I have been in the hazardous waste cleanup business for over 20 years, working for both the public and private sectors, and am currently a US state official responsible for managing waste cleanup projects. Let me chime in with a few points:

1. I should first raise an objection to the misuse of environmental laws in support of non-environmental objectives. I see this all the time from people who have an interest in stopping development, but rather than citing the real reasons for their objections (which may be perfectly legitimate), they go fishing for an environmental rationale, whether it be concerns about hazardous waste, endangered species, wetlands, etc., because they think they'll be more successful that way. This sort of thig makes the business of protecting and cleaning up the environemtn substantially more difficult, because all of the ulterior motives cloud the real issues and cast doubt on the sincerity of those of us who are truly in this to protect the environment. If this condo development is objectionable, by all means make your voice heard -- but do it honestly, by pointing to the real reasons you are against it. It's a better approach, because you maintain your personal integrity, and you don't contribute to the disparagement of environmentalists as being categorically anti-development.

2. Having said that, I should correct a few misimpressions. One is that solvents are not "persistent". That may be true on the surface of the ground, where they will volatilize and contribute to a diffuse air contamination problem rather than a localized soil/groundwater contamination problem. But once they get into the soil and groundwater, they can stay around for a long time, depending on a variety of geochemical and hydrologic factors. And if contaminated groundwater is migrating towards public or private drinking water supplies, it can be a very big problem indeed. It only takes a very small concentration of some of these chmicals (measured in parts per billion) to constitute a substantial health problem.

3. Another misimpression that I should correct is that, since manufacturers don't like to waste money, they won't let these substances escape their plants (the reationale being that lost materials translates into increased manufacturing expenses, and no sane manufacturer would knowingly increase his manufacturing costs by wasting his materials). If that were true, we wouldn't have half the environmental problems that we do today. In fact, until fairly recently it was common for spent (used) solvents to be poured directly into the ground, or down floor drains, or buried in drums in the back lot, and it is still common for them to escape from leaky underground tanks and piping, or be spilled during deliveries, etc. Solvents have also commonly been introduced into the environment through condensation from ventilation systems in areas of the plant used for spray painting, metal parts cleaning, etc. Again, as I mentioned earlier, it doesn't take much of this stuff to create a big problem, since health-based concentration thresholds are so low; a slow drip from a leaky vent hood over time is all it takes. And if a plant has been in operation for many years, that means they have had many years to create these problems.

4. Finally, someone before me suggested that you have to look at the totality of what they did at this factory, and I couldn't agree more, whether it's a piano factory, or a shoe factory, or a medical office, or any of a number of other types of facilities. Did they heat the building with oil from an underground tank? Did they have delivery vehicles of their own that were fueled or maintained on the premises? Did they have electrical transformers containing dielectric fluids made with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)? Did they use an abundance of pesticides in maintaining the grounds? Did they paint the building with lead-based paints, or insulate it with asbestos or vermiculite insulation, or toss asbestos shingles or floor tiles in a pile out back when they renovated some portion of the plant? Did they produce marketing brochures using photoprocessing chemicals? You can look at the "obvious" stuff, like mercury in the manufacture of felt (even though the felt was probably manufactured elsewhere and the finished product delivered to the plant), but often it's the less obvious stuff that will turn out to be the real problem.

5. Assuming you are comfortable ignoring my first caution, I think the best you can do is raise your concerns and insist that some testing of soils and groundwater be conducted as a precautionary measure prior to demolition and/or construction. The tests should be relatively comprehensive, since you don't know exactly what you're looking for, and should include the chemicals that the US Environmental Protection Agency (and their counterparts in many other countries) classify as "priority pollutants," including volatile organic compounds (VOCs, including the solvents mentioned earlier, as well as other petroleum derivatives), metals, pesticides, and PCBs.

6. Assuming your objections are well-founded, and your intentions are honest, I wish you good luck with this.

Whistle Stop