Villages of Columbus - Columbus Square - toxins in soil ?

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
F

flmgrip_IHB

New member
anyone concerned about the contaminated grounds ? the purchase contract has a few pages listing potential hazards... VOC's, TCE, MTBE, 1,2,3 TCP...



can we drink the tap water, take showers and sit on the grass ?



are we doomed to have cancer in 20 years, grow a third arm and turn green ?



or is this not worse or better than anywhere else in greater L.A./O.C. area ?



it is very hard to find info on this... your input is appreciated.



thanks
 
<p><em>From a former post of mine, many moons ago...</em></p>

<p> </p>

<p>"Tustin MCAS Superfund Site Study by the EPA can be found at this link: </p>

<p><a href="http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/dfa/download/tustin.pdf">http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/dfa/download/tustin.pdf</a></p>

<p>In my view this is more relevant and a lighter reading (at 40 pages) with a graphical representation of the toxicplume on a map of the base on the cover page!</p>

<p>The EPA Superfund record is 315 pages long and can be found at the following link:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/dfa/download/tustin.pdf">http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/dfa/download/tustin.pdf</a></p>

<p>It is very interesting to see how they strees "no action is the remedy" for several sites (starting on page 14).</p>

<p>Happy weekend reading! Make sure you order a subscription to one of <a href="http://www.arrowheadwater.com/Default.aspx">these</a>. Only $1 a day might save your kids' lives..."</p>
 
flmgrip, I had the same concern as you prior to looking/buying at VOC. We contacted an engineer at the city of Tustin, who informed us that VOC (some areas I believe) are not built on contaminated plumes, that the Navy was responsible for cleanup and have been doing so since the mid 90's, that they dug up all of the "contaminated" soil prior and replaced it with new soil, and that monitoring devices were put in for safety precautions.



This came from the city of Tustin, however I still don't plan on drinking the tap water when I move in. It never hurts to be cautious, no matter what you're told.
 
Indeed. The tap water is safe, as its it taken from elsewhere, and not wells on the land. In fact, each water district is required to send out annually a report on the water quality of the water it sends you. The pipes between IRWD and your spout are generally the causes of any problems, and not IRWD water itself.





What you will want to check on, is whether the water used to water the landscaping, etc. is "reclaimed," or not. The City of Irvine uses reclaimed water for its street landscaping. You don't want to drink that.
 
<em>The City of Irvine uses reclaimed water for its street landscaping. You don't want to drink that.





</em>Maybe it wasn't Kool-Aid after all...
 
The one thing you may need to be careful of is eating fruit off trees grown in the yard. These may put roots down to the contaminated soil and water.
 
Except there is no contaminated soil and water. Please see myfirsthome's post at <a href="http://forums.irvinehousingblog.com/discussion/31/3/villages-of-columbus-columbus-square-camden-place/">forums.irvinehousingblog.com/discussion/31/3/villages-of-columbus-columbus-square-camden-place/</a>
 
quote:" Happy weekend reading! Make sure you order a subscription to one of these. Only $1 a day might save your kids' lives..."



oh you mean bottled tap-water ?
 
There is still contaminated water and soil if you go deep enough. The decontamination efforts only remove a certain depth of surface soil to prevent leaching of toxins in a rain event or having it picked up in grass or landscape plants. Mature trees with deep root systems may penetrate this depth. Contaminated groundwater is very difficult to contain and control. It is probably quite deep, but a saturating rain over several days could possibly bring some of this water to the surface. Fortunately, we all learned from Love Canal (the hard way) so the engineers have probably evaluated these risks and mitigated to the degree feasible. Of course, none of this makes much difference if a cancer cluster develops there 10 years from now. If you live in a house there, you are living on top of some amount of toxic soil and water. You are betting that the engineers have contained the problem. Probably a safe bet, but a bet none the less.
 
IIRC, depending on which side of VOC you are on, there is a disclosure about not growing fruit trees. Sadly (or maybe not), that's one of the things that killed Astoria for us.
 
I won't have a clue about the soil conditiona at VOC. However, if the seller REQUIRES me to sign a piece of paper and consent to no fruit tree for eating purposes, I think it is enough said. Sellers' E&O liablity insurance might require them to have that form to limit their potential liabilities. Someone must not be comfortable with the soil condition.
 
<p>IR, *parts* of the airfield have contaminated groundwater (where the circles used to be). The housing is not built on those parts, it is not even legal to do so. If you are suggesting contaminated parts can affect uncontaminated parts, then all of OC is at risk. The disclosures are required by law since you are buying on the same piece of land (old zip code 92710).</p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>
 
In my 'real' life, I work as a civil/environmental engineer doing the clean-up of sites like the Tustin base. Disclaimer: I've not had any involvement with the Tustin base and its redevelopment, although I have done work on other military facilities, as well as a small project for the Irvine Ranch Water District. I did a quick review of EPA's Record of Decision for the Tustin site, and, for myself, I would not have a concern for living on the redeveloped site. If I had small kids that would play in the dirt in the back yard (if I had a back yard!), I might want to take a look at the contaminant maps to see what concerns were present in the immediate area where I plan to live, and then get a more complete description of the remediation that was undertaken for those concerns. If contaminated soil was present, was it left in place, treated in place, or removed? What level of contamination was permitted to remain? At what depth? As far as the tap water is concerned, it comes from the same sources as all the other drinking water in Irvine, so there's no added concern because of possible groundwater contamination beneath your home. You don't use the groundwater for anything, not even irrigation. There are two concerns with groundwater and soil that I consider legitimate. First, are volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) diffusing from the water, upward through the unsaturated soil above it, and entering the breathing space of your home? I believe this to be extremely unlikely in this instance, because it is one of the risks considered (and addressed) before the developer was allowed to build on the property. Also, Southern California homes in general are NOT tightly built. Any gaseous contaminant that manages to diffuse through your floor will pass quickly out to the outdoor air. It won't accumulate in the home. The second possible concern is fruits and garden crops grown, either in contaminated soil, or in areas where contaminated groundwater would be drawn into the roots. I would rank this concern as very minor for three reasons. If shallow soils were contaminated, they would have been excavated and replaced as part of the remediation process. Second, the groundwater depth is listed as being between four and 34 feet beneath the surface at various locations on the site, according to the document I scanned. Few food crops have roots that go that deep. I am not an agricultural expert, but I'll bet your typical backyard orange tree doesn't have roots deeper than five feet. Finally, what percentage of your food intake is from your backyard? Think of it like eating one slice of pizza. It may not be the most healthy food you will eat, but it's probably not going to kill you in moderation.
 
wow. lot's of useful input. the property i'm looking at does not have a yard and i can't seem to keep plants alive, leave alone a plant or tree for fruits... so it's seem like i would be just fine.



i do plan on having a whole house water filter and undersink filter for drinking water to be on the safe side even tho i am fully aware the drinking water is the same then where i am living right now.



thanks for all the comments
 
<p>GoIllini:</p>

<p>Thank you for being the voice of reason.</p>

<p>Flmgrip:</p>

<p>This is just my opinion, but I feel you are totally overreacting. My wife (who is also a civil engeneer) formerly lived in an area without potable water. You were instructed by the local authorites not to drink or cook with the tap water, and advised to not shower or wash clothes in it. It wasn't until 2003 when they finished the local water project. There is no problem with the water in OC, but if you want to spend your money on a setup that will provide zero improvment over what you already have (if your intention is to protect your family) so you'll feel better, go for it.</p>

<p>Graphix:</p>

<p>If you really want clean water, find a way to gather the output of the waste water treatment plant. I'm not kidding. The stuff going out of the plant is cleaner than the stuff coming in your house, save the "ICK" factor. And they test it constantly. At some point in the future, we'll run out of water in this state and we'll reuse the WWTP output - after a monster PR campaign.</p>
 
And the "ICK" factor rears it's ugly head.



The water exiting the WWTP is so clean they have to add minerals back into it so they can dump it into the ocean. The plant strips everything out. You get a "bloom" in the ocean in the WWTP's output stream because the water leaving the WWTP is much warmer than the water in the ocean.
 
<p>Trooper--all water everywhere has probably been excreted thru countless animals, many many times over the millenia. Somebody on NPR calculated that every time we breathe we inhale at least one molecule from Julius Caesar's last breath. When water evaporates it takes very little if anything with it and falls back down bringing with it only the contaminants it encountered in the air. If you want to find "virgin" water, good luck; there isn't any. And hasn't been any for several billion years.</p>

<p>If the water is clean it is just H2O with some trace elements. By the way, only some people can taste water. I'm one of them. As a kid, I specified that my water be in a "glass" glass, not the pretty metalic things we had. My family thought I was weird. I assume the water tasters are tasting the trace elements therein. I suppose this should be on the useless facts thread.</p>

<p>If you're going to worry, why not worry about bovine growth hormone they inject into most cows. Or the dead soil that most commercial crops are grown in. Or the pesticides they spray on everything. Or the fact that Americans eat 150 pounds of sugar a year.</p>

<p>Or, whatever horrible stuff was in the Halloween candy you let your kids eat. Was any of it from China?</p>
 
<p>Gollini's post above seems to have moderated the discussion to a rational level that is refreshing. I have the following points of offer:</p>

<p><em>-Gollini: "If I had small kids that would play in the dirt in the back yard (if I had a back yard!), I might want to take a look at the contaminant maps to see what concerns were present in the immediate area where I plan to live, and then get a more complete description of the remediation that was undertaken for those concerns."</em></p>

<p><em>-Gollini: "Finally, what percentage of your food intake is from your backyard? Think of it like eating one slice of pizza. It may not be the most healthy food you will eat, but it's probably not going to kill you in moderation."</em></p>

<p>To keeps things on balance, MTBE is known to cause cancer in lab animals in really high concentrations, unlikely to occur in reality with humans. TCE is known cause liver problems and increased risk of cancer.</p>

<p>My greatest concern would be about the kids. Grown ups presumably know better, and can handle their chosen environments in a more rational matter. Small amounts of contaminants have a greater impact on kids as compared to what they do to adults. This is a simple concept to understand because say an average 1 year old is 20 lb, vs. an adults is say 200 lb, a 1:10 ratio. The concentration of a potential contaminant, given the same amount of consumption (say 1 oz of contaminated water, or 1 teaspoon of contaminated soil - kids are know to ingest dirt from time to time) on a 20 lb weight is going to be 10x higher than on a 200 lb adult. Depending on the chemistry of absorption of the contaminant on the human body, it may or may not harm the body (most contaminants end up being excreted out or get harmlessly deposited into the fatty layers of the body).</p>

<p>The issue I have on the toxic plume can be expressed as something like this: <a href="http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/drinking/mtbe.pdf">MTBE </a>for example, is known to be hydrophilic, i.e. it "loves" water, and an underground plume of MTBE tends to seek out groundwater supplies miles away from the point of injection into the ground due to its chemical nature. Even if the topsoil is presumably cleaned up (replaced, detoxed, whatever) wouldn't MTBE that is left deep underground seek out other sources of water on the surface, such as sprinklers used for landscaping? Maybe someone with a background in chemistry can help me understand this better - maybe this is a non-issue.</p>

<p>BTW, the EPA has great information on may drinking water contaminants here: <a href="http://www.epa.gov/safewater/contaminants/index.html">http://www.epa.gov/safewater/contaminants/index.html</a></p>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top