CC PACKET 11082022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

In August and October 2017, a subsurface investigation was conducted at the Property and included the advancement of eight soil borings and three hand-auger borings within the building footprint. Fifteen soil samples were collected and analyzed for Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) metals, VOCs, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and diesel range organics (DRO). Soil samples were impacted by dibromochloromethane and cis-1,2-dichloroethane. While PCE was not detected in soil samples analyzed by the laboratory, field readings of soil samples near the historical drycleaner facility revealed elevated headspace readings as measured by the photoionization detector (PID); therefore, it is likely that PCE exists in the soil and was volatilized during the collection process of the lab sample. In addition, there is a potential for fill soils with debris to be present at the Property. Groundwater was impacted by benzene, PCE, TCE, and cis-1,2-dichloroethene at concentrations greater than the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) drinking water criteria. Three sub-slab soil vapor samples were collected within the building footprint and four soil vapor samples were collected from the parking lot area with various non-petroleum VOCs detected including PCE and TCE at concentrations greater than 33x the MPCA’s Industrial Expedited Intrusion Screening Values (EISVs) and vinyl chloride at a concentration greater than the MPCA’s Industrial Intrusion Screening Value (ISV). Soil vapor was also impacted by elevated levels of cis-1,2-dichloroethene; however, an ISV has not been established for cis-1,2- dichloroethene. To assess the risk of vapor intrusion inside the existing bank buildng, paired sub-slab and indoor air sampling was completed in February and March 2018. Five sub-slab vapor samples and five paired indoor air samples were collected from within the existing building, five soil vapor samples were collected from the parking lot parking, and one ambient air sample was collected outside the building. Laboratory results identified sub- slab and soil vapor impacted by numerous non-petroleum VOCs including PCE, TCE, dichlorodifluoromethane, and cis-1,2-dichloroethene. Indoor air samples were less than the MPCA’s Industrial ISVs. 5. Has a party (or parties) responsible (RP) for the contamination been identified and, if so, is the RP assisting with cleanup costs? If not, please explain. The historical drycleaner occupant, Pilgrim Cleaners, has impacted soil, groundwater, and vapors at the Property with PCE and TCE. Based on the dry cleaners’ occupancy many years ago, seeking cleanup funds at this point is not likely feasible or practical, especially in a redevelopment scenario.