Memo Landfill IssuesC I T Y O F H O P K I N S
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: December 12, 1991
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jim Gessele, Engineering Superintendent Jili
SUBJECT: LANDFILL ISSUES
This memo serves as an introduction to a Doherty Rumble Butler
report regarding continuing landfill issues faced by the City.
The main thrust of DRB's report is to discuss methane remedial
action alternatives for the western and northern boundaries of
the 7th Street South landfill site. An overview of how the City
has arrived at "institutional remediation" as a means of
addressing the methane migration at the remaining boundaries is
presented. "Institutional controls" go hand -in -hand with
"institutional remediation," and that simply means the City must
decide to either acquire property adjacent to or on landfill
deposits or negotiate restrictive pollution easements.
The concept of "institutional remediation" raises several
questions that legal counsel enumerates. In brief they are:
o Cost /value of fee acquisition of Rutledge and ABJ
properties (see attached map)
o Easement acquisition costs
o Impermanence of easement approach
o MPCA /legislative funding for land acquisition
o Feasibility of roadway construction across landfill
site
o Waste on Venturian property adjacent to the west
o Cost /value of northern 17 acres of Venturian property
to the west (see attached map)
DRB recommends to Council that staff be authorized to open
negotiations with ABJ and Rutledge for either acquisition of
parcels or pollution easements, that staff negotiate with
Venturian regarding a limited access road to serve the parcel on
the western boundary.
The report concludes with updates concerning environmental
investigations on the Venturian and Justus properties along
County Road 3, negotiation with the Westbrooke Association
concerning amendment of the existing agreement and the location
of ground water monitoring wells, status of the financial
assurance agreement with the MPCA, and financial reimbursement
for the current methane remediation project.
You will also find attached the latest gas monitoring report from
Braun Intertec subsequent to corrective repositioning of the
barrier.
Representatives from Doherty Rumble & Butler will be present to
answer questions.
Attachments
JG12121B
bj
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Steve Mielke, City Manager, City of Hopkins
FROM: Jim Gessele, City of Hopkins and Jon Scoll and Dick
Nowlin, Doherty, Rumble & Butler
RE: Remedial Action Alternatives North Boundary 7th Street
Landfill
DATE: December 12, 1991
The following is written to discuss three issues
relating to remedial action with regard to methane migration on
the northern and western boundaries of the 7th Street Landfill.
These issues are brought to your attention because of potentially
significant policy and economic consequences to the City. The
memo asks for and recommends a decision with regard to only one
of these issues at this time: whether to acquire the ABJ and
Rutledge parcels in fee or to simply secure an easement interest
allowing these land uses to remain.
Pursuant to the Closure Order, the City prepared and
submitted a gas control /Recovery Remedial Measures Plan and
Alternatives Report dated July 31, 1991, (the Report) discussing
the data relating to methane migration on the northern and
western boundaries of the Landfill and discussing alternative
remediation approaches. The Report was prepared and submitted by
Braun Intertec following City staff and consultant review. In
brief summary, the report indicates that methane concentrations
exist on and beyond the ABJ and Rutledge properties to the north
but that migration in this direction does not extend beyond the
railroad tracks located north of these properties. The report
also indicates that methane is not migrating to any significant
degree into lands adjacent to the western boundary of the
Landfill owned by Venturian. The high groundwater
table /condition on the land adjacent to the boundary apparently
stops the lateral migration of measurable quantities of methane.
The Report goes on to note the City sold part of the
land located on the northern edge of the Landfill to ABJ and
Rutledge in the 1980's and that these owners are making use of
the property largely for outside storage of equipment, machinery,
and materials. Waste exists under some portions of these storage
areas; this waste was placed in these locations in the 1960's and
early 1970's, making these areas some of the oldest parts of the
Landfill. As a result, it is assumed that these areas are
generating less methane than in the past.
The issue of whether to acquire a fee or easement
interest in the ABJ or Rutledge property arises because the
Report noted that "institutional controls" could be used to
mitigate /prevent problems associated with methane migration to
the north and west. This means that instead of constructing an
active or passive methane control system, the City would use land
use restrictions and /or land ownership with continued methane
monitoring for remediation. The Report suggested the use of
institutional controls in part because of the high cost of an
active methane recovery /removal system and problems noted by
Braun, RCM, and Lofy, relating to the ability of such a system to
effectively and efficiently prevent methane migration.
Institutional controls in this setting could include:
(i) the acquisition of the ABJ and Rutledge properties; (ii) the
purchase of an easement acknowledging and authorizing the
continued presence of subsurface waste, and the generation and /or
migration of methane on these properties; or (iii) zoning
controls to ensure appropriate building and setback requirements.
The approach selected by the City ultimately needs MPCA
approval. The MPCA reviewed the Report and requested by letter
of October 16, 1991, that the City provide more specification
vis -a -vis the use of institutional controls to mitigate /prevent
methane migration at these locations. Along the northern
boundary there is an opportunity to chose between the acquisition
of a fee interest in this property or simply a "pollution
easement." On the western boundary, due to the lack of
horizontal migration and the City of Minnetonka's setback
requirements, it does not appear that the acquisition of an
easement or fee title to a portion of this property would be
necessary at this time.
The decision about whether to acquire the ABJ and
Rutledge parcels is complicated by the fact that the Minnetonka
City staff indicates that in order to develop the Venturian
property west of the Landfill for multi- family residential use,
some form of access to this property will be necessary via 7th
Street extended. In order to provide this access: (i) the MPCA
needs to authorize the construction of a roadway on top of the
waste deposit; (ii) the road needs to be able to be constructed
from an engineering standpoint to a level satisfactory to serve
purposes identified by the City of Minnetonka; and (iii) and
funds need to be made available for its cost.
The fee or easement acquisition of ABJ and Rutledge is
not directly tied to the 7th Street extension decision. If only
an easement were acquired, the ABJ and Rutledge properties likely
would pay a portion of the costs of this road as they would
receive some benefit. Road construction could also affect the
easement vs. fee issue in that if the Venturian property to the
west were to be acquired by the City and devoted to other than
residential use (e.g., for park or recreational purposes), it is
unlikely that 7th Street would have to be extended and a road
constructed across the waste deposit.
Following is a list and responses to various specific
questions relating to the decision whether to authorize the
acquisition of a fee or easement interest in this property.
1. Cost /Value of the Rutledge Property Assuming Fee
Acquisition. The Rutledge parcel purchased for 42 per
square foot (gross purchase price $12,500); market
value of the property remains at $12,500 today. The
ABJ property, slightly less than two acres, was
purchased for $42,000, or 52.5 per square foot. The
ABJ property is currently shown on the records of the
City Assessor at a value of $44,100.
2. Cost of Acquiring an Easement. The cost of an easement
would presumably be considerably less than that for a
fee, and might also be more easily negotiated since
Rutledge and ABJ want to remain on their sites.
3. Impermanence of Easement Approach -Need for Land
Subsequently in Connection with Remediation. The
easement approach would not give the City the right it
would need should it later prove necessary to enter the
ABJ or Rutledge properties to perform active
remediation (e.g., excavation). Should the properties
have to be condemned or otherwise acquired, however,
the value of the City's easement would be credited
against the landowners' compensation. The need to
acquire either property at this time appears remote.
It should be noted that the MPCA staff have not
acquiesced in the concept of a "pollution easement" for
these parcels. Staff (Ken Meyer) has surfaced a
concern that allowing such an easement would in effect
constitute an acquiescence in the present condition of
the properties, including the present venting of
methane or other VOCs on these properties.
4. MPCA /Legislative Funding For Acquisition of these
Parcels. Based on Petrofund and other precedent, as
well as the continuing value of the property acquired
by the City, it is not likely that the City would be
able to secure state or metro funding for this land
acquisition. Not absolutely impossible however.
5. Cost, Feasibility of Road Construction. Three types of
roads could be developed across the landfill: (i) a
standard city street (bituminous surface, concrete curb
and gutter, 44 ft. width); (ii) a rural street
(bituminous surface, no curb or gutter, but a ditch
section for stormwater runoff to the existing storm
sewer, 44 ft. in width) ; or (iii) a fire access road
(aggregate surface only, no bituminous, same ditch as
(ii), 22 ft. wide). The cost of a standard city street
would be approximately $308,000 under the
circumstances; the cost of the rural street would be
approximately $253,000 and the cost of a fire access
road $106,000. The fire access road would not give
legal access to Rutledge or ABJ, so that a portion of
the road would in all events have to meet the standard
for a rural street.
Based on preliminary conversations with the MPCA, it is
probable that a design could be developed which would
meet the MPCA concerns, which are primarily related to
property drainage, and the avoidance of accumulations
of water in ditches which would increase or exacerbate
leachate problems.
A preliminary conversation with the city engineer of
Minnetonka suggests that Minnetonka would not oppose
the concept of a fire access road as such. (Gessele
conversation with Mike Johnson, Assistant Engineer of
Minnetonka, December 11, 1991).
6. Existence of Waste on Unowned Western Property. As a
result of seven borings performed on the west edge of
the landfill on December 6, 1991 by Braun, it now
appears that at most, only insignificant traces of
waste exist on this property. Of seven borings, only
one encountered any evidence of waste (a trace amount
of plastic) .
7. Cost /Value of Northern 17 Acres of Venturian Property
to the West. On September 19, 1991, Mr. Rappaport's
attorney indicated that Mr. Rappaport would sell the
northerly 17 acres of the site for $1,000,000.
Additional acreage to the south could be acquired for
$300,000, for a total sale price of $1,300,000.
Information from the Minnetonka City Assessor indicates
somewhat lower values. The 17.4 acres, adjoining the
landfill has been assessed at $150,000 fair market
value by Minnetonka City Assessor; the 7.4 acres
directly west of the Greenfield Apartments is assessed
at $200,000 and the property adjoining Smetana Road,
approximately 11.2 acres, is assessed at $325,000, for
a total value of all Rappaport property (approximately
36 acres in total) of $675,000, per the assessor's
records. An issue exists with respect to a proposed
designation by the City of Minnetonka of portions of
all three parcels as wetland, but the wetland
designation process has not concluded.
Recommendation. Based on all of the above factors, it
would appear appropriate for the City to authorize the staff to
enter into negotiations with ABJ and Rutledge for the acquisition
of a fee interest in or a pollution easement covering their
properties on the northern boundary. If the cost of acquisition
is reasonable, this would be the preferred alternative. On the
� other hand, if it would be overly expensive to acquire the fee
and ABJ and Rutledge are willing to comply'with strict City (or
MPCA) requirements as to control of use, etc., and provide an
easement at reasonable cost, this alternative would be preferred.
We also recommend that the City Council direct staff to
negotiate with G. Rappaport regarding construction of a limited
access road serve his parcel to the west. The results of these
negotiations, together with the results of discussions with ABJ
and Rutledge, as well as the answers to the issues under
paragraphs 5, 6, and 7, will serve to guide staff and the City
Council in determining which course(s) of action to pursue.
Additional Information is submitted for your guidance
and that of the City Council:
(a) Venturian/Justus Lumber Parcels on Highway 3.
Tentative agreement has been reached with Braun,
Venturian and the City regarding the sharing of
investigative expenses on the Venturian parcel, and the
manner in which the services of Braun are to be
separately invoiced to the City and to the landowner.
A similar arrangement exists with respect to Justus
Lumber. A work plan for a remedial investigation on
the venturian property is presently being reviewed by
the MPCA. Although no similar work plan has been
� submitted yet with respect to Justus, Braun will
prepare the Phase II audit proposal with the idea that
the Phase II investigative work will be performed not
later than this spring.
(b) Westbrooke Association Status. The contract between
the City and Westbrooke Patio Homes Association
controls the City's relationship with the homeowners,
vis-a-vis the 1988 Closure Qrder. Counsel to the
homeowners has requested an amendment which would
eliminate the verbiage related to the barrier
construction, etc., and deal only with long term-access
for monitoring. We have agreed, and are presently
commencing discussions regarding completion of the
monitoring well location process.
(c) Financial Assurance Mechanism. It now appears that
preliminary agreement with the MPCA has been reached
regarding the restructuring of the financial assurance
mechanism. This will entail a two year pay-in into a
trust of an amount equal two years post-closure
maintenance costs.
� FDN 0028116.WP
FDN 0028116.WP
(d) Funding from MLCAT. The appropriation of $1.3 million
from the Metropolitan Landfill Contingency Action Trust
requires (i) submission of an "as- built" set of plans
to the MPCA; and (ii) submission of invoices for costs
incurred to remediate methane at the Landfill. It is
anticipated that this information will be submitted in
December, with funding anticipated in January or
February.
BRAUN"
INTERTEC
Date: December 9, 1991
To: Jim Gessele
From: Paula Connell
Re: Gas Monitoring and Borings at Hopkins Sanitary Landfill
Gas Monitoring Results
Memorandum
Gas monitoring of probes along the eastern side of the Landfill, i.e. near Westbrooke, was
performed on December 9. Results from the last two years, as well as the figure showing the
probe locations, are attached.
The barrier was installed in April through June 1991 and was modified in November 1991.
To date, we only have one set of results since the modification of the barrier. These results
are rather inconclusive at this time. However, the readings have decreased in some of the
probes since the barrier modification. It may be that the frozen condition of the ground
would delay dissipation of gases present in the soil prior to the modification.
Readings in probes G -14 and G -18, as well as several of the readings in the nested probes are
above the permitted levels of 5% gas (100% LEL). However, readings in G -15, G -16, and
G -17 are zero, or close to zero. Readings in these probes had historically been high, up to
65 %.
Additional monitoring should be performed to evaluate whether the readings we are getting
are due to residual gas in the soil. I suggest that we monitor once every two to four weeks
for the next two to three months.
Boring Results
Seven power auger borings were performed along the west edge of the Landfill on December
6, 1991. The approximate locations are also shown on an attached figure. The borings were
located approximately two feet west of the property line and were placed on the slope. The
borings were conducted to the water table, up to approximately 10 feet below the surface.
A trace amount of plastic was found in the 2'-6' depth range in boring PAB -5. As a
consequence, PAB -6 and PAB -7 were placed approximately 50' north and south, respectively
of PAB -5. No trash was found in any of the other borings.
7.
1
: I
t
I 1
'
4
I t
. • •
, ;.,.e • ....
,t
(7!
(1
0
0 00
0
`♦ \
O
O 0
0
o I 5
a
t7 } N
a.
O N
O u)
CD
z �
O
o4
xi- t! -47* -.o — --O_
0 6 0
z
O o
r')
{
x
0
•
0
ON i
x x
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
O
O
0
O
C)
r
0
o I LO LA 0 0
0) L0 T N
U I`
a)
p N
r
0 O O LO LO 'k
0) CO M M 0
0) O
LO CO r I—
d
a) M
�
L
‹ m
0) O 0 r
0 000N* ( f)
O
O O L() r r Lq
0 ) (0 M N
C O
O
�c
0 0 ) O C 0
CO
M O
O CO N
N N
N
Q �
Q O
O O T- 1 t- 0
0) mot' to r
t� 0)
N
2 co
k r
00`) N N N N-
^ T
i[ N
a) N
LL O
r I 1 (0 1
0)
(0 • N
� r
O in in O iA in O LD
r T T T T T
r T T N N N M Cr) Cr)
In CO CO 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 / 11
/� /� /� /� �R
000 0 0 03 000
0 0 0 0 0 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z
h
r