HomeMy WebLinkAboutRESPONSE - RFP - 8151 BROWNFIELDS ASSESSMENT CONSULTANTSTATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS AND PROPOSAL
8151 Brownfields Assessment Consultants
August 18, 2015
1
OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY
TRC Environmental Corporation (TRC) is a multi-disciplinary, full-service
environmental consulting firm with Colorado offices in Fort Collins and
Lakewood and over 40 years of diverse environmental experience. We
understand the intent of the Fort Collins Brownfields Program is to
develop and implement creative strategies to support redevelopment of
sites in the North College Avenue Corridor in support of infill, reuse, and
redevelopment of the Poudre River/North College Innovation District. The
overall goal is to eliminate blight, spur job creation, and improve
environmental conditions and public health in the communities in which
we work, live and play.
The TRC Fort Collins office is located in the old Harmony Mill at the
corner of Lincoln and Willow, across from Ranch Way Feeds. This historic
building is located within the Poudre River Corridor/River District
between two active rail lines, adjacent to one historic rail line included as
a potential location in this proposal. Our Fort Collins office has a staff of 14,
representing a broad diversity of technical disciplines pertinent to this project, including engineers, geologists, risk assessors
and scientists. The TRC Fort Collins staff has direct ties to the community, intimately understands the history and dynamic of
downtown Fort Collins, and has personal and professional experience with the area of interest for this proposal.
Key factors that distinguish TRC for this contract include:
• Nationwide EPA Brownfields expertise. TRC has worked on over 100 Brownfields Grants, and is currently working
on 18;
• A local office in Fort Collins, located within the North College Avenue Corridor area. Our location minimizes travel
related expenses, ensuring City Grant monies are spent on technical work and a substantial percentage will remain in a
business located in the City;
• In-house staff to perform a wide variety of related services including hazardous building materials
surveys/inspections, human health and ecological risk assessment, natural resource and wetland surveys, archeological
studies, civil engineering and environmental permitting;
• Strong, long-standing relationships with the regulatory agencies (EPA and CDPHE) and a project team broadly
experienced in Brownfields programs. Several members of our project team have played key roles in projects selected
for EPA Brownfields Phoenix Awards;
• A commitment to sustainable practices to reduce the demand placed on the environment during site assessment and
remediation;
• Partnering with a local Fort Collins community outreach and public relations firm, A-Train Marketing
Communications, Inc., to provide creative and strategic marketing solutions designed to gain results for clients;
• Local technical experts experienced in collaborative communication with the public and regulatory agencies on complex
technical situations, which has proven invaluable on projects where developing community support and mitigating
potential adverse reaction is critical; and
• A thorough understanding of the financial tools available for Brownfields redevelopment, including Community
Development Block Grants, Revolving Loan Funds (RLF), and Cleanup Grants, and knowing how to successfully leverage
funds for redevelopment.
1. METHODS AND APPROACH
TRC uses a redevelopment-based approach to assess and position Brownfields projects for cleanup and redevelopment. TRC
has been recognized as a leader in assisting communities to position properties for redevelopment. We will bring this expertise
to the Fort Collins North College Avenue Corridor area utilizing the adaptive reuse knowledge gained on working with our
existing Brownfields grantees. TRC staff’s recent redevelopment projects in Colorado and Region 8 have leveraged millions of
dollars in public and private funding. Our approach to Brownfields Assessment and Redevelopment is flexible to accommodate
Fort Collins’ program goals, community concerns, and provide creative remedial solutions to conditions that may arise at sites
assessed under your program.
STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS AND PROPOSAL
8151 Brownfields Assessment Consultants
August 18, 2015
2
SUSTAINABILITY
At TRC, sustainability is a fundamental principle that drives our business. Our commitment is reflected in our Vision Statement
that guides us every day:
“We will solve the challenges of making the Earth a better place to live, community by community and project by
project.”
Our integrated approach to solutions is focused on balancing economic growth, social responsibility, and environmental
stewardship through the entire project life cycle. Through our creative and forward-looking approach to the market, we strive
to continually create value for our clients, who, more than ever, are striving for a balance between the need for economic growth
and protecting the environment for future generations. TRC’s sustainability program is overseen by a cross-functional
committee led by our CEO and made up of representatives from all areas of our business to support the progression of our goals.
Our Board of Directors provides oversight and direction to the Sustainability Committee initiatives and identified targets and
objectives. Additional details of TRC’s commitment to sustainability and how we strive to meet this commitment can be
found at: http://www.trcsolutions.com/about/sustainability.
SCOPE OF WORK
TRC’s approach addresses the requirements under the EPA Brownfields Program as well as the Fort Collins Brownfields
Program needs. An overview of the approach is discussed below with respect to the scope of work identified in the Request for
Proposal (RFP).
Task 1 – Grant Administration/Cooperative Agreement Oversight
TRC is intimately familiar with all of EPA’s reporting and closeout requirements. The following will be completed during the
oversight of Fort Collins’ cooperative agreement:
• Quarterly reports summarizing the progress, anticipated events, potential problems, and possible solutions;
• WBE/MBE submittals updating EPA on the percentage of the grant spent on WBE/MBE subcontractors;
• Financial Status Report providing EPA updates on the financial aspects of the grant;
• Maintaining the Assessment, Cleanup, and Redevelopment Exchange System (ACRES) database as assessments planning
and community outreach are completed; and
• Prepare final reports, grant closeout materials, and maintain site project files.
TRC routinely provides these services to our numerous Brownfields clients across the country.
Task 2 – Public Outreach
Jointly with our subcontractor, A-Train Marketing Communications, Inc., TRC will work with the Brownfields coalition to
develop materials and disseminate information through a series of six meetings during the course of the grant period to ensure
that the public is provided with information related to Brownfields Assessment efforts and results. Beyond the work conducted
via stakeholder meetings, our community outreach and engagement strategy process will help us identify the most effective
ways to reach target audiences and encourage 3rd-party advocacy including: identification of appropriate advertising; PR
activities based on needs and budget; media relations activities; event promotion and planning; grassroots marketing initiatives;
materials needed; etc. We will organize a project kick-off meeting with the Fort Collins Brownfields Partners to discuss available
background information, anticipated end-uses, priorities and deadlines, and community concerns for each site selected as part
of the program. Periodic planning and progress meetings will be held to update interested parties. An effective Brownfields
Community Outreach program ensures that the public takes a positive view of both the process and the results.
TRC has developed several strategies, patterned after approaches used by EPA, to inform and engage the community and solicit
input and acceptance. Fact sheets, public meetings, and use of local media, are all effective in educating the community on
Brownfields issues. TRC staff have designed and implemented community education and stakeholder involvement programs
for 30 EPA Brownfields programs (over 100 individual sites). TRC will use the same proven public outreach approaches that
we have effectively used on our previous and existing Brownfields programs.
• Development of a Public Participation Plan
TRC and A-Train Marketing will work in collaboration with the City of Fort Collins and stakeholders to create innovative
redevelopment strategies and a strategy for building public awareness and support. A-Train Marketing is known for
development of strategic communications that build instant intrigue and community rapport. Understanding the level of
knowledge that the community has about the Fort Collins Brownfields Initiative is a very important aspect of designing a
STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS AND PROPOSAL
8151 Brownfields Assessment Consultants
August 18, 2015
3
successful engagement campaign. An example of a Public Participation Plan (Community Engagement Plan) TRC prepared
for a county Brownfields coalition is attached as a work product sample.
• Website Development
A-Train Marketing will custom design a fully dynamic, design template and seamless navigation tool, including: home page
design; sub-page template design based on home page; design of hover effects, drop-down menus, OL/UL, link effects, etc.;
prepare all design files for HTML coding and programming; and create an easy-to-use WordPress backend CMS (Content
Management System) database that allows the user to make changes and updates.
• Brochure Design
A-Train Marketing specializes in cause-focused branding and graphic design, and will create a dynamic set of brochures that
are both informationally sound and audience appropriate. Examples of a TRC designed brochure/poster for a city’s transit-
oriented development and an A-Train Marketing designed brochure for Platte River Power Authority are attached as work
product samples.
Task 3 – Site Identification and Selection
TRC understands there are often more sites in need of funding than available resources. Much of our EPA Brownfields
experience has been gained by managing programs for communities where TRC has developed a proven approach to identify
and prioritize sites for assessment and remediation planning that optimizes the pace of redevelopment.
TRC will work with Fort Collins to initially identify 12-15 Brownfields sites in the targeted areas. We anticipate development
of a prioritized list of redevelopment-ready sites to eliminate blight, spur job creation and improve environmental conditions
and public health in the communities. We will work with the City of Fort Collins’ geographical information system (GIS)
department to display the locations of the prioritized list of sites on a GIS map of the region. If the City of Fort Collins’ staff are
constrained for resources, we can utilize our experienced GIS department to supplement existing maps or we can create
additional GIS maps. We will prepare EPA’s Site Eligibility Determination Forms for the highest priority sites as a guide in
understanding eligible properties prior to submitting for EPA approval.
Task 4 – EPA Coordination and Site Approval
TRC understands working as part of a team with numerous municipalities and governmental entities is crucial to program
success and optimizing every dollar spent. TRC will work with the City Fort Collins and other team members including private-
property owners, CDPHE, EPA, concerned residents and property developers/community.
• Working with Private-Property Owners
Any Brownfields redevelopment program has the potential to affect the interests of private-property owners. TRC will work
to obtain access agreements and provide direct, open, and honest communication with owners to establish credibility and
gain local support for the project.
• Coordination with CDPHE
We have found that close coordination with CDPHE is paramount to a project’s success. For example, for the Elatti Light
Rail Maintenance Facility site in Englewood, Colorado, TRC staff met with CDPHE, the local developer and the City several
times throughout the remedial planning and design stages to ensure rapid development of the site. We will work with the
City of Fort Collins to develop a cost-efficient, focused approach for each site that will result in gaining rapid EPA and
CDPHE approval.
Task 5 – Site Assessments (Phase I) & Site Investigations (Phase II)
• Phase I Environmental Site Assessments
TRC will look for cost savings by grouping site visits, interviews, file reviews etc., wherever possible. TRC will secure an access
agreement prior to beginning work. Up to twenty (20) Phase I ESAs will be conducted in accordance with the new American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E1527-13 standard and EPA’s All Appropriate Inquiry (AAI) Rule. TRC’s site
assessment professionals have already completed hundreds of ASTM Phase I ESAs in accordance with the E1527-13 standard.
A sample of an ASTM 1527-13 compliant Phase I ESA prepared by TRC is attached as a sample work product. The Phase I ESA
was part of a submittal to Mr. Fonda Apostolopoulos of CDPHE’s Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) in support of a request for a
No Action Determination (NAD) at the St. Francis Health Center located in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS AND PROPOSAL
8151 Brownfields Assessment Consultants
August 18, 2015
4
The primary elements of the Phase I ESAs completed for the City of Fort Collin’s Brownfields Program will include:
Interviews with past and present owners, operators, and occupants;
Reviews of historical sources of information;
Searches of recorded environmental cleanup liens;
Reviews of federal, state, tribal, and local government records;
Visual inspections of the facility, if present, and of adjoining properties; and
Preparation of a final report documenting the Phase I ESA.
The written report will summarize the procedures and findings of the assessment and TRC will advise Fort Collins about which
sites should be selected for a Phase II ESA. While we anticipate up to 10 Phase II ESAs, we understand the need for a flexible
Brownfields program.
Phase II Environmental Site Assessments
TRC will prepare a scope of work and cost estimate for the City of Fort Collins to review
and approve each site selected for Phase II ESA testing. Upon agreement of the scope, TRC
will prepare a Site‐Specific QAPP and SAP for each site.
Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) / Site‐Specific Quality Assurance Project Plan
(QAPP)
TRC will prepare a generic QAPP for EPA Region 8 approval upon award of the Brownfields
Contract. Our experience with EPA Region 8 allows us to draw on prior approved QAPPs,
ensuring efficiency. Once the Region 8 generic QAPP has been approved, TRC will prepare
a Site SAP for each site selected for Phase II assessment which will serve as the
investigation work plan for each site. Each SAP will include proposed sampling locations,
sampling rationale, sampling and analysis strategy, analytical procedures, data management, and other quality control measures
required by EPA and/or CDPHE.
TRC will design the Phase II sampling plans to determine if contamination actually exists at suspect locations identified in the
Phase I report.
Health and Safety Plan (HASP)
Work performed on a hazardous waste or petroleum contaminated site must be performed in accordance with a site‐specific
HASP. TRC has streamlined HASPs to minimize our development time yet provide invaluable information to help ensure the
safety of our staff and the surrounding community (e.g., police detail, appropriate signage when working in or near a street).
Phase II ESA Report
Up to ten (10) Phase II ESA reports will be prepared and submitted to Fort Collins, CDPHE, and EPA for review and
comment. The reports will summarize the procedures and findings obtained during the investigation including figures and
tables depicting sampling locations, analytical results, and general site conditions. We will use ARCmap GIS to generate graphics
for inclusion in the report. Appendices containing boring logs, field logs, analytical data, and other pertinent information will
be included. The reports will include an evaluation of potential environmental concerns at the site and recommendations for
further action to facilitate the site redevelopment.
Human Health Risk Assessments
The goals of TRC’s risk‐based approach are to identify the potential exposure pathways of greatest concern, reduce exposure
point concentrations by removing the areas of highest contaminant concentrations, if necessary, and minimize active
remediation by managing remaining unacceptable risks through the use of Environmental Covenants (deed restrictions) or
engineering controls. To support this effort, TRC has two risk assessors in our Fort Collins office to evaluate re‐use options and
cleanup strategies to meet Fort Collins’s redevelopment goals.
Task 6 – Remediation Plans
TRC has extensive experience in conducting practical, sensible cleanup planning based
upon the site’s intended re‐use and identified contaminants. In general our analysis will
identify and evaluate the potential reuses, liabilities, cleanup criteria, remediation costs,
and timeframe for implementation and completion. We anticipate the completion of a
STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS AND PROPOSAL
8151 Brownfields Assessment Consultants
August 18, 2015
5
preliminary evaluation of cleanup alternatives and estimated costs for up to 8 priority sites within the study area.
TRC has developed a streamlined approach to conduct feasibility assessments on Brownfields sites where the end use is known
and the primary concern is soil and/or groundwater contamination that cannot be addressed through engineering or
institutional controls. Since there are so-called “presumptive remedies” for sites with contaminated soil and groundwater, TRC
will focus on the most applicable technologies, rather than expend resources on other technologies that may be either
impractical or too time consuming to implement.
TRC will also bring in our remediation technology experts for sites requiring complex remediation or technologies to mitigate
vapor intrusion. TRC’s remediation engineers will work with you to identify the most reasonable remedial alternatives, and
assess which is best suited for a particular site. Where appropriate, TRC can fold demolition tasks, including pre-demolition
studies, hazardous materials management, public safety, and end-use analysis into the cleanup alternative analyses.
Task 7 – Final Report Preparation
Deliverables for this program will vary with the number and types of sites assessed. In each case, a draft deliverable (including
reports, plans, and other materials) will be prepared for review by the City of Fort Collins, CDPHE, and EPA. Comments will be
addressed and incorporated into a final deliverable. For reports and plans, we anticipate an electronic copy will be provided to
the City of Fort Collins and an electronic copy will be provided to CDPHE and EPA.
2. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
A pioneer in groundbreaking scientific and engineering developments since the 1960’s, TRC Companies, Inc.
(http://www.trcsolutions.com/) is a national engineering and environmental consulting firm with over 2,800 employees in 90
offices across the United States. Incorporated in 1970, TRC is the oldest environmental firm on the New York Stock Exchange
(NYSE: TRR). TRC Environmental Corporation (TRC) is a portion of our publicly-traded corporation, TRC Companies, Inc., and
was incorporated in 1971. We have been a leading provider of technical, financial, risk management, and construction services
to government and industry clients across the country for the past 42 years.
TRC has been involved with the EPA Brownfields Program since 1996 and brings practical experience providing consulting
support, site assessments, remediation and cleanup planning, and community outreach in over 80 EPA-funded Brownfields
Programs across the country. We are well equipped to provide the City of Fort Collins with our extensive expertise and national
network that enables us to deliver valuable insight in anticipating and overcoming obstacles associated with Brownfield
assessment, cleanup, and redevelopment.
TRC’s Brownfields team understands the steps to support a successful Brownfields program including collecting information
for successful community outreach, Brownfields inventory, site eligibility, Phase I ESAs, QAPPs, Phase II ESAs and the expertise
to prepare reuse planning documents and assist developers with redevelopment options. We will apply what we have learned
on over 300 other Brownfields sites to assist you in balancing the interests of CDPHE, EPA, concerned residents, property
developers, and the community. Locally and within the region, TRC’s proposed staff for the City of Fort Collins program have
played significant roles in major Brownfields redevelopment projects. Several project examples are highlighted below.
Elati Light Rail Maintenance Facility – Englewood, CO
TRC personnel performed Phase I and Phase II
environmental evaluations in conjunction with the
construction of a light rail transit maintenance facility to
service the Southwest and Southeast Corridors of metro
Denver’s light rail system. Due diligence identified areas
of environmental concern in a historically industrial area,
including one large ironworks facility that had been in
operation for over 80 years. Demolition of the foundry
included asbestos surveys, abatement, confirmation
sampling, and disposal of universal wastes. Perimeter air
sampling was conducted during the demolition phase due to the sensitive nature of the surrounding neighborhood.
Approximately 30 percent of the project was funded by an EPA Brownfields grant for the City of Englewood. Approval of
the facility remediation plans for closure of the site was granted through the State of Colorado’s VCP. The success of this
project resulted from multi-agency negotiations, comprehensive public relations and communications, integration of GIS and
Before After
STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS AND PROPOSAL
8151 Brownfields Assessment Consultants
August 18, 2015
6
coordination with numerous stakeholders. Not only was the project completed on time, but also integrated the beneficial reuse
of the offsite waste – resulting in a savings of approximately $2 million. As a result of the project’s overall success, it was selected
for a 2007 Brownfields Phoenix Award for EPA Region 8, signifying excellence in Brownfields redevelopment.
Former Refinery Assessment/Redevelopment – Casper, WY
TRC personnel performed site assessment,
remedial alternative evaluations, remediation
planning and implementation, and participated in
regulatory negotiations at a former refinery in
Casper, WY. After the refinery ceased operations in
1991, the EPA began overseeing the refinery’s site
cleanup, located in the heart of a city and adjacent
to a major river. TRC personnel helped the owner
develop and negotiate a new site remediation
strategy that included a risk-based remediation
approach, innovative green remedies, and an
integrated property reuse plan. The revised plan established attainable cleanup requirements, reduced cleanup costs, restored
the property to productive use, and satisfied stakeholders in a sustainable and environmentally-friendly manner. Ultimately,
the client was awarded the prestigious Brownfields Phoenix Award, which recognizes excellence in Brownfields redevelopment.
TRC staff were key contributors to innovative approaches, including:
• Creation of a reuse agreement for the site with involvement from the community;
• Integration of cleanup into a Brownfields arena which allowed a risk-based approach to remediation and redevelopment;
• Transition of the cleanup from EPA to the state’s voluntary remediation program;
• Outlining a strategy for cleanup of a very complex site within 3 years;
• Utilizing a collaborative decision making process with the site’s owner, regulatory agency and community
stakeholders all being involved in determination of the end-use for the site;
• Attained cleanup standards consistent with a recreational user versus unrestricted use standards, which resulted in the
development of a business park and recreational facilities within the site including the golf course, white-water park, and
community trails.
Former Gas Plant Urban Waterway Redevelopment – Fort Collins, CO
TRC staff were involved in the cleanup and
redevelopment of an urban waterway in a highly
visible, community sensitive area along the Cache La
Poudre River in close proximity to Fort Collins city
center. Construction of a groundwater cut-off
barrier and restoration of the river bed and adjacent
park lands was completed while maintaining strong
communications with the community, EPA, and
other stakeholders. The proactive cooperation with
the public and private interests was highlighted by
local news stations because the successful
remediation, which resulted in reuse of the area as a city park and nature area, and enhanced the appeal of the area for
future growth.
The EPA and a local community had concerns about the presence of a tar-like non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL) in an urban
river. An analysis of the site area showed that a former manufactured gas plant (MGP) site and municipal landfill was located
adjacent to the river. After the shutdown of the MGP site and the landfill, the site area was redeveloped as a community center,
park, athletic fields, businesses, and a day care center.
To characterize environmental impacts from the city landfill and surrounding properties, both the local community and the EPA
conducted Targeted Brownfields Assessments involving soil and groundwater sampling investigations. As part of these
investigations, NAPL seeps in the riverbed were discovered. Once aware of the situation, the utility worked with TRC staff to
define the extent, magnitude, and characteristics of the tar-like substance in the river sediments and bedrock.
Before After
Before
After
STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS AND PROPOSAL
8151 Brownfields Assessment Consultants
August 18, 2015
7
Based on investigation results, a screening-level human health risk assessment and the needs of the community, TRC staff
worked with the utility company and the EPA to define the overall cleanup to remove impacted sediments from the river and
bedrock, and prevent the continued migration of NAPL into the riverbed.
A summary of relevant local project experience for our TRC staff includes:
3. PROJECT PERSONNEL
Our Brownfields Project Team is qualified, experienced, and committed to applying our Brownfields expertise to your Program
and will work closely with you to generate programmatic documents, assess targeted sites, develop strategies to reach cost-
efficient closure, and achieve the redevelopment goals.
TRC Program Management and key staffing members include the following:
Steve Haverl, PE, PG, Project Manager, has over 40 years of diverse geotechnical and environmental experience with an
emphasis on site remediation and Brownfield redevelopment, including several projects that were selected for Brownfields
Phoenix Awards. An abbreviated description of his relevant experience includes:
• Project Director for Denver’s RTD corridor environmental assessment that included over 40 Phase 1 ESAs and 5 Phase 2
ESAs. A train maintenance facility was developed on an abandoned foundry and the environmental work was partially
funded by a Brownfield grant. This project was selected for a Brownfields Phoenix Award.
• Principal in Charge of the Poudre River Response Action in Fort Collins that deployed a multi discipline team that evaluated
alternatives and designed and installed a remediation system to restore a stretch of the river impacted by tar seeps from a
former industrial plant. The project was conducted in a time critical manner during a river low stage cycle and the river
banks were restored to natural habitat.
Ben Taucher
Former Chairman, City of Casper/
Natrona County Joint Powers Board
Casper, WY
307-262-2288
Bill Voshell
Former Environmental Manager
Lafarge North America
770-843-3456
WVoshell@argos-us.com
David Howard, CHFM
Former Director Facilities
Penrose St. Francis Hospital
719-351-2310
daviddon34@centurylink.net
Reference Contact Information
Site Name Location
Phase I/II ESA
Site Specific QAPP
Haz Mtls-ACM & LBP
Hydrocarbon
Impacted
Railroad Site
Soil/Groundwater
Risk Assessment
Eval of Cleanup
Community
Engagement
Site Reuse
CDPHE / VCUP
EPA Region 8
Casper Former Refinery Casper, WY X X X X X X X X X
Denver Wood Treating Site Denver, CO X X X X X X X X X
Elati Light Rail Maintenance Facility Englewood, CO X X X X X X X X X X X X
La Junta Rail Yard La Junta, CO X X X X X X X X
Mason St. RR ROW Fort Collins, CO X X X X X X
Multiple O&G Facilities Weld County, CO X X X X
STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS AND PROPOSAL
8151 Brownfields Assessment Consultants
August 18, 2015
8
• Project Director for the remediation and redevelopment of a former, abandoned refinery proximal to the downtown
business district for the City of Casper. Major elements of the remediation systems were included in redevelopment
amenities such as a white water rafting venue, golf course and engineered wetlands. The project was recognized for
engineering excellence by the American Council of Engineering Companies and selected for an EPA Brownfields
Phoenix Award.
• Project Manager for the Phase I/II ESAs at a former hospital in Colorado Springs that was impacted by a large scale heating
oil release. The site was then enrolled in the CDPHE’s VCP. Site specific data was used to demonstrate that the site did not
pose a risk to human health and the environment. CDPHE granted the property a No Action Determination, clearing the
way for transfer of ownership and redevelopment.
Kelley Race, PG, LSP, Senior Brownfields/Sustainability Advisor, is a Brownfields Program Manager, coordinating
assessment, cleanup, and remediation activities across the United States. She strategizes with communities, regional planning
commissions, nonprofits, and developers on Brownfields redevelopment including repurposing and adaptive reuse utilizing
sustainable initiatives. Over her 25 year career, Ms. Race has managed over 200 Brownfields projects including those funded
with EPA Brownfields Assessment, Cleanup, and RLF monies. Ms. Race works with Brownfields grantees to assess and cleanup
sites focusing on creative redevelopment options/strategies for highest and best use. She coordinates with EPA and state
regulators and conducts public/community outreach activities. Her focus is to incorporate sustainable and green initiatives
during the assessment, remedial, and reuse process. She has assisted numerous communities in developing funding strategies
for Brownfields sites where EPA assessment dollars were leveraged to obtain EPA cleanup monies, RLF sub-grants and loans to
support anywhere from small redevelopment programs to multimillion dollar projects.
Jenny Phillips, Principal-in-Charge, is the TRC Mountain Unit Lead for environmental consulting and remediation activities.
Located in Fort Collins, Colorado since 1980, Ms. Phillips will ensure staff are committed and available for the project and that
the Fort Collins and Lakewood TRC offices are fully accessible to the City of Fort Collins. As a toxicologist, Ms. Phillips has
worked on several projects where site redevelopment was key to the project success. She routinely works with state and
federal regulatory agencies on the potential human health and ecological risk issues with a focus on community involvement
and public acceptance. Ms. Phillips worked on both the Casper and Fort Collins projects highlighted above.
Additionally, other key TRC Colorado staff members supporting the project will include:
Sub-Consultants:
A-Train Marketing Communications, Inc. (http://atrainmarketing.com/), a local Fort Collins firm, will support TRC with
Community Outreach and Marketing for the project. Gretchen Gaede founded A-Train Marketing Communications, Inc. in 1998
as a women-owned business (WBE) with a mission of helping drive the greater good through creative and strategic marketing
and public relations solutions that are designed to gain aggressive results for clients worldwide. A-Train Marketing stands out
from its competitors by providing proven results relating to the development and implementation of strategic
communications and public outreach initiatives that are derived from research and insight gathering to target audiences,
create awareness, inspire action, drive loyalty, and ultimately resulting in financial gain and social impact. At their core, A-Train
Marketing is dedicated to community action and engagement, which aligns very well with the overarching goals defined by the
Brownfields Assessment RFP.
We have assembled a team of people with highly advanced and specific skill sets in order to meet our clients’ expectations and
evolving needs. Additionally, we have extensive experience working with thought leaders, municipalities, stakeholders, and key
constituent groups to inspire action and work productively toward a common goal. We are a high-touch, agile agency, meaning
Team Member Role
Jason Jayroe - Sr. Project Geologist Project Safety, Site Inventory and Investigation, Grant Administration/Reporting
Thomas Kreutz, P.E. - Principal Engineering for Remediation and Reuse Planning
Fritz Leonard - Sr. Project Scientist Asbestos and Lead-based Paint Surveys-Hazardous Materials Assessments
Scott Lesikar - Sr. Technical Staff Geology/Hydrogeology for Site Assessment, Remediation and Reuse Planning
Sue Milcan - Sr. Quality Assurance Officer Quality Assurance/Quality Control, Data Management
Bob Reinhart - Sr. Project Scientist Phase I/II Environmental Site Assessments
Laura Trozzolo - Sr. Risk Assessor Risk Assessment for Remediation and Reuse Planning
Jeff Wong, P.E., LEED AP - Sr. Technical Staff Engineering for Remediation and Reuse Planning, Sustainability
STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS AND PROPOSAL
8151 Brownfields Assessment Consultants
August 18, 2015
9
we can respond in person, quickly, to project and communication needs. We deliver direct feedback and communication
regarding project timelines and what is being done currently and in the near future to move projects along.
A-Train Marketing is most successful working with companies and organizations that have a mission-critical message to deliver
and information that must reach the public for the overall benefit of the community. For example, A-Train Marketing provided
campaign branding, design, messaging, publicity, website design, advertising, strategic planning, communications
planning and community outreach for FortZED, a partnership of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado Clean Energy Cluster, and
Colorado State University. The website A-Train Marketing developed for FortZED can be viewed at: http://fortzed.com/.
4. ORGANIZATION CHART/PROPOSED PROJECT TEAM
5. AVAILABILITY
The proposed staff for this project are available and will be committed to meeting the schedule expectations provided in the
RFP. In addition, TRC is available for an on-site interview in Fort Collins the week of September 11 or for an oral interview the
week of September 18, 2015.
6. RATE SCHEDULE AND COST ESTIMATE
Labor Categories Hourly Rate
Principal $175
Project Manager $155
Senior Technical Staff/Risk Assessor/Quality Assurance Officer $135
Senior Project Engineer/Geologist/Scientist $120
Project Engineer/Geologist/Scientist $95
Gretchen Gaede A-Train Marketing Communications, Inc. $95
CADD/GIS Technician $75
Staff Engineer/Geologist/Scientist $72
Project Support/Administrative Staff $60
STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS AND PROPOSAL
8151 Brownfields Assessment Consultants
August 18, 2015
10
H - Assessment of Hazardous Substances P – Assessment of Petroleum Substances
Contractual Grant Funding: $494,000
TRC Estimated Costs: $464,000
Estimated Used Funds: $30,000 (unallocated funds may be used to support Phase I/II activities or other tasks)
VENDOR STATEMENT
I have read and understand the specifications and requirements for this Request for Proposal and I agree to comply with such
specifications and requirements. I further agree that the method of award is acceptable to my company. I also agree to complete
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT with the City of Fort Collins within 30 days of notice of award. If contract is not
completed and signed within 30 days, City reserves the right to cancel and award to the next highest rated firm.
FIRM NAME: TRC Environmental Corporation
ADDRESS: 131 E. Lincoln Avenue, Suite 200, Fort Collins, CO 80524
EMAIL ADDRESS: JKPhillips@trcsolutions.com PHONE: 970.484.3263 Ext. 15962
BIDDER’S NAME: Jenny Phillips
SIGNATURE:
PRIMARY SERVICES ISSUES CONTACT: Jenny Phillips, Practice Leader
TELEPHONE: 970.484.3263 Ext. 15962 CELL: 970-402-7326
EMAIL: JKPhillips@trcsolutions.com
Task Hours $ Subcontract Travel
Direct Total
Task 1 - Grant Administration ($11k-H/$11k-P) 194 $21,790 $0 $0 $210 $22,000
Reporting 70 $8,500 $0 $0 $110 $8,610
Records Management 40 $3,950 $0 $0 $0 $3,950
Requests for Reimbursement 84 $9,340 $0 $0 $100 $9,440
Task 2 - Public Outreach ($10k-H/$25k-P) 150 $18,410 $13,000 $3,000 $590 $35,000
Meetings 60 $7,240 $4,000 $1,500 $220 $12,960
Develop Marketing Materials 14 $1,810 $4,000 $0 $170 $5,980
Outreach Programs 16 $2,120 $4,000 $0 $0 $6,120
Public Meetings (Phase II Sites) 60 $7,240 $1,000 $1,500 $200 $9,940
Task 3 - Site ID and Selection ($22k-H/$22k-P) 426 $43,700 $0 $100 $200 $44,000
Site Inventory 244 $25,510 $0 $100 $100 $25,710
Site Prioritization 182 $18,190 $0 $0 $100 $18,290
Task 4 - EPA Coord. & Site Approval ($3k-H/$3k-P) 50 $5,958 $0 $0 $42 $6,000
Task 5 - Site Assessments ($216k-H/$103k-P) 2370 $203,300 $98,460 $0 $17,240 $319,000
Phase I Assessments (20 sites) 700 $57,200 $0 $0 $12,000 $69,200
Phase II Preparation 310 $31,580 $0 $0 $240 $31,820
Phase II Investigations (10 sites) 1360 $114,520 $98,460 $0 $5,000 $217,980
Task 6 - Remediation Planning ($20k-H/$5k-P) 185 $24,900 $0 $0 $100 $25,000
Task 7 - Final Report ($9k-H/$4k-P) 120 $12,890 $0 $0 $110 $13,000
Total 3495 $330,948 $111,460 $3,100 $18,492 $464,000
Estimated Cost for Assessment Grant Tasks
Consultant Labor
WORK PRODUCT SAMPLES
TRC
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PLAN
(Draft document, updated as new activities are added.)
Community Engagement Plan
Lycoming County Brownfields Coalition
U.S. EPA Brownfields Assessment Coalition Grant
Grant Award BF 96319501
Prepared for:
Lycoming County Brownfield Assessment Coalition
Lycoming County
City of Williamsport City
Muncy Borough
Prepared by:
March 2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 2
2.0 SPOKESPERSON AND INFORMATION REPOSITORY ..................................................................................... 2
3.0 ASSESSMENT COALITION BACKGROUND AND SCOPE ................................................................................. 3
3.1 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................................... 3
3.2 SCOPE .............................................................................................................................................................. 4
4.0 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PLAN ACTIVITIES ........................................................................................... 5
4.1 OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................................................ 5
4.2 MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................................................................... 5
4.3 STAKEHOLDERS ................................................................................................................................................... 7
4.4 PARTNERS ....................................................................................................................................................... 10
4.5 MESSAGE ........................................................................................................................................................ 11
4.6 METHODS ....................................................................................................................................................... 12
5.0 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES BY STAKEHOLDER ...................................................................... 16
6.0 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PLAN SCHEDULE .......................................................................................... 17
7.0 MEASURING SUCCESS ............................................................................................................................... 17
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The primary goal of the Community Engagement Plan (CEP) prepared for the Lycoming County Brownfields
Assessment Coalition project (Coalition project) is to inform the community and solicit valuable input.
These actions will increase success and foster an atmosphere of trust and transparency beyond this U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) funded project.
Community engagement and involvement provides an opportunity to gather information regarding
Brownfield sites throughout Lycoming County in an effort to enhance the results of environmental site
assessments and site redevelopment. The CEP outlines how the Brownfields Assessment Coalition
partners (Coalition) (County of Lycoming, City of Williamsport, and Muncy Borough) through the Coalition
Steering Council established for the project, will engage a diverse set of stakeholders such as the public
of all age levels, municipal leaders and officials, state officials, service organizations, and developers in the
Coalition project. Methods of public outreach are matched to meet the needs of each stakeholder group
and will include activities such as public meetings, open houses, moving meetings, social media, fact
sheets, press releases, and an informational video.
The rigorous plan for community engagement detailed in the CEP is intended to reach as many
stakeholders as possible. This will help garner public support which will be beneficial in updating and
prioritizing Lycoming County’s existing Brownfield inventory and conducting additional environmental site
assessments. When fully implemented, the CEP is intended to result in increased adaptive reuse of
underutilized sites throughout Lycoming County.
The CEP includes information regarding the spokesperson for the plan; the Coalition project scope; CEP
activities including a comprehensive description of stakeholders and partners, engagement methods, and
message and activities; a schedule; and metrics for measuring success.
2.0 SPOKESPERSON AND PROJECT MANAGER
The spokesperson and project manager (PM) for this project is Kim Wheeler, Deputy Director of the
Lycoming County Department of Planning and Community Development (PCD). Contact information
follows:
Kim Wheeler
Lycoming County Department of Planning and Community Development
48 West Third Street
Williamsport, PA 17701
(570)320-2134
kwheeler@lyco.org
An Information Repository will be established at PCD at the address listed above. Persons wishing to
review reports and/or other information pertaining to the Coalition project should contact Kim Wheeler
to schedule an appointment.
In addition, a website has been established for the project at:
2
www.LYCO.org/departments/planningandcommunitydevelopment/brownfieldsrevitalization
3.0 ASSESSMENT COALITION BACKGROUND AND SCOPE
3.1 BACKGROUND
Lycoming County was awarded a $550,000 Brownfields Assessment Coalition grant from EPA in 2012. The
Coalition partners including the County of Lycoming (County), City of Williamsport (Williamsport), and
Muncy Borough (Muncy) collectively prepared and submitted the application to EPA.
This is the second EPA Brownfields grant received by Lycoming County with an initial $200,000 Brownfields
Assessment grant awarded in 2005 to conduct Brownfields assessment activities. Tasks associated with
the prior award included preparing a Brownfields inventory and assessing parcels through environmental
site assessments (ESAs). Through the project nearly 80 sites were identified and prioritized, and 15 Phase
I ESAs were conducted. The Coalition formed for this second EPA award will build upon the results of the
first award and promote enhanced community engagement activities outlined in this CEP.
In addition to the 2007 EPA award, Lycoming County received additional funding to assist in county-wide
Brownfields adaptive reuse efforts. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
awarded Lycoming County Brownfields funding through its annual EPA allocation to conduct additional
Phase II ESAs. The Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED) provided
funding to conduct a planning study in two corridors, one in Williamsport and one in the Borough of
Montgomery, identified as having high redevelopment potential.
In addition, Lycoming County lies within a productive shale gas basin which has provided the Coalition
with tremendous economic opportunity since 2008 not only in terms of exploration and production but
as a regional commerce hub for shale gas-related activities. The need for economic development sites is
so great that the Williamsport/Lycoming Chamber of Commerce has requested an inventory of at least 30
additional Brownfield sites to meet the demand from well service companies needing to locate as close
as possible to natural gas well drilling locations. These energy related activities, coupled with Lycoming
County’s proactive approach in adopting progressive, yet protective land use regulations; completing
infrastructure upgrades such as roads, bridges, and water/waste water infrastructure; and facilitating
airport expansion favorably; position the County to attract developer activity to market-ready Brownfield
sites that will result from the efforts of the Coalition project.
The Coalition has three overarching goals: 1) To inform citizens about the Coalition’s activities, and to
engage the community in identifying brownfield sites for redevelopment; 2) To improve the ‘speed to
market’ for each site by increasing opportunities for businesses and developers to choose a Brownfield
rather than a Greenfield location and 2) To improve health, safety, and welfare issues facing the County’s
citizens due to past industrial uses particularly in Williamsport and Muncy.
3
3.2 SCOPE
The Coalition received EPA funding to update the 2007 Brownfield Inventory and add new locations
throughout the County, Williamsport, and Muncy. The updated inventory will be matched against industry
needs for well service companies, residential needs for citizens, and commercial needs benefiting both
citizens and businesses.
Lycoming County is adept at leveraging planning resources and as such the Coalition project builds upon
the County’s Comprehensive Plan which has an objective of targeting Brownfield properties for
redevelopment. The Coalition project scope includes five tasks as follows:
1) Update Existing Brownfield Inventory - The existing Brownfield Inventory will be updated. While
the update is County-wide, particular emphasis will be placed on sites located in Williamsport and
Muncy.
The Coalition will contact property owners listed on the 2007 inventory to determine current site
status. Redeveloped sites will be recorded as successes. This outreach effort will lead to the
identification of new hazardous substances and petroleum sites with a goal to inventory more
than 100 sites. The integrated information will be used as part of the Williamsport/Lycoming
Chamber of Commerce’s efforts to market the sites to prospective well service companies
supporting the shale gas industry.
2) Completion of Phase I Environmental Site Assessments - The Coalition anticipates completing at
least 30 Phase I ESAs. Approximately 25 of the Phase I ESAs will be completed at hazardous
substance sites and five will be completed at petroleum sites.
3) Completion of Phase II Environmental Site Assessments - Based on the results of the Phase I ESAs
conducted under Task 2 and the recently completed Williamsport Corridor Study, the Coalition
will identify up to three sites where Phase II ESAs would help facilitate economic development
efforts. The focus will be on ‘hot prospect’ sites where there is active interest in acquisition and
adaptive reuse, but where environmental uncertainties have caused progress to stall.
4) Conduct Community Outreach – The Coalition’s goal is to inform the community and solicit
valuable input to increase the probability of success and foster an atmosphere of trust and
transparency with the community beyond the EPA-funded project. The Coalition will report the
status of community outreach to EPA and work with multiple partners including Susquehanna
Health to assess health trends and identify needs. Community engagement activities are detailed
in the remainder of this CEP.
5) Manage the Program – The Coalition project will be managed by PCD in conjunction with TRC.
PCD will communicate regularly with EPA Region III’s designated grant manager.
4
4.0 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PLAN ACTIVITIES
4.1 OVERVIEW
The value of community engagement cannot be understated in the Brownfield redevelopment process.
Increasing the visibility of Brownfield redevelopment activities increases public acceptance, making
implementation of adaptive reuse activities much more effective. However, with increasing time
constraints on citizens and public officials, obtaining public input, particularly through traditional public
meetings, is challenging. In addition the way citizens consume information differs by generation and
technology changes over the past few decades. For example, public involvement techniques from the
1960s to mid-1980s were focused on ‘tell me’ techniques like public meetings. The mid-1980s to 2000
used more ‘show me’ approaches to public involvement such as advisory committees, open houses,
stakeholder interviews, flyers, and direct mail. From 2000 on, the continuing, rapid advancement of
information technology has enabled ‘involve me’ techniques such as public workshops, web-based
information, e-mails, virtual workshops, and social media. Combining traditional public meetings with
opportunities to ‘take’ meetings to citizens either in person or through electronic means can help to
achieve greater levels of community participation.
This CEP takes full advantage of traditional community involvement techniques and technology enabled
digital techniques to reach citizens at all age levels and socio-economic backgrounds. Above all, the CEP
will seek public input in ways in which all citizens are comfortable.
This section includes the nuts and bolts of the CEP and is separated into the following sections:
management, stakeholders, partners, message, and methods.
To the extent possible, each section includes a timeframe (when the particular portion of the CEP will be
implemented), frequency (how often that portion of the plan will be conducted); and responsibility
(individual/group assigned to oversee that aspect of the plan).
The personnel resources available to implement the community engagement activities include PCD staff,
Coalition partners, Coalition Steering Council Members, and the TRC team.
4.2 MANAGEMENT
To ensure the CEP is implemented effectively and efficiently, Lycoming County will coordinate plan
implementation with other tasks conducted as part of the Coalition grant. To that end, both a Community
Engagement Coordinator will be assigned and a Coalition Steering Council will be in place throughout the
duration of the project.
4.2.1 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT COORDINATOR
PCD’s PM has assigned a Community Engagement Coordinator (CEC) to oversee the implementation of
the CEP. The coordinator is a PCD staff member responsible for making certain the information collected
from the community engagement process is integrated into the Brownfields redevelopment decision
process. The CEC will work directly with PM, TRC, and the Coalition Steering Council.
5
Responsibilities:
The PM will establish biweekly meetings with Coalition Partners and TRC to discuss the overall project.
Community engagement activities will be included as a standing agenda item, where upcoming plan tasks
will be discussed.
The bi-weekly communication will be included in TRC’s monthly project status report and include: CEP
tasks accomplished to date and CEP tasks to be completed within the upcoming month.
4.2.2 COALITION STEERING COUNCIL
A Coalition Steering Council has been formed to provide key oversight in reviewing and implementing the
CEP. The collective expertise of the Coalition Steering Council in addressing environmental, community,
and economic development opportunities and issues will ensure that interests of Lycoming County’s
citizens, businesses, and its environment are well-represented throughout the duration of the project.
When the County’s first Brownfields Assessment grant was awarded in 2005, a Brownfield Assessment
Steering Committee was formed to help guide the inventory process. In an effort to maintain consistency
and institutional knowledge regarding Lycoming County’s Brownfields program, several members of this
committee are members of the Coalition Steering Council.
The Coalition Steering Council includes 23 members representing the following:
1. Lycoming County
2. City of Williamsport
3. Muncy Borough
4. Williamsport/Lycoming Chamber of Commerce
5. Industrial Properties Corporation
6. Lycoming County Planning Commission
7. Williamsport City Council
8. Williamsport Redevelopment Authority
9. Local Developer
10. Electric Utility
11. Gas Utility
12. Water & Sewer Infrastructure Utility
13. Rail Infrastructure
14. Roads & Highway Infrastructure
15. Banking Industry
16. Commercial Industrial Broker
17. Lycoming/Sullivan Counties Boroughs Association
18. Lycoming County Township Supervisors Association
19. Medical Community
20. Educational Community
21. Governor’s Action Team
22. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
6
23. United States Environmental Protection Agency
Coalition Steering Council meetings will be held as needed throughout the duration of the project. The
meetings will be announced by the Project Manager, organized by the PM, CEC and TRC, and used to
update Steering Council members on current project tasks and obtain input on upcoming project tasks.
In addition, Steering Council members will be encouraged to use their expertise and interest by
participating in one of three sub-committees: Brownfields inventory, community outreach, and site
marketing.
• Inventory Committee – What sites should be included on the Brownfields inventory? How will
the sites be ranked and prioritized? Which sites should be selected for an ESA?
• Outreach Committee – How should the Community Engagement Plan be implemented? How will
partners help inform stakeholders about the Coalition project?
• Reuse/Marketing -Committee – How should sites be planned and marketed for future
redevelopment? What types of financing and public funding sources are available to assist in
planning, remediation, and adaptive reuse?
2.1.3 TRC
TRC has been selected by Lycoming County to provide overall Program Management for the Lycoming
County Brownfields Assessment Program, and will serve as the lead resource to the PM and CEC on
Community Engagement. TRC has subcontracted with Vernon Land Use and STEP, Inc. for additional
support related to Community Engagement and will utilize their services in order to provide Lycoming
County with additional resources for their Brownfields agenda.
Responsibilities:
TRC will work collaboratively with the PM and CEC to develop meeting content. They will also prepare
the Council meeting agendas three weeks prior to each meeting and send to the CEC for review and
approval.
The PM will send the agenda to Council members one week prior to each meeting.
TRC will also prepare meeting minutes within two weeks of the meeting for submission to the PM and
CEC for ultimate distribution to Steering Council members. Any tasks that arise from these meetings will
be tracked by the CEC and TRC to ensure that action items are completed in a timely manner.
4.3 STAKEHOLDERS
Who will be educated and informed about the Coalition project?
Community engagement and outreach is designed to not only inform residents and organizations, but also
to solicit valuable input - increasing successful outcomes and fostering trust and transparency. Preparing
a comprehensive CEP requires identifying ‘who’ will be the stakeholders for the plan. This section of the
CEP answers this question. Activities or methods to reach out to stakeholders are detailed in section 4.6.
7
4.3.1 CITIZENS
The CEP will reach as many Lycoming county citizens as possible. Events and activities such as public
meetings, open houses, press releases, fact sheets, web-based information, and social media will be used
to inform Lycoming County citizens about the Coalition project.
The Coalition partners have placed particular emphasis on reaching out to citizens who are underserved,
senior citizens, and school students. Engaging these subgroups of the County’s residents will result in a
project that is well-rounded and inclusive.
• Underserved Communities
Many minority and low to moderate income citizens living in Williamsport and Muncy neighborhoods may
be negatively affected by the environmental impacts of old manufacturing facilities. PCD will work with
community partners to assess environmentally impaired sites in areas with underserved populations. This
strategy will to help guide adaptive reuse planning in underserved and/or environmental justice areas.
Outreach engaging underserved communities will include public meetings and open houses to make
citizens aware of the Brownfields Coalition project and to provide an opportunity for citizens to give input
on how former industrial sites should be redeveloped, and to identify potential sites to include on the
Brownfields inventory.
• Senior Citizens
Similar to the County’s underserved communities, senior citizens often live in neighborhoods that are near
former industrial properties. As such, the plan includes convening meetings with seniors at neighborhood
community centers. The meetings will make seniors aware of the Coalition project, identify potential sites,
and provide an opportunity to give input on how former manufacturing sites should be redeveloped.
• Students at Higher Education Institutions
The Coalition will explore opportunities to work with the Penn College of Technology and/or Lycoming
College to provide guest speaker or lecture opportunities to supplement curriculum offered by the
educational institution(s). This will give students the opportunity to learn about Brownfields
redevelopment in the same community in which they are living, and increase awareness on the
community development process, and showcase new environmental job opportunities and career paths.
4.3.2 BROWNFIELD PROPERTY OWNERS
Brownfield property owners are key stakeholders in Brownfield redevelopment as decisions on whether
to assess, sell, or redevelop a property are within their purview. Meeting one-on-one with property
owners is a critical component of the Coalition project. Meetings will inform property owners about the
benefits of Brownfield redevelopment, the Brownfield redevelopment process, and how to participate in
the Coalition project. In-person interviews will be conducted with property owners of Brownfield sites
throughout the duration of the project. Property owners will be identified through the community
8
engagement methods described in this plan and through the Phase 1 ESA and brownfield inventory
process.
4.3.3 BUSINESSES
Businesses expanding in or locating to Lycoming County are another key Brownfield redevelopment
stakeholder group. Once a site is assessed it will be remediated and constructed in line with what the
market (businesses) needs. Outreach to Lycoming County businesses in all sectors (industrial, commercial,
etc.) will focus on informing businesses about the benefits of Brownfield redevelopment and the
Brownfield redevelopment process. Business owners will be contacted through Chamber events,
networking events, e-mail updates, and press releases.
4.3.4 DEVELOPERS/REALTORS
Developers and realtors know current market conditions, what businesses are looking for in a business
location, and what residents are looking for in a place to live. To obtain developer/realtor input about
existing and potential Brownfield sites, the CEP includes in person meetings with residential, commercial,
and industrial developers and realtors serving Lycoming County.
4.3.5 COMMUNITY SERVICE PROVIDERS
• LYCOMING HOUSING AUTHORITY
Lycoming Housing Authority works to provide affordable housing at secure locations for residents in need
throughout the County. The Housing Authority has been instrumental in promoting Brownfield
development throughout the County and will continue to do so for the Coalition project. The Coalition
will engage with the Lycoming Housing Authority to educate the Authority about brownfields
redevelopment. The PDC recognizes that this program may provide opportunities for siting affordable
public housing sites on brownfields within Lycoming County.
• GREATER LYCOMING HABITAT FOR HUMANITY
Greater Lycoming Habitat for Humanity has been an active participant in Brownfield redevelopment in
the County and is currently a critical partner into redeveloping the Brodart site into homes for deserving
families. Similar to the Lycoming County Housing Authority, the Coalition will engage with Habitat for
Humanity to educate the organization about brownfields redevelopment. The PDC recognizes that this
program may provide opportunities for siting affordable public housing sites on brownfields within
Lycoming County.
4.3.6 COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS
• Rotary
The Lycoming County Rotary includes Williamsport, Muncy, Montoursville, and Hughesville clubs. The
Coalition will partner with the Rotary by providing speakers at meetings to discuss the Coalition project
and to encourage Rotary club members to provide input.
• KIWANIS
9
Lycoming County is home to five Kiwanis Clubs: Kiwanis Club of Williamsport, Kiwanis Club of Jersey Shore
Area, Kiwanis Club of Loyalsock Township, Kiwanis Club of Muncy Area, and Kiwanis Club of South
Williamsport Area Sunrise. The Coalition will partner with at least one of the Kiwanis Clubs by providing
speakers at meetings to discuss the Coalition project and to encourage Kiwanis club members to provide
input.
4.4 PARTNERS
What partners will provide assistance in educating stakeholders about the Coalition project?
Implementing the CEP will require efforts of not only the PCD staff, Coalition members, and the consultant
team, but also community organizations and leaders who know the importance of redeveloping
Brownfield sites. These organizations will participate in the Coalition project by assisting in coordinating
outreach meetings, making their facilities available for meetings, and/or supplying information that will
inform project outcomes.
Partnering organizations and the contributions each will make towards furthering the Coalition project’s
goals are described as follows. To finalize each partner’s role in the Coalition project, the CEC will meet
with each partner early on in the project.
4.4.1 WILLIAMSPORT/LYCOMING CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
The Williamsport/Lycoming Chamber of Commerce Chamber (Chamber) works to attract new and expand
existing businesses in Lycoming County. Over the past several years, the Chamber has been focused on
meeting specific needs of well service companies serving the shale gas industry by identifying sites for
location and expansion. To meet the demand from well service companies needing to locate as close as
possible to natural gas well drilling locations, the Chamber has requested an inventory of at least 30
additional Brownfield sites. The Coalition project is focused on meeting this need.
PCD will meet with the Chamber to review the existing Brownfield inventory, modify site records with
recent information, recommend sites to be removed from the inventory, and recommend sites to be
added to the inventory.
Additionally, PCD and the Chamber will work collaboratively to identify Chamber events to highlight the
Coalition project. This can be accomplished through a speaker providing a presentation or Coalition
project representatives networking at a Chamber event. The Coalition will also prepare articles for the
Chamber’s newsletter.
4.4.2 LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
Development occurs within the boundaries of each local government; therefore, local government
officials are well-versed in knowing sites that are in the process of or may be considered for development.
The Coalition will seek input from local government officials through presentations at local government
events and in-person meetings.
10
4.4.3 SUSQUEHANNA HEALTH
Susquehanna Health provides health care and health services to citizens in Williamsport and throughout
Lycoming County. PCD will initiate conversations with Susquehanna Health to assess the impact of
environmentally impaired sites within the community, especially underserved populations.
Susquehanna Health often convenes meetings for citizens to discuss health-related issues. The Coalition
will explore ways to be involved with Susquehanna Health in these types of outreach activities where
citizens can learn more about Brownfields and the benefits of redeveloping these facilities. Citizens will
also be encouraged to provide their input on how Brownfield sites within their neighborhoods should be
redeveloped.
4.4.4 BUSINESS ASSOCIATIONS
The Williamsport Business Association, West Branch Manufacturers’ Association, and the Muncy
Professional & Business Association work with local businesses to strengthen communities. The business
associations are active in promoting new community activities and addressing community issues and are
ideal partners for the Coalition project. The Coalition will partner with the Williamsport Business
Association, West Branch Manufacturers’ Association, and the Muncy Professional & Business Association
by providing speakers for at least one association meeting to discuss the Coalition project and to
encourage association members to provide input. The Marcellus Shale Coalition is an industry based
organization focused on natural gas production.
Community Engagement Role: The Coalition will partner with the Marcellus Shale Coalition’s Land Use
Committee by providing speakers at one of their meetings to discuss the Coalition project and to promote
redevelopment opportunities on brownfield sites
4.5 MESSAGE
What message will be used to educate and inform stakeholders about the Coalition project?
Effective community engagement relies on a consistent, concise message repeated frequently. TRC will
work with the Coalition to develop consistent messaging to brand Brownfield redevelopment activities in
Lycoming County. A consistent project name and tagline will be used in all outreach materials developed
for the project.
Answering the following questions will be helpful in preparing the project message:
• What is the purpose of the project?
• Who is the audience (stakeholders)?
• What are the project outcomes and benefits?
• How can stakeholders participate?
Informational materials will be developed by TRC for review and approval by the PM and CEC for the
various types of outreach activities described above. This information will vary depending on type of
event and audience, but will remain consistent with regard to the overall message that PDC wishes to
convey with regard to their Brownfields program.
11
4.6 METHODS
What methods will be used to convey the Coalition project message to stakeholders?
The CEP includes a combination of public outreach techniques that are traditional and soon-to-be-
traditional. With advances in telecommunications, the methods available for gaining public input have
expanded beyond traditional public meetings. That being said, gaining as much targeted public input as
possible requires deploying a strategy geared towards the needs and preferences of different community
members. Considering factors such as the demographics (age cohorts), socioeconomic status (ensuring
the plan includes outreach to low and moderate income citizens), and time (what time during the day are
citizens available to participate?) will help achieve greater public participation.
In preparing to deploy each of the methods identified below, it is important to keep the following
questions in mind:
• What is the objective?
• Who is the audience (stakeholders)?
• How will stakeholders be engaged?
• What questions are stakeholders likely to ask?
• What happens after the community engagement?
If required, bilingual services will be provided during any public outreach event.
4.6.1 PUBLIC MEETINGS
Public meetings are an effective public engagement tool providing an opportunity to both explain a
project and provide a forum for public input. Two (2) public meetings will be held for the project; one
meeting will be held in Williamsport and the other meeting will be held in Muncy. The meeting will be 90
minutes in length and open with a presentation (PowerPoint format) providing a project overview.
Citizens will be engaged during the presentation by using audience response technology (or option
finders) to ‘vote’ on questions or preferences presented during the presentation. This interactive tool
allows meeting facilitators to instantly gauge audience responses.
The presentation will be followed by breakout sessions where attendees will have an additional
opportunity to provide specific feedback on Brownfield sites or suggestions for adaptive reuse.
The Coalition will work with neighborhood groups in Williamsport (like Newberry) and Muncy to ensure
that neighborhoods are well-represented at the public meetings.
Responsibilities:
• TRC will prepare materials for the public meetings including: meeting invitation, press release to
announce the meetings, PowerPoint presentation, handouts (fact sheets), project mapping, and
breakout session questions.
12
• PCD will arrange for the meeting locations, developing an invitation list, promoting the meetings,
and reproducing meeting materials. Meeting information will be reviewed with the Coalition
Steering Council prior to the public meeting
4.6.3 MOVING MEETINGS
In an effort to reach out to citizens who are actively involved in many other types of service or membership
organizations throughout Lycoming County, information about the Coalition project will be presented in
the form of a ‘Moving Meeting’. While not as formal as a public meeting, a Moving Meeting contains the
same content but delivered to smaller groups. It requires the preparation of one presentation and
supporting materials to be used at multiple venues, for multiple project partners, and by multiple
presenters. This tool enables the Coalition to spread the project message to as many individuals and
organizations as possible. Moving Meetings will be held at scheduled meetings of partners such as
Kiwanis, Rotary, Business Roundtable, and LCHIC.
A Moving Meeting ‘kit’ will be prepared including a PowerPoint presentation and fact sheets.
Presentations will be given by PCD staff or Coalition Steering Council members. The Community
Engagement Coordinator will contact each partner and arrange for a time and presenter to educate
attendees about the Coalition project. A Moving Meeting will be held at least once per month throughout
the duration of the project.
Responsibilities:
• TRC will prepare a Moving Meeting ‘kit’ including: a PowerPoint presentation similar to the
presentation prepared for the public meetings discussed above, fact sheets, and comment cards.
• TRC and the CEC will develop a list of partners to contact and individuals to present at meetings.
Initial suggestions include Kiwanis, Rotary, Township and/or Borough Associations, and Chamber
of Commerce). Moving Meeting information will be reviewed with the Community Engagement
Committee of the Brownfield Coalition Steering Council.
• PCD will secure a laptop and projector, if required.
4.6.4 OPEN HOUSES
Open houses are an effective, relaxed way for citizens to provide input on a project. No formal
presentation is given, but members of the public have the opportunity to discuss project activities with
project officials and provide input on planning projects. The PM and CEC will explore Open House
opportunities in this project.
4.6.5 INTERVIEWS
One-on-one interviews are a valuable tool to gain site specific information about Brownfield sites.
Interviews will be conducted with property owners, realtors, and developers.
13
Responsibilities:
• TRC will work with the PM and CEC to identify individuals to be interviewed. This list will be
reviewed with the Coalition Steering Council.
• To make certain that information obtained from interviews is collected in a consistent format,
TRC will develop a list of interview questions. Property owner questions will focus on site specific
details and gauge the property owner’s willingness to reuse the site. Developer/realtor questions
will focus on economic development factors needed to make a Brownfield redevelopment
investment decision.
4.6.6 FACT SHEETS/FLYERS
Fact sheets, flyers, and other marketing information are concise yet comprehensive takeaways that
provide stakeholders with a quick project reference. Fact sheets, flyers, and other marketing materials
will be prepared on an as needed basis throughout the project.
Initial fact sheets to be prepared include a general fact sheet providing an overview of the Coalition project
and a site specific fact sheet to explain how specific sites will be inventoried and assessed.
TRC will also prepare the fact sheets with the project message described in Section 4.5.
Responsibilities:
• TRC will develop each fact sheet or flyer with review by the PM and CEC
• TRC will provide a final version of each marketing document to PCD in electronic format and PCD
will reproduce the marketing document for distribution to stakeholders.
4.6.7 PRESS COVERAGE/RELEASES
Press releases will be prepared and distributed to the following media outlets serving the Lycoming
County area: Williamsport Sun-Gazette, Webb Weekly, WRAK Radio, Central Pennsylvania Business
Journal WNEP-TV Channel 16 (ABC affiliate in Scranton), WTAJ-TV Channel 16 (CBS affiliate in Altoona),
WYOU-TV Channel 22 (CBS affiliate in Scranton), WBRE-TV Channel 28 (NBC affiliate in Wilkes-Barre), and
WOLF-TV Channel 56 (FOX affiliate in Hazelton). Additional media outlets will be added as identified by
PCD or the Coalition Steering Council.
In addition, articles will be prepared for relevant newsletters such as the Chamber’s newsletter.
Press releases will be issued with important milestones, public events, speaking engagements, and project
kickoff or ribbon cuttings. The project will strive for as many media hits as possible throughout the
duration of the project.
Assessment of potential press releases will be done in conjunction with
Responsibilities:
• TRC will prepare draft press releases for approval by the CEC
14
• The CED will distribute each press release to the media outlets identified above and add additional
media outlets, as required.
4.6.8 E-MAIL UPDATES
Periodic e-mail updates will be sent to stakeholders throughout the duration of the project. A blast e-mail
list will be prepared and expanded throughout the project to add new stakeholders. A project webpage
and Facebook page (discussed below) will include links for users to enter their e-mail address for future
e-mail updates. E-mail updates will be sent as needed throughout the duration of the project and
correspond to issuance of press releases or other newsworthy events. Additional e-mail updates will be
sent if events warrant such as reminders of upcoming meetings, project successes, etc.
Responsibilities:
• PCD will assemble an email list for the project.
• TRC will draft the content for e-mail updates and send to the CEC for review and release.
4.6.9 WEBPAGE
Information pertaining to the Coalition project will be placed on a separate Brownfield program webpage
identified by PCD. The webpage will be active and updated throughout the duration of the project and
provide one location for all stakeholders (Coalition Steering Council members, citizens, municipal officials,
etc.) to obtain information about the project. The same information presented at the public meetings
and used at open houses will be posted on the project webpage. The webpage will allow for members of
the public to provide input on the Coalition project at their convenience throughout the duration of the
project. In addition, the webpage will include ‘Stay Connected’ links for Facebook, Twitter, any other
social media tools used, and e-mail messages. A link to the webpage will be accessible directly from the
County’s homepage.
The webpage will be updated on an as-needed basis throughout the duration of the project. The updates
will include new information on meetings, events, press releases, flyers, videos, etc. Once the project is
complete, PCD will update the webpage as new Brownfield redevelopment activities occur. This will
ensure momentum gained through the project continues once the project is complete.
Responsibilities:
• Website content will be developed by TRC and reviewed by the Community Engagement
Coordinator.
• Website will be maintained and posted by PCD. TRC can assist PCD with website development if
needed.
4.6.10 SOCIAL MEDIA
Social media is an excellent way to connect with citizens and businesses to not only inform but more
importantly gain feedback. While traditional public engagement techniques ‘provide’ information, social
media is extremely helpful to hold a two-way dialogue between stakeholders and the Coalition. The
project will use a variety of social media to reach stakeholders, including, but not limited to LinkedIn,
15
Facebook, Twitter, and Flickr. The two primary sites for initial communication regarding the Lycoming
County Brownfields Coalition are LinkedIn and Facebook.
Social media sites will be updated as new community engagement events occur (meetings, events, press
releases, flyers, videos).
Responsibilities:
• PM and CEC will advise TRC of the types of social media available to, and approved by Lycoming
County.
• The CEC will set up the sites with TRC assistance as needed (LinkedIn and Facebook are priority
sites).
• TRC will develop the content of the social media sites and develop postings for social media.
• PDC will monitor the sites for community input. Community information obtained will be shared
with the Brownfield Coalition Partners as part of the bi-weekly project status reports.
4.6.11 INFORMATIONAL VIDEO
Lycoming County’s Brownfield program has been successfully highlighted through videos prepared by the
Pennsylvania DEP as part of the 2010 and 2012 Pennsylvania Brownfields conferences. To continue to
promote the successes of Lycoming County’s Brownfields program presented in these videos, PCD will
work with Todd Bartley to produce an informational video to educate the public about the Coalition
project. The video will be used at public meetings, school assemblies, open houses, and other venues to
educate the public about the County’s Brownfields successes and what needs to be accomplished to
continue these successes.
Responsibilities:
• TRC will draft the storyboard for the video.
• PCD will coordinate video production with Todd Bartley.
• TRC will develop additional videos as directed by PCD.
5.0 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES BY STAKEHOLDER
The following chart summarizes community engagement activities (methods) that will be deployed
through the CEP and the stakeholders (audience) each activity will engage. The Community Engagement
Coordinator will work with project partners to coordinate activities.
16
6.0 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PLAN SCHEDULE
The following schedule outlines community engagement activities by month with a project end date of
July 31, 2015. Specific dates and times for each activity will be determined by the Community Engagement
Coordinator and TRC on an ongoing basis.
7.0 MEASURING SUCCESS
To measure the effectiveness of the CEP provide sufficient reporting to EPA, the following metrics will be
measured monthly.
• Number of public meetings
• Attendance at each public meeting
• Number of moving meetings
• Attendance at each moving meeting
• Number of property owner interviews
• Number of developer/realtor interviews
• Number of fact sheets/flyers developed and distributed
• Number of press releases
• Number of media hits
• Number of e-Mail updates
• Number of recipients by e-Mail update
Citizens Underserved
Communities
Senior
Citizens
School
Students
Brownfield
Property
Owners
Businesses Developers /
Realtors
Local
Governments
Public
Meetings
School
Assemblies
Moving
Meetings
Open Houses
Interviews
Fact Sheets/
Flyers
Press
Coverage/
Releases
E-Mail
Updates
Webpage
Social Media
Video
17
• Number of webpage and social media page visitors
• Number of webpage and social media page comments
Responsibilities:
TRC will develop a spreadsheet to capture the data points outlined above, complete the spreadsheet
quarterly, and transmit to the Community Engagement Coordinator to incorporate additional data points
as required. The spreadsheet will be included into overall project reporting to EPA.
18
TRC
PROJECT POSTER
A-TRAIN MARKETING
BROCHURE
Vegetation Management In
Rights-of-Way
Transmission
Date: Time:
We’re sorry we
missed you!
970.226.4000
2000 East Horsetooth Road
Fort Collins, CO 80525-5721
Email: trees@prpra.org
Tree Removal and Pruning
Tree removal is generally superior to trimming,
especially with regard to trees deemed a high risk to
electrical service or to the general public. When Platte
River removes a tree, the preferred method is to apply
herbicide immediately to cut stumps that are likely to
re-sprout; this action depends on safety concerns, land
owner permission, and any environmental restrictions.
When trees are not removed, the maximum amount
of clearance within the right-of-way will be obtained
by pruning.
Landowner Notification
Attempts will be made to notify landowners in advance
of tasks to be performed on a right-of-way. This
provides landowners time to raise any concerns they
may have. Platte River will perform work if attempts
to contact landowners are unsuccessful when federal
regulatory violations are imminent.
More Information
More detailed information on
Platte River Power Authority’s vegetation
management policies can be found at
www.prpa.org/vegetation-management
Wire Zone
Border Zone
Trees 15 feet or less at mature
height permitted between
transmission lines and edge
of right-of-way
Trees 15 feet or less at mature
height permitted between
transmission lines and edge
of right-of-way
Border Zone
COMPATIBLE VEGETATION FOR
TRANSMISSION RIGHTS-OF-WAY
COMPATIBLE VEGETATION COMPATIBLE VEGETATION
Grasses & shrubs permitted
below transmission lines
TRANSMISSION RIGHT-OF-WAY
Grasses & shrubs permitted
below transmission lines
Tree canopies
should NOT
extend under
transmission lines
Wire Zone: No trees are allowed in the zone.
Border Zone: Trees 15 feet or less at mature height are permitted between transmission lines and the edge of the right-of-way.
Rights-of-Way Vegetation
Management
Platte River Power Authority continually manages
vegetation in and near its transmission rights-of-way to
maintain safety and electric reliability.
• To minimize the risk of trees or branches
falling into transmission lines causing electric
service outages.
• To minimize potential fire hazard posed to
transmission lines by vegetation.
• To maximize the safety of all people who,
for any reason, need to be in the vicinity of
Platte River’s transmission lines.
• To maintain sufficient clearance on
rights-of-way and access routes to allow
for adequate inspection of facilities and
emergency response.
• To meet all federal regulatory guidelines for
vegetation management.
Rights-of-Way Vegetation
Management
Objectives
The primary objectives of Platte River’s vegetation
management practices are:
TRC
PHASE I
ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
February 25, 2014
Mr. Fonda Apostolopoulos
Brownfields Coordinator
Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South; RP- B2
Denver, CO 80246
Submittal hand delivered: Mr. Fonda Apostolopoulos
RE: Supplementary Submittals
Phase 2 Groundwater Investigation and Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment
St. Francis Health Center
Colorado Springs, Colorado
Dear Mr. Apostolopoulos:
This report and the Appended Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) are being submitted in
support of a request for a No Action Determination (NAD) at the St. Francis Health Center, located at
825 East Pikes Peak Avenue, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80917. This submittal constitutes a
continued analysis of site conditions initiated in our previous report submitted to CDPHE on January
22, 2014.
On January 22, 2014 TRC submitted a historical summary and Current Conditions Site Investigation
report regarding the October 11, 2013 Reporting Hotline notification of an alleged discovery of
subsurface heating oil by a consultant retained by a potential site buyer. That report described a
focused NAPL site investigation conducted by TRC and provided multiple lines of evidence
supporting the conclusion that the discovery of NAPL by others was in error and, in fact, NAPL is not
present at the site. The report concluded with a request for an NAD.
That report was routed to Mr. Fonda Apostolopoulos of CDPHE’s Voluntary Cleanup Program
(VCP). On January 22nd and 23rd Mr. Apostolopoulos was in email and voice contact with TRC.
These communications clarified that:
In cases of this nature, the Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) is the Division of CDPHE having
jurisdiction.
Because the report sought an NAD, the VCP Program is the regulatory entity authorized to make
those determinations.
Mr. Fonda Apostolopoulos
Brownfields Coordinator
February 25, 2014
Page 2
CDPHE concurred that the multiple lines of evidence offered in the report supports the
conclusion that NAPL is not observed at the site.
However, the issuance of an NAD will require supplemental investigative work. Principally this
would include the preparation of a Phase 1 ESA identifying all recognized environmental
concerns (RECs) in accordance with the ASTM 1527-13 Standard and a Phase 2 Groundwater
Investigation of the area of concern.
The groundwater investigation should include a set of six monitor wells (MW1, MW3, MW4,
SF42, SF43, and SF56) and groundwater samples should be analyzed for Volatile Organic
Compounds by EPA Method 8260 and Semi-volatile Organic Compounds by EPA Method 8270.
Administratively, the submittals should be accompanied by an application fee of $2,000.00 to be
used to fund the State’s professional labor associated with review and response to the submittals.
This report, together with the application fee, constitutes completion of the requested technical and
administrative deliverables.
1.0 KEY FINDING FROM THE PHASE l ESA
The Phase l ESA is presented in Attachment 1 for your review and was prepared in accordance with
the current ASTM specification by an Environmental Professional. Those efforts included review of
the commercial environmental database compiled and maintained by Environmental Data Resources
(EDR), which is considered an industry standard for the due diligence requirements defined by
ASTM 1527-13. The EDR data indicates that Event #6118, Facility 1737 (St. Francis Health Center)
is now an open issue due to the October 11, 2013 Hotline notification previously discussed in detail in
the January 22, 2014 submittal. This is therefore considered a REC. No other RECs were identified
based on the complete and thorough efforts described in the Phase l report.
Because previous efforts (the January 22, 2014 Current Conditions Site Investigation) disproved the
presence of NAPL, the remaining consideration for extinguishing this REC is the groundwater
investigation requested by Mr. Apostolopoulos in the January 23, 2014 email exchange with TRC. In
the following section we describe the results of the Phase 2 Groundwater Investigation in the area of
concern.
2.0 PHASE ll GROUNDWATER INVESTIGATION
2.1 Groundwater Gauging
On January 29, 2014, depth to groundwater and total depth was measured from the top of casing
(TOC) at monitor wells MW-1, MW-3, MW-4, SF-42, SF-43, and SF-56 using a Solnist oil/water
interface probe. No non aqueous phase liquids (NAPL) were detected in any of the monitor wells.
The depth to groundwater at the site ranged from 10.69 to 18.24 feet below ground surface (bgs),
generally consistent with the depths encountered in prior gauging events. The gauging data is
presented on the field forms included in Attachment 2.
Mr. Fonda Apostolopoulos
Brownfields Coordinator
February 25, 2014
Page 3
2.2 Groundwater Sampling Methodology
TRC personnel collected groundwater samples at the site on January 29, 2014. Groundwater samples
were collected following procedures outlined in CDPHE’s standard operating procedure (SOP) 12.
Samples were collected from monitor wells MW-1, MW-3, MW-4, SF-42, SF-43, and SF-56 using
disposable, dedicated bailers. One blind duplicate sample was collected from monitor well MW-3 and
labeled MW-6.
Prior to sampling, each well was purged using a disposable poly bailer. Field parameters were
collected using an YSI 556 multi parameter unit after purging six well volumes from each well. Field
parameters collected include temperature, specific conductivity, pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), and
oxidation reduction potential (ORP). Groundwater samples were collected immediately after field
parameter collection and placed into a cooler on ice.
Groundwater samples were submitted to ESC Lab Sciences in Mt. Juliet, Tennessee under proper
chain of custody procedures for the following analyses:
VOCs by USEPA Method 8260B;
SVOCs by USEPA Method 8270C
2.3 Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Samples
One groundwater field duplicate and one trip blank were submitted to the laboratory for Quality
Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) purposes. These samples were used to verify the accuracy and
precision of field collection methods and laboratory analytical procedures. The analytic results from the
QA/QC samples are presented on Table 1, together with the data from the environmental samples.
Copies of the laboratory reports with QA/QC sample results are provided in Attachment 3.
2.4 Investigation Derived Waste
Investigation derived waste (IDW) generated during the groundwater sampling event includes
groundwater generated during monitor well purging. Groundwater IDW was containerized in 55-gallon
drums on-site. A composite sample was collected from the drums and submitted for analysis.
Following laboratory analysis of VOCs, SVOCs, and RCRA metals the water has been classified as
non-hazardous. We have retained Clean Harbors in Denver, Colorado to dispose of the water and the
soil cuttings generated by the monitor well installations.
2.5 Discussion of Analytic Results
The results of the groundwater analyses are presented on Table 1, with the complete laboratory data
package presented in Attachment 3. These data were compared to CDPHE Standards, if available. As
shown on Table 1, if a CDPHE Standard was not available, USEPA’s Maximum Contaminant Level
(MCL) was used, and if the MCL was not available, then the data was compared to USEPA’s Tapwater
Regional Screening Level (RSL). Based on this comparison, the only compound exceeding a standard is
methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) in two of the six monitor wells, MW-3 and SF56. MTBE is regulated in
Colorado under an OPS Guidance Document as a Risk Based Screening Level (RBSL) of 20 ppb for the
Table 1
Penrose St. Francis Groundwater Sampling Results
Client Sample ID MW-1 MW-3 MW-6 (Dup MW-3) MW-4 SF-42 SF-43 SF-56 TRIP BLANK
Lab Sample ID Regulatory Standards L680693-03 L680693-04 L680693-07 L680693-06 L680693-02 L680693-01 L680693-05 L680693-09
Collect Date 1/29/2014 1/29/2014 1/29/2014 1/29/2014 1/29/2014 1/29/2014 1/29/2014 1/29/2014
Method Parameter Units
CDPHE GW
Standards
USEPA
MCL [a]
USEPA
Tapwater
Value Qual Value Qual Value Qual Value Qual Value Qual Value Qual Value Qual Value Qual
8260B Acetone mg/l 6.3 - - <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050
8260B Acrolein mg/l 0.0035 - - <0.050 J4 <0.050 J4 <0.050 J4 <0.050 J4 <0.050 J4 <0.050 J4 <0.050 J4 <0.050 J4
8260B Acrylonitrile mg/l 0.000065 - - <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010
8260B Benzene mg/l 0.005 - - <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 0.0014 <0.0010
8260B Bromobenzene mg/l 0.056 - - <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010
8260B Bromodichloromethane mg/l 0.00056 - - <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010
8260B Bromoform mg/l 0.004 - - <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010
8260B Bromomethane mg/l na na 0.007 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050
8260B n-Butylbenzene mg/l na na 0.78 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010
8260B sec-Butylbenzene mg/l na na 1.6 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 0.0013 <0.0010
8260B tert-Butylbenzene mg/l na na 0.51 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010
8260B Carbon tetrachloride mg/l 0.0005 - - <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010
8260B Chlorobenzene mg/l 0.1 - - <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010
8260B Chlorodibromomethane mg/l 0.014 - - <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010
8260B Chloroethane mg/l na na 21 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050
8260B 2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether mg/l na 0.002 - <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050
8260B Chloroform mg/l 0.0035 - - <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050
8260B Chloromethane mg/l na na 0.19 <0.0025 <0.0025 <0.0025 <0.0025 <0.0025 <0.0025 <0.0025 <0.0025
8260B 2-Chlorotoluene mg/l na na 0.18 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010
8260B 4-Chlorotoluene mg/l na na 0.19 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010
8260B 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane mg/l 0.0002 - - <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050
8260B 1,2-Dibromoethane mg/l 0.000018 - - <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010
8260B Dibromomethane mg/l na na 0.0079 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010
8260B 1,2-Dichlorobenzene mg/l 0.6 - - <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010
8260B 1,3-Dichlorobenzene mg/l 0.094 na na <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010
8260B 1,4-Dichlorobenzene mg/l 0.075 - - <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010
8260B Dichlorodifluoromethane mg/l na na 0.19 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050
8260B 1,1-Dichloroethane mg/l na na 0.0024 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010
8260B 1,2-Dichloroethane mg/l 0.00038 - - <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010
8260B 1,1-Dichloroethene mg/l 0.007 - - <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010
8260B cis-1,2-Dichloroethene mg/l 0.014 - - <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010
8260B trans-1,2-Dichloroethene mg/l 0.14 - - <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010
8260B 1,2-Dichloropropane mg/l 0.00052 - - <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010
8260B 1,1-Dichloropropene mg/l na na na <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010
8260B 1,3-Dichloropropane mg/l na na 0.29 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010
8260B cis-1,3-Dichloropropene mg/l na na 0.00041 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010
8260B trans-1,3-Dichloropropene mg/l na na 0.00041 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010
8260B 2,2-Dichloropropane mg/l na na na <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010
8260B Di-isopropyl ether mg/l na na 1.5 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010
8260B Ethylbenzene mg/l 0.7 - - <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010
8260B Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene mg/l 0.00045 na - <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010
8260B Isopropylbenzene mg/l na na 0.39 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010
8260B p-Isopropyltoluene mg/l na na na <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010
8260B 2-Butanone (MEK) mg/l na na 4.9 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010
Lab Sample ID Regulatory Standards L680693-03 L680693-04 L680693-07 L680693-06 L680693-02 L680693-01 L680693-05 L680693-09
Collect Date 1/29/2014 1/29/2014 1/29/2014 1/29/2014 1/29/2014 1/29/2014 1/29/2014 1/29/2014
Method Parameter Units
CDPHE GW
Standards
USEPA
MCL [a]
USEPA
Tapwater
Value Qual Value Qual Value Qual Value Qual Value Qual Value Qual Value Qual Value Qual
8260B Methylene Chloride mg/l 0.0056 - - <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050
8260B 4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) mg/l na na 1 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010
8260B Methyl tert-butyl ether mg/l 0.02 na - 0.017 0.031 0.029 0.017 0.012 <0.0010 0.0037 <0.0010
8260B Naphthalene mg/l 0.14 na - <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050
8260B n-Propylbenzene mg/l na na 0.53 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010
8260B Styrene mg/l 0.1 - - <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010
8260B 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane mg/l na na 0.0005 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010
8260B 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane mg/l 0.00018 na - <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010
8260B 1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane mg/l na - na <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010
8260B Tetrachloroethene mg/l 0.017 - - <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010
8260B Toluene mg/l 0.56 - - <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050
8260B 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene mg/l na na 0.0052 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010
8260B 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene mg/l 0.07 - - <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010
8260B 1,1,1-Trichloroethane mg/l na 0.2 - <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010
8260B 1,1,2-Trichloroethane mg/l 0.0028 - - <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010
8260B Trichloroethene mg/l 0.005 - - <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010
8260B Trichlorofluoromethane mg/l na na 1.1 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050
8260B 1,2,3-Trichloropropane mg/l 0.00000037 na - <0.0025 <0.0025 <0.0025 <0.0025 <0.0025 <0.0025 <0.0025 <0.0025
8260B 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene mg/l na na 0.015 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010
8260B 1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene mg/l na na na <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010
8260B 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene mg/l na na 0.087 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010
8260B Vinyl chloride mg/l 0.000023 - - <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010
8260B Xylenes, Total mg/l na 10 - <0.0030 <0.0030 <0.0030 <0.0030 <0.0030 <0.0030 <0.0030 <0.0030
8270 C Acenaphthene mg/l 0.42 na - <0.0010 J3 <0.0010 J3 <0.0010 J3 0.0012 0.0029 J3 <0.0010 0.0052 J3
8270 C Acenaphthylene mg/l na na na <0.0010 J3 <0.0010 J3 <0.0010 J3 <0.0010 <0.0011 J3 <0.0010 <0.0010 J3
8270 C Anthracene mg/l 2.1 na - <0.0010 J3 <0.0010 J3 <0.0010 J3 <0.0010 <0.0011 J3 <0.0010 <0.0010 J3
8270 C Benzidine mg/l 0.00000015 na - <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.011 <0.010 <0.010
8270 C Benzo(a)anthracene mg/l 0.0000048 na - <0.0010 J4, J3 <0.0010 J4, J3 <0.0010 J4, J3 <0.0010 <0.0011 J4, J3 <0.0010 <0.0010 J4, J3
8270 C Benzo(b)fluoranthene mg/l 0.0000048 na - <0.0010 J3 <0.0010 J3 <0.0010 J3 <0.0010 <0.0011 J3 <0.0010 <0.0010 J3
8270 C Benzo(k)fluoranthene mg/l 0.0000048 na - <0.0010 J3 <0.0010 J3 <0.0010 J3 <0.0010 <0.0011 J3 <0.0010 <0.0010 J3
8270 C Benzo(g,h,i)perylene mg/l na na na <0.0010 J3 <0.0010 J3 <0.0010 J3 <0.0010 <0.0011 J3 <0.0010 <0.0010 J3
8270 C Benzo(a)pyrene mg/l 0.0000048 - - <0.0010 J3 <0.0010 J3 <0.0010 J3 <0.0010 <0.0011 J3 <0.0010 <0.0010 J3
8270 C Bis(2-chlorethoxy)methane mg/l na na 0.046 <0.010 J3 <0.010 J3 <0.010 J3 <0.010 <0.011 J3 <0.010 <0.010 J3
8270 C Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether mg/l 0.000032 na - <0.010 J3 <0.010 J3 <0.010 J3 <0.010 <0.011 J3 <0.010 <0.010 J3
8270 C Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether mg/l 0.28 na - <0.010 J3 <0.010 J3 <0.010 J3 <0.010 <0.011 J3 <0.010 <0.010 J3
8270 C 4-Bromophenyl-phenylether mg/l na na na <0.010 J3 <0.010 J3 <0.010 J3 <0.010 <0.011 J3 <0.010 <0.010 J3
8270 C 2-Chloronaphthalene mg/l 0.56 na - <0.0010 J3 <0.0010 J3 <0.0010 J3 <0.0010 <0.0011 J3 <0.0010 <0.0010 J3
8270 C 4-Chlorophenyl-phenylether mg/l na na na <0.010 J3 <0.010 J3 <0.010 J3 <0.010 <0.011 J3 <0.010 <0.010 J3
8270 C Chrysene mg/l 0.0000048 na - <0.0010 J4, J3 <0.0010 J4, J3 <0.0010 J4, J3 <0.0010 <0.0011 J4, J3 <0.0010 <0.0010 J4, J3
8270 C Dibenz(a,h)anthracene mg/l 0.0000048 na - <0.0010 J3 <0.0010 J3 <0.0010 J3 <0.0010 <0.0011 J3 <0.0010 <0.0010 J3
8270 C 3,3-Dichlorobenzidine mg/l 0.000078 na - <0.010 J3 <0.010 J3 <0.010 J3 <0.010 <0.011 J3 <0.010 <0.010 J3
8270 C 2,4-Dinitrotoluene mg/l 0.00011 na - <0.010 J3 <0.010 J3 <0.010 J3 <0.010 <0.011 J3 <0.010 <0.010 J3
8270 C 2,6-Dinitrotoluene mg/l na na 0.000042 <0.010 J3 <0.010 J3 <0.010 J3 <0.010 <0.011 J3 <0.010 <0.010 J3
8270 C Fluoranthene mg/l 0.28 na - <0.0010 J3 <0.0010 J3 <0.0010 J3 <0.0010 <0.0011 J3 <0.0010 <0.0010 J3
8270 C Fluorene mg/l 0.28 na - <0.0010 J3 <0.0010 J3 <0.0010 J3 0.0014 0.0072 J3 <0.0010 0.0071 J3
8270 C Hexachlorobenzene mg/l 0.000022 - - <0.0010 J3 <0.0010 J3 <0.0010 J3 <0.0010 <0.0011 J3 <0.0010 <0.0010 J3
8270 C Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene mg/l 0.00045 na - <0.010 J3 <0.010 J3 <0.010 J3 <0.010 <0.011 J3 <0.010 <0.010 J3
8270 C Hexachlorocyclopentadiene mg/l 0.042 - - <0.010 J3 <0.010 J3 <0.010 J3 <0.010 <0.011 J3 <0.010 <0.010 J3
8270 C Hexachloroethane mg/l 0.00088 na - <0.010 J3 <0.010 J3 <0.010 J3 <0.010 <0.011 J3 <0.010 <0.010 J3
Lab Sample ID Regulatory Standards L680693-03 L680693-04 L680693-07 L680693-06 L680693-02 L680693-01 L680693-05 L680693-09
Collect Date 1/29/2014 1/29/2014 1/29/2014 1/29/2014 1/29/2014 1/29/2014 1/29/2014 1/29/2014
Method Parameter Units
CDPHE GW
Standards
USEPA
MCL [a]
USEPA
Tapwater
Value Qual Value Qual Value Qual Value Qual Value Qual Value Qual Value Qual Value Qual
8270 C Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene mg/l 0.0000048 na - <0.0010 J3 <0.0010 J3 <0.0010 J3 <0.0010 <0.0011 J3 <0.0010 <0.0010 J3
8270 C Isophorone mg/l 0.14 na - <0.010 J3 <0.010 J3 <0.010 J3 <0.010 <0.011 J3 <0.010 <0.010 J3
8270 C Naphthalene mg/l 0.14 na - <0.0010 J3 <0.0010 J3 <0.0010 J3 0.002 <0.0011 J3 <0.0010 <0.0010 J3
8270 C Nitrobenzene mg/l 0.014 na - <0.010 J3 <0.010 J3 <0.010 J3 <0.010 <0.011 J3 <0.010 <0.010 J3
8270 C n-Nitrosodimethylamine mg/l 0.00000069 na - <0.010 J3 <0.010 J3 <0.010 J3 <0.010 <0.011 J3 <0.010 <0.010 J3
8270 C n-Nitrosodiphenylamine mg/l 0.0071 na - <0.010 J3 <0.010 J3 <0.010 J3 <0.010 <0.011 J3 <0.010 <0.010 J3
8270 C n-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine mg/l 0.000005 na - <0.010 J3 <0.010 J3 <0.010 J3 <0.010 <0.011 J3 <0.010 <0.010 J3
8270 C Phenanthrene mg/l na na na <0.0010 J3 <0.0010 J3 <0.0010 J3 <0.0010 0.0055 J3 <0.0010 0.0047 J3
8270 C Benzylbutyl phthalate mg/l 1.4 na - <0.0030 J3 <0.0030 J3 <0.0030 J3 <0.0030 <0.0033 J3 <0.0030 <0.0030 J3
8270 C Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate mg/l 0.0025 - - <0.0030 J3 <0.0030 J3 <0.0030 J3 <0.0030 <0.0033 J3 <0.0030 <0.0030 J3
8270 C Di-n-butyl phthalate mg/l 0.7 na - <0.0030 J3 <0.0030 J3 <0.0030 J3 <0.0030 <0.0033 J3 <0.0030 <0.0030 J3
8270 C Diethyl phthalate mg/l 5.6 na - <0.0030 J3 <0.0030 J3 <0.0030 J3 <0.0030 <0.0033 J3 <0.0030 <0.0030 J3
8270 C Dimethyl phthalate mg/l na na na <0.0030 J3 <0.0030 J3 <0.0030 J3 <0.0030 <0.0033 J3 <0.0030 <0.0030 J3
8270 C Di-n-octyl phthalate mg/l na na - <0.0030 J3 <0.0030 J3 <0.0030 J3 <0.0030 <0.0033 J3 <0.0030 <0.0030 J3
8270 C Pyrene mg/l 0.21 na - <0.0010 J3 <0.0010 J3 <0.0010 J3 <0.0010 <0.0011 J3 <0.0010 0.0016 J3
8270 C 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene mg/l 0.07 - - <0.010 J3 <0.010 J3 <0.010 J3 <0.010 <0.011 J3 <0.010 <0.010 J3
8270 C 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol mg/l 0.21 na - <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.011 <0.010 <0.010
8270 C 2-Chlorophenol mg/l 0.035 na - <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.011 <0.010 <0.010
8270 C 2,4-Dichlorophenol mg/l 0.021 na - <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.011 <0.010 <0.010
8270 C 2,4-Dimethylphenol mg/l 0.14 na - <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.011 <0.010 <0.010
8270 C 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol mg/l 0.00027 na - <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.011 <0.010 <0.010
8270 C 2,4-Dinitrophenol mg/l 0.014 na - <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.011 <0.010 <0.010
8270 C 2-Nitrophenol mg/l na na na <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.011 <0.010 <0.010
8270 C 4-Nitrophenol mg/l 0.056 na na <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.011 <0.010 <0.010
8270 C Pentachlorophenol mg/l 0.000088 - - <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.011 <0.010 <0.010
8270 C Phenol mg/l 2.1 na - <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.011 <0.010 <0.010
8270 C 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol mg/l 0.0032 na - <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.011 <0.010 <0.010
Notes
Report generated on: 07-Feb-14 at: 12:49 PM
na: not available
-: more applicable standard available, a hierarchy of standard is shownin the following order 1) CDPHE Groundwater standards 2) US EPA Safe Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels
(MCL) 3) US EPA Tapwater Regional Screening Level (RSL)
bold: detected above reporting limit
shaded: detected result above Colorado Department of Health and Environment Groundwater Standards
Qualifier
J3 The associated batch QC was outside the established quality control range for precision.
J4 The associated batch QC was outside the established quality control range for accuracy.
Reference
[a] As presented in USEPA's November 2013 Regional Screening Level (RSL) Table, which is available online at: http://www.epa.gov/region9/superfund/prg/
Mr. Fonda Apostolopoulos
Brownfields Coordinator
February 25, 2014
Page 4
groundwater ingestion pathway. This standard comes from USEPA’s 2012 drinking water advisory and
is based on an odor (aesthetic) threshold and not based on human cancer risk or toxicity. The samples
from MW-3 and SF56 nominally exceed this criterion at 31 ppb and 37 ppb, respectively. Note that both
of these concentrations are at or below USEPA’s toxicity based groundwater standard protective of
residential groundwater ingestion which is 37 ppb (USEPA, 2013). Therefore, the presence of MTBE at
these concentrations is not a human health issue.
The detection of MTBE at SFHC is unexpected since MTBE is a fuel oxygenate and was formerly used
as an additive to gasoline to improve combustion and decrease air emissions. No evidence exists that
any vehicular fuels such as gasoline were ever stored in the SFHC tanks. SFHC tanks were used for the
storage of heating oil which is well documented in the January 22, 2014 report. Further, the Phase 1
ESA and EDR documentation does not identify any adjoining land uses that would have utilized
vehicular fuel USTs.
One potential explanation of this phenomenon is offered by a USGS fact sheet titled “Occurrence of the
Gasoline Additive MTBE in Shallow Ground Water in Urban and Agricultural Areas” conducted as part
of their National Water Quality Assessment Program. This fact sheet is provided in Attachment 4.
Importantly, the study found that nationwide, MTBE was most frequently detected in shallow
groundwater in Denver. In Denver, 79% of the samples from shallow urban wells had detectable
concentrations of MTBE. The proximity of this finding to SFHC suggests that a similar condition could
be operative in Colorado Springs.
Because the 20 ppb RBSL is an aesthetic criterion, dependent on human ingestion of the groundwater, it
is extremely unlikely that a point of exposure could be reasonably postulated:
The area of the property exhibiting these nominal exceedances is fully developed by buildings,
pavement and infrastructure. It is unreasonable to believe that someone would consider, or that the
State Engineer would approve, the installation of a shallow potable water well in this location.
The groundwater samples were recovered from monitor wells installed in the upper 25 feet of the
surficial clastic aquifer, consisting of decomposed shale. Lithologically, the formation is nearly
impermeable with an estimated hydraulic conductivity of 10-6 cm/sec. It is extremely unlikely that a
potable water well drilled at this location into this formation would yield any reasonable volume of
water.
3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND REQUEST FOR NO ACTION DETERMINATION
This report, together with the appended documentation and prior submittal:
Have described investigations providing multiple lines of evidence that NAPL is not observed at the
property and that the observation by others that gave rise to the Hotline notice on 11 October, 2013
cannot be replicated and is likely in error.
Includes an ASTM compliant Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment that concludes that the only
REC at the property is the 11 October, 2013 Hotline notice.
Mr. Fonda Apostolopoulos
Brownfields Coordinator
February 25, 2014
Page 5
Reconciles, in accordance with communications with CDPHE, that the groundwater in the area of
concern is not impacted by heating oil constituents in excess of CDPHE standards and that the only
detected compound poses no risk to human health and is apparently ubiquitous in many urban
environments.
TRC, on behalf of St. Francis Health Center, therefore respectfully requests a CDPHE No Action
Determination for this property.
SFHC intends to plug and abandon all existing monitor wells in accordance with all applicable rules and
regulations in order to prevent causal contamination from entering the subsurface. If you have any
questions about this submittal please contact Steve Haverl at 720-346-0707.
Thank you for your attention to this matter, we look forward to hearing from you.
Respectfully Submitted:
TRC Environmental Corporation
Stephen J. Haverl, P.G., P.E. Ronald A. Zurlinden, P.E.
Senior Technical Consultant Principal Engineer
ATTACHMENT 1
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL
SITE ASSESSMENT
St. Francis Health Center
825 East Pikes Peak Avenue
Colorado Springs, Colorado
February 14, 2014
TRC Project No: 208158.0000.0000
Prepared For:
Penrose Hospital
2222 N. Nevada Avenue
Colorado Springs, CO 80907
Prepared By:
TRC Environmental Corporation
1526 Cole Blvd., Building 3, Suite 150
Lakewood, CO 80401
303-792-5555
303-792-0122
Robert C. Reinhart
Sr. Project Specialist
TRC Environmental Professional
Stephen Haverl, P.E., P.G.
Sr. Program Manager
Peer Review
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
St. Francis Health Center February 18, 2014
TRC Project No. 208158 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................1
1.0 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................3
1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES ...........................................................................3
1.2 ADDITIONAL SERVICES .............................................................................................4
1.3 DEVIATIONS TO ASTM E 1527-13 STANDARD .........................................................4
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................4
2.1 SITE LOCATION AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION ................................................................4
2.2 SITE IMPROVEMENTS ................................................................................................4
2.3 CURRENT AND HISTORICAL SITE USE .......................................................................6
2.3.1 Current Site Use(s) ......................................................................................6
2.3.2 Previous Owner and Operator Information ................................................6
2.4 PHYSICAL SETTING ...................................................................................................6
2.5 SITE GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY ......................................................................7
3.0 USER PROVIDED INFORMATION ..............................................................................8
3.1 TITLE & JUDICIAL RECORDS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL LIENS OR ACTIVITY AND USE
LIMITATIONS .............................................................................................................8
3.2 SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE .......................................................................................8
3.3 PROPERTY VALUE REDUCTION ISSUES .....................................................................8
3.4 COMMONLY KNOWN OR REASONABLY ASCERTAINABLE INFORMATION ..................8
3.5 REASON FOR CONDUCTING PHASE I ..........................................................................8
4.0 RECORDS REVIEW ........................................................................................................9
4.1 HISTORICAL USE INFORMATION ...............................................................................9
4.1.1 Site History...................................................................................................9
4.1.2 Adjoining Property History........................................................................10
4.1.3 Surrounding Property History ...................................................................10
4.2 DATABASE REPORT & ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD REVIEW ....................................11
4.2.1 Subject Site .................................................................................................11
4.2.2 Adjoining & Surrounding Property Record Review ..................................11
4.3 PREVIOUS REPORTS ................................................................................................13
4.4 OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD SOURCES ..........................................................14
5.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE ............................................................................................14
5.1 METHODOLOGY AND LIMITING CONDITIONS ..........................................................14
5.2 INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR SITE OBSERVATIONS ......................................................15
5.3 ADJOINING AND SURROUNDING PROPERTIES RECONNAISSANCE ............................16
5.3.1 Adjoining Properties ..................................................................................16
5.3.2 Surrounding Properties .............................................................................17
6.0 INTERVIEWS..................................................................................................................17
7.0 FINDINGS, OPINIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ..........................................................17
7.1 RECS AND CRECS .................................................................................................18
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
St. Francis Health Center February 18, 2014
TRC Project No. 208158 ii
7.2 HRECS ...................................................................................................................18
7.3 DE MINIMIS CONDITIONS ........................................................................................18
7.4 DATA GAPS .............................................................................................................18
7.5 LIMITING CONDITIONS AND DEVIATIONS ................................................................19
7.5.1 Accuracy and Completeness ......................................................................19
7.5.2 Warranties and Representations ................................................................20
7.5.3 Continued Validity/User Reliance .............................................................20
7.5.4 Significant Assumptions .............................................................................20
8.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................21
9.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES ............................................................................................21
Figures
Figure 1: Site Location Map
Figure 2: Site Layout Plan
Appendices
Appendix A: Database Radius Report
Appendix B: Historical Research Documentation
Appendix C: Photograph Log
Appendix D: TRC Staff and Environmental Professional Qualifications/Resumes
Appendix E: Environmental Professional Statement
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
St. Francis Health Center February 18, 2014
TRC Project No. 208158 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TRC Environmental Corporation (TRC) was retained by Penrose Saint Francis Health Center
(Penrose) (also known as “Client” or “User” to perform a Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment (ESA) of the St. Francis Health Center facility located at 825 East Pikes Peak
Avenue, Colorado Springs, Colorado (herein referred to as the “Site”). TRC’s assessment was
conducted in connection with the Client’s sale of the property. The Phase I ESA described in
this report was performed in accordance with the scope and limitations of the American Society
of Testing and Materials Practice E 1527-13 Standard Practice for Environmental Site
Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process (ASTM E 1527-13). Limiting
conditions and/or deviations from the ASTM E 1527-13 standard are described in Sections 1.3
and 7.7 of this report.
The Site improvements generally consist of an inactive and vacant former hospital facility
occupying an 8.8-acre parcel just east of downtown Colorado Springs. The original St. Francis
Hospital was built by 1890, and portions of the present day facility date back to 1929.
Significant redevelopments of other portions of the Site were completed in 1965, 1975 and 1983.
The Site is zoned OC (Office Complex), which allows residential or office uses providing
administrative, professional and personal services.
As a result of the Phase I ESA, including but not limited to our visual observation of the Site;
review of historical information, environmental databases, and information provided by the User;
interviews with current Site representative(s); and TRC’s professional judgment, the following
recognized environmental conditions (RECs) and/or controlled recognized environmental
conditions (CRECs) associated with the Site, as defined by the ASTM E 1527-13 standard were
identified:]
This assessment has revealed no evidence of RECs (including CRECs) in connection with the
Site. except for the following:
The public record detailing an October 11, 2013 notification regarding onsite NAPL on
groundwater, and the lack of an approved CDPHE No Action Determination (NAD)
regarding that notification, presents a REC at the Site.
This Executive Summary is part of this complete report; any findings, opinions or conclusions in
this Executive Summary are made in context with the complete report. TRC recommends that
the User read the entire report for all supporting information related to findings, opinions and
conclusions.
Legal Notice
This document was prepared by TRC solely for the benefit of the User. With regard to third-
party recipients of this document, neither TRC, nor the Client, nor the User, nor any of their
respective parents, affiliates or subsidiaries, nor any person acting on their behalf: (a) makes any
warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the use of any information or methods disclosed
in this document; or (b) assumes any liability with respect to the use of any information or
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
St. Francis Health Center February 18, 2014
TRC Project No. 208158 2
methods disclosed in this document. Any third-party recipient of this document, by its
acceptance or use of this document, releases TRC, the Client, the User, and their parents,
affiliates and subsidiaries, from any liability for direct, indirect, economic, incidental,
consequential or special loss or damage whether arising in contract, warranty, express or implied,
tort, or otherwise, and irrespective of fault, negligence, and strict liability.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
St. Francis Health Center February 18, 2014
TRC Project No. 208158 3
1.0 INTRODUCTION
TRC Environmental Corporation (TRC) has prepared this Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment (ESA) for Penrose St. Francis Health Services (Penrose) (hereinafter “Client” or
“User”). This report was prepared for and may be relied upon by Client for the purposes set
forth herein; it may not be relied on by any party other than the Client and reliance may not be
assigned without the express approval of TRC. Authorization for third party reliance on this
report will be considered by TRC if requested by the Client. TRC reserves the right to deny
reliance on this report by third parties.
1.1 Purpose and Scope of Services
The following Phase I ESA was performed for the property located at 825 East Pikes Peak
Avenue, Colorado Springs, Colorado (hereinafter the “Site”). A Site location map is included as
Figure 1. This Phase I ESA has been prepared by TRC in accordance with the American
Society for Testing and Materials E 1527-13 Standard Practice for Environmental Site
Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process (ASTM E 1527-13) and is
intended for the sole use of Penrose as per the TRC proposal dated January 29, 2014.
The purpose of this assessment is to identify Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) at
the Site, as defined by the ASTM E 1527-13 standard. The completion of this Phase I ESA
report may be used to satisfy one of the requirements for the User to qualify for the innocent
landowner, contiguous property owner, or bona fide prospective purchaser limitations pursuant
to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA),
thereby constituting all appropriate inquiries into the previous ownership and uses of the
property consistent with good commercial or customary practice as defined by 42 U.S.C.
§9601(35)(B) of CERCLA.
TRC understands that this assessment is not funded with a federal grant awarded under the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Brownfields Assessment and
Characterization program.
The Scope of Services for this Phase I ESA included the following tasks:
Site and vicinity reconnaissance;
Site and vicinity description and physical setting;
Historical source review and description of historical Site conditions;
Interviews with owners, operators, and/or occupants of the Site, and/or local officials;
Review of a current environmental database and historic property use documentation
obtained from Environmental Data Resources, Inc (EDR);
Review of previous environmental reports/documentation, as applicable; and
Preparation of a report summarizing findings, opinions and conclusions.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
St. Francis Health Center February 18, 2014
TRC Project No. 208158 4
Pursuant to the ASTM E 1527-13 standard, recommendations to conduct Phase II sampling or
other assessment activities are not required to be included in this report. TRC can provide such
recommendations upon request.
1.2 Additional Services
Items outside the scope of the ASTM E 1527-13 standard include, but are not limited to, the
following:
Asbestos-containing building materials
Radon
Lead-based paint
Lead in drinking water
Wetlands
Regulatory compliance
Cultural and historic resources
Industrial hygiene
Health and safety
Ecological resources
Endangered species
Indoor air quality unrelated to releases
of hazardous substances or petroleum
products into the environment
Biological agents
Mold
No additional services were performed outside the scope of the ASTM E 1527-13 standard.
1.3 Deviations to ASTM E 1527-13 Standard
No significant deviations or deletions to the ASTM standard were made during this Phase I ESA.
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
2.1 Site Location and Legal Description
The Site is located at 825 East Pikes Peak Avenue, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903, in a
mixed use commercial, industrial and residential area. According to the City of Colorado
Springs Planning and Development Department, the Site is zoned OC (Office Complex), which
allows residential or office uses providing administrative, professional and personal services.
A Site location map is provided as Figure 1.
According to the El Paso County Assessor office (as of February 10, 2013), the Site parcel is
described as Lot 1 St. Francis Health Center (Schedule No. 6417218002) and is owned by
Catholic Health Initiatives (CHI). According to Penrose, the Site ownership transferred to 825
East Pikes Peak, LLC upon closing of a financial transaction effective at midnight, Friday
January 31, 2013.
2.2 Site Improvements
The Site improvements generally consist of an inactive and vacant former hospital facility.
Current on-site improvements are listed in the following table. A Site layout plan is included as
Figure 2.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
St. Francis Health Center February 18, 2014
TRC Project No. 208158 5
Site Improvements
Site Feature Description
1929 Building
Southwest portion of the parcel, five-story steel frame, block and brick
hospital built in 1929 on concrete footers with a partial crawlspace and/or
utility chase. There is one hydraulic elevator (#10) that was installed in the
early 1990s.
1965 Building
Northwest portion of the parcel, six-story steel frame, plaster and lathe
and/or plasterboard construction. Hospital built in 1965 with a full
basement containing primarily hot water heating tanks, pipes and electric-
powered water pumps. There are several floor drains in the north portion
of the basement. There are five electric-powered elevators with an
associated mechanical room on the sixth floor. The facility kitchen is on
the fifth floor.
1975 Building
Central portion of the parcel, six-story hospital, steel frame and precast
concrete exterior with sheetrock interior walls and a full basement
containing primarily air-handling and hot water heating systems. A floor
sump collects water from a series of floor drains in the 1965 and 1975
basement floors and utilizes a lift pump to discharge to sanitary sewer.
The basement and floors 1-4 were built in 1975, and floors 5 and 6 were
added in 1985. There are four electric-powered elevators with an
associated mechanical room on the sixth floor. The main facility entrance
is on the east side of the 1975 Building.
1929 Boiler House
Southeast portion of the parcel, two story steel frame, block and brick
structure on concrete pad with no floor drains, built in 1929. The building
contains two large heating-oil fired boilers that provided hot water and/or
steam to the 1929, 1965 and 1975 Buildings via a buried utility chase from
the west end of the 1929 Boiler House to the east end of the 1929 Building
(the Tunnel). There are finished offices on the second floor of the 1929
Boiler House.
1975 Boiler House
Southeast portion of the parcel, one story steel frame (high ceiling) and
pre-cast concrete panel on concrete pad with no floor drains, containing
large electric-powered water pumps and associated piping for the heating
system, with two exterior roof-mounted chillers above.
Generator Building (1985/1965)
Southeast portion of the parcel, steel frame and pre-cast concrete panels on
concrete slab with no floor drains, the west portion of the building contains
a heating-oil fired emergency generator that was installed in 1985. The
east portion of the building contains a heating-oil emergency generator that
was installed in 1965.
Garage
Wood frame building on concrete pad with no floor drains, built sometime
between 1972 and 1988 (per aerial photograph review). According to
Penrose, the building has always been called the “garage” but was actually
utilized for dry storage rather than any automotive purpose.
Underground Storage Tank (UST)
A UST basin is located adjoining east of the Generator Building. The
basin originally contained five heating oil USTs that were installed in 1976
and removed in 1989. The former USTs were replaced with one double-
walled 20,000 gallon heating oil UST that remained active at the location
until the closure of the St. Francis facilities in 2012. The UST was
emptied by mid-2013 and passed a tank integrity pressure test on October
11, 2013.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
St. Francis Health Center February 18, 2014
TRC Project No. 208158 6
Site Improvements
Site Feature Description
Exterior areas
Three former liquid oxygen ASTs occupied concrete pad in a fenced area
adjoining the landscaping northeast of the 1965 Building. A city utility
owned pad-mounted transformer is located adjoining the southeast corner
of the 1965 Building, and several others are located in nearby roadway
easements. The remaining Site features consist of landscaped areas and
asphalt or concrete-paved parking areas around the Site buildings. A
separate and larger paved parking lot is located adjoining to the south of
the Site buildings (the South Parking Area).
Utilities
Electricity, potable water, sanitary sewer and natural gas services are all
provided at the Site by the city-owned and operated Colorado Springs
Utilities.
Heating/Cooling system fuel
source(s)
All heating and cooling systems were shut down at the Site between 2010
and 2012. Heating oil was the boiler fuel and municipal electricity (for air
conditioning units) was the cooling source prior to shut down.
Back-up fuel source(s) Two emergency electricity generator sets are connected to the
inactive/empty heating oil UST.
Storm water system
There is one municipal stormwater inlet adjoining an access driveway east
of the 1929 Building that drains to a stormwater line beneath Prospect
Street. Surface sheetflow from the most of the rest of the Site flows to one
of five inlets at the bottom of a hill along North Institute Street or North
Prospect Street, both about one-half block north of East Pikes Peak
Avenue. From there a buried stormwater main drains to the west for about
750 feet to a discharge point at Shooks Run, which flows south from the
vicinity.
2.3 Current and Historical Site Use
2.3.1 Current Site Use(s)
The Site is currently vacant and non-operational, excepting a 24-hour security service that
occupies a guard shed south of the 1929 Building and routinely patrols the Site. There was no
evidence of unauthorized use of the Site or “abandoned status” as defined by ASTM at the time
of the Site walk.
2.3.2 Previous Owner and Operator Information
Based on information provided by the User (Section 3), the historical record review (Section 4),
and/or interviews conducted during this Phase I (Section 6), it appears that the site has always
been owned and operated by the church, and the tax-exempt status results in limited ownership
information being readily available in the public domain. According to the El Paso Assessor
Office, prior ownership has been limited to CHI and/or St. Francis Health Center.
2.4 Physical Setting
According to EDR, the Site is not located in a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
flood zone.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
St. Francis Health Center February 18, 2014
TRC Project No. 208158 7
According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Colorado Springs, Colorado 1:24,000
topographic quadrangle dated 1961, photorevised 1994 (Figure 1), the Site is located
approximately 750 feet east of Shooks Run, a perennial creek that flows south from the vicinity.
The Site is approximately centered on a ridge that slopes from the southeast to the northwest
through the center of the Site. Accordingly, the lowest onsite elevation is at the northwest corner
of the Site (~ 6,000 feet above mean sea level, amsl); the highest Site elevation is at the east end
of the 1975 Boiler House (~ 6,065 feet above mean sea level, amsl); and, the surface slope and/or
sheetflow is generally radial from this ridge to the adjoining roadway curb, gutter or culvert
systems as summarized below:
To the north along Institute Street from the Boiler House, UST Basin and Garage area;
To the north from the north side of the Generator Building and 1975 Building to onsite
landscaped areas and/or East Pikes Peak Avenue;
To the northwest from the 1965 Building to onsite landscaped areas, East Pikes Peak
Avenue and/or South Prospect Street;
To the west from the 1929 Building to onsite landscaped areas or South Prospect Street;
and,
To the southwest through the South Parking Area towards South Prospect Street and/or
East Cucharras Street.
2.5 Site Geology and Hydrogeology
The database radius report supplied by EDR was reviewed to obtain information regarding the
dominant soil composition in the Site vicinity. The dominant soil type at the Site is summarized
below:
Hydric Status: Soil does not meet the requirements for a hydric soil.
Soil Surface Texture: Clay loam
Soil Component Name: Razor
Deeper Soil Types: Clay, weathered bedrock
Please refer to the Geocheck Physical Setting Source Summary of the EDR report presented in
Appendix A for further information regarding the soil composition in the Site vicinity.
Recently observed soil conditions beneath the eastern portion of the Site consist of
unconsolidated clays overlying the Denver Formation. These soils are residual in nature, having
been formed by the in situ decomposition of the parent shale bedrock. Groundwater appears to
be originating from small interbedded sand lenses noted in the boring logs beginning around 7.5
feet below grade. Groundwater flow direction in the water table aquifer system matches the
surface topography, which drops sharply to the north. Stabilized depth to water ranged from
approximately 8 to 13 feet below ground surface on December 19, 2013 (Release Event Report,
TRC Environmental Corporation, January 22, 2014).
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
St. Francis Health Center February 18, 2014
TRC Project No. 208158 8
Based on the known conditions in the eastern portion of the Site, the direction of shallow ground
water flow beneath the rest of the Site is inferred by TRC to mimic surface slope as summarized
in Section 2.4 of this report.
3.0 USER PROVIDED INFORMATION
According to the ASTM E 1527-13 standard, certain tasks that may help identify the presence of
RECs associated with the Site are generally conducted by the Phase I ESA User. These tasks
include: providing, or authorizing the environmental professional to obtain, recorded land title
records for environmental liens or activity and land use limitations (AULs); providing
specialized knowledge related to RECs at the Site (e.g., information about previous ownership or
environmental litigation); providing commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information
within the local community about the property that is material to RECs in connection with the
property; and informing the environmental professional if, as believed by the User, the purchase
price of the property is lower than the fair market value due to contamination.
3.1 Title & Judicial Records for Environmental Liens or Activity and Use Limitations
TRC reviewed the EDR report (discussed in Section 4.2) and the El Paso County Assessor on-
line database (Section 4.4) for information regarding AUL-listed properties within the Site
vicinity. Purchase and review of a Chain of Title and/or lien search was beyond the scope of this
ESA and remains a User responsibility. According to Penrose, there are no AULs associated
with the Site, and no evidence of AULs was discovered during the course of this ESA.
3.2 Specialized Knowledge
The User was aware of a release of heating oil from an onsite UST that was discovered in 1987
and administratively closed by the Colorado Department of Oil and Public Safety (OPS) on
December 22, 1997. The User was not aware of any other specialized knowledge related to
potential RECs at the Site.
3.3 Property Value Reduction Issues
The User was not aware of property valuation reduction issues regarding the Site.
3.4 Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable Information
TRC has completed prior environmental investigations for the User that were already in TRCs
possession, and are reviewed and summarized in this ESA (see Section 4.3). No other
commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information was provided to TRC by the User.
3.5 Reason for Conducting Phase I
It is TRC’s understanding that the User requires a Phase I to satisfy the requirements of the
CDPHE for their consideration regarding the closure of the REC described in Section 7.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
St. Francis Health Center February 18, 2014
TRC Project No. 208158 9
4.0 RECORDS REVIEW
4.1 Historical Use Information
Information regarding Site and vicinity historical uses was obtained from various publicly
available and practically reviewable sources including:
Aerial photographs dated 1947, 1953, 1960, 1969, 1972, 1988, 1999, 2005, 2009 and
2011 (scale: 1” = 500’ except for 1953, 1” = 1,000’);
Sanborn fire insurance maps dated 1890, 1892, 1895, 1900, 1907, 1962 and 1963;
Topographic maps dated 1909, 1948, 1951, 1956, 1961, 1969, 1975 and 1994;
City directories dated at four to six year intervals between 1922 and 2012;
Local municipal records;
An environmental database report; and,
Interviews with Site representatives, as necessary.
Historical research documentation is included in Appendix B.
4.1.1 Site History
1800s - The original St. Francis Hospital is depicted onsite in 1890 with one primary and one
secondary structure serviced by city water, steam and electric services, and security provided by
a night watchman.
1900 to 1930 - The hospital building more than doubled in size by 1900, and a greenhouse,
laundry (2 boilers depicted), carriage house, shed and hen house were added to the property. The
hospital building more than doubled in size again by 1907. The present-day 1929 Building and
1929 Boiler House were added by 1929 to 1930.
1931 to 1956 - The facility is identified in a 1946 City Directory as Sisters of St. Francis and St.
Francis Hospital and Sanatorium. A 1948 topographic map depicts an addition connecting the
northeast corner of the 1929 Building to the south side of the earlier structures, and another
addition on the east side of the earlier structures (the Chapel). The facility is identified in a 1951
City Directory as Sisters of St. Francis and St. Francis Hospital. 1951 and 1956 topographic
maps are similar in appearance to the 1948 topographic map.
1960s - The building adjoining east of the 1929 Building is not apparent in a 1960 aerial
photograph, and is not depicted in a 1961 topographic map. A 1962 Sanborn map depicts a
storage building adjoining east of the 1929 Boiler House, a Laundry in the west portion of the
1929 Boiler House, and nurse’s quarters in the second floor of the 1929 Boiler House. A 1963
Sanborn map appears to pencil-in a planned location for the present-day 1965 Building, as well
as the demolition of the pre-1931 Hospital and Chapel additions. The 1929 and 1965 buildings
are all that appear to remain onsite in a 1969 aerial photograph.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
St. Francis Health Center February 18, 2014
TRC Project No. 208158 10
1970s - Expanded parking areas are apparent onsite, and on a large parcel adjoining to the south
of the Site facilities (in a previously residential area) in a 1972 aerial photograph. The present-
day 1975 Building is depicted, and a former storage building that adjoined east of the 1929
Boiler House is no longer depicted, in a 1975 topographic map.
1980s to Present - The Site appears similar to today in aerial photographs dated 1988, 1999,
2005, 2009 and 2011, and in a topographic map dated 1994. City directory listings from 1990
onward do not indicate any un-expected Site use or history that would be inconsistent with a
medical facility.
Historic Hazardous Substances or Petroleum Products – It appears that the city provided
steam to a former Hospital building until about 1900; two boilers were subsequently utilized in a
former Laundry building until 1929; and, two boilers were subsequently utilized in the 1929
Building until the complete shutdown of the Site operations in 2012. According to Penrose, the
fuel source for all onsite boilers prior to the installation of the Heating Oil USTs in 1976 was
coal.
4.1.2 Adjoining Property History
Year Adjoining Property History
North East Pikes Peak Avenue was adjoining north of the Site by 1909.
East South Institute Street was adjoining east of the Site by 1907.
South
East Tejon Avenue was adjoining South of the Site by 1895. The street name was changed to
East Huerfano Avenue by 1900. The name of the street was again changed to Colorado
Avenue by 1962.
West South Prospect Street was adjoining west of the Site by 1909.
4.1.3 Surrounding Property History
Year Surrounding Property History
North Residential areas are depicted within the block north of the Site by 1909. The Immanuel
Lutheran Church and School are apparent north of the Site by 1953.
East Several structures are depicted by 1909. A historic Fire Station is apparent by 1947. An
excavation or disturbed area is apparent northeast of the Fire Station in 1960, and vegetation
has established in the area by 1969. Colorado Avenue is extended to the east by 1994. The
Homewood Apartments occupy the area by 2009.
South Residential areas are depicted by 1909 and are apparent by 1947.
West Residential areas are depicted within the block west of the Site by 1909. A vacant field with
residential areas beyond is apparent by 1947. The north and west portions of the field are
developed by 1953. The Gazette Building is built by 1960.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
St. Francis Health Center February 18, 2014
TRC Project No. 208158 11
4.2 Database Report & Environmental Record Review
A database search report that identifies properties listed on state and federal databases within the
ASTM-required radii of the Site was obtained from EDR and is included in Appendix A. The
environmental database report identified 111 properties, listings or events within the ASTM-
specified search radius. TRC review identified no properties that could not be mapped (i.e.,
orphan properties) within the ASTM-specified search radius.
4.2.1 Subject Site
Site information included in the database search report is summarized in the following table:
EDR ID Listing Comment
A1 AIRS (AFS) Registered as a minor source and listed in compliance with procedural
requirements, EPA ID COD990851537.
A1 RCRA NonGen-
NLR
Registered as a small quantity generator of hazardous waste on 8/18/80, no
violations found, EPA ID COD990851537.
A2 RGA LUST LUST status confirmed in EDR ID A3
A3 LUST Facility ID 1737, Event ID 6118, confirmed release reported 4/6/87
A3 CO ERNS Discovery of non aqueous phase liquid (NAPL) on groundwater reported
10/11/13
A3 CO UST Facility ID 1737, five heating oil USTs installed 4/30/76 and listed as
permanently closed
A3 AIRS Construction Permit 95EP1000-1 for Boiler No 1 NG
A4 FINDS Registry ID 110009564444 points to the other Site listings summarized
above.
A5 FINDS Registry ID 110040871394 points to the other Site listings summarized
above.
4.2.2 Adjoining & Surrounding Property Record Review
TRC evaluated the following factors to determine whether additional environmental records
should be reviewed with respect to the potential for contaminant migration from the adjoining
and surrounding properties:
(1) Whether the property is up-gradient or down-gradient of the Site vis-à-vis ground water
migration based on the local topography, and the known and/or assumed ground water
depth and shallow ground water flow direction;
(2) Whether the property is up-gradient or down-gradient of the Site vis-à-vis vapor
migration based on readily available information pursuant to the ASTM E 1527-13
standard including soil and geological characteristics; contaminant characteristics;
contaminated plume migration data; and significant conduits that might provide
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
St. Francis Health Center February 18, 2014
TRC Project No. 208158 12
preferential pathways for vapor migration such as major utility corridors, sanitary sewers,
storm sewers, and significant natural conduits such as Karst terrain (vapor migration may
also be influenced by the age and design of infrastructure features associated with these
conduits);
(3) Property case status (i.e., whether the applicable regulatory authority has listed or issued
a No Further Action letter or other similar closure document or status);
(4) Type of database and whether the presence of contamination is known; and
(5) The distance between the listed property and the Site.
TRC limited the review of additional environmental records to the properties listed below that
are adjoining or abutting the Site to initially determine if any of the EDR listings present a
potential for contaminant migration on to the Site.
EDR
ID Listing Comment Facility Location
B6 UST
Facility ID4944, permanently
closed gasoline UST, no
release indicated.
GAZETTE
TELEGRAPH
30 s. Prospect Avenue - This
facility is located west of the
Site, beyond South Prospect
Street at a lower elevation in the
inferred downgradient location
relative to the Site.
B9 FINDS Registry ID 110001437507
COLORADO
SPRINGS
GAZETTE
B9 AIRS (AFS)
Air minor source, listed in
compliance with procedural
requirements
B9 RCRA-
CESQG
EPA ID COD007079676, no
violations found.
C7 LAST
Facility 1306, Event ID 10701,
confirmed release on 9/15/08
with current status “Closed”. FLIGHT FOR
LIFE
HELIPAD
29 S. Institute Avenue - This
location is east of the South
Parking Area, beyond South
Institute Street in the inferred
upgradient location relative to
C8 AST the South Parking Area.
Facility 1306, Tank Tag 1306-
1, Jet Fuel tank installed
6/9/94, current status
“Permanently Closed”.
D10 EDR DRY
CLEANERS
1937 laundry location per EDR
proprietary data. No other
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
St. Francis Health Center February 18, 2014
TRC Project No. 208158 13
4.3 Previous Reports
The following environmental reports regarding the Site were already known to TRC and/or
provided for review by Penrose:
Environmental Records Review, St. Francis Health Center, TRC, July 29, 2013 – A potential
purchaser identified a record of historic soil and/or groundwater contamination associated with
the former Heating oil USTs at the Site, and St. Francis Health Center (SFHC, aka Penrose)
retained TRC to provide a technical review of any related and reasonably ascertainable
environmental data and regulatory agency correspondence. Significant findings of this review
are summarized below.
a) There is an OPS administrative closure dated 12/22/97 for a confirmed release from at
least one Site UST that was reported 4/6/87 (Event 6118, Facility 1737). This closure is
administrative in nature because the five underground storage tanks (USTs) that were
removed in January 1989 contained heating oil, and were therefore exempt from the
OPS-UST program and its’ associated regulations;
b) Due to the heating oil UST exemption, there was (and continues to be) no regulatory
requirement for registration of the double-walled 20,000 gallon replacement UST that
was reportedly installed at the Site in January 1989 to replace the former USTs;
c) Although a formal UST closure report was not required or prepared, there is ample
evidence in the public record that the five former USTs were installed in 1976 and
removed in 1989; contaminated soils were over-excavated; a waste profile for petroleum
contaminated soil was obtained and submitted to the Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment (CDPHE); and, CDPHE approved the contaminated soil for
offsite disposal as non-hazardous waste;
d) The Colorado Water Quality Control Division (WQCD) provided written confirmation
that there are no records for the subject Site found in their files as of July 9, 2013.
However, documents provided by Penrose confirmed that the WQCD approved the
inactivation of Discharge Permit No. CO-0042242 on February 28, 1995. This permit
allowed for the discharge of treated groundwater to the stormwater sewer, which was no
longer required due to shutdown of the system;
e) Review of Site documents that were available online from the Division of Water
Resources (DWR) confirmed that the permitted groundwater recovery well on the
adjoining property north of the Site (Immanuel Lutheran Congregation, 846 East Pikes
Peak Avenue) was properly plugged and abandoned on February 20, 1997, with final
agency approval granted on March 14, 1997;
f) Review of CDPHE online databases confirmed that as of July 18, 2013, the Site address
of 825 East Pikes Peak Avenue and the related address of 846 East Pikes Peak Avenue
(Immanuel Lutheran Congregation) were not listed by CDPH&E Remediation Program
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
St. Francis Health Center February 18, 2014
TRC Project No. 208158 14
in the Active Superfund Sites, Deleted Sites, Proposed Sites, Natural Resource Damages
Sites, Voluntary Cleanup Sites or Private (Non-Superfund) Cleanup Sites.
g) Review of the Colorado Hazardous Materials Waste Management Division (HMWMD)
files confirmed that the Site facility was a small quantity generator (SQG) of hazardous
waste by 1983; the facility no longer generated hazardous waste as of January 20, 2004;
the EPA I.D (COD990851537) was inactivated on January 26, 2004; and, no other
relevant listings or events regarding USTs, contamination or remediation at the Site were
available from the HMWMD. The HMWMD confirmed that they have no files for the
related address of 846 East Pikes Peak Avenue; and,
h) Review of an environmental database purchased from EDR at that time confirmed that
the leaking UST event summarized above is listed as “CLOSED” (Event 6118, Facility
1737); and, no other relevant listings or events regarding USTs, contamination or
remediation at the Site are found in the current database listings.
Report and Request for No Action Determination, TRC, January 22, 2014 - On October 10,
2013, a consultant in the employ of a potential buyer ostensibly gauged 6.68 feet of NAPL in SF
56, a monitor well that has survived since 1987 and is located proximal to the former UST area.
The gauging event observation was reported to Penrose who directed TRC to report it to
CDPHE. On October 11, 2013, TRC made this report to the CDPHE Reporting Hotline. On
October 17, 2013, the double wall replacement UST (installed in 1989) passed a pressure test for
tank integrity in accordance with State standards.
In November, 2013 TRC was authorized by Penrose to conduct a current conditions site
investigation in order to determine the nature and extent of subsurface NAPL (if present), and to
use that information to interact with CDPHE. NAPL was not observed five existing wells
(including SF 56) that were gauged on November 14, 2013. Five additional wells were installed
and gauged on December 19, 2013, and NAPL was not observed in any of the new wells or the
five previously gauged wells. The 10 wells were gauged again on January 15, 2014 and NAPL
was not observed in any well. Accordingly, TRC requested (on behalf of Penrose) a No Action
Determination (NAD) from CDPHE. No such determination has been provided or discovered
during the course of this ESA.
4.4 Other Environmental Record Sources
Additional environmental records were previously reviewed and a related report (see Section
4.3) is relied upon in this ESA to enhance and supplement the ASTM-required federal and state
record sources. No additional environmental record sources were obtained or reviewed.
5.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE
5.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions
Mr. Robert C. Reinhart conducted a Site reconnaissance of accessible areas on and around the
Site on February 7, 2014 for the purpose of identifying potential RECs, and was accompanied by
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
St. Francis Health Center February 18, 2014
TRC Project No. 208158 15
Mr. Greg Johnson, Facilities Project Coordinator for Penrose, provided access to the property
and answered questions during the reconnaissance. Photographs taken during the reconnaissance
are provided in Appendix C. A Site layout plan is included as Figure 2.
Approximately four-inches of accumulated snow covered most exterior surfaces at the time of
the Site and vicinity reconnaissance, obstructing visual inspection of most ground surfaces. This
limiting condition does not present a significant deviation from the ASTM standard, since
previous TRC visits to the Site allowed for un-obstructed inspection of the Site, and the Site has
since been inactive.
5.2 Interior and Exterior Site Observations
Unless otherwise noted, the items listed in the table below appeared in good condition with no
visual evidence of staining, deterioration or a discharge of hazardous materials; and there are no
records of a release in these areas. Items where further description is warranted are discussed in
the section(s) following the table.
Item Description
Hazardous material storage or
handling areas.
The Site is inactive and vacant. Accordingly, no hazardous material
storage or handling areas were observed at the time of the Site visit.
Based on other file review (See Section 4.3), the Site facility was a small
quantity generator (SQG) of hazardous waste by 1983; the facility no
longer generated hazardous waste as of January 20, 2004; and, the EPA
I.D (COD990851537) was inactivated on January 26, 2004.
Aboveground storage tanks (ASTs)
and associated piping
An approximate 100-gallon hydraulic oil tank is located in a service room
on Floor 5 of the 1929 Building. Approximately one square foot of
staining was observed on the floor beneath a pipe elbow at the location.
Approximate 200-gallon capacity day tanks adjoin each of two oil-fueled
emergency generators in the Generator Building. Three former liquid
oxygen ASTs occupied concrete pad in a fenced area northeast of the
1965 Building until 2012.
Underground storage tanks (USTs)
and associated piping
One double-walled 20,000 gallon heating oil UST was installed in 1989
adjoining east of the Generator Building. The UST was emptied and
passed a leak detection test on October 17, 2013. Former USTs are
further discussed in Section 4.3.
Drums & containers (≥5 gallons)
Twelve 55-gallon drums observed in the west room of the 1929 Boiler
Building consist of ten drums of soil cuttings and two drums of purge
water generated during recent Site investigations (See Section 4.3). TRC
is currently contracted to remove these drums for proper offsite disposal.
No other drums or containers > 5-gallons were observed onsite at the time
of the Site walk.
Odors No unusual odors were observed onsite at the time of the Site visit.
Pools of liquid. No pools of liquid were observed at the time of the Site visit.
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) /
Transformers
One pad-mounted transformer is located adjoining the southeast corner of
the 1965 Building and is owned by the City electric utility. No leaks or
stains were apparent on or around the transformer at the time of the Site
visit.
Stains or corrosion
Approximately 10 square feet of rust-colored stained concrete is apparent
beneath a blowdown valve in the Basement of the 1965 Building. There
are no floor drains in the vicinity and no visible cracks in the concrete.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
St. Francis Health Center February 18, 2014
TRC Project No. 208158 16
Item Description
Drains & sumps
A series of floor drains in the basement of the 1965 and 1975 Buildings
drain to a sump in the 1975 Building. The sump appears to be constructed
of approximately 4-foot diameter galvanized steel with a concrete floor at
approximately four feet below grade. The sump utilizes a lift pump to
discharge to a nearby ceiling-mounted sewer line. Approximately one
foot of water with no sheen or odor was accumulated in the bottom of a
sump at the time of the Site visit. No hazardous substances are suspected
within the drain or sump system.
Pits, ponds & lagoons No pits, ponds or lagoons were observed at the time of the Site visit.
Stressed vegetation No stressed vegetation was observed at the time of the Site visit.
Historic fill or any other fill material
Timber, block and/or concrete retaining walls are incorporated into the
landscaping throughout the site, and are assumed to contain fill from
onsite cut and fill grading associated with historic construction. No
evidence of contaminated fill at the Site was observed, reported or
discovered during the course of this ESA.
Wastewater (including storm water
or any discharge into a drain, ditch,
underground injection system, or
stream on or adjacent to the Site)
No wastewater discharges (other than septic) were observed at the time of
the Site visit.
Wells (including dry wells, irrigation
wells, injection wells, abandoned
wells, or other wells)
Four sets of two “nested” groundwater monitoring wells (MWs) that
survive from the 1987 investigations remain onsite, along with five
recently constructed MWs. One additional nested set of 1987 MWs is
located in a vacant parcel northwest of the Site, in the vicinity of a buried
storm drain that was also investigated. A recovery well (RW) associated
with historic remediation at the Site (Permit No 31664) is registered to the
Site address. The RW was properly plugged and abandoned on 2/20/97
with agency approval finalized on 3/14/97. No other wells of any kind
were observed, reported or discovered on or adjoining the Site during the
course of this ESA.
Septic systems or cesspools No evidence of septic systems or cesspools was observed, reported or
discovered on the Site during the course of this ESA.
5.3 Adjoining and Surrounding Properties Reconnaissance
5.3.1 Adjoining Properties
During the Site reconnaissance, TRC viewed the adjoining properties from the Site and publicly
accessible areas (e.g., public roadways, etc
Adjoining Properties Reconnaissance
Direction
from Site Current Land Use Description
North East Pikes Peak Avenue with the Immanuel Lutheran church and School beyond.
East South Institute Street with (from north to south) the Homewood Apartments, a historic Fire Station
and the former St. Francis Helipad Site (now vacant), beyond.
South Residential area.
West
South Prospect Street, with (from north to south) a multi-tenant commercial building and the Gazette
Building (now vacant) , beyond. The South Parking Area is adjoined to the west by a residential
area, with South Prospect Street and a small park, beyond.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
St. Francis Health Center February 18, 2014
TRC Project No. 208158 17
5.3.2 Surrounding Properties
Surrounding properties generally include residential and institutional properties to the north, east
and south, and residential, commercial and industrial properties to the west.
6.0 INTERVIEWS
The following persons were interviewed to obtain historically and/or environmentally-pertinent
information regarding RECs associated with the Site.
Mr. David Howard, CFHM, Facilities Director for Penrose; and,
Mr. Greg Johnson, Facilities Project Coordinator for Penrose SFHS.
The information provided by each is discussed and referenced throughout this report.
7.0 FINDINGS, OPINIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
Potential findings can include RECs, historical RECs (HRECs), controlled RECs (CRECs) and
de minimis conditions, pursuant to the ASTM E 1527-13 standard.
RECs are defined as the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum
products in, on, or at a property: (1) due to any release to the environment; (2) under conditions
indicative of a release to the environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a
future release to the environment.
CRECs are defined as a REC resulting from a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum
products that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority (for
example, as evidenced by the issuance of a no further action letter or equivalent, or meeting risk-
based criteria established by regulatory authority), with hazardous substances or petroleum
products allowed to remain in place subject to the implementation of required controls (for
example, property use restrictions, activity and use limitations, institutional controls, or
engineering controls).
HRECs are defined as a past release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products that has
occurred in connection with the property and has been addressed to the satisfaction of the
applicable regulatory authority or meeting unrestricted use criteria established by a regulatory
authority, without subjecting the property to any required controls (for example, property use
restrictions, activity and use limitations, institutional controls, or engineering controls).
De minimis conditions are defined as a condition that generally does not present a threat to
human health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement
action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies. Conditions determined
to be de minimis conditions are neither RECs nor CRECs.
TRC has performed a Phase I ESA in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM E
1527-13 at the property located at 825 East Pikes Peak Avenue, Colorado Springs, Colorado
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
St. Francis Health Center February 18, 2014
TRC Project No. 208158 18
(Site). TRC staff and Environmental Qualifications are provided in Appendix D. The
Environmental Professional Statement is provided in Appendix E. Deviations from this standard
are described in Sections 1.3 and 7.6 of this report.
7.1 RECs and CRECs
This assessment has revealed no evidence of RECs (including CRECs) in connection with the
Site. except for the following:
The public record detailing an October 11, 2013 notification regarding onsite NAPL on
groundwater, and the lack of an approved CDPHE No Action Determination (NAD)
regarding that notification, presents a REC at the Site.
7.2 HRECs
This assessment has revealed no evidence of HRECs in connection with the Site, except for the
following:
OPS issued an administrative closure on December 22, 1997 for a 1987 heating oil
release at the site (Event 6118, Facility 1737).
7.3 De Minimis Conditions
This assessment has revealed no evidence of de minimis conditions in connection with the Site,
except for the following:
Approximately one square foot of staining beneath a hydraulic oil tank was observed in
elevator service room on Floor 5 of the 1929 Building; and,
Approximately 10 square feet of rust-colored stained concrete is apparent beneath a
blowdown valve in the Basement of the 1965 Building. There are no floor drains in the
vicinity and no visible cracks in the concrete.
7.4 Data Gaps
TRC has made an appropriate inquiry into the commonly known and reasonably ascertainable
resources concerning the historical ownership and use of the Site back to the first development
per 40 CFR Part 312.24 (Reviews of Historical Sources of Information). No data gaps were
identified during this assessment, except the following:
(1) The site was developed with a hospital building before 1890, but TRC was only able to
obtain historic information dating back to 1890.
Based on all of the other historical sources reviewed, this Data Gap is not considered significant.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
St. Francis Health Center February 18, 2014
TRC Project No. 208158 19
7.5 Limiting Conditions and Deviations
7.5.1 Accuracy and Completeness
The ASTM E 1527-13 standard recognizes inherent limitations for Phase I ESAs that apply to
this report, including:
Uncertainty Not Eliminated – No Phase I ESA can wholly eliminate uncertainty
regarding the potential for RECs in connection with a property. Data gaps identified
during this Phase I ESA are listed in Section 7.4.
Not Exhaustive – A Phase I ESA is not an exhaustive investigation.
Past Uses of the Property – A review of standard historical sources at intervals less than
five years is not required.
The Client is advised that the Phase I ESA conducted at the Site is a limited inquiry into a
property’s environmental status, cannot wholly eliminate uncertainty, and is not an exhaustive
assessment to discover every potential source of environmental liability at the Site. Therefore,
TRC does not make a statement i) of warranty or guarantee, express or implied for any specific
use; ii) that the Site is free of RECs or environmental impairment; iii) that the Site is “clean”; or
iv) that impairments, if any, are limited to those that were discovered while TRC was performing
the Phase I ESA. This limiting statement is not meant to compromise the findings of this report;
rather, it is meant as a statement of limitations within the ASTM standard and intended scope of
this assessment. Specific limiting conditions identified during the Site reconnaissance are
described in Section 5.1. Subsurface conditions may differ from the conditions implied by
surface observations, and can be evaluated more thoroughly through intrusive techniques that are
beyond the scope of this assessment. Information in this report is not intended to be used as a
construction document and should not be used for demolition, renovation, or other construction
purposes.
This report presents TRC’s site reconnaissance observations, findings, and conclusions as they
existed at the time of the Site reconnaissance. TRC makes no representation or warranty that the
past or current operations at the property are, or have been, in compliance with all applicable
federal, state and local laws, regulations and codes. TRC makes no guarantees as to the accuracy
or completeness of information obtained from others during the course of this Phase I ESA
report. It is possible that information exists beyond the scope of this assessment, or that
information was not provided to TRC. Additional information subsequently provided,
discovered, or produced may alter findings or conclusions made in this Phase I ESA report. TRC
is under no obligation to update this report to reflect such subsequent information. The findings
presented in this report are based upon reasonably ascertainable information and observed Site
conditions at the time of the assessment.
This report does not warrant against future operations or conditions, nor does it warrant against
operations or conditions present of a type or at a location not assessed. Regardless of the
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
St. Francis Health Center February 18, 2014
TRC Project No. 208158 20
findings stated in this report, TRC is not responsible for consequences or conditions arising from
facts that were not fully disclosed to TRC during the assessment.
An independent data research company provided the government agency database referenced in
this report. Information regarding surrounding area properties was requested for approximate
minimum search distances and was assumed to be correct and complete unless obviously
contradicted by TRC’s observations or other credible referenced sources reviewed during the
assessment.
TRC is not a professional title insurance or land surveyor firm and makes no guarantee, explicit
or implied, that any land title records acquired or reviewed, or any physical descriptions or
depictions of the property in this report, represent a comprehensive definition or precise
delineation of property ownership or boundaries.
7.5.2 Warranties and Representations
This report does not warrant against: (1) operations or conditions which were not evident from
visual observations or historical information provided; (2) conditions which could only be
determined by physical sampling or other intrusive investigation techniques; (3) locations other
than the client-provided addresses and/or legal parcel description; or (4) information regarding
off-site location(s) (with possible impact to the Site) not published in publicly available records.
7.5.3 Continued Validity/User Reliance
This report is presumed to be valid, in accordance with, and subject to, the limitations specified
in the ASTM E 1527-13 standard, for a period of 180 days from completion, or until the Client
obtains specific information that may materially alter a finding, opinion, or conclusion in this
report, or until the Client is notified by TRC that it has obtained specific information that may
materially alter a finding, opinion, or conclusion in this report. Additionally, pursuant to the
ASTM E 1527-13 standard, this report is presumed valid if completed less than 180 days prior to
the date of acquisition of the property or (for transactions not involving an acquisition) the date
of the intended transaction.
7.5.4 Significant Assumptions
During this Phase I ESA, TRC relied on database information; interviews with Site
representatives, regulatory officials, and other individuals having knowledge of Site operations;
and information provided by the User as requested in our authorized Scope of Work. TRC has
assumed that the information provided is true and accurate. Reliance on electronic database
search reports is subject to the limitations set forth in those reports. TRC did not independently
verify the information provided. TRC found no reason to question the validity of the information
received unless explicitly noted elsewhere in this report. If other information is discovered
and/or if previous reports exist that were not provided to TRC, our conclusions may not be valid.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
St. Francis Health Center February 18, 2014
TRC Project No. 208158 21
8.0 REFERENCES
EDR Radius Map Report with GeoCheck ®, Inquiry No. 3850267, February 7, 2014
Environmental Records Review, St. Francis Health Center, TRC, July 29, 2013
Report and Request for No Action Determination, TRC, January 22, 2014
El Paso County Assessor,
http://land.elpasoco.com/
City of Colorado Springs Planning & Development,
http://www.springsgov.com/SectionIndex.aspx?SectionID=89
9.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES
No additional services were performed during this Phase I ESA.
FIGURE 1
SITE LOCATION
St. Francis Health Center
825 East Pikes Peak Avenue
Colorado Springs, CO 80903
Site
North
One Inch = Approximately 2,000 Feet.
USGS 1:24,000 Colorado Springs Quadrangle, Photorevised 1994
FIGURE 2
SITE AND VICINITY LAYOUT
St. Francis Health Center
825 East Pikes Peak Avenue
Colorado Springs, CO 80903
Site
Vacant Parcel
745 E.
Pikes Peak
Ave.
Residence
The Gazette Building
East Pikes Peak Avenue
Asphalt-paved Parking Area
Park (Former Residential Area)
Former St.
Francis
Helipad
Colorado School for
the Deaf and Blind
Immanuel Lutheran Church and School
Homewood
Apartments
Historic Fire
Station
Immanuel
Lutheran Church
and School
739 E.
Pikes Peak
Ave.
Residential Area
1929 Building
Garage
Generator Buildings
(1985/1965)
Boiler House (1929/1975)
1975 Building
1965
Building
Heating
Oil UST
South Institute Street
South Prospect Street
Colorado Avenue
North
One Inch = Approximately 200 Feet.
Google Earth Satellite Imagery dated October 23, 2011
Former
Liquid Air ASTs
(1985/1965)
useful information is provided.
MUNSON
CLARENCE
G INDY
107 S. Prospect Street - This
address appears to be a residence
located at a lower elevation in
the inferred downgradient
location relative to the southwest
corner of the South Parking
Area.
D11 EDR DRY
CLEANERS
MUNSON
CLARENCE
G
Based on the listed criteria and/or the findings summarized above (lower elevation, inferred
downgradient location, lack of a release and/or closed status), no additional review of these or
any other EDR listing was required or completed.
Poudre River MGP Cleanup Fort Collins, CO X X X X X X X X
Pueblo Rail Yard Pueblo, CO X X X X X X
St. Francis Hospital Colorado Spring, CO X X X X
Suncor Refinery Commerce City, CO X X X X X X X
The Clovis Lofts Clovis, NM X X X X
Town of Rico Soils Rico, CO X X X X X X X
Select Examples of TRC Project Staff's Relevant Experience