HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal EE&G Phase IISUBITFE
INTO THE
PUBLICEDORDFOREHSA
ITEMJ�t.ON 111_o6 .
) /7 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
ENGINEERS AND SCIENTISTS
AMember ofthe CRA Pamily ofCompanies
�eckovro e
Company.
Address:
Ms. Lisa Smith
IMO August 29, 2005
MUNN 8015-4385-00
Dade County Environmental
Resources Management
33 SW 2114 Avenue, 6th Floor
Miami, FL 33130
=' Mr. Terry Horan
Knight Ridder-Miami Herald
Property Gigensilielliiftletelp
NIS located et, near, or in the vicinity or
1431-1451 North Bayshore Drive,
Miami, Miami -Dime County, Florida
We are sending you ® Attached
the following items: 0 Shop drawings
0 Specifications
❑ Under Separate Cover 0 Via:
❑ Prints ❑ Reports 0 Samples
❑ Change Order 0 Other.
1
Buyer's Environmental Report
These are transmitted as checked below:
❑ For Approval
❑ For Your Use
❑ As Requested
❑ For Bids Due:
❑ Other.
❑ Approved as Submitted
Approved as Noted
❑ Returned for Correction
Resubmit:
Submit:
Return:
copies for approval
copies for distribution
corrected prints
0 Prints returned after loan to us
Dear Ms. Smith:
Please find attached one (1) original Buyer's Environmental Report as requested. If you have
any questions or comments, please call us at (561) 688-9008.
Thank You
lE=EgWIEB
AUG 2 9 2095
DERM
Pollution Remediatan
w ww.hu-env. con1
Environmental & Geotechnlcal Engineering • Construction Materials Testing
1486-A Skees Road / West Palm Beach, FL 33411
Tel: (561) 688-9008 / Fax: (561) 688-9005
Offices in: Tampa / Orlando / Cape Canaveral / West Palm Beach / Hilton Head
bmitted Into the public
reco connection with
item ft. I1e n9-r1-oL
Priscilla A. pson
City Clerk
EEG
EE,„
--S UB MI TTED-tf TO-�I E
PUBL1Q RECORD FR
1%.01-0(.
PHASE II
ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
FOR
KNIGHT-RIDDER MIAMI HERALD PROPERTY
10 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED BETWEEN
BISCANYNE BAY AND BISCAYNE BOULEVARD,
AND NORTHEST 131/4 STREET AND NORTHEAST 187" STREET
MIAMI, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
PREPARED FOR:
CSQUARE GROUP, LLC 3VI—j
`'""�� ITI
CIO GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. AUG 2 9 2006
1221 BRICKELL AVENUE
MIAMI, FL 33131 D RM
Poltutto �nediaton
Prepared By:
EE&G Environmental Services, LLC
14508 Commerce Way, Suite 400
Miami Lakes, Florida 33016
(308) 374-8300
April 2008
Project No. 2005-0707
Craig C. Clevenger, P.G.
Senior Technical Advisor
Iec '"Cc.
1-10
\1<— 22Z23 4
Steven A. Harrison, P.G.
Hazardous Substance Miami
Practice Area Leader
ubmitted Into the public
rec• • ' • . nnection with
item'. r as a , 7 _ p
Priscilla A. Thcmp
City Clerk
EE$G: Phase II Environmental Site Assessment April 2005
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section a e
1.0 - INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 PURPOSE 1
1.2 USER RELIANCE 1
1.3 BACKGROUND 1
2.0 PHASE II ESA METHODOLOGY 4
2.1 SOIL ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY 4
2.2 GROUNDWATER ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY 8
2.3 LIMITED -SCOPE GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYMETHODOLOGY 7
3.0 — PHASE 11 ESA FINDINGS 8
3.1 SOIL ASSESSMENT FINDINGS 8
3.2 GROUNDWATER ASSESSMENT FINDINGS 9
3.3 LIMITED -SCOPE GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYMETHODOLOGY 10
4.0 — CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS 11
4.1 CONCLUSIONS - SOIL 11
4.2 CONCLUSIONS - GROUNDWATER 12
4.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
SUBMITTEDThITb THE
TABLES PUBLIC RECORD FOR
1 Soil Analytical Results —Total Arsenic
2 Soil Analytical Results — PAHs
3 Groundwater Analytical Results — Total Arsenic ITEM FL `5'
4 Groundwater Analytical Results — Total Lead t +1lrl ON 1 + 0 9 - 0 (,.
5 Groundwater Analytical Results — Detectable PAH Constituents
FIGURES
1 Topographic Location Map
2 Site Map Illustrating Sampling Locations
3 Soil Analytical Results — Total Arsenic (0 to 24eet BLS)
4 Soil Analytical Results — Total Arsenic (4 to 6-feet BLS)
5 Solt Analytical Results — Petroleum -Affected Soils > SCTLs
6 Groundwater Analytical Results — Total Arsenic > GCTLs
7 Groundwater Analytical Results — Total Lead > GCTLs
8 Groundwater Analytical Results — Petroleum -Affected Groundwater > GCTLs
APPENDICES
A Laboratory Reports - Soil Sampling Events
B Laboratory Reports — Groundwater Sampling Events
mitted Into the public
recurnection with
item P2.tf . o • _- -o
Phase 11 ESA - Knight Kidder - Final Draft - April 2005 I Priscilla A. Thomp
City Clerk
EEbG: Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
1.1 PURPOSE
SUBMITTED INTO THE
PUBLIC RECb°OR
SECTION 1.0
INTRODUCTION TEM
‚-‚ ���' ON "
01-b4.
EE&G Environmental Services, LLC (EE&G) was retained by Citisquare Group, LLC, hereafter
referred to as °the Client', to perform a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the
Knight-Ridder Miami Herald property, located in Miami, Miami -Dade County, Florida (hereafter
referred to as the °Property'). A site map illustrating the location of the Property is provided as
Figure 1.
The purpose of this Phase II ESA was to assess for the presence of contaminants of concern
(COCs) in soil and groundwater samples collected from the Property, which may be attributed to
the Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) that were identified in EE&G's January 2005
draft Phase I ESA:
1.2 USER RELIANCE
This report was prepared solely for the use of the Client and Greenberg Traurig, P.A., and is not
intended for use by third party beneficiaries. Unauthorized third parties rely at their own risk,
and shall Indemnify and hold EE&G harmless against any liability for any loss arising out of or
related to unauthorized reliance by any third party on any work performed thereunder, or the
contents of this report. The opinions and recommendations presented herein apply only to
conditions existing at the time of this assessment. Any changes In site condltlons,
environmental standards, practices, or regulations subsequent hereto are not covered.
1.3 BACKGROUND
During the performance of a Phase I ESA of the Property by EE&G in January 2005, the
following Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) were identified that have the potential
to have affected soil and/or groundwater quality at the Property:
• The Miami Herald historically operated five underground storage tanks (USTs) on Lot 8
of the Property. These USTs were removed. in 1996, following which Miami -Dade
County Department of Environmental Protection (DERM) requested no further action.
However, the historic use of the property for the storage of gasoline and diesel for
vehicle fueling was considered a REC.
• Historical research which included the review of City Directories and Sanborn Fire
Insurance maps identified the following facilities on the Property for which no additional
information was available, but were considered RECs:
- Lot A:
• Nash Body Shop, 1435 NE. Bayshore Place (approx. 1953 -1958).
• Venetian Service, 1401 NE Bayshore Court (approx. 1944).
• Boat Repair (1921) and Service Station, 511 NE 13 Street (approx 1929 -1939).
• Sunoco Service, 407 NE 13 Street (approx. 1958 -1971).
• Ogbum Dry Cleaner, 1303 N. Bayshore Drive (approx. 1926 -1934).
• Parr Dry cleaner, 1329 N. Bayshore Drive (approx. 1939-1953).
• Rubin's Auto Body Shop, 1306 NE Bayshore Court (approx. 1934 - 1966).
a Morgan Chemical, 1337 N Bayshore Drive (approx. 1944).
Phase II ESA - Knight Ridder - Final Draft - April 2005 1
ubmitted Into the public
reco • ' «• nnection with
item pa. (ca. •- '-rl-o`
Priscilla A. Tho = • n
City Cler
EE&G: Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
SU8MITTflro THE
- • Apartments B & Il$6LIC RECORD FOR
Apartments (potential for USTs) - (approx. 1921 - 8
PZ. tr
- •Lot F ncher Motors, 1325 NE Bayshore Place (appro f9 1 1n�o
• Based on historical research (including review of City. Directories and Sanbom Fire
Insurance maps), and the DERM file information, EE&G identified the following facilities
adjoining or near the Property, which were considered RECs:
- The eastem-adjoining property was developed with the Miami Herald (1 Herald
Plaza), which was listed as a RCRIS site, and has conducted onsite newspaper
printing for decades. This facility has had numerous violations on -file with DERM
with respect to elevated concentrations of heavy metals and ammonia in discharges
to the sanitary sewer system. Additionally, this facility maintains aboveground
storage tanks for the storage of diesel fuel. Therefore, this facility is considered to be
a REC.
- The southern -adjoining Former Belcher Asphalt Paving Company/Belcher
Oil/Belcher Industries, 1217 N. Bayshore Drive. This bulk oil facility historically
maintained numerous aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) for storage of various light
and heavy petroleum products. Significant soil and groundwater Impacts were
detected in samples collected throughout the site and extended north into the right of
way for Macarthur Causeway. Remedial efforts have been limited to removal of soils
in the path of construction for the causeway and associated drainage systems. The
actual extent of the affected area is not well known; therefore thls facility Is
considered a REC.
- Two historic service stations that operated on the southwestern adjoining properties,
including Garlick's Service Station/Perfect Service Station (318 NE 13 Street) and
the Macarthur Property (328 NE 13 Street). These properties were listed as LUST
sites. Petroleum impacted soil and groundwater was identified in samples collected,
and both were considered to be part of the Belcher facility for purpose of assessment
and remediation.
- Super Fina Service Station, 370 NE 15 Street - (approximately 75 feet northwest of
the Property). This facility was fisted as a UST site. This property was occupied by
Super Fula Service Station from at least 1953 through at least 1958. Groundwater
and soil samples collected during the removal of USTs revealed the presence of
regulated compounds above their respective cleanup target levels as specified in
Chapter 62-777, FAC. Soils were excavated from the northeastern portion of the
property in August of 1996, and affected soils and groundwater were not identified to
have migrated offsite in records reviewed.
- Omni International Mail, 1801 Biscayne Boulevard - (approximately 175 feet north of
the Property). This facility was listed as a LUST and Industrial Waste site. One
diesel UST for an emergency generator was removed from the facility in 1996.
Groundwater and soil samples collected during the removal of USTs revealed the
presence of regulated compounds above their respective cleanup target levels. A
500 gallon UST was removed in 2001 during construction activities in the loading
'• mated Into the public
record Il . nectton with
Phase (1 ESA - Knight Ridder - Final Draft - April 2005 2 item PZ. a o •. - t)i
Priscilla A. Thom
City Clerk
EEbG: Phase II Environmental Site Assessment April 2005
dock area. Petroleum impacted soils and groundwater was removed from the area,
however, there were areas of impacted soil that were inaccessible. DERM has
requested further information from the owner to address the remaining soil Impacts.
Plaza Venetian Condominiums, 555 NE 15 Street - (approximately 125 feet north of
the Property). This facility was listed as a RCRA, UST, and Enforcement site. This
property was occupied by the Plaza Venetian Condominiums from approximately
1980 through present This facility had a diesel UST for an emergency generator.
- TNT Insecticides, 1333 NE Bayshore Place (the current Herald property). No
information was available in the DERM files.
- Venetian Service Station, 1504 N Bayshore Drive. No information was available in
the DERM files.
- Everglades Laundry, 1320 N Bayshore Drive. No information was available in the
DERM files.
• Based on the historic research, large amounts of fill were utilized to extend the mainland
from approximately 100 feet east of Northeast Bayshore Court sometime between 1921
and 1939. This 'made land' Included "Lot C" of the Property (north of the Miami Herald
building), and the land currently occupied by the Miami Herald Building. It Is suspected
that the fill material was dredged from the adjoining Biscayne Bay. However, the
unknown source of the fill is considered a REC.
Phase II ESA - Knight Kidder - Final Draft - April 2005 3
SUBMITTED INTO THE
PUBLIC RECORD FOR
ITEM; ON u-o9.o,,,
Su • . - d Into the public
record in r• i ectio wi
2. Ira- on °c,
item _--- • n
Priscilla A. City Cler'
OW. Phase I! Environmental Site Assessment April 2005
SECTION 2.0
PHASE II ESA METHODOLOGY
EE&G performed a Phase II ESA to assess for the presence of COCs in soil and groundwater
samples from the collected Property. Refer to Figure 2 for a site map indicating the locations of
the sampling locations.
2.1 SOIL ASSESSMENT METHODOLGY
On March 11, 12, 13, 14, and April 6 and 7, 2005, EE&G advanced a total of 44 soil borings
(labeled SB-1 through SB-44) across the Property using direct -push drilling technology (Le.,
geoprobe). The soil samples were collected using a technique that involved hydraulically
driving a sampling device to the desired depth, collecting the sample, and extracting the device.
The soil samples were collected from surface grade to approximately 8-feet below land surface
(BLS), using a Macro Core sampler. The samples, which were retrieved In 4-foot acetate liners
to isolate the samples and maintain their integrity, were segregated into 2-foot intervals for field
analysis. The samples were visually inspected to assess for indications of petroleum staining or
unnatural discoloration. The soil samples were transferred from the acetate liners and placed
into pre -cleaned 8-ounce soil jars until half -full, covered with aluminum foil, and allowed to
equilibrate to obtain representative readings. The soil samples were screened using a Heath
Tech Detectopadc III Organic Vapor Analyzer (OVA), equipped with a Flame Ionization Detector
(FID). The OVA/FID was utilized with, and without a charcoal filter to assess for the presence
of naturally occurring methane. The net OVA/FID readings were interpreted to assess for the
presence of volatile organic compounds, indicative of a petroleum hydrocarbon or chlorinated
solvent source.
Soil samples were placed in laboratory supplied, pre -cleaned sample bottles, placed on ice, and
transported to ELAB, a National Laboratory Accreditation Conference (NELAC)-certified and
Department of Health (DOH) -certified laboratory. A representative subset was selected and
analyzed as follows:
• A total of 77 soil samples will be analyzed for total arsenic, including 34 collected
from the 0 to 2-feet BLS interval, 39 collected from the 2 to 4-feet BLS interval,
and four from the 4 to 6-feet BLS interval.
• The following 15 soil samples were polynuclear
by EPA Method 8270:
- SB-2 (0 to 2-feet BLS interval).
- SB-3 (0 to 2-feet BLS interval).
- SB-6 (0 to 2-feet BLS interval).
- SB-8 (0 to 2-feet BLS interval).
- SB-14 (2 to 4-feet BLS interval).
- SB-18 (0 to 2-feet BLS interval).
- SB-23 (0 to 2-feet BLS Interval).
- SB-24 (0 to 2-feet BLS interval).
- SB-26 (0 to 2-feet BLS interval).
- SB-34 (0 to 2-feet BLS interval).
- SB-36 (4 to 6-feet BLS interval).
SB-37 (4 to 6-feet BLS interval).
- SB-38 (2 to 4-feet BLS interval).
- SB-42 (4 to 6-feet BLS interval).
- SB-44 (6 to 8-feet BLS interval).
Phase 11 ESA - Knight Bidder - Final Draft - April 2005 4
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
SUBMITTED INTO THE
PUBLIC RECORD FOR
ITEM VA ON n- of-ob.
u
record in ,c
item Pz I t. a. on
Priscilla A. Tho
City Clerk
d Into the public
ctio w'th
or.
EEG: Phase II Er ironmental Site Assessment
April 2005
• The following 26 soil samples were analyzed for
(TPHs) by Method FL -PRO:
- SB-2 (0 to 2-feet BLS interval).
- SB-3 (0 to 2-feet BLS interval).
- SB-3 (2 to 4-feet BLS interval).
- SB-6 (0 to 2-feet BLS Interval).
- SB-8 (0 to 2-feet BLS interval).
- SB-14 (2 to 4-feet BLS interval).
- SB-15 (6 to 8-feet BLS interval).
- SB-16 (6 to 8-feet BLS interval).
- SB-18 (0 to 2-feet BLS interval).
- SB-19 (6 to 8-feet BLS interval).
- SB-23 (0 to 2-feet BLS interval).
- SB-23 (2 to 4-feet BLS interval).
- SB-24 (0 to 2-feet BLS interval).
- SB-24 (2 to 4-feet BLS Interval).
- SB-25 (2 to 4-feet BLS Interval).
- SB-26 (0 to 2-feet BLS interval).
- SB-32 (2 to 4-feet BLS interval).
- SB-33 (2 to 4-feet BLS interval).
- SB-34 (0 to 2-feet BLS interval).
- SB-36 (4 to 6-feet BLS interval).
- SB-37 (4 to 6-feet BLS interval).
- SB-38 (2 to 4-feet BLS Interval).
- SB-41 (6 to 8-feet BLS interval).
- SB-42 (4 to 6-feet BLS interval).
- SB-43 (4 to 6-feet BLS interval).
- SB-44 (6 to 8-feet BLS interval).
total petroleum hydrocarbons
SUBMITTED INTO THE
PUBLIC RECORD FOR
TEM}'' ON n m-oc;
• The following six soil samples were analyzed for 8 RCRA heavy metals, including
arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium and silver by EPA
Methods 6010 and 7470:
-- SB-14 (2 to 4-feet BLS interval).
- SB-26 (4 to 6-feet BLS interval).
- SB-28 (6 to 8-feet BLS interval).
- SB-36 (4 to 6-feet BLS interval).
- SB-37 (4 to 6-feet BLS Interval).
- SB-38 (2 to 4-feet BLS interval).
• The following 12 soil samples were analyzed
(VOCs) by EPA Method 8260:
- SB-4 (4 to 6-feet BLS interval).
- SB-6 (4 to 6-feet BLS interval).
- SB-9 (4 to 6-feet BLS interval).
- SB-11 (4 to 6-feet BLS interval).
- SB-19 (6 to 8-feet BLS interval).
- SB-36 (4 to 6-feet BLS interval).
- SB-37 (4 to 6-feet BLS interval).
SB-38 (2 to 4-feet BLS interval).
- SB-41 (6 to 8-feet BLS interval).
for volatile organic compounds
ubmitted Into the public
recorr fnection w' h
item pZ . ! 1 ? e,
Prisci6 A. Tho • n
City Cler
Phase II ESA Knight Ridder - Final Draft - April 2005 5
EEbG Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
April 2005
- SB-42 (4 to 6-feet BLS interval).
- SB-43 (4 to 6-feet BLS interval).
- SB-44 (6 to 8-feet BLS interval).
• The following five soil samples were analyzed for organochlorine pesticides by
EPA Method 8081:
- SB-7 (0 to 2-feet BLS interval).
- SB-14 (2 to 4-feet BLS interval).
- SB-36 (4 to 6-feet BLS interval).
- SB-37 (4 to 6-feet BLS interval).
- SB-38 (2 to 4-feet BLS interval).
• The following five soil samples were analyzed for polychlorinated biphenyls by
EPA 6082: U EM ITTED
- SB-26 (4 to 6-feet BLS interval). INTO THE
- SB-28 (4 to 6-feet BLS Interval).
- SB-36 (4 to 6-feet BLS interval). U g L I C RECORD FOR
- SB-37 (4 to 6-feet BLS interval).
- SB-38 (2 to 4-feet BLS interval).
2.2 GROUNDWATER ASSESSMENT METHODLOCs E M 1;):: , , ON 1 (- o 9_ at
On March 11, 12, 13, 14, and April 6 and 7, 2005, EE&G collected discrete groundwater
samples from 41 direct -push points (labeled GW-1 through GW-35, and GW-38 through GW-
43). The direct -push rig utilized a Screen Point 15 (SP15) sampler, in which a decontaminated
unit was threaded onto the leading end of a probe rod and driven to the desired sampling
interval. While the sampler was driven to a depth, 0-ring seals at the drive head and
expendable drive point provided a watertight system. Once at the desired sampling Interval, the
drive rod was retracted to expose the 4-foot long screened interval to allow access for
groundwater sampling. Groundwater was drawn through the tubing to the ground surface using
a peristaltic pump. The groundwater samples were collected from the 5 to 9-feet BLS
screened interval, in order to adequately intersect the groundwater/soil Interface, which was
observed to be approximately 6-feet BLS. Additionally, nine deeper groundwater samples were
collected from the 26 to 30-feet BLS screened Interval, including GW-1, GW-6, GW-9, GW-11,
GW-14, GW-18, GW-28, GW 32 and GW-35.
On March 17, 2005, EE&G collected shallow groundwater samples from two pre-existing
monitoring wells (labeled MW A and MW-B), which were located in Lot C, north of the Miami
Herald building.
Sampling activities were conducted in general accordance with the FDEP Standard Operating
Procedures (SOPs), which are outlined in Chapter 62-120 of the Florida Administrative Code
(FAC). Field stabilization data was recorded during the sampling of the monitoring wells, but
was omitted during the geoprobe sampling event. Prior to sampling, approximately 3 to 5
gallons of groundwater were purged (with a peristaltic pump) from the sampling points, in order
to collect a representative groundwater sample.
Groundwater samples were collected into laboratory supplied, pre -cleaned sample bottles,
placed on ice, and transported to ELAB, a NELAC and DOH -certified laboratory for analyses of
the following parameters:
Phase I1 ESA - Knight Ridder - Final Draft - April 2005 6
Su • '" ed Into the public
record in •; • ection with
item f'2. Pia. on a, -vt
Priscilla A. 'chomp
City Clerk
EEtJG Phase II Environmental Site Assessment April 2005
• A total of 40 shallow geoprobe groundwater samples (screened from
approximately 5 to 9-feet BLS) and the two monitoring well samples, were
analyzed for the following parameters:
- VOCs by EPA Method 8260
- PAHs by EPA Method 8270
- TPH by Method FL -PRO
Total arsenic and lead by EPA Method 6010
• Shallow groundwater samples collected from GW-1, GW-9, GW-10 and GW 12
(located in the vicinity of historic dry cleaning facilities) were analyzed for Mineral
Spirits by modified EPA Method 8015.
• Groundwater samples collected from GW-8, GW 19, GW-22, GW-26, GW-28
and GW-28d were analyzed for ammonia using EPA Method 350.1.
• Shalbw groundwater samples collected from GW-14 (located in the vicinity of a
historic chemical company) were analyzed for the following parameters:
- Semi -volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) by EPA Method 8270
- VOCs by EPA Method 8260
- Eight RCRA metals by EPA Method 6010
- TPH by Method FL -PRO
• The nine deep groundwater samples were analyzed for VOCs using EPA Method
8260.
2.3 LIMITED -SCOPE GEOPHYSCIAL SURVEY METHODOLOGY
On March 10 and 11, 2005, EE&G supervised a limited -scope geophysical survey that was
conducted by Ground Hound, Inc. (GHI). The survey included a combined use of
electromagnetic (EM) equipment to assess for the presence of metallic debris, along with
Ground -Penetrating Radar (GPR) to assess for the presence of buried objects (i.e., debris,
USTs, drainage structures, utilities). The survey area included accessible areas of the southern
and westem portions of Lot A (see Figure 2). There were several cars parked along the
westem boundary of Lot A, which created limited Interference during the survey.
Phase II ESA - Knight Ridder - Final Draft - April 2005 7
SUBMITTED INTO THE
PUBLIC RECORD FOR
ITEM' ON a oc-w .
Su=, 4ter, it;':) the public
record in - ; oct bn wilh
item f2. I t c - rol;
Priscilla A. Tho , on
City Cle
EEbG: Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
SUBMITTED INTILTHE
PHASEEiCESA F NDiPG1BLIC RECORD FOR
3.1 SOIL ASSESSMENT FINDINGS ITEW4 1'i, ON 1 1 - D6i- 06
3.1.1 Soil OVA Results
OVA results generated from field-testing of soils were compared with the action level
established In the FDEP's 'Guidelines for Assessment and Source Removal of Petroleum
'- Contaminated Sots', dated May 1998. The action level defined by these guidelines was 10
parts per million (ppm) of organic vapors. Analysis of the soil samples collected from the soil
borings revealed the presence of organic vapors above the 10 ppm action level in three
samples. Net OVA readings ranged from below the 1 ppm OVA detection limit (BDL) to 230
ppm; however, all net OVA readings were below the 10 ppm action level except the following:
• The 2 to 4-feet BLS interval of SB-24 exhibited a net OVA reading of 60 ppm.
• The 4 to 6-feet BLS intervals of SB-21, SB-23, SB-24 and SB-42 exhibited net OVA
readings for 180 ppm, 200 ppm, 230 ppm and 18 ppm.
• The 8 to 8-feet BLS intervals of SB-3, SB-4, SB-18 and SB-17 exhibited net OVA
readings of 30 ppm, 182 ppm, 20 ppm and 33 ppm.
3.1.2 Soli Analytical Results
A copy of the laboratory analytical results and Chain -of -Custody forms are provided In
Appendix A. The soil analytical results for total arsenic and PAHs are provided In Tables 1
and 2. The soil analytical results were compared with Soil Cleanup Target Levels (SCTLs) for
residential -use direct exposure, commercial/industrial-use direct exposure, and leachability
criteria, per Chapter 24-11, Code of Miami -Dade County. Site maps illustrating the Inferred
extent of total arsenic are provided as Plgure 3 (Arsenic: 0 to 2-feet BLS) and Figure 4
(Arsenic: 2 to 4-feet BLS). Additionally, Figure 6 summarizes the locations where soils were
found to contain petroleum constituents above the SCTLs. The following Is a discussion of the
analytical results, presented by parameter type and sampling depth interval.
Arsenic: A total of 73 out of the 77 soil samples tested contained total arsenic concentrations
above the 0.7 milligrams per kilogram (mg/Kg) SCTL for residential -use direct exposure. These
concentrations ranged from 0.75 mg/Kg to 13 mg/Kg. Seven of these soil samples contained
arsenic concentrations that exceeded the 4.1 mg/Kg SCTL for commerclal-use direct exposure,
including SB-1 (13 mg/Kg), SB-14 (7.8 mg/Kg), SB-18 (4.3 mg/Kg), SB-19 (11 mg/Kg), SB-21
(4.9 mg/Kg), SB-28 (5.9 mg/Kg), and SB-34 (4.4 mg/Kg). Furthermore, four of these soil
samples collected also exceeded the 5.8 mg/Kg SCTL for leachability.
Other Metals: Based on the analytical results, the other heavy metals tested were all below
their respective SCTLs for residential -use direct exposure and leachability (when applicable
using 'total' analyses).
VOCs: Residual concentrations of VOCs were detected In SB-6 and SB-44 (located in the
vicinity of a historic filling station on the southern side of the Property). However, all VOC
concentrations in the 12 soil samples tested were below the SCTLs for residential -use direct
exposure and leachability.
Phase II ESA - Knight Ridder - Final Draft - April 2005 8
tho public
record in with
item PZ. I e.1 on -D[r
Priscilla A. Tho.mp
City Clerk
EE$G: Phase 11 Environmental Site Assessment
SUBMITTED INTO THE
PUBtiC
RECQKVOR
(, pLts,IP
PAHs: A total of six out of the 15 soil samples collect s tip Proontained _ G
dete
ctable concentrations of PAH constituents above the SCTLs:---TIteee-soils cemear w+ -
concentrations of benzo(a)pyrene, ranging from 0.099 mg/Kg to 0.530 mg/Kg, which were at or
exceeded the 0.10 mg/Kg SCTL for residential -use direct exposure. Soils collected from SB-14
(2 to 4-feet BLS) contained a heavy petroleum -like interference, which resulted in a dilution that
increased the detection limits to above the SCTLs.
TPH: Concentrations of TPHs in the 26 soil samples tested were below 460 mg/Kg SCTL for
residential -use direct exposure, and the 340 mg/Kg SCTL for leachability, except the 4 to 6-feet
BLS interval of SB-42 (located beneath the southeastern comer of the parking garage on Lot A).
Soils collected from SB-42 contained 2,100 mg/Kg, and exhibited a petroleum hydrocarbon
odor. A net OVA/FID reading of 18 ppm was detected in this sample.
PCBs: Concentrations of PCBs in the five soil samples tested were below the 0.5 mg/Kg SCTL
for residential -use direct exposure.
Pesticides: Concentrations of organochlorine pesticides in the five soil samples tested were
below the SCTLs for residential -use direct exposure.
3.2 GROUNDWATER ASSESSMENT FINDINGS
A copy of the laboratory analytical results, Chain -of -Custody forms and groundwater sampling
Togs are provided in Appendix B. Refer to Figure 2 for a site map indicating the locations of
the sampling locations. The groundwater analytical results were compared with the
Groundwater Cleanup Target Levels (GCTLs; a.k.a. - No Further Action Criteria) and Natural
Attenuation Default Source Concentrations (NADSCs; a.k.a. - Monitoring Only Criteria), per
Chapter 24-11, Code of Miaml-Dade County. A summary of groundwater analytical results for
samples that contained detectable concentrations of total arsenic, total lead and PAHs
constituents are provided in Tables 3, 4 and 6. Refer to Figures 6, 7 and 8 for a site map
Illustrating constituents of concem that exceeded the GCTLs. The following is a discussion of
the analytical results.
VOCs: VOC constituent concentrations were below the laboratory method reporting limits (RLs)
and GCTLs in all shallow and deep groundwater samples tested.
PAHs: PAH constituent concentrations were below the laboratory RLs and GCTLs in the
shallow groundwater samples collected across the Property, except for the following
constituents:
• Concentrations of benzo(b)fluoranthene were detected in five shallow groundwater
samples, including GW-11 (0.17 ug/L), GW-18 (0.18 ug/L), GW-22 (0.17 ug/L), GW-27
(0.66 ug/L), GW-29 (0.22 ug/L), which exceeded the 0.05 ug/L GCTL.
• Concentrations of benzo(a)pyrene were detected in two shallow groundwater samples,
-- including GW-18 (0.37 ug/L) and GW-27 (0.50 ug/L), which exceeded the 0.2 ug/L
GCTL.
• Concentrations of benzo(a)anthracene were detected in GW-27 (0.33 ug/L),which
exceeded the 0.05 ug/L GCTL.
• Concentrations of benzo(k)fiuoranthene were detected in GW-27 (0.72 ug/L), which
exceeded the 0.5 ug/L GCTL .-pitted into the public
iection With
Phase 11 ESA - Knight Bidder - Final Draft - April 2005
recor
item Ze f c 1 on '�—
Priscilla A. Thom • • n
City Clerk
EEbG: Phase II Environmental Site Assessment April 2005
• Concentrations of indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene were detected in two shallow groundwater
samples, including GW-18 (0.52 ug/L) and GW-27 (0.64 ug/L), which exceeded the 0.05
ug/L GCTL
TPHs: TPH concentrations were detected in several groundwater samples; however, all were
below the 5,000 ug/L GCTL.
Arsenic: Concentrations of total arsenic concentrations were detected in nine shallow
groundwater sampling points above the 10 ug/L GCTL, induding GW-5 (24 ug/L), GW-8 (12
ug/L), GW 18 (14 ug/L), GW-21 (30 ug/L), GW-31 (14 ug/L), GW-34 (12 ug/L) and GW-43 (17
ug/L), which exceeded the 10 ug/L GCTL. The other groundwater samples tested did not
contain total arsenic concentrations above the 10 ug/L GCTL.
Lead: Concentrations of total lead concentrations were detected in four shallow groundwater
sampling points above the 15 ug/L GCTL, including GW-8 (140 ug/L), GW-19 (18 ug/L), GW 27
(50 ug/L) and GW-41 (32 ug/L), which exceeded the 15 ug/L GCTL. The other groundwater
samples tested did not contain total lead concentrations above the 15 ug/L GCTL
Ammonia: Concentrations of ammonia were detected in all five groundwater samples tested,
but only the groundwater samples collected from GW-22 (2.9 mg/L) exceeded the 2.8 mg/L.
GCTL.
3.3 LIMITED -SCOPE GEOPHYSCIAL SURVEY FINDINGS
The main objective of this limited -scope geophysical survey was to assess for the presence of
improperly -abandoned USTs in the vicinity of the former filling stations and dry cleaners, which
were historically located along the southem and southwestem boundaries of Lot A. Gill
reported that while no distinct UST signature was observed, that there was several areas
containing what appeared to be scattered debris. These signatures were attributed to old
building foundations. However, the numerous underground utility lines, trees, the buried debris
signatures and the surface structures and cars created heavy interference with the EM and
GPR equipment. Therefore, it can not definitively be concluded that no USTs or drainage
structures remain onsite, and future development plans should Include a contingency that
assumes these types of structures will be encountered during construction.
Phase 11 ESA - Knight Milder - Final Draft - April 2005 10
SUBMITTED INTO THE
PUBLIC RECORD FOR
ITEM ? ;; ON
brn tt4 ;' ';:a public
—vn,.cct.cii with
-dL
a A. Tho ' son
- City Cie
EE$G: Phase Ii Environmental Site Assessment April 2005
SECTION 4.0
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A Phase II ESA was conducted at the Property to assess for the presence of COCs, which may
have resulted from the RECs Identified in the January 2005 Phase I ESA (see Section 1.2 of
this document). The following conclusions are based upon interpretation of the Phase II ESA
findings.
4.1 CONCLUSIONS - SOILS
Based on the Phase it ESA findings, the following constituents of concern were detected in soils
collected across the Property.
• Arsenic: A total of 73 out of the 77 soil samples tested contained total arsenic
concentrations above the 0.7 mg/Kg SCTL for residential -use direct exposure. These
concentrations ranged from 0.75 mg/Kg to 13 mg/Kg. Additionally, seven of these soil
samples contained arsenic concentrations that exceeded the 4.1 mg/Kg SCTL for
commercial -use direct exposure, and four exceeded the 5.8 mg/Kg SCTL for
leachability.
• PAHs: A total of six out of the 15 soil samples collected across the Property contained
detectable concentrations of PAH constituents above the SCTLs. These soils contained
concentrations of benzo(a)pyrene, ranging from 0.099 mg/Kg to 0.530 mg/Kg, which
were at or exceeded the 0.10 mg/Kg SCTL for residential -use direct exposure. Soils
collected from SB-14 (2 to 4-feet BLS) contained a heavy petroleum -like interference,
which resulted in a dilution that Increased the detection limits to above the SCTLs.
• TPH: Soils collected from the 4 to 6-feet BLS interval of SB-42 (located beneath the
southeastern comer of the parking garage on Lot A) contained 2,100 mg/Kg pf TPH, and
exhibited a petroleum hydrocarbon odor. Additionally, a net OVA/FID reading of 18 ppm
was detected in this sample. These concentrations of TPHs exceeded both the 460
mg/Kg SCTL for residential -use direct exposure, and the 340 mg/Kg SCTL for
leachability. The other 25 soil samples tested did not contain TPH concentrations above
the SCTLs. The source of the petroleum hydrocarbons in SB-42 is attributed to the
historic filling station that operated on the southern portion of the Property.
• VOCs: Residual concentrations of VOCs were detected in SB-6 and SB-44 (located In
the vicinity of a historic filling station on the southern side of the Property). However, all
VOC concentrations in the 12 soil samples tested were below the SCTLs for residential -
use direct exposure and leachability.
• The other COCs tested were either below the laboratory method reporting limits or below
the applicable SCTLs, including barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium,
silver, PCBs and organochlorine pesticides.
SUBMITTED INTO THE
PUBLIC RECORD FOR
ITEM' `5-; ON pq-z.
Phase II ESA - Knight Ridder - Final Draft - April 2005 11
record in
item Pi. I t a. or
Priscifia A. Thom
City Cie
ted Into the public
ection with
n
EEbG: Phase II Environmental Site Assessment April 2005
4.2 CONCLUSIONS - GROUNDWATER
Based on the Phase II ESA findings, the following constituents of concern were detected in soils
collected across the Property.
• Arsenic: Concentrations of total arsenic concentrations were detected in nine shallow
groundwater sampling points above the 10 ug/L GCTL, including GW-5 (24 ug/L), GW-8
(12 ug/L), GW-18 (14 ug/L), GW-21 (30 ug/L), GW-31 (14 ug/L), GW-34 (12 ug/L) and
GW-43 (17 ug/L), which exceeded the 10 ug/L GCTL The other groundwater samples
tested did not contain total arsenic concentrations above the 10 ug/L GCTL.
• Lead: Concentrations of total lead concentrations were detected in four shallow
groundwater sampling points above the 15 ug/L GCTL. including GW-8 (140 ug/L), GW-
19 (18 ug/L), GW-27 (50 ug/L) and GW-41 (32 ug/L), which exceeded the 15 ug/L
GCTL The other groundwater samples tested did not contain total lead concentrations
above the 15 uglL GCTL.
• PAHs: PAH constituent concentrations were below the laboratory RLs and GCTLs in
the shallow groundwater samples collected across the Property, except for the following
constituents:
- Concentrations of benzo(b)fluoranthene were detected in five shallow groundwater
samples, including GW-11 (0.17 ug/L), GW-18 (0.18 ug/L), GW-22 (0.17 ug/L), GW-
27 (0.66 ug/L), GW-29 (0.22 uglL), which exceeded the 0.05 ug/L GCTL.
- Concentrations of benzo(a)pyrene were detected in two shallow groundwater
samples, including GW-18 (0.37 ug/L) and GW-27 (0.50 ug/L), which exceeded the
0.2 ug/L GCTL.
- Concentrations of benzo(a)anthracene were detected In GW-27 (0.33 ug/L),which
exceeded the 0.05 ug/L GCTL.
- Concentrations of benzo(k)fluoranthene were detected in GW-27 (0.72 ug/L), which
exceeded the 0.5 ug/L GCTL
- Concentrations of indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene were detected in two shallow groundwater
samples, including GW-18 (0.52 ug/L) and GW-27 (0.64 ug/L), which exceeded the
0.05 ug/L GCTL
• Ammonia: Concentrations of ammonia were detected in all five groundwater samples
tested, but only the groundwater samples collected from GW-22 (2.9 mg/L) exceeded
the 2.8 mg/L GCTL
• TPHs: TPH concentrations were detected in several groundwater samples; however, all
were below the 5,000 ug/L GCTL.
• VOCs: VOC constituent concentrations were below the laboratory method reporting
limits Ls) and GCTLs in all shallow and deep groundwater samples tested.
SUBMITTED INTO THE
PUBLIC RECORD FOR
phase„E.A. ,(„ight T:pirtION2 - Die
mitted Into the public
nection with
oL
a A. Thomps
City Cleric
MITTED INTO THE
EE$G: Phase II Environmental Site Assessment UriLIC RECOR R
4.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
,,—FA .15,
F.ON 1, _ aq. Qe
Based on the findings of the Phase I and it ESA, EE&G recommd n s Wit a contingency oe
prepared to address the following environmental considerations during future redevelopment
activities:
• Based on the presence of elevated concentrations of arsenic, lead, PAHs and ammonia
in groundwater samples collected across the Property, EE&G recommends that further
assessment be conducted to further characterize these impacts. Furthermore, a
contingency should be considered to properly monitor and dispose of dewatering effluent
if generated during future redevelopment activities. Furthermore, DERM may require a
deed restriction to obtain a conditional closure for this site, which would place a
restriction on use of groundwater for potable or irrigation purposes, and possibly a
restriction on the disposal of storm water effluent in shallow exfiltration trenches on the
Property.
• Due to the presence of arsenic, TPH and PAH constituents in soil samples above the
SCTLS, EE&G recommends a contingency be established to properly handle,
characterize and dispose of all soils excavated or removed from the Property, in
accordance with applicable state and county regulations. Furthermore, a Soil
Management Plan should be prepared to address affected surficial soils to minimize
potential "direct exposure' concerns by construction workers and eventually future
residents.
• Due to the presence of limited areas of scattered buried debris identified on the southem
edge of the Property, the Client should have a geotechnical engineer evaluate the need
to excavate these areas to minimize the potential ,for future settling. Additionally,
consideration should be given to the propensity for potential methane gas accumulation
beneath future impervious surfaces or structures, if debris is left in place. Please note
that the geophysical survey was limited in scope; therefore, it is possible that other areas
of debris may be encountered during the redevelopment of the Property.
• It is Important to recognize that the results of this assessment should not be considered
a guarantee that other areas of the Property are not impacted. Due to the size of this
facility, EE&G designed the sampling strategy to assess for the presence of COCs in the
vicinity of the most obvious areas of potential discharge. However, other areas on the
Property may contain elevated concentrations of COCs that were not detected during
the scope of this assessment. Therefore, it Is recommended that any soils disturbed
during future redevelopment activities be properly characterized and evaluated to
determine the need for proper disposal.
• Additionally, based on the current and historic use of the Property, the potential exists for
the presence of unknown environmentally sensltive structures (i.e., USTs, septic tanks,
drainage structures, etc.). GHI reported that, while no distinct UST signature was
-- observed, there was several areas containing what appeared to be scattered debris.
These signatures were attributed to old building foundations. However, the numerous
underground utility fines, trees, the buried debris signatures and the surface structures
and cars created heavy interference with the EM and GPR equipment. Therefore, it can
not definitively be concluded that no USTs or drainage structures remain onsite,
Therefore, a contingency should be considered to properly manage these potential
issues if encountered during redevelopment activities.
Phase 1I ESA - Knight Rudder . Final Draft • April 2005 13
ubm tte; In" the. public
recur iincction. with
item?2 •t Q A. c:i.. -04
Priscilla A. Thomp
City Clerk
EEbG: Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Aarii 2005
FIGURES
SUBMITTED INTO THE
PUBLIC RECORD FOR
ITEM 'At"' ON o -01..
Into the public
record in c -ton with
item pa. I c on G
Prisc*fla A. Thomps
City Clerk
Submi
EEtrG
t
EE&G Environmental Services, LLC —14505 Commerce Way, Suite 400, Miami Lakes, Florida 33016
305-374-8300 Phone 305-374-9004 Fax
-' lawr it :`;'
I. —
••OLtr Fe I..
• .: rrtr
a Eerier. .
f )
key; 1J�' ■
1.
A Ai_; ■ .
_eV •
,it.
':1.
t' r a..
•'Palk 1 8- :: _
.`•finra;;. ;.if.
T _ • rte•:N:
•
•
r;er4 ,...-
��
- -t -- — —.... rr-' ... T .
_„� :'Tech :<.+ i
a;r...._ ,.r,, •'
c
•
F'
M f..,. , ,.: 0,J4 r [:
Knight-Ridder
Miami Herald Property
Miami, FL
Pr
oject #: zoo6•�o7a7
t .. blfc
rd in connection with
item .. r7_ &le
Priscilla A. Thoi pseg City Clerk ,
ri.-
'f'' ... ^'.
• ..1
1
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
Source: USGS
•
FIGURE
1
TO THE
D FOR
1-o9-ae.
SUBMITTED INTO THE
PUBLIC RECORD FOR
ITEM1' °Nil-01_06 .
• Into the publ
record in . ction wi
item 'Z.) 2 on o-ob
0
z
d
0
rn
i.--
I11 ,:;fitted into the pob(i
i recor• a nneotion wit
itemfl.o',
Pri ciila� r o - en
ITEM r 1,151 ON - ply Dio.
_ A V8 38AVOSla
Priscilla A. Tho • n
2
2
130000
City CQt.
alai i A
r,_'^�' .a-4-r:47._ Cale 3NAVOSI13) S 8S _ I
'"' • miffed Into the pub el
recurnnection wi,
item P2./ e . - - - q_ ob
SUBMITTED INTO THE
-PUBLIC RECORD FOR
tci-i ON 11 -01-04,
AYH 1NAV3Sla
(OM8 3NAVOSNI)
milled Into the pub
recor' nnection wi
item ?Z. te - r7-4o
City Clerk
• /
•I I • I •
LJIU.
POO 3MAVDSItt
=1lilliwiffill
111111111111.1411
bmitted Into the pullis
recor nection wh
item PZ•U•n- 0
City Clerk
•
SUBMITTED
ubrnitted Into the pub
n connection 11,;;,
'1-1-oi.
•
•
4
PP
LI:
City Cle