October 31, 2007
The Lighthouse Point Group, Inc
PO Box 295
Two Harbors, MN 55616
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
525 Lake Avenue South, Suite 400
Duluth, MN 55802
Attn: Mr. Mark Elliot
RE: Phase II Investigation Report
Light House Point Property
South Avenue & Third Street
Two Harbors, MN
VIC No. V19930
Dear Mr. Elliot,
Mr. Jeffrey Dickson, and environmental scientist and geologist, of Finland, MN was retained by the Lighthouse Point Group to review and comment on the Phase II Investigation Report of the Light House Point property prepared by American Engineering Testing, Inc. (AET). Mr. Dickson has over 25 years of experience involving Superfund, Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA), Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS) and other environmental investigations and assessments. Mr. Dickson and the Light House Point group have met on multiple occasions, and this letter expressing our concerns regarding said report is the result of these endeavors.
Throughout the AET report we have identified specific portions of the Phase II investigation that we feel constitute misinformation, inaccurate statements, questionable methodology or mistakes in reporting. Any of these irregularities, if not corrected, may result in confusing, misleading or false conclusions concerning characterization of the Lighthouse Point property. Additionally, the bulk of our concerns are not what the report directs us to observe, but rather what was not investigated or disclosed.
Starting with section 1.2, the AET Conclusions, and then proceeding through the various sections of the report, this letter examines statements, tendencies, findings, conclusions and exclusions that have given us cause to address. AET report statements are expressed in Italics.
Section 1.2 CONCLUSIONS
1) “There appears to be little to no contaminant impacts to the native soils.”
Incorrect: Of all the sampling conducted on the property only 2 samples appear to have been collected in native soil and both of those showed contamination. The AET statement cannot be made based on their findings.
None of the 19 surface soil samples were collected in native soils. The surface soil samples were collected from between 6 to 12 inches in depth. It is known that topsoil fill was brought in to cover the site to cover debris and to promote vegetation growth. According to the test pit logs, native soil was encountered between 3 to 12 feet below grade. No surface soil samples were collected in this interval. Of the 26 test pits completed, only 12 had samples submitted for laboratory analysis. Of those 12, only two samples were collected from areas that may be construed as native soil, discovered under the fill. The remaining samples were all collected from within the fill. The two samples of possible native soil that were analyzed from test pits 12 and 13, showed contamination from arsenic close to or above the Tier II Residential Soil Reference Values (SRV).
2) “The phase II investigation results indicate variable concentrations of arsenic and DRO (diesel range organics) across the property, especially in the surficial soils.”
Misleading: What is striking is not what contaminants were found, but the list of those that were never looked for.
A former industrial (Brownfield) site such as this one where uncontrolled dumping may have taken place should have had the priority pollutants (all inclusive) scan run. Instead only a very scaled down and edited group of compounds and analytes were tested. There appears no justification from examining past land use practices, site history and previous investigations to make these exclusions.
3) “The seep water appears to be impacted…and eventually discharges directly to Lake Superior.”
Misinformation: The seep water WAS impacted and is very possibly a groundwater discharge location into Lake Superior, located a few feet away, and also within the immediate vicinity of the drinking water intake for the City of Two Harbors.
Questions that need to be addressed are: Is this seep water actually groundwater that is discharging to the Lake? What does eventually mean? How fast is the groundwater moving? Is groundwater impacted by the contamination? How close is the city of Two Harbors drinking water intake to the point of groundwater discharge? Even with dilution effects from Lake Superior, could the contamination pose a threat to drinking water?
4) “…the nature of identified contaminants is related to the historic use of the property…”
Confusing: Much of the historic appears to have been reviewed by AET following the completion of the site sampling events.
Much of the historic information provided to AET was given to them almost two years after the final workplan was approved by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and this historic information (the Lindahl report) was not utilized until after the samples had been collected. Would timely access to this information have altered the sampling strategy and possibly suggested a more extensive list of parameters? Again how can one purge the sampling list of analytes and compounds without justification?
5) “…tar was only encountered in one test pit on the PROPERTY suggesting its occurrence is localized.”
Incorrect: According to AET pit “boring” logs four test pits (not one) encountered tar. See descriptions from pit logs for test pits 12, 15, 23 and 24.
6) “In general, the majority of the fill is impacted with residual arsenic and DRO.”
Misleading: Here again, as with the surficial soils, what is striking is not what contaminants were found, but the list of those that were never looked for, especially those of toxic a nature. The fill material was characterized by AET as demolition debris, however close scrutiny of the AET pit logs also indicates incineration, metal smelting and sintering waste.
7) “The arsenic and much of the DRO impacts are suspected of being related to fugitive coal dust.”
False Conclusion: The association with coal dust doesn’t sound so bad… but arsenic could also be associated with mining wastes, pesticides and wood preservatives. DRO is non-specific and could come from a number of sources, such as fuel oil.
8) “Elevated benzo(a)pyrene (a PAH compound) concentrations coincided with the presence of coal tar in TP-15, TP-22, TP-23 and TP-24.”
Curious: The report said that tar was found only in one test pit, TP-12 and it is odd that there were no PAHs detected in the sample submitted from TP-12 from where tar was identified. Additionally, Benzo(a)pyrene is a known carcinogen and its occurrence concerns us.
9) “The majority of the contamination at the PROPERTY exists in the northeastern portion of the property…”
False conclusion: This situation may exist because the majority of the sample locations were situated in the Northeast portion of the PROPERTY, not necessarily due to the occurrence of contamination. This is selective sampling and not characterization.
Section 1.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
10) “We recommend, as a precaution any existing uncontaminated soil that is excavated and transported off of the PROPERTY for reuse as fill, be placed on a site designated for industrial or commercial use.”
Curious: No clean areas were determined via laboratory sampling and field screening is not viable confirmation testing.
Are there any portions of the site known to be uncontaminated that we are or are not aware of, for example the native soils that were never tested? And how will it be determined if soil to be removed for fill is clean?
Curious: If uncontaminated excavated soils are only recommended for non-residential fill use, how can anyone seriously suggest that onsite soil, both clean (if any) and contaminated soil (throughout the site) be allowed in an area designed for residential use, such as the Lighthouse Point Property?
Section 2.1 PURPOSE
11) There were 11 bullets in the AET report describing what items: environmental conditions, surficial soil quality, fill contaminant issues (both soil and groundwater), fill type, extent and volume of fill material, the two asphalt tank areas with potential soil and groundwater contaminant issues, an associated tar seep delineation, oil changing ramps, lumber yard areas, former explosives storage areas, various petroleum contamination areas, ……were necessary to address in order for the MPCA to issue a Certificate of Completion, No Further Action Letter, and/or No Association Letter.
Questionable Methodology: We feel that the purpose should have been to characterize a Brownfield type industrial site, that in many respects may be an uncontrolled toxic waste site with unknown quantities of hazardous waste and materials. This characterization should be carried out with the full realization that this site will be a residential housing area in the future and to see if it is suitably safe for human habitation. Additionally, the purpose should be to determine if contaminations located within the site have impacted groundwater, which apparently discharges directly from the site into Lake Superior, via onsite seeps. The City of Two Harbors drinking water intake is located adjacent to the property in question.
Section 2.2, SCOPE OF SERVICES
12) “In addition, (3) composite surface samples were acquired from the 19 sampling locations and tested for semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and organochlorine pesticides.”
Incorrect: IN FACT according to the chain of custody for the surface soil samples, which was completed and signed by AET personnel: 1) No composite samples were collected. 2) Pesticides were only analyzed from one location. 3) PCB’s were only analyzed from one location. 4) No instructions were given to the laboratory to run the SVOC analysis on any of the surface soil samples. (See comments Section 5.3.1 of this letter.)
13) “one soil sample from each test pit where contaminated soil appears to be present…”
Inaccurate: Let’s take Test Pit 21, for example. No samples were submitted from this location even though the test pit log indicates a mixture of ash, cinders, concrete and brick. This would appear to contain contamination. Why was no sample submitted from this location?
14) “The Workplan included analysis of groundwater collected from test pits.”
Questionable Methodology: This method of groundwater collection is highly unusual and is generally not recommended.
Groundwater sampling methods are widely known and sampling groundwater from an open pit is not encouraged and if sampled would most likely be characterized as a surface water sampling event. Groundwater sampling at best should be conducted by the proper installation of monitoring wells, followed by proper well development, followed by the purging of standing water volumes, and utilization of sampling techniques designed to minimize sample disturbance. At the very least, groundwater can be sampled using a device such as a geoprobe.
Section 2.3 METHODOLOGY
15) “Professional judgment and interpretation are inherent in the Phase II Investigation process and uncertainty is inevitable.”
Curious: We feel that professional judgment and interpretation in this report is wanting and the uncertainty issue is truly an understatement, especially concerning the information, or rather lack there of, presented in this report.
Section 3.0 BACKGROUND
Just a few comments here in addition to previous comments about timely utilization of historic and background information and its use in determining a sample collecting strategy.
16) With respect to the city rock quarry operations: Why wasn’t the issue of materials of explosive concern (MEC) and explosive chemical constituents brought up in regards to the powder houses?
17) With respect to the Asphalt mixing area: These operations (typically) have been associated with the disposal of PCB and consequent use of that PCB in the final product. Why wasn’t potential PCB use mentioned?
18) With respect to the Tar tank areas: What was this tar used for? A possible tar use is for preserving or treating wood for rail ties or pier and dock construction. Is this tar Creosote?
19) With respect to the lumber company: Did any treating or preserving of wood take place here?
20) With respect to the auto maintenance area: Were any other liquids drained and disposed of other than oil, such as antifreeze or fuel?
21) With respect to the numerous segments of rail lines throughout the site: How were the weeds keep? Pesticides? 2,4-D?
22) With respect to the characterization of city demolition debris/ land filling operations: Rebar, concrete, wood, shingles, asphalt, nails, glass…. okay, but not ash, cinders, slag…? These are not demolition debris. These were derived from a separate source. Were municipal incineration wastes, coal fired generator wastes, or mining byproducts resulting from smelting or sintering of metal affiliated with this waste stream?
Section 3.5 PREVIOUS ASSESSMENTS
23) With respect to previous assessments: Have there been any other sampling events at the site in addition to the Phase II and geotechnical investigations performed by AET? Some conditions are presented in the AET report as being known, such as the presence of Arsenic at the site, without references to how it was known to test for it. Please qualify.
Section 4.3 RATIONAL FOR SELECTING SAMPLING LOCATIONS
24) “Based on historical use of the property, and previous sampling and analysis results, the Phase II Investigation included analyzing soil and groundwater for one or more of the following chemical parameters…”
Misinformation: What groundwater analysis? No groundwater was collected for analysis at the site.
Section 4.4 FIELD SCREENING
25) A photoionization detector (PID) and visual observations were apparently relied upon to determine which of the 26 test pits were to be sampled or not sampled.
Questionable Methodology: It is well known that a PID, if properly utilized, is a fine screening tool and visual observations can spot stained or discolored soil or other suspect areas of contamination, but these techniques are no substitutes for laboratory analysis. A PID is only useful for organic vapors and then only those exhibiting ionization potentials less than that of the lamp being utilized. A PID does not detect inorganic compounds, such as Arsenic, or metals, such as lead or mercury, or aliphatic hydrocarbons, such as parafins. A PID is subject to inaccurate readings in high humidity conditions. Soil sampling performed in cold weather temperatures, such as those collected by AET in late November of 2006 at the Lighthouse Point Property, need to be warmed prior to analyzing with a PID otherwise the VOC’s won’t offgas. A PID should be regularly and often calibrated. A PID is not compound specific, but rather gives a composite reading of organic vapors present.
Section 4.5 SOIL SAMPLE COLLECTION FOR CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
26) “Appropriate field blank samples were also collected and submitted for chemical analysis.”
Misinformation: No field blanks or trip blanks submitted for any soil samples. See Chain of Custody.
27) On the test pit locations map (Figure 4) it is indicated by the symbols next to the test pit location that samples were collected from test pits 11 and 21.
Inaccurate: No Lab data is provided from these test pit locations. Is this a mistake in graphics?
Section 4.6 SURFACE WATER SEEP
SAMPLE COLLECTION FOR CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
The table (no number) in this section lists a heading for groundwater analysis.
Inaccurate: NO groundwater analysis was conducted. Was this a mistake in graphics?
Section 5.3.1 LABORATORY ANALYSIS
28) “SVOCs, PCBs, and pesticides were not detected in surface soil samples.”P
29) “SVOCs, PCBs, and pesticides were not detected in the soil samples submitted from the test pits.”
Misleading and Inaccurate: The SVOC scan was not analyzed by the laboratory for any of the surface soil samples. IN FACT, only one sample from the entire site testing was analyzed for SVOCs (TP-12).
An abbreviated portion from the SVOC list, the PNA/PAH scan, was run instead at the rest of the sample locations. Of the 64 or so compounds comprising the SVOC list the PNA/PAH group consists only of 18 compounds. This means in all but one sample 46 compounds were not analyzed. Using this sampling approach, many compounds, including phenols, cresols, et al are missed.
PCBs: Of the 26 test pits, only 12 had samples submitted, and only two, TP-12 and TP-1 had the samples run for PCB. Of the 19 surface soil sample locations only one SS-14 had PCB run. Neither tar tank areas nor the asphalt mixing areas were addressed for PCB.
30) Pesticides: Only two locations TP-6 and SS-8 had samples run for pesticides. None were collected from the Lumber Company area, a potential source.
31) Explosives: No sampling was conducted to address materials of explosive concern or explosive chemical constituents including nitrates or perchlorates, possibly associated with the Powder Houses.
32) Herbicides: No herbicide, such as 2,4-D, sampling was conducted even though herbicides were and are traditionally used in association with railroad properties.
33) Dioxin: No sampling was conducted at the site to address Dioxin, a very toxic chemical. Residues from coal fired generating plants, municipal waste incineration, metal smelting and sintering operations, paper industry and even backyard burn barrels are all known sources of Dioxin. A contaminant associated with the herbicide 2,4-D is a source of dioxin. Ash, cinders, slag, wood products are all present on the property.
34) Asbestos: No sampling or investigation was initiated for Asbestos materials. Asbestos materials may be present in construction or demo debris, such as floor tile, pipe insulation or transite.
Laboratory Quality Control (QC) concerns documented by Pace Laboratory.
For each sample group Surface Soils (SS), Test Pits (TP) and Seep Samples, the Pace Analytical Sample Manager described certain samples within each sample shipment that exceeded holding times, (expired) thus rendering the sample data questionable. It is customary and even required by many consultants to ship samples overnight delivery either the day of sampling or very latest the following day. What was the disposition of the samples between the time they were sampled and the time they arrived at the lab? In some cases samples were sitting around for 10-12 days before being delivered to the lab. What were the storage conditions of the samples during this lag time? Were the samples refrigerated?
In summary, the testing which has been done so far for the Phase II Light House Point Investigation is an insufficient investigation of the contamination problems of this site, and there are many questions regarding the quality and validity of the testing process. We as a citizen’s group request that another more thorough investigation be completed before anything further action is allowed for this site.
Your attention to this matter is appreciated.
Sincerely,
Mary Lundgren
Treasurer
The Lighthouse Point Group