&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Re»ponse
EPA/ROD.R04-8S 005
September 1985
Superfund
Record of Decision:
Davie Landfill, FL
-------
- ----- u_u'flECi'lJl ~l~ .;111. L ~ rl;;l~rnJrji\ '-;i\ - ..- -~ -" - -- -
(PitUt ftDd Instructions on tht ftlltrSt btlort compltting)
.'. REPORT 1110. 12. 3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
EPA/ROD/R04-85/005
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. REPORT DATE
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION .. "1n , 1">01:
Davie Landfill, FL 6. PEA'FORMING ORGANIZATION COOE
7. AUTHORIS) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
[9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADORESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOO COVERED
U.S. Environmental Protection Ag~ncy Final ROD Report
401 M Street, S.W. 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
Washington, D.C. 20460 800/00
1!5. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
The Broward County Solid Waste Disposal facility (a.k.a. Davie Landfill) is located
10 miles southwest of Fort Lauderdale, Florida near the intersection of Orange Drive
and Boy Scout Road. The landfill area includes a 50-acre garbage landfill, an 80-acre
trash landfill and a 56-acre sludge lagoon. The facility began operation in 1964
accepting trash and ash from the county's adjacent garbage incinerator. I n November
1971, the lagoon was created in an unlined natural depression onsite. Grease trap
pump-outs, septic tank and treated municipal sludges were disposed in the lagoon which
contains an estimated 75,000 cubic yards of sludge. I ni tial sampling of the lagoon
contents characterize the waste as being in the high range of typical wastewater treat-
ment plant sludge hazardous constituents. In addition, concerns have been raised about
the relatively high cyanide and sulfide concentrations detected.
The selected remedial action .includes: dewatering and stabilization of the sludge
lagoon contents and placement in a single-lined sanitary landfill cell~ and installatio
of a cap on the cell that meets the regulatory requirements of 40 CFR 264.310(a). This
ROD addresses only source control measures. The decision concerning cleanup of ground-
water contamination will be made following an evaluation of these actions and monitorin
da ta . Total capital cost for the selected remedial action is estimated to be $3.0-
$3.7 million with annual O&M costs of $100,000.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANAL YSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. CDSATI Field/Group
Record of Decision
Davie Landfill, FL
Contaminated Media: gw
Key contaminants: wastewater treatment
plant sludge hazardous constituents~
cyanide~ sulfide
18. DISTRI8UTION STATEMENT 19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report) 21. NO. OF PAGES
None 25
20. SECURITY CLASS (This pGgt) 22. PRICE
None
!PA FOf'" 2220-1 (R.... 4-77)
P"EVIOUS EDITION II O.IOLETE
..
.' ~ _.. ''':. -.--, .....,. r" '" -.. ';.'.-:~: ~
". : ~ . .
-------
'.
INSTRUCTIONS
,.
REPORT NUMBER
Insen Ihe lPA reporl number as it appears on Ihe cover of Iht publil:alion.
LEAVE BLANK
2.
3.
RECIPIENTS ACCESSION NUMBER
Reserved for use by ea\:h reporl rtcipitnl.
TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Title should indica It dearly and britny Iht subje':1 .:overa~e \)f Ihe report, and ~ disl,lay,'d IHumin,'nll)'. S,'I suhtilk. if us",I, III ,malkr
type or otherwise subordinate il to main litlt. When a report is I'repared in mon' Ihan ,,,,,. \I\Ilume, "'J"'allh.: I'flmary lille. alill ",1:1111"
number and include subtitle for the specific lille.
4.
5.
REPORT DATE
Each report shan carry a dale indicatinialieasl monlh' and year. Indil:..le Ih" hasis \)n whkh il was ",,'Ie,'I,'d (".Il.. .mlc' oJ ifni". JIl',' oJ
IIPP'OI1111. dil" 01 pTtplll'tllion, tic.).
PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
Leave blank.
I.
7.
AUTHOR IS)
Give name(s) in .:o)nvenlional order (John R. Doc, J. Rolx'" /)0('. ,"('.). Lisl aUlh\)r's ..mliallun if il lIiff,'rs rrum II", I,,'rfurlllinj: '''A:ilni.
zation,
8.
PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER
Inaert if performinJ orpnizllion wishes 10 aSSipllhb number.
PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Give name, Itreet, city, state, and ZIP code. Lisl no more Ihan Iwo levels of iln urj:ilnilaliunal hire..rdIY.
I.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
Use the prOJRlll clemen I number under which the repon was prepared. Subordinale nUIIII><.'r, m;I)' be indulkll in I'ar,'nlh,'""",
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NUMBER
"""t contract or pant number under which reporl wn prepared.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Include ZIP c:ocIe.
13. TVPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Indicate interim fmal, etr., and if applicable, dales covered.
14. SPONSORING AGkNCY CODE
Insert appropriate code.
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Enter information not included elsewhere but useful. such ..s:
To be published in, Supersedes, Supplements, elc.
Prepared in <.:oop.:ralion wllh. Translalllln IIf. l're.....nl,',1 al ,'IIlIh'",,,,,,, III'.
11. ABSTRACT
Include a brief (200 WCNds or I,ss) factual summary of the mosl sillnilkanl informillion ,'unlain,'" i.. III,' r"I'"rl. II Ih,' "'I",rl ("(I..la...' a
lipificant biblioll'aphy or literature lurvey, mention it here. .
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
(a) DESCRIPTORS. Select from the Thesaurus of f.ngineerir.~ ..nd Scienlilk Terms Ihe pruper aulhuri,,'11 I\'rlll' Ihal idenlify Ih,' nlajur
concept of the research and are sufficiently specific and predse to be used as index enuie~ fur <.:..laluj:IOj!.
(b) IDENTIFIERS AND OPEN.ENDED TERMS. Use identifiers for project nam~s, eude names. c~uipmcnl d':"j:nillurs. cl<.:. US\: "Ilell-
ended terms wriuen in descriptor form for those subjects for which no ck:scriptur exists. .
(c) COSA TII"U:LD GROUP. Held .nd lfouP assiJnments are to tit ...ken from the 1965 ('OSI\,.I Suhi""1 ('al~'j:ury Usl. Sine,' Ihe ma-
jority of documents Ire multidisciplinary in nature, the Primary I:itld/Group assignmenUsl will be 'Iledft" diw'l1linl:. arca (If human
endeavor. or type of physical object. The applicationls) will be: crun-rcfereneed with scl"umlary Ill'hlf(iruul' iI"lj:nIl1CIIIs Ihal ~'ill f"IIII~
the primary' postin,ls).
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Denote releasabilit). to the public or limitation for reasons other than sccurily fur eXilmrle "Rdca'~' ,;..h'IIII,',I:' nl,' all!, a~ailahilil)' ."
the public, with addless and prke.
11. . 20. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
DO NOT submit classified reports to the Nation..1 Technicillinformation ",rvke.
21. NUMBER OF PAGES
Insert the total number of pages, including this one and unnumbered pages. but exdude dislribuliun 1i,I, I' any.
22. PRICE.
Insert the price set by the National fechnicallnformalion Service ur till: Government Prinllng Offil:e. if knuwn,
E PA '8t'" 2220-1 (Rn. .-77) (R.".,..)
..
. .
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
Remedial Alternative Selection
Site:
Braward County Solid Waste Disposal Facility
at Davie, Florida (A.K.A Davie Landfill)
Dcx:unents Reviewed
I am basing my decisien en the follcwing documents describing the analysis
of cost-effectiveness of remedial alternatives for Davie Landfill:
EPA Correspa'dence
.Results of EPA sampling of Sludge Lagoon, EPA Athens - Sept. 9, 1982
Staff SUI'I1'IIaries and Reccmrendaticns
FDER Correspendence
Recannendaticns fran Florida DER
Hazen' Sawyer, PeC. Reports prepared far Brcward Co.mty
Purpose and Descriptien of An.3lytical Tests for Landfill Sludge
Closure Project - January 27, 1983
Brcward COJnty Sludge lagoon Sampling and Analysis Protocol -
May 11, 1983
Status Sumnary of the Davie Landfill, BrOiaro Co.mty - May 17, 1983
Brc:ward COJnty Landfill Sludge Lagoon Closure - April, 1984
Project Status Report
Appendix I (Analytical Data)
Appendix II (Analytical tata)
Appendix III (Analytical Data)
Draft Report - July, 1984
2nd Draft Report - February, 1985'
Final Report - April, 1985
Additiooal Analytical Data fer Sludge lagoon Closure - July 11, 1985
.
. .."".".- .....4,"'."', ."" .
,. .
. .
-------
Description of Selected Remedy
The selected remedy is:
. .
- Dewatering and Stabilization of the sludge lagoon contents and
placement in single lined sanitary landfill cell 114.
- Installation of a cap on cell *14 that ~ets the regulatory
requirements of 40 CPR 264.310(a).
Future Actions
This ROD addresses cnly the SQ1rce control. The decision on additicnal
action that may be necessary to address gro.1ndwater contamination will be
made after an evaluation of the effects of this action and further assessment
of data fran continJed montoring.
Declaratims
Consistent with the Carprehensive Envirmnental Response, Ccrrpensaticn,
and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCIA), and the Natiooal Contingency Plan
. (40 cm Part 300), I have determined that stabilization of the sludge
lagcxn contents and placenent in sanitary landfill cell 114 at the Brcward
CQ1nty Solid Waste Disposal Facility (a.k.a Davie Landfill) is a
cc:st-effective remedy and provides adequate protectim of public health,
welfare, and the environment. The State of Florida has been cQ'\Su1ted
and agrees with this action. The remedial action does not adversely
affect any floOOplain cr wetland areas. .
I have also determined that the action being taken is apprc:priate when
balanced against the availability of Trust Fund monies for use at other
sites.
-y- J !it/~R}-
~£,~
Jack E. Ravan
Regicnal Administrator
EPA Region rv
.
- . - .
-------
"
,grE LCX:ATION AND DFSCRIPrI~
The Broward County Solid Waste Disposal facility (a.k.a. Davie Landfill)
is located 10 miles Southwest of Fort Lauderdale, Florida near the
intersectioo of Orange Drive and BC„ Sca.tt Road. (Figure 1) The
landfill area includes a 50 acre garbage landfill, an- 80 acre trash
landfill and a 5.6 acre sludge lagoon. The landfill is between two major
drainage canals. The North New River Canal is approximately 3 1/2 miles
. north of the landfill and the SOJth New River Canal is approximately 1/4
mile sa.tth of the landfill (Figure 2). The Biscayne Aquifer is approx~te1y
100 feet thick in the vicinity of the landfill and extends fran near the
nomal grOJnd surface to approximately 90 feet below mean sea level. The
groundwater gradient in the vicinity of the landfill is approximately 0.4
feet/mile fran the ncrthwest to the sa.ttheast; however, this gradient may
be altered temporarily by water levels in the drainage canals.
The Town of Davie, located in the sa.tthwestern part of the ca.mty, has
grown fran 5,800 in 1970 to 20,877 in 1980 with a projected pcpulation.
of 37,000 for the year 2000. The residential density in Davie is fairly
low, 1.25 Pecple per acre. Surrounding the Brc:ward Camty Solid Waste
Dispcsal Facility there are approximately 5, 95, and 500 dwellings
within 500, 2,500 and 5000 feet respectively. The prq;>erty surrOJnding
the site is located above the floodplain and is not in a wetlands area.
(Figure 3).
Drinking water for the residents of Davie is supplied fran private wells,
with the nearest well abo.Jt 1700 feet fran the site. The water quality
is poor in this area. It -has high color almg with high levels of hydrogen
sulfide and iron. For this reasO'\ many area residents use bottled water
for drinking purposes.
~
,
.
SITE HISWRY
The facility began cperatioo in 1964 to accept trash and ash fran the
Camty's adjacent garbage incinerator. In November 1971, the lagoon was
created in an unlined natural depressioo 0'1 site and began receiving
grease trap punp outs, septic tank and treated nunicipal sludges. In June
1975, the incinerator closed because of excessive particulate matter
emissi.ons and the sanitary (garbage) landfill q>ened. At this time the
lagocn received an estimated 2500 tons per month of waste. In 1977, it
was necessary to Ca1StruCt dikes aramd two sides of the lagoon. Later
the dikes were raised and a coocrete off-loading rarrp b..1ilt. Ry 1980,
the volume received by the lagocn had increased to 7,100 tons per mooth.
On several occasia1S leakages result.ed in discharges to an adjacent
bcrrow pit. Cmcern abo.Jt these visible discharges and the belief that
discharges were occurring both to the adjacent trash landf ill and to the
groundwater led the Coonty to restrict the lagoon to grease trap punp
cuts in February 1980. In November 1981 all disposal at the 18gOO'1 ceased.
The 80 acre trash landfill cootinues in q>eratia:t and is scheduled to
close in 1987. The 50 acre sanitary landfill is now filling its last
cell and will c1cse in 1987! Gro.mdwater cootaminatioo fran the sludge
-1-
.
--. ..~.,.- "".- ~-- -'-
. .' , '..
.' -."
-------
/1
.//
.0 MANCHAM
/ MRK
~
CONS[RYA'nON AN:A
SUNRISE
lLYn
ARD 8LYD.
27
C-II CANAL
GRmN RD.
..J
.
a
.
u
lROWAN)
CORRECTIONAL
.NSTITUTION
IIJ
HOL~D ILYD.
o I
I I
SCALE IN MILES
I
I
: I
m HAZEN AND SA.WER. P.c.
L8.l INQr.IIN
LOCATION OF
BROWARD COUNTY LANDFILL
IN THE TOWN OF DAVIE
.
., . ."'. -". '" -:-'...,. 'to..' ~ . ," 0.. ."
. . .
. '.;- ~. .
.:. .:'
-
-------
80T 'COUT CAM'
DRAINAGE DITCH
IROWARD COUNTY MNI'1M"t
LAIC)f'I U.
CeLLS HI
CELL 14
PAITURE
L AIID
. f''"
I
r
TRAIN LMDP'ILL
~
~~-~:
-- -_=.J
0IW88: DRNI
. C-II CA.A~
.... m. I8QID
III HAZEN AND SAWY~.:;
.
----- -~'I~or;~n~--:z
=="11
I
I
-_-.J
..
+
o fIlld
I I
1Co&A.I: r. 8:10.
L
lOT ICOUT lID.
~
.
.
SLUDGE LAGOON LOCATION
.BROWARD COUNTY LANDFILL
. . 'u'*"-- .,-",,:,--. ""r ...
'r '"
'. --';.,
"' -- ~. ~..~. ...-. ,-
-------
&w. .,.
--..~
--~.
LEGEND
-0-
ECUAL CHANGE IN TDS CONCE,nRATION
,.
<
INTERCEPTOR WELL
FUTUJIIE 'ATM OF 'LUME MOVEMENT,
o
J'LUMr CI.PTUJllt AJIIEA
OT£: 11001'1£0 '"0" "CURt u (tLMP DAESStR a
"c K(t, INC., 1981)
o .~o
~~
'00
'3~C FL
-~
~--
-
r.-- .
"
1
i .
1
........ .
...... .....
,---.~
.
f
,
.
.. '.
11
-.-.J
. -- .. .
" .. ..
-- -
-
~
L
t
~
.i
&;.:.'
.........
.
~. ..,
-
.
,.
re
~
,"t...."(D .o.t
HAZEN AND SAWYER. P.C.
181\.[ .
. OA VIE lANDFill
I
i I
c.-tt
CC:tlti'IY &. M iller, I nc.
"'..., r.l", rw.rtl. "..,Wo.
R tc..u SHOW N
.~
FI:~=: 1
. '....,..- - .
-------
,"
-15
L-5
EL. II.T!
-IS
~Jlliliii'.liili!"!!!li!.i!iiiifii!~'I!iilrl.~~,_;;i.ili.fj..,!!!ii~V
,...... ... ............;}~f....-.. -. ,..........-.-...............-... ................................-~r A'_X. "10" MOU"D
~ \liE!I[ii~~:!!~:~I~: AT w:n EL.4.51
EL. I TO EL.4
-10
-0
'.
NOTE: ALL ELEVATIONS IN
nET
25 -
20 -
15 - .
.
.
.
10 -
1-
0-
CROSS - SECTION SLUOGE LAGOON
BROWARD COUNTY LANDFILL
III HAZEN AND SAWY~~;
""--""".;-i':.
..
-------
lagoon is reduced since discharge to the lagoon has ended. The lagoc:n
nOol has a 1 to 2 foot crust over an approxirrately 9 foot total depth. It
covers an area of 5.6 acres, half of which is cwergrom, and cootains
approximately 75,000 yds.3 of waste.
",
CURRENT SITE STA'IUS
The site consist of a trash landfill, a sanitary landfill and" a sludge
lagoon. The area of coocern under CERCIA is the 5.6 acre lagoc:n cootaining
an est~ted 75,000 cubic yards of sludge from grease trap and septic
tank punp o.Jts and treated nunicipal sludge (Figures 1,2,4). The pathway
for C01taminatioo is via the gramdwater to private wells which are
domgradient of the site (Figure 3). The sludge lagcx:n cootents have
been sampled 00 three occasims. The initial sanpling by EPA in August
1982 characterized the waste as being in the high range of typical
wastewater treatment plant sludge hazardcus ccnstituents. Ccrlcern was
raised abOJt the relatively high cyanide and sulfide coocentratioos
detected. A" decisioo cculd not be made whether the waste was hazardcus
by characte~istic (reactivity) according to RCRA since no definite criteria
for this characteristic was available from RCRA. The waste was resanpled
by the Ccunty in July 1983. These samples shewed reduced cyanide levels,
but the number of sanples was small. In May 1985 the lagoon cootents
were extensively sampled as part of a program to address the reactivity
issue with a combinatioo of treabnent and management practices. Coocurrent
with this effort RCRA established sore "guidelines fer reactivity. '!'he
sampling episodes, their results and the appropriate RCRA criteria are
surmarized be10i. .
Resu1 ts ng,lkg
tSte of No. of Total Total
Sampling Samples Cyanides Sulfides
8/82 5 101-303 170-3200
7/83 4 2-67
5/85 17 24-61 24- 505
RCRA Criteria fer
Reactivity ng,lkg
Available Available
Cyanides Sulfides
No criteria available at
that time.
250
500
The testing was for total cyanides/sulfides and the criteria is fer available
cyanides/sulfides.
Gramdwater has been mcnitered. ccntinually since 1976. Sampling shews a
plume moYing sQJtheast in the directien of general gro.mdwater movement.
(Figure 3). ."11118 plume is believed to centain leachate fran the trash
and sanitary landfills as well as the sludge 1agocn. The nearest receptors
are private wells which are domgradient eX the site. Accerding to
reports prepared by Broward Camty's ccnsultant, these wells have not
sham drinking water quality violaticns. '111is pllJne was mcdeled in 1981
and the results predicted that clcsing of the lagocn - and the suastantial
- decrease in hydraulic loading - WQJld result in a gradual iJrprcwement in
water quality. .
'111e cOJnty has recently installed 24 new meniter wells resulting in a total
of 51 wells to track the quality of gralndwater en and near the site.
~
-2-
.
-------
."
ENFORCEMENI'
The Brcward Camty Solid Waste Disposal Facility is cwned and cperated by
Broward County. The County is in the process of closing the facility.
This closure must satisfy both Florida regulations and CERCLA concerns.
Broward County has conducted the studies to characterize the site and
evaluate alternative remedies. Various regulatory agencies have provided
guidance so that the studies can form the basis fer this Record of Decision.
Broward County did not accept industrial waste discharges at this sludge
lagOCX'l. Septic tank plmp-wts were accepted fran industries as well as
fran other cwnty residents. The relatively high cyanide and sulfide
levels fwnd in the sludge lagOCX'l strongly suggest that industries were
imprq>erly discharging plating wastes to their septic tanks. Because of
" the County's stance against industrial discharges, their funding of the
needed studies and the high likelihcx:rl of private industry So.1rces for
the cyanides and sulfides, we believe that Fund participation is apprcpriate
for the lagoon source control action.
ALTERNATIVES E.VALUATIOO - SOURCE CCNI'ROL ONLY
Preventing contamination of the potable water supply is the primary
public health objective. Prevention of further contamination of the
Biscayne Aquifer is the primary enviroomental d:>jective. These goals are
essentially identical since the Biscayne Aquifer is the potable water
supply.
;
.
.
'!here were 24 alternatives evaluated for the closure of the sludge lagoon.
These alternatives can be divided into general categories according to
'the types of actions envisioned. Below is a listing of the alternatives
by number and a descriptim c:L the category.
Alternatives
1, 2
Description
Haul off-site to hazardcus
waste site in Alabama
3, 3A, 3B, 12, 20
Landfill unstabilized sludge
Landfill stabilized sludge
4, 5, 6, 7, 7A, 7B
8, 9, 10, 11
13, 14, 15
16, 17, 18, 19, 2~
21, 22, 23
Incinerate
Cap 1agOCX'l with additional
remedial steps cr canbinations.
of the above alternatives
24
No Actim (Monitor Gramdwater)
The follc:wi~ table (A-I) prC/\/ides a sunrnary of the major features of the
alternatives evaluated.
-3-
..
~ - --.';'''''~''-..-~'..:'''.
" ""
-------
[
I: .
'I'NU A-l
SUMuIY or AL'ft!INWI'MIS
tbdcipe1 Deep
AI temaU" 0:M!r Water Well
Mo. L8gocn Dt.~1 DeleterinIJ StablUzat.Jm So11dJ.f!catkln Incineration CaAJing Su(:ply Inject.J.on
1 YES AI.AIWa
" 2 YES ALNWIL (If sm
3 YES tamI AEmaI (If sm
~ YES au. 114 (If sm YES
JB YES au. 114 (If sm YES
4 YicJ IH UOXII (If SIft a:JIIaJf
5 YES (If Sl'I'B (If sm a:JIIaJf
6 YES tamI I8DCIf (If S1'I'I CXMQJr
7 YES (If Sl'I'B (If sm LDE
7A YES (If SI'1'B LDE
7B YES (If S1'l'l LDE
8 YES (If sm (If SI'1'B aa.ame
9 YES (If S1'I'E (If sm RW'JUtIC DI
-------
.- Alterna.tives were screened OJt for the follOliing reasO"lS:
- Alternative does not meet regulatory requirements
- Alternative has seriOJs environmental liabilities
- Alternative has serious reliability ~ constructability
- Comparable technology exists at a 10lier cost
liabilities
Alternatives were not pernanently screened OJt 0'1 the basis of cost alooe.
Since there are over 12 viable alternatives with a present worth cost
less than S5.5 million, those eXCeeding S5.5 millial were set aside, b.Jt
may be recoosidered later.
FollOliing this narrative descriptioo of the screening of alternatives are
tables summarizing the cost of alternatives and the screening results.
Alternatives 3, JA, 38, 12 'and 20 - Landfill unstabilized sludge:
The State of Florida DER will not allOli unstabilized sludge frat\ the
lagOO'l to be placed in sanitary landfills. These alternatives are
eliminated from further consideration.
Alternatives 1, 2 - Haul to hazardOJs waste receiving sites in
Alabama: These alternatives are eliminated due to high cost
(S6,000,000) but may be recO'lSidered later.
Alternatives 13, 14, 15 - Incineratioo of sl e la 001 ca1tents:
These alternatives are eliminated due to high cost and potentla
air pollution impacts. .
Alternatives 4, S, 6, 9 - Catpost or anaerc:bic digestia1 of sludge
18gocn cootents: These alternatives are eliminated due to high cost
to stabilize sludge, but may be reCO'lSidered later.
Alternative 16 - Cap Lagocn: This c:ptioo provides an inperviQJS
cOler over the lagocn. Ccnsti tuents will ca1tinue to leach OJt of
the sludge lagocn during the cO'ISolidaticn process ca1trib.Jting to
grc:undwater ca1taminaticn. This is a partial solution but does not
meet the full cbjectives OJtlined by EPA. Capping the lagocn and
leaviDJ the sludge ccntents intact will be ca1sidered when cc:upled
wi th other remedial steps. Providing CI'11y the inpervioos cover OJer
the sludge 18gOO1 is rejected.
Alternative 17 - Deep Slurry Wall and Cap: Potenial leakage of
cootaminents from the sludge lagOO1 cCI'1tents will cCI'1tinue into the
drinking water aquifer at a reduced rate. DJe to the cootinued
groondwater cootaminatioo Broerd Camty wOJld inOJr a lmg term
enviratrental liability. This alternative is rejected.
Alternative 8 - Chlorine: Chlcrine stabilizatiCl'1 is an accepted
practice in Sooth Florida. A by-prcrluct of this process is an
increase in the total chlcrinated crganics both .in the sludge and
supernatant liqucr. Chlcrinated organics in grOJOOwater is a major
cCl'1oem to the regulatory agencies. Lime stabilizatiCl'1 is an
equivalent stabilization practice, is less costly and has no potential
environmental liabilities. Chlorine stabilization is rejected.
-4-
.
.~ ..,....~..-.-. -...." -.".-~, .:..:-.,,: 0"
, ..
-------
Alternative 10 - Aercbic Digestiau This is a proven technol~ but
is 50 percent more cCEitly than cooventicnal lime stabilization.
While aercbic digestiO"l is eliminated due to cost, it may be
reconsidered later.
Alternative 11 - Chemical Fixatioo: Chemical fixatioo neets the
sane cbjective as line stabilization. The sludge lagoc:n cootents
are stabilized or fixed, removed frqn the lagooo and are placed in a
secure envircntent. O1emical fixatioo is approximately 40 percent
more costly than cooventiooal lime stabilizatioo. While chemical
fixatioo is eliminated due to cost it may be reconsidered later.
Alternative 19 - Water Systen and Cap: Under this alternative the
sludge lagoc:n CO'1tents wC1Ild be left in place. An iJrperviOJs cap
wC1Ild 1npede vertical flOil passage thrC1lgh the sludge 18gooo
C01tents. GrC1lndwater wC1Ild cO'1tinue to be cO'1tamninated due to
leachate generated during the consolidatiO'1 prcxess and sludge
ccntents in ccntact with the groJnawater. Installing a nunicipal
water system dOln gradient of the cmtaminated plume WC1Ild provide
public health protectiO'1 to those residents. Brc:ward COJnty wOJld
be cbligated to cO'1tinue mc:nitering the cO'1taminated pllm\e fer the
next 20 to 30 years. DJe to potential adverse changes in the
characteristics of the CO'1taminated plume with time or the passage
of more stringent groundwater regulatiO"1s, Broward County, wOJld have
a 10'19 term envircnnental liability. DJe to these coocerns, this
alternative is rejected.
-5-
.
-------
PRESENT WORTH COST
and PROJECT CLASSIFICATION
BROWARD COUNTY SLUDGE. LAGOON
ALTERNATIVE
DESCRIPTION
PRESENT
WORTH
COST (1)
ACCURACY =
PERC!~T
HAUL TO HAZARDOUS WASTESITE
1
2
Cak.e , Liquid
Dewatered Cake
$6,600,000
5,800,000
20\
20
LANDFILL UNSTABILIZED SLUDGE
3
3A
N. Broward
3,500,00
1,900,000
20\
20
3B
12
Cell 14
Cell 14
3,200,000
2,150,000
20
15
N. Broward
20
N. . 8roward
3,300,000
15
LANDFILL STABILIZED SLUDGE - CELL 14
~
.
.
4
5
Compostinq
$5,700,000
25\
6
Composting
Composting
5,600,000
6,100,000
25
25
.f
7
Lime
7A
78
Lime
3,700,000
2,900,000
25
25
Lime
3,600,000
4,600,000
25
25
8
Chlorine
9
10
Anaerobic Dig.
6,200,900
4,500,000
2.5
Aerobic Dig.
25
11
13
Chern. Fixation
Incinerate
4,200,000
5,700,000
25
14
Incinerate
6,400,000
25
25
lS
Incinerate
7,000,.000
2S
.
.. -. .,~...-- ..~O;~~ ~ 0"''' L'-:: .
. . . .
-------
ALTERNATIVE
16
17
18
19
20A
21
22
23
(1)
ano,,:J~rlU.Ji J:.;t:'.~'-I':;....A:':; S J.,~ JlI...H.. ~I";"I.',
BROWARD COUNTY SLUDGE LAGOON
DESCRIPTION
PRESENT
WORTH
COST (1)
CAP LAGOON WITH ADDITIONAL REMEDIAL STEPS
Cap Lagoon
Deep Slurry Wall
and Cap
$1,100,000
6,800,000
Shallow Slurry
Wall and Cap
1,900,000
Water System and
Cap
2,400,000
. Water System, lime
stab. and landfill
4,200,000
Intercept, Deep Well
and Cap
4,800,000(2)
Partial Intercept,
Deep Well and Cap
3,400,000(2)
Partial Intercept,
Deep Well and
Water System
5,800,000(2)
(2)
Present Worth Cost include 30-year 0 & M cost
for Alternates 21 and 22. Only those 0 , M
costs which have major cost impacts were ident-
ified in screening process. Groundwater monitor-
ing and site maintenance cost are same "order of
magnitude" due to the location of the existing
trash landfill and sanitary landfills on the same
site.
Revised injection well cost relect new design
criteria.
.
ACCURACY'"
PERCE~JT -
10\
20
20
10
15
15
15
~
;,
15
-------
SUMMARY OF SCREENIN::; OF ALTERNATIVES (cent.)
FlJR'niER
<::c:NS IDERATIOO
c.'CM'1ENI'S
ALTERNATIVE
DESCRI PI'IOO
CAP lA(XX)N Wrffi AOOITlOOAL REMEDIAL STEPS
16
Cap Lagocn
No
Insufficient by
itself to meet
d:>jectives
17 Deep Slurry wall No
and Cap
18 . ShallOi Slurry No
Wall and Cap
19 Water System and No
Cap
Engineering
infeasibility
Potential leakage
of centaminants
Does not meet
objectives of pro-
tection of environ-
rrent graJndwa ter
contaminatien still
WQJld occur
20A
Water System, lime
stab, and landfill
Yes
~
r
.
21
Intercept, Deep well
and Cap
Yes
22
Partial Intercept,
Deep well and Cap
Yes
23
24
Partial Intercept,
Deep Well and
Water System
No Actien .
(Mcni tor GrQJndwater)
Yes
Yes
Does not meet
cbjectives
.
. -. # - ~. ~
. ..
-------
As a result of the screening process the following alternatives were
available fer more detailed evaluation:
- Lime stabilization of sludge lagoon contents and placement in
sanitary landfill cell 114 (alternatives 7, 7A, 78 and 20A).
- Cap lagocn. Intercept contaminated gra.mdwater and inject in a
deep well for dispcsal (alternatives 21, 22 and 23).
Any of these alternatives has the potential of complying with other
envircnnental laws.
Alternatives 7, 7A and 7B are the same except fer the type of equipment
used to excavate' transport the sludge. Alternative 20A is identical to
7A except far the addi tioo of a nunicipal water supply fer the area.
Alternatives 21, 22 and 23 all include leaving the lagoon in place with a
cap to reduce infiltratioo. Alternative 21 includes interceptor wells to
recoqer the plume. Alternative 22 only partially intercepts the plume.
Alternative 23 partially intercepts the plume and proqides an alternate
water supply. All three are similar in that the recoqered plume is
disposed of in a deep well (Table A-2).
-6-
.
-------
TABLE A-2
D~AILED EVAUJATIaI 'OF AL'l'EmATlVES
SlJWARY OF IESI~ FEA~
.
Nlmber Cb!It Rewove Lagoon Cap lagoon . Int.~l Plume Alt.emat.e Wat.er ~ly (L.lll.ents
7 3.7m Yes No No No Ident.ical,
except. for
7A 2.9m Yes No No No const.ruct.ion
nethod enploy~
78 3.6m Yes No No No
2M 4.2m Yes No No Yes
.21 4.Brt No Yes Yes No
22 3.4m No Yes Partial No
23 S.Brt No Yes Partial Yes
24 7St/yr. No No No No No Action
(nonitoring
only)
, 1
'"
I ~ .
i
.:.,:: :.:
, ........ .
-------
RE:C.'ao1MENDED ALTERNATIVE
In 40 CFR 300.68(j) the appropriate remedy is described as the cost-
effective remedy (i.e. the lowest cost alternative that is technologically
feasible and reliable and which effectively mitigates and minimizes damage
to and provides adequate protection of public health, welfare, or the
envircnnent). ' ,
In the detailed evaluatioo of alternatives the no-actioo alternative was
rejected because it met nme of the cbjectives. No further action wculd
,be taken to halt generatioo of Cootaminated grcundwater. Public health
wculd cootinue to be a risk. The Biscayne Aquifer (a sole ,scurce aquifer)
wculd Cootinue to be cootaminated by infiltratioo thrcugh the unlined
lagocn and by hcrizootal movEment of the gra.mdwater and subsequent
Cootact with lagoon cQ'ltents. Much of the lagoon cootents are estimated
to be greater than 90% liquid and thus generates leachate even if
infiltratiQ'l is cootrolled. Recent data indicates leachate is being
generated with total arsenic as high as 19 times drinking water standards
(99
-------
The estimated costs for this actioo are:
capi tal cost
O&M - annual
$3 - 3.7m
$100,000 - water mooitoring
securi ty
no site maintenance
tota 1 present worth
cpportuni ty cost to
Camty of lest
ce 11 t 14 volume
$5.5 - 6.Om
$l.Om
CLF.ANUP <:;OMS
'!he primary pathway of coocern is leaching to grOJndwater and transpOrt
via the grOJndwater to potable wells. The goal is to prevent potable
water fran exceeding the applicable drinking water standards or the cancer
risk level correspc:nding to 1:1,000,000. We have mcdeled cootaminant
tnOI1ement in the Biscayne Aquifer and established the follcwing cleanup level$
in soils as sufficient to avoid exceeding OJr goals in the water.
Cootaminant
Reccmnended Residual Cmcentratioo
Lead
Chranium
Cadmilrn
Arsenic
Mercury
1,000 ppn
25 ppn
25 ppn
2 ppn
20 ppn
'!hese levels will be reexamined in the rEmedial design to verify OJr
calculatioos and address other cootaminants as needed.
CCHruNITY REIATIOOS
On August 15, 1985, a fact sheet was suanitted to the Brcward COJnty
Public Library Government Documents Sectim, Fort Lauderdale, Florida,
which detailed alternatives fer the Davie Landfill site. '!he fact sheet
E!I'I'phasized that this was not the time for a final decisiO'1 and that all
ccmnents wOJ1d be we1cane 0'1 any alternative until Sep~ember 19, 1985.,
'!he Sludge Lagoon Closure Plan was nade available fer public cament on
August 29, 1985. Ccpies of available docunents were placed in the resposi-
tory. '!he EPA. Office of Public Affairs issued a press release as to the
availability of the study report fer public review and to aMOJnce that a
public meeting woo1d take place Q"I August 29, 1985. Additimal1y, ads.
were placed in local newspapers notifying the public of the scheduled
meeting. .
The public meeting was held at the Brcward Ccunty Public Library Auditorium
in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and was attended by representatives of EPA,
Florida Department of Enviroomental Regulatioo (FDER), Brcward COJnty
representatives and their coosultants, the media and private citizens.
.
-8-
-> .".. ,,'--;""r: .. -
-------
No najor concerns or issues arose during the public rreeting. ~pecific
issues and respooses can be famd in the attached Respcnsiveness SUITl"lary.
CONSISTENCY WITH ornER ENVIRONMENTAL UtWS
The site is neither in a flocxj plain nor a wetlands area. Leachate is
currently transported by tank truck to a nunicipal waste ~ater treatment
plant. Future plans may include ccnstruction of a sewer line or spray
irrigation. ShOJld permits be necessary they will be secured. Because
the sludge will be stabilized to reduce its reactivity and placed in a
single lined landfill cell with a cap and a leachate collection system,
this remedy will be coosistent with other envircrmental laws. The
implementation of the remedy is expected to release methane, hydrcgen
sulfide, amnonia and carbon dioxide fran the sludge. Precautioos will be
taken with the workers and plans prepared to min~ize the effect of odors
00 residential areas. The Clean Air Act does not address these c~OJnds
but Florida does have an odor nuisance prOJisioo in their regulatioos.
OPERATl00 AND MAIN'fE1'WIl:E (O&M)
Operation and naintenance will include:
o maintaining site drainage
o prevent erosien
o maintain grass cover
o site seOJrity
o grOJndwater menitoring
o disposal of leachate collected
fran cell 114
Maintenance and monitoring costs are expected to be approximately $100,000
. per year. Over 20 years the COomty cOJld incur an estimated $2,000,000
for these costs. Leachate disposal cost will vary greatly depending upon
the final nethod of treatment. Over a 20 year period this cOJld cost
approximately $2 - 2.5 mil1ien. EPA does not generally share in O&M
beyood me year. The State and COJnty must assume the respoosibility far,
future O&M.
SCHEOOLE
Upon signing of this ROD negotiatims will begin fer design of the sOJrce
cootrol actioo. Coocurrently we will prepare a work. plan to assess the
need for further grOJndwater remediatioo.
fUl'URE ACTICNS
This ROD addresses enly sOJrce cootrol. 'nle actloo described in, this document.
will have a beneficial effect on gramdwater quality in and arOJnd the site.
The decisien en additiooal actioo that may be 'necessary to address grOJnd-
water cootaminatioo will be made after an evaluatien of the effects of
-9-
.
I :',
-------
this actioo and further assessment of data fran cootinued mooi toring.
we anticipate that the groundwater assessment will include: .
TASK
PROJECTED C'(101PLETION
o an assessment of existing infocmatioo
o an inventory of private wells
o mooitoring of existing newly installed
wells for a full range of analyses
.0 verificatim of aquifer parameters
.0 verificatioo of predictive modeling
of p1une mo.Tement
o analysis of hist~ica1 and predicted
groundwater gradients
o sampling of seleqted offsite wells
o verificatim of sarrp1ing & analytical
prcx::edures
March 1986
March 1986
March 1986
June 1986
June 1986
July 1986
June 1986
March 1986
-10- .
.
-------
1 "
r ':
i '
COMJNITY cncmN
RES~E
1. Technical Alternatives
A citizen asked hew the cmtaminated grwnd-
water will be intercepted under the plan of
Alternative 2.
The same citizen asked if the primary
d>jective of Alternative 2 was to
prevent additimal pollutioo after
closure of the sludge lagocn.
2. Groundwater Monit~ing
A citizen asked what percentage of
cootaminated gramdwater can be
recouered under Alternative 2.
3. Carpa;ting Methms '
A citizen asked what methcxt of CO!Jting
was studied for alternatives 4,5,6,. 9.
4. Meeting Locatioo
The fcxmer mayer of CQq)er City stated that
the meeting shwld have been held in the Tam
of Davie cr in the CQq)er City area. He
suggested that in the future, informal
meetings be held at the n:tvie Library.
He felt that a larger nllllber of coocemed
citizens will attend the meetings if
they are held within the camunity and if
prqper notificatioo of the meetings is
given.
5. Sludge Lagooo
A citizen asked hew long the sludge lagoon
had been receiving waste, when did ~anocn
qpen, and when did it close.
If alternative runber 2 was the chcsen alternative,
I'eCOJery wells wwld be specifically designed to recL
the cmtaminated grQJndwater. These wells woold be
larger than mmitoring wells.
No. Its purpooe woold be to intercept water in the
plume.
If ccst were no cbjeet, mcst of it COJld be recover8\:
'I11e nethod was the aerated pile methcd.
CCJmIent noted.
The sludge lagocn began accepting waste in November
The sludge lagocn clcsed in 1981.
-------
SUt+V\RY OF SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES
roR'IHER
ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTICN a:NSIDERATICN cn-Hm'S
. HNJL TO HAZ1\RroJS WkS'TE FACILI'IY
1 Cake & Liquid No* Costs High,
Transp::>rtatioo
2 Dewatered Cake No* Risks
IANDFILL UNS'I'1\BILIZED SIlJ'OOE
3 N. Brcward No D:> not meet
3A Cell 14 No State Regulatory
3B Cell 14 No Requirements
12 N. Broward No
20 N. Broward No
IANDFILL STABILIZED SIlJOOE - CE:U., 14
4 o..l~ting No*
High Cost to
5 o..l~ting No* Stabilize Sludge
6 a:.1~ting No*
7 Lime Yes
7A Lime Yes
7B Lime Yes
e OUorine No Potential to create
chlorinated o:rTpOUnd
9 Anaerobic Dig. No and e~cerbate 'groune
water problem
10 Aerobic Dig. No 50% higher than
cxrrparable tec::hoo~
11 Olem. Fixatioo No 40% higher than
ccrtpaI'able technolo:r.
13 Incinerate No CclSts high
potential air
14 Incinerate No pollutioo
15 Incinerate No
I * ~,a~..«'!-4.:1... .:I..... .... ",,:...a.. -... a~_- '-- . . . . - -,.~. ..---
--
-------
Community Relations Responsiveness Summary
Davie Landfill Site
Davie, Florida
Intrc:duction
'!his respoosiveness surrmary fer the D:tvie Landfill Site documents, fer
the public record, concerns and issues raised during remedial planning:
cOtm:!nts raised during the cament peric:d 00 the feasibility study: and
hCM EPA or the State cO'1Sidered and respooded to these concerns.
Coocerns Raised Prior to the Public Carrnent Peric:d
The predominant coocern voiced by menDers of the camuni ty was the
~ential health effects resulting fram possible groundwater contamdnatioo
emanating from the sludge lagcxn. The Davie Landfill, also knom as the
BrOiard Ccunty Solid Waste Dispcsal Facility, is Oined and cperated by
Brcward Ccunty. '!he Camty had told the Tcwn of Davie that the facility
WOJld be closed. Ho-oever, accerding to a member of the camunity, the
facility was neX. closed in the specified tine frame. 'lbere is no recerd
of what thIs specified tine frame was. At present the facility is
scheduled. to close 00 December 31, 1987. The camuni ty 's continuing
ccncern is that the camt:y's agreement to close the landfill be upheld.
Twenty-five to thirty acres of the site are nOi ccwered with discarded
automobile tires. The estUnated 3 to 6 million tires pose a potential
fire and health hazard, according to Ccunty officials. Citizens have
carplained abo.Jt the increased mosquito pq>ulatim in the area. Accerding
to officials from the Broward Ccunty Public Health Unit, the mosquitoes
are breeding in tires where rain water has collected. County health
officials have stated that the roosquitoes pose a potential health hazard
to pecple and livestock in the area. '!he Ccunty sprays the tire pile
regularly with a mixture of diesel fuel and Baytex insecticide.
Ccncerns Raised D.Jring the Ccmnent Peria:!
Brc:ward Ccunty has develcped a closure plan fer the landfill, including
the sludge lagOCl'1. This closure plan cootains the same types of infcrmatian
that wculd have been d:>tained for a RI/FS repcrt, and is therefore being
used in place of the RI/FS. The results of the closure 'plan, a fact
sheet, and sampling data were made available at the Brcward Ccunty ~lic
Library, Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
A public neeting was held CI1 August 29, 1985, to explain the closure plan
and to officially. receive caments from the camunity. Two public notices
were placed in the Sun Sentinel newspaper, and me notice in the Brc:ward .
Ccunty Tribune/Hi-RTSe'r, to infa:m the camunity. of the date, time, and
locatiCl1 of the public meeting. The 3-week public cament perioo began
en August 29, 1985, and closed a1 September 20, 1985. Present at the
.
-------
....
meeting were Jim Orban and Jewell Grubbs, EPA Superfund Prcgram: Michael
Henderson, E~ Community Relations Coordinator: Brent Hartsfield, Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation Project Engineer: Jim Elias,
Broward County Utilities Division: representatives of the consulting
firms liazen and Sawyer and Pest Buckley, Schuh-Jernigan: 2 members of the
news media: and 3 citizens.
~en the remedy is selected, the EPA plans to enter into a cOOperative
agreement with the State of Florida Department of Envircnnental Regulation
to design and iJrplement the selected remedy. At that time, another public
meeting will be held to inform the cOI1T\Jnity of the course of action.
Several concerns were expressed by these attending the public meetirq at
August 29, 1985. '!he following pages sllTlnarize these concerns and the
Agenc.y's respcnse.
Remaining Concerns
Camunity cmcerns will be taken into acca.mt during remedial design and
construction. '!he camunity woold like to see CattinJed monitcring of
the site for environmental problems after clesure.
.
--~ . -.' c" -' .. --"
- . .'
------- |