SU0003951 SSCRPT - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FFseptic TION FROM SITE RECONNAISSANCE AND INTERVIEWS g information was obtained visually or throughan interview with Mr. Straw: The rty contains no underground or above ground storage tanks (USTs/ASTs) and ver has. There is a possibility that the subject property did have at one time an on-site . A wire fence, which is partially torn-down is at the north property border. Apparently, the County had an enforcement action against the property to clean up non-hazardous debris. Since the property to the north is adjacent to an elementary school, it is highly unlikely pesticides are applied to this property. It is unknown if this property is even farmed. Consequently, there appears to be virtually no possibility of minute volumes of agrichemical drift originating from any agricultural production acreage located closest to the property. The entire subject property was walked and surveyed for evidence that may be indicative of surface and/or subsurface contamination: No containers were noted on-site, other than two empty and crushed spray paint cans. No evidence of solid waste disposal was noted, other than two crushed aerosol cans. The site was carefully inspected for environmental concerns originating from discolored, disturbed/subsided soils, stressed vegetation or unusual/noxious odors. None of these environmental indicators were present. As evidenced by the attached photographs, there are no hazardous materials stored on-site and no in ' tion or observati Ils, drums or other items associated with hazardous materials. There is an old drum located just north of the property that has a flammable placard on it. No evidence of liquid hazardous materials were inside, or spilling from this drum, as best that could be determined. The property was closely examined for evidence of drug manufacturing, or the dumping of these types of chemicals. No evidence was observed. An important concern associated with the environmental assessment of open properties is the issue of buried pesticide containers or discarded items. It was an occasional practice to dispose of containers or discarded items by this method many years ago. To detect these types of � underground artifacts is difficult even with the use of ground penetrating radar or other types of non-intrusive, subsurface analyses. The land surface did exhibit slight depressions near the y center of the subject property. However, this may have been the location of an old septic tank. Visual indicators for buried containers such as surfacing of product residue and soil mounding were not observed. It is usually only after a contaminant plume has impacted a domestic well ` that buried pesticide containers are discovered. If buried items are discovered during underground utility placement, or any underground construction,the Environmental Health ` Department must be contacted immediately. There is a comparatively new electrical transformer on a pole near the front of the property next to Michael Avenue and two older transformers near the back of the property. The transformer on Michael Avenue seems new so it probably does not contain polychloride biphenyl (PCB) laden oil. The two transformers in the back look much older,however,there appeared to be no oil leakage from them. Page -2- Chesney Consulting