandon Badger of the City of Indianapolis DMD to perform a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, herein referred to as the “assessment”, “environmental assessment”, “ESA”, “Phase I ESA”, or similar term for the property located at 834 Westfield Boulevard in Indianapolis, Marion County, Indiana. Within this report, the subject property may also be referred to by the following: “site”, “target property”, “subject property”, “property”, or other similar terms. The site is depicted on the following maps: Site Location Map (Figure 1) and Site Area Map (Figure 2). Referenced maps are provided in Appendix A. Photographs taken during site reconnaissance, which depict portions of the site, are provided in Appendix B.

2.1 Property Location and Legal Description

The site property is located at 834 Westfield Boulevard in Indianapolis, Indiana, in the southwest ¼ of Section 36, Township 17 North, Range 3 East of Marion County, Indiana.

A legal description for the site was not provided by the User; however, some information concerning the property was obtained from the Marion County Geographic Information System (GIS) website1. Based on a review of information provided within this website, the subject property consists of one (1) parcel described briefly in the following table. A copy of the available Property Record is provided in Appendix C.

Parcel Identification Street Address Brief Legal Description Approximate Size

(acres)

49-03-36-113-003.000-801 834 E Westfield

Boulevard

150FT SL 120FT EL BEG NW

COR WESTFIELD BLVD &

GUILFORD AVE IN SW1/4 S36

T17 R3

0.49

Within the Parcel Report, the owner of the property was identified as City of Indianapolis, Fire Station #32 Westfield Blvd & Guilford, with the following contact information:

City of Indianapolis, Fire Station #32 Westfield Blvd & Guilford Indianapolis, IN 46204

1 https://maps.indy.gov/MapIndy/ https://maps.indy.gov/MapIndy/

2.2 Purpose

The purpose of this ESA was to determine the presence of “Recognized Environmental Conditions” (RECs) in connection with the site using an approach conforming to

ASTM E1527-21.

Recognized Environmental Conditions (REC)

RECs are defined in ASTM E1527-21 as the “presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: (1) due to any release to the environment;

(2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment.”

The definition of a release under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) includes contamination that is the direct result of a release into the environment from a non-natural source that migrates into a building or structure. For the purposes of the ASTM E1527-21 practice, migrate and migration refers to the movement of hazardous substances or petroleum products in any form, including, for example, solid and liquid at the surface or subsurface, and vapor in the subsurface.

Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions (CREC)

A REC resulting from a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum products that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority, with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in place subject to the implementation of required controls (e.g., property restrictions, activity and use limitations, institutional controls, or engineering controls) is defined as a controlled REC (CREC). A CREC shall be identified as a REC in the conclusions section of this report; however, the identification of a condition as a CREC does not imply that the environmental professional conducting the Phase I ESA has evaluated or confirmed the adequacy, implementation, or continued effectiveness of the required control that has been, or is intended to be, implemented.

Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions (HREC)

A CREC differs from a historical REC (HREC) in that a HREC refers to a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum products that has occurred in connection with the site and has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or meeting unrestricted use criteria established by a regulatory authority, without subjecting the site to any required controls.

An HREC is generally not identified as a REC unless new conditions or information have been identified such as a change in regulatory criteria or a subsequently identified migration pathway that was not previously known or evaluated.

De Minimis Condition

RECs include hazardous substances or petroleum products, even under conditions in compliance with laws, but do not include “de minimis conditions that generally do not present a material risk of harm to public health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies.” Conditions determined to be de minimis are not RECs.

2.3 Scope of Work

The Scope of Services included a review of historical records and regulatory database information, a reconnaissance of the site and adjoining properties, interviews (historical and with those currently familiar with the site, where available), and preparation of this report.

Records were reviewed given that they were “reasonably ascertainable.” ASTM E1527-21 defines “reasonably ascertainable” as “information that is publicly available, obtainable from its source within reasonable time and cost restraints, and is practically reviewable.” The document examination generally includes the following tasks (refer to the agreed-upon scope of work):

• At a minimum, review of historical aerial photographs, city directories, fire insurance maps, and topographic maps of the site and adjoining properties. If these are not available, the Report will include a statement regarding the lack of availability.

• Review of property title records if provided by the Client, or requested by the Client as a non-scope service (Section 2.4).

• Review of regulatory database provider report of federal, state, and local listings for the site and other properties/facilities found within the search distances specified by

ASTM E1527-21.

Reconnaissance included the following tasks:

• Visual observations of the site to identify indications of RECs, such as above ground storage tanks (ASTs) and underground storage tanks (USTs), stained soil or floor areas, vegetative stress, filled areas, waste or material dumping.

• Interviews with available current owner(s) and/or key site manager(s), or other person(s) as designated by the owner(s) regarding the site’s current and past uses and information of environmental significance.

• Inquiries to appropriate local government offices (e.g., Fire Department or Health Department).

• Observations of adjoining properties (from site boundaries and public rights-of-way).

• The standards included in ASTM E2247-16 (Standard Practices for Environmental Site

Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process for Forestland or Rural Property) may be used to replace or supplement the reconnaissance procedures included in ASTM E1527-21, with or without reference within this report at the discretion of the Environmental Professional and depending upon the size and nature of the subject property.

Photographic documentation, which may include the use of handheld cameras and/or unmanned aerial vehicles, and site diagrams are required by the ASTM E1527-21 Standard. Photographs taken during site reconnaissance are selected for inclusion in the report at the discretion of the Environmental Professional. IWM has provided Site Maps and Site Photographs, included herein in Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively.

Utilizing the information collected for the site during the Phase I ESA, a Tier 1 Vapor Encroachment Screening (VES) was conducted for the site according to guidance and processes provided in ASTM Designation E2600-22: Standard Guide for Vapor Encroachment Screening on Property Involved in Real Estate Transactions (ASTM E2600-22). The objective of a VES is to determine if a vapor encroachment condition (VEC) exists or does not exist and provide information to support those conclusions. A VEC is defined by ASTM as the “presence or likely presence of chemical(s) of concern (COC) vapors in the vadose zone of the target property caused by the release of vapors from contaminated soil and/or groundwater on or near the target property as identified by the Tier 1 or Tier 2 procedures” presented in ASTM E2600-22. The findings of the VES are discussed in Section 5.3.6 of this report.

2.4 Additional Non-Scope Considerations

Environmental issues or conditions may exist at a property that parties may wish to assess in connection with commercial real estate that are outside the scope of ASTM E1527-21 (non-scope considerations). Examples of non-scope considerations include, but are not limited to, asbestos containing buildings materials, radon, wetlands, lead-based paint, lead in drinking water, regulatory compliance, cultural and historic resources, industrial hygiene, health and safety, ecological issues, indoor air quality unrelated to releases of hazardous substances or petroleum products into the environment, biological agents, mold, and high voltage power lines. These Business Environmental Risks (BERs) are defined within ASTM E1527-21 as “a risk which can have a material environmental or environmentally-driven impact on the business associated with the current or planned use of a parcel of commercial real estate, not necessarily limited to those environmental issues required to be investigated… Consideration of business environmental risk issues may involve addressing one or more non-scope considerations." These non-scope issues or conditions can be assessed during the ESA at the request of the Client.

For this Phase I ESA, IWM has provided additional review to assess the potential BERs listed below, with descriptions of the respective findings in the referenced sections of this report.

List of Additional Non-Scope Services

Additional Service ASTM Reference Report Section Asbestos-Containing Building Materials E1527-21 (13.1.5.1) Section 4.5.15 Lead-Based Paint E1527-21 (13.1.5.9) Section 4.5.16 Mold Growth Conditions E1527-21 (13.1.5.11) Section 4.5.17

List of Additional Non-Scope Services

Additional Service ASTM Reference Report Section Naturally Occurring Radon E1527-21 (13.1.5.13) Section 5.1.7 Per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) E1527-21 (13.1.5.15) Section 5.3.7 Subsurface Vapor Migration Evaluation E1527-21 (3.2.53.1) Section 5.3.6 Wetlands E1527-21 (13.1.5.16) Section 5.1.6

Site-specific investigations, including sampling and laboratory analysis, for the topics identified above were not completed unless specifically described in the corresponding section. Readily available information sources, such as literature references, site reconnaissance observations, and/or age of on-site structures, were used to provide some insight into risks which may exist related to each of these service topics.

2.5 Limitations and Exceptions

Findings, conclusions, and recommendations referenced herein are based upon, and limited to, those observations made during the listed reconnaissance date.

The site area included in this Phase I ESA was based upon available property lines, site surveys, property plat maps, verbal descriptions provided to IWM by the Client, and/or field observations (roadways, utilities, mow lines, etc.) observed by IWM’s representative during the site reconnaissance. The information regarding the adjoining properties was obtained by visual reconnaissance from the subject site and/or public roads, and information obtained from record reviews and interviews with representatives of the site owner.

Phase I ESAs are limited to specific inquiries and are based upon records, reviews, and opinions rather than invasive testing services. Therefore, IWM cannot eliminate uncertainty as to environmental conditions at the site. Nor can we represent that the site contains no hazardous substances, petroleum products, or other products or substances (or other latent conditions) beyond those identified or observed from this scope of work. Information in this report is based upon the site’s current use(s) and information obtained prior to issuance of the final report. IWM does not warrant the accuracy of information obtained from interviewees or other third-party sources of information (such as other environmental firms, database companies or title companies).

Please note that no Phase I ESA can wholly eliminate uncertainty regarding the potential for RECs in connection with the site. Referring to the procedures in ASTM E1527-21 will reduce, but not eliminate, these uncertainties. It is possible, therefore, that all RECs or relevant environmental issues may not have been identified. The failure to discover these, using a reasonable and mutually agreed upon scope of services, does not guarantee the absence of such RECs or issues, but only that they were not found as a result of this assessment. The services herein are in no way to be construed or relied upon as a legal interpretation, opinion or advice.

2.6 Significant Assumptions

It is assumed that the Client has provided IWM with title and lien records, actual knowledge of environmental liens or activity and use limitations encumbering the property, any specialized knowledge or experience material to recognized environmental conditions in connection with the property, any commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information material to recognized environmental conditions on the property, and the reason why the property may have a significantly lower purchase price than comparable properties, if applicable (User Responsibilities, ASTM E1527-21, Section 6.0). It is further assumed that the Client will read this report in its entirety (text and attachments) before making decisions based on the findings of the report.

2.7 Standard of Care and Viability

These Phase I ESA services were performed in a manner consistent with good commercial and customary standards and practices as applied by other consultants conducting similar investigations in the same geographic area during the same time period. No other warranties, express or implied, are intended or made.

Within ASTM E1527-21, Section 4.6.1, a Phase I ESA is considered viable when it is completed within 180 days prior to the date of acquisition of the subject property (or, for transactions not involving an acquisition such as a lease or refinance, the date of such transaction), subject to the limitations expressed herein. If the acquisition or transaction takes place more than 180 days and less than one year from date of completion of the following assessment components, these components may be updated:

• a completed and signed User Questionnaire and searches for recorded environmental cleanup liens (Section 3.0 and Section 5.0);

• visual inspections of the subject property and adjoining properties (Section 4.0);

• reviews of federal, tribal, state, and local government records (Section 5.0);

• interviews with owners, operators, and occupants (Section 6.0); and,

• declaration by the environmental professional responsible for the assessment or update

(Section 8.0).

Reliance on the contents of this report after 180 days is at the user’s sole risk. Based on the earliest completion dates of the components listed above, as reflected within the corresponding sections of the report, that being the review of federal, tribal, state, and local government records date of October 8, 2025 discussed in Section 5.0, this Phase I ESA is viable through April 6, 2026.

2.8 User/Client Reliance

Unless otherwise agreed, this Phase I ESA was prepared for the exclusive use and reliance of the City of Indianapolis Department of Metropolitan Development and the Indianapolis Fire Department. Any use of this Phase I ESA or the information contained herein by persons or entities other than the Client (without the express written consent of the Client and IWM) will be at the sole risk and liability of such persons and entities.

3.0 USER PROVIDED INFORMATION

The US EPA’s All Appropriate Inquiry (AAI) rules places emphasis on “User” obligations. As specified in the ASTM E1527-21 standard, certain responsibilities lie with the "user" of the assessment, who is defined as “the party seeking to use Practice E1527 to complete an environmental site assessment of the subject property” and may include, without limitation, a potential purchaser, an owner, a lender, a property manager, or a potential tenant of the subject property. The User has specific obligations for completing a successful application of the ASTM E1527-21 practice for performing certain tasks that will help identify the possibility of RECs in connection with the property that do not require the technical expertise of an environmental professional. The required tasks/information include:

(1) a search for environmental liens and AULs filed or recorded against the subject property, or communication to the environmental professional of the actual knowledge of such instruments;

(2) specialized knowledge or experience related to the property or nearby property;

(3) relationship of the purchase price being paid for the property to the fair market value, if not contaminated;

(4) commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information about the property; and,

(5) any obvious indications pointing to the presence, or likely presence, of contamination at the property.

Although the AAI Rules and ASTM E1527-21 do not require the User to share this information with the environmental professional, failure to provide this information could result in a determination that “all appropriate inquiry” is not complete.

A Phase I ESA User Questionnaire was provided to Brandon Badger, Principal Program Manager, Brownfield Redevelopment for City of Indianapolis DMD (User). The responses provided by Mr.

Badger in the completed User Questionnaire are summarized in the following section. A copy of the completed questionnaire is provided in Appendix D. Documentation may also be found where referenced in this report.

3.1 Title Records

Mr. Badger (User) did not provide title record information. However, as discussed in Section 2.1, some property information for the site was obtained through public records.

3.2 Environmental Liens and Activity and Use Limitations (AULs)

Based on the response to Question 2 provided in the User Questionnaire, Mr. Badger indicated that a search of recorded land title records did not identify environmental liens associated with the subject property. Based on the response to Question 3 provided in the User Questionnaire, Mr.

Badger was not aware of AULs associated with the subject property.

3.3 Specialized Knowledge or Experience of the User

Based on the response to Question 4 in the User Questionnaire, Mr. Badger indicated he does not have specialized knowledge or experience regarding recognized environmental conditions associated with the site or nearby properties.

3.4 Significant Valuation Reductions for Environmental Issues

Based on the response provided to Question 5 in the User Questionnaire, Mr. Badger indicated:

“…I have no reason to believe the purchase price for the subject property has been reduced in comparison to the fair market value due to contamination known or believed to be present at the property.”

3.5 Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable Information.

Based on the response provided for Question 6 in the User Questionnaire, Mr. Badger indicated he was not aware of commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information about the property that would help identify conditions indicative of release or threatened releases of hazardous substances or petroleum products.

3.6 Degree of Obviousness of Contamination

Based on the response provided to Question 7 in the User Questionnaire, Mr. Badger did not have knowledge of any obvious indicators that point to the presence or likely presence of contamination at the property.

3.7 Available Previous Environmental Reports or Additional User Provided Information

Mr. Badger indicated he did not have additional knowledge or documentation associated with the site property that may be pertinent to the environmental professional.

4.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE

4.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions

This section presents information gathered during the reconnaissance of the subject property and adjoining properties. This non-invasive reconnaissance was conducted to observe accessible and representative portions of the subject property for evidence of RECs. The following indicators of RECs, as per ASTM guidelines, were the focus of this reconnaissance: such as stained soils, stressed vegetation, transformers, evidence of ASTs or USTs, trash and debris, and use and/or storage of hazardous substances or petroleum products.

The reconnaissance of the subject property was conducted on October 9, 2025, at approximately 9:00 AM by Rebecca Pitcock, IWM Associate Project Manager and Environmental Professional.

Fire Station and DMD personnel, along with two (2) architects, accompanied Ms. Pitcock during site reconnaissance and were available to answer questions. Weather conditions were clear and sunny with a temperature of approximately 70° Fahrenheit.

The inspection consisted of first accessing the on-site building and noting interior conditions.

Inspection of the exterior portions of the subject property consisted of traversing the site perimeter and the inner portions of the property to provide overlapping fields of view of the ground surface as needed.

Physical obstacles preventing the viewing of the grounds on the site were generally not encountered, with the exception of materials and equipment located inside the building, and inaccessible portions utilized by the cellphone tower and storage shed. Photographs taken during site reconnaissance, which depict portions of the site, are provided in Appendix B.

4.2 General Subject Property Setting

The subject property is located within a predominantly commercially developed area on the north side of Indianapolis and is situated on the north side of East Westfield Boulevard and on the west side of Guilford Avenue, approximately7-miles north of Monument Circle, the center of the city.

4.3 Current Property Use

At the time of the site inspection, the property was being used by Broad Ripple Fire Station #32, which housed one (1) fire engine. An ambulance was observed in the parking lot. The interior of the building provided on-call fire department personnel with housing, restroom and shower facilities, a kitchen, exercise space, and common areas.

4.4 Current Uses of Adjoining Properties

During the site reconnaissance, IWM observed the properties surrounding the site. The subject property is surrounded by commercial structures utilized for restaurants, shopping, and a lounge.

The White River canal is located north adjacent.

4.5 Site Reconnaissance Observations

The property covers approximately 0.48 acres located in the northwest corner of the intersection of East Westfield Boulevard and Guilford Avenue. At the time of the site inspections, a fire station, with a footprint of approximately 2,700-square feet occupied the east-central portion of the subject property. Asphalt pavement covered the majority of the ground surface to the west of the building;

with grass and concrete sidewalks located east of the building. A concrete driveway lead from the southeast corner of the subject property to the engine bay. Two (2) storage sheds were located near the northwest corner of the property. These sheds were used to store landscape equipment. A large cellphone tower was located near the northeast corner of the site building. The site building was a wood framed structure constructed on a concrete foundation. A partial basement was located under the southern portion of the building. The exterior walls were constructed with brick and stucco, with an asphalt shingled roof. The layout of the property is depicted in Figure 2.

The engine bay was located on the first floor of the structure, along with the kitchen, restroom, common area, and exercise space. The basement was utilized for storage with building mechanicals (i.e., water heater, furnaces, etc.). The second story was utilized for restrooms with shower facilities, personnel lockers, sleeping quarters, and common areas.

Interior construction consists of: various carpet, vinyl tiles, and ceramic tile flooring, all underlain by a concrete slab; plaster and gypsum board walls; and gypsum board. Batted fiberglass insulation was observed within the attic of the structure.

Reconnaissance also focused on common topics of concern, which are discussed below.

4.5.1 Site Utilities

Identified public utilities in the vicinity of the subject property are as follows: Citizens provides potable water, sewage, and natural gas services; Indianapolis Power and Light (IPL) provides electric service. The building was heated with natural gas furnaces and a hanging Reznor heater in the engine bay. Several air conditioner units were observed on the west and north exterior sides of the building. Additionally, a natural gas generator was observed on the east side of the subject property, associated with the cellphone tower.

Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) water supply well records were reviewed and water supply wells were not identified on the subject property, nor were they identified on adjoining properties.

4.5.2 Underground Storage Tanks (USTs)

Common indicators of USTs, such as fill ports, vent pipes or dispensers, were not observed on the property during site reconnaissance.

4.5.3 Aboveground Storage Tanks (ASTs)

ASTs were not observed on the subject property during site reconnaissance.

4.5.4 Drums, Totes, and Intermediate Bulk Containers

Neither drums, totes nor other intermediate bulk containers of petroleum or other potentially hazardous materials were observed at the site.

4.5.5 Hazardous Substance and Petroleum Product Containers

IWM noted a variety of containers of cleaning fluids, paints, gas cans, and chemicals utilized in routine fire engine maintenance. Containers of petroleum or hazardous substances, which would not be considered part of typical activities related to building and fire engine maintenance services, were not observed during site reconnaissance. Evidence of releases in the vicinity of the containers was not observed, and the containers appeared to be closed and stored in a way that is unlikely to result in releases.

4.5.6 Unidentified Substance Containers

Significant unidentified substance containers were not observed during site reconnaissance.

4.5.7 Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Containing Items

A single pole-mounted transformer was observed on the eastern portion of the subject property.

Evidence of leaking or damage was not observed during reconnaissance.

4.5.8 Drains and Sumps

Shower drains were observed inside the second story restrooms. Floor drains were also observed in the basement in connection with mechanical equipment/condensation. Two (2) floor drains were observed in the engine bay. Dark staining was observed surrounding the drains, likely as a result of rinsing the fire engine.

4.5.9 Solid Waste

Several residential-sized trash cans were observed near the sheds in the northwest corner of the subject property. The trash cans were in good condition and labeling indicated they are serviced by Department of Public Works (DPW). A tire was observed near the trash cans.

4.5.10 Stains or Corrosion of Floors, Walls, or Ceilings

The floors of the engine bay showed typical signs of long-term use related to routine maintenance.

Significant staining was not observed in other portions of the facility.

4.5.11 Stained Soil or Pavement, or Stressed Vegetation

Neither stained soil or pavement, nor stressed vegetation, were observed during site reconnaissance.

4.5.12 Standing Surface Water and Pools or Sumps Containing Liquids Likely to be Hazardous Substances or Petroleum Products

Standing surface water and pools, or related sumps containing liquids likely to be hazardous were not observed.

4.5.13 Pits, Ponds, or Lagoons

Pits, ponds or lagoons were not observed on the property during the site reconnaissance.

4.5.14 Septic Systems or Cesspools

Evidence of a septic system or cesspools on the property was not observed during the site reconnaissance. Nor did IWM observe the generation, treatment, or discharge of wastewater on the property, with the exception of sanitary sewage and storm water. As noted in Section 4.5.1, sanitary sewer service is provided by the Citizens.

4.5.15 Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Materials (ACM)

Asbestos has historically been present in a wide variety of building materials and the use of asbestos containing materials in buildings constructed prior to 1981 is suspected. An asbestos inspection was not part of the scope of work for this project. However, the assessed facility was constructed circa 1922 and 1980. Therefore, there is some risk of the building materials within the building containing asbestos. If a qualifying renovation of the site building is performed in the future, an asbestos inspection would be warranted at that time.

4.5.16 Lead-Based Paint (LBP)

A lead-based paint inspection was not part of the scope of work for this project. The use of lead-based paint on buildings constructed prior to 1978 is presumed. Based on the age of the building, with a construction date prior to 1978, the use or presence of lead-based paint is suspected.

4.5.17 Visual Mold / Mildew Observations

A mold/mildew inspection was not part of the scope of work for this project. However, during the site visit, the IWM environmental professional did not observe significant visual evidence of mold or mildew within the accessed portions of the building.

5.0 RECORDS REVIEW

5.1 Physical Setting Sources

Sources utilized to ascertain a reasonably accurate compilation of the physical setting include physical inspection of the site with structures by Environmental Professionals; interviews with the property owner, site manager, occupants, and/or neighbors; review of aerial photographs and/or satellite imagery; and review of the legal description and property records for the site.

5.1.1 Topography

The site has a generally flat topography. A review of the United States Geological Service (USGS) Indianapolis West, Indiana Topographic Quadrangle Map (USGS 2019) indicated ground surface at the site has an elevation of approximately 715 feet above mean sea level (MSL). Regionally, the ground surface generally slopes to the north, in the direction of the canal and White River. A copy of a portion of a topographic map, including the site location, is provided in Figure 1.

5.1.2 Soils

A review of data provided on the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) online Web Soil Survey website and in the USDA Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey of Marion County, Indiana (USDA, 1977) indicated the upper few feet of soil at the site is comprised of Genesee-Urban land complex. However, due to the presence of the site building and surrounding pavement that cover the underlying soils, and the potential for the soils to have been reworked or mixed with other fill materials, in-place soil profiles may no longer correlate with the listed soil types. A map of the projected locations of the described soil types, and further descriptions of the soil properties, are presented in Appendix E.

5.1.3 Geology

The bedrock in the area consists of Devonian Age Muscatatuck Group, comprised of dolomite and limestone (Gray, 1987). Bedrock is expected to occur at approximately 50 feet below the ground surface in the site area (Gray, 1983).

5.1.4 Hydrogeology

Indianapolis, Indiana is located within the White River Drainage Basin (Fenelon, 1994). Seven

(7) distinct aquifer types have been identified in the White River drainage basin, consisting of unconsolidated sand and gravel units and bedrock units. The following table represents the aquifers in the area.

Aquifer Types and Characteristics In the White River Drainage Basin

Aquifer Type Thickness (feet)

Range of Yield (gpm) Common Name(s)

Surficial sand and gravel 5-150 100-2,000 Outwash, alluvium, valley train

Buried sand and gravel 5 - 90 50-300 Interbedded sand and gravel, outwash plain

Discontinuous sand and gravel 5-40 10-200 Interbedded sand and gravel outlier

Carbonate bedrock

Mississippian 150 <20 Sanders and Blue River Groups Devonian 150 100-600 Muscatatuck Group

Silurian 150 200-600 Salamonie Dolomite, Brassfield

Limestone, Cataract Formation, and Silina Group

Upper weathered bedrock 150 0-10 Borden Group and New Albany Shale

Complexly interbedded sandstone, shale, limestone, and coal

Highly variable 5-20

West Baden, Stephensport, Raccoon Creek, Carbondale Groups, and

Patoka Formations Sandstone 20-100 5-20 Raccoon Creek Group

Storm water runoff at the subject property is expected to be primarily controlled by infiltration;

and overland flow to low areas, city streets, and municipal storm water control structures.

Local groundwater flow is considered to follow the influence of topography and the nearby ditches;

however, estimated groundwater levels and/or flow direction(s) may vary due to seasonal fluctuations in precipitation, local usage demands, geology, underground structures, or dewatering operations.

5.1.5 Flood Plains

The United States Department of Homeland Security / Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program’s Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) dated April 19, 2016 (Panel Number 18097C01; Letter of Map Revision: March 20, 2024) was reviewed. The map indicated the site is located in Zone X, which FEMA defines as an area with reduced flood risk due to levee. A copy of the FEMA FIRMette map is provided in Appendix F.

5.1.6 Wetlands

A wetlands study was not part of the scope of work for this investigation; however, according to the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) online National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) accessed through the IndianaMap online mapping database. Riverine wetland habitat was depicted along the northern property boundary associated with the north adjacent canal. A copy of the wetlands map is provided in Appendix G.

5.1.7 Radon

Radon testing was not part of the scope of work for this project; however, the US EPA Radon Zone for Marion County, Indiana is Zone 1. This zone level indicates that, of the testing on record, the average indoor radon level is greater than 4.0 pCi/L (picocuries per liter). The US EPA recommended action level is 4.0 pCi/L. The State of Indiana does not currently regulate radon levels, and it should be noted that levels for the site were not available. The fact that the average radon level in Zone 1 is above the US EPA recommended action level is reported for information purposes only.

5.2 Historical Use Information for the Site and Adjacent Properties

IWM researched publicly available records which had the potential to provide information concerning historical use of the site and adjacent properties. Those records which have not been incorporated into the previous sections of this report are discussed below.

5.2.1 Fire Insurance Maps

EDR provided The EDR Certified Sanborn® Map Report – Broad Ripple Fire Station #32, 834 Westfield Boulevard, Indianapolis, IN 46220, dated October 8, 2025, for the site. The Sanborn® fire insurance maps were reviewed to provide a historical interpretation for the site and surrounding properties.