2015_0511_CCPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

May 6, 2015 Page 3 of 1 1 #1794), and a 12,000-gallon diesel UST (release #16046). According to previous reports, the releases received regulatory closure; however, the conditions of closure are not specified. According to the closure letter (release #16046), "If future development of this property or the surrounding area is planned, it should be assumed that petroleum contamination may sfill be presenf." In addition, according to online informafiion for release #1794, contaminafed soil remains on site. Additional review of regulatory files will be required to determine continuing obligations (if a�plicable) material handling requirements in this area of the site. 3. In 2006, 15 soil borings and 18 test pits at the property were completed, including soil and groundwater sampling in certain areas. In total, 12 groundwater samples and 8 soil samples were sent to the laboratory for chemical analysis. The chemical analysis was limited to volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in all samples and petroleum hydrocarbons (diesel range organics and gasoline range organics) for select samples. VOCs were detected in groundwater in the northeast portion of the site. The consultant concluded that the source of VOCs, which were above regulafory limits at fhe time, was off-sifie (potenfially fhe ODFL or PIK Terminal property). This investigation also identified diesel range organics in groundwater near the leaking underground storage tank. Both areas of groundwater contamination were identified within the local aquifer (approximately 45 feet bgs), and not the perched groundwater table (approximately 7 to 15 feet bgs). The perched groundwater table was only tested for VOCs. Methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) was reported in three of the soil samples, but was reported by the consultant as laboratory contamination (see below). Based on the historic use, additional chemical characterization of the soil and groundwater will likely be required prior to on or off- site management of material. 4. Several closed spill incidents are known at the site, including Styrene Monomer, hydrogen peroxide, and methyl ethyl ketone (MEK). Note fihat MEK was detected in soil during the 2006 site investigation; although it was reported as a laborafory contaminant, and nofi from a contaminant source on sife. 5. Although not identified as concerns in the most recent environmental report (2012), numerous environmental listings (including releases) were mapped within the database report within 500 feet of the site. Additional review may be warranted. • MPCA Comment: How will stormwater be collected and discharged? ROSEVILLE's Comment: Response to this bullet is not required. RAMAKER Comment: Response to this bullet has not been provided. • MPCA Comment: How did the traffic study find that there would be minimal traffic impacts to the existing roadway network? Did the study take into consideration traffic during construction? ROSEVILLE's Comment: Response to this bullet is not required. RAMAKER Comment: Response to this bullet has not been provided. 8A. & B. FISH, WILDLIFE, AND ECOLOGICAL SENSITIVE RESOURCES MPCA Comment: Were the appropriate agencies contacted for this information? Documentation should be provided. ROSEVILLE's Comment: Just indicated that ROSEVILLE did send worksheet to US Department of Fish and Wildlife and MN DNR. RAMAKER Comment: ROSEVILLE reports that they did send worksheet to US Department of Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). ROSEVILLE notes that on May, 1, 2015, ROSEVILLE received a"no comment" (No Effect) summary from the DNR. While ROSEVILLE notes that they are still pending a response from the USFWS, the Informal Biological Assessment of Federally-listed species in Ramsey County, Minnesota (completed by RAMAKER on May 5, 2015), resulted in a finding of "No Effect". As such, RAMAKER feels it appropriate to opine that the proposed site development acitvities will result in "No Effect" to listed or proposed threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat. The project is unlikely to jeopardize the continued existence of any proposed endangered or fhreafiened species and is unlikely fio resulf in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitats, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to fhe Endangered Species Act of 1973.