Environmental Survivability of an Unburied Treasure Container in the American West

Low Rents

Abstract

This paper evaluates the long-term survival prospects of a non-buried treasure container hidden in the wilderness of the American West. The scenario assumes the treasure is placed on the surface, in a crevice, beneath a rock overhang, in a talus pocket, under vegetation, or otherwise above grade, rather than underground. That distinction matters: once a container is not buried, the dominant risks shift away from classic soil burial chemistry and toward wildfire heat, ultraviolet radiation, wind-driven abrasion, freeze-thaw cycling, flood transport, post-fire debris flows, rockfall, animal interference, and human discovery. Across western landscapes, the most consequential all-hazards threats are usually displacement and seal failure, not merely corrosion. Federal and scientific sources show that western wildfires can generate very high surface temperatures, post-fire debris flows can be triggered by surprisingly modest rainfall, flash-flood hydraulics can move small dense objects, and climate normals confirm that the American West contains a wide range of recurrent heat, cold, wetting, drying, and storm regimes over decadal timescales. Materials science literature further shows that outdoor exposure rapidly degrades many polymers, while elastomer seals can age unpredictably over long horizons. Taken together, the evidence indicates that the best survival odds for an exposed or partially sheltered treasure cache come from a high-grade metal container, especially stainless steel, with the fewest possible seal interfaces and with placement outside transport corridors such as washes, fans, gullies, and burn-scar drainages.

1. Introduction

A buried object and an unburied object do not fail in the same way. Burial often reduces ultraviolet exposure, buffers daily temperature swings, and may physically immobilize the container. By contrast, an unburied treasure container in the American West is exposed directly to sunlight, precipitation, temperature extremes, animals, wildfire, and moving water. In practical terms, the question is not only whether the container body survives, but whether it stays where it was hidden, remains watertight enough, and avoids being crushed, burned, relocated, or found.

The American West is a particularly demanding test environment because it combines multiple hazard regimes: active earthquake zones, steep terrain prone to landslides and rockfall, extensive wildfire landscapes, post-fire debris-flow basins, monsoonal flash-flood terrain, coastal chloride exposure in some regions, alpine freeze-thaw environments, and desert heat with intense UV loading. NOAA’s U.S. Climate Normals are based on 30-year averages and show why a “western wilderness” assumption necessarily spans repeated wetting-drying cycles, storm seasons, heat seasons, and winter freezing in many subregions.

This paper therefore analyzes the problem in a structured way: first by defining the most relevant western hazards for an unburied cache, then by evaluating common container materials, then by mapping hazard mechanisms to likely failure modes, and finally by ranking survival prospects over multi-year horizons.

2. Scope, Assumptions, and Research Question

2.1 Scope

The analysis assumes a treasure hidden in the American West in a wilderness or semi-wilderness setting, exposed above grade. It is not buried, although it may be:

fully exposed on the ground,
tucked beneath rock cover,
wedged in a crevice,
placed in talus,
under woody debris,
under vegetation or litter,
or sheltered beneath an overhang.

Those placements still count as unburied because the container remains governed mostly by atmospheric and surface processes rather than true subsurface burial conditions.

2.2 Central Research Question

Given a non-buried treasure hidden in the American West, which environmental hazards are most likely to damage, destroy, relocate, or preserve the treasure, and which container materials provide the best survival profile over time?

2.3 Definition of Failure

For this paper, “failure” includes any of the following:

the container body breaks, deforms, or burns through;
the seal fails and water enters;
the container is relocated by water, debris, slope movement, animals, or people;
the container becomes inaccessible due to burial under rock or debris;
the treasure is discovered or removed by humans.

That definition matters because a treasure can “survive” structurally while still being effectively lost if it is swept downstream or buried under a debris fan.

3. Methods

This paper uses a comparative hazard-analysis framework built from authoritative hazard sources and materials-aging literature. Hazard characterization draws primarily from U.S. Geological Survey, NOAA/NWS, USDA Forest Service, and NOAA climate references. Material aging and seal-performance sections rely on peer-reviewed or research-indexed materials studies, especially those covering polymer weathering, UV degradation, and elastomer seal aging.

The risk analysis is qualitative but structured. Each hazard is evaluated for:

probability of exposure in western environments,
damage mode,
likelihood of relocation,
likelihood of water ingress,
dependence on material choice, and
dependence on placement choice.

4. Hazard Environment of an Unburied Cache

4.1 Wildfire

Wildfire is one of the most obvious and severe threats to an exposed cache in the American West. USDA Forest Service research reports that the highest documented soil-surface temperature in its global evaluation reached approximately 964°C in a shrubland wildfire, while most heating in typical fires remains shallow and short-lived below the surface. That is highly relevant here because an unburied container is not protected by the buffering effect of soil. A surface cache can therefore be exposed directly to flame, radiant heat, ash, char, and post-fire runoff.

For metals, wildfire is usually not a “melts the box” event so much as a seal and interface event. Stainless or bronze bodies may remain intact, but polymer gaskets, adhesives, linings, paint systems, and polymer inserts may degrade or fail. For plastics, wildfire is much more serious: direct flame or high radiant loading can warp, soften, embrittle, crack, or consume the container outright. Even where the body survives, heat can permanently alter lid geometry and destroy watertightness.

The second wildfire hazard is often worse than the first: post-fire debris flow and runoff. USGS notes that in southern California, debris flows have been triggered by as little as 7 millimeters of rain in 30 minutes, and that the first rainy season after fire is especially dangerous. A cache that survives the flames may still be swept away in the next storm.

Wildfire implication for treasure survival

For exposed caches, wildfire is a high-severity hazard. It favors containers with high heat tolerance and minimal reliance on elastomers, coatings, or plastics. Placement close to heavy fuels, duff, shrubs, downed wood, or litter dramatically increases risk.

4.2 Flooding and Flash Floods

For non-buried treasure, flood is less a corrosion problem than a transport problem. NWS flood safety guidance emphasizes the force of moving water, and even relatively shallow fast water can move debris and heavy objects. Once a cache is above grade, the governing question becomes whether water can exert enough drag, buoyancy, or rolling force to move it.

Western landscapes are full of transport corridors that look benign in dry weather: arroyos, washes, alluvial fans, ephemeral channels, steep gullies, and slickrock drainages. A treasure tucked in or near one of those features may appear well hidden while actually occupying the very path of episodic high-energy flow. Material choice helps only a little here. Stainless steel survives immersion better than wood or plastic, but even the best container is functionally lost if it is carried downstream or buried under meters of gravel and woody debris.

A related point is that flood hazard is magnified after fire. USGS explains that fire frequently reduces infiltration, causing more rainfall to run off overland rather than soak into soil. That makes burn scars uniquely dangerous for anything left on the surface.

Flood implication for treasure survival

Flood and flash flood are among the highest overall risks because they can relocate the treasure instantly, regardless of material strength. The best mitigation is not “stronger material”; it is avoiding active flow paths entirely.

4.3 Debris Flows and Landslides

USGS distinguishes shallow landslides from debris flows and notes that debris flows can move rapidly and carry soil, boulders, and trees. In practical treasure terms, this means a cache can be:

struck by moving rock,
buried deeply,
transported downslope,
or crushed under impact loading.

This hazard matters most in steep western terrain, especially in burned basins, unstable colluvium, canyon mouths, fan heads, and steep roadless drainages. A treasure container under a rock shelf or in talus may seem protected from casual discovery but can become much more vulnerable to slope movement and rockfall.

Debris-flow implication for treasure survival

Debris flow is a catastrophic-displacement hazard. It is one of the few processes that can defeat nearly every container class at once by combining burial, impact, abrasion, and transport.

4.4 Earthquakes, Surface Shaking, and Rockfall

USGS distinguishes earthquake magnitude from local intensity, noting that shaking varies by geology and location. For a small treasure cache, earthquakes are not primarily a direct “container body” hazard; they are a secondary hazard generator. Shaking can trigger rockfall, talus shift, ledge collapse, slope movement, and changes in the stability of the very hiding place chosen.

If the treasure is hidden in fractured rock, a crevice, under unstable slabs, or in steep canyon country, seismic shaking can either expose it or trap it under rockfall. Brittle materials such as glass or ceramic fare especially poorly in these settings. Tough metals do better, but no material choice fully compensates for a bad mechanical setting.

Earthquake implication for treasure survival

For most western caches, earthquake is a moderate direct hazard but a high indirect hazard where slope instability or rockfall exposure exists.

4.5 Freeze–Thaw and Thermal Cycling

Thermal cycling is a major long-term stressor for an above-ground cache. Unlike a buried object, an exposed container can see large daily and seasonal temperature swings. That means repeated expansion and contraction of the container body, fasteners, lid interfaces, and seals. Where water is present, freezing can worsen the problem by expanding in cracks or around closure surfaces.

The most vulnerable points are usually not the walls of the box but the lid system, threads, latch geometry, gasket compression, and hinge alignment. Containers combining different materials—such as a metal body with a polymer gasket or polymer handle—are especially susceptible because their thermal expansion behavior differs. Over enough cycles, that mismatch can reduce clamp load or create leak paths.

Freeze–thaw implication for treasure survival

Freeze-thaw is usually a slow degradation hazard, but over a decade-plus horizon it can be decisive for seal failure and placement stability, especially in alpine and montane settings.

4.6 UV Radiation and Outdoor Weathering

This is one of the biggest differences between buried and unburied treasure. Outdoor polymer degradation literature shows that plastics degrade under the combined action of sunlight, air, heat, and moisture. The effect is not just cosmetic fading; it can include oxidation, embrittlement, cracking, and loss of impact strength.

A peer-reviewed PET study found that A-PET films lost plasticity even after relatively brief UV exposure, and puncture resistance dropped markedly with continued aging. While that study is on film rather than treasure boxes, the mechanism is directly relevant: UV can sharply reduce toughness in exposed plastics.

For an exposed cache in high-elevation western sun, UV should be treated as a major long-horizon hazard for polymers, coatings, sealants, and labels. Metal bodies are comparatively unaffected by UV itself, though painted or polymer-coated surfaces may still degrade.

UV implication for treasure survival

Unprotected plastic containers are poor long-term candidates for exposed hiding. Even if they remain intact for a while, their toughness and seal reliability tend to trend downward.

4.7 Wind-Blown Sand and Abrasion

In desert, plateau, dune-margin, or sparsely vegetated country, wind is not just a nuisance. ASTM G76 exists specifically because solid-particle impingement erosion is a real and measurable material-loss process. ASTM notes that the method is used to measure and rank material loss under gas-entrained particle impact. That matters for a western cache because abrasive dust and sand can steadily wear coatings, scratch transparent or polymer surfaces, and roughen closure interfaces.

Abrasion rarely destroys a metal box quickly by itself, but it accelerates other failures. It can remove paint, expose carbon steel, roughen gasket contact surfaces, and create crevice sites where moisture is retained. For plastics, abrasion can combine with UV to accelerate cracking.

Abrasion implication for treasure survival

Wind abrasion is usually a medium-severity chronic hazard, but in desert terrain it can materially reduce the life of coatings, labels, and polymer closures over the long term.

4.8 Extreme Heat

NOAA notes that Death Valley holds the official world-record air temperature of 134°F, and temperatures there frequently reach or exceed 100°F from mid-May into early October. Even without relying on the absolute world-record figure as a design case, the practical takeaway is that western desert air temperatures are easily high enough to accelerate aging in polymers, adhesives, and seals.

For a treasure container, extreme heat has three major effects:

it speeds oxidation and aging;
it softens or weakens some polymers;
it compounds thermal-expansion stress at joints and seals.

A metal container can survive hot-air exposure much better than polymer ones, but seal life may still be shortened materially.

4.9 Moisture, Wet-Dry Cycling, and Surface Corrosion

Because the treasure is not buried, the dominant corrosion mode is atmospheric and splash/wet-dry cycling, not deep soil corrosion. That still can be severe. ISO 9223 classifies atmospheric corrosivity and shows that first-year carbon-steel corrosion ranges from very low in benign environments to very high in extreme marine or industrial conditions. The important point is not the exact number at one site, but that exposed carbon steel can corrode rapidly when chloride, wetness, and deposits are present.

For non-buried caches in coastal western zones, chloride-rich aerosols make corrosion notably worse. Even away from the coast, repeated condensation, snowmelt, dew, and trapped moisture beneath vegetation or rock can create a persistent corrosion microclimate. Stainless steels perform much better than carbon steel under these conditions, though crevice corrosion remains a design concern where deposits and retained moisture concentrate at seams.

Corrosion implication for treasure survival

Carbon steel can be made strong, but it is a weak long-term choice for exposed wilderness placement unless it has excellent coating protection and stays out of wet or saline microclimates. Stainless steel is substantially safer.

4.10 Soil and Organic Microclimates in Surface Contact

Although this paper assumes the treasure is not buried, many real-world hiding spots would still place the container in partial contact with organic litter, damp moss, talus fines, or mineral soil. Copper industry guidance notes that underground corrosion risk increases with moisture, chlorides, sulfates, low resistivity, organic acids, and poor drainage. Those same variables matter in micro-scale for a container resting against damp vegetation, decomposing organics, or wet mineral fines.

This is especially important for containers hidden under vegetation or litter. Shading reduces UV, but it often raises moisture retention and organic-acid exposure while increasing fuel proximity in fire-prone country.

4.11 Animals

Animals are usually not the first thing people think about, but they matter more for exposed caches than buried ones. Rodents, bears, corvids, and other opportunistic wildlife may move or chew objects, especially if the cache contains leather, food-like scents, cloth, wood, or residues from human handling. The hazard is lower for smooth heavy metal containers and higher for polymer, wood, leather-wrapped, fabric, or resinous containers.

Animal risk is generally a relocation or nuisance hazard, not an all-material destruction hazard, but that is enough to lose a treasure. A box moved ten yards into brush or under talus may effectively disappear.

4.12 Human Discovery and Recreational Disturbance

For an above-ground treasure, human discovery may be the single highest-probability loss pathway in many settings. Geocaching guidance discourages burying caches, and BLM geocaching guidance reflects that unmanaged caches can conflict with public-land rules and land stewardship. Separately, archaeological resource protections on public and tribal lands can create serious legal issues if a hiding strategy disturbs protected sites or encourages excavation.

Even without intentional treasure-seeking, hikers, climbers, hunters, campers, and off-trail users move rocks, gather firewood, take breaks under overhangs, and investigate unusual objects. That means concealment strategy and placement often matter more than raw material strength.

5. Material Analysis

5.1 Stainless Steel

Stainless steel is the strongest overall candidate for an exposed western cache. Its key advantages are:

strong atmospheric corrosion resistance,
high heat tolerance relative to wildfire-adjacent temperatures,
high impact resistance relative to ceramics and glass,
and resistance to UV damage because the metal itself is not photodegraded.

Its main weaknesses are not the metal body but crevices, threads, hinges, and seals. If chloride deposits, moisture, ash, or trapped fines concentrate in seams, localized attack is still possible, especially in lower-alloy grades or coastal environments. Still, among realistic wilderness materials, stainless steel is the most robust all-around option.

Stainless steel verdict

Best overall survival profile, especially for 10+ year exposure.

5.2 Bronze

Bronze performs very well outdoors and has a long historical record of survival. It is corrosion-resistant, non-brittle, and heat-tolerant. It is typically less vulnerable than carbon steel and often aesthetically suitable for a treasure concept. Its limitations are cost, weight, and somewhat lower structural efficiency than stainless for the same mass.

Bronze verdict

Excellent long-term survivability, somewhat behind stainless in practical container engineering but still among the best choices.

5.3 Aluminum

Aluminum resists general atmospheric corrosion reasonably well because of its oxide layer and offers lower weight. But it is mechanically softer than stainless steel and can deform more easily under rockfall or crushing loads. Its heat performance is also less forgiving than stainless in severe wildfire-adjacent scenarios.

Aluminum verdict

Good but not top-tier; vulnerable where impact, deformation, or severe heat are likely.

5.4 Carbon Steel / Painted Steel / Ammo-Can Type Containers

Carbon steel containers can be mechanically tough, and military-style ammo cans are often assumed to be ideal treasure containers. The problem is that above-ground survival is usually limited by coating damage and gasket aging, not initial strength. Once paint is chipped or abraded and moisture is retained, corrosion accelerates. The gasket is another weak point, particularly under long UV, heat, and compression exposure.

Carbon steel verdict

Short-to-medium-term viable, long-term risky, especially in wet, coastal, or high-abrasion settings.

5.5 Plastics and Polymer Boxes

Polymer containers look attractive because they are lightweight and initially waterproof, but exposed western environments are hard on them. Outdoor weathering literature shows sunlight, oxygen, heat, and moisture can synergistically degrade polymers. The PET study cited earlier found substantial property loss under UV exposure, including reduced plasticity and reduced puncture resistance.

Even if a plastic box survives without obvious cracking, its lid geometry, latch toughness, and sealing behavior may degrade. Wildfire and heat are particularly bad for polymers, and long-term UV plus abrasion is a poor combination.

Plastic verdict

Poor choice for long-duration exposed hiding, unless heavily shielded from light and heat and not relied upon as the only barrier.

A follow-up paper will explore the Pelican-case concept in-depth.

5.6 Wood

Wood is a romantic treasure material but a poor engineering material for unburied long-term western exposure. It is vulnerable to rot, cracking, charring, insect damage, animal gnawing, and wet-dry dimensional movement. Even in arid regions, episodic moisture and solar cycling eventually cause serious degradation.

Wood verdict

Low survival probability for long horizons.

5.7 Stone, Ceramic, and Glass

These materials are excellent against UV and generally excellent against heat, but they are vulnerable to impact and fracture. A ceramic jar hidden in talus or under unstable rock might survive untouched for many years, but if struck, shifted, or dropped, failure is often catastrophic.

Stone / ceramic / glass verdict

Chemically durable but mechanically fragile; unsuitable where rockfall, slope movement, or freeze-thaw disturbance is plausible.

6. The Seal Problem

For long-term treasure survival, the container body is only half the story. The seal system may matter more. The 2019 PMC study on O-ring seal failure found that compression-related properties are tied to sealing function and that leakage behavior is the true end-of-life issue. The 2020 long-term aging study showed very large differences in predicted lifetimes among common elastomers such as HNBR, EPDM, and FKM, while the OSTI review warns that accelerated-aging extrapolations can be misleading if diffusion-limited oxidation or temperature-regime changes alter the degradation mechanism.

That means a treasure hider who chose a great metal box but a mediocre gasket may still have built a poor long-horizon cache. In exposed wilderness service, the safest assumption is that elastomer seals are consumable components, not forever components. UV shielding, reduced heat load, lower compression loss, and fewer openings all improve survival odds.

Seal verdict

The best long-term cache is the one with the fewest and most protected sealing interfaces.

7. Placement Analysis

7.1 Fully Exposed Placement

This is the worst long-term case. It maximizes UV, heat, rainfall, snow, wind abrasion, and discovery probability. Even a good metal container is needlessly stressed in this configuration.

7.2 Under Rock or Overhang

This is often the best compromise. It reduces UV, reduces direct rain loading, moderates temperature swings somewhat, and improves concealment. The downside is mechanical risk if the rock is unstable or in active freeze-thaw terrain.

7.3 Under Vegetation or Litter

This reduces sunlight but increases retained moisture, organic exposure, fuel proximity in wildfire, and biological interaction. It is a mixed strategy, not a clearly protective one.

7.4 In Talus or Crevice

Talus and crevices improve concealment and lower UV exposure, but they bring rockfall, slope-shift, animal use, snow-ice wedging, and inaccessibility risk. A treasure there may survive but become practically unrecoverable.

7.5 Near Watercourses

This is a poor choice for long-term survival. Even if dry most of the year, washes and channels remain among the most dangerous locations because episodic flow can relocate the cache decisively.

8. Comparative Risk Matrix

8.1 Hazard Severity by Process for an Unburied Cache

Hazard	Structural damage risk	Water ingress risk	Relocation risk	Overall risk
Wildfire heat	High	High	Low	High
Post-fire debris flow	High	High	Very high	Very high
Flash flood	Medium	High	Very high	Very high
Rockfall / landslide	Very high	Medium	High	Very high
UV exposure	Low to high by material	Medium	Low	Medium to high
Freeze-thaw	Medium	High	Medium	High
Wind abrasion	Medium	Medium	Low	Medium
Human discovery	Low structural	Not relevant	Very high	Very high
Animals	Low to medium	Medium	Medium	Medium

This table shows why the dominant all-hazards failure path is often loss of location or sealing, not simple breakage.

8.2 Material Survival Ranking

Material	1–5 year outlook	5–10 year outlook	10–30 year outlook	Overall exposed-cache ranking
Stainless steel	Excellent	Excellent	Best available	1
Bronze	Excellent	Very good	Excellent	2
Aluminum	Very good	Good	Moderate	3
Carbon steel / ammo can	Good	Moderate	Poor to moderate	4
Ceramic / stone	Good if undisturbed	Moderate	Moderate but fragile	5
Plastic / polymer	Moderate	Poor	Poor	6
Wood	Poor	Very poor	Very poor	7

This ranking assumes competent construction and a western wilderness setting with ordinary exposure, not indoor storage or deliberate maintenance.

9. Time-Horizon Assessment

9.1 One-Year Horizon

At one year, almost any container except the flimsiest wood or UV-sensitive plastic may still appear serviceable if it has avoided a discrete event like wildfire or flooding. The key one-year risks are event-driven: fire, flood, debris flow, or discovery.

9.2 Five-Year Horizon

By five years, chronic weathering begins to separate materials. UV and heat increasingly matter for plastics and seals. Coating wear becomes important on carbon steel. Placement errors also start to compound, especially in drainage features or unstable talus.

9.3 Ten-Year Horizon

At ten years, seal reliability becomes a central concern. Outdoor elastomer life is uncertain and strongly design-dependent, and the OSTI review shows why overconfident long-range lifetime claims are risky. A metal-bodied cache may still exist but no longer be truly watertight.

9.4 Thirty-Year Horizon

At thirty years, the best survival odds belong to caches that combined:

a corrosion-resistant metal body,
a protected placement out of transport zones,
minimal UV exposure,
minimal reliance on replaceable seals,
and concealment from casual traffic.

At this horizon, poor placement overwhelms good materials, and bad seals overwhelm good boxes.

10. Conclusions

For an unburied treasure in the American West, the single most important insight is this: the greatest threats are usually surface-process threats, not classic buried-object decay. In order of practical importance, the highest risks are:

relocation by flash flood, debris flow, or slope movement;
seal failure from heat, UV, age, and thermal cycling;
wildfire damage, especially to non-metallic materials and closure systems;
human discovery;
chronic UV, corrosion, and abrasion.

The best all-around material is stainless steel, followed by bronze. Aluminum is workable but less robust. Carbon steel, including ammo-can style solutions, is acceptable only for shorter horizons or with unusually good protection. Plastics are poor candidates for long-term exposed service, and wood is worse. Ceramic and stone resist weather and fire but are too brittle for many realistic wilderness placements.

If the hidden treasure was designed by someone who expected it to remain in place for years or decades without burial, the strongest inference is that a serious hider would likely avoid polymer-first designs and favor a metal container in a shaded, mechanically stable, non-transport setting. In other words: not in a wash, not in heavy fuels, not in unstable talus, not fully exposed to sun, and not dependent on a cheap rubber seal to stay dry forever.

Part 2: https://lowrentsresearch.blogspot.com/2026/03/environmental-survivability-of.html

Home: https://lowrentsresearch.blogspot.com/

References

Doerr, S. H., et al. “Soil heating during wildfires and prescribed burns: a global evaluation.” International Journal of Wildland Fire (2025). USDA Forest Service summary.

Kömmling, A., et al. “Analysis of O-Ring Seal Failure under Static Conditions and Determination of End-of-Lifetime Criterion.” Polymers (2019). PMC.

Kömmling, A., et al. “Insights for lifetime predictions of O-ring seals from five-year long-term aging tests.” Polymer Degradation and Stability (2020).

Gillen, K. T., Bernstein, R., & Celina, M. “Challenges of accelerated aging techniques for elastomer lifetime predictions.” Rubber Chemistry and Technology (2015). OSTI.

National Centers for Environmental Information. “U.S. Climate Normals.” NOAA/NCEI.

National Centers for Environmental Information. “On This Day: Earth’s Hottest Temperature.” NOAA/NCEI.

National Weather Service. Flood safety guidance and flash-flood hazard materials.

U.S. Geological Survey. “Earthquake Magnitude, Energy Release, and Shaking Intensity.”

U.S. Geological Survey. “Rainfall and Landslides in Northern California.”

U.S. Geological Survey. “Post-Fire Flooding and Debris Flow.”

Vasylius, M., et al. “Degradation of Mechanical Properties of A-PET Films after UV Aging.” Polymers (2023). PMC.

ASTM. “G76 Standard Test Method for Conducting Erosion Tests by Solid Particle Impingement Using Gas Jets.”

Copper Development Association. “Conditions Contributing to Underground Copper Corrosion.”