Comments
- 1-10 of 10
Yum! I love Milka...it's the best!
I agree. Having done a lot of work in Texas, this was commonly used to denote a barbed wire fence.
I'd say that the city should try to sell the land to the junk man. At least he'd be paying for land that he's already using!
A Superfund site that I worked on in Dallas was an auto salvage yard. And all that contamination didn't come from the actual storage of the automobiles onsite....Apparently the owner of the auto salvage (let's call him Bubba to protect the innocent...and dumb) had a real problem with getting his wreckers in and out because of all the mud. So his friend (let's call him Junior for the same reasons) came up with a great solution. Bubba didn't need to invest thousands of dollars in laying asphalt roads...he could use the batteries from all the junked cars, chip them up, and use them to line the muddy areas! Problem solved...and for free! And let's just say the rest is well, State-paid history.
Something that I haven't seen mentioned here that I encountered at a concrete plant in Houston was fly ash. Fly ash is the ash produced during combustion of coal. It was used as a replacement of Portland cement and as a mineral filler at the plant I was inspecting. The theory was that it added to the chemical resistance and durability of the concrete. It is also thought to reduce the greenhouse gas "foot-print" of concrete as the production of one ton of Portland cement produces approximately one ton of CO2 as compared to zero CO2 being produced using existing fly ash. Huge amounts were stored in big piles on the soil at the plant I inspected. Since coal contains trace levels of arsenic, barium, beryllium, boron, cadmium, chromium, thallium, selenium, molybdenum and mercury, its ash will continue to contain these traces and therefore cannot be dumped or stored where rainwater can leach the metals and move them to the aquifer. A Phase II on this Project showed that not only were there high levels of contamination in the groundwater at the Project, but also the adjacent bayou. It was a serious problem.
Completely agree with the above. You are not the User and should not represent yourself as such. We include a copy of the User Questionaire in our appendices and not "Not Returned to EMG".
I'm curious as to the results of VI assessment.
When doing an inspection on a house or apartment complex, you can look inside the toilet tank or on the underside of the toilet lid. There's a date stamped on both the lid and the tank. Usually toilets are installed as one of the last fixtures so it's a good way to pin-point a year built (within a year or so).
Mike,
It's not just you. I too think that it's crazy that companies do not include file reviews in their Phase I reports when they are reasonable ascertainable. The ASTM guidance compels us to provide reasonably ascertainable information. Unfortunately, althought the standard spells out a time frame, it was left to the discretion of the EP as to what "reasonable costs" are and when Phase I competitors are only charging $1,300 for a Phase I, I'm sure their definition of a "reasonable cost" does not meet the same definition of someone getting almost a thousand dollars more for their Phase I reports.
Another thing that seems crazy is why a consultant would "write off" an on-site problem just because the regulatory agency lists it as closed. As I explain to my Clients, it can be closed for a number of reasons and it is our job as consultants to find out the circumstances behind the closure to better educate our Client. This cannot be done without the benefit of a file review.
- yes, what do you need to know?