7/11/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOOK. 95 Fra JE 668 Because, of site remediation liability concerns, staff has been cautious in proceeding with demolition of the referenced structure. On June 23, 1995, county staff met with Charles Vogt of the Environmental Health Department to discuss the most effective means of demolition of the nuisance structure, while limiting any County liability for environmental clean up. Mr. Vogt advised staff that, based upon prior work done on the site, he could stake out the--4- location of the underground tanks. This will allow for heavy, rubber -wheeled trucks to approach the building from the rear and demolish it without disturbing the tanks themselves. He advised that any attempt to remove the tanks would probably cause an event of .discharge because they are already cracked and may have as much as 10% of the tanks' fuel remaining in them. Using a truck -mounted clam shell claw, county road and bridge crews can demolish the bulk of the building, with hand labor finishing off the work as necessary. The estimated cost of the demolition, including landfill fees, is approximately $6,500. With the rubber wheeled truck, clam shell claw, and hand disassembly, Mr. Vogt and county attorneys agree that the county will not incur liability for total site clean-up that could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. With respect to the fuel pumps on site, Mr. Vogt has recommended that a specialty contractor be hired to accomplish removal.- At an estimated cost of $500, the contractor can disconnect and cap any piping leading from the below -ground tanks to the station's pumps. This, too, should ensure that the county does not incur additional liability. Besides the abandoned building and pumps, there is a large dirt pile on the site. The dirt was recently stockpiled on site by a county utility contractor installing a wastewater line on U.S.#1. Because the dirt was excavated from the U.S.#1 right-of-way adjacent to the gas station site, the contaminated dirt was deposited on the subject property while the excavation was backfilled with clean fill. Whether or not the dirt piles can be removed is dependent upon the type of contamination. Testing to determine the type of contamination will cost $2, 000.06. If the dirt is simply contaminated with petroleum, this is considered non -hazardous and may be disposed of at a burn facility. This cost would be approximately $5,000. If, however, the dirt piles are contaminated with heavy metals or other hazardous materials, any shipping or disposal of the dirt pile would make the County liable for the clean up of the entire contaminated site, including any underground contamination. ALTERNATIVES: The county has several alternatives with respect to this matter. These are as follows: 1. Proceed with the demolition as outlined above. This would involve staking out the underground tanks; identifying safe routes for trucks to enter and demolish the building from the rear; having a pollution specialty contractor cap off any piping and remove the dispensing pumps; testing the dirt piles for signs of any hazardous materials or heavy metals; and removing the dirt piles to a burn facility if only petroleum is found. The total cost for this alternative would be approximately $14, 000. 2 . Same as Alternative No. 1, except the dirt piles would be disposed of even if they were found to contain hazardous materials. With this alternative, the County would be liable for environmental clean up of the entire site, including underground soil contamination. The cost to the county could be several hundred thousand dollars if it is found liable. 3. The county could opt to have the entire site and affected off-site areas cleaned up and apply for reimbursement from the state. The cost would be several hundred thousand dollars, and prospects for reimbursement are slight. 4. The county could board up/ secure the building, but not remove any structures . 5. No action. JULY 11, 1995 24 M M