Spill cleanup

[L775]

Hi,
This question is related to case is Dade County, Florida.
A spill of contaminant from a dry cleaner is being monitored with minitoring wells for the last 2 to 2.5 years. the DERM is expected to issue what is called an MOP (Monitoring Only Plan)and after that a NFA (No Further Action).
1. would anyone be able to approximate and explaine the various steps and their complexities all the way up to NFA.
2. would an NFA be sufficient and final in terms of future inquiries related to the case?

What is the importance of the above in terms of considering buying the subject property knowing that an MOP will be issued before closing and an NFA to follow after closing on the property purchase transaction?

Thanks,

 

[L775]

Please note that it was disclosed to me that through copies of environmental engineer report that the contaminant level are very low and below legal limits.
Thanks again,

 

[francesca]

Don't buy the property unless the sellers are prepared to pay for a comprehensive environmental assessment of the site. It should be relatively cheap for them seeing as how someone's been monitoring the ground water for them already.

There are all kinds of legal nasties lurking in the area of environmental remediation. For instance, CERCLA provides for joint and severable liability, which means that if person A contributed 1 gallon to a 1,000,000 gallon contaminent spill at a Superfund site, but the EPA can prove they contributed that gallon, then they can be jointly or severably (i.e. solely) responsible for the full cost of the clean-up. It's not a game you want to get involved in, so spend a few hundred dollars getting some quality advice from an environmental engineer with experience in environmental assessments or someone with experience in environmental law.

 

[greenone]

Usually, an NFA has some "cover your butt" language that in effect says the NFA is good based on the information provided and known to date. If in the future, additional contamination is discovered, the NFA can be rescinded.
If you are considering buying the property, hire an environmental consultant to review the work done to date and see if they agree with the scope, or if they recommend additional testing. Depending on the number of reports generated, expect to pay about $1000 for such a review.

 

[ctmtwilliams]

Seems a little confusing that the site as already been monitored for some time, yet a monitoring only plan is about to be issued. You need to see what the regulator (DERM) has had to say about the site and what they expect to see before any NFA is issued. Looking just at the reports from the consultant is a one sided view which tends to be optimistic. I think a review of the file for the site at the DERM would be in order. Additionally, after reviewing the file you could talk to the DERM project manager overseeing the site.

I would also seek advice from counsel regarding indemnification clauses protecting the buyer which work in spite of CERCLA, if you can prove that you didn't contribute to the problem.

 

[francesca]

Being a dry cleaning spill, you're dealing with DNAPLs, that is, contaminents denser than water. They're unbelievably difficult to clean up and unless the monitoring wells go all the way down to the bedrock and you know which way the bedrock is dipping, you can't be sure it's been cleaned up. Their environmental assessment should at a minimum be reviewed independently.

 

[ctmtwilliams]

Almost a full third of my work is involved with the investigation and remediation of dry cleaning sites.

DNAPL is the acronym for "dense non-aqueous phase liquid". It is not uncommon for impacted dry cleaning sites to not have the contaminate present in the liquid phase, but rather only in the vapor phase. Likewise groundwater is commonly impacted with the dissolved phase alone, without the presence of DNAPL or what’s commonly called free product. Prior to worrying about plumes of free product you will see elevated concentrations of contaminate in both the soil and groundwater. Having a plume of free product resting on the top of an aquitard without seeing elevated concentrations well above groundwater clean up standards is highly unlikely. In other words, if your groundwater samples in the area of the spill are at or near what is considered to be NFA levels, you most likely don’t need to worry about free product hiding some where below.

A third party review is fine, but the bottom line is the DERM and what they are willing to accept. That’s why I would go straight to them.

 

[L775]

Groneone wrote:

" If in the future, additional contamination is discovered, the NFA can be rescinded".



1. How could the discovery come about in a worst case scenario?

2. Wouldn't the monitoring wells be sealed or filled with concrete, after the case is considered closed and an NFA is issued?

3. What will happen to the monitoring wells once the NFA is issued?

Thank you very much for your responses. I will be considering a second opinion from and engineer. in the mean time I am learning and getting educated a lot from this great place and this fascinating subject so I can ask the right question. A lot is at stake for me.

 

[DMcGrath]

I have seen (in Virginia) a contaminated site considered "remediation complete" simply by monitoring to determine the level of contamination is lower than the action level, but there is some detectable contamination. A note on the property deed is then added to indicate that the property cannot be developed for things such as a school, day care, hospital, etc, but industrial uses such as manufacturing or a landfill are OK.

 

[dirkbouma]

An article detailing the nature and source of releases of drycleaning fluids (contamination) in Florida can be found at

http://www.drycleancoalition.org/download/leaks/

.

I also very much like the article at

http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc...1448&ctrlInfo=Round20:Mode20d:DocG:Result&ao=

, because it addresses the legal side of a site I worked on to clean up. The cost of the cleanup was significant to the International Fabricare Institute. And it is no wonder the local sanitary district (WSSC) charges are some of the highest in the nation.

Be careful regarding drains, traps, etc. that can collect (and continue to release, over time) DNAPLs like PCE, realizing that sewer systems are typically inherently leaky, and local sanitary districts are beginning to catch on, prohibiting such releases (trying to protect themselves from lawsuits such as described in the article above).

Have a reputable environmental engineer who has experience with such matters examine the reports and available information to provide guidance on the best next step.

 

[kenvlach]

The limited info posted suggests that this is an old spill, there is no free liquid contaminant, the contaminant levels are too low to readily spread (adsorbed on soil particles) or be removed by SVE (soil vapor extraction. In such cases, tetrachloroethylene (aka perc or PCE) and similar chlorinated hydrocarbons are slowly broken down (oxidized) by soil bacteria over time, with stages involving tri- & di-chorinated compounds, eventually becoming harmless as Cl^-, CO₂ and H₂O [although some of the intermediary vinyls are considered more hazardous, e.g., carcinogenic, than the original pollutant]. So, the tetrachlor level should decline with time, the trichlor should increase & then decline, the dichlor should more slowly increase & decline, and the monochlor compounds should even more slowly increase & eventually decline after more years.

This can be monitored by analyzing soil boring samples for all of the chlorinated compounds. Environmental testing labs are familiar with the compounds to look for. An experienced environmental consultant, with some per$ua$ion, may even show you a time sequence of data from an actual site (with identifying data stripped out).

Before buying the property, have an experienced environmental engineer review the data. Perhaps do some boring & testing in addition to testing of samples from the existing monitoring wells. Are these vapor or liquid samples?

 

[elcap373]

Much of my business involves the remediation of former dry cleaning sites. A couple of years ago I wrote a short article for the local Daily Journal of Commerce on the topic (

http://www.djc.com/news/en/11159533.htm).

It is a non-tech article directed at the business community – not engineers. A good web site for information on problems associated with dry cleaners is The State Coalition for Remediation of Dry Cleaners (

http://www.drycleancoalition.org/).

Worst case:

1. You buy the property without consulting an attorney specializing in environmentally impacted real estate and there are no protections in the sale documents against future problems.
2. You get the NFA – which has provisions for re-opening the issue should new data arise.
3. Ten years from now you go to re-finance the property or sell and the financing institution requires a Phase I environmental assessment be done – they discover the past issues and require a Phase II investigation involving a couple of geoprobes to groundwater – and – bingo – they discover a problem.
4. You never had your tenant procure environmental impairment insurance, you have no insurance coverage, the past owner is dead, and you have a legal responsibility to notify the state of your discovery.
5. You now hold the bag! And it can be an expensive bag….

Be careful and thorough!