Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment

321 N. Fort Ave. (McCoy Iron & Metal)

Date of Report: July, 2006
Assessment Funding:
Acres: 0.6

Site Background

The subject site occupies approximately one acre of land within the southern portion of a larger four-acre parcel owned by McCoy Iron and Metal. The subject one-acre portion is without structures and is heavily vegetated with brush and trees. Land use research generally documents the subject property as one-acre of undeveloped land, with the exception of an abandoned rail spur and a former bulk petroleum AST location that may have encroached onto the north-central portion of the property. The subject property is situated within a larger four-acre parcel historically occupied by metals salvage, bulk petroleum, and asphalt distribution facilities directly north and up-gradient of the assessment area. Salvage yard operations to the north are ongoing.

Environmental Works, Inc. completed a Phase I assessment of the subject property in July 2005. This assessment identified historical and ongoing land uses within the north-adjoining property as an ASTM-defined Recognized Environmental Condition (REC) in connection with the subject one-acre segment. The reported REC also included public complaints of used oil containers, idle/abandoned equipment, and petroleum spills associated with facility operations to the north.

Findings

Terracon Consultants Inc. completed a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the property in July 2006. Eight soil borings were advanced to collect surface and subsurface soil samples.

One soil sample indicated a lead concentration above the default target level (DTL). Reportedly levels of petroleum and/or petroleum-associated constituents were identified in seven of the on-site boring locations. Reported total petroleum levels do not exceed applicable DTLs. However, two samples did have various PAH concentrations above respective DTLs. Based on the Tier 1 comparisons noted in the report, exposure risks in connection with the subject property are not apparent given current and prospective land uses. Identified conditions do not document contaminant distribution trends or suggest on-site contaminant point sources. In addition, Phase I findings indicate the potential for upgradient sources on adjoining property to the north. Consequently, reported soil concentrations may be associated with historical and/or off-site releases. Additional upgradient sampling would be necessary to fully characterize site conditions and identify specific contaminant sources. Phase II data do not indicate the need for additional investigation and/or corrective action in response to identified site conditions or current exposure risks, absent the higher-risk redevelopment scenarios noted in the report.