Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibit 4 - Version ASupplemental Documents Subrmitted by Applicant THE GOLDSTEIN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW FIRM, P.A. Transactions, Due Diligence, Development, Brownfield, Cleanups & Compliance One Southeast Third Avenue, Suite 2120 Miami, Florida 33131 Telephone: (305) 777-1680 Facsimile: (305) 777-1681 WWW.goldsteinerwlaw.com Michael R. Goldstein, Esq. Direct Dial: (305) 777-1682 Email: mgolds tein@goldsteinenvlaw.corn February 22, 2013 Via Email & U.S. Mail Ms. Alice Bravo, Interim Ciry Manager City of Miami 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33131 Re: Response to Request for Supplemental Information in Connection with Pending Brownfield Area Designation Requests West Brickell View Apartments, 144 and 152 SW 8th Street Vista Grande Apartments, 850 SW 2" Avenue; and West Brickell Tower Apartments, 1026 SW 2" Avenue Dear Ms. Bravo: The purpose of this correspondence is to respond to your request for additional information regarding the environmental conditions associated with the pending brownfield area designation requests for the three above -referenced projects and the burdens, risks, and other complexities they have imposed on the developer. 1. We start first with the deftnidon of a "brownfield site" under Florida Statutes.' Florida Statutes section 376.79(3) defines a brownfield site to mean real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by actual or perceived environmental contamination. Taken piece -by -piece, the key elements of the definition of a brownfield site are therefore as follows: real property; actual or perceived contamination; ° See ichEibit. 04026 DOCX. 1 } Ms, Alice Bravo February 22, 2013 Page 2 expansion, redevelopment or reuse of real property; the complication of expansion, redevelopment or reuse of real property; and the complication of expansion, redevelopment or reuse of real property by actual or perceived contamination. 2. Note that the statute, unfortunately, doesn't define the term "complicate."' It also doesn't define what is meant by "perceived contamination." "Actual contamination," however, speaks for itself and can be readily demonstrated through the results of laboratory analysis of soil and groundwa ter. 3. It is noteworthy that nothing in the definition of the term "brownfield site" - or in any other provision of Florida Statutes - requires actual or perceived environmental contamination to be documented al the property that itself is the subject of the brownfield area designation request. The actual, or perceived contamination may, and frequently is, located adjacent or close to the site sought to be designated. In other words, so long as the actual or perceived contamination can be demonstrated to exist and can be Further demonstrated to complicate expansion, redevelopnient, or reuse of the property sought to be designated, the property sought to be designated in fact falls within the scope of the definition of "brownfield site." 4. As we describe in the following paragraphs, actual contamination has complicated expansion, redevelopment and reuse at all three sites where the developer is seeking the brownfield area designation. 5. The actual contamination at issue arises out of, and has been most clearly and extensively documented at, two separate gas station sites that are adjacent and/or in sufficient proximity to the three referenced development sites. The first such gas station site is the Citgo fueling station located at 190 SW 8th Street, which direcdy adjoins the West Bricked View Apartments development site to the west and is located a mere 75 feet or so from the Vista Grande Apartments development site across SW 2.'d Avenue to the east. The second such gas station site is the BP/Bricked Trading Post, 2 In the almost sixteen years since passage of the Florida Brownfields Redevelopment Act, the term "complicate" has widely and commonly been used to described any material design, permitting, regulatory liability, third party liability, cleanup liability, additional cost, and/or construction schedule delay related burdens that a developer is forced to bear as a result of the presence or perceived presence of contamination issues at or in proximity to the development site. And it is precisely these very burdens and issues that create the policy justification for brownfield incentives in the first instance. Environmental driven complexities put these reuse projects involving brownfield sites at a competitive disadvantage relative to clean sites, which, in turn creates market dysfunction and unsustainable and disconnected growth patterns. Without equalizers in the form of financial and regulatory incentives, developers would not be able to accommodate the extra costs, schedule delays, design modifications, and liability risks that are always, in one combination or the other, attendant to actual or perceived contamination. 3 In each of die original brownfield designation requests, all filed with the Ciry of Miami on December 28, 2012, we also discuss several instance of "perceived contamination"; however, we only discuss the several incidents of actual contamination in this supplemental response because (i) they are so objectively demonstrated and (ii) the development complications they create for, and impose on, each of the three referenced projects are so obvious and irrefutable (00004026.00CX. 1) Ms. Alice Bravo February 22, 2013 Page 3 located at 1245 SW 2"d Avenue, which is within, approximately 400 feet of the tBrickell Tower Apartments development site to the south. Actual Contamination at Citgo Site and the Expansion, Redevelopment or Reuse Complication for West Brickell View Apartments and Vista Grande Apartments 6. The Miami -Dade County Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources ("RER") maintains electronic and physical records for the Citgo site under the file numbers UT-439/F-7173. See Exhibit B. Wes 7. As reflected by the records enclosed at Exhibit B, the Citgo site was reported to contain three 10,000 gallon gasoline underground storage tanks ("USTs") and one 1,000 gallon waste oil UST. In June of 1987 and April of 1993, the owner reported significant discharges of petroleum related products; however, due to the financial status of the responsible party and funding limitations at the state level, no meaningful investigation of the extent of contamination or off -site migration has ever been performed. 8, On September 4. 2012, the developer's environmental consultant, Dunkelberger Engineering & Testing, Inc. ("Dunkelberger"),4 concluded an exhaustive investigation of the Citgo site as well as other incidents of actual contamination complicating development for the West Brickell View Apartments site and, in a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment ("ESA") Update, reported the following material findings (among others): Citgo gasoline service station, which has had two documented petroleum discharges, exists on the adjacent property to the west. Given that the subject site is located hydraulically downgradient of the Citgo Station with respect to the regional groundwater flow direction, and the lateral extent of the groundwater hydrocarbon plume has not been assessed for over 20 years, the potential for the hydrocarbon plume to have migrated underneath the site cannot be ruled out. Further, the facility has performed automotive service (including the operadon of a waste oil underground storage tank) immediately adjacent to the site for over 35 years, which may have resulted in localized contamination impacts," "Review of historical sources shows that a gasoline service station operated at the property just northwest of the site (currently a Wells Fargo Bank) from the mid 1920s through the early 1970s. Petroleum contaminated soils were found along the north side of the S.W. 8th Street right-of-way (i.e., just south of the bank property) during the installation of the stormwater drainage utilities in 1985 which su:tests that the former gasoline service station had a past petroleum discharge(s). Given the proximity of this forrner gasoline service station to the site and the fact that the subject site is located hydraulically downgradient of The Florida Licensed Environmental Professional who signed and certified all of the Dunkelberger reports discussed in this correspondence is Thomas Tepper, a Professional Engineer with over 40 years of experience in environmental and geotechnical consulting, including more than 30 years in South Florida alone. {00004026,DOCK 1 } Ms. Alice Bravo February 22, 2013 Page 4 the former gasoline service station, the potential exists for hydrocarbon impacted groundwater to have migrated underneath the site!' 9. Ultimately, the developer was forced to incur the cost and bear the delay of investigating these various environmental issues through a Phase II ESA environmental investigation of soil and groundwater, which was conducted in July and August of 2011 by Dunkelberger. While, the Phase II did not document any on -site contaminadon, it did reveal another important issue of concern related to actual contamination that further complicated development by requiring design modifications and adding yet more cost and delay to the project. As stated by Dunkelberger in its September 4, 2012 Phase I ESA Update: c4. . the existing groundwater contamination at the aforementioned facilities and others nearby could present a concern should dewatering be require in connection with re- development of the subject property for residential purposes. Specifically, the potential exists for contaminated groundwater to migrate from the facilities towards the site since dewatering activities would cause water table lowering that leads to contaminant plume movement. Thus, the presence of ground water contamination would place some degree of restriction on construction dewatering, if required. Dewatering activities may require special evaluation as part of dewatering permitting through the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) and the Miami -Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management (DERM) with technical based assurances provided that the pre-d.rainage activities would not cause contaminated groundwater to migrate. Utilization of special construction techniques could be necessary to assure that contaminant plume movement does not occur." 10. This concern about the additional design modification and increased engineering and development costs were, in fact, realized in connection with West Brickell View Apartments when in correspondence from Miami -Dade County RER, to the developer's engineering consultant, dated August 21, 2012 (see Exhibit C), the developer was ordered to make extensive showings that its proposed drainage plans would not impact on, or make worse, the actual contamination at the adjacent Citgo property. RER ultimately approved the drainage plans but the developer was cautioned as follows: "Be advised that in the event that evidence of ground and/or ground water contamination is encountered, the responsible parry or his designee is required to immediately notify [RER]. . . . Furthermore, based on findings, modifications to the drainage plan may be necessary." Accordingly, the presence of actual contaminadon in groundwater at the Citgo site created significant site design and development complexity to prepare and implement drainage plans consistent with RER's directives, including but not limited to changes in site plans, the preparation {00004026,DOCX. 1 } Ms. Alice Bravo February 22, 2013 Page 5 of alternative drainage plans, the incurrence of additional consulting costs for Phase II testing the incurrence of additional environmental legal costs for liability and regulatory analysis,s 11. As an additional burden and level of complexity, the environmental iesairisk associated with the actual contamination at the Citgo site is particularly troubling, cornplex, and far-reaching to the developer due to the fact that any exacerbation (i.e., spreading) of off -site groundwater contamination during constructionwould operate to expose the developer to cleanup liability to RER, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection ("FDEP"), and, potentially, the owner of the Citgo station. Obviously, the developer would not be faced with any of these legal liability risks — or the corresponding costs associated with environmental consultants and legal counsel to help limit and manage the risk - in the absence of contamination at the Citgo station; if it had chosen to develop a greenfield site. The fact of the matter, however, is that these are real and major complexities arising out of actual contamination that severely complicates redevelopment and reuse of real property, specifically the West Brickell View and Vista Grande Apartment projects. 12. In addition to all of die soil and groundwater redevelopment and reuse complexities discussed in the previous paragraphs, there is yet another form or material complexity related to the Citgo station as it applies to the West Brickell Tower Apartments and Vista Grande Apartments projects. Specifically, we have enclosed a document at Exhibit D drafted by the FDEP that speaks to the health risks associated with building on ar near contaminated sites like the Citgo gas station, "Petroleum Product Indoor Vapor Intrusion Guidelines (Interim) (the "Interim Vapor Intrusion Guidelines"). In material part, the Interim Vapor Intrusion Guidelines state: "Draft EPA guidance and other available literature on vapor intrusion evaluation suggests that there is a real possibility of indoor vapor intrusion occurring at buildings both on a contaminated site and buildings adjacent to or in close proximity to a contaminated site; however, it appears that the frequency of occurrence of problems of petroleum vapors entering off -site buildings through the building foundation is relatively low. The science related to vanor intrusion evaluation is still evolykig and there will be a need for the petroleum cleanup program to refine the procedures for vapor intrusion evaluation in the 5 These concerns and complexities applied equally to Vista Grande Apartments where Dunkelberger stated in its Phase I ESA Update for that project, "While the contamination [from the Citgo] has not migrated to the subject property, the existing groundwater contamination could present a concern to the site should dewatering be require in connection with residential re -development. Specifically, the potential exists for contaminated groundwater to migrate from the facilities towards the site since dewatering activities would cause water table lowering that leads to contaminant plume movement. Thus, the presence of ground water contamination would place some degree of restriction on construction dewatering, if required. Dewatering activities may require special evaluation as part of dewatering permitting through the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) and the Mianii-Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management 'PERM) with technical based assurances provided that the pre -drainage activities would not cause contaminated groundwater to migrate. Udlizadon of special construction techniques could be necessary to assure that contaminant plume movement does not occur." 6 As noted by Durikelberger, such exacerbation or spreading could be easily caused by construction dewatering, which, if not designed and conducted property, will pull a contaminant plume from a source property onto a development sites by drawing down on the aquifer. (00004026.DOCX. Ms. Alice Bravo February 22, 2013 Page 6 future when greater knowledge about this pathway is available; however the available information at this time on this subject indicates that it is prudent for the Bureau of Petroleum Storage Systems to establish interim procedures for evaluation of the potential for indoor vapor intrusion and identify measures of mitigation." (emphasis added) 13. This risk of possible vapor intrusion as it relates to the Citgo site, where actual contamination has been documented and impacts on both West Brickell View and Vista Grande Apartments, is an obvious, additional, material complication that further affects expansion, redevelopment, and reuse by imposing design burdens, schedule delay, liability risk, and additional costs for environmental consultants and counsel to interpret and apply the guidelines. Moreover, the guidelines make clear that dsk does not necessarily go away with time given that "the science related to vapor intrusion evaluation is still evolving" and that "there will be a need for the petroleum cleanup proam to refine the procedures for vapor intrusion evaluation in the future when greater knowledge about this pathway is available." In other words, the developer will be living with this issue, and the regulatory and liability burdens associated with, far into the future until and unless the underlying contamination at the Citgo site is remediaced. Actual Contamination at BP/Trading Post Site and the Expansion, Redevelopment or Reuse Complication for West Brickell Tower Apartments 14. RER maintains electronic and physical records for the BP/Brickell Trading Post site (formerly referred to as the Ramirez 66 Service Station) under the file numbers UT-528/F-7243. See Exhibit E. 15. As reflected by the records enclosed at Exhibit E, the BP/Brickell Trading Post site, which is within 400 feet of West Brickell Tower Apartments, was reported to contain up to 8 USTs, including one 1,000 gallon UST for waste oil, one 1,000 gallon UST for kerosene, two 2,000 gallon USTs for gasoline, two 4,000 gallon USTs for gasoline, and two 12,000 gallon USTs for gasoline. In July of 1988 and November of 1992, significant discharges of petroleum related products were reported to the FDEP; however, due to the financial status of the responsible party and funding limitations at the state level, no meaningful investigation of the extent of contamination or off -site migration has ever been perforrned and the commencement of cleanup is not anticipated to occur at any time in the foreseeable future. In the meantime, contamination in the subsurface continues to spread ?unabated. 16. The regulatory and liability concerns and corresponding development complexities discussed above with respect to groundwater contamination as they relate to actual contamination and the West Brickell View and Vista Grande Apartment projects are equally relevant and burdensome to the developer here. As evidence of such development complexity and the casts that have been incurred to work through the development complexity, the developer's environmental consultant, (0.0004026.DOCX. 1 } Ms. Alice Bravo February 22, 2013 Page 7 Dunkelberger Engineering & Testing, Inc., concluded in its Phase I ESA for the subject property, dated September 4, 2012 as follows: .several properties in the site vicinity are listed on multiple environmental databases. Contamination which exists at some of these facilities does not appear to have migrated to the subject property given their geographic separation and location from the site with respect to the regional groundwater flow. . . However, the groundwater contamination could present a concern to the site should dewatering be required in connection residential re. development. , , Thus, the presence of ground water contamination would place some degree of restriction on construction dewatering, if required.' Dewatering activities may require special evaluation as part of dewatering permitting through the South Florida Water Management District (SFV/MD) and the Miami -Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management (DERM) with technical based assurances provided that the pre -drainage activities would not cause contaminated groundwater to inigraxe. Utilization of special construction techniques could be necessary to assure that contaminant plume movement does not occur," 17. Exacerbation of any of the above -described contaminant plumes by the developer of West Brickell View Tower exposes the developer to regulatory and legal liability risk to RER, FDEP, and private third -parties. This Liability risk is a direct result of the subject propert-y's proximity to the various sources of actual contamination and burdens and complicates reuse and redevelopment by forcing the developer to incur additional expenses, design modifications, contingency planning and schedule delays to modify and carefully manage site development and construction activities. Based on all the foregoing empirical evidence, including regulatory correspondence, the opinions of a Florida licensed env-ironmental professional, and the undersigned's legal opinion (prernised on twenty-one years of experience with assisting private and public clients manage environmental, construction, legal, regulatory, and/or financing risks at contaminated redevelopment sites), all three referenced projects clearly fall within the definition of a "brownfield site" pursuant to section There is no hard and fast ride established by RER as to when and how much proximity to a contaminated site tri ers a requirement to prepare and implement special dewatering measures to prevent plume exacerbation. Accordingly, developers and environmental professionals look to other regulatory and industry standards, including many times to the standard operadng procedure ("SOP") adopted by the Broward County Environmental Protection and Growth Management Department ("EPGMD"), for guidance. EPGMDis SOP, which can be found at Exhilit E, requires a notice and pre -approval anytime dewatering is to occur "within a one -quarter mile radius of a contaminated site Were that standard formally in effect here, both the Citgo and the BP/Brickell Trading Post sites would fall within the one - quarter radius and require with the SOP, including submittal of just5cation for the need for dewatering, water treatment and disposal plans, a discussion of the effect of the dewatering and disposal procedures on the contaminant plume, and a monitoring program. Even a cursory review of the SOP enclosed at Exhibit F reflects the detailed analysis and modeling and extensive technical showings that are required by a regulatory agency to demonstrate that dewatezing activities will not spread existing contamm. ation. it is this level of development complexity that the developer has had to evaluate, work through, and ultimately overcome at each of the three development projects due to their respecdve proximity to known contamination plumes. (00004026 DOCX. 1 ) Ms. Alice Bravo February 22, 2013 Page 8 376.79(3), Florida Statutes, For a demonstration of compliance with the underlying designation criteria set forth at 376.80(2)(b), Florida Statutes, that apply to brownfield sites, please see the individual designation requests filed separately for each project under separate cover on December 28, 2012. We appreciate the opportunity to provide this additional inform on and remain available to respond further as you may deem appropriate. Thank you. Very truly yours, THE GOLDSTEIN ENVIRONMENTAI Michael R. Goldstein /mrg cc: West Brickell View Apartments, Lcd, Vista Grande Apartments, Ltd. West Brickell Tower Apartments, Ltd. FIRM, P.A. i0000402&CX. 1) Exhibit A tO 01271.000C 1} Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes Online Sunshine Page 1 of 2 Select Year: The 2011 Florida Statutes 2011 (Go Title XXVIII Chapter 376 View Entire NATURAL RESOURCES; CONSERVATION, POLLUTANT DISCHARGE chanter RECLAMATION, AND USE PREVENTION AND REMOVAL 376,79 Definitions relating to Brownfields Redevelopment Act. —As used in ss. 376,77-376.85, the term: (1) "Additive effects" means a scientific principle that the toxicity that occurs as a result of exposure is the sum of the toxicities of the individual chemicals to which the individual is exposed, (2) "Antagonistic effects" means a scientific principle that the toxicity that occurs as a result of exposure is less than the sum of the toxicities of the individual chemicals to which the individual is exposed. (3) "Brownfield sites" means real, property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by actual or perceived environmental contamination. (4) "Brownfield area" means a contiguous area of one or more brownfield sites, some of which may not be contaminated, and which has been designated by a local government by resolution, Such areas may include all or portions of community redevelopment areas, enterprise zones, empowerment zones, other such designated economically deprived communities and areas, and Environmental Protection Agency -designated Brownfield pilot projects. (5) "Contaminant" means any physical, chemical, biological, or radiological substance present in any medium which may result in adverse effects to human health or the environment or which creates an adverse nuisance, organoteptic, or aesthetic condition in groundwater. (6) "Contaminated site" means any contiguous Land, sediment, surface water, or groundwater areas that contain contaminants that may be harmful to human health or the environment. (7) "Department" means the Department of Environmental Protection. (8) "Engineering controls" means modifications to a site to reduce or eliminate the potential for exposure to chemicals of concern from petroleum products, drycleaning solvents, or other contaminants. Such modifications may include, but are not limited to, physical or hydraulic control measures, capping, point of use treatments, or slurry walls. (9) "Environmental justice" means the fair treatment of all people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. (10) "Institutional controls" means the restriction on use of or access to a site to eliminate or minimize exposure to chemicals of concern from petroleum products, drycleaning solvents, or other contaminants. Such restrictions may include, but are not limited to, deed restrictions, restrictive covenants, or conservation easements. (11) "Local pollution control program" means a local pollution control program that has received delegated authority from the Department of Environmental Protection under ss. 376.80(9) and 403.182. http:// leg.sta e. .0 /s es/index.cfm?mode=View%20Statutes&SubMenu=l&App,„ 4/30/2012 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine Page 2 of 2 (12) "Natural attenuation" means a verifiable approach to site rehabilitation that allows natural processes to contain the spread of contamination and reduce the concentrations of contaminants in contaminated groundwater and soil. Natural attenuation processes may include sorption, biodegradation, chemical reactions with subsurface materials, diffusion, dispersion, and volatilization. (13) "Person responsible for brownfield site rehabilitation" means the individual or entity that is designated by the local government to enter into the brownfield site rehabilitation agreement with the department or an approved local pollution control program and enters into an agreement with the local government for redevelopment of the site. (14) "Person" means any individual, partner, joint venture, or corporation; any group of the foregoing, organized or united far a business purpose; or any governmental entity. (15) "Risk reduction" means the lowering or elimination of the levet of risk posed to human health or the environment through interim remedial actions, remedial action, or institutional, and if appropriate, engineering controls. (16) "Secretary" means the secretary of the Department of Environmental Protection. (17) "Site rehabilitation" means the assessment of site contamination and the remediation activities that reduce the levels of contaminants at a site through accepted treatment methods to meet the cleanup target levels established for that site. For purposes of sites subject to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended, the term includes removal, decontamination, and corrective action of releases of hazardous substances. (18) "Source removal" means the removal of free product, or the removal of contaminants from soil or sediment that has been contaminated to the extent that leaching to groundwater or surface water has occurred or is occurring. (19) "Synergistic effects" means a scientific principle that the toxicity that occurs as a result of exposure is more than the sum of the toxidties of the individual chemicals to which the individual is exposed. History.—s. 3, ch. 97-277; s. 2, ch, - 5; s. 10, ch. 2CC0-317; s. 1, ch. 2004-40; s. 4, ch. 2008-239. Copyright © 1 995-2012 The Florida Legislature e Privacy Statement • Contact Us http://www teg.statell.us/statutes/index.cfremode—V iew%20Statutes&SubMenu= 1 &App... 4/30/2012 Exhibit B (0C001271,DOCX 1 } MIAMI Carios Ahre Mayor September 27, 2010 Jorge Braceras, Manager Brickell Dominion, LLC. 1246 SW15 a Miami, FL 33145 EnvronniEnta1 Resources Management Pollution Control Division 701 NW 1st Court • 4th Floor Miami', Florida 33136-3912 7 305-372-6700 F 305-372-6982 roarnIdatie4ov CERTIFIED MAIL # 7007 2680 0000 0621 893 RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED — Re: Limited Tank Closure Report Addendum dated August 19, 2010 and prepared by Jorge Braceras for the Cltgo G.- Station fa,cty (UT-439/File-7171DEP-8504877) located at, near, or In the vicinity of 190 SW 8 St, Miami, Miami -Dade County, Florida. Dear Mr. Braceras: The Environmental Evaluation Section of the Depatrent of Environmental Resources Management (DERM) has reviewed the above referenced document received August 23, 2010 pertaining to the removal of three (3) 10,000 gallon Underground Storage Tank (UST) systems on October 28, 2010 and has determined that this report meets the requIrerrents of Rule 62-751,800, Florida Adrninttrative Code (FAC). Therefore, this report has been placed on file with other pertinent material regarding the subject site. Contamination requiring further assessment is documented at the site from discharges dated June 18, 1987, eligible for the Early Detection Incentive (EDI) program and for the April 30, 1993 discharge, eligible for the Petroleum Liability and Restoration Insurance Program (PLIRP). However, in accordance with Florida Statute, F.S. 376,30, you are required to obtain prior written approval from the Department for the scope of work and associated costs In order to be paid from the Inland Protection Trust Fund for subsequent program tasks. Pre -approval requests for additionai work may be submitted to the Department However, they will be reviewed based on priority score and availability of funds. Voluntary work may continue to be performed at the site, as long as the work is performed In accordance with Chapter 62-770, FAC, If you have any questions concerning the above, please contact Eddie Go lez (gonzaed@miarnki .gov) of the Environmental Evaluation Sedan at (305) 372-6700. Wilbur Mayorga, RE., Chief Pollution Control Division e9 Pc: FDEP tile copy 1 SW 8th SEE LEGEND O MONITOR WILL X RECOVERY WEIL on 2URFACE DRAIN FUEL DISPENSER ISLAND WATER TABLE ELEVATION PLOW DIRECTION WATER TAR ELEVATIO? WELL FEET -1 4.02 4 02 l 0 4.03 MW 4.03 Itili-0 4.00 I4A-0 4.02 Fifi-7 4.00 1i}f- NA 4.03 4.01 4.03 �13 NA -14 4.00 U -1p NA 4.04 I�IIf- 21 4.02 -2I# NA .4 _ 11W-10 lilt- 1 1 uR-20 FIGURE 2: GROUNDWATER ELEVATION MAP 0p/0I/04 $ IPA.Rii.3 FOR CHEVRON j47071 NOW T vItPURIITZON OLh STRSTREET LEGEND MONITOR WELL. X RECOVERY WELL ▪ SURFACE DRAIN UISFAMER ISLAND BENZENE CONCENTATION TOTAL VOA CONCRNTRA LITHE CONCENTRATION ©re D ti wit4N FIGURE 3: TOTAL VOA CONCENTRATION ! 0p/01/04 minima 702 CHEVRON #47071 9U met SW Stiff STREET ASPHALT LEGEND tl MONITOR WELL, X RECOVERY WELL NI SURFACE DRAIN FUEL DISPERSER t6LAND TOTAL NAPHTHALENE CO TIONS PAHn CONCENTRATIONS a FIGURE 4: TOTAL NAPHTRALF PLUME MAP OU/OI/e4 & O9/O8/Q P![M.PARAI FPR CHEVRON /47671 *PPP !X A rafory An.tyticat polls And Chaim of Custody Darr onlaflo Environmental FirstSearch Site Detail Report Target Property: 1026 SW 2ND AVE MIAMI, FL 33130 JOB: FTL11-0801 ID: 34 LUST DIST/DIR: 0.15 NE ELEVATION: 9 MAP ID: NAME: CITGO STATION REV: 7/18/12 ADDRESS: 190 SW 8TH ST ID1: 138504677 MIAMI FL 33130 ID2: 8504677.00 MIAMI-DADE STATUS: FACILITY OPEN PHONE (305) 8564594 CONTACT: SOURCE FL DEP SITE INFORMATION OPERATOR.JORGE BRACERAS NAME UPDATED:05/17/2005 ADDR UPDATED:10/20/1999 BAD ADDR INDICATOR:N RP IlD570C0 RP ROLEACCOUNT OWNER RP BEGIN:10/25/2004 NAME:G & 6 STANDARD INC 190 SW 8TH ST ATTN: JORGE BRACERAS MIAMI FL 33130 PHONE:(305)856-4594 DISCHARGE INFORMATION DISCHARGE DATE:04/30/1993 COMBINED: SCORE:11 SCORE DATE:11/16/2007 CLEANUPREQUIRED R -CLEANUP REQUIRED WORK STATUS:INACTIVE DISCHARGE CLEANUP STATUS ENTD - ELIGIBLE - NO TASK LEVEL DATA INFO SOURCE:D. DISCHARGE NOTIFICATION OTHER SOURCE: SITE MANAGER: MANAGER END DATE: TANK OFFICE: - DISCHARGE DATE:06/18/1987 COMBINED: SCORE:1 1 SCORE DATE:11/16/2007 CLEANUP REQUIRED R - CLEANUP REQUIRED WORK STATUS:INACTIVE (DISCHARGE CLEANUP STATUS PA - RA ONGOING INFO SOURCE:E EDI OTHER SOURCE: SITE MANAGER: MANAGER END DATE: TANK OFFICE: - APPLICATION RECD:6/22/1987 ELIGIBILITY STATUS:E ELIGIBILITY DATE:12/13/1989 - Continued on next page - Site Details Page • 4 Environmental FirstSearch Site Detail Report Target Property: 1026 SW 2ND AVE MIAMI, FL 33130 SEARCH UD: 34 JOB: FTL-11-0801 IR: 0.15 NE ELEVATION: 9 NAME CITGO STATION REV: 7/18/12 ADDRESS: 190 SW 8TH ST Di: 138504677 MIAMI FL 33130 ID2: 8504677.00 MIAMI-DADE STATUS: FACILITY OPEN CONTACT: PHONE: (305) 8564594 SOURCE: FL DEP LETTER OF INTENT:06/22/1987 ELIG LETTER SENT:12/13/1989 REDETERMINEDN INSPECTION DATE:05/13/1988 DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNT: DED PAID TO DATE:0 CO PAY AMOUNT: CO -PAID PAID TO DATE:0 CAP AMOUNT: APPLICATION RECD:8/5/1993 ELIGIBILITY STATUSE ELIGIBILITY DATE:8/18/1993 LETTER OF INTENT:05/17/1993 ELIG LETTER SENT:08/18/1993 REDETERM1NEDN INSPECTION DATE:06/29/1993 DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNT:500 DED PAID TO DATE:1000 CO PAY AMOUNT:0 CO -PAID PAID TO DATE:0 CAP AMOUNT:1200000 UST INFORMATION THIS SITE IS CURRENTLEGULATED BY CHAPTER 62-761, F.AC, TOTAL NUMBER OF TANKS: 4 TANK INFORMATION TANK ID:1STATUS:OPEN TVI-TANKDEP CO:NO INSTALLED:01•JAN•1982STAT DATE: TK STAT:U - IN SERVICE CAPACITY(GAL):9886 CONTENT:5 - UNLEADED GAS PLACE:UNDERGROUND TYPE:A - RETAIL STATION TANK 10:2STATUS,OPEN TVI:TANKDEF CO -NO INSTALLED:01-JUL•1982STAT DATE TK STAT:U - IN SERVICE CAPACITY(GAL,):9886 CONTENT:B - UNLEADED GAS Continued on next pag Site Details Page - 5 Environmental FirstSearch Site Detail Report Target Property: 1026 SW 2ND AVE MIAMI, FL 33130 SEARCH ID: 34 NAME: CITGO STATION ADDRESS: 190 SW 8TH ST MIAMI FL 33130 MIAMI-DADE CONTACT: SOURCE FL DEP PLACE UNDERGROUND TYPE:A - RETAIL STATION DISTADIR: Oi 1 S NE TANK ID:3STATUS:OPEN TVI:TANKDEP CO:NO INSTALLED:01-JUL-1982STAT DATE: TK STAT11.1- IN SERVICE CAPACITY(GALI:9886 C0NTEN7B - UNLEADED GAS PLACE:UNDERGROUND TYPE:A - RETAIL STATION TANK ID:4STATUS:OPEN TV1:TANKDEP CO:NO INSTALLED:01-JUL-1982STAT DATE04-MAY-2011 TK STATB - REMOVED CAPACITY(GAL):1011 CONTENT:L • WASTE OIL PLACE UNDERGROUND TYPE:A - RETAIL STATION 1E - FIBERG LASS 1M - SPILL CONTAINMENT BUCKET 1N - FLOW SHUT-OFF 10 - TIGHT FILL 1S - DEP APPROVED CONTAINMENT 2E - FIBERGLASS 2M - SPILL CONTAINMENT BUCKET 2N - FLOW SHUT-OFF 20 - TIGHT FILL 25 - DEP APPROVED CONTAINMENT 3E - FIBERGLASS 3M - SPILL CONTAINMENT BUCKET 3N - FLOW SHUT-OFF 30 - TIGHT FILL 3S - DEP APPROVED CONTAINMENT PIPING INFORMATION TANK IDDESCRIPTION: 10 - FIBERGLASS 1F - DOUBLE WALL 1J - PRESSURIZED PIPING SYSTEM 1K - DISPENSER LINERS 2C - FIBERGLASS 2F - DOUBLE WALL 2J - PRESSURIZED PIPING SYSTEM 2K - DISPENSER LINERS JOB: FIL-11-0801 LUST ELEVATION: 9 MAP ID: REV: 7/18/12 101: 138504677 102: 8504677 00 STATUS: FACILITY OPEN PHONE: 1305) 856-4594 - More Details Exist Far This Site; Max Page Limit Reached Site Details Page - 6 Exhibit C (00001271.D0 Carlos A. Gimenez, Mayor August 21,2012 Alberto A. Mora, P.E. Schwebke — Shiskin & Associates, Inc. 3240 Corporate Way Miramar, FL 33025 Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources Environmental Resources Management 701 NW 1st Court, 4th Floor Miami, Florida 33136-3912 T 305-372.6700 F 305-372-6982 miamidade.gov CERTIFIED MAIL 7009 0080 0000 1045 72 0 RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Re: Construction and drainage plans dated August 9, 2012, prepared by Schwebke — Shiskin & Associates, Inc. for the proposed West Brickell View development located at, near, or in the vicinity of the contaminated site G&B Standard Inc. (UT-439/F-7173) 439 SW 8th Street, Miami, Miami - Dade County, Florida. Dear Mr. Mora: The Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources (RER) has reviewed the above referenced document received on August 14, 2012 and hereby does not have any objection to the installation virile proposed drainage system. Be advised that the scope of work provided by the Pollution Remediation Section (PRS) review is limited to evaluate the location of drainage systems in reference to contaminated areas. Additional approval from other departments, and/or sections and other governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the scope of work must be obtained, as applicable, prior to the implementation of the project. The following conditions shall be incorporated into the approval: Be advised that in the event that evidence of ground and/or ground water contamination is encountered, the responsible party or his designee is required to immediately notify PRS at (305) 372- 6700. Furthermore, based on findings, modifications to the drainage design may be necessary. If you have any questions concerning the above, please contact Gabriel Garcia of the Pollution Remediation Section at (305) 372-6700. Sincerely, Wilbur May rga, P.E., Chief Environmental Monitoring and Restoration Division RER gg ec: Mayra De Torres — RER Michelle Schuyler — RER ri)v' -(11" I 1c) Exhibit D (00001271,DOCX, Petroleu Indoor Vapor Intrusion lutdeIla Indoor 'vapor intrusion (M) refers to vapors emanating from ante ted media (groundwater, sraI1, or free product) that migrate through the pore spaces of the soil In the unsaturated zone above the groundwater table and errter an occupied building through openings such as utility conduits and cracks In the foundation, resulting in the building occupants being exposed to vapors that could have health consequences from either acute (short term) or chronic (bang term) exposure. The concentration of vapors which could be of concern due to chronic exposure may be very tow and below the threshold of olfactory detection such that the building occupants may be unaware of the exposure. The con3ideratlen of this pathway of exposure to contamination is a, relatively recent development in the practice cf site assessment and remedi'ation of contaminated sites.. Draft EPA guidance and other available literature cn vapor intrusion evaluation suggests that there Is a real possibility of indoor vapor lntruslen occurring at buildings both cn a contaminated site and buildings adjacent to or in close proximity to a contaminated site; however, it appears that the frequency of occurrence of problems cf petroleum vapors entering cff site buildings through the building foundation is relatively low. The science related to vapor rntrusion evaluation is still evolving and there will be a need for the petroleum cleanup program to refine the procedures for vapor intrusion evaluation in the future when greater knowledge about this pathway Is available; however, the available Information at then time on this subject indicates that It Is prudent for the Bureau of Petroleum Storage Systems (BPSS) to establish interim procedures for evaluation of the potential for indoor vapor intrusion and Identify measures of mitigation. The current cleanup target levels for Petroleum Products' Contaminants of Con min soft and groundwater to qualify for No Further Acton without Conditions are believed to be adequate) protective to prevent indoor vapor intrusion. However there is a concern that vapor intruzion may occur while a site assessment is being conducted, while the contaminated site is undergoing rernediatlan by natural attenuation monitoring or active remediatlon or due to residual soli or groundwater contamination when a site receives closure by No Further Action eb Conditknis. The following procedures are intended to be protective of public health both while site assessment and remediation are underway and after final closure of a site with residual contamination remaining under the provisions of Chapter 62-770.680(2) or (3), F.A.C., for No Further Action with Conditions. The risk considerations and mitigation Treasures which may be appropriate for temporary conditions of possible vapor intrusion while site rehabilitation tasks are underway may be different than for a final closure in which a source of vapors could be present permanently and result In long term chronic exposure of building occupants to vapors in the affected buildings. AP At this time tine Bng these procedures ter be applied to eligible sites beirrig funded by the State cf Florida only. the s encnurages responsible parties for non -funded corrtarnlnated sites to perform NI screening vclunt3riiy, The most common scenario of a fatuity at which there is a discharge of petroleum products Is a commercial petroleum fuel retail sales business with a single o pied building, such as a convenience store/retail petroleum product sales business on the source property. There may be buildings on other prcpertfes in the vicinity but are usually greater than 50 feet from the location cf the discharge. The fallowing prccedures for evaluation of the vapor intrusion pathway and identification of appropriate mitigation measures are based on a facility with these characteristics. Such commercial properties are usually not very large compared to the infrastructure improvements such as the tanks, dispensers, and the building,; and the features of the property are laid out for ecceomkai use of space such that the. sources of a petroleum fuel discharge (tanks, dispensers, and integral piping) are usually !n relatively close proximity to the occupied building en the property. Evaluation of the potential for human exposure to indoor vapore at the building iccated at the saurce property is complicated by the different phases of petroleum product contamination that may exist (contaminated soil, contaminated groundwater and free -phase product floating cn the water table) near an ocruplei building at the property where the discharge occurred, end also due to the potential for preferential migration of vapors along underground utility lines, which commonfy are surrounded by permeable aggrmgate in the utility trench leading to the occupied building, For these reasons, screening fur vapor intrusion potential based on groundwater ccntaminat on concentrations at the scurte property is not reliable or appropriate. However, the riser of vapor intrusltrn to -situ buiidings located more t# n t3 feet frr rrr the discharge location does lend itself to an evaluation process in which initial screenfrrg for Ni pc ntfa1 may accomplished in most cases using groundwater centaminaitfon concentration data, whtcir need to be ned for compfetir€ a site assessment under the existing provisions of Chapter F2-770.500, F.A.C.. reason, initial screening for vapor intrusion potential at off -site buildings may be completed with existing site assessment data such that additional soil vapor sample ccilection for Ni evaluation may not be necessary in most cases. This reason for this circumstance is that petroleum vapors are highly biodegradable such that lateral migration of vapors significant distances from a vapor source (contaminated soti or free product at the discharge location) to an off -site building more than 50 feet away from the discharge location is unlikely. For petroleum contaminated sites, the most common vapor source for buildings on off -site properties is the off -site groundwater C'mntarninant plume which moves in the directtc n of groundwater flow and may have migrated beneath an of -site building. For off -site buildings more than 50 feet from the ioca icn of the discharge, a screening process which , assumes rates of attenuation during vertical migration of vapors between a groundwater plume and the foundation of a bulidtng overlying the groundwater contamination plume, using conservative assumptions of attenuation rates, Is considered to be a reasonable and economical Initial step for evaluation of 111i at the off -site buildings near petroleum c ntamnnated sites. As Indicated above, this screening and rnlegation process is based on the most likely scenar petroleum fuel fedilty with a c>anvenience store building, and that other off -site buildings are i'crt or more feet away from the ioatson of the discharge. For other scenarios of discharges in which occupled buildings en off -site properties are in close proximity the location of the discharge, more irnrzaediate soil vapor assessment and also mitigation measures may be necessary. Petroleum contaminated sites which already have adive rernediaton underway, or that will have active remedfation Implementedwithin 6 months, which will include provisions for soil vapor mitigation forall areas potentially affected fag, — vapor extraction system) are exempt from these procedures, Other eligible sites In funding range must perform the IVI screening, and mftigatlan measures if appropriate. The nature of vapor intraialori potential at non -petroleum contaminated sites, and in particular, chlorinated solvent discharge locations, may be very different from petroleum contaminated sites due to the chemkal properties of the chlorinated chemicals and because they biodegrade much less readily then the chemicals found In petroleum products. For this reason, the Hazardous Waste Cleanup Section of the Bureau of Waste Cleanup has published se ry. rate IVi screening procedures whkh should be used for vapor intrusion screening at chiarinnted solvent discharge sites. Assa5nnerst of Vapor lnsru310n Risk jerdicator Chemicals Petroleum fuels are a mixture of many chemicals with varying chemical properties. The chemical properties that directly affect a chemicals patentlal to cause a health risk due to Indoor vapor Intrusion are volatility, solubility, and toxicity. For these reasons acid due to the different fractions of chemicals in gasoline fuel compared to diesel fuel, sites with a gasoline discharge have a significantly higher likelihood of having IVI problems than sites with a diesel fuel discharge. Also, due to Its relative abundance in gasoline fuels, and its volatility, solubility, and toxicity relative to other chemicals, benzene is the chemical in gasoline of most concern for the vapor intrusion pathway. For this reason and because of the conservative assumptlIons of the Tier I p buildings described below, only off -site buildings adjacent to petroleum ca:rttarttl gasoline discharge will initially be subject to these interim screening procedures for IVI, and only benzene needs to be considered for the Tier 1 evaluation for gasoline discharges. if the site fails the tier 1 screening such that a more advanced screening evaluation for the off -site buildings lnvohrirrg ccliecticn and, analysis of soil gas samples becomes necessary, otter chemicals found in gasoline fuel and listed In Table I will also need to be considered, For M screening at the building of the property where the discharge occurred, significant vapors ntay be generated from soli contamination orfree-pha therefore, if soil vapor screening is conducted at the source property the vapors generated by a diesel fuel discharge need to be considered. The BPSS Is still evaluating the need to conduct IVI screening for circumstances of an off=site building associated with an off -site groundwater plume from a diesel associated with a diesel fuel discharge, and discharge and will be cualiectfng soil gas samples from the shallow soil' sheers office del discharge plumes at selected site to validate this presuinption and will modify i s+e pro lure& in the future to require MVh screening for off -site buildings associated with an off -site groundwaternation plume from a diesel fuel discharge If appropriate. Initial Sereenitte fqf chart dhstan+ie lateral vaeor m+laration from r ontamfrutted soil cr free arcxfuck - This step applies to the source property building and off -site occu bulidings less than SIi feet from the discharge location. Contaminated soil and free product represent potential source of refatfvely high concentrations of vapors compared to the maximum vapor generation which is possible due to dissolved petroleum contamination in groundwater. For this reason, occupied buildings located in close pro mitt' to contaminated soli or free product requires specie! consideration for lateral migration of vapors through the unsaturated zone from the vapor scurce. Whenever 1) the location of the discharge is within 50 feet of an occupied building at the source property or 2) Is greater than 50 feet from the building at the sour a property but the tanks and dispensers have a utility line connection With the occupied building, cr 3) if there Is an off sfte occupied building within 50 feet of the discharge location, the initial phase of the site assessment sh • • include collection of shallow soli vapor sarnpfes (subslab ar near foundation shallow soil vapor) near the potentially affected buildfng(s). Soli vapor samples should be ccliected while conducting other site assessment activities and must be collected b nce with the Matted soil vapor sample collection and field QA documentation protocol. The tons of Petroleum Products' Contaminants of Concern In the sample results should be Schedule A of the attached screening Table 1. If the measured concentration Is less than criteria, the !VI pathway due to vapor migration laterally from ccntanzinated sail or free exists at the location of the discharge Is not considered to be complete and no further evaluation for WI Is necessary for these buildings. if the screening criterion for any chemical' is recommended that a vapor extraction system be Immediately Implemented at the source e the source of the vapors, or that other rnttigaticn measures be implemented at each Wing (see section an Mitigation beicw). Fundhna of mftleaticn rneapayeut s #as with an eflirible dfsrtaraes - For funded sites, if lira property has an active petroleum storage system, interim mitigation measures to abatevapors near the building fcursdatllon prior to the lniplernentaticn cf active remedial action will not be funded by the MEP. if there is no longer an active petroleum storage system at the source property, and the building at the source property is residential use or is a commercial bulfdirtg of a nature where the public may be exposed to vapors for an extended period of time (e.g. —school, day care, nursing home, hospital) Interim vapor mitigation actions prior to the Implementation of active remedial action will be an allowable cost for FDEP funding. For circumstances between these extremes. a dedslan as to' whether funding should be provided for interim vapor mitigation until active remediation commences will be made on a case by case basis. It vapors which exceed the screening levels in Schedule A of Table 1 exist in the shallow soil in contact with the foundation of an occupied cuff -site building foundation due to lateral migration ofvapersfrom the source area of the discharge (contaminated soil cr free product) mitigation measures must be Implemented Immediately and will be an allowable cost regardless of the building type. Qccualed i ulldin at c f-site pr ernes in the irect3 n # roum water migratlen, - por off -site properties with occupied buildings greater than 50 feet from the location af the discharge, the Tier 1 evaluation for potential for 1V1 due to the groundwater to indoor air pathway should be conducted during the ongoing site assessment and delineation of the groundwater plume that extends beyond property boundaries. The evaluation must be conducted Immediately upon Installation and sampling of representative monitoring wells which can 'ry used to estimate the maximum groundwater concentration beneath buildings to conduct the vapor Intrusion screening. Explanation of basks for T!er 1 Sc r rnIns There Is mounting consensus among persons that are knowledgeable regarding petroleum vapor intrusion evaluation that there is a very slgnaficant aerobic biodegradation ccntributlen to attenuation of vapors between the groundwater table and the building foundation.. However, quantitatively preclicting the attenuation of petroleum hydrocarbon vapors between the groundwater table and the building foundation can be relatively complex, with consideration of soil type, gradation, and other gecchemstry variables, concentration of target chemicals of concern (benzene) compared to total petroleum hydrocarbons In groundwater, backgrourd oxygen demand, and surface covering, among other considerations. Ccilecting data on these variables necessitates supplemental assessment and laboratory analysis which can be costly, delays the decision making,and still results In relatively high uncertainty remaining In the prediction of attenuation based on the data collected, which might result In the need for collection of soil gas samples near occupied buildings anyway. ft is desirable to establish an Initial screening step which b based on data which is collected fur c€f-site groundwater plume delineation under the existing requirements for site assessment of Chapter 62-770.600 to determine the vapor intrusion pathway Is not complete fcr a subset of the sites with off -site plumes beneath occupied buildings without incurring additional site 1nvestigat cn costs. The screenlrtg curve provided in this guidance for screening, levels between depths of 5 feet below building foundation and 40 feet below building foundation based on benzene concentration and depth to groundwater is believed to be conservative based on assumptions of the different variables which may affect attenuation. The screening curve was developed with limited errrpiricai data from contaminated sites In Ronda and a relatively high reliance on various literature on theory of petroleum vapor Intrusion and studies on petroleum vapor migration in the In other statues. Therefore, at this time the Tier 1 screening curve is largely Intuitively based. ant of the BPSS to refine the Tier 1 screening curve based on data collected from contarmin led sites in Florida following the Implementation of these procedures. The Tier 1 screening curve will be revised based on data collected and as a result will become mere ernplrlcallsy-based and less intuitively -based. Tier 1- The first evaluation tier is relatively simple and inexpersive but Is based on ,anrvative assurnptions. his screening step Is based on comparison of actual groundwater benzene consxmtration and depth to groundwater with a curve which Indicates benzene concentrations at depths of between 5 feet below the building foundation and 40 feet below the building foundation for which it is assumed that petroleum hydrocarbon vapors will not reach the surface and contact the building foundation at concentrations of concern. If the groundwater Is less than 5 feet below the building foundation and the groundwater concentration exceeds the benzene groundwater CTL (1 ug'"L.), then the tfer 1 screening step Is not appropriate and instead the evatuation should proceed to tier 2. If the groundwater table depth is greater than 40 feet deep below the building foundation and the vapor source is dissolved phase groundwater comarnination (root free product or sop contamination) then it is presumed that petroleum hydrocarbon vapors will not reach the"buttding foundation in concentrations ofconcarn regardless of the dissolved phase concentration of benzene or other petroleum chemicals. This a ivaticn should start with the mast likely Impacted building (Ml l'8) outside of the property that. was the source of the discharge. The MU8 will have characteristics of being boated close to the centergne of the groundwater plume and relatively dose to the source property such that the building foundation likely has a higher benzene concentration In the groundwater directly beneath the building Olen any otheroff•site building. As indicated above If the depth to contaminated groundwater Is less than 5 feet below land surface the Tier 1 evaluation is not appropriate and the lllf evaluation should proceed to Tier 2. The =tentration oaf benzene beneath the MU B and the depth to groundvarater be the but foundation should be estimated ust g groundvarater mcnitoring data from wells In c M1113. Most buiidngs in Florida are slab on grade construction such that the depth of the groundwater below land surface is the same as the depth below the bul..ttiing foundation. However, the building canatrucdon needs to be verified by at feast a cursory examination of buildings in the vicinity during grtaundwtatersampling events to Identify buiidingswith a basement The Tier / screening should be performed using the attached Figure 1. the depth to groundwater below the building foundation and the benzene concentration cccrdlnate far the M11B should be plotted on the figure. If the depth to groundwater below the building foundation is greater than 40 feet or the plotted coordinate is to the right of the iine on the figure the pathway Is not considered to be complete for any off -site buildings.. however, for funded sites In order to collect data to validate the Tier 1 saeent . curve, shallow soli or subslab soil gas samples should be collected following the procedures described In Tier 2 below if the groundwater concentration is within 20% of the concentration which would result In failing the Tier 1 screening for that groundwater depth (e.g. fear 27 depth below butidir€ foundation, the Tier 1 curie saeening threshold is approximately SCOO ug/L benzene. If the actual concentration for a site with the groundwater surface at 27 foot depth below the building foundation exceeds 4000 ugfl„ soil gas samples should be collected anyway under the Tier 2 screening procedures described below).` lithe plotted coordinate fails to the left of the line on the figure, the evaluation of the MUB must continue with the Tler 2 evaluation described below. if the MUM falls the Tler 1 evaluation then other buildings ranked by decreasing likelihood of IVl potential based on the estimated groundwater ozncentratton beneath the building foundation should have the Tier 1 evaluation performed until a building is Identified for which the pathway is not complete. All buildings which failed the Tier 1 screening should proceed to Tier 2. Tier 11—There are two steps that may be foal csvred for ccmptating tk Ter Il evaluation and demonstrating that the IVi pathway Is not complete. 1ae ruse of the nature of the biodegradation process In the subsurface, the presence of elevated oxygen levels (near at pfaeric le eis) to the shallow soil Is a rellabla Indicator that petroleum vapors migrating upward from thegroundwater table have been virtually completely degraded before reaching that depth. Therefore the initial step may be to measure the oxygen level in the shallow soft with a portable 02 meter. Beginning at the MUB, soil gas sample probes (subsiab for solid or paved surface, shallow soil vapor probe for unpaved surface) should first be installed following the attached procedures. If the measured 02 level in soli gas samples collected from the shallow soil or subslab probes is _%or higher, then this wIII be considered' an acceptable demonstration that the petroleum vapors are not in contact with the building foundation and therefore the IVI pathway Is not complete and the NI evaluatipn Is concluded. For ellglbte sites, soil lees samples will be collected if the measured 02 level is4ti or less In order to collect empirical data to validate this screening criterion. If the 02 reading is less than _%, this does not necessarily mean that the IVI pathwary is complete but It will be necessary to collect soli gas samples for analysts to determine contaminant levels in the soil gas. Using the same soil vapor sample probes, samples should be collected following the attached soil vapor sarnie =Hecti:n protocol and completing the soil w• s sample log. The v= M,.rsample results should be compared to the screening criteria In Schedule A of Table 1. If the allowable shallow soil vaper concentrations are not exceeded, the ri pathway Is considered to be Incomplete and the IVI evaluation portion of the site assessment Is concluded. if the concentrations in the shallow soil gas at the MUB exceed the allowable concentrations shown In Schedule A of Table 1., then the IVI pathway may be complete and soil vapor samples should be collected at other buildings which felled the Tler 1 screeng in an order ranked by decreasing likelihood of IVI potential based on the estimated maximum groundwater concentration beneath the building until all buildings which fail the Tier 2 screening are identified. n Within 30 days of idert log occupied buildings which have faired the Tler 2 evaluation,. recommendation for corrective action needs acceptable strategy. posed to the FDEP. Any of the foil 1. Request apprtrval of aftea rative procedures to Implement off�sit vapor exttractfarr, in advance of the Implementation of the overall active remediatlon strategy, to immediately reduce vapor concentrations and air pressure in the subsurface near affected off site buildings. ffthis strategy Is recommended, the installation of the vapor extraction system must begin within fD days of authorization by the Ft)EP. 2. Identify a schedule for expeditetl site ment and preparation of a RAP far rernedlatlon the source property such that rernediatlon of the source property will commence within 6 months and will Include off -site vapor extraction which will result in reduced vapor concentrations and air pressure In the soli beneath the affected buildings. 3. Install a subslab depressuration system at each building which failed the 4. The allowable subsIab and shallow sofa gas conratians are on a foundation attenuation rate of .1, meaning that it Is assumed the fourdation (and other building characteristics) will allow vapor transmission to the extent that the vapor concentrations in the building vary be 1096 of the toil gas concentration immediately beneath the building; or in other wards, the maximum allowable subsfab or shallow soli vapor concentration to demonstrate the IVl pathway Is not c:opiate may be no greater than 10 times the allowable indoor air concentration. It may be possible to demonstrate the attenuation ability of the subsiab Is significantly greater than .1(meaning attenuation coefficient is c .1) by performing a radon test The radon level should be determined in the subslab gas and In the indoor air and the ratio of the two Is the building spec foundation attenuation rate. If the measured attenuation rate Is greater than .1 (ratio of indoor air radon level to subslab level is < .1), then site specific subslab or shallow soll gas concentration limits may be calculated by applying the measured foundation attenuation to the schedule B Indoor air screening criteria. if the actual petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations In the subslab gas are less than the site specific subslab cr shallow soil gas concentrations limits, the NI pathway is not considered to be complete. 5. Collect indoor vapor samples to determine whether the pathway is complete to the Int the buildings that failed the Tler 2 screening. This option is not recommended by the Bid due to the confounding effects of background conditions in the boding and the Inability to control the indoor air sarnple environment cf an occupied building. However, If this option is sthected, the Indoor air samples should be collected with 6 Ilter surrrma canisters fitted with a regulator to collect a composite sample over a 24 hour sample period. The results should be compared to Schedule B of Table 1 to determine whether the IVi pathway it complete. If the indoor air concentrations exceed the screening criteria of Schedule B cf Table 1, one of the first 3 mitigation measures above must be implemented, 1111 Considerate rxs at the lime of Site Rehablittation Completion if a site qualifies for No Further Action without Conditions for both sail ar with the grvvlsions of Rule 62.77O.81(1), F.A.C., no further II/1 consideratio if No Further Action edi Conditions Is proposed and sell exceeding soil exceeding groundwater C Ls remains Which Is less than 40, feet deep, then shalloW soil or ubsiab soil gas samples must be collected in the shallow soli at every ocupled buiidiing on each property which has residual contarnination and Is proposed to be included In the No Further Action with Conditions closure. if the concentrations are less than the criteria of Schedule A of Table 1, the Site Rehabilitation with Conditions may proceed. If the concentrations exce • the criteria In Schedule A af Table 1, then site renzediation must continue until It is demonstrated that shallow sail vapor concentrations do not exceed the appllcabte criteria, or the engineering and/or institutional controls which are proposed will Include a rneans to prevent vapors from entering occupied buildings on the affected properties. 01CO rm 1, , 11r. A u tt A mY. . 1 1, `I1'. Yt Y Yl, t.a. ..�. .., 1 i'' _I�� N e 4 1 tl 1 1 A A w 1 N / I A N 14 A a 4 4 a u Y 1 A N A I1 1 1 A 10 A N M U 4A I A Y M U 1 N N II i A 1 A t tl 1 I, N A t A A A N. M* 1 'I 1 g, 1# a #'. A A 1 1 1A A Y 1 a'. 'g 1 N #.. 1 1 N 1 w A M I a , 4 # A 1 i l A al A 1 1 '. N 1 1 I Y 1 r 1 r 1 k, 1 A A i 1 q F N 1 1 1 1 1 m A 1 1 ■I 1 1 A p W I N I . r 1 1 Y w w 1 NIr N 9 A l A A A A I 1 M A 1 I M I N W A I i M A A A I i1. 1 1: 1 N. I A I N A Ii 4 1 A N 1 1 1 1 I N 1 A A w W r 1 A W i tl a p. A M A 4 a i U I f A M tl r l g WT A I A l 1 1 g I All a a 1 y Y. A A I A 1. +. A A A N I m Y Y. , 1w Y r. _ Alt m M 4 4 A a A 1 1 1 1'.. x A N 1 M I I N N N 1 m*{ Y Ar! p yq M ^^@ p 9 pmp pk pp AF AA qq A ?'. I! i A I f I.. A R A 1. I11 m�A RIBIECI'I I I N 1 1 I N N# tl 4 1 M A 4 1 A M 1 I N * 1 A A N N A• M I A I A N'. I N 1 Y W A 1 A 1 W: A 1, 1 4 I I a 1 1 A 1 1'' A'. I I A 1 N 1 INIIU__ Ali M 1 N# AA' ill 1' 1 1 1 1 1 W 4 1 14 1 I I A A l 1 A 1 1 N 1 1 4 A 1 Is'AIAMIMMAIM NI11a1�111AMAAM"iANM1�NIIIRi�.��'ti"� 1 1 1 ,'�� 1 1 1 1 g g w 1 i N w I A N A I A A 1 1 III N 1... A l N.. A W A 1 4 N N 1, A A I M #. r 1 # I 1 1 k A A W M A 1 M M I A I M N W M I A if' —24414111..— �. • 4.. 1 1I9 1I kIZ 1 I9a r �.rrrr�,+w�w�� N C NfiXI N A k W I r 1 1 r 1 Y A A l0, 4 A 1 1 r N 1 1 1'. '1 I g A W 4 1 r JA A 1 1 A i 1 A 1 1 11 g A A u. A 1 41 M M 11 1. 1 A 1 1 # 1 1 1 A M I r w t 1 1 1 1 1 I A A A I I 1 A N A 11 a A 1 A t 1 A 1 1. 1 p, 1 A A A Ni 1,. N 1' g III1 I M A l IIII 1.. 11 1 1 I W M A 1 1 N k 1 1 1 A N 1 f. I 1.. 14/ M A A M Ak II IIA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A l # 1 I N A. A 1 M 1 A I 1 11 A 1 At II II I A A� 1 I w 1 1 N# A 1 III *4* 4 A A ALI III II 1 1... I I M 1 1 1 M A 1 1 A 1# A '. 1 1 N. 3S JphysieWo h_psper/semilggsemilca . f 1 i1 0 Schedule A • Mello Cher Benzs*e Toluene Ethytbeniene Xylanes MTBE benm(b)flucranrthene naphthalene 2-rethylnaphthalene nze MTBE zo(b flcranthena naphtbenha eneu 2-metl ylnaph tat ne Table 1 Indoor Vapor Intrusion Screening Criteria soli gas and subslab vapor screening criterlau Restdenttal Con mettle!/Cndustrial 4,000 22 10,000 30,000 0.12 30 700 '0.31 400 2.2 21,E 3,000 0.012 3 70 Cug/rn"1_ 155 20,000 110 1,050,000 150,000 0.6 150 3,5c0 c0 15,000 0.06 15 350 Vapor Samplhtg Protocol Vapor carnpla The fallowing equipment and naa'terial's will be utilized for assembling sampling apparatus for vapor sample collection after a vapor sample probe has prev!ously been Installed: Variable speed sampling air pump capable of < 1011 m!/min flow rate or non- variable speed pump with throttling capability and flow meter Pressure gauge Vacuum gauge Tee valve Shut off valve Teflon or pcIyetir'lene tubing (1/2 Inch cr irr+cr5 dirrmeterr) PID or F1D (P1D preferable) Portable helium detector Portable landfill gas rneterfer 02, CO2i and Clio 1 Liter Sumrna canister fitted by the laboratory witi vacuum gauge and criticalorifice flow regulation device sized to allow sample calectlon over a 10 minute sample colleen time tediar bag (optional) Canister of helium (Cinder dewerapment) Purl nz and 7: Select a pur ng rate. ihriaimum flow rate for both purging and sarnpiing will be 100 mi/minute or less. Purge rate = PR mliminute Cakulate system volume (SV) of dewnhole sampling tube to screen and volume of sample apparatus tubing —SV ml Calculate purge volume (PV) = 2X calculated SV, PV rnl = 2X SV rml Calculate purge duration (PD) L (PV mi) / (PR mil/minute)' Conduct initial leak test of sarnpil rsg apparatus — Vyblh valves at Surnma canister and sampling probe both a the dosed position, tsrra on sampling pump and check for whether air flow rate is detected. If air detected, check fittings or replace tubing and recheck until no air flow rate. Record vacuum gauge reading. Conduct purging by opening sample port and rsrmting air pump for calculated Pik at PR (100 rnljminute or less) Measure and record 02, CO2, and CH4 during purging Near the end of the purging period check the VOC vapors with a PiD ar F D by running purge air through the OVA. Purge flow rate may briefly Increase above 103 ml/min while OVA reading Ls determined. Record OVA reading. Prior to sample collection a hoed constructed of a box, plastic bag ar similar device should be placed around the top of the vapor probe. Enrich the air inside of the hood with tracer gas (helium). Alternatively, a rag may be saturated with lstapropanal and placed around surface' seal of sampling port. Shut off purging air pump. Record initial Sumrna canister vacuum reading and open valve on Surma canister. Record start time of sample cotedkan. Check heilum readings during sample collection. (if reading indicates air concentration Is >10 96 helium suspend the sample collection and reseal sample port. Start over with a new surnma canister.) Somme canister will be fitted by the laboratory with vacuum gauge and critical orifice Row regulation device sired to allow sample collection over 1ti minute sample collection time. Shut off Sununa canister valve between 8 and 9 rnirwtes so that there Is residual vacuum Deft In the Surnrna canister. Residual vacuum should be approximately 1 to 5 inches of Hg. Record residual vacuum. Calculate volume of sample collected (sample tune X sample flow rate) and record. If sampling with a tedlar bag instead of Surma canister, connect tedlar bag downstream of air pump after purging is concluded and continue sample collection at < 1CO ml%min pumping rate. Complete sampling log and chain of custody form and send sampler to lab for analysis with EPA method TO-15. Thoroughly decontaminate valves, frtii s, +vacuum gaauge, air sarrapiing pump and ether meters with "zero" air provided by laboratory. lliscard apparatus tubing downstream of sarnpiing pert and use newtubing for next sample event. FACKITY. NAME FA AIR TEMPERATURE (°i); PRE ON: SOIL GAS SA PLI G LOG PURL IN DATA PURt3INC# IN ATEpAT; PURGE RATE (roLtrttn) DniCcitlnm tom; TUi Fcr SAMPLING BN AT: Y, TWA. VCr I rua PURGED (rn TUSFNG ilstra iAI. )7IMIETER (Roches); T1JSING VOLUME Or R' X tubing ferrth): uNE + TUBING vc .0 trr e�utproont volume) PURGING ENDED AT drde sm 1 SAPAPUNG DATA AT; OVA READING AT END OP PURGE (porn); METHANE % or SUWMA CANISTER OIHER (s c y); Inches mg or inches H2O (ckee ono) Cr inches H O (ckta one) OTHER (): NO Exhibit E (000012'71.000C 1} Michael Go dstein MIK From: Justin Hofmeister Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 146 PM To: Justin Hofmeister Subject: FVV: WM extension in front of contaminated site UT-528 Attachments: Ramirez 66 Site Map.pdf - Adobe Acrobat Professional.pdf From: Mas, Jose (PERA) Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 10:02 AM To: Mas, Jose (PERA) Subject: FW WM extension in front of contaminated site LIT-528 From: Garcia, Gabriel (PERA) Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 1:46 PM To: Llano, Jackie (PERA) Subject: RE: WM extension in front of contaminated site UT-528 Good Afternoon Enrique, Please see below for information regarding the contaminated site found in the vicinity of the construction project. The information we provide is based on the information available in PERA's records. Brickell Trading Post Inc. (former Ramirez 66 Service Station), Folio: 01-4138-051-0450, 1245 SW fid Avenue, UT-528/F-7243: According to PERA files, petroleum contamination was discovered as a result of tank excavations in November 1992. Please see the site plan for the location of the underground storage tanks. A Site Assessment Report has never been submitted for this property. if you have any questions please feel free to ccntact me. Regards, Gabriel Garcia, EL, Hydrogeologistll Miami -Dade County Permitting, Environment and Regulatory Affairs Pollution Control Division/Pollution Remediation Section Overtown Transit Village 701 NW lst Court, Your Location (4th Floor), Miami, Florida 33136 (305) 372-6700 www.mlamidade.povInera "Delivering Excellence Every Day° Please consider the environment before printing this email, onsider the environment before printing this e-rn C M Judie Kean, Program Manage Bureau of Waste Cleanup, FDER aul Voight, Project Supervisor Administered Cleanup Program n Prevention and. Control an viAa DATE; April 21, 1992 SACP Site assignment for IRA. only The following site is submitted to FDEa conduct IRA/tarnk removal activities only: 66 12.45 SW 2 Avenue Miami, Florida 3313a-42i3 DER FAC No. 138841817 This site is currently approved Fuel sales were discontinued Juiy 1989. Dia documented by DEEM ixn January 199C1 (Benz/BTEX remains in tanks; possible ongoing di.s charge.. orcee•.ent action for non -properly abandoned t aSte oil tank and one kerosene tank). for a DERN UT-0528 has a low sere (11). ed contamination was 2195). Some product presently ,pursuing ur gasoline tanks, Affidavit states owner is "76 year oldwidow with no assets fval cr abandonment. Seventeen year lessee recently abandoned facility; owner wishes to sell property but cannot afford to comply with DERN requirement of tank removal. Please let me know if this site is acceptable for aasig MPv; SAC-FDER memos/SAC-0528 Environmental FirstSearch Site Detail Report Target Property 1026 SW 2ND AVE MIAMI, FL 33130 JOB: FTL-11-0801 LUST SEARCH ID: 32 DIST/DIR: 0.16 SE ELEVATION: 15 MAP ID: 6 NAME BRICKELL TRADING POST INC REV: 7/18/12 ADDRESS: 1245 SW 2ND AVE ID1: 138841817 MIAMI FL 33130 ID2: 8841817,00 MIAMI-DADE STATUS: FACILITY OPEN CONTACT: PHONE: (305) 856-1455 SOURCE FL DEP SITE INFORMATION OPERATOR:JESUS RAMIEREZ NAME UPDATED:10/17/2003 ADM UPDATED:04/25/2006 BAD ADDR INDICAT0R.N RP ID:50329 RP ROLEACCOUNT OWNER RP BEGIN:06/23/2000 NAME BRICKELL TRADING POST INC 1245 SW 2ND AVE MIAMI FL 33130 PHONE(305)856-1455, DISCHARGE INFORMATION DISCHARGE DATE:07/16/1988 COMBINED: SCORE:11 SCORE DATE:11/04/1997 CLEANUP REQUIRED•R - CLEANUP REQUIRED WORK STATUS:ACTIVE DISCHARGE CLEANUP STATUS:RA - RA ONGOING INFO SOURCEE - EDL OTHER SOURCE: SITE MANAGER: MANAGER END DATE: TANK OFFICE: - APPLICATION RECD:11/4/19 8 ELIGIBILITY STATUEE ELIGIBILITY DATE:3/1/1990 LETTER OF INTENT: ELIG LETTER SENT03/01/1990 REDETERMINED:N INSPECTION DATE:06/30/1989 DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNT: DED PAID TO DATE:0 CO PAY AMOUNT: CO -PAID PAD TO DATE:0 CAP AMOUNT: UST INFORMATION THIS SITE 15 CURRENTLY REGULATED BY CHAPTER 62-761, F.A-C, - Continued on next page - gliamfAoni..04140 Site Details Page 7 Environmental FirstSearch Site Detail Report Target Property: 1026 SW 2ND AVE MIAMI, FL 33130 JOB: RI-1t-0801 LUST SEARCH ID: 32 DIST/DIR: 0.16 SE ELEVATION: 15 ID: NAME: BRICKELL TRADING POST INC REV: 7/18/12 ADDRESS: 1245 SW 2ND AVE ID11 138841817 MIAMI FL. 33130 fD2: 8841817.00 MIAMI-DADE STATUS: FACILITY OPEN CONTACT: PHONE (305) 856-1455 SOURCE FL DEP TOTAL NUMBER OF TANKS: 6 TANK INFORMATION TANK ID:15TATUS.OPEN TVI:TANKDEP CO:NO INSTALLED:VAT DATE: TK STAT:6 - REMOVED CAPACITY(GAL).2000 CONTENT:8 - UNLEADED GAS PLACE:UNDERGROUND TYPE:A - RETAIL STATION TANK ID:2STATUEOPEN TVI:TANKDEP CQ:NO INSTALLED:STAT DATE. TK STA7:8 - REMOVED CAPACITY(GAL):20C0 CONTENT:6 - UNLEADED GAS PLACE:UNDERGROUND TYPE:A - RETAIL STATION TANK IDASTATUEOPEN 1V1:TANKDEP CO:NO INSTALLED:01-JUL-19'60STAT DATE: TK STAT:8 - REMOVED CAPACITY(GAL):4000 CONTENT:B - UNLEADED GAS PLACE:UNDERGROUND TYPEA - RETAIL STATION TANK IDASTATUS:OPEN TVI:TANKDEP CO:NO INSTALLED:01-JUL-19735TAT DATE CAPACITY(GAL);4000 CONTENT:8 - UNLEADED GAS PLACE:UNDERGROUND TYPE:A - RETAIL STATION TANK ID:SSTATUS:OPEN TVI:TANKDEP CO:NO INSTALLED:01-APR-2000STAT DATE:01-APR-2CCO TK STAT:U IN SERVICE CAPACITY(GAIJ:12000 Continued on next page - Site Details Page - 8 Environmental FirstSearch Site Detail Report Target Property: 1026 S‘Af 2ND AVE MIAMI, FL 33130 DR CH 1D 32 ss D R: 0, 6 SE BRICKELL TRADING POST INC 1245 SW 2ND AVE MIAMI FL 33130 M IAM I -DAD E LUST JOB: FTL-11 01 ELEVATION: 15 MAP D: REV: 7/18/12 ID1: 138841817 102: 8841817.00 STATUS: FACILITY OPEN ONTACT: PHONE (305) 856-1455 SOURCE: FL DEP CONTENT:B • UNLEADED GAS PLACE:UNDERGROUND TYPE:A - RETAIL STATION TANK 10:6STATUS:OPEN TVI:TANKDEP CO:NO INSTALLED:01' APR-,20DOSTAT DATE:01-APR-2000 TK STAT:U • IN SERVICE CAPACITY(GAL):12X0 CONTENT:B UNLEADED GAS PLACE:UNDERGROUND TYPE:A - RETAIL STATION 5F - FIBERGLASS CLAD STEEL 5M - SPILL CONTAINMENT BUCKET 5N - FLOW SHUT-OFF SP - LEVEL GAUGES/ALARMS SR - DOUBLE WALL - TANK JACKET 6F - FIBERGLASS CLAD STEEL 6M - SPILL CONTAINMENT BUCKET 6N - FLOW SHUT-OFF 6P - LEVEL GAUGES/ALARM'S 6R - DOUBLE WALL - TANK JACKET PIPING INFORMATION TANK ID:DESCRIPTION: 5C - FIBERGLASS 5F - DOUBLE WALL 5J - PRESSURIZED PIPING SYSTEM SK - DISPENSER LINERS 6C - FIBERGLASS 6F - DOUBLE WALL 6J - PRESSURIZED PIPING SYSTEM 6K - DISPENSER UNERS MONITORING INFORMATION TANK ID:DESCRIPTION: 56 EXTERNAL PIPING MONITORING 5F - MONITOR DBL WALL TANK SPACE 5G - ELECTRONIC LINE LEAK DETECTOR 5K - MONITOR DBL WALL PIPE SPACE 5N - GROUNDWATER MONITORING 66 - EXTERNAL PIPING MONITORING 6F - MONITOR DEL WALL TANK SPACE 6G - ELECTRONIC LINE LEAK DETECTOR 6K - MONITOR DBL WALL PIPE SPACE 6N - GROUNDWATER MONITORING Site Details Page - 9 Exhibit F (00001271DOCX. 1 } BWONARD COUNTY FLORIDA Environmental Protection and Growth Management Department POLLUTION PREVENTION, REMEDIATION AND AIR QUALITY DIVISION One North University Drive, Suite 203, Plantation, Florida 33324 954-519-1260 • FAX 954-765-4804 EAR SECTION STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE FOR DEWATE G (Revision 3, Effective December 1, 2009) INTRODUCTION As required by Broward County Code (Code?, any person(s) wishing to conduct dewatering activities at or within a one -quarter -mile radius of a contaminated site must notify and receive approval from the Broward County Environmental Protection and Growth Management Department (Department) prior to implementation. The County's notification requirements for these dewatering activities are outlined in Section 27-355(4) of the Code, which states: 'Prior to any persons conducting dewatering operations at or within, a one -quarter -mile radius of a contaminated site, written notification shall be given to [the Department] and shall include, at a minimum: • Justification for the need for dewatering; • Water treatment and disposal plans; • Effect of the dewatering and disposal procedures on the contaminant plume; • Monitoring program; and • Where required and authorized by Chapter 471, F.S. [Florida Statutes] or Chapter 492, F.S,, applicable portions of dewatering plans shall be signed and sealed by a registered professional engineer or a registered professional geologist.'" Approval of such activities is required by Section 27-353(i) of the Code, which states: "Dewatering operations at or within a one -quarter -mile radius of a contaminated site shall not be conducted without [Department l approval." APPLICABILITY This Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) and the requirements detailed herein are applicable to dewatering operations within Broward County. "Dewatering" refers to any technique that is employed to lower groundwater level. These requirements apply solely to reviews that are conducted by Broward County Environmental Assessment and Remediation (EAR) Staff for the purpose of ensuring that dewatering operations at or within one - quarter mile of contaminated sites will not result in the exacerbation, migration, or improper treatment of contamination. Please note that additional requirements for dewatering have been established by other agencies and may be established by other Sections within the Department. Tank Upgrade Exemption Dewatering operations conducted to facilitate underground storage tank upgrades and replacements necessary to meet the Performance Standards for Category -A and Category-B Storage Tanks of Section 27-307(b), Broward County Code, and Section 62-761.510, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), are exempt from the EAR Section Dewatering Plan review and approval process. To qualify for this exemption, a Notice of Intent to Dewater must I "Contaminant" is defined in Section 27-352, Broward County Code Broward County Board of County Commissioners Sue Gunzburger • Kristin D. Jacobs • Albert Q. Janes • Kan Keechl • Ilene Lieberman *Stacy Ritter • John E. Rodsircrn, Jr. • Diana Wasserrnan*Rubin • Leis Waxier www,browartorg EAR SECTION STANDARD OPERATING Page 2 of 7 PROCEDURE FOR DE WATERING be provided to EAR Section staff at least five (5) business days prior to dewatering. The Notice of Intent to Dewater must agree to the following conditions: 1. Dewatering duration must not exceed a total of three (3) calendar days (72 hours), If intermittent dewatering is performed, this duration is be considered to be the sum of all actual pumping periods, however clarification should be provided in the Notice of Intent to Dewatering with respect to the overall period that dewatering will be performed; 2. Sheetpile must be installed to a depth not less than 8 feet below the bottom of wellpoint screens; 3. Effluent must be monitored to ensure compliance with turbidity standards, as applicable; and 4. If conducted within a tank farm area known to be contaminated, dewatering effluent must be properly treated and monitored to comply with water quality standards or applicable Cleanup Target Levels of Chapter 62-777, Florida Administrative Code, prior to discharge. Treatment system specifications, laboratory analytics, field notes, and other relevant documentation should be maintained by the party responsible for performing the dewatering. Any exceptions to conditional items 1 and 2 of this exemption will require the Department's approval of a Dewatering Plan submitted per this SOP. If contamination is encountered during the tank upgrade which has not been previously reported to the Department, dewatering must cease and the Department must be notified in accordance with the requirements of Code Section 27-355. PROCEDURE A flow chart which demonstrates this SOP is depicted in Exhibit 1, attached. Please note that Exhibit I does not address the tank upgrade exemption as detailed in the previous section. 1. Need for EAR Section Approval of Dewatering Operations A. For sites located beyond one -quarter mile of a contaminated site in Broward County, the Department does not include a "No Dewatering Permitted" clause en construction plan approvals. Dewatering may proceed at such sites; however, it is recommended that EAR Section staff be notified for confirmation. B. In instances where dewatering is proposed within a contaminated area (i.e., where it is known that groundwater contains contaminants above applicable standards) but where no other contaminated sites are located within one -quarter mile, a Dewatering Plan must be submitted to the EAR Section of the Department for review and approval prior to implementation of dewatering activities; however, the Dewatering Plan should only contain the following: 1. The contaminated site information outlined in Section U.A. of this SOP for the dewatering location, 2. The information outlined in Section II.B. of this SOP, and 3. Proper certification as required by Section II.E. of this SOP. A Dewatering Report to document the dewatering is also required by Section IV of this SOP. C. For sites that are located within one -quarter mile of a contaminated site, a Dewatering Plan in accordance with Section II of this SOP must be submitted to the EAR Section of the Department for review and approval prior to implementation of dewatering activities. Dewatering will not be approved under any conditions for operations that may create a drawdown greater than 0.1 foot at a contaminant plume boundary, The Dewatering Plan must meet the requirements established in Section II of this SOP. 11. Dewatering Plan Requirements A. Contaminated locations at and/or within one -quarter mile of the proposed dewatering project must be identified, At the time of this writing, the Broward County contaminated sites database and corresponding interactive map are available on the internet at http://www.broward.org/ pprd/contaminated_sites.htm. Broward County Board of County Commissioners Sue unzburger • Krillin 0. Jambs • Nitre Janes • Kert '<zeal • Ilene Lieberman • Stacy Rter • Jahn E. Radslram, Jr. • Dane Wassemian•Ruble • Lois Wele wynoarowartorg EAR SECTION STANDARD OPERATING Page 3 of PROCEDURE FOR DEWATERING The following items should be included in the Dewatering Plan: 1. Site Number and address for each contaminated site, 2. Contaminant type for each contaminated site, 3. Most recent contaminant plume maps for all groundwater -contaminated sites located within a quarter - mile radius from the proposed dewatering location (if available), 4. Tables of the most recent groundwater analytical data for the nearest groundwater -contaminated site (if available), and 5. A map, drawn to scale, that depicts the particular dewatering location on the site (designation of the site boundaries in general is not adequate) and the locations of identified contaminant plumes. If contaminant plume maps and data are not available through hardcopy file review with the Department, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, or the OCULUS petroleum document website (at the time of this writing, located at hittpilldwmedms.dep.state.fi.usiOculus/servlet/login), then document this fact in the Dewatering Plan and assume that the contaminant plume is confined to the property boundary of the particular contaminated site. B. The following information must be provided regarding the scope of the proposed dewatering activities: I. Purpose of dewatering (i.e., an explanation of why dewatering is necessary), 2. Dewatering technique (i.e., wellpoint, deep well, open hole, etc.), 3, Anticipated dewatering flow rate, 4. Total dewatering duration, 5. Method of effluent discharge, 6. Controls (i.e., settling tank, turbidity curtain, etc.) and a monitoring program employed to ensure that effluent will comply with applicable water quality standards, including turbidity. 7. If conducted in a contaminated area, engineering specifications for dewatering effluent treatment (i.e. air -stripper, carbon filtration, etc.) and details for an analytical monitoring program to ensure that effluent will meet water quality standards established by Section 27-195, Broward County Code. Please note that Certification by a Florida -registered Professional Engineer, specifically, is required for treatment specifications by Section ILE. of this SOP. 8 A description of any proposed controls, including engineering specifications for sheetpile or recharge system. Certification by a Florida -registered Professional Engineer is required for applicable sheetpile specifications by Section 1I,E. of this SOP. C. Dewatering plans must contain a technical justification that is adequate to demonstrate the proposed scope of dewatering (as required in Section MB.) will not affect contaminant plumes. There are two (2) acceptable methods far providing this technical justification: 1. Manual estimations of the dewatering radius of influence by utilizing SFWMD data or approved aquifer test data to calculate Sichardt's equation. As a "first pass" of technical justification, Sichardt's equation may be used to determine the radius of influence associated with the dewatering project as discussed in Section 11.C.I.b. of this SOP. Details of Sichardt's equation, including an example calculation, are also included as Exhibit III to this SOP. The calculation must utilize 1) data from South Florida Management Water District's (SFWMD) Technical Publication 92-05 entitled, "A Three Dimensional Finite Difference Groundwater Flow Model of the Surficial Aquifer System, Broward County, Florida'' (1992), or 2) data provided by an aquifer test conducted in accordance with Section II.C.1.a. of this SOP, a. Aquifer test performance and data collection must be consistent with the following guidance: Freeze and Cherry (1979), Fetter (1980), Kniseman and Derrider (1990), or Driscoll (1986). EAR Staff will use AQTESOLV (for Windows) to verify aquifer parameters that are generated from Sue Gunzturger • Krisb Broward County Board of County Commissioners cobs • Alberl C. Jones • Kan Kaachl• Una Lieberman • Stacy Ritter • John E. Rodstram, Jr. • Diana Wasserman -Rubin ^ Lois Wexler www,broward.org EAR SECTION STANDARD OPERATING Page 4 of 7 PROCEDURE FOR DEWATERING hand calculations and/or computer modeling analysis of aquifer tests. Aquifer Test Data may be collected in one of three (3) ways: (1) Historical aquifer test data from the EAR Section's in-house database may be obtained by contacting David Vanlandingham, P.E., at (954) 519-1478 or dva.nlandingham@broward.org. The information contained in the EAR Aquifer Test database has been reviewed by EAR Section staff for quality assurance. (2) Other historical aquifer test data may be submitted if the test was performed within one -quarter mile of the proposed dewatering location and: (a) Groundwater elevations were measured in at least three (3) observation wells (not including the test well) with varying distances from the recovery well, (b) Data is collected from the beginning of the test until near steady-state conditions are achieved, and (c) Unconfined aquifer conditions and partially penetrating wells were considered in analysis of the aquifer test data'. (3) Perform an aquifer test at the proposed dewatering location. Notification must be provided using Exhibit II and written approval must be obtained from EAR staffprior to implementation of the aquifer test. Approvals may be granted through email or facsimile. The test data will be acceptable if the conditions of Section 11.C. 1 .a.(2) are met; in addition, observation wells are to be installed in a line between the dewatering locations and the nearest identified contaminant plume3, and one of the observation wells is located at the edge of the proposed dewatered area. b. Utilizing Sichardt's equation, a manual (hand) calculation may be performed to determine the projected radius of influence associated with the proposed dewatering activity and the flow rate necessary to produce the required drawdown. This calculation is detailed in Exhibit III accompanying this SOP. (1) If the estimated value of radius of influence is less than the distance to the edge of the nearest contaminant plume, the Dewatering Plan may be approved (an example approval letter is provided in Exhibit IV). (2) If the estimated radius of influence is greater than the distance to the edge of the nearest contaminant plume, then groundwater modeling is required pursuant to Section II.C.2. of this SOP. The dewatering scope of work may also be revised or hydraulic controls (for instance, sheetpile or artificial groundwater mounding via recharge trenches or wells) may be proposed; however, any hydraulic controls proposed must still be justified through the use of computer modeling in accordance with Section II.C.2. of this SOP, as manual calculations which consider hydraulic controls are not available'. 2. Groundwater modeling within a three-dimensional computer model utilizing SFWMD data or approved aquifer test data. The model framework must utilize 1) data from South Florida Water Management District's (SFWMD) Technical Publication 92-05 entitled, 'A Three Dimensional Finite Difference Groundwater Flow Model of the Surficial Aquifer System, Broward County, Florida" (1992), or 2) aquifer test data obtained in accordance with in Section II.C. 1 ,a. of this SOP. If these conditions are not met, the test data may be reanalyzed by the applicant via a method that will consider unconfined aquifer and partially penetrating well scenarios. 3 These observation points may also be used to meet the requirements of groundwater monitoring, as outlined in Section U.D. of this SOP. 4 The manual calculation method cannot be used for sites where artificial groundwater mounding is proposed as a hydraulic control. Artificial groundwater mounding as a means of hydraulic control may only be justified through computer modeling as outlined in Section II.C.2. of this SOP. Sue Gunzturger • Knstin 0, Jabs. Broward County Board of County Commissioners , Jones • Ken Keecht • here Ueberman • Stacy Ritter • John E. Rodstrom, Jr, • Diana Wa www.browartLOrg an•Rehin • Lois Wexler EAR SECTION STANDARD OPERATING Page 5 of 7 PROCEDURE FOR DEWATERING All models, regardless of the software used to construct them, are to be properly documented. The Division will use Visual MODFLOW Pro to verify all modeling analyses. Any Dewatering Plan that includes computer modeling must also contain the following information, as applicable: a. A compact disc with a copy of ali model data including all necessary input, support, and output files. b. Map file used as base coverage in .dxf or. .bmp format. c. Model domain including the number of columns, rows, and layers. Grid spacing must also be documented for areas of the model with increased cell resolution. d. Model extent including X-axis, Y-axis, and Z-axis minimum and maxirnum. Also include coordinates (Lat/Lon, UTM, State Plane) if the model extent are referenced to specific geographic locations. The model should cover a sufficient area as to allow for a true representation of ground water flow during dewatering without undue influence from boundary conditions. e. Model units for length, time, conductivity, pumping rate, mass, and concentration as applicable. f. Surface elevation and bottom elevation of all layers. lf layer elevation is not a constant, then submit a spreadsheet containing x, y, z data in either .txt or .xls format or as a Surfer® .grd file. g. Conductivity values of all layers including Kx, Ky, and Kz. If conductivity data vary within a layer then submit a file in .txt, .xls, or .slip format. Also include all data interpolation information as applicable. If layer elevation is not a constant, then submit a spreadsheet containing x, y, z data in either .txt or .xis format or as a Surfer€ .grd file. h. Specific Storage (Ss) and Specific Yield (Sy) values of all layers. If Ss and/or Sy data vary within a layer, then submit a file in .txt, .xls, or .shp format. Also include all data interpolation information as applicable. i. Porosity and effective porosity values of all layers. if porosity and/or effective porosity data vary within a layer, then submit a file in .txt, .xls, or .shp format. Also include all data interpolation information as applicable. j. Pumping well specifications including exact map coordinates, screened interval, pump rate, and pumping duration. k. Head observation well specifications including exact rnap coordinates, screened interval, observation point elevation, and all water table elevation measurements. I. Concentration well specifications including exact map coordinates, screened interval, contaminant being monitored, observation point elevation, and all concentration measurements. m. The type (constant head, rivers, general head, drains, walls, etc.) and model -grid location for all boundary conditions including an explanation of their selection and description of their input parameters. Boundary conditions should be defined as to not artificially influence ground water flow in the dewatering area or nearby contaminated sites. n. Acknowledgment that the model ignores recharge to maintain a conservative estimate of dewatering influence. o. Particle tracking information including number of particles, initial particle locations, and release times if applicable. All particles are to be tracked in the forward direction. p. If Zone Budget is used to estimate a dewatering flaw rate, then the number and model -grid location of zones and output information must be included, as applicable. The type of model run (Steady State Flow or Transient Flow) must also be specified. The Division recommends running the model using only documented boundary conditions under Steady State Flow to determine initial heads. Transient Flow should be used for the duration of proposed dewatering. q. The time steps utilized during Transient Flow model runs. r. Figures showing model output as both Head Equipotentials and Drawdown at the end of the proposed dewatering period for each modeled layer. s. A figure identifying the 0.1-foot and 0,01-foot drawdown contours at the end of dewatering. D. The Dewatering Plan must propose a groundwater monitoring program subject to the following: 1. Should a manual estimation of the radius of influence performed in accordance with Section II.C.1. of Broward County Board of County Commissioners Sue Gunzburger • Kristin D. Jacobs • AtC Janes • Ken Keechl • ilex° Uebernnan • Stacy Rftter • Jahn E. Rcdstrom, Jr. • Dana a • rman•Rubin • Lois Wexler www.broward.or9 EAR SECTION STANDARD OPERATINGPage 6 of 7 PROCEDURE FOR DEWATERING this SOP indicate that the radius of influence is less than the distance to the nearest contaminant piume, no monitoring program is required (an example approval letter is provided in Exhibit IV). 2. Should modeling performed in accordance with Section 11.C.2, of this SOP indicate that the closest groundwater contaminant plume is outside of the 0.01-foot drawdown contour, no monitoring program is required (an example approval letter is provided in Exhibit IV), 3. Should modeling performed in accordance with Section 11.C.2. of this SOP indicate the closest groundwater contaminant plume lies between the 0.01-foot and 0.1-foot drawdown contours, a monitoring program is required (Exhibit IV will be modified by the Division to reflect specific requirements). The monitoring program must include: a. A table of groundwater elevation data collected from a minimum of three observation paints, placed on a line between the dewatering location and the nearest contaminant plume. Data shall be collected: (1) Prior to initiating dewatering activities to establish baseline elevations. Locations that are tidally influenced may require more than one baseline monitoring event. (2) Daily during the first week of dewatering activities, and weekly thereafter until dewatering operations cease. The applicant should make every effort to collect data at the same time of day to reduce the influence of daily fluctuations. b. A map, drawn to scale, detailing the observation point locations relative to the dewatering project, and c. A map, drawn to scale, including water table elevations from observation points and an indication of ground water flow direction, 4. Should a manual estimation of the radius of influence performed in accordance with Section IIC.L of this SOP indicate that the radius of influence is greater than the distance to the nearest contaminant plume, or should modeling performed in accordance with Sections 11.C.2. of this SOP indicate that the closest contaminated plume lies within the 0.1-foot drawdown contour, dewatering will not be approved by the Division. The Dewatering Plan may be revised or hydraulic controls (i.e., sheet -pile cofferdam or artificial groundwater mounding via recharge) must be proposed and justified. If, in this event, hydraulic controls are proposed, computer modeling must be performed in accordance with Section 11.C.2. of this SOP, as manual calculations that consider hydraulic controls are not available. E. All applicable portions of Dewatering Plans must be certified by a registered Professional Engineer or a registered Professional Geologist, as provided in Chapter 471, F.S., or Chapter 492, F.S. F. The Dewatering Plan must contain the contact information for the entity that is assuming responsibility for the specified conditions of the Department's approval. The company name, a representative name, address, and phone number should be included, as applicable. G. There is no review fee or "application" for the Dewatering Approval. Simply submit one (1) certified original of the Dewatering Plan to the Department, to the attention of David Vanlandingham, P.E., at this letterhead address. III. EAR staffshall have a period of ten (10) business days to review Dewatering Plans submitted pursuant to this SOP and to provide comment and/or approval. IV. A Dewatering Report must be submitted within thirty (30) days of completion of approved dewatering activities to document actual flow rates and field monitoring data, including any monitoring conducted pursuant to Sections 11.B.6., 11.B.7, and 11.D. of this SOP, 5 The manual calculation method cannot be used for sites where artificial groundwater mounding is proposed as a hydraulic control. Artificial groundwater mounding as a means of hydraulic control may only be justified through computer modeling as outlined in Section II.C.2. of this SOP. Sue Guruburger • Kristin 0 Jacobs • Broward 'County Board of County Commissioners , Jones Ken Keechl • itene Lieberman • Slacy Ritter • John E. Rodstrom Jr, • Oiara Wasse an -Rubin • Lois Wexler Ary,fw,browani.c EAR SECTION STANDARD OPERATING Page 7 of 7 PROCEDURE FOR DEWATERING References Chapter 27 of the Code of Ordinances of Broward County, Florida. Tallahassee, Florida: Municipa Code Corporation, 2001. Driscoll, Fletcher G. Groundwater and eli (Second Edition). St, Paul, Minnesota: Inc., 1986 Fetter, C.W. Applied Hydrogeology (Third Edition). New York, New York: Macrnillian College Publishing Co., 1994. 'hnson Filtration Systems, Geraghty & v1i11er, Inc. AQTESOLV, Reston, Virginia: James O. Rumbaugh, III, developer. Freeze, R. Allan, and Cherry, John A, Groundwater, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1979. Kruseman, G.P., and De Pjdder, N.A., Analysis and Evaluation of Pumping Test Data. Wageningen, The Netherlands: International Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvernent/ILRI, 1990. Powers, J. Patrick, P.E. Construction Dewatering. New Methods and Applications - Second Edition. New York, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1992 South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). A Three Dimensional Finite Thfference Groundwater Flow Model of the Surficial Aquifer System, Broward County, Florida, West Palm Beach, Florida: Technical Publication 92-05, 1992, Waterloo Hydrogeologic. Visual MODFLO Pro (v.3.0,0). Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. Broward County Board of County Commissioners Sue Gurtzbenjer • Kristin D. Jacobs • Albert C. Jones• Ken Keecid • Ilene Lieberman . Stacy Rater •John E Rodstrom, Jr. • Diana Wasserman -Rubin • L v.ww.braward.org