Laserfiche WebLink
Ph.ase I Ena�ironmental Site Assessment September 2, 2009 <br /> 7A FINDINGS AND OPI1vI0I�TS <br /> This section of the report provides rationale supporting conclusions as to u�hether findings are <br /> considered to be RECs. <br /> Findings Source Opinions <br /> Property Findings <br /> Considered a REC for the Property. The Site has <br /> historically been used as a dump for household <br /> goods and the exact materiaL�were not necessarily <br /> documented and controlled. It is possible that <br /> unknown materials that may be considered <br /> City hazardous may have been dumped in the past. <br /> Smith Dump/Wayzata Settling Pond Information/EDR 'rne Wayzata Settling Pond��as incorrectly located <br /> MN LS, SPILLS Database/MPCA on tl�e Property. It is located several miles to the <br /> Documents east in Wayzata. In addition, the Spill reported <br /> has no file at the MPCA and was reported with a <br /> quantity of 0. According to Ms.Lupe Verduzco at <br /> the MPCA, this was most likely incorrectly <br /> reported. <br /> Considered a REC for the Property. Debris was <br /> observed scattered in several areas across the Site. <br /> Most of the items oUserved appeared to be <br /> Debris and junk piles across the household goods, concrete, metal, wood pieces or <br /> Property tires. However, there were areas observed with <br /> unknown cans with unknown contents. It is <br /> possible that these cans may have contained paint, <br /> gasoline,waste oil or other hazardous items. <br /> Not considered a REC for the Properry since there <br /> was no evidence of any hazardous substances <br /> entering the ceptic system or water supply well. <br /> Septic systeui and��ater supply well Sanitary wastes do not represent a hazardous <br /> substance. However, if the Property is to be <br /> redeveloped in the future they must be properly <br /> Site Reconnaissance abandoned according to state and local guidelines. <br /> Not considered a KEC. However, it is considered <br /> to be a data gap. The house and animal barns <br /> would not be considered typical of a building that <br /> No access to house and barns involve� activiry that typically leads to a REC. <br /> However, the actual uses of these buildings was not <br /> determined. <br /> Not considered a REC far the Site. However, <br /> Caxlson would consider this to be an environmental <br /> concern since rypically a garage is commonly used to <br /> No access to garage store possiUle hazardous wastes or petroleum <br /> products. Mechanical work on vehicles may have <br /> been done in the garage and the flooring and/or <br /> floor drains within the garaee are unknown. <br /> Carlson Professional Services, Inc. Page 16 <br />