anything on a corresponding topo?
whats the address, would like to look at it on google earth
Clarification, the feature is the circular object near the top of the photos with the 4 parallel lines and the vertical line.
Thanks for any thoughts.
I found your discussion of the word "dispose" when doing a Google search. I am not an environmental consultant. I have a more general interest in the word in all its forms, not just "disposed of" as in environmental waste. I admit I didn't find what I was looking for (how to properly compose a sentence with the words "dispose" and "disfavorably" as in what I have done has caused you to look disfavorably upon me), but I found one of my pet peeves in your writing! In the second paragraph under MORE you write, "if your interested ..." Of course you mean, "if you're interested..." since you are using the shortened form of the verb "are" - if you are interested.
Anyway, I still don't know how to use the word "dispose" in my sentence and I'm not even sure if "disfavorably" is a real word. Spell Check seems to think not, but I've seen it used. If anybody can help me out with my sentence it would be much appreciated (hey, look! I switched to the passive voice. Does that mean I can become a technical writer?):)
Thank you for the input. In most circumstances I would consider the UST removal with no documentation a REC. However, upon further review this building is located within an Architectural Preservation District (APD) with a bylaw to preserve and protect the historic structure. Therefore, any major alterations, additions, demolitions and new construction requires an APD Commission review.
I decided this was a de minimis condition with the stipulation that in the event of any proposed subsurface alterations, this
condition should be identified to the APD Commission and dealt within a soils management plan.
In my own experience, collection of soil vapor samples is the single best way to find out whether there's been a release. I've never found a site with a substantive release that didn't have pretty high soil vapor readings. You still need a Geoprobe to do this right, of course.
This is exactly why recommendations should be kept out of the Phase I report. The recommendations in a case like this are entirely dependent on the client's needs and the proposed use of the property. Some clients will accept the risk rather then spend the money to investigate it as Matt describes. Others may have a much lower risk tolerance.
To answer your original question though, I think it's fair to call it a REC assuming it was an old tank when it was removed. If you're looking at a tank installed in 1975 that was removed in 1984 then I wouldn't go that far.
Depending on the size of the property, good chance Phase II and GPR will give inconclusive results and cost more than the liability. Could easily be looking at multiple investigations costing tens of thousands of dollars to prove there is no residual contamination. Doesn't seem worth it for a heating oil UST removed over 30 years ago with oversight provided by the fire department.
Of course Phase I is not meant to be a certification that property is free of contamination, and recommendations are just my opinion. Client can always do a Phase II if they want higher level of certainty.
I don't do SBA work anymore, but when I did (at another firm), it got to the point where we asked up-front about SBA stuff and wouldn't agree to anything that wasn't in the original contract without reaching a revised agreement, just because for a while we were getting so many of these requests that we worried about extending reliance on so many projects.
I hadn't heard of this before.... very curious. Then again, up here in New England we manufactured ice by waiting till everything froze and then just sawing up blocks of ice, and that was still a going industry into the 1940s....every winter during the Depression and WWII my grandfather and his brothers would cut ice on weekends to pick up extra money. I actually live across the street from a former ice bunker on a lake.
Do the Sanborns specifically reference solvents?
My own experience with undocumented tank closures is, unfortunately, not so benign as Matt Fox's. No way I'd recommend that a client not investigate this before closing on the deal.
The semantics in the Report are likely, not potential, yes.
Off-site release that has potentially impacted the subject site is not a REC.
Off-site release that has likely impacted the subject site is a REC.
I'd probably call it a REC, but recommend no further action at this time. Explain to client that potential financial liability is likely to be minimal and conducting further investigation at this time is not be practical (if that is in fact the case).