Comments
- 1-9 of 9
Thanks Matt. I interpreted DDD's comment to mean that although a REC may be a potential concern to a property, that a REC unto itself does not mean that cleanup will be required. I didn't interpret the comment to mean that all "potential concerns" with a property would be a REC. I agree with you that all potential concerns are not RECs and I agree with DDD that all RECs do not require cleanup.
Can you expand a bit on your disagreement with these statements Matt?
Yes, be aware; No, not a REC if nothing turns up.
It looks like a grocery supply business (George Coprivizr & Son in Watsonville founded in 1928) at the time - correct? George Coprivizr's business is listed as "fruit". Maybe a warehouse to store produce prior to distribution? Without any further information I think the night watchman info is separate from the fuel and gas. The existence of a night watchman would be importance for fire insurance and it is not uncommon to see (lower insurance rates if a night watchman was present!) To me the "fuel gas" suggests you should be on the lookout for USTs - perhaps for truck fueling related to grocery distribution? Heating oil? However, the note could also mean that gas is the fuel for the property. Natural gas may have been available in that region since the 1930s - so "gas" might refer to that - which would be no big deal. Maybe more info on earlier or later Sanborns? Hopefully a bit more information will turn up, but in the meantime keep a lookout for any info to suggest on-site fueling.
I agree with Goldbarfellow - Lead a_rsenate was applied as a pesticide at orchards before the use of DDT became prevalent. We have seen very high concentrations of lead and a_rsenic (and dieldrin....) in shallow soils at former orchard properties. Although typically just shallow soils are impacted - it can be over such a large area that it can pose a pretty substantial cost if the property is to undergo development as a residential use (either as a remedy to address risks posed by the levels present; or just for special management considerations of soils requiring removal as a result of routine site grading).
With regard to DDT - I have seen in the literature where application rates for DDT for row crops would be anywhere from 1 to 30 lbs/year per acre - potentially accumulating to levels ranging from 20 to 100 pounds per acre. I have not seen many agricultural sites where the remaining concentrations would be of concern - primarily due to the 1/2-life as noted by Tom above; and perhaps as a function of the limited number of investigations of this type I have been involved with. I haven't evaluated crop dust application vs. other forms of application though.
Sampling of former Orchards that may convert to residential use seems a must - primarily due to the potential for lead *** and dieldrin impacts. Land that was formerly used for row crops is perhaps less of concern - but I would still consider it prudent to sample. At least a few States have guidance to this effect (California, Oregon).
Check out the attached to see how perceptions change over time with regard to what is considered acceptable and perfectly safe!
ddt_disney_wallpaper.jpg (87KB)Zinc is a fairly common constituent in urban/industrial storm water runoff. Some common sources include galvanized roofing material (as you point out). Also, tire dust and motor oil / hydraulic oil. Here is a useful link:
Be careful not to generalize too much. I worked on a "surface stain" at fueling AST that turned into a very large excavation and was over $100k of soil removal due to the fact that the property transaction required that we meet the most conservative cleanup levels. This may not be the norm, but in my experience these little surface stains can and do turn into more impact than anticipated - though not usually to the level indicated in the previous sentence. If working for the buyer, it is definitely worth requiring the seller to address these stains prior to the transaction or as part of an agreement built in to the transaction.
To get back to an earlier question on soil testing, it would seem like an inexpensive TPH test for diesel- and oil-range hydrocarbons would catch the carrier fluid (NW-TPH-Dx test here in Oregon). If you detect diesel- or oil-range TPH, then look at analyzing those samples for PCBs. If you do not detect diesel- or oil-range TPH, then I would see no need to test for PCBs. If TPH is detected, then expanded tests beyond PCBs may then be needed to either characterize for disposal or to demonstrate that levels are acceptable to remain without presenting an unacceptable risk.
- If shallow soils are nonetheless impacted by legally and correctly applied pesticides at concentrations greater than health based cleanup levels applicable to the new or intended use (often agricultural converts to residential), then there may be significant costs associated with soil management and cleanup. These costs would be carried by the developer, or negotiated into the sale agreement assuming the impacts are identified via a Phase 2 ESA. We've seen impacts to orchards and nursery properties that require cleanup.