Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Vol. I. Sec. C.4. Environmental Impact Analysis
Miami Office 10050 NW 116'x' Way, Suite 18 Miami, Florida 33178 W I(E _7��� Phone 305-888-4090 RScomPASS Fax 305-888-0140 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS FLORIDA MARLINS STADIUM (ORANGE BOWL PIZ©PERTY) 1501 Northwest 3`d Street Miami, Miami -Dade County, Florida Submitted to: MIAmi-DARE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AUNAGEMENT 701 NW Ist Court Miami, Florida 33136 .� A Z v Yudex �C H sbun, P.E. Senior Bnglneer License No. 54810 On Behalf of: FLORIDA MARLINS, L.P. 2267 Dan Marino Boulevard Miami, Florida 33056 Submitted by: WRS INFRASTRUCTURE & ENVIRONMENT, INC. d/b/a WRSconipass 10050 NW 116th Way, Suite 18 Miami, 'Florida 33178 WRS Project Number 34-64-080001 February 3, 2009 David R. Mazorra, E.I. Engineer Intern www. wl.scampass.com WRS Infi•astructure & Environment, Inc. dfbla WRScompass Compass Environmental, Inc. Environmental Impact Analysis February 3, 2009 Florida Marlins Statlum (Orange Bowl Property) Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION..........................................................................1 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ...................... ............................................................................ 1 3.1 WETLANDS ........................ ......... .............. ............... ................ ......................................................... I 3.2 AIR................................................................................................................................................... 1 3.3 SOIL.................................................................................................................................................. 2 ESA 3.3.1 Benzo (a) Pyrene Equivalent.............................................................................................. 3 FMSS 3.3.2 Arsenic................................................................................................................................ 3 3.4 GROUNDWATER............................................................................................................................... 4 3.5 FLORA AND FAUNA.......................................................................................................................... 4 3.6 SURFACE WATER QUALITY............................................................................................................. 4 4.0 CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................................ 5 5.0 REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................................5 FIGURES Figure 1 Site Vicinity Map TABLES Table 3.2 Vehicles per Hour at the Ballpark Parking Facilities APPENDICES Appendix A DERM Correspondence dated November 4, 2008 Appendix B Bureau Veritas Reports Appendix C DERM Correspondence dated August 8, 2008 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS BAP Benzo (a) Pyrene bls Below Land Surface BV Bureau Veritas North America, Inc. CMDC Code of Miami -Dade County DERM Department of Environmental Resources Management EIA Environmental Impact Analysis ESA Environmental Site Assessment FMSS Former Moonlight Service Station GCTL Groundwater Cleanup Target Level kW Kilowatt NFAC No Further Action with Conditions www.wrscompass.com WRS Infrastructure & Environment, Inc, d/b/a WRScornpass Compass Environmental, Inc. Environmental Impact Analysis Florida Marlins Staliutn (Orange Bowl Property) LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (CONT.) mg/kg Milligrams per kilogram MUSP Major Use Special Permit NFA No Further Action SAR Site Assessment Report SCTL Soil Cleanup Target Levels SPLP Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure SSSP Site Specific Sampling Plan TCAR Tank Closure Assessment Report WRS WRS Infrastructure & Environment d/b/a. WRScompass www.wrsc,ompass.com WRS Infrastructure & Environment, Inc. d/b/a WRScompass Compass Environmental, Inc. February 3, 2009 Page ii Environwnental Lnpact Analysis February 3, 2009 Florida lkfarlins 5tath n2 (Orange Bowl Property) Page I 1.0 INTRODUCTION WRS Infrastructure and Environment, Inc. d/b/a WRScompass (WRS) has been contracted by the Florida Marlins, L.P. to perform an Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA) for the proposed Florida Marlins Stadium (the site). This impact analysis is being prepared in support of the Florida Marlins - Major Use Special Permit (MUSP) application, as required by the City of Miami. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION The project will be constructed in the area bounded by N.W. 13th and 17`h Avenues, and N.W. ars and 7"' Streets in the City of Miami, Miami -Dade County, .Florida, A Site Vicinity Map is included as Figure 1. The site is currently an open field with some asphalt cover. The site was historically the Orange Bowl Property where the University of Miami Hurricanes played football games. The surrounding land uses are primarily residential and commercial and the soil type is Urban Land. The site includes a stadium that can accommodate 37,000 spectators, open spaces to include a Plaza, four related parking garages, six surface lots, 61,678 Sq. Ft, of retail space, and 96 residential dwelling units, proposed to be constructed on the site of the demolished ©range Bowl Stadium. The project may create additional income for the families that live in the residences close to the new stadium due to job opportunities. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL, IMPACTS 3.1 WETLANDS The soils in the project vicinity are classified as Urban Land by the United States Department of Agriculture Dade County Soil Survey. Urban Land is land that is covered by concrete and buildings, therefore, there are no wetlands on the subject property. 3.2 AIR The Emergency Power system for the stadium consists of two generator sets, totaling 3,000 .kilowatt (kW) capacity, each complete with control panel, batteries, jacket heaters, sound attenuation, weather proof enclosure and skid mounted fuel tank sized for 8 -hours of run time at full capacity. This will provide a minimal source of emissions to the atmosphere; however, this source will remain well below the state allowable pollutant emission rate. An air pollutant permit will be retained. www.wrscompass.cosn WRS Infrastructure & Environment, Inc. d/b/a WRScompass Compass Environmental, Inc. Environmental Impact Analysis Febuaiy 3. 2009 Florida Nfarlins 5latium (Orange Bowl Property) Page 2 The site will provide six surface parking lots and four separate parking stnictrres totaling up to 5,713 spaces to replace the 5,000 surface parking spaces which previously existed on site to serve the 80,010 seat Orange Bowl Stadium, Table 3.2 has been prepared to identify the number of spaces within each surface lot and parking stricture, along with the estimated traffic flow into each lot and parking structure to reflect the evening inbound hours of operation for a weeknight baseball game. Based upon the 7:05 PM start time for a typical evening weekday baseball game, the peak hour traffic flow for the site will fall outside of the traditional peak hour of background traffic, Pursuant to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection Guidelines for Evaluating the stir Quality Impacts of Indirect ,sources, updated December 20, 2004, parking facilities may be considered to create significant air quality impacts if - 0 The peak -hour traffic flow inside any surface lot is found to be equal to or greater than 1,500 vehicles per hour; or The peak -hour traffic flow inside any multi-level parking garage is found to be equal to or greater than 750 vehicles per hour. Based upon the information provided in Table 3.2, none of the sites parking structures or surface lots individually will exceed the FDEP vehicle per hour thresholds during the peak hour of background traffic (5:30 to 6:30 PM) or the peak hour of an evening baseball game (6:00 to 7:00 PM). It is anticipated however, that the Applicants will coordinate with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the Miami Dade County Department of Environmental Re$oll]`Ce5 Management to more specifically address any additional air quality analyses that may be required based upon the development of the sites surface lots and parking structures. 3.3 SOIL Evans Environmental & Geosciences prepared a Limited -Scope Phase I ESA for the Potential Florida Marlins Baseball Stadium Sites, dated March 9, 2001, EBS Engineering prepared a Report of Preliminary (Phase 1) Limited -Scope Phase I ESA, dated October 28, 2004, and Bureau Veritas North America, Inc. (BV) prepared a Phase I ESA, dated March 20, 2007. Multiple environmental concerns were found in this report that lead to the City of Miami investigating the area further. Under the contract with the City of Miami, BV has conducted a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), a Site Assessment Report (SAR), and a Site Specific Sampling Plan (SSSP) for the Orange Bowl Property dated March 14, 2008, .lune 30, 2008, and October 7, 2008, respectively. BV also conducted a Tank Closure Assessment Report www.wrscoiytpass.com WRS Infrastructure & Environment, Inc. dfbla WRScompass Compass Environmental, Inc. Environmental Impact Analysis February 3, 2009 Florida Martins Staliurn (Orange Bowl Property) Page 3 (TCAR) for the Former Moonlight Service Station (FMSS) located at 1600 NW 7'h Street, Miami, Miami - Dade County, Florida dated March 14, 2008. The last report submitted to the Miami -Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management (DERM) for this site was the Site Specific Sampling Plan dated October 7, 2008. . DERM's comment letter dated November 4, 2008, is attached in Appendix A. This report detailed the contamination related issues for the Orange Bowl Property as well as the FMSS. This report is included as reference in Appendix B. In reviewing these -documents there are two major contaminants of concern, Benzo (a) Pyrene Equivalent (BAP) and Arsenic. WRS has been informed that BV has performed the work described in the Site Specific Sampling Plan and a final report is forthcoming. 3.3.1 Benzo (a) Pyrene Equivalent Confirmatory soil samples were collected within one foot to SB -19 by BV on September 23, 2008. The soil samples were collected in the 0-2' and the 2-4' below land surface (bls) intervals. The laboratory analytical results indicated that the confirmatory soil samples were below the Direct Exposure Residential, Soil Cleanup Target Levels (SCTLs), as defined in Section 24-44(2)(f)(v)2, Code of Miami - Dade County (CMDC). BV recornmended No Further Action (NFA) for the area around SB -19. WRS understands that BV has performed source removal in the area surrounding SB -5. 3.3.2 Arsenic BV has identified hot spots in three general areas, the FMSS, SB -14, and SB -20. BV performed statistical evaluation of the existing Arsenic data. Using the Box -and -Whiskers Plots, Rosner's Test, Wilcoxon Rank Sum Tests, and FL -ULC version 1.0 software, BV was able to statistically calculate a new endpoint concentration for each of the three sites. The endpoints that were calculated for the .FMSS, SB -14, and SB -20 are 5.57 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), 11.32 mg/kg, and 3.35 mg/kg, respectively. Please note that all of these endpoint concentrations are below Direct Exposure Commercial/Industrial SCTLs. Finding an alternate endpoint was recommended by DIRM in a response letter dated August 8, 2008. A copy of that letter is included in Appendix C. WRS has been informed that these hot spots were excavated by BV. The exact dimensions of the excavations will be detailed in the final report that is forthcoming. In addition to excavating the hotspots, additional soil borings should have been collected in order to fully delineate the arsenic plumes discovered at the FMSS, SB -14, and SB -20. These soil Borings were to have been collected in the 0-2' and 2-4' bls intervals. The soil boring locations that were selected by BV were based on the calculated endpoint concentrations described in the paragraph above. If the additional soil boring results are above the calculated endpoint concentrations, BV will reevaluate the data. Once all www.wrscompass.com WRS Infrastructure & Environment, Inc. dfbla WRScompass Compass Environmental, Inc. EnOronntenial Impact Analysis Febrtimy 3, 2009 Florida Marlins Stathan (Orange Bowl Property) Page 4 arsenic plumes have been delineated, and if all concentrations are below the Direct ,Exposure Cornmercial/Industrial SCTLs, the three sites should be granted NFA with conditions. NFA with conditions can be achieved with an institutional control and/or engineering controls. It is expected that NFA with institutional controls will be granted due to the source removal performed by BV. 3.4 GROUNDWATER BV performed limited groundwater investigations when they were completing the Phase 11 ESA, SAR, TCAR, and Site Specific Sampling Pian. The last report submitted to DERM with grotuYdwater sampling results was the SAR. During the SAR sampling, groundwater analytical results indicated the groundwater to be below the Groundwater Criteria, Groundwater Cleanup Target Levels (GCTLs), as defined in Section 24-44(2)(f)(v)l, CMDC. However, during soil sampling, BV performed the Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP) and there were several samples that were above the GCTLs for arsenic at the FMSS, SB -14, and 513-20. These exceedances in the SDLP extracts warrant permanent monitoring wells to be installed and sampled for arsenic. BV is proposing to install and sample two wells around FMSS, nine wells around S13-14, and five monitoring wells around SB -20. 3.5 FLORA AND FAUNA Wildlife and habitat are important categories used to evaluate the environment. The site has been used as a stadium and overflow parking for many years. For this reason, there is no natural vegetation remaining, therefore, no effects to wildlife or habitat are anticipated. Vegetation is limited to landscape species, and wildlife is limited to species that have adapted to urban environments, 3.6 SURFACE WATER QUALITY The site is located in the Orange Bowl drainage basin and is currently drained by a system of on-site exfiltration trenches and out -fall pipes in the streets. These pipes convey storm -water to the Orange Bowl drainage pump station located at N.W. 7`� Street and N.W. 17`h Place, where the station pumps into the Lawrence Canal which flows to the Miami Canal. According to the MUST' Site Utilities Report, the existing drainage system is not designed for and does not meet DERM's design criteria of handling the storrrwater fi•om a 5 year — 24 hour storm. The Marlins are proposing to improve the on-site and off-site drainage system. The new drainage system will capture and store some quantity of storm water for irrigation and other uses at the stadium, provide www.wrscornpass. corn WRS Infrastructure & Enviromnent, Inc. dIb/a. WRScompass Compass Environmental, Inc. Environmental Impact Analysis Florida Martins Starium (Change Bowl Property) February 3, 2009 Page S pretreatment of stormwater to enhance the duality of the discharged water per DERM requirements, and meet the design storm criteria established by DERN4 for the stormwater system. 4.0 CONCLUSIONS BV has conducted the site sampling that was outlined in the Site Specific Sampling Plan dated October 7, 2008. WRS understands that the hot spots surrounding Sia -14 and SB -20 have been removed. The final report from BV is forthcoming. It is expected that the site will be granted No Further Action with Conditions (NFAC) by means of institutional controls. Engineering controls are not anticipated. This will have a positive impact on the environment. WRS anticipates that this project will have a neutral effect on the wetlands, air, and flora and fauna. This project will have a positive impact on the soil, groundwater, and surface water quality. 5.0 REFERENCES I. Evans Environmental & Geosciences Limited -Scope Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, Potential Florida Marlins Baseball Stadium Sites, dated March 9, 2001 2. Bureau Veritas Phase LI Environmental Site Assessment, Orange Bowl Stadium and Associated Parcels, slated March 14, 2008. 3. Bureau Veritas Tank Closure assessment Report, Moonlight Service Station, dated March 14, 2008. 4. Bureau Veritas Site Assessment Report, Orange Bowl Stadium and Associated Parcels, dated June 30, 2008. 5. Bureau Veritas Site Specific Sampling Plan, Orange Bowl Stadium and Associated Parcels, dated October 7, 2008. 6. Fortin, Leavy, Skiles, Inc. Afajor Use Special Permit Site Utilities, Miami Ballpark, dated November 5, 2008. 7. Code of Ml iami-Dade County, Florida. Section 24-44(2)(v)1. Table I Groundwater and Surface Water Cleanup Target Levels. March 7, 2006 8. Code of Miami -Dade County, Florida. Section 24-44(2)(v)2. Table 2 Sail Cleanup Target Levels, March 7, 2006 www.wrscompass.com WRS Infrastructure & Environment, Inc. d/b/a WRScompass Compass Environmental, Inc. FIGURES www.wrscompass.com WRS Infrastructure & Environment, Inc. d/b/a WRScornpass Compass Environmental, Inc. Source: Google Earth FIGURE NOT TO SCALE Project Number: 34-64-080001 10050 NW I16 Way FIGURE 1 Suite 18 SITE VICINITY MAP Miami, Florida ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS vivs-C � Phone.5)SSS-0140 FLORIDA MARLINS STADIUM (ORANGE BOWL PROPERTY) 0 � ,y PA S Fax: (3ii5)$88-U14dE "' I MIAMI, MIAMI-DAI)E COUNTY, .FLORIDA TABLES www.wrscompass.com WRS Infrastnicture & Environment, Inc. dfb/a WRScompass Compass Environmental, Inc. Table 3.2 Vehicles Per Hour at the Ballpark Parking Facilities Garage/Lot Location Northwest Garage P1 Northeast Garage P2 Southwest Garage P3 Southeast Garage P4 West Surface Lot W1 West Surface Lot W2 West Surface Lot W3 East Surface Lot E1 East Surface Lot E2 East Surface Lot E3 Total Number of Spaces 928 1,316 1,226 1,274 192 126 350 126 71 104 5,713 Percent of Total 16.24% 23.04% 21.46% 22.30% 3.36% 2.21% 6.13% 2.21% 1.24% 1.82% 100.00% 5:00 - 5:30 PM 48 69 64 661 10 7 18 7 4 5 298 5:30 - 6:00 PM 164 233 217 2261 34 22 62 22 13 18 1,012 6:00 - 6:30 PM 224 317 296 3071 46 30 84 30 17 25 1,378 6:30 - 7:00 PM 233 331 308 320 48 32 88 32 18 26 1,437 7:00 - 7:30 PM 193 274 255 265 40 26 73 26 15 22 1,190 7.30 - 8:00 PM 48 69 64 66 10 7 18 7 4 5 298 5:00 - 6:00 PM 213 302 281 292 44 29 80 29 16 24 1,309 5:30 - 6:30 PM 388 550 513 533 80 53 146 53 30 43 2,389 6:00 - 7:00 PM 457 648 604 628 95 62 172 62 35 51 2,815 6:30 - 7:30PM 427 605 564 586 88 58 161 58 33 48 2,627 7:00 - 8:00 PM 1 2421 3431 319 3321 501 331 911 331 181 271 1,488 Miami Ballpark January 2009 APPENDIX A DER.M CORRESPONDENCE DATED NOVEMBER 49 2008 www.wrscompass.com WRS Infrastructure & Environment, Inc. dlbla WRScompass Compass Environmental, Inc. MIAM!•DAD� mijklm Carlos Alvarez, Mayor November 4, 2008 CERTIFIED MAIL # 7007 2680 0000 0618 8210 RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Pedro G. Fernandez, P.E., City Manager City of Miami 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133-5595 Environmental Resources Management Pollution Control Division 701 NW i st Court ■ 4th Floor Miami, Florida 33136-3412 T .305-372-6700 F 305-372-6724 miamidade.gov Re: Site Specific Sampling Plan dated October 7, 2008 and prepared by Bureau Veritas for the Orange Bowl Stadium and Associated Parcels (UT-6793/File-24149) located at, near, or in the vicinity of 1501 NW 3 ST, Miami, Miami -Dade County, Florida. Dear Mr. Hernandez: The Department of Environmental Resources Management (DERM) has reviewed the referenced report received October S, 2008 and offers the following comments and recommendations: Arsenic Issues A. Hotspot Identification and Proposed Source Removal For each impacted area discussed below (i.e., 58-14, SB -20 and FMSS) confirmatory samples shall be obtained from 'the sidewalls and base (i€ applicable) of each excavation subsequent to source removal activities. The arsenic concentrations in the retraining soils subsequent to source removal shall be consistent with the arsenic concentration distribution throughout the remainder of the applicable site. 1) SB -14 DERM acknowledges that the areas targeted for source removal (hotspots) represent the statistical outliers within each data set. However, to allow the site the flexibility of ultimately pursuing closure without engineering controls, DERM recommends that the source removal activities proposed for this area be extended to include all areas where the arsenic concentration in the 0-2 feet interval exceeds 21 mg/kg and that the areas identified as outliers for the 2-4 Meet interval, SB - 14 W1 (31 mg/kg) and SB -14133 (33 mg/kg) be removed. The 95% UCL of the soils remaining on site subsequent to source removal as recommended above meets the industrial soil clean up target level (CTL). This will allow the area to qualify for a No Further Action with Conditions (NFAC) with institutional but not engineering controls provided all the other criteria pursuant to Section 24-44(2) of the Code of Miami Dade County (the Code) are met. The narrative discussing hot spot removal for the SB -14 indicates that "Source removal at SB-14WI would consist of an excavation measuring approximately five feet by five feet by approximately two Mr. Pedro Hernandez, P.E. Orange Bowl Site UT-6793/File-24109 11/4/2008 Page 2 of 4 feet in depth". Considering that the interval targeted for source removal in this area is the 2-4 feet interval the proposed excavation shall extent to at least four feet below land surface. 2. SB -20 DERM has no objection to the proposed source removal in this area. 3. FMSS DERM concurs with the proposal to conduct source removal in the vicinity of SB-FMSS-E3 based on its location adjacent to the property boundary and given that this data point represents an extreme outlier in this data set. Source removal is also required to address soils from the 0-2 and 2-4 ft interval of soil borings SB-FMSS-E2 and the 0-2 ft interval of SB-FMSS-EB located along the property boundary. B. Delineation DERM notes that, depending on the distribution fit of the site data, the referenced report uses either the 95% UCL or the MVUE to define the alternate end point concentration. Please be advised that while each is a measure of average site concentrations these two statistical descriptors are not interchangeable. DERM recommends the use of population distribution comparisons versus a discreet end paint concentration value to determine adequate delineation. This recommendation is based on the fact that the 95% UCL is not a conservative statistical descriptor and the MVUE while being more conservative is appropriate for lognormal population distributions only. Therefore, for the purpose of this assessment delineation shall be considered complete when the soil arsenic concentrations in the delineating soil borings are in close agreement with the central tendency measure and consistent with the arsenic concentration distribution (represented by the original data minus outliers) throughout the remainder of the applicable site. 1. SB -14 BERM has no objection to the proposed soils borings for the purposes of delineation except that delineation north of S13 -14N15 is not required provided that confirmation samples from the source removal activities in that area meet the criteria indicated above. 2. SB -20 The southern extent of the arsenic impacted soils at the 0-2 ft interval (based on the recalculated 95% UCL after outlier removal) is currently delineated by soil borings S13-20512, SB -20513, and SB -20515. Therefore, no further delineation is required to the south except to the south and east of SB -20516. Delineation eastof soil boring SB -20S10 is not required provided that confirmation samples from the source removal activities in that area meet the criteria indicated above. Mr. Pedro Hernandez, F.E. Orange Bowl Site UT-6793/File-24109 11/4/2008 Page 3 of I FMSS Provide a delineating boring to the west of soil boring SB-FMSS-S3. No additional delineation is required in this area provided that confirmation samples obtained subsequent to source removal in the vicinity of SB-FMSS-E3 meets the criteria defined above. C. Groundwater DERM offers the Following comments with respect to the leachability analysis presented as Table 6 of the referenced report: 1. It is inappropriate to combine data from the different sites (SB -20, SB -14, etc) for the purpose of the leachability evaluation since each site represents a statically different population. Given that the data points are clustered at the lower end of the concentration range (lower left corner of the graph) and are, for the most part, represented by total arsenic concentration below 40 mg/kg it is inappropriate to utilize the entire concentration range for this analysis. Utilizing a narrower and more appropriate concentration range yields a much weaker correlation. As an example, for the combined dataset (SB -14 and SB -20) the regression coefficient R2 = 0.3568 using the 0 to 40 mg/kg total arsenic concentration range versus R, _ 0.8497 if the entire concentration range (up to 120 mg/kg) is used. Regardless of the above, DERM concurs with the proposed monitoring well locations for the S13-14, 5B- 20 and FMSS areas except as indicated below: The monitoring well proposed to be installed between 513-14E7 and SB -14E9 shall be installed at SB -14 E9. Alternately, given the closure options available for the site (NFAC with or without engineering control) , in lieu of groundwater assessment adjacent to specific soil borings the responsible party may choose to install a representative number of monitoring wells along the perimeter of each site to be subjected to the NFAC. These monitoring wells will serve to confirm that any groundwater impacts do not extend beyond the area to be subjected to the conditional closure. Additionally a representative number of these monitoring wells can be available for any groundwater monitoring that will be required prior to closure. Benzo(a)Pyrene (Ba PJ Issues SB -5 PERM requires source removal in the area of SB -5N3 regardless of the closure option to be pursued in this area based on the concentration of Bal? equivalents (27.8 mg/kg) in the soil in this area. DERM concurs with the proposed groundwater assessment in the vicinity of SB-SN3. SB -19 No further action is required is required For this area. Mr_ Pedro Hernandez, P.E. Orange Bawl Site UT-6793/File-24109 11/4/2008 Page 4 of 4 Based on the above, within sixty (60) days of completion of source removal activities or within ninety (90) days of receipt of this correspondence, submit to this office for review two copies of a source removal, site assessment report addendum prepared in accordance with Section 24-44[2] of the Miami Dade County Code and which shall include the results of the source removal and additional assessment required. Be advised that failure to comply with above orders may result in this case being prepared for formai enforcement action in a court of competent jurisdiction for appropriate legal action under the enforcement provisions of Chapter 24 of the Code of Miami -Dade County, Florida. Be advised that the vertical and horizontal extent of the contaminant plume(s) shall be fully delineated. DERM has the option to split any samples deemed necessary with the consultant or laboratory at the subject site. The consultant collecting the samples shall perform Field sampling work in accordance with the Standard Operating Procedures provided in Chapter 62-160, Florida Administrative Code [FAC], as amended. The laboratory analyzing the samples shall perform laboratory analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP) certification requirements. If the data submitted exhibits a substantial variance from the DERM split sample analysis, a complete resampling using two independent certified laboratories will be required. Beth Baughman of DERM shall be notified in writing at DERMPCD@miamidade.go_v a minimum of three (3) working days prior to the implementation of any sampling or field activities. Please include the DERM file number on all correspondence. If you have any questions concerning the above, please contact Wilbur Mayorga, P.E. of the Pollution Control Division at (30S) 372-6700. DERM staff is available for a meeting to answer any questions about this review at a mutually convenient time. Sincerely, Carlosinosa, P.E„ Director Environmental Resources Management pc: George Burgess - County Manager Ray Baker --- Assistant to the County Manager Olga Ramirez-Seijas - Assistant City Attorney, City of Miami, 444 SW 2nd Avenue, 9th Floor Miami, FL 33130 Geri Bonzon-Keenan - County Attorney's Office Jose Gonzalez, P.E. - DERM Derek Jackson - Florida Marlins Robert Speed - Bureau Veritas, 10125 NW 116 Way, STE 18, Miami, FL 33178 APPENDIX B BUREAU VERITAS REPORTS www,wrscompass.com WRS In#rastnicture & Environment, Inc. dlb/a WRScompass Compass Environmental, Inc. Rivan"6T"50 March 20, 2007 Mr. Adel F. Martel, Sr. Project Manager .cones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc. 2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 1220 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Mr. Gary Fabrikant, Assistant Director Department of Capitol Improvements City of Miami 444 Southwest 2 Avenue, 8"Floor Miami, Florida 33130 BV Project No, 144398 Subject: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Orange Bowl Stadium, Miami, Miami -Dade County, Florida Dear Mr. Martel and Mr. Fabrikanl_ Professional Engineering and Inspection Company, Inc. a Bureau Veritas North America, Inc. (BV) company is pleased to present our Phase I Environmental Site Assessment report for the Orange Bowl Stadium addressed as 1501 Northwest 3rd Street in Miami, Miami -Dade County, Florida_ We have performed these services in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM E 1527-05 of the subject property. Based on the results of this assessment, evidence of a recognized environmental conditions in connection with the property was identified due to the historic use of an outparcel of the subject property as a petroleum filling station from at least 1938 through 1967_ We appreciate the opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at our Miami, Florida office at 305.651.8483. Respectfully Submitted, Professional Engineering and Inspection Company, Inc. A. 1 01 A. Murphy Doty, P.G. Senior Project Manager Environmental Services Divisfon Miami Regional Office Enclosures Phase i Environmental Site Assessment Orange Bowl Stadium 1501 Northwest 3rd Street Miami, Miami -Dade County, Florida March 20, 2007 Project Number; 144398 Prepared for City of Miami Department of Capitol Improvements 444 Southwest 2nd Avenue, 8t'' Floor Miami, Florida 33130 And Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc. 2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 1220 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 For the benefit of Business and peopte Bureau Veritas North America, Inc. Environmental Services Division 10125 Northwest 1161" way Suite 18 Miami, Florida 33179 305.651.8483 www.us.bureauveritas.com CONTENTS Section Page ExecutiveSummary ........................................................................................................................... , ......1 1,4 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................1 1.1 METHODOLOGY AND EXCEPTIONS ........... .................................. ,.......... .......................... ...1 1.2 LIMITING CONDITIONS OF ASSESSMENT...........................................................................3 1.2.1 Lack of Access.............................................................................................................3 1.2.2 Data Gaps. .......... ........... ....................................................................................._........3 1.3 RELIANCE- ............ ............ ___ ....... __ ..... ............... ......... 3 2.0 USER PROVIDED INFORMATION....................................................................................................3 2.1 RECORDED LAND TITLE RECORDS ......... .......................................... ..._.................... ......... 4 2.2 SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE___. ............................................ ..... 2.3 COMMONLY KNOWN OR REASONABLY ASCERTAINABLE INFORMATION ............. -.-_.... 4 2-4 VALUATION REDUCTION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ........... _......... ............ ............. 4 2.5 OWNER, PROPERTY MANAGER, AND OCCUPANT INFO?RMATION..... .......................... ...4 2.5 REASON FOR PERFORMING PHASE. I...................................................................----_------- 5 3.0 SUBJECT PROPERTY DESCRIPTION.............................................................................................5 3.1 LOCATION AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION.................................................................................5 3.2 CURRENT USE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY............................................................................7 3.3 CURRENT USES OF ADJOINING/NEARBY PROPERTIES. .... _._ ........ __ ................. ........ 8 3.4 PHYSICAL SETTING... .............................. ................ _ ......... _ ........... ................... ................. 8 HISTORICALREVIEW .................................................................................................................................8 3.5 SUMMARY OF HISTORICAL REVIEW....................................................................................9 3.6 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS ........ ........................ ........................ ...................... .......................... 9 3.7 USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP.................................................................................................11 3.8 FIRE INSURANCE MAPS....................................................................... .12 3.9 CITY DIRECTORIES .............................................................................................................13 3,10 PRIOR OWNERSHIP......................................................... .,............ .......15 3.11 AGENCY CONTACTS... ....... ............... __ ... ........... .............. .......................... ...15 3.11.1 Miami Dade County Planning and Zoning Department.............................................15 3.11.2 Fire Department.........................................................................................................15 3.11.3 Miami -Dade County Department of Public Works -Water and Sewer........................15 3.11.4 Miami Dade County Department of Environmental Resource Management(DERM)............................................................................................ _16 3.12 PREVIOUS ENVIRO7NMENTAL REPORTS OR OTHER DOCUMENTS-__,_.... ............... 17 CONTENTS (Continued) 3.13 INTERVIEW WITH OWNER........,............. ......................... .___ .......... ...... --- ............. .....17 3.14 INTERVIEW WITH SITE MANAGER.......,... ... ................... ............. ......... ......... ___17 4.0 STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD SOURCES, FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL .......... 18 5.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE................................................................................ ....20 5.1 METHODOLOGY AND LIMITATIONS...................................................................................20 5.2 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ...................... ........................... .......................... ......... ,........... .20 5.3 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND PETROLEUM PRODUCTS.. ... ................ __ .......... .... 20 5.4 STORAGE TANKS ....................... ........................... .......... ..............._..... -------------_--- .... 21 5.4.1 Underground Storage Tanks ........ ..... ............ ................ ........ ..... ..... ____ ...... .......,21 5.4.2 Aboveground Storage Tanks .... ............ ...................................................... ...21 5.4.3 In -Ground Hydraulic Equipment........................•.......................................................21 5.5 WASTES.. . ... ... .................................... .... 5.6 POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS(PCBS) ......... __.............................................................22 5.7 WASTEWATER AND STORM WATER DISCHARGE...........................................................22 5.7.1 Discharge Sources ...................._......_..._..••-•.-•-••- •-•-•---- ... •....._...,............._.....22 5.7.2 OffWater Separators, Clarifiers, Sumps, and Trenches ---- .....................................23 5.7.3 Septic Systems.......... ................... ....,....._............... ........................ ...,....................... 23 5-8 WELLS... ..................... ............... .. ......23 5.9 DRY CLEANING OPERATIONS ..... ......------------ ------- ..........,............. .... ................... ..... ....23 6.0 NOWASTM ISSUES ..................................................... ...................... .............................................. 23 6.1 WETLANDS ........................................ • -- ..... --•• •.................................... 7.0 FINDINGS, OPINIONS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS........................................24 Figures 1 Site Vicinity Map 2 Site Plan 3 1963 Aerial Photograph 4 2006 Aerial Photograph CONTENTS (Continued) Fhot�hs Appendices A Resumes of Environmental Professionals B List of Sources and References C EQR Report ❑ Historical Research E Terminology iv YERf7.R5. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Mr_ Abdef F. Martel„ Senior Project Manager with ,!ones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc. on behalf of the City of Miami Department of Capitol Improvements, retained Professional Engineering and Inspection Company, Inc- a Bureau Veritas North America, Inc. company (BV), to conduct a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the Orange Bowl Stadium property addressed as 1501 Northwest 3rd Street in Miami, Miami Dade County, Florida (the "subject property'), The objective of the assessment was to provide an independent, professional opinion regarding recognized environmental conditions (REC), as defined by ASTM E 1527-05, associated with the subject property. This assessment was reportedly requested in association with a redevelopment of the property. This assessment was performed under the conditions of, and in accordance with BV°s Proposal Number 93-01-128681, and ASTM E1527-05, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments,- Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. Any exceptions to, additions to, or deletions from the ASTM E 1527-05 practice are described in the report. Details of the work performed, sources of information, and findings are presented in the report. Limitations of the assessment are described in Sections 1.2 and 1,4. The subject property was reportedly developed in 1937 and is improved with a stadium with a seating capacity of 82,000 people and associated asphalt -paved and grass parking lots located on a contiguous parcel of approximately 33 -acres of land bordered by Northwest 16t" Avenue to the west, Northwest 7th Street to the north, Northwest 3`d Street to the south and Northwest 10' Avenue to the east. The subject property Is addressed as 1501 Northwest 3`d Street. Kline additional vacant -land outparcels are utilized for stadium parking and cover an additional aggregate of approximately eight acres. These vacant parcels are addressed as 1545 Northwest 61h Street, 11600 Northwest 7th Street, 1610 Northwest 61h Street„ 1680 Northwest 5th Street, 1390 Northwest 51h Street, 1350 Northwest 41h Street, 1380 Northwest 6t" Street, 1652 Northwest 3`d Street and an unaddressed parcel located on the southwestern corner of the intersection of Northwest 17th Avenue and Northwest 6`h Street. An additional parcel addressed at 1390 Northwest 7t" Street is utilized as parking for the Orange Bowl, but is privately owned and was not included in this assessment. The entire subject property encompasses an aggregate of approximately 41 - acres. The reported planned future use for the subject property is a renovation of the existing stadium. This assessment has revealed evidence of a recognized environmental conditions in connection with the property including the following; Based on a review of Fire Insurance Maps and City Directories and information contained in the regulatory databases, the presence of a petroleum filling station on the outparcel addressed as 1600 Northwest 7th Street of the subject property from at least 1938 through 1967 represents a recognized environmental condition to the subject property. 1,0 INTRODUCTION ,tones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc_ (JLL) on behalf of the City of Miami Department of Capitol Improvements (the -City) retained Professional Engineering and Inspection Company, Inc_ a Bureau Veritas North America, Inc. company (BV), to conduct a Phase t Environmental Site Assessment (assessment) of the Orange Bowl Stadium addressed at 1501 Northwest 3rd Street in Miami, Miami Dade County, Florida (the "subject property'). 1,1 METHODOLOGY AND EXCEPTIONS Good commercial and customary practice for conducting environmental site assessments has the goal of providing an independent, professional opinion regarding recognized environmental conditions, as defined by ASTM E 1527-05, associated with the subject property. The term recognized environmental conditions (RECs) is defined as the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the property. The term includes hazardous substances or petroleum products even under conditions in compliance with laws. The terra is not intended to include de minimis conditions that generally do not present a material risk of harm to public health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies. Conditions determined to be de minimis are not LECs. This assessment was performed under the conditions of, and in accordance with BV's Proposal Number 93-01-128681 dated January 29, 2007, and ASTM E 1527-05, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase f Environmental Site Assessment Process, The methods and terms are as defined in the ASTM standard. This assessment included the following components: • A site waikthrough inspection of the property for visual evidence of potential environmental concerns including existing or potential soil and groundwater contamination, as evidenced by soil or pavement staining or discoloration, stressed vegetation; indications of waste dumping or burial, pits, ponds, or lagoons; containers of hazardous substances or petroleum products; electrical and hydraulic equipment that may contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), such as electrical transformers and hydraulic hoists; and underground and aboveground storage tanks. • An investigation of historical use of the subject property through reasonably ascertainable ASTM Standard Historical Sources (e.g., aerial photographs, fire insurance maps, city directories,) for evidence of prior land use that could have led to recognized environmental conditions. • A review of information available on general geology and topography of the subject ,property, local groundwater conditions, sources of water, power, and sewer, and proximity to ecologically sensitive receptors, such as streams, that might he impacted by recognized environmental conditions and environmental issues. • A review of environmental records available from the client, property owner or site contact including regulatory agency reports, permits, registrations, and consultants` reports for evidence of recognized environmentai conditions and activity and use limitations (AULs). ■ A site property line visual assessment of adjacent properties for evidence of potential offsite environmental conditions that may affect the subject property. ■ A review of a commercial database summary of federal. state and tribal regulatory agency records pertinent to the subject property and offsite facilities located within ASTM -specified search distances from the subject property. • Review of reasonably ascertainable Federal. State, Tribal and Local environmental agency case files for the subject property. This also included interviewing agency project managers (if available) regarding the status of the subject properly (e.g. LUST incident closure, etc.) • interviews with the subject property owner regarding current and previous uses of the property, particularly activities involving hazardous substances and petroleum products. Past owners, operators and occupants were also interviewed to the extent they were identified and their information was not likely to be duplicative Evaluation of information gathered during the assessment to reach conclusions concerning RECs, and development of this report A Project Scientist from BV's Miami regional Office conducted the site reconnaissance portion of the assessment on March 7, 2007, accompanied by Mr. Gale Sandin, Maintenance Engineer with The City of Miami orange Bowl Stadium. Mr. Sandin stated that he has been associated with the property for approximately thirty years. This assessment was performed under the responsible charge of Mr, A, 2 Murphy Doty, an Environmental Professional as defined in §312.10 of 40 CFR 312. Resumes for assessors and environmental professionals involved in this assessment are included in the appendices. Photographs taken at the time of the assessment are included behind the Photographs Tab. 1.2 LIMITING CONDITIONS OF ASSESSMENT Information for the assessment was obtained from sources listed in the appendices. This information, to the extent it was relied on to form our opinion, is assumed to be correct and complete. BV is not responsible for the quality or content of information from these sources. 1.2.1 Lack of Access BV was allowed access to the entire subject property with the exception of the hydraulic elevator pit, 1.2.2 Data Gaps Historical subject property ownership and/or use information was obtained for the time period, 1921 to 2005. BV has established the history of previous uses of subject property since 1940 or first development. No significant data gaps were encountered during this assessment_ 1.3 RELIANCE The information and opinions rendered in this report are exclusively for use by JLL and the City. BV will not distribute or publish this report without consent except as required by law or court order. The information and opinions expressed in this report are given in response to a limited assignment and should be considered and implemented only in light of that assignment. The services provided by BV in completing this project were consistent with normal standards of the profession. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. 2.4 USER PROVIDED INFORMATION ASTM E 1527-05 defines "user" as the party seeking to use Practice E 1527-05 to complete an environmental site assessment of the subject property, and in this case, the user is JLL and the City. ASTM E 1527-05 specifies that certain tasks associated with identifying potentia€ RECs at the subject property should be performed by the user and provided to the environmental professional. This section documents the information obtained from the user. 3 2.1 RECORDED LAND TITLE RECORDS JLL did provide to BV reasonably ascertainable recorded land title records and lien records that are filed under federal, state, tribal, or local law. BV did not obtained recorded land title records as part of this assessment, Furthermore, BV contacted JLL concerning information regarding environmental liens and AULs associated with the subject property during this assessment. 2.2 SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE JILL indicated that it has no specialized knowledge or experience of environmental issues of concern associated with the subject property other than lead paint and asbestos abatement activities. 2.3 COMMONLY KNOWN OR REASONABLY ASCERTAINABLE INFORMATION JLL Senior Project Manager, Mr. Abdel F. Martel, reported that he was unaware of the following: Yes No Any pending, threatened, or past litigation relevant to hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or from the property? X Yes No Any pending, threatened, or past administrative proceedings relevant to hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or from the property? X Any notices from any governmental entity regarding any possible violation of environmental Yes No laws or possible liability relating to hazardous substances or petroleum products? X JLL indicated that it is unaware of any commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information within the local community about the subject property that is material to identifying environmental issues of concern associated with the subject property. 2.4 VALUATION REDUCTION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES No value reduction issues were identified during this assessment as this is a proposed redevelopment of an existing property and not a purchase. 2.5 OWNER, PROPERTY MANAGER, AND OCCUPANT INFORMATION JLL indicated that it has specific information from Mr. Martel associated with the subject property, as follows . - 4 ElUREAU V ER 4TA5 The owner of the property is the City of Miami and the property is occupied by the Orange Bowl Stadium, 2.6 REASON FOR PERFORMING PHASE I JLL indicated that this assessment was requested in association with a renovation.. 3.0 SUBJECT PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 3,1 LOCATION AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION The subject property was reportedly developed in 1937 and is improved with a stadium with a seating capacity of 82,000 people and associated asphalt -paved and grass parking lots located on a contiguous parcel of approximately 33 -acres of land bordered by Northwest 16th Avenue to the west, Northwest 71" Street to the north, Northwest 3rd Street to the south and Northwest 10' Avenue to the east. The subject property is addressed as 1501 Northwest 3'd Street. Nine additional vacant -land outparcels are utilized for stadium parking and cover an additional aggregate of approximately eight acres. These vacant parcels are addressed as 1545 Northwest 6'h Street, 1604 Northwest 7th Street, 1610 Northwest 6'h Street, 1680 Northwest 5t" Street, 1390 Northwest 51" Street, 1350 Northwest 4"' Street, 1380 Northwest 6'" Street, 1652 Northwest 3"' Street and an unaddressed parcel located on the southwestern corner of the intersection of Northwest 17th Avenue and Northwest dh Street. An additional parcel addressed at 1390 Northwest 7't' Street is utilized as parking for the Orange Bowl, but is privately owned and was not included in this assessment. The entire subject property encompasses an aggregate of approximately 41- acres. The reported planned future use for the subject property is a renovation of the existing stadium. According to information maintained by the Miami -Dade County (MDC) Property Appraisers suffice, the main portion of the subject property, where the stadium and main parking lots are located, consists of four parcels of land. The following table details the parcels that comprise the subject property and the associated outparcels. Photographic documentation of the site reconnaissance is provided in the Appendices behind the Photograph Tab and legal descriptions and MDC Property Appraiser's information its included in Appendix D. Folio Number Address Primary Zone Square Footage Primary.Usage Code Main Subject Property: Bordered by Northwest 16" Avenue to the west, Northwest 14"' Avenue to the east, Northwest 3'a Street to the south and Northwest T`'" Street to the north 01-4102-005-5950 1 1590 6" Street 18000 -Government and Institutions 11 5 Folio Number Address Primary Zone Square Footage Primary Usage Code 45,000 square feet 0040 -Municipal 01-4102-005-5960 1410 Northwest 6"' Street 8000 -Government and Institutions 45,000 square feet 0080 -Vacant Land Governmental 01-4102-037-0010 None 8000 -Government and Institutions 383,942 square feet 0080 -Vacant Land Governmental 01-4102-004-001 1501 Northwest 3`' Street 8000 -Government and Institutions 1,050,000 square feet 0040 -Municipal Orange Bowl Outparcels; 01-4102-005-5630 1545 Northwest 6th Street 8000 -Government and Institutions 15,000 square feet 0040 -Municipal 01-4102-005-5730 1600 Northwest 7'' Street 6100 -restricted Commercial 68,900 square feet 01:380 -Vacant Land Governmental 01-4102-005-5810 1610 Northwest 61h Street 8000 -Government and Institutions 45,000 square feet 0080 -Vacant Land Governmertal 01-4102-005-6850 1680 Northwest 5f' Street 8000-Govemment and institutions 120,000 square feet 0080 -Vacant Land Governmental 014102-005-6730 1390 Northwest 5`h Street 3900-Multi-Famify Medium density Residential 30,000 square feet 0080 -Vacant Land Governmental 01-4102-005-7160 1350 Northwest 4 1 StreetL810,00-Government and Institutions 40,000 square feet cant Land Governmental 01-4102-005-6080 1380 Northwest 61h Street 8000 -Government and institutions 3.2 CURRENT USE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY Approximately 40 percent of the subject property is utilized as a stadium. The stadium, which has a maximum capacity of 82,000, was reportedly constructed in 1937. The remaining 60 percent of the subject property is utilized for parking. Approximately 75 percent of the parking areas are covered by low- lying grasses and the remainder is asphalt paving. The main portipn of the subject property is bordered by Northwest 16'h Avenue to the west, Northwest 14"'' Avenue to the east, Northwest P Street to the south and Northwest 7"' Street to the north. In general, the vacant land parking outparcels are located to the east of Northwest 141st Avenue, to the west of Northwest 16'h Avenue and to the south of Northwest 3rd Street. In general, the subject property is bordered by commercial and residential property to the north south, east and west. Historically, the subject property was utilized as a baseball field in the 1920's and has been a sports stadium from 1537 until the present. Mr. Dale Sandin provided the following information regarding subject property utilities: • Electricity: Florida Power and Light • Natural Gas: None • Water: Miami -Dade Water and Sewer utility ■ Sewer: Miami -Dade Water and Sewer Utility • Cooling/Heating: Electrical pad -mounted units located in the foyer of Gate 14 and on the roof of the press box. 7 Folio Number Address Primary Zone Square Footage Primary Usage Cotte 45,000 square feet 0080 -Vacant Land Governmental 01-4102-005-8400 1652 Northwest 3'0 Street 8002 -Parks and Recreation 7,500 square feet 0080 -Vacant Land Governmental Not Available No address. Located on Not Available the southwestern corner of northwest 17th Avenue and Northwest 61h Street Approximately 5,000 square feet 3.2 CURRENT USE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY Approximately 40 percent of the subject property is utilized as a stadium. The stadium, which has a maximum capacity of 82,000, was reportedly constructed in 1937. The remaining 60 percent of the subject property is utilized for parking. Approximately 75 percent of the parking areas are covered by low- lying grasses and the remainder is asphalt paving. The main portipn of the subject property is bordered by Northwest 16'h Avenue to the west, Northwest 14"'' Avenue to the east, Northwest P Street to the south and Northwest 7"' Street to the north. In general, the vacant land parking outparcels are located to the east of Northwest 141st Avenue, to the west of Northwest 16'h Avenue and to the south of Northwest 3rd Street. In general, the subject property is bordered by commercial and residential property to the north south, east and west. Historically, the subject property was utilized as a baseball field in the 1920's and has been a sports stadium from 1537 until the present. Mr. Dale Sandin provided the following information regarding subject property utilities: • Electricity: Florida Power and Light • Natural Gas: None • Water: Miami -Dade Water and Sewer utility ■ Sewer: Miami -Dade Water and Sewer Utility • Cooling/Heating: Electrical pad -mounted units located in the foyer of Gate 14 and on the roof of the press box. 7 The planned short-term use for the subject properly is redevelopment and renovation of the stadium. 3.3 CURRENT USES OF ADJOiNINGfNEARBY PROPERTIES The area surrounding the subject property consists of light commercial and residential development. Adjoining properties were observed (from the subject property or from public access areas) for signs of recognized environmental conditions and their potential to pose an environmental concern to the subject property (Figure 2, Figures Tab). The uses and features of adjoining properties are described below_ North: Northwest 7t" Street followed by a Walgreen's Drug Store addressed as 1699 Northwest 7th Street, BT Foods addressed as 1515 Northwest 7"' Street, an apartment complex addressed as 730 Northwest 15'r' Avenue, an office building addressed as 1497 Northwest 7"h Street, an office building addressed as 1481 Northwest 71h Street, an auto repair facility addressed as 1451 Northwest 7i°' Street, and a multi -family Miami -Dade County public residential housing facility addressed as 1389 Northwest 71h Street. An office huilding is located to the south of Northwest 7"' Street at 625 Northwest 7"' Street adjoining the northern parking lot of the subject property. East: Northwest 14"' Avenue followed by an office building addressed as 1398 Northwest 7`h Street, a multi -family residential property addressed as 611 Northwest 14'h Avenue, three Orange Bowl unpaved parking outparcels addressed as 1380 Northwest 6'h Street, 1398 Northwest 5"' Street and 1350 Northwest 4t'' Street, respectively, a multi -family residential property addressed as 335 Northwest 10' Avenue and a multi -family residential property addressed as 1371 Northwest 3`d Street. Residential development was observed further the east. South: Northwest 3"d Street followed by sixteen multi -family residential properties addressed between 1400 and 1570 Northwest 3`d Street followed by similar residential property. West. Northwest 161' Avenue followed by three Orange Bowl unpaved parking outparcels addressed as 16001 Northwest 71h Street, 1610 Northwest 61h Street and 1680 Northwest 5th Street, respectively, and multi -family residential properties addressed as 330, 318, 314 and 300 Northwest 1131h Avenue. Similar multi -family residential property was observed further west followed by Northwest 17`" Avenue with residential and commercial land use. Based on their present operations, none of the adjoining properties appear to present an environmental concern to the subject property. Information regarding historical or other documented uses of nearby properties that may pose an environmental concern to the subject property is discussed in Section 6.0, 3.4 PHYSICAL SETTING The property is located in the Gold Coast and Florida Bay Physiographic Province, which is a region with generally low relief, underlain by unconsolidated to poorly consolidated sediments and indurated carbonate rocks. Florida is mantled nearly everywhere by unconsolidated sands and carbonaceous soils that overlie a 8 SU FIE AU. VERITAS thick sequence of carbonate and clastic rocks. Locally, these sands, carbonaceous soils and the sedimentary rock sequences form the Surficial Aquifer, which is underlain by the 'Floridan Aquifer. The farmer, also referred to as the "Biscayne" Aquifer, provides significantly large quantities of potable water to South Florida. Nearly all of Florida's groundwater originates from precipitation. Florida is mantled nearly everywhere by unconsolidated sands and carbonaceous soils that overlie a thick sequence of carbonate and clastic rocks, Locally, these sands, carbonaceous soils and the sedimentary rock sequences form the Surficial Aquifer, which is underlain by the Floridan Aquifer. The Surficial Aquifer underlies the subject property and the estimated depth to bedrock in the vicinity of the subject property is 200 feet thick (USDA, 1996). Regional groundwater in Miami -Dade is derived from the Biscayne Aquifer. Local groundwater conditions may vary. Based on information from EDR, the estimated depth to first groundwater near the subject property vicinity is approximately four feet below ground surface (bgs), and the groundwater flow direction is inferred to be to the northeast. The local gradient and flow direction under the subject property may be influenced naturally by zones of higher or lower permeability, or by nearby pumping or recharge, and may deviate from the regional trend.(USDA, 1998) The main soil type found on and around the subject property is urban land-Udorthents. This soil type is typically represented in areas that have been developed with buildings, parking lots and residences and the natural soils cannot be readily observed_ (USDA, 1996). HISTORICAL REVIEW 3.5 SUMMARY OF HISTORICAL REVIEW The historical research presented in this assessment has established the use of the subject property since 1921. According to the reviewed Sanborn Map Report provided by Environmental Data Resources of Milford, Connecticut, the subject property was depicted as the Tatum Baseball Park in 1921. The subject property was depicted as the Burdine Stadium from at least 1937 through 1950 and was reportedly renamed the Orange Bowl in 1959 and remains the Orange Bowl today. Details regarding the sources of this information are presented in the following sections. Please refer to Section 1.2.3 for a summary of data gaps. 3.6 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS Aerial photographs, including the subject and adjoining properties, were reviewed at the Miami -Dade Government Center located in downtown Miami. Copies of the select photographs are included in the appendices. Photographs reviewed are summarized as follows: Q4 !EAU' VERITAS Date: 1945 Aerial Photographs Nos. NIA Scale: 1"=600' Property: Stadium is generally depicted as it was observed on the day of the property visit. Structures are depicted on the northern portion of the main parking lot of the stadium, to the south of Northwest 71" Street. Baseball fields are depicted on the southern portion of the main parking lot, north of Northwest P Street. Outparcels are generally depicted as vacant land; however, structures are depicted an the outparcels located at 1600 Northwest 7'h Street, 1680 Northwest 5t" Street, 1380 Northwest 61" Street and 1390 Northwest 5" Street. North: Northwest 7"' Street followed by residential and commercial property South: Northwest. 3r° Street followed by residential property East: Northwest 14`h Avenue followed by residential property West: Northwest 161" Avenue followed by vacant band and residential and commercial property Date: 1957 Aerial Photographs Nos. NIA Scale: 1 "=400' Property: Stadium is generally depicted as it was observed on the day of the property visit. Structures are depicted on the northern portion of the main parking lot of the stadium, to the south of Northwest 7"' Street. Baseball fields are depicted an the southern portion of the main parking lot, north of Northwest V Street. ❑utparcels are generally depicted as vacant land; however, structures are depicted on the outparcels located at 1600 Northwest 7th Street, 1680 Northwest 51'' Street, 1380 Northwest 6th Street and 1390 Northwest 5i1' Street. North, Northwest 7`h Street followed by residential and commercial property South: Northwest 3"' Street followed by residential property East: Northwest 141h Avenue followed by residential property West: Northwest i61h Avenue followed by vacant land and residential and commercial property Date: 1963, 1965, 1966 Aerial Photographs Nos, NIA Scale: 1"=300' Property: Stadium is generally depicted as it was observed on the day of the property visit. Structures are depicted on the northern portion of the main parking lot of the 10 stadium, to the south of Northwest 71" Street. Baseball fields are depicted on the southern portion of the main parking lot, north of Northwest 3r0 Street. Dutparcels are generally depicted as vacant land; however, structures are depicted on the outparcels located at 1600 Northwest 7th Street, 1680 Northwest 5t" Street, 1380 Northwest 6`h Street and 1390 Northwest 51h Street. North: Northwest 71h Street followed by residential and commercial property South: Northwest 3r' Street followed by residential property East: Northwest 141h Avenue followed by residential property West: Northwest 16'tAvenue followed by vacant land and residential and commercial property Date; 1968-1981, 1983-2002, 2006 Aerial photographs Nos. IVDA Scale: 1"=300' Property: The subject property is generally depicted as it was observed on the day of the property visit. North: Northwest 7"' Street followed by residential and commercial property South: Northwest 3r° Street followed by residential properly East: Northwest 14'h Avenue followed by residential property West: Northwest 161h Avenue followed by vacant land and residential and commercial property No readily -apparent evidence of potential recognized environmental conditions at the subject or adjoining properties was noted on the aerial photographs reviewed. 3.7 USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP Historic topographic map for the subject property and vicinity were obtained from the Miami Dade County Library and dated 1950, 1962, 1988, 1990 and 1994. Copies of the topographic map are included in the appendices. The map depicted the following: Scale: 1:24,000 Series: 7.5 Minute 1950: The stadium is apparent on the subject property on the reviewed topographic map. No other structures are depicted in the area surrounding the subject property. 11 1962: The stadium is apparent on the subject property on the reviewed topographic map. One structure is depicted on the southwestern portion of the southern parking lot. No other structures are depicted in the area surrounding the subject property. 1969: The stadium is apparent on the subject property on the reviewed topographic map. The structure observed at 625 Northwest 16"' Avenue is depicted adjoining the northern portion of the main parking tot, No other structures are depicted in the area surrounding the subject property. 1988 and 1990: The stadium is apparent on the subject property on the reviewed topographic map. The structure observed at 625 Northwest le Avenue is depicted adjoining the northern portion of the main parking lot. Several structures are depicted adjacent to the west of the outparcel addressed at 1610 Northwest 61'' Street. No other structures are depicted in the area surrounding the subject properly. 1994: The stadium is apparent on the subject property on the reviewed topographic map. The structure observed at 525 Northwest 16°" Avenue is depicted adjoining the northern portion of the main parking lot, No other structures are depicted in the area surrounding the subject property. No readily apparent evidence of potential recognized environmental conditions at the subject or adjoining properties was noted on the topographic maps reviewed. 3.8 FIRE INSURANCE MAPS Fire insurance maps for the subject and adjoining properties were obtained from Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) for the periods 1921, 1924, 1938, 1939, 1946, 1950 and 1967. Coverage of the area of the subject property was not included in the 1938 and 1946 fire insurance maps. Copies of the maps are included in the appendices. The maps depicted the following: 1921 : Tatum Baseball Park is depicted on the southern portion of the subject property. Three dwellings are depicted on the northern portion of the subject property. The remainder of the subject property is depicted as vacant land. The surrounding area is depicted as residential property and vacant land. 1924 : No coverage was provided for the southern and eastern portions of the subject property. A citrus packing facility is depicted on the northeast portion of the property at 1524 Northwest fish Street. Three dwellings are depicted on the northern portion of the subject property. The remainder of the subject property is depicted as vacant land. The surrounding area is depicted as residential property and vacant land. liPA 1538, 1939 and 1959: Burdine Stadium was depicted on the central portion of the subject property. A section of grandstands was depicted on the southwestern portion of the subject property on the northeastern corner of the intersection of Northwest P Street and Northwest 169' Avenue, Four dwellings are depicted on the subject property on the southwestern corner of the intersection of Northwest 6'" Street and Northwest 14'h Avenue. Two unlabeled structures and one dwelling were depicted the northwestern portion of the subject property, south of Northwest 6t" Street, to the east of Northwest 16'h Avenue. A filling station was depicted on the outparcel of the subject property addressed as 1600 Northwest 7`" Street. The surrounding area is depicted as residential property and vacant land, 1987 : Miami Orange Bowl/Burdine Stadium was depicted on the central portion of the subject property. The remainder of the subject property is depicted as vacant parking areas. Filling stations are depicted adjacent to the subject property at 1451 Northwest 71" Street, 1705 Northwest 7`" Street and 1665 Northwest 71" Street. The surrounding area is depicted as residential property and commercial offices. The presence of a petroleum filling station on the outparcel of the subject property from at least 1938 through 1950 represents a recognized environmental condition to the subject property. No readily apparent other evidence of potential recognized environmental conditions at the subject property was noted on the reviewed fire insurance maps. However, it should be noted that three petroleum filling stations were depicted adjacent to the subject property on the reviewed 1987 fire insurance map. 3.9 CITY DIRECTORIES R.L. Polk and Company's, Bresser's and Hill Donnelly City Directories that include the subject property and adjoining properties were reviewed at the Miami Dade County Public Library and provided by EDR for the period between 1928 and 2006. A summary of the listings for the subject and adjoining properties is shown below, JFAddressYeadDate Range 11 Listings) - Subject Property= 1501 Northwest 3rd Street 1928, 1937, 1941, 1947, 1967 No Listing 401 Northwest 16`h Avenue 1941 =U-13al Reserve Armory 13 0,68""s Address Year/Rate mange Listing(s) 1600 Northwest 7`h Street 1941, 1947, 1967 Marshalls Service Station/Blue Ribbon Service StationiMoonlight Service Station 401 Northwest 1 e Avenue 1957, 1967 Drange Bowl Stadium Rear Entrance 1400 Northwest 4th Street 1987 The Orange Bowl Committee 15(11 Northwest 3rd Street 1957, 1972, 1985, 1987 The Orange Bow;/Burdine Stadium an 2006 AdjoininglNearby Properties: 645 Northwest 15th Avenue 1928, 1937 Beamfln Chas W Filling Station/Marshall Filling Station 1700 Northwest 7'hStreet [1957 Luc-as Paint Company 1655 Northwest 7kh Street 1957, 1967 Speedy We Wash IUMiami Coin D Mat Laundryette 1665 Northwest 7" Street 1972 Junco's Service Station 1705 Northwest 7th Street 1972, 1987, 2006 Para Seventy Six Service/Ramos Service Station/Vinales Texaco 1451 Northwest 7th Street 1987, 2006 Las Filipinas Auto/Miami Auto Service 1699 Northwest 7th Street 1987 Super Fina Gas 600 Northwest 171h Avenue 2006 Orange Motors/Auto Bike Other listings were residential or professional for the surrounding area. No readily apparent evidence of potential recognized environmental conditions at the subject or adjoining properties was noted in the city directories reviewed, except the following: • Marshalls Service Station/Blue Ribbon Service Station/Moonlight Service Station addressed as 1500 Northwest 71h Street on the subject property outparcel in the reviewed 1941 and 1947 city directories. • U.S Naval Reserve Armory addressed as 401 Northwest 16th Avenue on the subject property in the reviewed 1941 city directory. All of the adjoininginearby facilities listed in the above -referenced table. 14 3.10 PRIOR OWNERSHIP As part of this assessment, BV, on behalf of The City of Miami Department of Public Facilities, obtained reasonably ascertainable recorded land title records and lien records as part of the appraisal report that are filed under federal, state„ tribal, or local law. BV's review of the land title records did not reveal environmental liens or AULs associated with the subject property. Readily available records at the Miami Dade County Clerk were reviewed to assess past ownership and use of the subject property. No readily apparent evidence of potential recognized environmental conditions at the subject property was noted in the ownership records reviewed. 3.11 AGE=NCY CONTACTS 3.11.1 Miami Dade County Planning and Zoning Department The Miami Dade County Zoning Department was contacted on March 19, 2007 to obtain historical use information for the subject property. According to Ms. Helen (last name withheld) they do not have any files on record for the subject property. In addition, Ms. Helen (last name withheld), did not have any personal knowledge regarding the past history of use of or any potential recognized environroental conditions associated with the subject property_ 3,11.2 Fire Department Lieutenant Jose Paz with the City of Miami Fire Department was most recently contacted on March 19, 2007 to obtain information regarding any fires, complaints, permits, or violations involving hazardous material use, USTs, or ASTs on record for the subject and/or adjoining properties. The fire department has not responded to the message left by BV. BV will forward information, if any, as an addendum to this report. 3.11.3 Miami -Dade County -Department of Public Warks -Water and Sewer The Miami -Dade County Water and Sewer department (MDCWSD) was contacted on March 19, 2007 (confirmation number 359185182) to obtain information regarding any environmental concerns or violations at the subject property. According to Ms. Nicole (last name withheld) of the MDCWSD, the Orange Bowl has been connected to Miami -Dade County municipal water and sewer service since 1948, Ms. Nicole did not have any personal knowledge of potential recognized environmental conditions in connection with the subject or adjoining properties. 15 3.11.4 Miami Dade County Department of Environmental Resource Management (DERh1) The following provides a summary of the requested documents provided by the DERM; BV reviewed the readily available records maintained by the DERM for the property and for adjacent properties or those facilities identified in the EDR search that include the property within their geologic, hydrologic, hydrogeologic and/or topographical limits of potential contaminant migration, with respect to contaminant properties. No DFRM files were available for any of the addresses that would correspond to the subject property. Review of the DERM file for Bernal Tire, a LUST facility located at 1451 Northwest 7th Street, adjacent to the north of the subject property, indicated that no cleanup was required at this facility and the cleanup status is complete. Review of the DERM file for Mobil Orange BowVWalgreens #5250, a FINDS, UST and LUST facility located at 1699 Northwest 7`h Street, adjacent to the north of the subject property, indicated that groundwater flow at this facility was to the northwest away from the subject property and that petroleum contamination was concentrated in the area of the former tank farm and had not migrated from the facilities boundaries. Cleanup activities are currently inactive at this facility. Review of the DERM file for Orange TexacofVinales Texaco a UST and LUST facility, located adjacent to the northwest of the property at 1705 Northwest 71h Street, indicated that contamination at this facility is contained within the boundaries of the facility and has not migrated outside of the facility boundaries. Cleanup activities are ongoing under the supervision and guidance of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Review of the DERM file for an Emergency Response (ERNS) incident at Northwest 141h Avenue and Northwest 61h Street, adjacent to the east of the subject property, indicated that natural gas was released when a manhole was opened in February 1992. No soil or groundwater was affected. Review of the DERM file for the Miami -Dade Housing Agency, a AST and UST facility, addressed as 1403 Northwest 7'h Street and located adjacent to the north of the subject property, indicated that a 4,000 - gallon UST and a 500 -gallon AST were removed and a 500 -gallon AST was installed in 1999. No releases have been reported for this facility. Review of the DERM file for Andres Dry Cleaners, located approximately 1,000 feet to the south of the subject property and addressed as 1432 West Flagler Street, indicated that this facility received a score of 29 by the State of Florida, indicating a low priority for State -Funded cleanup. The State of Florida is currently providing cleanup for facilities with a score of 125 or above. The subject property is located in the Miami EZ Expansion Brownsffelds area. Brownfields Areas were designed by the State of Florida to facilitate federal funding assistance for redevelopment of blighted areas throughout the state. The Miami EZ Expansion Brownsftetds Area covers several square miles in northwest 16 Miami-Dade County, and inclusion within the Brownsfields Area does not necessarily imply subsurface contamination issues for any particular facility within its boundaries. Based on the information reviewed in the EDR and a review of local regulatory files for the potential candidate sites at the Miami -Glade County Department of Environmental Resources Management (DERM), the Miami EZ Expansion Brownfields Area represents a low potential for environmental concern with respect to the site. Based on the facility records reviewed, there is no evidence that any of these facilities present recognized environmental conditions to the subject property. 3.12 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS OR OTHER DOCUMENTS Previous environmental reports or other documents were not provided to BV as part of this assessment. 3.13 INTERVIEW WITH OWNER Mr. Abdel F_ Martel was contacted by email on February 12, 2007- Mr. Martel was forthcoming with information for which he had knowledge. Mr_ Martel provided general information regarding historic and current operations at the subject property. Mr. Martel was unaware of any environmental issues of concern associated with the subject property at the time of the interview, other than some lead paint and asbestos abatement activities that had been performed at the subject property. Further, he stated that he was unaware of any USTs or ASTs historically or currently located on the subject property_ Mr. Martel was asked the following questions and his response was as follows: Yes No Any pending, threatened, or past litigation relevant to hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or from the property? E El Yes No Any pending, threatened, or past administrative proceedings relevant to hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or from the property? X Any notices from any governmental entity regarding any possible violation of environmental laws or possible liability relating to hazardous substances or petroleum products? N 3.14 INTERVIEW WITH SITE MANAGER Mr. Dale Sandin was contacted on March 7, 2007. Mr. Sandin was forthcoming with information for which he had knowledge. Mr. Sandin has been associated with the subject property for approximately 30 years. 17 Mr. Sandin provided general information regarding historic and current operations at the subject property. He was unaware of any environmental issues of concern associated with the subject property at the time of the interview, and stated that he was unaware of any USTs historically or currently located on the subject property. However, Mr. Sandin stated that three ASTs of approximately 300 -gallons each are located on the subject property and are utilized to provide diesel fuel for the three emergency generators. Mr. Dale Sandin was asked the following questions and his response was as Fallows: Yes No Any pending, threatened, or past litigation relevant to hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or from the property's 0 F] Yes No Any pending, threatened, or past administrative proceedings relevant to hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or from the property? F—I El Any notices from any governmental entity regarding any possible violation of environmental laws or possible liability relating to hazardous substances or petroleum products? rX, 4,0 STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD SOURCES FEDERAL, STATE. AND LOCAL Available government database information prepared by EDR was reviewed to evaluate both the subject property and any listed sites within ASTM -recommended search distances. Federal, state, tribal, and local databases reviewed are included in the appendices. According to the EDR, the subject property address was not listed in any of the reviewed federal, state or local regulatory databases. However; according to EDR, a Historical Auto Station was listed at the subject property outparcel address of 1660 Northwest 71h Street in 1941, 1949, 1954, 1960 and 1964. The computer database review identified the following number of facilities within the specified search distances from the subject property. Regulatory Database . Sites Listed Within the Search Radii pate of Last Update Federal National Priority list (NPL) 0 November 2006 Federal CERCLIS list 0 January 2007 Federal CERCLIS NFRAP 0 February 2007 Federal RCRA CORRACTS 0 February 2007 18 Regulatory Database Sites Listed Within the Search Radii Date of Last Update Federal RCRA non- CQRRACTS TSD 0 February 2007 Federal RCRA Small Quantity Generators 2 August 2006 Federal RCRA large Quantity Generators 0 August 2006 Federal ERNS list 1 August 2006 State Hazardous Waste Sites 0 October 2006 State Landfills or Solid Waste Disposal Sites 0 November 2006 State Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) 35 December 2006 State Registered Underground Storage Tanks (UST) 10 January 2007 State Registered Underground Storage Tanks (AST) 2 January 2007 Miami -Dade County Spill 1 December 2006 State of Ftorida Drycleaners 1 December 2006 State of Florida Priority Cleaners 2 January 2007 Brownfields 1 December 2006 Historic Auto Stations 7 NIA Historic Cleaners 23 NIA Facilities with a potential to impact the subject property are discussed in Section 3.11.4. Based on the distance, the assumed groundwater flow direction, and information reviewed in the database, there is no evidence that any of these facilities, other than the previously -referenced historical gasoline station located at the subject property outparcel address of 1600 Northwest 7th Street, present recognized environmental conditions to the subject property. Unmappable sites are sites that cannot be plotted with confidence, but can be ionated by zip code or city name. In general, a site cannot be geocoded due to inaccurate or missing information in the environmental database record provided by its applicable agency. Cross-referencing addresses and site names, as well as a visual reconnaissance of surrounding properties, has been completed for the unmappable facility sites in the database report. The subject and adjacent properties were not identified on the unmappable sites listing in the environmental database report. No unmappable sites were identified with the potential to impact the subject property. 19 5.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE 5.1 METHODOLOGY AND LIMITATIONS The subject property was thoroughly inspected on foot. photographs takers at the time of the ESA are included behind the Photographs Tab. 'Full access was granted to the subject property. 5.2 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS The subject property was reportedly developed in 1937 and is improved with a stadium with a seating capacity of 82,600 people and associated asphalt -paved and grass parking Tats located on a contiguous parcel of approximately 33 -acres of land bordered by Northwest 161" Avenue to the west, Northwest 7"h Street to the north, Northwest 3d Street to the south and Northwest 14"h Avenue to the east. The subject property is addressed as 1501 Northwest 3`d Street_ Nine additional vacant -land outparcels are utilised for stadium parking and cover an additional aggregate of approximately eight acres. These vacant parcels are addressed as 1545 Northwest 61h Street, 1600 Northwest 7"h Street, 1610 Northwest 61" Street., 1680 Northwest 5"" Street, 1390 Northwest 5"" Street. 1350 Northwest 4"" Street, 1380 Northwest Ch Street, 1652 Northwest 3'd Street and an unaddressed parcel located on the southwestern corner of the intersection of Northwest 17th Avenue and Northwest 61 h Street. An additional parcel addressed at 1390 Northwest 7'h Street is utilized as parking for the Orange Bowl, but is privately owned and was not included in this assessment. The en€ire subject property encompasses an aggregate of approximately 41 - acres. The reported planned future use for the subject property is a renovation of the existing stadium. 5.3 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND PETROLEUM PRODUCTS The subject property was inspected for signs of storage, use, or disposal of hazardous substances and/or petroleum} products. The assessment consisted of noting evidence (e.g., drums, unusual vegetation patterns, staining) indicating that hazardous substances andlor petroleum products are currently or were previously located on the subject property. One 55 -gallon plastic drum of hydraulic fluid was observed in Section DD, next to a hydraulic elevator located in the Touchdown VIP Club. No evidence of leakage was observed in the area surrounding the 55 -gallon drum. Approximately 56 five -gallon containers of paint and retail -sized containers of municipal janitorial supplies were observed in a maintenance room and in a caged storage area located in the vicinity of Section K on the northern side of the stadium. In addition, a sink with paint staining was observed adjacent to the maintenance room. No evidence of leakage or staining was observed on the concrete flooring underneath the paint containers. 20 Approximately 10 used batteries were observed stored on pallets in maintenance rooms located on the southern portion and northern portions of the stadium. No staining or leakage was observed in the area surrounding the pallets_ 5.4 STORAGETANKS 5.4.1 Underground Storage Tanks The subject property was inspected for evidence of underground storage tanks (USTs) (e.g., vent piping, dispensing equipment, and pavement variations). Evidence of USTs was not observed at the subjecl property during the assessment. In addition, no features were observed at the subject property that would have required USTs to have been present (such as auxiliary generators or boilers). Mr. Dale Sandin stated that, to the best of his knowledge, USTs have never been present at the subject property. In addition, a review of the State of Florida Storage Tank Records provided by EDR did riot list any USTs for the subject property. 5.4.2 Aboveground Storage Tanks The subject property was inspected for evidence of ASTs (e.g_ concrete Foundations or saddles, pedestals or steel support structures). Three diesel -containing ASTs of approximately 300 -gallons each were observed. The three ASTs are located on concrete pads and are located at the base of the three emergency generators located in the stadium grounds. The ASTs are located on the north and south sides of the stadium and underneath the eastern scoreboard. No visible evidence of leakage from the ASTs was observed during the subject property visit. Mr. Dale Sandin stated that he was unaware of any spills or leakage associated with the ASTs. . 5.4.3 In -Ground Hydraulic Equipment The subject property was inspected for evidence of in -ground hydraulic equipment (e.g. hydraulic elevators or lifts that have hydraulic fluid-containing reservoirs or jacks below ground surface). Although not regulated as USTs, hydraulic equipment of this type can be of concern due to the potential For oil leaks from the hydraulic cylinders. Hydraulic fluid in equipment installed In 1978 or before may contain PCBs_ Five electrical and one hydraulic elevator were observed on the property. Access to the elevator pits was not available on the day of the property visit. Mr. Sandin stated he was unaware of any problems associated with the hydraulic elevator. No other in -ground hydraulic equipment was observed on the subject property. 21 5.5 WASTES Currently. non -hazardous solid waste is generated onsite. Waste is in the form of general refuse (e.g., paper, household trash) that is disposed of in dumpsters located on the property. The waste is collected and reportedly transported to an offsite disposal facility by Waste Management as needed. 5.6 POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBS) The subject property was inspected for the presence of liquid -cooled electrical units (transformers, light ballasts, and capacitors), and major sources of hydraulic fluid (elevators and lifts). Such units are notable because they may be potential PCB sources. Seven pad -mounted transformers owned by Florida Power and Light were observed on the subject property. Florida Power and Light has indicated that its electrical transformers are tested for PCB content only when repairs are performed. The transformers have not been tested and are assumed to be PCB contaminated (i.e., contain between 50 and 500 ppm PCB). All unlabeled transformers are considered (Federal Regulation 40 CFR 761.40) to be PCB -contaminated (i.e., containing between 50 and 500 ppm PCB). Federal Regulations (40 CFR 761). Subpart G) require any release of material containing greater than 50 ppm PCB and occurring after May 4, 3987, be cleaned up by the Owner (Florida Power and Light) following the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) PCB spill cleanup policy_ Fluorescent light fixtures are present at the subject property. Many fluorescent light types of ballast manufactured prior to 1980 may contain PCBs. 5.7 WASTEWATER AND STORM WATER DISCHARGE Wastewater from the subject property originates from sinks and toilets, and is discharged to the Miami Dade County Wastewater Utility. The storm water runoff from the subject property flows via storm drains to the Miami -Dade County Stormwater Utility. 5,7,1 Discharge Sources Evidence of industrial, process or other discharge sources (i -e. other than domestic wastewater from sinks and toilets) was not observed at the subject property Pia 5.7.2 OitfWater Se arators Clarifiers Sumps, and Trenches The subject property was inspected for evidence of oil/water separators, clarifiers, sumps and trenches (e.g. hatches, manholes, patches on the floor slabs). Evidence of oil/water separators, clarifiers, sumps or trenches was not observed. In addition, Mr. Dale Sandin stated that to the best of his knowledge, these items have never been present at the subject property. 5.7.3 Septic Systems The subject property was inspected for evidence of current or former septic systems (e.g. clean out manhole, records, and interviews). The Miami -Dade County Water and Sewer Department was contacted on March 19, 2007 (confirmation number 369185182) to obtain information regarding any environmental concerns or violations at the subject property. According to Ms. Nicole (last name withheld), the Miami - Dade County Water and Sewer Department has provided service to the property address since 194& Ms. Nicole did not have any personal knowledge of potential recognized environinentat conditions in connection with the subject or adjoining properties. Mr. Dale Sandin stated that to the best of his knowledge, a septic system has never been present at the subject property. 5.8 WELLS The subject property was inspected for evidence of wells (e.g., dry, irrigation, injection, abandoned, monitor, supply). BV did not observe evidence of wells at the subject property. According to the MDC DERM, there are no records of active, inactive, destroyed wells, or dry wells at the subject property. Furthermore, there are no dry wells permitted with the DERM for the subject property. 5.9 DRY CLEANING OPERATIONS According to Mr. Dale Sandin, dry cleaning operations have not been conducted on the subject property 6.0 NON -ASTM ISSUES 6.1 WETLANDS The subject property was Inspected for the presence of sensitive ecological areas by noting environmental indicators (e.g., wetlands vegetation, floodplains) located on or immediately adjoining the subject property. Environmental indicators of sensitive ecological areas were not observed on the subject property, Based on a review of the National Wetlands Inventory Map included in the EDR database, the 23 VEA,TAs nearest delineated wetland areas are located approximately 1,500 feet to the north of the property, along the southern edge of the Miami River. The Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map was reviewed to determine if the subject property is located in a flood hazard area, The subject and adjoining properties are located in Zone [AE] of the 100 -year floodplain. 7.0 FINDINGS, OPINIONS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS We have performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM E 1527.05 of The Orange Bowl Stadium addressed as 1501 Northwest 3rd Street, the subject property. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Sections 1.2 and 1.4 of this report. Based on a review of Fire Insurance Maps and City Directories and information contained in the regulatory databases, the presence of a petroleum filling station on the outparcel addressed as 1600 Northwest 71" Street of the subject property from at least 1938 through 1967 represents a recognized environmental condition to the subject property. 24 Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Orange Bow) Stadium 1501 Northwest 3rd Street Miami, Miami -Glade County, Florida This report was prepared, under the responsible charge of the Environmental Professional noted below, by: Environmental Professional's Certification: Ma/co F. Hernaddez, Y.I. Pr ct Engineer Environmental Services Miami Regional Office Bureau Veritas North America, Inc. I declare that, to the best of my professional knowledge and belief, I meet the definition of Environmental Professional as defined in §312.10 of 40 CFR 312, t have the specific qualifications based on education, draining, and experience to assess a property of the nature, history, and setting of the subject property, I have developed and performed the all appropriate inquiries in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312. . " Doty, P.G. �L�4u ject Manager ,-JA.u ntal Services division ional Office ritas North America, Inc. March 20, 2007 BV Project No. 144398 25 Phase 11 Environmental ,Site Assessment )range Bowl Stadium and Associated Parcels 1501 Northwest 3rd Street Miami, Miami -Dade County, Florida March 14, 2008 Bureau Veritas Project Number 26008-144776.02 Prepared for: The City of Miami 444 Southwest 2n` Avenue, 101" Floor Miami, Florida 33130 For the benefit of business and people Bureau Vertias North America, Inc. 10125 Northwest 1161h Way, Suite 18 Miami, Florida 33178 306.651.8483 www.us.bureauveritas.com PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION PHASE 11 ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASESSMENT Orange Bowl Stadium and Associated Parcels 1501 Northwest 3rd Street Miami, Miami -Dade County, Florida This is to certify that the Ideological and hydrogeological •information presented in this Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, completed by Professional Engineering and Inspection Company, Inc., a Bureau Veritas !North America, Inc, company of Miami, Florida on behalf of the City of Miami, has been prepared in accordance with Florida Rules and Regulations. As a registered Professional, Geologist, as authorized by Chapter 492, Florida Statutes, I certify that I am a qualified environmental professional, with knowledge and experience in groundwater and soil contamination assessment and cleanup. To the best of my knowledge, the recent assessment information and laboratory data summarized in this document are true, accurate, complete, and in accordance with State Rules and Regulations. Name: A Murphy Doty, P.G. Signature: ` ! - St f &W- T License Number PG 2447 �,:•' VG[,ys •' y Date: CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND-_, ... _ ....... ................................................................. 1.1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................1 3.1 1.2 BACKGROUND ...................... ........................... ............................................................. ..................... 1 2.0 LIMITED PHASE II ESA.....................................................................................................................2 2.1 SOIL QUALITY ASSESSMENT. ............................ ........ ............................................................. 2 2.2 GROUNDWATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT.....................................................................................4 2.3 GROUND PENETRATING RADAR AND EXPLORATORY TEST PIT EVALUATION .. ....................5 7 2.4 LIMITED SOURCE REMOVAL-SB-3fTMW-3.............. .............................. .......... ......... ,.................6 3.0 EXPANDED PHASE 11 ESA................................................................................................................7 3.1 SAMPLING RATIONALE... .................................................................................................................7 3.2 SOIL SAMPLING METHODOLOGY................ .. .............................................................................7 3.3 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING MEH©DOLOGY................................................................................7 3.3.1 Temporary Wellpoint Installation ......................... 3.3.2 Permanent Monito0ng Well Installation.- ......................................................................................... 7 3.4 SB-5fTMW-5 - OFF-SITE PAINT FACILITY.......................................................................................8 3.5 SB-6fTMW-6 -- FORMER ON-SITE CITRUS PACKING FACILITY. ....... ........................................... 9 3.6 SB-71TMW-7 -TWO UNKNOWN ON-SITE STRUCTURES........... ............ .................................... 10 3.7 SB-8fTMW-8 -- HISTORICAL OFF-SITE FILLING STATION...........................................................10 3.8 SB-9fTMW-9 -- UNKNOWN HISTORIC ON-SITE STRUCTURES...................................................11 3.9 SB-10ITMW-IO--DUE DILIGENCE OF EATERN OUTPARCEL.....................................................12 3.10 SB-11ITMW-11 -DUE DILIGENCE OF EASTERN OUTPARCEL..................................................13 3.11 SB-121TMW-12 - DUE DILIGENCE OF OUTPARCEL....................................................................14 3.12 SBA 31TMW-13 - HISTORIC OFF-SITE DRYCLEANING FACILITY...............................................15 3.13 SB-14fTMW-14 -- FORMER ON-SITE U.S. NAVAL RESERVE ARMORY......................................16 3.14 SBA 5fTMW-15 - HISTORIC OFF-SITE DRYCLEANING FACILITY................................................17 3.15 SB-16/TMW-16 - ON-SITE AST FOR EMERGENCY GENERATOR..............................................18 3.16 SBA 7fTMW-17 -- ON-SITE AST FOR EMERGENCY GENERATOR..............................................19 . 3.17 SB-18fTMW-18 - ON-SITE AST FOR EMERGENCY GENERATOR.... ......................... __ ............ 20 3.18 SB-19fTMW-19- ELEVATOR HYDRAULICS ..................................................................................20 3.19 SB-20/TMW-20 - ON-SITE STORAGE OF PAINT AND JANITORIAL SUPPLIES ...... ..................22 3.20 3B-21fTMW-21 - IN -GROUND GREASE TRAPS............................................................................23 3.21 SB-22fTMW-22 -1N-GROUND GREASE TRAPS............................................................................23 3.22 SB-231TMW-23 - IN -GROUND GREASE TRAPS. ................................... ..................... .......... ...... 24 3.23 MWA - DUE DILIGENCE COVFRAGE...........................................................................................25 CONTENTS (Continued) 3.24 MW -2 — OFF-SITE UST FACILITY..................................................••.............................................26 3.25 MW-3—OFF-SITE DRYCLEANING FACILITY ........................... .............................. ,................... ...27 326 MW -4— FORMER ON-SITE STRUCTURE (GRANDSTANDS) .................................................,.....28 3.27 MW-5—OFF-SITE ❑RYCLEANING FACILITY ........... ............................ ......................................... 29 3.28 MW -6 — ON-SITE HISTORIC LIGHT MANUFACTURING FACILITY......,........................................30 4.0 TOP -OF -CASING SURVEY.............................................................................................................30 1 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................31 5.1 CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................................31 5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................... ................................................. ................ 31 6,0 QUALIFICATIONS............................................................................................................................32 7.0 SIGNATURE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONALS...............................................................33 Appendices A Figures B Tables C Soil Boring Logs D Laboratory Analytical Reports and Chain -of -Custody Records E Benzo(a)pyrene Conversion Tables F FDEP Groundwater Sampling Logs G Waste Disposal Manifests H Well Completion Reports List of Figures 1 Site Location Map 2 Site Plan 3 Detafled Sita Plan -- Lots 1-5, Block 35 4 Sampling Location Map 5 Groundwater Contour Map List of Tables 1 Summary of Testing Locations by GPS Coordinates 2 Summaryof Fleld Screening by OVA -FID 3 Summary of Soil Analytical Data 4 Summary of Groundwater Analytical Data 5 Summary of Monitoring Well Construction Details 6 Summary of Groundwater Elevation Data n March 14, 2008 Mr. Robert Fenton Senior Project Manager City of Miami — Office of the City Manager 444 Southwest 2"d Avenue, 101' Floor Miami, Florida 33130 Re: Phase li Environmental Site Assessment Orange Bowl Stadlum and Associated Parcels 9501 Northwest 3 I Street Miami, Miami -Dade County, Florida Bureau Veritas Project No. 26008-144776.02 Dear Mr. Fenton: Professional Engineering and Inspection Company, Inc., a Bureau Veritas North America, Inc, company (Bureau Veritas) is pleased to present the Clty of Miami with the results of the Phase 11 Environmental Site Assessment conducted at the above -referenced project. This report contains the results of our Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment and our Expanded Phase 11 Environmental Site Assessment. These reports were combined pursuant to discussions and agreement established during our meeting on March 6, 2008, which was attended by representatives of Bureau Veritas, the Clty of Miami, the Florida Marlins and Miami -Dade County. A Tank Closure Assessment Report, detailing the Identification, removal, disposal and proper regulatory closure of storage tanks identified at a former on-site service station, will be submitted under separate cover. Bureau Veritas appreciates the opportunity to provide consulting services in support of the referenced project, and we look forward to a continued association. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully Submitted Bureau Veritas North America, Inc. Robert Alan Speed Senior Project Manager Alexander D. Acosta Division Manager Envfronmental Services ADAlras Copies: 9 bound, 3 Adobe Disks - Client sAenv proArAty of miamilorange boyfthase 11%stage Mphase 2 final.doc POUIRIA1 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1.1 INTRODUCTION Professional Engineering and Inspection Company, Inc., a Bureau Verifas Norlh America, Inc. company (Bureau Veritas) was retained by the City of Miami (the "City") to conduct a Phase ll Environmental Site Assessment (Phase Il ESA) as part of the ❑range Howl Redevelopment project of the Orange Bowl Stadium property addressed as 1501 Northwest 3rd Street in Miami, Miami Dade County, Florida (the "site"). The objective of the Phase li ESA was to evaluate the potential for on-site impacts from various on-site and off-site sources. This assessment was requested in association with a pending property transaction. Refer to Figure 1, Appendix A for a Site Location Map, which depicts the general location of the site with respect to local landmarks. Refer also to Figure 2, Appendix A for a Site Pian depicting the site boundaries and pertinent site features. 1.2 BACKGROUND Bureau Veritas conducted a Phase I ESA in March 2007 and a subsequent Phase I ESA Update In February 2008. The Phase I ESA identified a former filling station (Moonlight Service Station) which was formerly located at 11600 Northwest 71" Street, in the northwestern corner of the site (Lot 1, Block 35). In addition, the report identified several additional filling stations historically located adjacent to this parcel, (Based on the documented presence of the on-site and adjacent offsite filling stations, Bureau Veritas was authorized to proceed with a Limited Phase II ESA (Bureau Veritas Proposal No, 2602.08.564, dated January 11, 2008). The Limited Phase iI ESA included advancing four soil borings, installation of four temporary monitoring wells, conducting a limited ground penetrating radar (GPR) survey and associated sampling and laboratory analysis. The GPR survey was ultimately expanded to include a former on-sito Naval Reserve Armory, addressed as 401 iVorthwest 16th Avenue (located southwest of the stadium), based on the likelihood for storage tank use at the former facility. Exploratory test pit excavations were subsequently conducted to evaluate subsurface anomalies identified during the GPR survey as well as a limited source removal of impacted soil based on laboratory analytical results. Additionally, Bureau Veritas was authorized to proceed concurrently with an Expanded Phase II ESA (Bureau Veritas Proposal No. 0203.06.0098, dated February 6, 2008) to evaluate potential areas of environmental concern which were not necessarily recognized environmental conditions (as defined in ASPM 1527-05), but could potentially influence a pending real property transaction. The Expanded Phase Il ESA included the advancement of 29 soil borings, installation of 23 temporary well points, Installation of 6 permanent monitoring wells, and a top -of -casing survey to evaluate on-site groundwater flow. The scope, sampling rationale and laboratory analytical method proposed for the Expanded Phase It ESA were reviewed by personnel from the Miami -Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management (DERM), and the DERM's suggestions for additional analylical parameters, locations and demolition oversight were incorporated Into the authorized scope of services. Due to time constraints and at the agreement of City, Florida Marlins and Miami -Dade County representatives, the results of the Limited Phase li ESA and the Expanded Phase ll ESA are provided together herein. The remainder of this report summarizes Bureau Veritas' findings, conclusions and recommendations. 2.0 LIMITED PHASE It ESA 2.1 SOIL QUALITY ASSESSMENT Prior to the initiation of subsurface activities, a utility clearance was performed in general accordance with Florida Statute 553.851 (Chapter 77-153), in an effort to locate existing underground utilities at the site. All soil and groundwater sampling was conducted in general accordance with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) 001101 (February 2004). All field screening with organic vapor analyzer (OVA) was conducted following the methods and procedures outlined in the FDEP Guidelines for Assessment and Source Removal of Petroleum Contaminated Soils (May 1998). Additionally, a globai positioning satellite (GPS) receiver was utilized to document the latitudinal and longitudinal coordinates for each assessment location. On January 24, 2008, Bureau Veritas advanced soil borings at four locations (designated SB-3ITMW-1 through SB-4ITMW-4) across the northern portion of the former Moonlight Service Station and adjacent parcels (Lots 1 through 5, Block 35). Soil samples were collected In two -foot intervals, from existing grade to the groundwater Interface. Soils encountered in soil borings SB -1 through SIB -4 generally consisted of grey fine- to medium -grained sand with limestone fragments and some silt from land surface to depths ranging from two to three feet below land surface (BLS). Light -brown, medium -grained sand was encountered from depths ranging from three feet to four feet SLS. Light -tan limestone was encountered at depths ranging from four feet to six feet BLS in the majority of the soil borings. The water table was generally encountered near the top of the limestone layer (rive to six feet BLS). A Detailed Site Pian depicting this portion of the site is provided as Figure 3, Appendix A. A Summary of Testing Locations by GPS Coordinates is provided as Table 1, Appendix B. Solt Boring Logs are provided as Appendix C. Sail samples were field -screened in two toot Intervals for the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons utilizing a Foxboro Model TVA -1000 OVA -FID. For Field -screening purposes, two soil samples from each two -foot interval were placed in half-filled, eight -ounce glass jars and covered with aluminum foil. The headspace within the jars was then field -screened. In the event of a positive response, an activated carbon filter was used to estimate the concentration of naturally -occurring methanelethane gases within 2 the duplicate sample. The filtered hydrocarbon reading was then subtracted from the total hydrocarbon reading to yield the corrected vapor content indicative of petroleum -related compounds. Review of the field screening data Indicates that negligible net organic vapor concentrations, ranging from 1.3 to 2.5 parts per million (ppm) were detected. Refer to Table 2, Appendix B for a Summary of Field Screening by OVA -FID Results. Based on the presence of negligible organic vapors detected, one soil sample was collected from each boring from approximately one -foot above the soil -water interface and submitted to a National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP)-certified laboratory for anafyses targeting volatile organic aromatics (VOAs) by EPA Method 8260, Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) by EPA Method 8270, total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPH) by the FDEP Florida Petroleum Range Organics (FL -PRC) Method. The storage, transport and holding times of all samples were consistent with EPA and NELAP standards. Review of laboratory analytical data for the soil sample collected at SB-1ITMW-1 indicates that toluene (0.80 micrograms per kilogram - pg/kg), fluoranthene (0.039 milligrams per kilogram -- mg/kg), pyrene (0.052 mg/kg) and TRPH (59 mg/kg) were detected, but at concentrations below applicable Soil Cleanup Target Levels (SCTLs) established in Chapter 24-11 of the Miami -[lade County Code (MDCC). Further, when the reported concentrations of the benzo(a)pyrene equivalents (comprised of benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fiuorantliene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, Chrysene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene and indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene} were converted using Toxicity Equivalent Factors, the concentrations were calculated at 0.0 mg/kg, which is also below the direct exposure SCTL for Benzo(a)pyrene of 0.1 mg/kg. All other parameters were below the respective laboratory method detection limits. Review of laboratory analytical data for the soil sample collected at SB-21TMW-2 indicates that toluene (0.63 pglkg), total xylenes (0.74 pg/kg), benzo(g,h,i)perylene (0.065 mg/kg), fluoranthene (0.280 mg/kg), phenanthrene (0.110 mg/kg), pyrene (0.210 mg/kg) and TRPH (96 mg/kg) were detected, but at concentrations below applicable SCTLs established in Chapter 24-11, MDCC. Further, when the reported concentrations of the benzo(a)pyreno equivalents were converted using Toxicity Equivalent Factors, the concentrations were calculated at 0.1 mg/kg, which does not exceed the direct exposure, SCTL for Benzo(a)pyrene of 0.1 mg/kg. All other parameters were below the respective laboratory method detection limits. Review of laboratory analytical data for the soil sample collected at SB-3/TMW-3 indicates that toluene (0.52 pg/kg), acenaphthylene (0.160 mg/kg), anthracene (0;060 mg/kg), benzo(g,h,l)perylene (0.100 mg/kg), fluoranthene (0.094 mg/kg), phenanthrene (0.024 mg/kg), pyrene (0.140 mg/kg) and TRPH (43 mg/kg) were detected, but at concentrations below applicable SCTLs established in Chapter 24-11, MDCC. However, when the reported concentrations of the benzo(a)pyrene equivalents were converted 3 using Toxicity Equivalent Factors, the concentrations were calculated at 0.2 mgfkg, which exceeds the direct exposure SCTL for benzo(a)pyrene of 0.1 mg/kg. All other parameters were below the respective laboratory method detection limits. Review of laboratory analytical data for the soil sample collected at SB-4/TMW-4 indicates that toluene (0.55 lig/kg) and TRPH (96 mg/kg) were detected, but at concentrations below applicable SCTLs estabilshed In Chapter 24-11, MDCC. Further, when the reported concentrations of the benzo(a)pyrene equivalents were converted using Toxicity Equivalent Factors, the concentrations were calculated at 0.0 mg/kg, which does not exceed the direct exposure SCTL for Benzo(a)pyrene of 0.1 mg/kg. All other parameters were below the respective laboratory method detection limits. A Summary of Solt Analytical Data is provided in Table 3, Appendix B. Copies of laboratory analytical reports and chain -of -custody records are provided in Appendix C. Copies of Senzo(a)pyrene Conversion Tables are provided as Appendix D. 2.2 GROUNDWATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT On January 24, 2008, subsequent to soil sampling described above, Bureau Veritas installed four direct - push temporary wellpoints at corresponding soil boring locations (SB-1/TMW-1, etc.). The temporary weltpoints were installed to a depth of approximately 10 feet BLS. Subsequent to development, groundwater samples were collected and submitted to a NFLAP-certified laboratory for analyses targeting VOAs by EPA Method 8260, PAHs by EPA Method 8270, EDB/DBCP by EPA Method 8011, TRPH by the FL -PRO Method and 8 RCRA Metals by various EPA -approved methods. The storage, transport and holding times of all samples were consistent with EPA and NELAP standards. Subsequent to sample collection, the temporary monitoring wells were removed and the boreholes filled with 6/20 slka sand. Review of the laboratory analytical data for groundwater samples collected from SB-VFMW-1 Indicates that barium (0.041 milligrams per liter (mg/L)) and chromium (0.0038 mg/L) were detected at concentration below the respective Groundwater Cleanup Target Levels (GCTLs) established in Chapter 24-11, MDCC. All other sample parameters were below the respective method detection limits. Review of the laboratory analytical data for groundwater samples collected from SB-2/TMW-2 indicates that total xylenes (1.5 micrograms per liter (pglL)), TRPH (0.102 mg/L), barium (0.031 mg1L), chromium (0,0014 mg/L) and selenium 10.009 mg/L) were detected at concentrations below the respective GCTLs established in Chapter 24-11, MDCC. Ail other sample parameters were below the respective method detection limits. Review of the laboratory analytical data for groundwater samples collected from SB-3(TMW-3 indicates that barium (0.037 mg/L) and chromium (0.0049 mg/L) were detected at concentrations below the 4 respective Groundwater Cleanup Target Levels (GCTLs) established in Chapter 24-11, MDCC. All other sample parameters were below the respective method detection limits. Review of the laboratory analytical data for groundwater samples collected from SB-4lTMW-4 indicates that barium (0.044 mg1Q, chromium (0.0064 mg1L) and selenium (0.0037 mg/L) were detected at concentrations below the respective GCTLs established in Chapter 24-11, MDCC. All other sample parameters were below the respective method detection limits. A Summary of Groundwater Analytical Data is provided in Table 4, Appendix B. Copies of laboratory results and chain -of -custody records are provided in Appendix D, and FDEP Groundwater Sampling togs are provided in Appendix F. 2.3 GROUND PENETRATING RADAR AND EXPLORATORY TEST PIT EVALUATION Concurrently with the soil and groundwater quality assessment, Hitech Engineering of Miami, Florida conducted a limited ground penetrating radar (GPR) survey in the locations of the site formerly occupied by the Moonlight Service Station and the Naval Reserve Armory. The CPR survey idantWed three anomalies in the vicinity of the farmer Moonlight Service Station and one in the vicinity of the; former Naval Reserve Armory. Bureau Veritas performed exploratory test pits to evaluate the nature of each of the subsurface anomalies. Excavation of the anomaly located in the vicinity of the former Naval Reserve Armory revealed a small (four feet by two feet by eight inches) slab of concrete with a steel retaining ring. No objects Indicating likely impairment and no evidence of visual or olfactory impacts were identified; however, Bureau Verilas collected one soil sairrpie for subsequent submittal to a NELAP-certified laboratory for a.nalysas targeting volatile -organic aromatics (VOAs) by EPA Method 82608, PAHs by EPA Method 8270, TRPH by the FL -PRO Method, Perchlorate by EPA Method 314.0 and Explosives by EPA Method 8330. The storage, transport and holding times of all samples were consistent with EPA and NELAP standards. Review of laboratory analytical data for this soil sample indicate [hat all compounds were below respective method detection limits. Therefore, the excavation was backfilled. Excavations of the anomalies idenlifled in the vicinity of the former filling station revealed the presence of three steel underground storage tanks (USTs). Bureau Veritas made the required notifications to the City and the DERM upon identification of the USTs. Additionally, Bureau Veritas uncovered the apparent fill ports for each UST, contacted a licensed waste hauler, and had the contents of the USTs properly removed and disposed. Bureau Veritas has subsequently conducted LIST closure activities in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 62-761, Florida Administrative Code (FAC). The results of the closure assessment, as required by FAC and the DERM will be provided to all parties under separate cover. However, it is Important to note that no free floating product was identified upon removal of the USTs; soil analyses did not depict 5 exceedance of SCTLs; and groundwater analyses did not reveal exceedance of GCTLs. Therefore, Bureau Veritas has requested regulatory closure for these referenced former USTs. 2.4 LIMITED SOURCE REMOVAL —St3-3/TMW-3 As a proactive response, based upon the exceedance of benzo(a)pyrene equivalents identified in soil samples from SB-3/TMW-3 and concurrently with UST removal activities, Bureau Veritas performed limited source removal activities. Bureau Veritas excavated sails in the immediate vicinity of SB-3ITMW-3. The excavation measured approximately nine feet (east -west) by seven feet (north -south) and was approximately four feet deep. The groundwater water table was not encountered during the limited source removal. 12.48 tons of impacted sail were excavated and stockpiled atop of and beneath visqueen awaiting proper disposal. Confirmation soil samples were collected, in two -foot intervals, from each of the sidewalis and the bottom of the excavation (nine samples) and submitted to a NELAP-certified laboratory for analyses of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) by EPA Method 8270. Review of the laboratory analytical data for samples collected from the northern and eastern walls of the excavation indicate that various PAN compounds were detected, but at concentrations below applicable SCTI-s. Additionally, when the concentrations of the benzo(a)pyrene equivalents were converted using Toxicity Equivalent Factors, the concentrations did not exceed the direct exposure SCTL for Senzo(a)pyrene of 0.1 mglkg. Therefore, feather delineation in northerly and easterly directions does not appear warranted_ A Summary of Soil Analytical Data is {provided in Table 3, Appendix B. Copies of laboratory analytical reports and clialn-of-custody records are provided in Appendix C. Copies of Benzo(a)pyrene Conversion Tables are provided as Appendix D. Review of the laboratory analytical data for samples collected from the southern and western walls of the excavation indicate that various PAH compounds were detected, but at concentrations below applicable SCTLs. However, when the concentrations of the benzo(a)pyrene equivalents were converted using Toxicity Equivalent Factors, the concentrations exceed the direct exposure SCTL for Benzo(a)pyrene of 0.1 mg/kg. Therefore, further delineation in southerly and westerly directions appears warranted. Please note that the 2- to 4 -foot sample of the south sidewall was not analyzed by the laboratory. A Summary of Soil Analytical Data is provided in Table 3, Appendix B. Caples of laboratory analytical reports and chain -of -custody records are provided in Appendix C. Copies of Benzo(a)pyrene Conversion Tables are provided as Appendix D. l.1 10 EXPANDED PHASE II ESA 3.1 SAMPLING RATIONALE The rationale for sampling locations and analytical parameters was selected. based on the potential for impact from current or former on-site or nearby off-site sources. The rationale for each sampling location is further described In the following sections. Direct -push technology was utilized to collect soli and groundwater samples from 24 locations throughout the site, 18 soil borings and temporary well points (SB-5TfWP-5 through SB-231TWP-23) and six permanent monitoring wells (MW -1 through MW -6) were installed. 3,2 SOIL SAMPLING METHODOLOGY Soil samples were collected by driving a six-foot long, 2.25 -inch outer diameter macro -core sampler with an internal PUC liner from existing grade to approximately six feet BLS. The sampler was thea extracted and the soil samples removed from inside the PVC liner. The macro -core sampler was properly decontaminated and new liners were installed prior to each sampling event. Recovered soil samples were observed for visual evidence of potential impact, then field screened (in two -foot intervals) by OVA -FID for organic vapors as previously described. Barring the presence of organic vapors, visual or olfactory indications of potential environmental impacts, the soil interval collected from approximately one foot above the water table interface was submitted to a NELAP-accredited laboratory for analyses by various EPA Methods. 3.3 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING MEHODOLOGY 13.1 Temporary Weilpolnt Installation Discrete -interval groundwater samples were collected from 18 direct -push locations. The direct -push rig allows for the collectlon of groundwater samples through a screen point sampler, in which a decontaminated unit is threaded onto the leading end of a probe rod and driven to the desired sampling interval and the cover is retracted to expose the screened interval. The groundwater samples were collected from a depth of approximately five to ten feet SLS, screened across the groundwater table interface (approximately five to six feet BLS). 3.3.2 PgrMpnent Monitoring et Installation The permanent monitoring wells (MIN -1 through MW -6) were similarly installed via a direct -push rig using well screens which were pre-packaged by the manufacturer. The shallow monitoring wells were constructed, from bottom to top, using ten feet of 0,75 -inch pre -packed Schedule 40 PVC with 0.010 -inch slatted screen casing surrounded by a factory packed 20/40 mesh sand to an outside diameter of 1.4 inches. The lop of the pre -packed well screens were set at approximately two feet above the groundwater table (three to four feet BLS) with flush -jointed solid 0.75 -inch PVC and neat cement extending to land surface. The 7 monitoring wells were encased in flush -mounted, traffic -bearing manways, Copies of the Monitoring Well Completion Reports are provided as Appendix H. 3A SB-S/TMW-5 - OF1'-SITE PAINT FACILITY This sampling location was chosen to evaluate potential impacts from the Lucas Paint Company, formerly located at 1709 Northwest 71" Street and adjacent to the northwest of the site. Please refer to Figure 4, Appendix A, for a Sampling location Plan Depicting the referenced sample location. Review of the field screening data indicates that negligible net organic vapor concentrations, ranging from 1.5 to 1.8 ppm were detected. Refer to Table 2, Appendix B for a Summary of Field Screening by OVA - FID Results. Sail goring Logs are provided as Appendix C. Based ori the presence of negligible organic vapors and the absence of obvious visual or olfactory impacts, one soil sample was collected from 2.5 -feet to 4.5 -feet BLS (approximately one foot above the groundwater table) and submitted to a NELAP-certified laboratory for analyses targeting volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by EPA Method 8260, PAHs by EPA Method 8270, TRPH by the FL -PRO Method and total 8 RCRA Metals by various EPA -approved Methods. Subsequent to collection of the soil sample, groundwater quality samples were collected and submitted to a NELAP-certified laboratory for analyses targeting VOCs by EPA Method 8260, PAHs by EPA Method 8270C, TRPH by the FL -PRO Method and total 8 RCRA Metals by various CEPA-approved Methods. Review of laboratory analytical data for the soil sample collected from SB -5 indicates that toluene (0.30 pg/kg), TRPH (15 mglkg), arsenic (1.6 mg/kg), barium (39 mg/kg), chromium (11 mglkg), lead (18 mg)kg) and mercury (0.832 mglkg) were detected, but at concentrations below applicable SCTLs established in Chapter 24-11, MDCC. All other parameters were below the respective laboratory method detection limits. A Summary of Soil Analytical Data is provided in Table 3, Appendix B. Copies of laboratory analytical reports and chain -of -custody records are provided in Appendix D. Review of the laboratory analytical data for groundwater samples collected from TMW-5 indicates that tetrachloroethene (0.43 pg/L), arsenic (0,0045 mg/L), barium (0.12 mg/L) and chromium (0.025 mg/L) were detected, but at concentrations below applicable GCTLs established in Chapter 24-11, MDCC, All other parameters were below the respective laboratory method detection limits. A Summary of Groundwater Analytical Data is provided in Table 4, Appendix S. Coples of laboratory results and chain - of -custody records are provided in Appendix D, and FDEP Groundwater Sampling Logs are provided in Appendix F. T 3.5 SB-61TMW-6--FORMER ON-SITE CITRUS PACKING FACILITY Review of the 1924 Sanborn Fire insurance Map depicted a citrus packing facility, addressed as 1524 Northwest 6th Street and located on the northeastern portion of the property. Refer to Figure 4, Appendix A, For a Sampling Location Plan Depicting the referenced sample location. Review of the field'screening data indicates that negligible net organic vapor concentrations, ranging from 1.4 to 1.5 ppm were detected. Refer to Table 2, Appendix B for a Summary of Field Screening by OVA - FID Results, Soil Boring Logs are provided as Appendix C_ Based on the presence of negligible organic vapors and the absence of obvious visual or olfactory impacts, one soil sample was collected from 1.5 -feet to 3.5 -feet BLS (approximately one foot above the groundwater table) and submitted to a NELAP-certified laboratory for analyses targeting VOCs by EPA Method 8260, PAHs by EPA Method 82700, Organochlorine Pesticides by EPA Method 8081, Organophosphorus Pesticides by EPA Methods 6141, TRPk by the rL-PRO Method and arsenic by EPA Method 6010, Subsequent to collection of the soil sample, groundwater quality samplers were collected and submitted to a NELAP-certified laboratory for analyses targeting VOCs by EPA Method 8260, PAHs by EPA Method 8270C, Organachlorine Pesticides by EPA Method 8081, Organophosphorus Pesticides by EPA Methods 6141, TRPH by the FL -PRO Method and arsenic by I=PA Method 6010. Review of laboratory analytical data for the soil sample collected from SB -6 indicates that TRPH (78 mglkg), 4,4 -DDE (1.6 pglkg), 4,4 -DDT (1.5 pglkg), chlordane (110 pglkg) and heptachlor epoxide (0.84 pglkg) were detected, but at concentrations below applicable SCTLs established in Chapter 24-11, MDCC. Ali other parameters were below the respective laboratory method detection limits. A Summary of Soil Analytical Data is provided in Table 3, Appendix B. Copies of laboratory analytical reports and chain -of -custody records are provided in Appendix D. Review of the laboratory analytical data for groundwater samples collected from TMW-6 indicates that tetrachioroethene (0.42 pg/L) was detected, but at concentrations below the applicable GCTL established in Chapter 24-11, MDCC. All other parameters were below the respective laboratory method detection limits, A Summary of Groundwater Analytical Data is provided in Table 4, Appendix B. Copies of laboratory results and chaln-of-custody records are provided in Appendix D, and FDEP Groundwater Sampling Logs are provided in Appendix F. 316 SB-7ITMW-7 — TWO UNKNOWN ON-SITE STRUCTURES Two unlabeled structures and one dwelling were depicted the northwestern portion of the property on the 1938, 1939 and 1950 Sanborn 'Fire Insurance Maps. Please refer to Figure 4, Appendix A, for a Sampling Location Plan Depicting the referenced sample location. Review of the field screening data indicates that negligible net organic vapor concentrations, ranging from 1.6 to 1.9 ppm were detected. Refer to Table 2, Appendix 13 for a Summary of Field Screening by OVA - FID Results. Soil Boring Logs are provided as Appendix C. Based on the presence of negligible organic vapors and Vie absence of obvious visual or olfactory Impacts, one soil sample was collected from 2 -feet to 4-foet BLS (approximately one foot above the groundwater table) and submitted to a NELAP-certified laboratory for analyses targeting VOCs by EPA Method 8260, PAHs by EPA Method 82700 and TRPH by the FL -PRC Method. Subsequent to collection of the soil sample, groundwater quality samples were collected and submitted to a NELAP-certified laboratory for analyses targeting VOCs by EPA Method 8260, PAHs by EPA Method 82700 and TRPH by the FL -PRO Method. Review of laboratory analytical data for the soil sample collected from S13-7 indicates that all parameters were below the respective laboratory method detection limits. A Summary of Soil Analytical Data is provided in Table 3, Appendix B. Copies of laboratory analytical reports and chain -of -custody records are provided in Appendix D. Review of the laboratory analytical data for groundwater samples collected from TMW-7 indicates that tetrachloroethene (0.39 ug/L) and TRPH (0.089 mg/L) were detected, but at concentrations below applicable GCTLs established in Chapter 24-11, MDCC. All other parameters were below the respective laboratory method detection limits, A Summary of Groundwater Analytical Data is provided in Table 4, Appendix S. Copies of laboratory results and chain -of -custody records are provided In Appendix t3, and PREP Groundwater Sampling Logs are provided in Appendix F. 3.7 S13-81TI41W-B -- HISTORICAL OFF-SITE FILLING STATION Review of the DERM file for Bernal Tire, a UST facility with documented discharges of petroleum, located at 1451 Northwest 7th Street, adjacent to the north of the site, indicated that no cleanup was required and the cleanup status was complete, A filling station was depicted adjacent to the site at 1451 Northwest 7th Street in the 1987 Sanbom l=ire Insurance Map. Please refer to Figure 4, Appendix A, for a Sampling Location Plant Depicting the referenced sample location. 10 pi� Review of the field screening data indicates that negligible net organic vapor concenirat#ons of 1.4 ppm and below were detected. Refer to Table 2, Appendix B for a Summary of Field Screening by OVA -FID Results. Sail Boring Lags are provided as Appendix C. Based on the presence of negligible organic vapors and the absence of obvious visual or olfactory impacts, one soil sample was collected from 1 -foot to 2 -feet BLS (approximately one foot above the groundwater table) and submitted to a NELAP-certified laboratory for analyses targeting VOCs by EPA Method 8260, PAHs by EPA Method 82700 and TRPH by the FL -PRO Method. Subsequent to collection of the soil sample, groundwater quality samples were collected and submitted to a NELAR-certified laboratory For analyses targeting VOCs by EPA Method 8260, PAHs by EPA Method 82700 and TRPH by the FL -PRO Method. Review of laboratory analytical data for the soil sample collected from SB -8 indicates that 1,2,4- trimethylbenzene (0.27 pg/kg) and TRPH (2.5 mg/kg) were detected, but at concentrations below applicable SCTLs. established in Chapter 24-11, MDCC. Al[ other parameters were below the respective laboratory method detection limits. A Surnmary of Soil Analytical Data is provided in Table 3, Appendix B. Copies of laboratory analytical reports and chain -of -custody records are provided In Appendix D. Review of the laboratory analytical data for groundwater samples collected from TMW-8 indicates that all parameters were below the respective laboratory method detection limits. A Summary of Groundwater Analytical Data is provided in Table 4, Appendix B. Copies of laboratory results and chaln•of-custody records are provided In Appendix 0, and FDEP Groundwater Sampling Logs are provided in Appendix F. 3,8 SB-9ITMW-9-- UNKNOWN HISTORIC ON-SITE STRUCTURES Review of the 1938 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map depicted a group of structures on the northeastern portion of the silo. Please refer to. Figure 4, Appendix A, for a Sampling Location Plan Depicting the referenced sample location. Review of the field screening data indicates that negligible net organic vapor concentrations of 2.2 ppm and below were detected, Refer to Table 2, Appendix B for a Summary of Field Screening by OVA -FID Results. Soil Boring Logs are provided as Appendix C. Based on the presence of negligible organic vapors and the absence of obvious visual or olfactory impacts, one soil sample was collected from 1 -foot to 3 -feet BLS (approximately one foot above the groundwater table) and submitted to a NELAP-certified laboratory for analyses targeting VOCs by EPA Method 8260, PAHs by EPA Method 82700 and TRPH by the FL -PRO Method. 11 PIRWE Subsequent to collection of the soil sample, groundwater quality samples were collected and submitted to a NELAP-certified laboratory for analyses targeting VOCs by EPA Method 8260, PAHs by EPA Method 82700 and TRPH by the FL -PRO Method. Review of laboratory analytical data for the soil sample collected from S13-9 indicates that 1,2,4- trimethyibenzene (17.45 pg/kg), anthracene (0.0083 mg/Kg), fluoranthene (0.031 mg/kg), pyrene (0.034 mg/kg) and TRPH (2.5 mg/kg) were detected, but at concentrations below applicable SCTLs established in Chapter 24-11, MDCC. Further, when the concentrations of the benzo(a)pyrene equivalents were converted using Toxicity Equivalent Factors, the concentrations were calculated at 0.0 mglkg, which is also below the direct exposure SCTL for Benzo(a)pyrene of 0.1 mg/kg. All other parameters were below the respective laboratory method detection limits. A Summary of Soil Analytical Data is provided in Table 3, Appendix B. Copies of laboratory analytical reports and chain -of -custody records are provided in Appendix D. Copies of Benzo(a)pyrene Conversion Tables are provided as Appendix E. Review of tho laboratory analytical data for groundwater samples collected from TMW-9 indicates that chloroform was detected at a concentration of 1.0 pg/L, which Is below the GCTL established in Chapter 24-11, MDCC. All parameters were below the respective laboratory method detection limits. A Summary of Groundwater Analytical Data is provided in Table 4, Appendix B. Copies of laboratory results and chain -of -custody records are provided in Appendix D, and FDEP Groundwater Sampling Logs are provided in Appendix F. 3.9 5B-10iTMW-10 — DUE DILIGENCE OF EATERN OUTPARCEL This. northeastern parcel of the site has been predominantly used for surface parking of vehicles. This sample location was chosen to provide areal coverage for potential contaminant migration from the east. Please refer to Figure 4, Appendix A, for a Sampling Location Plan depicting the referenced sample location. Review of the field screening data 'indicates that negligible net organic vapor concentrations, ranging from 1.6 to 1.8 ppm were detected. Refer to Table 2, Appendix B for a Summary of Field Screening by OVA - FID Results. Soil Boring Logs are provided as Appendix C. Based on the presence of negligible organic vapors and the absence of obvious visual or olfactory Impacts, one sol( sample was collected from 2.5 -feet to 4.5 -feet BLS (approximately one foot above the groundwater table) and submitted to a NELAP-certified laboratory for analyses targeting VOCs by EPA Method 8260, PAHs by EPA Method 82700 and TRPH by the FL -IBRO Method. 12 Subsequent to collection of the soil sample, groundwater quality samples were collected and submitted to a NELAP-certified laboratory for analyses targeting VOCs by EPA Method 82610, PAHs by EPA Method 8270C and TRPH by the FL -PRO Method_ Review of laboratory analytical data for the soil sample collected from SB -10 Indicates that TRPH (4.3 mg/kg) was detected, but at a concentration below the applicable SCTLs established in Chapter 24-11, MDOC.. All other parameters were below the respective laboratory method detection limits. A Summary of Soil Analytical Data is provided in Table 3, Appendix B. Copies of laboratory analytical reports and chain -of -custody records are provided in Appendix D. Review of the laboratory analytical data for groundwater samples collected from TMW-10 indicates that all parameters were below the respective laboratory method detection limits. A Summary of Groundwater Analytical Data is provided in Table 4, Appendix B. Copies of laboratory results and chain -of -custody records are provided In Appendix D. and Pf3EP Groundwater Sampling Logs are provided in Appendix F. 3.10 SB-11/TMW-11 — DUE DILIGENCE OF EASTERN Ot1TPARCEL This eastern outparcel of the site has been predominantly used for surface parking of vehicles. This sample location was chosen to provide areal coverage for potential contaminant migration from the east. Please refer to Figure 4, Appendix A, for a Sampling Location Plan Depicting the referenced sample location. Review of the field screening data indicates that negligible net organic vapor concentrations, ranging from 1.3 to 1.5 ppm were detected. Refer to Table 2, Appendix B for a Summary of Field Screening by C]VA- FbD Results, Soil Boring Logs are provided as Appendix C. Based on the presence of negligible organic vapors and the absence of obvious visual or olfactory impacts, one soil sample was collected from 2 -feet to 4 -feet BLS (approximate)y one foot above the groundwater table) and submitted to a NELAP-+certified laboratory for analyses targeting VOCs by EPA Method 8260, PAHs by EPA Method 8270C and TRPH by the FL -PRO Method. Subsequent to collection of the soil sample, groundwater quality samples were collected and submitted to a NELAP-certified laboratory for analyses targeting VOCs by EPA Method 8260, PAHs by EPA Method 8270C and TRPH by the FL. -PRO Method. Review of laboratory analytical data for the soil sample collected from SB -11 indicates that TRPH (2.6 mg/kg) was detected, but at a concentration below the applicable SCTLs established in Chapter 24-11, MDCC. All other parameters were below the respective laboratory method detection Iimlts. A Summary of 13 Soil Analytical Data is provided in Table 3, Appendix B. Copies of laboratory analytical reports and chain -of -custody records are provided in Appendix D. Review of the laboratory analytical data for groundwater samples collected from TMW-11 indicates that toluene (0.47 pglL) and tetrachioreethene (0.39 pgiL) were detected, but at concentrations below the applicable GCTLs established in Chapter 24-11, MDCC. All other parameters were below the respective laboratory method delection limits. A Summary of Groundwater Analytical Data is provided in Table 4, Appendix B. Copies of laboratory results and chain -of -custody records are provided In Appendix D, and FOEP Groundwater Sampling togs are provided in Appendix F. 3.11 SB-121TMW-12 -- DUE DILIGENCE OF OUTPARCEL This southeastern outparcel of the site has been predominantly used for surface parking of vehicles. This sample location was chosen to provide areal coverage for potential contaminant migration from the east. Please refer to Figure 4, Appendix A, for a Sampling Location Plan Depicting the referenced sample location. Review of the field screening data indicates that negligible net organic vapor concentrations, ranging from 1.3 to 1.9 ppm were detected. Refer to Table 2, Appendix B for a Summary of Field Screening by OVA - FID Results. Sail Boring Logs are provided as Appendix C. Based on the --presence of negligible organic vapors and the absence of obvious visual or olfactory impacts, one soil sample was collected from 1 -foot to 3 -feet BLS (approximately one foot above the groundwater table) and submitted to a NELAP-certified laboratory for analyses targeting VOCs by EPA Method 8260, PAHs by EPA Method 82700 and TRPH by the FL -PRO Method. Subsequent to collection of the soil sample, groundwater duality samples were collected and submitted to a NELAP-certified laboratory for analyses targeting VOCs by EPA Method 8260, PAlds by EPA Method 82700 and TRPH by the FL -PRO Method. Review of laboratory analytical data for the soil sample collected from SB -12 indicates that toluene (0.11 pg/kg) and TRPN (4.1 mg/kg) were detected, but at concentrations below the applicable SCTLs established in Chapter 24-11, MDCC. All other parameters were below the respective laboratory method detection limits. A Summary of Soil Analytical Data is provided In Table 3, Appendix B. Copies of laboratory analytical reports and chain -of -custody records are provided in Appendix D. Review of the laboratory analytical data for groundwater samples collected from TMW-12 indicates that tetrachloroethene {0.39 }1g/L) was detected, but at a concentration below the applicable GCTLs established In Chapter 24-11, MDCC. All other parameters were below the respective laboratory method detection limits. A Summary of Groundwater Analytical Data is provided in Table 4, Appendix B. Copies 14 pefil"'s of laboratory results and chain -of -custody records are provided in Appendix t7, and FDEP Groundwater Sampling Logs are provided in Appendix F. 3.12 SB-131TMW-13-- HISTORIC OFF-SITE DRYCLEANING FACILITY Review of historical cross reference directories dated 1928, 1937, 1941, 1947 and 1967 indicated a dry cleaning `facllily at 1501 Northwest 3rd Street. According to Historical Cleaners Records, DeSoto Dry Cleaners, addressed as 1515 Northwest 2nd Street (adjacent to the south) was in service in 1956. Please refer to Figure 4, Appendix A, for a Sampling Location Plan Depicting the referenced sample location. Review of the field screening data indicates that negligible net organic vapor concentrations, ranging from 1.7 to 1.9 ppm were detected. Refer to Table 2, Appendix B for a Summary of Field Screening by OVA - FID Results. Soil Boring Logs are provided as Appendix C. Based on the presence of negligible organic vapors and the absence of obvious visual or olfactory impacts, one soil sample was collected from 0.5 -feet to 2.5 -feet BLS (approximately one foot above the groundwater table) and submitted to a NELAP-cerlif€ed laboratory for analyses targeting VOCs by EPA Method 8264, PAHs by EPA Method 8270C and TRPH by the FL -PRO Method. Subsequent to collection of the soil sample, groundwater duality samples were collected and submitted to a NELAP-certified laboratory for analyses targeting VOCs by EPA Method 8260, PAHs by EPA Method 82700 and TRPH by the FL -PRO Method. Review of laboratory analytical data for the soil sample collected from SBA indicates that benzene (0.23 pg/kg), 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene (0.43 pg/kg), toluene (0.18 pg/kg) and TRPH (3.2 mglkg) were detected, but at concentrations below applicable SCTLs established in Chapter 24-11, MDCC. AIS other parameters were below the respective laboratory method detection limits. A Summary of Soil Analytical Data Is provided in Table 3, Appendix 8. Copies of laboratory analytical reports and chain -of -custody records are provided in Appendix D. Review of the laboratory analytical data for groundwater samples collected from TMW-13 indicates that TRPH (0.194 mg1L) was detected, but at a concentration below the applicable GCTL established in Chapter 24-11, MDCC. All other parameters were below the respective laboratory method detection limits. A Summary of Groundwater Analytical Data is provided in Table 4, Appendix B. Copies of laboratory results and chain -of -custody records are provided In Appendix D, and FDEP Groundwater Sampling Logs are provided in Appendix F. 15 P 3.13 5B-141TMW-14— FORMER ON-SITE U.S. NAVAL RESERVE ARMORY Review of historical crass reference directories indicated an onsite U.S. Naval Reserve Armory, addressed as 401 Northwest 10' Avenge. No information regarding operations at this former on-site facility was obtained during the Prase I ESA or this assessment. Based on the potential presence of buried storage tanks and/or munitions, a GPR survey and exploratory test pit excavations were conducted In this area of the site, the results of which are detailed in Section 2.3. Please refer to Figure 4, Appendix A, for a Sampling Location Plan Depicting the referenced sample location. Two soil samples were collected from this location: soil sample SS-TP2 was collected during excavation of exploratory test pits on February 8, 2008; soil sample SB -14 was collected via direct push on February 15, 2008. Sell sample S5-TP2 was submitted to a NELAP-certified laboratory for analyses targeting VOCs by EPA Method 8280, SVOCs by EPA Method 82700, Perchlorate by EPA Method 6850 Modified, Explosives, by EPA Method 8330 and TRPH by the FL -PRO Method. Review of the laboratory analytical data for soil sample SS-TP2 indicates that all parameters were below the respective laboratory method detection limits. Review of the field screening data for soft sample SB -14 indicates that negligible net organic vapor concentrations, ranging from 1.0 to 1.1 ppm were detected. Refer to Table 2, Appendix B for a Summary of Field Screening by OVA -FID Results. Soil Boring Logs arca provided as Appendix C. Based on the presence of negligible organic vapors and the absence of obvious visual or olfactory impacts, one soil sample was collected from 2 -feel to 4 -feel BLS (approximately one foot above the groundwater table) and submitted to a NELAP-certified laboratory for analyses targeting 8 Total RCRA metals by various EPA -approved methods_ Review of the laboratory analytical data for SB -14 indicates that arsenic (15 mglkg), barium (3.7 mglkg), chromium (3.8 mg/kg), lead (8.2 rnglkg) and mercury (0.000083 mg/kg) were detected. The concentration of arsenic exceeds Residential Direct Exposure SCTL of 2.1 mg/kg, established in Chapter 24-11, MDCC. The reported concentrations of barium, chromium, lead and mercury are below the applicable SCTLs. All other parameters were below the respective laboratory method detection limits. A Summary of Soil Analytical Data is provided in Table 3, Appendix B. Copies of laboratory analytical reports and chain-cf- custody records are provided in Appendix D. Subsequent to collection of the soil sample, groundwater quality samples were collected and submitted to a NELAP-cerlified laboratory for analyses targeting VOCs by EPA Method 8260, PAHs by EPA Method 82700, Perchlorate by EPA Method 6850 Modified, Explosives by EPA Method 8334, TRPH by the FL - PRO Method and 8 RCRA metals by various EPA -approved methods. 16 Review of the laboratory analytical data for groundwater samples collected from TMW-14 Indicates that Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE - 0.62 pg/L), arsenic (0.047 mg/L), barium (4,21 mg1L), chromium (0.2 mg1Q, lead (0.035 mg/L) and mercury (0,4004 mg/L) were detected. Tho concentrations of arsenic, chromium and lead exceed'the GCTLs established in Chapter 24-11, MDCC, of 0.01 mgiL, 4,1 mg1L and 0.015 mgli_, respectively. The concentrations of MTBE, barium and mercury are below the respective GCTLs. All other parameters were below the respective laboratory method detection limits. A Summary of Groundwater Analytical Data is provided in Table 4, Appendix B. Copies of laboratory results and chain - of -custody records are provided in Appendix D, and F©FP Groundwater Sampling fogs are provided in Appendix F. 3.14 SB-151TMW-15 - HISTORIC OFF-SITE DRYCLEANING FACILITY According to Hislorical Cleaners Records, City Dry Cleaners Laundry, Inc. addressed as 436 northwest 17th Avenue (adjacent to the west of t1Ze site) was in service in 1046. Please refer to Figure 4, Appendix A, for a Sampling Location Plan Depicting the referenced sample location. Review of the field screening data indicates that negligible net organic vapor concentrations of 1.4 ppm and below were detected. Refer to Table 2, Appendix B for a Summary of Field Screening by OVA -FID Results. Soil Boring Logs are provided as Appendix C. Based on the presence of negligible organic vapors and the absence of obvious visual or olfactory impacts, one soil sample was collected from 2- to 4 -feet BLS (approximately one foot above the groundwater table) and submitted to a NELAP-certified laboratory for analyses targeting VOCs by EPA Method 8260, PAHs by EPA Method 8270C, TRPH by the FL -PRO Method and total 8 RCRA Metals by various EPA -approved Methods. Subsequent to collection of the soil sample, groundwater quality samples were collected and submitted to a NELAP-certified laboratory for analyses targeting VOCs by EPA Method 8260, PAHs by EPA Method 82700, TRPH by the FL -PRO Method and total 8 RCRA Metals by various EPA -approved Methods. Review of laboratory analytical data for the soil sample collected from SB -15 indicates that chloroform (4.25 pg/kg), toluene (0.18 pglkg), TRPH (120 mglkg), barium (4.7 mglkg), chromium (1 i mglkg) and lead (2.5 mg/kg) were detected, but at concentrations beiow applicable SCTLs established in Chapter 24-11, MDCC. All other parameters were below the respective laboratory method detection limits. A Summary of Soil Analytical Data is provided in Table 3, Appendix B. Copies of laboratory analytical reports and chain -of -custody records are provided in Appendix D. Review of the laboratory analytical data for groundwater samples collected from TMW-15 indicates that telrachloroethene (0.37 pg1L), arsenic (0.0017 rn91Q, barium (0.23 mg/L) and chromium (4.044 mg/L) 17 were detected, but at concentrations 'below applicable GCTLs established In Chapter 24-11, MDCC. All other parameters were below the respective laboratory method detectlon limits. A Summary of Groundwater Analytical Data is provided in Table 4, Appendix B. Copies of laboratory results and chain - of -custody records are provided in Appendix D, and FDEP Groundwafer Sampling Logs are provided in Appendix F. 3.15 SB-16ITMW-16 — ON-SITE AST FOR EMERGENCY GENERATOR Ono 300 -gallon diesel -containing AST was formerly located on-site, at the base of an emergency generator, beneath the northwestern bleachers. No visible evidence of discharge or leakage from the AST was observed. Please refer to Figure 4, Appendlx A, for a Sampling Location Plan Depicting the referenced sample location. Review of the field screening data indicates that negligible not organic vapor concentrations ranging from 1.1 to 1.3 ppm were detected_ Refer to Table 2, Appendix B for a Summary of Field Screening by OVA - FID Results. Soil Boring Logs are provided as Appendix C. Based on (lie presence of negligible organic vapors and the. absence of obvious visual or olfactory impacts, one soil sample was collected from 2- to 4 -feet BLS (approximately one foot above the groundwater table) and submitted to a NELAP-certified laboratory for analyses targeting VOCs by EPA Method 8260, PAHs by EPA Method 8270C and TRPH by the FL -PRO Method. subsequent to collection of the soil sample, groundwater quality samples were collected and submitted to a NELAP-certified laboratory for analyses targeting VOCs by EPA Method 8260, PAHs by EPA Method 82700 and TRPH by the FL -PRO Method. Review of laboratory analytical data for the soil sample collected from SB -16 indicates that TRPH (2.4 rngikg) was detected, but at a concentration below the applicable SCTL established in Chapter 24-11, MDCC. All other parameters were below the respective laboratory method detection limits. A Summary of Soil Analytical Data is provided in Table 3, Appendix B. Copies of laboratory analytical reports and chain -of -custody records are provided in Appendix D. Review of the laboratory analytical data for groundwater samples collected from TMW-16 indicates that MTBE (0.57 pg1Q and TRPH (0.268 mglL) were detected, but at concentrations below the applicable GCTLs established in Chapter 24-11, MDCC. All other parameters were below the respective laboratory method detection limits. A Summary of Groundwater Analytical Data is provided in Table 4, Appendix B. Copies of laboratory results and chain -of -custody records are provided in Appendix l), and FDE'P Groundwater Sampling Logs are provided in Appendix F. 18 P 3.16 SB-17/TMW-17 -- ON-SITE AST FOR EMERGENCY GENERATOR One 300 -gallon diesel -containing AST was formerly located on-site at the base of an emergency generator, beneath the scoreboard in the east end zone. No visible evidence of discharge or leakage from the AST was observed. Please refer to Figure 4, Appendix A, for a Sampling Location Plan Unpicting the referenced sample location. Review of the field screening data indicates that negligible net organic vapor concentrations of 2.2 ppm and below were detected. Refer to Table 2, Appendix B for a Summary of Field Screening by OVA -Fit] Results- Soil Boring Logs are provided as Appendix C. Based on the presence of negligible organic vapors and the absence of obvious visual or olfactory impacts, one soil sample was collected from 2- to 4 -feet BLS (approximately one foot above the groundwater table) and submitted to a NELAP-certified laboratory for analyses targeting VOCs by EPA Method 8260, PAHs by EPA Method 8270C and TRPH by the FL -PRO Method. Subsequent to collection of the soil sample, groundwater duality samples were collecled and submitted to a NELAP-certified laboratory for analyses targeting VOCs by EPA Method 8260, PAHs by EPA Method 8270C and TRPH by the FL -PRO Method. Review of laboratory analytical data for the soil sample collected from SB -17 indicates that benzene (0.75 pglkg), 1,2,4-trimethylbenxene (10 pglkg), 1,3,540methylbenzene (17 pg/kg), +ethylbenzene (0.59 pg/kg), toluene (3.3 Ug/kg), total xylones (14 pg/kg), isopropyl benzene (0.44 pg/kg), anthracene (0.012 mg/1(g), fluoranthene (0.{148 mg/kg), phenanthrene (0.042 mg/kg), pyrene (0.049 mg/kg) and TRPH (53 mg/kg) were detected, but at concentrations below applicable SCTLs established in Chapter 24-11, MDCC. Further, when the conwntrations of the benzo(a)pyrene equivalents were converted using Toxicity Equivalent Factors, the concentrations were calculated at 0.0 mgikg, which is also below the direct exposure SCTL for Benzo(a)pyrene of 0.1 mg/kg. All other parameters were below the respective laboratory method detection limits. A Summary of Soil Analytical Data is provided in Table 3, Appendix 0, Copies of laboratory analytical reports and chain -of -custody records are provided in Appendix D. Copies of Benzo(a)pyrene Conversion Tables are provided as Appendix E. Review of the laboratory analytical data for groundwater samples collected from TMW-17 indicates that MTBE (0.61 pglL) and TRPH (0.0852 mg/L) were detected, but at concentrations below the applicable GCTLs established in Chapter 24-11, MOCC. All outer parameters were below the respective laboratory method detecfion limits. A Summary of Groundwater Analytical Data is provided in Table 4, Appendix B. Copies of laboratory results and chain -of -custody records are provided in Appendix ❑, and FDEP Groundwater Sampling Logs are provided in Appendix F. 19 P 3.17 SB-18ITMW-18 — ON-SITE AST FOR EMERGENCY GENERATOR One 300 -gallon diesel -containing AST was formerly located on-site at the base of an emergency generator. No visible evidence of discharge or leakage from the AST was observed. Please refer to Figure 4, Appendix A, for a Sampling Location Plan Depicting the referenced sample location. Review of the field screening data indicates that negligible net organic vapor concentrations ranging from 1.1 to 1.9 ppm were detected. Refer to Table 2, Appendix B for a Summary of Field Screening by OVA - FID Results. Soil Boring Lags are provided as Appendix C. Based on the presence of negligible organic vapors and the absence of obvious visual or olfactory impacts, one soil sample was collected from 2- to 4 -feet BLS (approximately one foot above the groundwater table) and submitted to a NELAP-certified laboratory for analyses targeting VOCs by EPA Method 8260, PAHs by EPA Method 8270C and TRPH by the FL -PRD Method. Subsequent to collection of the soil sample, groundwater quality samples were collected and submitted to a NELAP-certified laboratory for anafyses targeting VOCs by EPA Method 8260, PAHs by EPA Method 8270C and TRPH by the FL -PRO Method. Review of laboratory analytical data for the soil sample collected from SB -18 indicates that benzene (0.87 tag/kg), ethylbenzene (0.20 pglkg), toluene (0.761 pgtkg) and TRPH (37 mg/kg) were detected, but at concentrations below applicable SCTLs established in Chapter 24-11, MDCC. All other parameters were below the respective laboratory method detection limits. A Summary of Soil Analytical Data is provided in Table 3, Appendix B. Copies of laboratory analytical reports and chain -of -custody records are provided in Appendix D. Review of the laboratory analytical data for groundwater samples collected from TMW-18 indicates that TRPH (0.958 mg/L) was detected, but at a concentration below the applicable GCTL established in Chapter 24-11, MDCC. All other parameters were below the respective laboratory method defection limits. A Summary of Groundwater Analytical Data is provided in Table 4, Appendix B. Copies of laboratory results and chain -of -custody records are provided in Appendix D, and FDEP Groundwater Sampling Logs are provided in Appendix F. 3,18 SB-19ITMW19 — ELEVATOR HYDRAULICS One hydraulic and five electrical elevators are utilized onsite In the southwestern portion of the stadium. Please refer to Figure 4, Appendix A, for a Sampling Location Plan Depicting the referenced sample location. 20 Due to the restrictive location of the abovegfound hydraulic lines, the direct -push rig was unable to access this sampling location. Therefore, a surficial soil sample (surface to approximately 2 -feet BLS) was collected with a stainless steel nand auger on February 15, 2008. Groundwater samples were collected via a 3 -foot length of mill -slotted Geoprobe well point, driven to depth (approximately 10 -feet BLS) with an electric jackhammer on March 10, 2008. Review of the field screening data indicates that a negligible net organic vapor concentration of 1.8 ppm was detected. Refer to Table 2, Appendix B for a Summary of Field Screening by OVA-FlD Results. Soil Boring Logs are provided as Appendix C. The soil sample was submitted to a NELAP-certified laboratory for analyses targeting VOCs by EPA Method 8260, PAHs by EPA Method 82700, PCBs by EPA Method 8482 and TRPH by the FL -PRO Method. Groundwater quality samples were collected and submitted to a NELAP-certified laboratory for analyses targeting VOGs by EPA Method 8260, PAHs by EPA Method 82700, PCBs by EPA Method 8082 and TRPH by the FL -PRO Method. Review of laboratory analytical data for the soil sample collected from S13-19 indicates that 1,2,4- tOmethylbenzene (0.73 pglkg), 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene (0.28 pg/kg), toluene (0.20 pglkg), acenaphthene (1.3 mglkg), anthracene (2.8 mgfkg), benzo(g,h,i)perylene (3.1 mg/kg), fluoranlhene (12 mg/kg), fluorine (1.3 mg/kg), naphthalene (0.36 mg/kg), phenanthrene (10 mglkg), pyrene (8.1 mg/kg) and TRPH (23 mg/kg) were detected, but at concentrations 'below applicable SCTLs established in Chapter 24-11, MDCC. However, when the concentrations of the benzo(@)pyrene equivalents were converted using Toxicity Equivalent Factors, the concentrations were calculated at 7.1 mg/kg, which exceeds the residential direct exposure and industrial/commercial SCTLs for Benzo(a)pyrene of 0.1 and 0.7 mg/kg, respectively. All other parameters were below the respective laboratory method detection limits. A Summary of Soll Analytical Data is provided in Table 3, Appendix B. Copies of laboratory analytical reports and chain -of -custody records are provided in Appendix G. Copies of Benzo(a)pyrone Conversion Tables are provided as Appendix ❑. Review of the laboratory analytical data for groundwater samples collected from TMW-19 indicates that barium (0.€335 mg/L), chromium (4.0050 mg/L) and mercury (17.000042 mg/L) were detected, but at concentrations below the applicable GCTLs established in Chapter 24-11, MDCC. All other parameters were below the respective laboratory method detection limits. A Summary of Groundwater Analytical Data is provided in Table 4, Appendix B. Copies of laboratory results and chain -of -custody records are provided in Appendix D, and FDEP Groundwafer Sampling Legs are provided in Appendix F. 21 P 3.19 SB-20ITMW-20 — ON-SITE STORAGE OF PAINT AND JANITORIAL SUPPLiES Approximately 50 five -gallon containers of paint and retail -sized containers of municipal janitorial supplies were observed in a maintenance room and in a caged storage area located in the vicinity of Section K on I" northern slde of the stadium. In addition, a sink with paint staining was observed adjacent to the maintenance room. No evidence of leakage or staining was observed on the concrete flooring underneath the paint containers. Please refer to Figure 4, Appendix A, for a Sampling Location Plan Depicting the referenced sample location. Review of the field screening data for soil, sample S13-20 indicates lhat negligible net organic vapor concentrations, ranging from 1.5 to 1.6 ppm were detected. Refer to Table 2, Appendix B for a Summary of Field Screening by DVA -FID Results. Snit Boring togs are provided as Appendix C. Based on the presence of negligible organic vapors and the absence of obvious visual or olfactory impacts, one soil sample was collected from 2 -feet to 4 -Feel BLS (approximately one foot above the groundwater table) and submitted to a NELAP-certlfied laboratory for analyses targeting VOCs by EPA Method 8260, PAHs by EPA Method 82700, TRPH by the FL -PRO Method and total 8 RCRA Metals by various EPA -approved Methods. Subsequent to collection of the soil sample, groundwater quality samples were collected and submitted to a NELAP-certified laboratory for analyses targeting VOCs by EPA Method 8260, PAHs by EPA Method 8270C, TRPH by the FL -PRO Method and total 8 RCRA Metals by various EPA -approved Methods. Review of the laboratory analytical data for SS -20 indlcates that benzene (0.33 pg/kg), toluene (0.47 pg/kg), TRPH (5.1 mg/kg), arsenic (10 mglkg), barium (0.22 mglkg), chromium (5 mg/kg), lead (13 mg/kg) and mercury (0,1 mg/kg) were detected. The concentration of arsenic exceeds the Residential Direct Exposure SCTL of 2.1 mg/kg, established in Chapter 24-11, MDCC. The reported concentrations of benzene, toluene, TRPH, barium, chromium, lead and mercury are below the applicable SCTLs. All other parameters were below the respective laboratory method detection limits. A Summary of Soil Analytical Data is provided in Table 3, Appendix B. Copies of laboratory analytical reports and chain -of -custody records are provided In Appendix D, Review of the laboratory analytical data for groundwater samples collected from TMW-20 indicates that MTBE {0.72 pg1Q, TRPH (0.101 mg/L), arsenic (0.0074 mg/L), barium (0.088 mg/L) and chromium (0.019 mg/L) were detected, but at concentrations below the GCTLs established in Chapter 24-11, MDCC. All other parameters were below the respective laboratory method detection limits. A Summary of Groundwater Analytical Data is provided in Table 4, Appendix B. Copies of laboratory results and chain - of -custody records are provided in Appendix D, and FDEP Groundwaler 5amplIng Logs are provided in Appendix F. Q P 3,20 SB-211TMW-21— IN -GROUND GREASE TRAPS Three in -ground all/water separators (grease traps) exist on the northern, southern and western portion of the Orange Bowl Stadium. This sampling location relates to the grease traps located on the northern side of the stadium. Please refer to Figure 4, Appendix A, for a Sampling Location Plan Depicting the referenced sample location. Review of the field screening data indicates Haat negligible net organic vapor concentrations, ranging from 13 to 1.4 ppm were detected, Refer to Table 2, Appendix B for a Summary of Field Screening by OVA - FID Results. Sail Boring logs are provided as Appendix C. Based on the presence of negligible organic vapors and the absence of obvious visual or olfactory impacts, one soil sample was collected from 2- to 4 -feet BLS (approximately one foot above the groundwater table) and submitted to a NELAP-certified laboratory for analyses targeting VOCs by I=PA Method 8260, PAHs by EPA Method 82700, Oil & Grease by EPA Method 9071 B and TRPH by the FL - PRO Method. Subsequent to collection of the soil sample, groundwater quality samples were collected and submitted to a NELAP-certified laboratory for analyses targeting VOCs by EPA Method 8260, PAHs by EPA Method 82700, Oil & Grease by EPA Method 9071 B and TRPH by the FL -PILO Method. Review of laboratory analytical data for the soil sample collected from SB -21 indicates that toluene (0.15 pglkg) and TRPH (2.2 mg/kg) were detected, but at concentrations below (lie applicable SCTLs established In Chapter 24-11, MDCC. All other parameters were below the respective laboratory method detection limits. A Summary of Soil Analytical Data is provided in Table 3, Appendix B. Copies of laboratory analytical reports and chain -of -custody records are provided in Appendix D. Review of the laboratory analytical data for groundwater samples collected from TMW-21 indicates that TRPH (0.087 rmg1Q was detected, but at a concentration below the applicable GCTLs established in Chapter 24-11, MDCC_ All other parameters were below the respective laboratory method detection limits. A Summary of Groundwater Analytical Data is provided in Table 4, Appendix B. Copies of laboratory results and chain -of -custody records are provided in Appendix 17, and FDEP Groundwater Sampling Logs are provided in Appendix F. 3.21 SB-221TMW-22 --1N-GROUND GREASE TRAPS Three In -ground oillwater separators (grease [taps) exist can the northern, southern and western portion of the Orange Bowl Stadium. This sampling location relates to the grease traps located on the southern side of the stadium. Please refer to Figure 4, Appendix A, for a Sampling Location Pian Depicting the referenced sample location. 23 a uur VERJtAS Review of the field screening data indicates that negligible net organic vapor concentrations, ranging from 1.5 to 1.6 ppm were detected. Refer to 'fable 2, Appendix B for a Summary of Field Screening by OVA- FJO Results. Soli Boring Logs are provided as Appendix C. Based on the presence of negligible organic vapors and the absence of obvious visual or olfactory impacts, one soil sample was collected from 2- to 4 -feet BLS (approximately one foot above the groundwater table) and submitted to a NELAP-certified laboratory for analyses targeting VOCs by PPA Method 8260, PAHs by EPA Method 8270C, Oil & Grease by EPA Method 9071 B and TRPH by the FL - PRO Method. Subsequent to collection of the soil sample, groundwater quality samples were collected and submitted to a NELAP-certified laboratory for analyses targeting VOCs by PPA Method 8260, PAHs by EPA Method 82700, Oil & Grease by EPA Method 90718 and TRPH by the FL -PRO Method_ Review of laboratory analytical data for the soil sample collected from SB -22 indicates that benzene (0.33 ug/kg), toluene (0,34 Vg/kg) and TRPH (3.6 mglkg) were detected, but at concentrations below the applicable SCTLs established in Chapter 24-11, MCC. All other parameters were below the respective laboratory method detection limits. A Summary of Soli Analytical Data is provided in Table 3, Appendix S. Copies of laboratory analytical reports and chain -of -custody records are provided in Appendix D. Review of the laboratory analytical data for groundwater samples collected from TMW-22 indicates that TRPH (0.238 mg1L) was detected, but at a concentration below the applicable GCTLs established in Chapter 24-11, MOCC. Ail other parameters were below the respective laboratory method detection limits. A Summary of Groundwater Analytical Data is provided in Table 4, Appendix B. Copies of laboratory results and chain -of -custody records are provided in Appendix D, and FDEP Groundwater Sampling Logs are provided in Appendix F. 3.27 SS-231TMW-23 — IN -GROUND GREASE TRAPS Three in -ground oil/water separators (grease traps) exist on the northern, southern and western portion of the Orange Bowl Stadium. This sampling location relates to the grease traps located on the eastern side of the stadium. Please refer to Figure 4, Appendix A, for a Sampling Location Plan Depicting the referenced sample location. Review of the field screening data indicates that negligible net organic vapor concentrations, ranging from 1.8 to 1.9 ppnm were detected. Refer to Table 2, Appendix B for a Summary of Field Screening by OVA - FID Results. Soil Boring Logs are provided as Appendix C, Based on the presence of negligible organic vapors and the absence of obvious visual or olfactory impacts, one sell sample was collected from 3- to 5 -feet BLS (approximately one foot above the 24 groundwater table) and submitted to a NFLAP-certified laboratory for analyses targeting VOCS by EPA Method 8260, PAHs by EPA Method 82700, Oil & Grease by EPA Method 9071 B and TRPH by the FL -- PRO Method. Subsequent to collection of the soil sample, groundwater quality samples were collected and submitted to a NFLAP-certified laboratory for analyses targeting VOCs by EPA Method 8260, PAHs by EPA Method 8270C, Oil & Grease by EPA Method 9471 B and TRPH by the FL -PRC] Method, Review of laboratory analytical data for the sail sample collected from SB -23 indicates that benzene (17.25 pglkg), toluene (0.29 pglkg) and TRPH (2.5 mg/kg) were detected, but at concentrations below the applicable SCTLs established in Chapter 24-11, MOCC. All other parameters were below the respective laboratory method detection limits. A Summary of Soil Analytical Data is provided in Table 3, Appendix B. Copies of laboratory analytical reports and chain -of -custody records are provided in Appendix D. Review of the laboratory analytical data for groundwater samples collected from TMW-23 indicates that toluene (0.46 pg/L), 1 -methylnaphthalene (0.82 pg/L), 2-methylnaphthatene (2.1 pg/L), naphthalene (4.5 Vg/L), TRPH (0.08513 mg/L) and Oil & Grease (2.8 mglL) were detected, but at concentrations below the applicable GCTLs established in Chapter 24-11, MDCC. All other parameters were below the respective laboratory methad detection limits. A Summary of Groundwater Analytical Data Is provided in Table 4, Appendix B. Copies of iaboratery results and chain -of -custody records are provided in Appendix D, and FDEP Groundwater Sampling Logs are provided in Appendix F. 3,23 MW -1 -- DUE DILIGENCE COVERAGE Soil and groundwater quality samples were collected from location MWA to provide good site coverage for the sampling protocol. In addition, groundwater elevation data from MW -1 (and MW -2 through MW -6) was utilized to evaluate site-specific groundwater flow direction. Please refer to Figure 4, Appendix A, for a Sampling Location Plan Depicting the referenced sample location. Review of the field screening data indicates that negligible net organic vapor c❑ncentratlons, ranging from 1.5 to 1.6 ppm were detected. Refer to Table 2, Appendix B for a Summary of Field Screening by OVA - FID Results. Soil Boring Logs are provided as Appendix C. Based on the presence of negligible organic vapors and the absence of obvious visual or olfactory impacts, one soil sample was collected from 2- to 4 -feet BLS (approximately one foot above the groundwater table) and submitted to a NELAP-certified laboratory for analyses targeting VOCs by EPA Method 8280, PAHs by EPA Method 82700 and TRPH by the FL -PRO Method. 25 Subsequent to coilection of the soil sample, groundwater quality samples were collected and submitted to a NELAP-certified laboratory for analyses targeting VOCs by EPA Method 8260, PAHs by EPA Method 82700 and TRPH by the FL -PRO Method. Review of laboratory analytical data for the soil sample collected from MWA (designated SB -MW -1 on the chain -of -custody record and laboratory analytical report) indicates that 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene (0.63 pg/kg), 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene (0.24 pglkg), toluene (0.12 }jglkg) and TRPH (2.1 mg/kg) were detected, but at concentrations below the applicable SCTLs established in Chapter 24-11, MDCC. All other parameters were below the respective laboratory method detection limits. A Summary of Soil Analytical Data is provided in Table 3, Appendix B. Copies of laboratory analylical reports and chain -of -custody records are provided in Appendix D. Review of the laboratory analytical data for groundwater samples collected from MW -1 indicates that naphthalene (20 pg/L) and TRPH (0.119 rng/L) were detected. The reported concentration of naphthalene exceeds the GCTL of 14 pg/L established in Chapter 24-11, MDCC. The reported concentration of TRPH Is below the GCTL eslablished In Chapter 24 -11, MDCC. All other parampters were below the respective laboratory method detection limits. A Summary of Groundwater Analytical Data is provided in Table 4, Appendix B. Copies of laboratory results and chairs -of -custody records are provided in Appendix D, and FDEP Groundwater Sampling Logs are provided in Appendix F. 3.24 MW -2 OFF-SITE UST FACILITY Based on the review of the DERM file for the Miami -Dade Housing Agency, addressed as 1443 Northwest 7th Street and located adjacent to the north of the site, ASTs and USTs have historically been maintained and utilized at the faeillty. Please refer to Figure 4, Appendix A, for a Sampling Location Plan Depicting the referenced sample location. Review of the field screening data indicates that negligible net organic vapor concentrations, ranging from 1.6 to 1.9 ppm were detected. Refer to Table 2, Appendix B for a Summary of Field Screening by OVA - FID Results. Soil Boring Logs are provided as Appendix C. Based on the presence of negligible organic vapors and the absence of obvious visual or olfactory impacts, one soil sample was collected from 2- to 4 -feet SLS (approximately one foot above the groundwater table) and submitted to a NELAP-certified laboratory for analyses targeting VOCs by EPA Method 8260, PAHs by EPA Method 82700 and TRPH by the FL -IBRO Method. Subsequent to collection of the soil sample, groundwater quality samples were collected and submitted to a NELAP-certified laboratory for analyses targeting VOCs by EPA Method 8264, PAHs by I=PA Method 82700 and TRPH by the FL -PRO Method. W Review of laboratory analytical data for the soil sample collected from MW -2 (designated SB -MW -2 on the chain -of -custody record and laboratory analytical report) indicates that 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene (0.38 pglkg), toluene (0.14 pglkg) and TRPH (2.5 mg/kg) were detected, but at concentrations below the applicable SCTLs established in Chapter 24-11, MDCC. All other parameters were below the respective laboratory method detection limits. A Summary of Soil Analytical Data is provided in Table 3, Appendix B. Copies of laboratory analytical reports and chain -of -custody records are provided in Appendix D. Review of the laboratory analytical data for groundwater samples collected from MW -2 indicates that chloroform (0.69 pgiL) and TRPH (0.25£ mg/L) were detected, but at concentrations below the GCTLs established in Chapter 24-11, MDCC. All other parameters were below the respective laboratory method detection limits. A Summary of Groundwater Analytical Data is provided in Table 4, Appendix S. Copies of laboratory results and chain -of -custody records are provided in Appendix D, and FDEP Groundwater Sampling Logs are provided in Appendix F. 3.25 MW -3 — OFF-SITE DRYCLEANING FACILITY According to Historical Cleaners records, Metropolitan Cleaners & Laundry, addressed as 1433 Northwest 3rd Street and adjacent southeast of the site, was in service in 1958. Please refer to Figure 4, Appendix A, for a Sampling Location Plan Depicting the referenced sample location. Review of the field screening data indicates that negligible net organic vapor concentrations, ranging from 1.9 to 2.2 ppm were detected. Refer to Table 2, Appendix B for a Summary of Field Screening by OVA - FID Results. Soil Boring Logs are provided as Appendix C. Based on the presence of negligible organic vapors and the absence of obvious visual or olfactory impacts, one soil sample was collected from 1- to 3 -feet BLS (approximately one foot above the groundwater table) and submitted to a NELAP-certified laboratory for analyses targeting VOCs by I=PA Method 8260, PAHs by EPA Method 8270C and TRPH by the FL -PRO Method. Subsequent to collection of the soil sample, groundwater quality samples were collected and submitted to a NELAP-certified laboratory for analyses targeting VOCs by EPA Method 8260, PAHs by EPA Method 8270C and TRPH by the FL -PRO Method. Review of laboratory analytical data for the soil sample collected from MW -3 (designated SB -MW -3 on the chain -of -custody record and laboratory analytical report) indicates that 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene (0.25 pglkg) and TRPH (4.8 mg/kg) were detected, but at concentrations below the applicable SCTLs established in Chapter 24-11, MDCC. All other parameters were below the respective laboratory method detection limits. A Summary of Soil Analytical Data is provided in Table 3, Appendix B. Copies of laboratory analytical reports and chain-cf-custody records are provided in Appendix D. 27 Review of the laboratory analytical data for groundwater samples collected from MW -3 indicates that TRPH (0.256 mg/L) was detected, but at a concentration below the GCTL established in Chapter 24-11, MDCC. All other parameters were below the respective laboratory method detection limits. A Summary of Groundwater Analytical Data is provides[ in Table 4, Appendix B. Copies of laboratory results and chain - of -custody records are provided In Appendix D, and FDEP Groundwater Sampling Logs are provided in Appendix F. 3.28 MW -4 — FORMER ON-SITE STRUCTURE (GRANDSTANDS) A section of grandstands was depicted on the southwestern portion of the site, at the northeastern corner of the intersection of Northwest P Street and Northwest 1 Gt« Avenue on Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps dated 1938, 1939 and 1950. Please refer to Figure 4, Appendix A, for a Sampling Location Plan Depicting the referenced sample location. Review of the field screening data indicates that negligible net organic vapor concentrations, ranging from 1.8 to 1.9 ppm were detected. Refer to Table 2, Appendix B for a Summary of Field Screening by OVA - FID Results. Soil Boring Logs are provided as Appendix C. Based on the presence of negligible organic vapors and the absence of obvious visual or olfactory impacts, one soil sample was collected from 2- to 4 -feet BLS (approximately one foot above the groundwater table) and submitted to a NELAP-certified laboratory for analyses targeting VOCs by EPA Method 8260, PAHs by EPA Method 82700 and TRPH by the FL -PRO Method. Subsequent to collection of the soil sample, groundwater quality samples were collected and submitted to a NELAP-certified laboratory for analyses targeting VOCs by EPA Method 8260, PAHs by EPA Method 8270C and TRPH by the FL -PRO Method. Review of laboratory analytical data for the soil sample collected from MW -4 (designated SB -MW -4 on the chain -of -custody record and laboratory analytical report) indicates that 1,2,4-trimethyibenzene (0.32 pglkg), toluene (0.13 pglkg) and TRPH (3.9 mg/kg) were detected, bW at concentrations below the applicable SCTLs estabiished in Chapter 24-11, MDCC. All other parameters were below the respective laboratory method detection limits, A Summary of Soil Analytical Data is provided in Table 3, Appendix B. Copies of laboratory analytical reports and chain -of -custody records are provided in Appendix D. Review of the laboratory analytical data for groundwater samples collected from MW -4 indicates that TRPH (0.144 mglL) was detected, but at a concentration below the GCTL established in Chapter 24-11, MDCC. All other parameters were below the respective laboratory method detection limits. A Summary of Groundwater Analytical Data is provided in Table 4, Appendix B. Copies of laboratory results and chain - Eu of-custody records are provided in Appendix D, and FDEP Groundwater Sampling Logs are provided in Appendix F. 3.27 MW -5 — OFF-SITE DRYCLEANING FACILITY According to Historical Cleaners records, City Dry Cleaners Laundry, Inc. addressed as 436 Northwest 17th Avenue and adjacent to the east of the site, was in service In 1946. Please refer to Figure 4, Appendix A, for a Sampling Location Plan Depicting the referenced sample location. Review of the field screening data indicates that negligible net organic vapor concentrations, ranging from 1.7 to 2.0 ppm were detected. Refer to Table 2, Appendix B for a Summary of Field Screening by OVA - FID Results. Soll Boring Logs are provided as Appendix C. Based on the presence of negligible organic vapors and the absence of obvious visual or olfactory impacts, one soil sample was collected from 2- to 4 -feet BLS (approximately one foot above the groundwater table) and submitted to a NELAP-certified laboratory for analyses targeting VOCs by EPA Method 8260, PAHs by EPA Method 82700, TRPH by the FL -PRO Method and total 8 RCRA Metals by various EPA -approved methods_ Subsequent to collection of the soil sample, groundwater duality samples were collected and submitted to a NELAP-certified laboratory for analyses targeting VOCs by EPA Method 8260, PAHs by EPA Method 8270C, TRPH by the FL -PRO Method and 8 RCRA Metals by various EPA -approved methods. Review of laboratory analytical data for the soil sample collected from MW -5 (designated SB -MW -5 on the chain -of -custody record and laboratory analytical report) indicates that anthracene (0.34/1 mg/kg), fluoranthene (2.8 mg/kg), phenanthrene (1.5 mg/kg), pyrene (2.1 mg/kg), TRPH (84 mglkg), arsenic (2.1 mg/kg), barium (7.6 mglkg), chromium (5.3 mg/kg) and lead (10 mglkg) were detected, but at concentrations below applicable SCTLs established in Chapter 24-11, MDCC. However, when the concentrations of the benzo(a)pyrene equivalents were converted using Toxicity Equivalent Factors, the concentrations were calculated at 1.3 mg/kg, which exceeds the residential direct exposure and industriallcornmercial SCTLs for Benzo(a)pyrene of 0.1 and 0.7 mg/kg, respectively. All other parameters were below the respective laboratory method detection limits. A Summary of Sail Analytical Data is provided in Table 3, Appendix B. Copies of laboratory analytical reports and chain -of -custody records are provided in Appendix C. Copies of Benzo(a)pyrene Conversion Tables are provided as Appendix D. Revlewr of the laboratory analytical data for groundwater samples collected from MW -5 indicates that MTBE (0.37 pgik), TRPH (0.136 rnglL) and barium (0.028 mg/1_) were detected, but at concentrations below the respective GCTLs established in Chapter 24-11, MDCC. All other parameters were below the respective laboratory method detection limits. A Summary of Groundwater Analytical Data Is provided in 29 Table 4, Appendix B. Copies of laboratory resulls and chain-of-cuslady records are provided in Appendix D, and FDEP Groundwater Sampling Logs are provided in Appendix F. 3.28 MW•6--ON-SITE HISTORIC LIGHT MANUFACTURING FACILITY The properly addressed as 625 Northwest 16`x' Avenue and on the northern portion of the site, was built circa 1925 and identified as light manufacturing on Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps. Please refer to Figure 4, Appendix A, for a Sampling Location Plan Depicting the referenced sample location. Review of the field screening data indicates that negligible net organic vapor concentrations ranging from 1,8 to 2.1 ppm were detected. Refer to Table 2, Appendix B for a Summary of Field Screening by OVA - FID Results. Sol[ Bofing togs are provided as Appendix C. Based on the presence of negligible organic vapors and the absence of obvious visual or olfactory impacts, one soil sample was collected from. 2.5- to 4.5 -'feet BLS (approximately one foot above the groundwater table) and submitted to a NELAP-certified laboratory for analyses targeting VOCs by EPA Method 8260, PAHs by EPA Method 82700 and TRPH by the FL -PRO Method. Subsequent to collection of the sail sample, groundwater quality samples were collected and submitted to a NELAP-certified laboratory for analyses targeting VOCs by EPA Method 8260, PAHs by EPA Method 82700 and TRPH by the FL -PRO Method. Review of laboratory analytical data for the soil sample collected from MW -5 (designated SB -MW -6 on the chain -of -custody record and laboratory analytical report) indicates that TRPH (4.2 mglitg) was detected, but at a concentration below the applicable SCTL established in Chapter 24-11, MDCC. All other parameters were below the respective laboratory method detection limits. A Summary of Soil Analytical Data is provided in Table 3, Appendix S. Copies of laboratory analytical reports and chain -of -custody records are provided in Appendix D. Review of the laboratory analytical data for groundwater samples collected from MW -5 indicates that MTBE (0.39 Vg/L) and TRPH (0.134 mg1L) were detected, but at concentrations 'below the applicable GCTLs established in Chapter 24-11, MDCG. All other parameters were below the respective laboratory method detection limits. A Summary of Groundwater Analytical Data is provided in Table d, Appendix B. Copies of laboratory results and chain -of -custody records are provided In Appendix D, and FDEP Groundwater Sampling Logs are provided in Appendix F. 4.0 TOP -IIF -CASING SURVEY On March 11, 2008, Bureau Veritas utilized a survey level and stadia rod to survoy the tops of well casings of monitoring wells MW -1 through MW -B. All casing elevations were obtained and referenced to 30 NGVD etevalions depicted on a Plat of Survey of the site, prepared and provided by Fortin, Leavy, Skiles, Inc. All elevations were taken along the north side of the monitoring well casing at a notch filed Into the top of each casing. Once the casing elevations had been measured, depth -to -water measurements were referenced to these elevations. These data were used for assessment of the groundwater flow direction. All measurements were taken to the nearest 0.01 foot. All wells were gauged for depth to water within approximately five minutes of one another in an effort to obtain consistent gauging data. The wells were gauged utilizing a Solinst Mini Interface Meter, with an reported accuracy to 0,01 feet. Groundwater elevations below the north side of the top of the monitoring well casings were measured in (lie field. These measurements below the lop of casing were later subtracted from the monitoring well elevations provided during the survey. Based on the survey and gauging data, groundwater on the northern portion of the sito generally flows in a north to northwest direction. Groundwater on the southern portion of the site generally flows toward the southeast. This is consistent with flood zone elevation informatton published for the site and vicinity. A Groundwater Elevation Contour Map is provided as Figure 5, Appendix A. A Summary of Groundwater Elevation Data is provided as Table 5, Appendix B. 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 CONCLUSIONS Bureau Veritas completed a Phase ll ESA of the Orange Bowl Stadium property as 1501 Northwest 3rd Street in Miami, Miami Dade County, Florida. The objective of the Phase II ESA was to evaluate the potential for on-site impacts from various on-site and off-site sources. This assessment was requested in association with a pending property transaction. Based on the results of this assessment, Bureau Veritas concludes the following: Review of the soil analytical data indicates that exceedance of applicable SCTLs was detected at locations SB-3/TMW-3, SB -1 4/TMW-1 4, SB-191TMV11-19, SB-20[TMW-20 and MW -5, • Review of the groundwater analytical data Indicates that exceedance of applicable GCTLs was detected at locations SS-141TMW-14, and MWA . 5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS With respect to soil impacts that exceed the SCTLs, Bureau Verilas recommends further assessment in these locations to define the extent and volume of impacted soils. With respect to groundwater impacts 31 that exceed the GCTLs, Bureau Veritas recommends re -sampling ilia groundwater at these locations to confirm or deny the presence of groundwater impacts. 6.0 !gUALIFICATIONS This assessment was performed on behalf of and for the exclusive use of the City of Miami their successors and assigns, and may be relied upon by Miami -Dade County and The Florlda Marlins, L.P. No other company, entity or person shall have any rights with regard to Bureau Verilas' contract with the above entities, including but not limited to indemnification by Bureau Veritas, or any rights of reliance on the findings, conclusions and recommendations of this or any subsequent reports regarding the referenced site. It should be noted that environmental evaluations are Inherently limited in the sense that conclusions are drawn and recommendations developed from limited research and site evaluation. For these types of evaluations, it is often necessary to use information prepared or presented by others and Bureau Veritas cannot be responsible for the accuracy of such information. Additionally, the passage of time may result in a change in the environmental characteristic at this site and surrounding properties. This report does not warrant against future operations or conditions, nor does this warrant operations or conditions present of a type or at a location not investigated. This report is not a regulatory compliance audit. The conclusions presented In this report are, in part, based upon subsurface sampling performed at selected locations and depths. Conditions may exist hesfde borings or between sampling intervals that differ significantly from those presented in this report, which can not be predicted by tris study. 32 7.0 SIGNATURE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONALS Data, acquisition, report preparation and review were performed by the following: Marco F. Hernandez, E.I. Staff Engineer Environmental Services Division Miami Regional Office Robert Alan Speed Senior Project Manager Environmental Services Division Miami Regional Office A. Murphy U , PJ1. Senior Projec Manager Environmental Services Division Florida Regional Off Ice March 14, 2:008 Bureau Veritas Project Number 26008-1447761.02 33 APPENDIX A FIGURES