Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibit 4 - Version ASupp er rental Documents Sub ed 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: (3os) 777-1680 Facsimile: (305) 777-1681 www.goldsteinenvlawcom Michael R. Goldstein, Esq. Direct Dial: (305) 777-1682 Email; mgoldstein@goldsteinenvlaw.com February 22, 2013 Via Email & U.S. Mail Ms. Alice Bravo, Interim City 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 8°h Street Vista Grande .Apartments, 850 SW 21'd 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 definition 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 EthibiLii. {00004026.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." 3 "Actual contamination," however, speaks for itself and can be readily demonstrated through the results of laboratory analysis of soil and groundwater. 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 frequendy 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, redevelopment, 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 finding station located at 190 SW Sth Street, which directly adjoins the West Brickell 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/Brickell 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 the original brownfield designation requests, all filed with the City of Miarni 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.DOCX. 1 Ms. Alice Bravo February 22, 2013 Page 3 located at 1245 SW 2rl'i Avenue, which is within approximately 400 fect of the West Brickell To 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 Bxhibit B. 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 e 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 operation 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. 8'h Street right-of-way (i.e., just south of the bank property) during the installation of the stormwater drainage utilities in 1985 which su ests that the former gasoline service station had a past petroleum discharge(s). Given the proximity of this former gasoline service station to the site and the fact that the subject site is located hydraulically downgradient of 4 The Florida Licensed Environmental Professional who signed and certified all of the Dunkeiberger 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.DOCX, 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 contamination, 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: (C.•. 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 -drainage 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 Miarni-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 party 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 contamination in groundwater at the Citgo site created significant site design and development complexity to prepare and irnplement 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, and the incurrence of additional environmental legal costs for liability and regulatory analysis.' 11. As an additional burden and level of complexity, the environmental legal risk associated with the actual contamination at the Citgo site is particularly troubling, complex, and far-reaching to the developer due to the fact that any exacerbation (i.e., spreading) of off -site groundwater contamination during construction' would 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; i.e., if it had chosen to develop a greenfield site. The fact of the matter, however, is that these axe 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 Apartrnent projects. 12. In addition to all of the 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 or 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 suests that there is a reaLpossibility oLindnozipor 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 vapor intrusion 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 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 Ieads 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 -drainage 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." 6 As noted by Dunkelberger, such exacerbation or spreading could be easily caused by construction dewatering, which, if not designed and conducted properly, will pull a contaminant plume from a source property onto a development sites by drawing down on the aquifer. (00004026.DOCX. 1 } 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 risk 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 pram to refine the procedures for vapor intrusion evaluation in the future when greater knowkdgabaut 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 remediated. 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 performed and the commencement of cleanup is not anticipated to occurit any time in the foreseeable funge, 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 costs that have been incurred to work through the development complexity, the developer's environmental consultant, (00004026.00CX. 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: Cf. .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 (SFWMD) 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 migrate. Utilization of special construction techniques could be necessary to assure that contaminant plume movement does not occur." 1 7 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 property'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 rnodiacations, condngency 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 environmental professional, and the undersigned's legal opinion (premised on twenty-one years of experience with assisting private and public clients manage environmental, construction, le, .1, 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 rule established by RER as to when and how much proximity to a contaminated site tn. 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 operating procedure ("SOP") adopted by the Broward County Environmental Protection and Growth Management Department ("EPGMD"), for guidance. EPGMD's SOP, which can be found at Exhibit F, 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 justification 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 dewatering activities will not spread existing contamination. 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 respective 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 information and remain available to respond further as you may deem appropriate. Thank you. Very truly yours, THE GOLDSTE E RONME /Ott_ Michael lt Goldstein /mrg Encl. cc: West Brickell View Apartments, Ltd. Vista Grande Apartrnents, Ltd. West Brickell Tower Apartments, Ltd. FIRM, P.A. (00004026.DOCX. 1 ) Exhibit A (00001271.DOCX.1) Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine Page 1 of 2 Select Year: The 2011 Florida Statutes Title Mill NATURAL RESOURCES; CONSERVATION, RECLAMATION, AND USE Chapter 376 View Entire POLLUTANT DISCHARGE alaoter PREVENTION AND REMOVAL 376.79 Definitions relating to Brownftelds 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 use 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, organoleptic, 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. 376,8Q(9) and 403.18Z. http://www.leg.statenus/sta tes/index.cfremode=View%20Statutes&SubMenu= &App... 4/30/2012 Sta tes & 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 for a business purpose; or any governmental entity. (15) "Risk reduction" means the towering or elimination of the level of risk posed to human health or the environment through interim remedial actions, remedial action, or institutional, andif 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 toxicities of the individual chemicals to which the individual is exposed. History.—s. 3, ch. 97-277; s. 2, ch. 98-75; s. 10, ch. 2000-317; s. 1, ch. 2004.40; s. 4, ch. 2008.239. Copyright m 1995.2012 The FLarlda I' egislature • Privaev Statement • Contact Us http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfrn?mode=View/020St Lutes cSubMenu=1 App... 4/30/2012 Exhibit B wo 271.DOCX. Carlos Alvarez, Mayor mbar 27, 281'0 Jorge Braceras, Manager Brk keil Dornht n, LLC.. 1246 SW 15 St Miarni, FL 33145 Environmental Resources Management Pollution Control Division 701 NW 1st Court • 4th Floor Miami, Florida 33136-3912 T 305-372-6700 IF 305-372-6982 ndamldade.gov CERTIFIED MAEL # 7007 2680 * r r 06218 RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED..,°° Re: Limited Tank Closure Report Adderxdlum dated August l8, 2010 and prepared by Jorge Brace res for the Citgo Gas Station facility (UT-439/Fiie-717310EP-8504677) Located at, near, or in the vicinity of 1= ' SW 811 St, Miami, MlarnE-Dade County, Florida. Dear Mr. Braceras: The Environmental Evaluation Section of the Department 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, 2010and has determined that this report meets the requirements of Rule 62-761.800, Florida Administrative 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 (PLERP). 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 additional work may be submitted to the Department. However, they will be reviewed based an priority score and availability of funds. Voluntary work may continue to be rfornred at the site, as long as the work is performed in accordance with Chapter 62-770, FAC. if you have any questions covering the above, piease contact Eddie Goner (go r ed@mlamldade.ov) of the Environmental Evaluation Sectibn at (30S) 372-6700. Sincerely, Wilbur Mayorga, P.E., Chief Pollution Control Division pc: FDEP file copy 138504677 LEGEND MONITOR WELL RECOVERY WEIL SURFACE DRAIN FUEL DISPENSER ISLAND WATER TABLE ELEVATION FLOW DIRECIION -4 11W-8 _111 `I 11W-8 1r-11 MWWi4 4.02 4. 4.89 4.85 4.82 4.88 NA 4.09 4.01 .03 NA 4.80 NA 4.84 4.82 NA 11W-22 FIGURE 2: GROUNDWATER ELEVATION MAP 0➢/01/04 >IZPaasa aoa LION .47871 0 fN N FIGURE 3: TOTAL VOA CONCENTRATION I 09/01/84 Pun= roar • tGID MONITOR WEIL X RECOVERY WEIL NI DACE DRAIN ? PURL DISPENSER ISLAND TOTAL NAPHTHALENE PAH* CONCENTRATIONS • Dodo . o./+tiot wotti IlV-i.I tad Ri-1. scold down U2410 two watt wars to tr.o* d ampt.. war »eett.dws trap rI -ot sod tnr-t on oo/oe/ot. FIGURE 4: TOTALP UM MAP 0V/01/94 & O0/00/11 APP DID A laboratory AnaIileal And Chain of Custody DoentnittlsOon Environmental FirstSearch Site Detail Report Target Property: 1026 SW 2ND AVE MIAMI, FL 33130 JOB: FTL-11-0801 LUST SEARCH ID: 34 DI /DIR: 0.15 NE ELEVATION: 9 MAP ID: NAME: CITGO STATION ADDRESS: 190 SW 8TH ST MIAMI FL 33130 MIAMI-DADE CONTACT: SOURCE FL DEP SITE INFORMATION OPERATOR:JORGE BRACERAS NAME UPDATED:05/17/2005 ADDR UPDATED:10/20/1999 BAD ADDR INDICATOR:N RPID57000 RP ROLE:ACCOUNT OWNER RP BEGIN:10/25/2004 NAME:G & B STANDARD INC 190 SW 8TH ST ATTN: JORGE BRACERAS MIAMI FL 33130 PHONE:(305)856-4594 REV: 7/18/12 ID1; 138504677 ID2: 8504677.00 STATUS: FACILITY OPEN PHONE (305) 856-4594 DISCHARGE INFORMATION DISCHARGE DATE:04/30/1993 COMBINED: SCORE:11 SCORE DATE:11/16/2007 CLEANUP REQUIRED.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:11 SCORE DATE:11/16/2007 CLEANUP REQUIRED R - CLEANUP REQUIRED WORK STATUS:INACTIVE DISCHARGE CLEANUP STATUS:RA 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 JOB: Frl-ii-0801 LUST SEARCH ID: 34 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 331130 ID28504677.00 MIAMI-DADE STATUS: FACILITY OPEN CONTACT: PHONE: (305) 856-4594 SOURCE; FL DEP LETTER OF INTENT06/22/1987 ELIG LETTER SENT:12/13/1989 REDETERMINED:N INSPECTION DATE:05/13/1988 DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNT: DED PAID TO DATE:0 CO PAY AMOUNT: CO -PAID PAID TO DATE:0 CAP AMOUNT: APPLICATION RECD8/5/1993 ELIGIBILITY STATUS:E ELIGIBILITY DATE:8/18/1993 LETTER OF INTENT05/17/1993 ELIG LETTER SENT:08/18/1993 REDETERMINED:N 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 CURRENTLY REGULATED BY CHAPTER 62-761, F.A.C. TOTAL NUMBER OF TANKS: 4 TANK INFORMATION TANK ID:1STATUS:OPEN TVI:TANKDEP CO:NO 1NSTALLED:01-JAN-1982STAT DATE: TK STAT:U - IN SERVICE CAPACITY(GAL):9886 CONTENT:B - UNLEADED GAS PLACE:UNDERGROUND TYPE:A - RETAIL STATION TANK ID:2STATUS:OPEN TVI:TANKDEP CaNO INSTALLED:01-JUL-1982STAT DATE: TK STATU - IN SERVICE CAPACITY(GAL):9886 CONTENT:B - UNLEADED GAS - Continued on next page - Site Details Page - 5 Environmental FrstSearch Site Detail Report Target Property: 1026 SW 2ND AVE JOB: FIL-11-01301 MIAMI, FL 33130 LUST SEARCH ID: 34 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 CONTACT: PHONE: (3051 856-4594 SOURCE FL DEP PLACE:UNDERGROUND TYPE:A - RETAIL STATION TANK ID:3STATUS:OPEN TVI:TANKDEP CO:NO INSTALLED:01-JUL-1982STAT DATE: TK STAT:U - IN SERVICE C.APACITY(GAL):9886 CONTENTS - UNLEADED GAS PLACE;UNDERGROUND TYPE:A - RETAIL STATION TANK ID:4STATUS:OPEN TVI:TANKDEP CO NO INSTALLED:01-JUL-1982STAT DATE:04-MAY-2011 TK STAT:B - REMOVED C.APACITY(GAL):1011 CONTENT:L - WASTE OIL PLACE:UNDERGROUND TYPE:A - RETAIL STATION lE - FIBERGLASS 1M - SPILL CONTAINMENT BUCKET 1N FLOW SHUT-OFF 10 - TIGHT FILL 15 - DEP APPROVED CONTAINMENT 2E - FIBERGLASS 2M - SPILL CONTAINMENT BUCKET 2N - FLOW SHUT-OFF 20 - TIGHT FILL 2S - DEP APPROVED CONTAINMENT 3E - FIBERGLASS 3M - SPILL CONTAINMENT BUCKET 3N - FLOW SHUT-OFF 30 - TIGHT FILL 3S - DEP APPROVED CONTAINMENT PIPING INFORMATION TANK ID:DESCRIPTION: 1C - FIBERGLASS 1F - DOUBLE WALL 1J - PRESSURIZED PIPING SYSTEM 1K - DISPENSER LINERS 2C - FIBERGLASS 2F - DOUBLE WALL 2J - PRESSURIZED PIPING SYSTEM 2K - DISPENSER UNERS - More Details Exist For This Site; Max Page Limit Reached - Site Details Page - 6 Exhibit C 01271.DOCX. 1) MIAM COUNTY Carlos A. Gimenez, Mayor August 21,2012 Alberto A. Mora, P.E. Schwebke - Shiskin & Associates, Inc. 3240 Corporate Way Miramar, FL 33025 Departrnent of Regulatory and Economic Resources Environmental Resources Management 701 NW lst Court, 4th Floor Miami, Florida 33136-3912 T 305-372-6700 F 305-372-6952 CERTIFIED MAIL 7009 0080 0000 1045 7210 RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED miamidade.gov 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 De ent 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 of the 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 a ound 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 Po 'on 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 „ ; 4 f'1;10'. 141,4 [tr f:r ..7./:"X Exhibit D (00001271.DOCX. Product Indoor Vapor In tlsllon Guldellnes (ir introduction Indoor vapor intrusion (IV!) refers to vapors emanating from contaminated media (groundwater, loll► or free product) that migrate through the pore spaces of the sole in the unsaturated zone above the groundwater table and enter 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 (long term) exposure. The concentration of vapors which could be of concern due to chronic exposure may be very low and below the threshold of olfactory detection such that the bunking occupants may be unaware of the exposure. The consideration of this pathway of exposure to contamination is a relatively recent development In the practice of site assessment and remediation of contaminated sites.. 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 dose proximity to a contaminated site; however; it appears that the frequency of occurrence of probtems of petroleum vapors entering offsite buildings through the building foundation is relatively low. The sdence related W vapor intrusion evaluation Is still evolving and there will be a need for the petroleum cleanup prtogram to refine the procedures for vapor Intrusion evaluation in the future when greater knowtedge 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 (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 Product? Contaminants of Concern In soli a groundwater to qualify for No Further Action without Conditions are believed to be ad M . uately protective to prevent Indoor vapor intrusion. However there is a concern that vapor intrusion may occur while a site assessment is being conducted, white the contaminated site is undergoing remedlatlon by natural attenuation monitoring or active remedlatlon or due to residual soli or groundwater contamination when a site receives dosure by No Further Action ydth Conditions. The following procedures are intended to be protective of public health both while site assessment and remedlation ere underway and after final closure of a site with residual contamination remaining under the provisions of Chapter 62.77o.680(2) or (3), F.A.C., for No Further Action with Conditions. The risk considerations and mitigation measures 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. AO At this time the BPS Is requiring these procedures to be appiled bro eligible sites being funded by the State of Florida only. The BPSS encourages responsible parties perform M screening voluntarily. on -funded contaminated sites to n scenario of a facility at which there is a discharge of petroleum products is a leum, fuel retail sales business with a single occupied building, such as a convenience uct sales business on the source property. There may be buildings on other properties in the rrlty but are usually greater than 50 feet from the location of the discharge. The following procedures for evaluation of the vapor lntnrslon pathway and identification of appropriate mitigation measures are based on a facility with these draracteristics. Such comrnercial properties are usually not very large compared z the Infrastructure improvements such as the tanks, dispensers, and the building; and the features of the property are laid out for economical use of space such that the, sources of a petroleum fuel discharge (tanks, dispensers, and integral piping) are usually In relatively dose proximity to the occupied building on the property. Evaluation of the potential for human exposure to indoor vapors at the building located at the source property Is complicated by the different phases of petroleum product contamination that may exist (contaminated soil, contaminated groundwater and free -phase product floating on the water table) near an occupied building at the property where the discharge occurred, and also due to the , • d `• ntial for preferential migration of vapors along underground utility lines, which commonly are surrounded by permeable aggregate in the utility trench leading to the occupied buildi'ng. For these reasons, screening for vapor intrusion potential based on groundwater contamination concentrations at the source property is not reliable or appropriate. However, the risk of vapor intrusion to oft site buildings Located more than 50 feet from the discharge location does la rod Itself to an evaluation process in which Initial screening for I V1 potential may be accomplished in most ceses using groundwater contamination concentration data, which need to be obtained for completing a site assessment under the existing provisions of Chapter 62-770.6011, F.A.C. For this reason, initial screening for vapor Intrusion potential at off-slte buildings may be completed with existing site assessment data such that additional soil vapor sample collection for [Yi evaluation may not be necessary in most cases. The reason for this dreumstance is that petroleum vapors are highly bl©degradable such that lateral migration of vapors significant distances from a vapor source (contaminated soil 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 contaminant plume which moves in the direction of groundwater flow and may have migrated beneath an off -site building. For ©f site buildings more than 50feet from the location of the dbd arge,, a screening process which assumes rates of attenuatlon during vertical migration of vapors between a groundwater plume and the foundation of a building overlying the groundwater contamination plume, using axonservative assumptions of attenuation rates, Is considered to be o reasonable and economical initial step for evaluation of NI at the off -site buildings near petroleum contaminated sites. As, indicated above, this screening and mitigation process Is based on the most likely scenario of a retaq petroleum fuel fadlity with a convenience store building, and that other off -site buildings are located 50 or more feet away from the location of the discharge. For other scenarios of discharges in which occupied buildings on off -site properties are in close proximity to the location of the discharge, more immediate soil vapor assessment and also mitigation measures may be necessary. Petroleum contaminated sites which atready have active remediation underway, or that wnl have active remediation implemented within 6 months, which will include provisions for soil vapor mitigation for all areas potenttalty affected (e.g, — vapor extraction system) are exempt from these procedures. Other eligible sites in funding range must perform the M screening, and mitigation measures if appropriate. The nature of vapor intrusion potential at non -petroleum contaminated sites, and in particular, chlorinated solvent discharge locations, may be very different from petroleum contaminated sites due to the chemical properties of the chlorinated chemicals and because they biodegrade much less readily than the chemicals found in petroleum products. For this reason, the Hazardous Waste Cleanup Section of the Bureau of Waste Cleanup has published separate Ni screening procedures which shoutd be used fo,r vapor intrusion screening at chlorinated solvent discharge sites. Assessment of Vapor Intrusion Rusk indicator Chemicals — petroleum fuels area mixture of many chemicals witty varying chemical properties. The chemical properties that directly affect a chemical's potential to cause a health risk due to Indoor vapor intrusion are volatility, solubility, and toxicity. For these reasons and due to the different fractions of chemicals In gasoline fuel compared to diesel fuel, sites with a gasoline dischaige have a signlicantty 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 chemkals, benzene Is the chemical in gasoline of most concern for the vapor intrusion pathway. For this reason and because of the conservative assumptions of the Tler I screening process for off -site buildings described below, only off -site buildings adjacent to petroleum contaminated sites with a gasoline discharge will Initially be subject to these Interim screening procedures for P11, and only benzene needs to be considered for the Tier 1 evaluation for gasoline discharges. If the site falls the tier 1 screening such that a more advanced screening evaluation for the off -site buildings invotvl ,; collection and analysis of soil gassamples becomes necessary, other chemicals found in gasoline fuel and listed In Table I will also need to be considered.. For M screening et the building of the property where the discharge occurred, significant vapors. may be generated from son contamination or free -phase product associated with a diesel fuel discharge, and therefore, if soil vapor screening is conducted at the source property the vapors generated by a diesel fuel discharge need to be considered. The B15 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 discharge and will be collecting soil gas samples from the plumes at selected sites to vaildate this presumption and will m require NI screening for off -site buildings associated with an off -site from a diesel fuel discharge if appropriate. lei Screenlrar for shot distance lateral vapor mar rr from step applies to the, source property building and off -site occupied bulldlrtgs less than discharge location. Contaminatedsoil and free product represent potential sources of relatively 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 dose proximity to contaminated son' or free product requires special consideration for ., G. ral migration of vapors through the unsaturated zone from the vapor source. Whenever 1) the location of the discharge Is within 5C feet of an occupied building at the source property or 2) Is greater than 5Q feet from the bulkling at the source property but the tanks and dispensers have a utility One connection with the occupied bu) • ng, or 3) if there is an off site occupied building within SO feet of the discharge location, the initial phase of the site assessment should include collection of shallow soil vapor samples (subsiab or near foundation shallow soli vapor) near the potentially affected building(s). Soil vapor samples should be collected while conducting other site assessment activities and must be collected In accordance with the attached soil vapor sample collection and field QA documentation protocol. The concentrations of Petroleum Product? Contaminants of Concern in the sample results should be compared with Schedule A of the attached screening Table 1. if the measured concentration b less than the screening criteria, the NI pathway due to vapor migration laterally from contaminated soil or free product which exists at the location of the discharge Is not considered to be complete and no further evaluation for Iill is necessary for these buildings. If the screening criterion for any chemical Is exceeded, it is recommended that a vaporextractlon system be Immediately Implemented at the source property to abate the source of the vapors, or that other mid'gatdon measures be implemented at each effected building (see section an Mitigation below). '-site diesel discharge ures in the future to contarrslnation plume Mimi of ni!titration meads at sites with an eligible - For funded sites, if the source property has an active petroleum storage system, Interim mldgatiisn mearsures t o ante vapors near the building foundation prior to the Implementation of active remedial action will not be fronded by the FDEP. 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 cornmercial building of a nature where the pubik 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 decision as to whether funding should be provided for interim vapor mitigation until active remediatl on commences will. be made on a rase by case basis. If vapors which exceed the screening levees in Schedule A of Table 1 exist in the shallow soli in contact with the foundation of an occupied offsite building foundation due to lateral migration of vapors from the source area of the discharge (contaminated soil or free product) mitigation measures must be Implemented' immediately and will be an allowable cost regardless of the building type. gccuoled bj j1ngs at off -site properties in the d1rect On of groundwater mleratIon — For off -site properties with occupied buildings greater than 50 feet from the iocatlon of the discharge, the Tier I evaluation for potential for !VI 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 be used to estimate the maximum groundwater concentration beneath buildings to conduct the vapor intrusion screening. Expienation of basis for Hier 1 Screening -There is moisnting consensus among persons that are knowledgeable regarding petroleum vapor intrusion evaluation that there is a very significant aerobic biodegradation contribution to attenuation of vapors between the groundwater table and the building foundation. However, quantitatively predicting the attenuation of petroleum hydrocarbon vapors between the groundwater table and the building foundation can be relatively complex, with considerations of soil type, gradation, and other ; -chemistry variables, concentration of target chemicals of concern (benzene) compared to total petroleum hydrocarbons in groundwater, background oxygen demand, and surface covering, among other considerations. Collecting 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. It is desirable to establish an Initial screening step which is based an data which is collected for off -site groundwater plume delineation under the existing requirements for site asseument of Chapter 62-770.600 to determine the vapor Intrusion pathway is not complete for a subset of the sites with off -site plumes beneath occupied buildings without incurring additional site Investigation costs. The screening 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 empirical data from contaminated sites in Florida and a relatively high reliance on various literature sources on theory of petroleum vapor intrusion and studies an petroleum vapor migration in the subsurface in other states. Therefore, at this time the Tier 1 screening curve is largely intuitively based. It is the intent of the BPSS to refine the Tier 1 screening curve based on data collected from contaminated 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 more empirically -based and less intuitively -based. Tier I -The first evaluation tier is relatively simple and inexpensive but is based on conservative assumptions. This screening step Is based on comparison of actual groundwater benzene canttntration end 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 concenturawt1on exceeds the benzena g our dwater CTI. (1 ug/L), th step Is not appropriate and instead the evaluation should proceed to tier2. Ifthe 1 water tab' depth is greater than 40 feet deep below the building foundation and the vapor source is dissolved phase groundwater contamination (not free product or soil contamination) then it is presumed that petroleum hydrocarbon vapors will not reach the'building foundation In concentrations of concern regardless of the dbsohved phase concentration of benzene or other petroleum chemicals. This evaluation should start with the mast likely Impacted building (Mlle) outside of the property that was the source of the discharge. The MLitt will have dwracteristics of being located close to the centerline 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. than any other offalte building. As indicated above, if the depth to contaminated groundwater fa less than 5 feet below land surface the Tier 1 evaluation is not appropriate and the M evaluation should proceed to Tier 2. The concentration of benzeenee beneath the Mile and the depth to groundwater below the building foundation should be estimated using groundwater monitoring data from wells in close proximity to the MLIB. Most buildings 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 building foundation. However, the building construction needs to be verified by at least a cursory examination of buildings In the vicinity during groundwater sampling events to Identify buildings with a basement. The Tier 1 screening should be performed using the attached Figure 1. The depth to groundwater below the building foundation and the benzene concentration coordinate for the MLIB shamd be plotted on the figtre. If the depth to groundwater below the building foundation is greater than 40 feet or the plotted coordinate Is to the right of the One on the figure the pathway is not considered to be complete for any offilte, buildings. However, for funded sites, In order to collect data to validate the Tier 1 scening curve, shallow soil or subslab soli :_; - 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 leg. —for 27' depth below building foundation, the Tier 1 curve screening threshold is approximately 5000 ug►'"L benzene. if the actual concentration for a site with the groundwater surface at 27 foot depth below the building foundation exceeds 4000 ug/l, soil gas samples should be collected anyway under the Tier 2 screening procedures described below). If the plotted coordinate fails to the left of the line on the figure, the evaluation of the MUB must continue with the Tier 2 evaluation described below. If the Mlle falls the Tier 1 evaluation then other buildings ranked by decreasing likelihood of NI potential based on the estimated groundwater concentration beneath the building foundation should have the Tier 1 evaluation performed until a buiiding is ldentifled for which the pathway is not complete. Ail buildings which failed the Tier 1 screening should proceed to Tier 2. Tier II There are two steps that noay doe followed far corropieting the Tier II evaluation and demonstrating that the Ni pathwaay is rat cxonmplete, Because of the nature of the biodegradation process In the subsurface, the presencoa of elevated cxygerw levels (near atmospheric levels) in the shallow soil Is a reliable indicator that petroleum vapors migrating upward from tha groundwater table have been virtually completely degraded before reaching that depth. Therefore the Initial step may be to measure the oxygen level In the shallow soli with a portable 02 meter. Beginning at the MUB, soli 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 soil gas samples collected from the shallow soil or subsia b probes is % or higher, then this will be considered an acceptable demonstration that the petroleum vapors are not in contact with the building foundation and therefore the NIpathway Is not complete and the NI evaluation is concluded. Far eligible sites, soil gas samples will be collected If the measured 02 level is _96 or less In order to collect empirical data to validate this screening criterion. if the 02 reading Is less than i, thls does not ne rlly mean that the IVI pathway is complete but It will be necessary to collect sail 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 soli vapor sample collection protocol and completing the sail gas sample log The vapor sample results should be compared to the screening criteria in Schedule A of Table 1. If the allowable shallow soil vapor concentrations are not exceeded, the NI pathway Is considered to be incomplete and the NI evaluation portion of the site assessment Is concluded. if the concentrations In the shallow sail gas at the MLIB exceed die allowable concentrations shown in Schedule A of Table 1, then the NI pathway may be complete and soil vapor samples should be collected at other buildings which failed the Tier 1 screening in an order ranked by decreasing likelihood of Ni potential based on the estimated maximum groundwater concentration beneath the building untll all buildings which fall the Tier 2 screening are identified. itgatim Within 30 days of identifyinupled building; which have faded the Tier 2 evalua recommendation for corrective action needs to be proposed to the FDEP. My of the following is an acceptable strategy. 1. Request approval of alien attve procedures to implementoff-site va of the Implementation of the overall active remediation strategy, to immediately concentrations and air pressure In the subsurface near affected off -site buildings. Is recommended, the installation of the vapor extraction system must begin within 60 dal authorisation by the FDEP. 2. Identify a schedule for expedited site assessment and preparatlon of a RAP for remedlation of the source property such that remedlation oaf 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 bslab depressurization system at each building which failed the Tier 2 acreaning. 4. The allowable subslab and shallow soil gas conceratratlons are based on a foundation attenuation rate of .1, meaning that it Is assumed the f©undat on (and other building characteristics) will allow vapor transmission to the extent that the vapor concentrations in the building may be 1096 of the soli gas concentration immediately beneath the buildins or In other words, the maximum allowable su'.w<lab or shallow soil vapor concentration to demonstrate the IVI pathway is not complete may be no greater than 10 times the allowable indoor air concentration. It may be possible to demonstrate the attenuation ability of the subslab Ls significantly greater than .1 (meaning attenuation coeffldent 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 specific foundation attenuation rate. If the reasured attenuation rate is greater than .1 (ratio of indoor air radon level to substab level is c .1), then site specific subslab or shallow soil 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 or shallow soil gas concentrations limits, the M pathway is not considered to be complete. 5. Collect Indoor vapor samples to determine whether the pathway is complete to the interior of the buildings that felled the Tier 2 screentng. This option is not recommended by the BPSS due to the confounding effects of background conditions In the building and the inability to control the indoor air sample environment of an occupied building. However, if this option Is selected, the Indoor air samples should be collected with 6 liter summa canisters fitted with a regulator to collect a composite sample aver a 24 hour sample period. The results should be compared to Schedule 8 of Table 1 to determine whether the IVI pathway is complete. If the Indoor air concentrations exceed the screening criteria of Schedule B of Table 1, one of the first 3 mitigation measures above must be implemented. deratlons at the 'lime of Site Rehabilitation Comaiaatlon If a rt9tte qualifies for No Further Action without Conditions for both soil and groundwater In accordance with the provisions of Rule 62.770.680(1), F.A.C., no further IVI conslderatinonsare n ry. However, if No Further Action Conditions is proposed and soli exceeding soil CTLs remains, or groundwater exceeding groundwater Ots remains which is less than 40 feet deep, then shailoW soil or subslab soil gas samples must be collected in the shallow soli at every occupied building on each property which has residual contamination 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 Rehabilitatkm with Conditions may proceed. If the concentrations exceed the criteria in Schedule A of Table 1, then site rernediatlon must continue until it is demonstrated that shallow soil vaporccncentratlons do not exceed the applicable criteria, or the engineering and/or institutional controls which are proposed will include a means to prevent vapors from entering occupied buildings on the affected properties.. FNMA 411rkxFf511r�A"'AI NMN'IYr'w Nt � N 'nAA1 mtiA1'TNINMM'IMOIR'nAn"'s[# wf111113IwN 3111 mromensnirtsvi 1^ANACMAMb'AAA'iw r n nwrw r>frr r rrrrr� wrs wa -- -a NNW Mal Miiiiiii Mil MI/ HIM HMIS IIMII12 A N N A 1 4 4 # U 1 T I 1 4 1 W N 1 1 4 I A A Y 11 I W r 4 N I 4 A 14 N 4 A 4 A A ISIMIMIIIIMMIRIUMMI p I A 4 i 4 1 1 i 4 i a A 4 µ i 4 a 4 A II 4 w 4 1 a 4 4 4 e 4 i N A N 4 4 A N N FN it w 1 i i A 1 I N 4 I I I 1 A A N A # 4 A 4 1 1 N A II A 4 U 4 4 4 Y I I M tl 4 1 I N 4 1 14 4 A l 14 A I i A N 4 4 A A I I N M..: 1 N A N N M # I A n N N 4 w Y A N 4 N Y * 4 I A 4 A N A A l M 1 1 A. 1 N I yWAINI AwII INI If IIt1IRPM NNW Ill Erma simnst!M I Nft•fNRI�'11 1I�'Aw��N4N NNNiNW"'NNNN'1AAY"A� ,y�®"�4t11RAA1"'tlA/N"Md4'IMN IIW"Me .1INIM1� IwwY'#41'f14'AMMM !' l '� I INtl AMM'41INANM' , . I � 1 e WWI MUMMIIUCH 1 N 4 A 4 1 I N 4 4 1 1 #.. P 1U A 14 1 1 4 1 A A A A 1 1 4 A 1 1 N A 4 4 N 4 A # 1 4 N 4 4 N 1 4 1 4 1. 4 4 k 4 4 N 4 4 4 7 IN N 4 1 4 Y I N 4 4 N T 4 1 4 4 4 1 1 e I. 1 1 A A N N N N N 4 A N. 4... A N A : A 1 4 A N 1 ## A'. A N A 4 4 4 k 1 4 1 I N. 4 I 1 4 Y 4 4 T., A N 4 A 4 1 Y A 4 1 4 4 4 4 U# 4 4 I M 4 W tl M N N N14'uNrw'illwewNNw'4r N. 4 N N A., N 4 W I 'wNw'n: A 4 r e, N 1 I 1, rwWw----AwwdNe.rwMN�"wr. � ', arm M'e��urw.... .�. N14 4 Yam„ !i'! , rr4rrwrAwAAr�� �m 4 1 A I 4 Y 4 p I A 4 Y w 1 1 4 N M 4 A wAl . iu'I��M��� 4 4 A N., N A', A 4 7 11 A 4# A 1 I', 1 n M 4 I. 1 4 NI 1 1 4 I A 1 4 a 1 1 1 A T I 4 7 1 1 1 1 1.. pl Y 1 4 4 4 1 1 E 4 N N N 4 I Y 4.:..4 M 4 4 N 1 a 4 4 1 4 7�MR��1�'�NIR t A A N N A 4 4 U 4 Y I 4 1 1 4 # 1 1 1 I E w l 4 1 w T N A 4 X 1 "N� I I i A I w I A A A 4 A 1. ''. a I N 4i 4 4 IM A 4 4# 4 N 1 1 I 1 M 4 4 E k T 4 4 4...1 I A 4 N A 4 a 4 A A 4 4 1 w I a N � 4., 1 N 4 w 4 1 4 w Y r 4 I 4 11 4 4 I A 4 1 4 1 1., a 4 4 I. 1'. 1 4 1 4 4 Y I N n 1 I 1 NI 4....4 a A 4 A N I'. 4 I l e 4 4 1 1 4 I N A I 4 # 4 p 1 4 MI 1 14 0. �ls.1At'IR7r gm mins mai mum WWI �i����I 1�''I�7„ 1.,Y�1� l' 1 ormolu" aM14AA'.'fMp'll�" "�Ni"I�'�" AIIII AAM'1MF 'tl IMV"MM'4l�fa�II�IA�>�Miiiiiali '�'iMN"��I'�1M4MMMIrN'll J AM WM ill MINIM"� 011111111111111 II�� �� 1 Y 1 U I Y I A t A 4 I 4# 4 I M I N M 1 A 1 4 E N 4 7 F' 4 E A 4 Y 4 A N 4 N 4 4 4 a 4 A 1 4 U 1 4 4 A A O w n 4 A, 4 I.1 d 41 A 4 NI N I 4 4 4 A 4 1 4 1 A 4 A. A 4 4 U A 1 4 w n N I N A I N I 1 N 4 1 4 N M I w 1 y I A 4 1 11 p A 4 4 4 4 N I I O ro 4 A I A 4 I 4 4 N 4 4 4 4 A r N 1 4 4 A 1 0. 1 U 7 4 N 4 14 I 4 N 4 N' I I # I I N 1 4 A 1 r 4 1 4 4 I I A A 4 4 A N U T w 1 T Y 1 4 4 4 / 1 I A 4 T I Y 4 1 N 1 N I 4 1 A N II 1 1 4 1 N I Y4NW Nc� rwnEwrrr 4N�1^.�.NIN'.lR'MM rNt ,tr^r4rNw1 "I w4 MIlllr'�I:M�� �Ir 'wrl" ti I ��: 1 w A 1•4 1. 1 N N.,. ■ rrrrirlr ,�r�AMAyYrlrlrr1 I,.,1 f 4 A T A 4 I# I M I NI N 4 4 EI N rl 1 N 1 4 4 Y N 1 4 1 1 14 1 4 T 4 4 4 4 N N w 1 4 A N I: w 0. N I I 1 N n 4 1 r A 1 4 w N N w Y 1 1 1 I 1 1 A T A IA AI r N N p AI N A 4 a l N I I N.I..I F A, A. N I T 1 1 4 II I. 1 A 4 4 N I. A 4 4 41...1 A 11 I N 4 E "', w A A 4 A I# 4 AN 4 4 A # U 4 1. N 4 A. N A 4 4 T 4 N., w 11 14 4 1 1 U I A N A A T 1. I W I T A._:A A 41..:1 I N I T 4 I 4 Y 1 1 w 4 / 1 N A 4 I NI 1 4 4 4 4 I physic Table 1 indoor Vapor Intrust an Screening Criteria Schedule A - Sbaliow soli gas and subslab vapor screening criteria Residential Cummerclal/lnduatrlal Chemical (WI/r Benzene •Toluene Ethylbenzene Xylenes MTBE benzo(b)fluceranth ana naphthalene 2-methylnaphthatene 3.1 4,000 22 210,000 30,000 0.12 30 700 Schedule B - indoor alr screening criteria Residential Chemical t 1m') Benzene `0.31 Toluene 400 Ethyibenzeene 2,2 Xyienes 21,000 MTBE 3,000 benzoib)liu l ene 0.012 naphthalene 3 2-rethylnaphthelerte 70 15.5 20,000 110 1,050,000' 150,000 0.6 150 3,500 0.06 15 350 Vbipor Sarripllr#g Protocol sample coile The following equipment and ma risk will be utilized for assembling samnpltng apparatus for vapor sample collection after a vapor sample probe has previously been Installed: - Varlable speed sampling air pump capable of < 100 mi/min flaw rate or arm variable speed pump with throttling capability and flow meter Pressure gauge Vacuum gauge Tee valve Shut off valve Teflon or polyethylene tubing (1/8 inch cr1 fncch diameter?) PID or FID (Pi0 preferable) Portable helium detector Portable landfill gas meter*: r 02, CO2 j and CH4 1 Liter Summa canister fitted by the laboratory with vacuum gauge and critical orifice flow regulation device sized to allow sample collection over a 10 minute sample collection time tedlar bag (optional) Canister of helium 1 am (under deirela Pu roll Select a purgir rate. Maximum flow rate for both purging, and sampling be 100 mVminute or less. Purge rate = PR ml/minute Calculate system volume (5V) of downhole sampling tube to screen and volume of sample apparatus tubing—SV nil Calculate purge volume (PV) = 2X calculated SV, PV mi = 2X SV mi Calculate purge duration (P0) _ (PV mi) / (PR mi/minute) Conduct initial leaktest of sampling apparatus ihWith valves at Summa canister and sampling probe both at the dosed position, turn on sampling pump and check for whether air flaw rate is detected. If air flow Is detected!, check flttings or replace tubing and recheck until no air flow rate. Record vacuum gauge reading. Conduct purging by opening sample port and running air pump for calculated PD at PR (100 ml/rminute or less) Measure and record 02, CO2, and CH4 during purging Near the end of the purging, period check the VOC vapors with a PND or %iD by running purge air through the OVA. Purge flow rate may briefly Increase above 1C0 mI/min while OVA reading is determined. Record OVA reading.. Prior to sample collection a hood constructed of a boat, plastic bag or 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 isopropanal and placed around surface seal of sampling port. Shut off purging air pump. Record initial Summa canister vacuum reading and open valve on Summa canister. Record start time of sample co'gectlon. Chedc helium readings during sample collection. Of reading indicates air concentration Is a 10 % heursuspend the sample cofiectlon and reseal sample port. Start over with a new summa canister.) Sumrna canister will be fitted by the laboratory with vacuum gauge and critical orifice flow regulation device sized to allow sample collection over a 10 minute sample collection time. Shut off Summa canister valve between 8 and 9 minutes so that there is residual vacuum left In the Summa canister.. Residual vacuum should be apprc drnateiy 1 to 5 inches of Hg.. Record residual vacuum. Calculate volume of sample collected (sample time X sample flow rate) and record. If sampling with a tediar beg instead of Summa csunilster, coraikect tedlar bag downstream of air pump after purging 1s concluded and co me sample collection at c 100 ml/min pumping rate. Complete sampling log and chain of custody firm and send sample to lab for analysis with EPA method TO-15. Thoroughly decontaminate valves, fittings, vacuum gauge, al r sampling pump and other meters with "zero" air provided by laboratory. Discard apperstus tubing downstream of sampling port end use new tubing for next sarnitle event.. SOIL GAS ; AI P"LIN LOG FACILITY NAME: FDEP FACILITY ID t FACILITY LI qT ON GAT% AUI°IIIC PRBUIE Rom' NI# PRE CI1PITATIt I rsahee). VYXND CgVI ITICI SAMPLE LC iTIf !NI II)ENTIFII"ATUChtc D ); FIELC L» NAME(j 1AEFIL� EIi3IIATUI (I): PURGING DATA 1UIIINL# N4ATERIAI. TiI1IrINQ I fa ) TIIIIIN(B ( ): I CEkNp'V R' X halt 1 Imo: N G VI7 UBIE IIti APPARATU81►C I'�rter�dad pr2r8lnp voh LNIdE + TIJBINQ V4II II4IE 'a 2 e u9lpnae l viol urr�a) PURGING IN ITiATEI AT: Pt 1NI3 END AT: PUKE RATE ( ) I TKITAL VI3L ` OVA READING AT END OF PURGE i. 9I, rI (Or* one), ' x % or (cIrde ) AIETFIANE % er f er 6) TVA Tlrna Reading Til ue TUBING MIDI INN (aIiIIllerellirewrfx1 A WR WP Rl r 114" •0.8; IIII9" 1II.1; I lI"' B2 T; VT ■ 37.9; For ether dia(R' X ll18 Atilfhaear fcaf IIfE'" ■ IId,1I SAMPUNO DATA C11NtIAINRR TYPE (cIr a ens). TEDLAR EAt# SUMMA CANISTER " IBAMPLE CONTAMIER SIZE (drab one) 1 LIT"ER 8 LITER (TITER ( a EAMPLINO II ITfATEI] AT: ENS AT: I C0NTAIN1r'R F1 III RATIr EI MMAw CA1III)T R I)'NLY t sTAFTITNt9 VACUUMM PARE ENI)INr VACUUM P Inoue Kg or Iredwrrw HBCI I I18 or Inches (dI ene) (oi tia awe) MATERIItrL USED (d cis I .IUIWI1 AI+ICI. OTHER gip). 8 IXIBE (Nirale and Y deislle be NCM Exhibit E {00001271.D0a. 1} Michael Goldstein From: Justin Hofmeister Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2012 1:46 PM To: Justin Hofmeister Subject: FW: 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 -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 siteIJT-528 Good Afternoon Enriqu 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 2nd 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 contact me. Regards, Gabriel Garcia, El., Hydrogeologist II Miami -Dade County Permitting, Environment and Regulatory A Pollution Control Division/Pollution Remediation Section Overtown Transit Village 701 NW 1st Court, Your Location (4th Floor), Miami, Florida 33136 (305) 372-6700 www.mlamidadesiovinera "oelivering Excellence Every Day" Please consider the environment before printing this email. Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail M0RAN'DpM TO: Judie Kean, Program tlanager Bureau of Waste Cleanup, F'DER FROM: M. Paul voight, Project Suuperviaor State Administered Cleanup Program Pollution Prevention and Control Diviaion uni'V�,�' April 21, 1992 SACP Site assignment for IRA only The fo owxno conduct IRA/tank removal. a d to ?DER for asaig:aauent consideration to »iea only: Ramirez 66 1245 SW 2 Avenue Miami, Florida 33130-4213 DER FAC No. 138841817 DERM UT- i528 This site is currently approved for State Cleanup but has a low score (11). Fuel sales were diacontinued July 1989. Dissolved contamination was documented by DERN in January 1990 (8enz/BTEX In 846/2195). Some product remaina in tanks; posaible ongoing discharge. DERM is presently pursuing enforcement action for non -properly abandoned tanks (four gasoline tanks, one waste oil tank and one kerosene tank). Affidavit atatea owner is 76 year old widow with no aaaets for tank reaeoval or abandonment. Seventeen year lessee recently abandoned facility; owner wishes to sell property but cannot afford to comply with DERN requirement of tank removal. lease let me know if this site is acceptab MPV: SAC —FT ER aaemos/9AC 05:2 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 ADDRESS; 1245 SW 2ND AVE MIAMI FL 33130 MIAM I-DADE CONTACT: SOURCE: FL DEP SITE INFORMATION OPERATOR:JESUS RAMIEREZ NAME 'UPDATED:10/17/2003 ADDR UPDATED:04/25/2006 BAD ADDR INDICATOR:N RP ID:50329 RP ROLE:ACCOUNT OWNER RP BEGIN:06/23/2000 NAME:BRICKELL TRADING POST INC 1245 SW 2ND AVE MIAMI FL 33130 PHONE:(305)856-14 5 DISCHARGE INFORMATION DISCHARGE DATE:07/16/1988 COMBINED: SCORE11 SCORE DATE:11/04/1997 CLEANUP REQUIRED R - CLEANUP REQUIRED WORK STATUS:ACTIVE DISCHARGE CLEANUP STATUS:RA - RA ONGOING INFO SOURCE:E - EDI OTHER SOURCE: SITE MANAGER: MANAGER END DATE: TANK OFFICE: - APPLICATION R EC D:11/4/1988 EUGIBILITY STATUS:E ELIGIBILITY DATE13/1/1990 LETTER OF INTENT: EUG LETTER SENI03/01/1990 REDETERMINED:N INSPECTION DATE:06/30/1989 DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNT. DED PAID TO DATE:0 CO PAY AMOUNT: CO -PAID PAID TO DATE:0 CAP AMOUNT: UST INFORMATION THIS SITE IS CURRENTLY REGULATED BY CHAPTER 62-761, FA.C. REV: 7/18/12 ID1: 138841817 ID2: 8841817.00 STATUS: FACILITY OPEN PHONE: (305) 856-1455 - Continued on next page - Site Details Page - 7 Environmenta Site Detai Target Property: 1026 SW 2ND AVE MIAMI, FL 33130 FirstSearch Report JOB: FrL-ii -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 (D2: 8841817.00 MIAMI-DADE STATUS: FACILITY OPEN CONTACT: PHONE: (305) 856-11455 SOURCE FL DEP TOTAL NUMBER OF TANKS: 6 TANK INFORMATION TANK 1D:1STATUS:OPEN TVI:TANKDEP CO:NO INSTALLED:STAT DATE: TK STAT:B - REMOVED CAPACITY(GAL):2000 CONTENT:6 - UNLEADED GAS PLACE:UNDERGROUND TYPE A - RETAIL STATION TANK ID:2STATUS:OPEN TVI:TANKDEP CO:NO INSTALLED:STAT DATE: TK STAT:B - REMOVED CAPACITY(GAL):2000 CONTENT:6 - UNLEADED GAS PLACE:UNDERGROUND TYPE:A - RETAIL STATION TANK ID:3STATUS:OPEN TVI:TANKDEP CO:NO INSTALLEDOI-JUL-11960STAT DATE: TK STAT:B - REMOVED CAPACITY(GAL):4000 CONTENT:B - UNLEADED GAS PLACE:UNDERGROUND TYPE:A • RETAIL STATION TANK ID:4STATUS:OPEN TVI:TANKDEP CO:NO INSTALLED DATE: CAPACITY(GAL):4000 CONTENT:B - UNLEADED GAS PLACE:UNDERGROUND TYPE:A - RETAIL STAT(ON TANK ID:5STATUS:OPEN TVI:TANKDEP CO:NO INSTALLED:01-APR-2000STAT DATE:01-APR-2000 TK STAT:U - IN SERVICE CAPACITY(GAL):12000 - Continued on next page Site Details Page - 8 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 BRICKELL TRADING POST INC DRESS: 1245 SW 2ND AVE MIAMI FL 33130 MIAM1-DADE CONTACT: SOURCE FL DEP REV: 7/18/12 ID1: 138841817 ID2: 8841817.00 STATUS: FACILITY OPEN PHONE (305) 856-1455 CONTENT:B - UNLEADED GAS PLACE:UNDERGROUND TYPE:A - RETAIL STATION TANK ID:6STATUS:OPEN TVI:TANKDEP CO:NO INSTALL E D:01APR-2000STAT DATE01APR-2000 TK STAT:U - IN SERVICE CAPACITY(GAL):12000 CONTENTS - UNLEADED GAS PLACE:UNDERGROUND TYPE:A - RETAIL STATION 5F - FIBERGLASS CLAD STEEL 5M - SPILL CONTAINMENT BUCKET 5N - FLOW SHUT-OFF 5P - LEVEL GAUGES/ALARMS 5R - DOUBLE WALL - TANK JACKET 6F - FIBERGLASS CLAD STEEL 6M - SPILL CONTAINMENT BUCKET 6N - FLOW SHUT-OFF 6P - LEVEL GAUGES/ALARMS 6R - DOUBLE WALL - TANK JACKET PIPING INFORMATION TANK ID:DESCRIPTION: 5C FIBERGLASS 5F - DOUBLE WALL 5J - PRESSURIZED PIPING SYSTEM 5K - DISPENSER LINERS 6C - FIBERGLASS 6F - DOUBLE WALL 6J PRESSURIZED PIPING SYSTEM 6K - DISPENSER LINERS MONITORING INFORMATION TANK IDDESCRIPTION: 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 DK WALL TANK SPACE 6G - ELECTRONIC LINE LEAK DETECTOR 6K - MONITOR DBL WALL PIPE SPACE 6N - GROUNDWATER MONITORING Site Details Page - 9 Exhibit F (00001271.DOCX.1) BRkerWARD 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 954-7054804 EAR SECTION STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE FOR DEWATERING (Revision 3, Effective December I, 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, ES., 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] 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 1 "Contaminant" is defined in Section 27-352, Broward County Code Broward County Board of County Commissioners Sue Gunzbu ar • Ka tin D. Jacobs • Albert C. Jones • Kon Keecht • Ilene Ueberrnan • Stacy Ritter • John E. Rodstrorn, Jr. • Plana Wasserrnan•RubIn • Lols Wider www.broward.org EAR SECTION STANDARD OPERATING Page 2 of 7 PROCEDURE FOR DEWATERING 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 L attached. Please note that Exhibit I does not address the tank upgrade exemption as detailed in the previous section. I. 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 in 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 ILA. of this SOP for the dewatering location, 2. The information outlined in Section MB, 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. IL 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 interne at http://www.broward.org/ pprd/contaminated_sites.htm. Broward County Board of County Commissioners Sue Gunzburger • Kristin D. Jacobs • Albert C. Jonas • Kan Keechl • Ilene lieberrnim Stacy Ritter • Jahn E. Rodstrons. Jr. • Dian asse -Rubin • Lois Wexler www.broward.org EAR SECTION STANDARD OPERATING Page 3 of 7 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 http://dwmedms.dep.state.fl.us/Oculus/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 (Le., wellpoint, deep well, open hole, etc.), 3. Anticipated dewatering flow rate, 4. Total dewatering duration, 5. Method of effluent discharge, 6. Controls (Le., 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 II.E, 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 [I.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 II.B.) will not affect contaminant plumes. There are two (2) acceptable methods for providing this technical justification: I. 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 II.C.1.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.I.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 Broward County Board of County Commissioners Sue Gunzburger • iOtin D. Jacobs • Albert C. Jonas • Ken Kaechl • Ilene Lieberman Slacy Ritter • John E Rodstrom, Jr. • Diana Wasserman-Rubln • Leis Wender 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 clvanlandingham®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 data2. (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 staff prior 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 .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's. 2. Groundwater modeling within a three-dimensional computer model utilizing SFWMD data or approved aquifer test data. The model framework must utilize I) 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. 2 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 iI.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. 8roward County Board of County Commissioners Sue Gunzberg er • Kristin a Jacobs Albert C. Jones • Ken Keectd • gene Ueberrnan • Stacy Ritter • John E. Rod , Diane Wasserman.Rbin • Lois We er www.broward.org 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 all 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 maximum. 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. If 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. lf conductivity data vary within a layer then submit a file in .txt, .xls, or .shp 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 .xls format or as a Surfe .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 map coordinates, screened interval, observation point elevation, and all water table elevation measurements. 1. 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 flow 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 11.C.1. of Broward County Board of County Commissioners Sue punzburger • Kristin D. Jacobs • Albert C. Jones • Ken Keechl • liana Lieberman • Stacy Ritter • John E. Rodstrom. Jr. • Diana Wasserman•Rubin • Lois Wexler www.broward.Org EAR SECTION STANDARD OPERATING Page 6 of 7 PROCEDURE FOR DEWATERING this SOP indicate that the radius of influence is less than the distance to the nearest contaminant plume, 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 II.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 points, 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 11.C.1. 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 II.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., sheetpile 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 available5. 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 staff shall 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 II.B.6., 11.B.7, and II.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. Broward County Board of County Commissioners Sue Gunzburger • Kristin D. Jacobs • Albert C. Jones Ken Keechl Ilene Lieberman Stacy Ritter • John E. Rodstrom, Jr. • Diana Wasserman -Rubin • Lois Weider www..browaal.org EAR SECTION STANDARD OPERATING Page 7 of 7 PROCEDURE FOR DEVVATERING References Chapter 27 of the Code of Ordinances Broward County, Florida. Tallahassee, Florida: Municipal Code Corporation, 2001. Driscoll, Fletcher G. Groundwater and Wells (Second Edition), St. Paul, Minnesota: Johnson Filtration Systems, Inc., 1986 Fetter, C.W. Applied Hydrogeology (Third Edition). New York, New York: Macmillian College Publishing Co., 1994. Geraghty & Miller, 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 Ftidder, N.A., Analysis and Evaluation of Pumping Test Data. Wageningen, The Netherlands: International Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement/1RJ, 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 Difference Groundwater Flow Model o f the Surficial Aquifer System, Broward County, Florida. West Palm Beach, Florida: Technical Publication 92-05, 1992. Waterloo Hydrogeologic. Visual MODFLOW Pro (v.3.0.0). Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. Sue Gunzberg r • Kristn D. Broward County Board of County Commissioners bs • Albert C. Jones • Ken Keectd *flute Lieberman • Stacy Ritter • John E. Rodstrom. Jr. • Diana Wasserman -Rubin •Los Wexior www,broward.org