Funny how that happens.
Well guess what showed up? Almost a month into the project, two weeks after our report was issued, the seller (and I'm dealing with the same guy that was involved with the 2002 ESAs and the one who stated that they requested that no final report be generated as no bank was involved) they find a finalized, signed copy of the 2002 ESAs. The seller doesn't seem to understand why I've developed a distrust of them.....sigh
A property is adjacent to the east, west, north or south, why not adjacent underneath? I've done business condos in mid-rise buildings and I consider it this way. In this case with the dry cleaners I'd think vapor could be a potential issue.
Search the forum archives for previous threads. This has been discussed here a few times before.
I'm curious, what are your 4 standard BER's?
Margaret, thanks for sharing this. I'm glad that they are planting new trees and I hope that other municipalities will plan to do the same when they have to remove a large number of trees.
The first one is a Textbook HREC (assuming the NFA letter doesn't have any use restrictions). The second tank could be considered de minimis.
Just make sure that you are up front with all 3 parties and ask if they have any issues with it. Get it in writing. If anyone flinches then pull out.
Wow. What a PIA! I thought it was a hassle to wait a week for files in RI when they are available online in MA.
E1527-13 defines reasonably ascertainable as information that is "provided by the source within 20 calendar days". (8.1.5)
You'd have to decide if this constitutes a data gap.
There may be a solvent vapor issue in the space they plan to lease.
Yes ,we do.
I like these kinds of projects but then I'm not a well man. Seriously, these projects are so much more challenging and the opportunity to learn is tremendous.
Does the state that the site is in have regulatory limits for these metals? If so, then yes I would consider it a REC.
I don't envy you. Good luck.
To conclude, yet another consulting firm (there were 5 involved with the UST removal and closure, 1 on the pesticide cleanup and now two on the HSRA notification and Phase II) took the results from the unissued limited Phase II ESA and made notification to the state for releases of 1,1-DCE, 1,1 DCA and Naphthalene in the groundwater, and, Methylene Chloride, Xylene and Naphthalene to the soils above the reportable quantities (other VOCs and TPH were identified below the reportable quantities in other locations). They included in their notification statements that only Naphthalene (Aromatic 150) was used on site and that the other components originated from manufacturing on other sites in the area. (Naphthalene was found on both properties of the subject site but they state that it was only used for production on one of them.)
There's a plastics manufacturer located across the street to the northwest and the two wells that were found to be impacted are on the southeast corner of the subject site. No wells were placed on the northwest or west side of the subject site as the Phase II was looking only for impact from on site activities. The State issued a "based on the information provided, the site will not be placed on the Hazardous Site Inventory list". Since the state didn't require anything the property owner took it upon himself to remove soils from the subject site as a cautionary measure. They did no pre or post soil testing, no documentation as to who did the work or what the scope was, and have no manifests on soil disposal, I have only statements that they removed dirt from "these areas" (moving his hands in a circular motion). The seller doesn't understand, since the State didn't list the property, why we would list this an a REC and recommend additional testing....