Heather Said:
This is a very interesting thread, having lived in the Salisbury area for most of my life, and now in Los Angeles working as an environmental scientist, on the assessment and remediation of contaminated industrial sites. Despite the heated opinions, from a technical and legal standpoint, several of you are absolutely correct.
It seems as though some degree of assessment has likely occurred over time if the parties involved understand the historical use of the property in question, and the potential for contamination at the site. Unless there was an indemnification agreement "gifted" to the City, as well, the City would be held 100% responsible for the remediation of the parcel and any clean-up costs incurred. Blantant disregard for the issues surrounding the subsurface conditions site will not make them go away, and certainy will not help speed the redevelopment of the property.
With oil terminals, not only do we typically encounter total petroleum hydrocarbons(TPH)in the soil and/or groundwater, but often methyl ethyl ketones(MEK), benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX), kerosenes, lubricating oils, and sometimes even creosote, which results in concentrations of DNAPL. It's difficult, if not impossible to accurately guesstimate the subsurface investigation and laboratory costs without an understanding of number and depth of soil and sediment borings, number of water samples to be collected, drilling company, etc.
If the site is found to be contaminated with concentrations above regulatory reporting limits, then it is the environmental engineer's duty to report the information to the MDE or appropriate regulatory oversight program agency. Remediation could take several months to several years, depending on the degree of contamination and the nature of adversely impacting media. Perhaps they could apply for a Brownfields Program grant.
Either way, it sounds like this property will not be suitable for immediate use and could be contaminating neighboring sites or the underlying aquifer. Off-site contaminant migration is another issue that the City would be responsible for addressing and ultimately funding.
GO HERE to see the original Post published by GA Harrison.
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
15 comments:
It should be noted that this is another example that Salisbury is outsourcing great minds to potentially never return.
A sign of a dying town.
Look at the old Shell station on Rt. 13 across from the Thrift Travel Inn. Most don't know that the shell gas station was shut down and practically abandoned becasue of environmental issues resulting from gasoline leaking into the ground. It would take thousands of dollars to clean up that lot and the damamge it has caused to adjacent properties. If the owners decided to give the property to the city of Salisbury for no cost, it still would not be a deal; since it would take thousands to clean it up and the surrounding properties!! What morons are running our city anyway?? The same ones that think $50K is a deal even if it takes millions to make the property useful!!
Is this DUMP elgible for federal super Funds?
Now that's an intelligent comment.
I love this blog.
I have learned as much from the commenters on this blog, as I have from the articles.
That is the way it is supposed to work. Right?
Shanie ain't never seen no crime or pollution in Salisbury!
Thank you, Debbie Campbell and Terry Cohen for standing up on this!
The line in Heather's comment that gets me is: Either way, it sounds like this property will not be suitable for immediate use and could be contaminating neighboring sites or the underlying aquifer. Off-site contaminant migration is another issue that the City would be responsible for addressing and ultimately funding.
Without knowing what the hell is up with this property before buying it, the city could wind up sued by everyone neighboring it, too!
I'm all for brownfield clean ups, but do it in a way that doesn't put the entire city 6 feet under.
Earth to Shanie Shields: If this is such a damn good deal, why haven't your developer and slumlord buddies jumped on it?
Thank you, Mayor Ireton, for vetoing this nonsense!
Whats up Bubba, still sound like a "STEAL"?
Barrie T was glad to see that Shell station go,the owners were victims of her administration.
Speaking of contaminated sites,whatever happened to the old Koppers plant,outside of Salisbury off Nanticoke Rd?Is there anyone operating there now?
That property is as contaminated as them old J V WELLS property off of Pemperton Dr. extended. Total disaster.
Blah Blah Blah....
The environazies legislate rediculous low levels of compounds in the soil, and then declare everything a toxic dump.
Remember the dioxin site at love canal?
Turns out that the environazies grossely overstated the impact.
Wake up people, these environazies have an agenda!
Dont patronize woman crugg
The article stimulated me, sick huh?
6:42 Anonymous, "environazis," my a$$. No big deal, put YOUR kids on it. The illnesses that show up in kids living on toxic sites like this one aren't "overstated."
Debbie Campbell asked a great question about indemnification. The LLC goes belly up, and the city's got NUTHIN, NUTHIN! to protect it.
Where the HELL is Paul Wilber on showing the same concern Debbie did? Or the amendments Terry Cohen made?
Mayor Ireton ought to fire that worthless Wilber and hire one of those two ladies. He doesn't do anything to protect the legal interests of the city, imho! We probably wouldn't be in the mess we are with the WWTP if Wilber had done his job making sure the right people were held legally accountable.
6:42 Anonymous - what a dolt. This thread has never been about whether environmental laws are good or bad, it is about whether the City should pay $50K for a property with known contamination and saddle the taxpayers with the cleanup costs. Pull your head out and stay on topic.
Post a Comment