Discussionspublic

Environmental Due Diligence

This is a public Forum  publicRSS

Topic

    ddudack
    Rail road spurs and lines, REC?
    Topic posted March 19, 2009 by ddudackMember, last edited March 12, 2012
    1164 Views, 13 Comments
    Title:
    Rail road spurs and lines, REC?
    Content:

    It is not uncommon for commercial or industrial parcels to have railroad spurs, and in some instances, historic rail lines run across parcels. I would be interested in knowing if folks are identifing these as RECs due to the potential for the presence of residual concentrations of petroleum products and pesticides/herbicides.  Thanks!

    Comment

     

    • Show/Hide Replies
      McCarthy
      posted March 19, 2009 by McCarthyElite Contributor

      I've hit elevated PAH & RCRA metals at almost every RR site.    Usually the contaminants are pretty limited in depth (<24") and spacial distribution (within 15 feet of track center), unless significant grading was performed when the tracks were removed.  If the rails are on the parcel, I call it a REC.  If they are adjacent to a parcel, I guess it has to do with the setback, right-of-way, and conservatism of the buyer, whether to identify the rails as a REC. 

      The degree and extent of contaminants typically seem to increase at areas where spurs connect, switch stations, and maintenance yards.  EDR has a white paper somewhere on RRs thats pretty good.  The paper notes a wider range of contaminants than I would look for as reasonably likely to be present.  Typically, a total hydrocarbon suite, VOCs, PAHs, & RCRA metals would be good indicator parameters.  Usually need to assess between the  former rail bedding material (typically larger rock) and the underlying native (usually material is imported to build up railbed).  The imported material appears most often to be the most impacted.

      I've never encountered a clean rail site, only some instances where contaminant concentrations were below State or Federal action levels.

      • geol
        posted March 19, 2009 by geolMember
        I checked EDR's web site and couldn't find the white paper on railroad lines.  I'm going to call my rep and see if he can point me in the right direction.  Meanwhile, if anyone knows where I can look for it, let me know.
        • hl_root
          posted February 17, 2012 by hl_rootSuper Contributor

          Originally posted by dcrocker

          Wow. You have a good memory...and you're in luck. We published a story on this topic in our ESA Report Jan 2005.

          Go to the commonground downloads section, click on the Business Opportunities folder and you'll see a headline "Railroads, Redevelopment and RECs." Click the "downloads" button and it'll open the full article.

    • John_D
      posted March 19, 2009 by John_DMember

      I would add that you should also consider the nature of historical operations in the site vicinity when looking at RR lines. Shipping of livestock and agricultural products may add a layer of concern depending upon how far the subject site is away from a loading area. Agricultural products were often saturated with pesticides while on the car allowing excess to run through the floors. This is still done in FL when landscaping materials are shipped via 18-wheelers. Depending upon the state, cattle were also promptly loaded for transport right out of pesticide dip pits.

      Buy an old timer a cup of coffee and you might find some interesting info.

    • Show/Hide Replies
      plusone876
      posted February 3, 2012 by plusone876Contributor

       Can someone put a new link up to the RR White Paper?  I need to reference and site it in a report.

    • MaxEng
      posted February 7, 2012 by MaxEngElite Contributor

      In my experience, even the presence of a spur usually results in soil around the tracks being elevated in PAHs, arsenic and sometimes hex chromium (from treating the ties) to concentrations above residential exposure standards.  So in my opinion current or historic rail spur presence is a REC - though it should not affect industrial or routine commercial use moving forward.

    • Show/Hide Replies
      Vini
      posted February 8, 2012 by ViniMember

      Hi there, I gathered some information from some of our other sources and came across this by Mark Augustine (Co-Chair: Environment & Water Resources Institute at ASCE WI Section):

      Typically, the rail lines are treated much like a roadway, so are not normally considered a REC in and of themselves. However, the material transfer locations are suspect as are reported spill/release incidents along the rail spur.


      Hope it helps.

      • Grant Austin
        posted February 17, 2012 by Grant AustinMember
         Yes, this is what I was told during an ASTM sponsered Phase I class in 2005 about the time the new standard was being finalized. We were told this by two instructors who also sat on the ASTM review committee. But yeah, I have tested for, and detected, most of the constituents mentioned previously in this thread in railyards, spurs, etc.
    • Patrick Sutton
      posted March 9, 2012 by Patrick SuttonSuper Contributor

       I agree with McArthy's comments.  Vini, can you elaborate on your roadway analogy, I don't follow.

      Patrick

    • Mike M
      posted March 10, 2012 by Mike MSuper Contributor

      First of all, ddudack, regarding the comment "historic rail lines run across parcels."... please refer to the forum thread "It's Historical, not Historic." I find it very hard to believe that the rail lines are of momentous significance in history. I believe you meant to say  "historical rail lines run across parcels."

      Anyway, there are widely divergent opinions regarding railroad tracks. Certainly, I have seen instances where railroad track areas were significantly contaminated, and would be RECs. I think what Vinni meant is that railroad loading/unloading areas (particularly if it was a chemical transfer area) are potentially of greater concern than just an area of straight track passing through some region.

      Properly assessing railroad tracks and whether or not they are considered RECs is up to the Environmental Professional. It is foolish to either always or never consider tracks as RECs. What is the site history? What were the tracks used for (ex: is this an old chemical plant that formerly conducted solvent transfer via rail car?). It is not uncommon to encounter an onsite rail spur at large industrial facilities. Often, this is just a set of parallel steel rails that traverse an asphalt-paved yard portion of the site. I typically would not consider these to be RECs.  But, in the scenario mentioned above (chemical transfer station at a facility), I might consider it to be an REC.

      It is a poor "Environmental Professional" indeed that declares things to be RECs or not RECs without looking at the specific property in question, and without carefully considering site-specific factors.

    • Show/Hide RepliesAnonymousposted March 12, 2012
      This has been removed by a moderator
      • Patrick Sutton
        posted March 12, 2012 by Patrick SuttonSuper Contributor
        I agree with the contaminants of concern, but I don't typically identify a stretch of railroad tracks as an REC. I'm more likely to list is as a BER, but everything is site specific as Mike said. In regards to the inhalation route, just think of any redevelopment. Construction creates dust, construction workers and nearby receptors inhale the dust - that is your exposure pathway.