United Stales
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROO/R04-87/028
September 1987
&EPA Super-fund
Record of Decision
Gold Coast, FL
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
'Pltatt rtad IniimctiOHt on lit rtvtnt btfort comnletmv
NO.
.
EPA/ROD/R04-87/028
3 *ECl"£*r S ACCSSSiCN NO
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Gold Coast, -PL
First Remedial Action - Final
OATE
September 11, 198 7
«. PERFORMING QmQA.nift.TlOH COOt
7. AUTMOR4SI
I. PER*ORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT so
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO
I PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME ANO AOOREU
11 CONTRACT/CHANT NO
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAMt ANO AOORESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, B.C. 20460
<3. TYPC OP REPORT ANO PERIOD COVERED
Final ROD Report
14. SPONSORING AGENCY COOf
800/00
19. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTIS
The Gold Coast Oil Corporation (GCO) site is located in Miami, Florida. The two-acre
site is within a commercial/industrial/residential area and located over the Biscayne
Aquifer, the sole source aquifer for the area. Ground water is used for drinking wa.te*7
irrigation and industrial purposes. The site property is owned by Seaboard System
Railroad Company, currently known as CSX Transporation, who leased the property to GCO
in the early 1970s. GCO, along with Solvent Extraction, Inc., were in the business of
distilling mineral spirits, lacquer thinner and reclaiming solvents. Slowdown from
these operations was sprayed directly onto the ground and 53 drums of
sludge-contaminated soil were stored onsite. Still-bottom waste from the distilling
operation was pumped into a tank truck for storage. Additionally, 2,500 corroded and
leaking drums containing sludge from the distilling operation, contaminated soils, paint
sludges and large storage tanks of hazardous waste were located onsite. All wastes
generated by the solvent recovery operations were disposed or' stored onsite. No waste
was shipped offsite during the 11 years of operation. Investigations of illegally
dumped and stored sludge and onsite wells took place in 1980 and in 1981 by the Dade
County Department of Environmental Resources Management (DERM) and EPA's Surveillance
and Analyses Division (SAD), respectively. In 1982 CSX Transportation evicted GCO from
the property and agreed to voluntarily clean up the site. The clean
(See Attached Sheet)
17.
KIY WOMOS ANO OOCUMCNT
b.lOINTI»l|MS/OMN INOtO TIHMS
c. COSATi Field/Group
Record of Decision
old Coast, PL
First Remedial Action - Final
ontaminated Media: gw, soil
Key contaminants: VOCs, PCE, TCE,
other heavy metals
lead,
11.
STAT§M«NT
Iff. SECURITY COS* / Tliu Rtponi
None
75
JO. SECURITY CLASS . Hiu pagti
72 »«iCE
P«ra 2230.1 (•••• 4-77) ••CviOul COi TIOM >*
-------
INSTRUCTIONS
1.
"..-a"T NU-'"
1I",n rill LPA rlpoft "limber u It appnn on 1111 COYft' o( lilt puollo:Jllon.
Z.
1.
~IAY"LAN.
IIlICt""Nn ACe.atON NUM8I"
R....,.. (Of 11M by ';16;/1 IY,or1 rllaflll't.
..
nn.1 AND SU8TtTU
Ticle lIIowd .ndlca.. .:Ic;uty .nd bneny III. subJ81:t .:oycnp: ",., 1"-: r~port. ~nd bIr ..I"I'I~y....I J'rUIIII~"II.,. ~'I .uhlllk". ,I II..''''. III '"I~h.'r
IYpe or otll.".". slIbofcSanatl It 10 maul IICAe. Whea. rcport I. ~ In IftOft' 'lliin .....,. ."tllnw. r"",,:I' 11..- 1'"n1Oll' 1I'k'.~.w .,"~nw
"limber Md anciude subtlt" (or IbelfICIOc title.
L
"IPO"T OATI
EacII ,..... iliad carry. dac. iJldiclli8I.t ..... moncb i..1eI year. Indlo:attr IIW I'~,,, .'" -h",h II "'of' ",......,,"1£ I,. ,.. ..". "I 'SU"'. .,.. "I
q""",*. ." of "'''''IIOIf. 'Ir.).
""PO""NO O"GANIZAnON COOl
La.. b8aL
..
7.
AUTHOR'"
Give M.nettlln ':l.Inycnuona' order (Jolt" R. /)or. J. Rob.'" Dor. "'C'). La" .111"",', .lIitwllun ... II Jill,'" Irum tIM.' I",""",m"" .,,~"..
zauon.
..
""~NG O"GANIZATION "IPO"T N""'"
IJI88t at P8fonna", 0'IIftID1I08 .... '0 iIIIIp IIIIS nu",ber.
""~NO O"GANIZATION HAM, AND ADD"'.
Gi.. ..... sanet, cny. sea... and ZIP c0d8. LdC no mo... lhan 1'1/0 ......It 0" ~ft U'pnll,.''''~t hllfth;h,.
..
'''' ,..,.RAM ILIM8NT 1IIUI88"
u. c... pr...... ........t numtlft IIncI8r wIItdI CM ...port wa.. plYpuect. 5ubortWt;,h: IIU..,. nwt. b8 .....Iu""" In 1r.a'~I1'''''-''
n. CGIITtUCTlGtUMT NUI8I"
,"... C08I18Ct or put num.. IInder wIIidt ...,.. ... ,..paNeI.
12. S8lGltlCHUfIICI AGINCY IUMI AND AGO""
Indu. ZIP cadi.
11. TV" 0" "UORT AIIIO ""100 COY'''ID
InellClc, I8t- filii&. 'W.. aacI 111,,*"". dat.. co.aed.
,.. 1IIONIO"lfIICI AG8aNCY CGDI
Insert apprapnat8 cocI8.
,.. """""'AIIY NOTI8
Enter UIIonnatl08 noc anellld8d d...twre but ""111, such u:
To be putltislltd 18. 511pawdn. 5..".._t.. eCC.
,.. A81T"ACT .
IncllI.1 lint, (200 worrb or IftJl (accual SUlllIIIIIY or clle IftOIC "",,''k...a an'urmall"" ,,,,nl~.,.....11II "'" ".,'..". II II'" ,,'.-..a . ""'~"I' ~
saputicaac o.btiopaptly Of IICIl8I\11'8 SUI"Y, """CIOft It heft.
~ 1ft \;UOtWfaCM811 WIth. 1 "~"~'''MI ..I. ''''''''IIa,"" ~I . .."a.."."". ..a.
17. KIY WO"D8 AND DOCUMINT ANA&.Y1I8
(al DESCRIPTORS. StI_cI (ro", I'" ~ o( t::.....-cnftt.ua" 5-:.:nllll\ (II"'" alte ptup.:r .1111"."",,,, ,..,m, Ih..1 """" the 1ft4/Uf
cone.,c or 'M rneuel! and an surrlCll8dy 1IKUic anc8 ,,",,'JIll CO be ...."1£ ... I"W' IlIIUtn lur \'''''''ua:J"II. .
(b) IDENTlnERS AND QfEN.ENDED TERMS. U. Mlaatan.n (Of prOJl"c """"", ':"'_IIiI~'. ""U1p~"C ..10:"1&""'''''' ..I\, \,;...: '''~II'
tftd8d c.nns wmlln a" dexnpcor (onn ror lit.. subt8CU r. wtUda no ~lIlHur o:.."CI.
(C) COSA TIt. ItLD GROUP .1:iIId... ..., . "._11'" CO .. tlkllft l'fOftI clle I96S ('0'" Illiuh"" I ('."....., a.M. ~all~ 1181: .....
Jont, or cSoc\uR8au an IBWtld8lapliauy .. 118_. 1M PIt....., . iIIdI~ou, ..~l'ftIInc"l ..It 01: 'I~"'" ,",a..,..,,~. .rn ... IIlIm.."
tndII8wor. or type or ,..,... cM;Ica. ".. ""''''''11 .... .. ~h:""",U wlI" C",~y I ",'I"jC .,.*" ""'II""lo:nl> all,.1 "III ..oil....
I'" JIfUIIUY "*"'I'll, .
,.. OIIT"IMlTtON STAn-'"
DettoC' rdalabthl)' 10 clIe pubhl: or Ii"'ltauon (Of ft&.1OIb uc_r c.... ":"11'"'' (urll"""''' "Mo:k~.. I 11101111"''':' f ".. ~II" ""'I"'h.hl~ ,..
the P'AbUc. ..." .cIcIrcu .uIcI Pf";C,
11..2G. SICURITV CLA8"'CAnDN
DO 1'0101 sub"'lt cla)U(lCd rcports 10' Ihe N.uonat Tca.:llnlCat In(ormac.... --=""'11.
21. NU"''' 0' 'AGIS
I"sert Ih. tow IIlImber o( pares, Includ'nl thIS one and UIIIIU"'beftd pllfI/'. 11111 0: HIli,"," 1I,.t"OIlI,un II" .. ..ny
Z2. ",ICI
Insert Ih. pnee wc oy Ih' ~auona& recllnlCaf In(o,mauon 5"""10:11 ur tlla; Go"II,..mcll' "'11111"1 Qlfi"lI. .1 .nuw"
1'& ,- Z220-1 (.... .-m ('.-..1
-------
EPA/ROD/R04-87/028
Gold Coast, FL
First Remedial Action - Final
16. ABSTRACT (continued)
up involved removing the drums, emptying storage tanks and excavating and removing
contaminatedsoil to -a depth of approximately six inches. Soil and ground-water are
contaminated with TCE, PCE, other VOCS, lead and other heavy metals.
The selected remedial action for this site includes: excavation of approximately
500 yd3 of contaminated soil and hardened waste sludges with offsite disposal at a
RCRA-approved facility; stabilization/solidification and onsite placement with capping
over approximately 1,000 yd3 of the remaining metal-contaminated soil; recovery of
contaminated ground water by means of a recovery well field; ground water treatment with
disposal, including-recharge to the aquifer, discharge to the POTW or discharge to
surface waters (both treatment and disposals-options will be determined during design);
removal and disposal of storage tanks, concrete block office, supply shed, two abandoned
automobiles, an aircraft engine, the concrete slabs and storage saddles; and testing and
decommissioning of the onsite supply well. The estimated total cost for this remedial
action is $3,711,600 with present worth O&M of $74,850.
-------
RECORD OF DEX:ISION
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELEC'I'IOO
!m
Gold Coast Oil Corporation
Miami, Florida
STATEMENl' OF PURPQ;E
'Ibis decision docunent represents the selected remedial action for this
site developed in accordance with the Canprehensive Environmental Response,
Ccmpensation, and Liabil i ty Act, as amended by the Superfund Amenanents and
Reauthorization Act of 1986, and to the extent practicable, the National
Conti~ency Plan (40 CFR Part 300).
'Ibe State of Florida has been consulted and concurs on the selected
remedy.
STATEMENl' OF BASIS
'Ibis decision is based on the Administrative Record which encaupasses
those documents describing the site-specific conditions and the analysis
of the cost effectiveness of the remedial alternatives for the Gold COast
Oil site. The attachedii1dex (Appendix A) identifies the items which
comprise the administrative record upon which the selection of the remedial
action is based.
IESCRIPTIOO OF '!HE SELti\.:.LUJ 1ID1EDY
'!be soil and ground water at the Gold Coast Oil site are contaminated
with volatile organic ~nds and heavy metals. Consultations with the
Florida Department of Envirormental Regulation have been corxiucted to
detemine tb8 cl~ levels and the preferred remedial alternative.
Por the soil ccntamination, the selected ...~u.:Jy includes:
- excavation of the contaminated soils .and hardened waste sludges,
based on the cleanup levels established;
- offsite disposal at a RCRA-approved facility of the contaminated
hardened waste sludges;
- stabilization/solidification and onsite placement with a cap of
the metals-contaminated soils remaining.
-~"~ -'_-re- -"<-~C~ -
. , ,'~.
-.~"'-<:'~."-\--'-':",,--Jl ';:.'-'.:""'--; -'::" ~ ..'.,:;'., ':';":'-i,".~.;';':'-i\.: .:'-'J." '"_,i",'.,~ -;.- "-
. ",",~ ',-;' ,:'-',-'...,-.".
, . ;"::'"'';."""<.':,.,.",,.;-I;.<:::~;:::-.:,~~';c,~'r-=.~-----:-c_~ J;~~-~""".-""C,~ "7,~..'c' .;~ c.c' ~"'::, ',-:",i"'.;;-" 1~,,;,.,:,,;,;,~:-~-t"i ::"c:,~:-c-.:"";-:; .~:::::;'-:- ~~.::;:?":O;::C;::;:,7'?c'.~,.,:,."S-::,;:;::, ~>:-:~-_::~'" ;-~. - '.
-------
'!he selected remedy for the ground water contamination consists of:
- recovery of the contaminated ground water by means of a recovery
well field and based on the cleanup levels established for the
volatile organics:
- treatment of the recovered contaninated ground water to rem:JVe the
contaminants of concern to a degree consistent with the preferred
disposal option: and
- disposal of the treated ground water in accordance with the option
detemined duriR1 the design of the selected alternative (recharge
to the aquifer, discharge to the POIW, or discharge to surface
waters) .
Non-hazardous cxmponents of this remedy include:
- repair of the chain link fence:
- reroval and disposal of the storage tanks, the concrete block office
and supply shed, the two abandoned autaoobiles and an aircraft engine,
and the 'concrete slabs and storage saddles: and
- testing and decamdssioning of the CX\Site SUWly well.
Operation and maintenance activities required to ensure the continued
effecti veness of the 1.~u=Jy include: .
- long term roonitoring of source control of the soils to deronstrate
stability and resistence to leaching of the treated waste block;
- long tem maintenance of the cap; and
- periodic grourd .water roonitoring to ensure that lorg tem performance
has been achieved.
IECIARATION
'Ihe selected remedy is protective of hunan health and the envirornent,
attains Federal and State requirements that are applicable or relevant
and appropriate, and is cost-effective. 'Ihis remedy satisfies the
preference for treatment that reduces toxic! ty, roobili ty, or volume as a
principle el8aent. Finally, it is detemined . that this remedy utilizes
permanent 8Olutions and alternative treatment technOlogies to the extent
practicable.
Final settlement has yet to be reached between EPA and the responsible
parties based on the selected remedy, however, negotiations are underway.
Cf III /D-
Date' i I
.:t: 4. 1J7tL--:Q$
Lee A. DeHihns, III, Acti~ Regional Adninistrator
EPA - Region IV
. ~ ~ ----. ---, -,.,--:- C"-CCCY---Q,'7'.C;', =-- ,,",~,--,--,o,-,;-,-~ -0,-" :0;-07_"--;-; -,'---"'..-;> .'
- ~',.',;-:O, T.- '_.--0., ,,~.'''-'''~ -- "'~ ,.,-,,' """,:-;-:-~".'.r-o-'- .",'~:~--.~,,",,"',,";'-"-'-.- <', -, " .~- ,- .",
--q".~!,.J- ':;
-> / ,--,~.,-,">."" ,'7'_~,.~-)..- ,
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
GOLD COAST OIL CORPORATION
MIAMI
DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
I. SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Gold Coast Oil Corporation (GOO) site is a two acre parcel of flat, sandy
land located at 2835 SW 71st Avenue, Miami, Dade County, Florida. (Figure 1)
The site has no distinguishable surface drainage and is enclosed by a
fence with a locking gate* It is bordered on the north and west by railroad
tracks, on the south by a group of small businesses (an automotive maintenance
garage, a painting shop and a cabinet shop) and 'on the east by SW 71st
Avenue. The site operations are currently.inactive. The Coral Gables Canal
is approximately 850 feet south of the site on the other side of the small
businesses. The canal drains to the Biscayne Bay and on to the Atlantic
Ocean. The site is within the 100-year flood plain, but flooding from a
canal overflow is not likely as the canal flow is regulated. The GOO site
has a latitude of 25°43'40*N and a longitude of 80°18'40"W.
The GOD site property is owned by CSX Transportation, who leased it to Gold
Coast Oil Corporation. Gold Coast Oil Corporation, along with Solvent
Extraction Incorporated, used the site as a solvent reclamation facility.
The site is within a ocmercial/industrial/ residential area having a population
greater than 80,000 within a 3-mile radius. Groundwater within this radius
is used for drinking water, irrigation, and industrial purposes. The closest
private well is within 100 feet of the site and the closest public well is
3.1 miles from the site. Public drinking water is currently unavailable for
only four residences within a half-mile radius of the site, therefore, private
shallow wells are used for drinking water purposes.
-1-
-------
1-
1
---
--r'
I
-
..
~
a
.
,T
, '.
\ \
\\
. ;-J
-.
.........
I~'~ I
FIGURE 1
SITE LOCATION MAl
\
~~
-2-
. .
, .
. .
I
I'
. : if
II
\1.
U"
II J :
, (.
. :
~
\
\
\
I
/
,
-.'
I
. ....
-------
. ~- ~- ~- ~-~--
. . .
-. - . .
II. SITE HISTORY
'!he site property is owned by Seaboard System Railroad .O::mpany, which is rw:M
known as CSX Transportatiat, who leased the property to Gold Coast Oil
Corporation in the early 1970's. Gold Coast Oil, along with Solvent Extraction,
Incorporated were in the business of distilling mineral spirits and lacquer
thinner and reclaiming solvent. Blowdown frau the cperatiooa sprayed directly
onto the gaud, and 53 druns of slu016 .::o.ltaminated soil were stored in the
scuthwest area of the site near the distillaticn- unit. Still-bottan waste fran
the distilling operation was pnped into a tank truck for storage. '!here
were also 2500 c:crroded and leaking drU'ns c:cntaining sludge fran the distilling
cperatiat, ccntaninated soils, and paint sludges located on site, along with
large storage tanks of hazardous waste. All wastes generated by the sol vent
recovery operations were disposed or stored on site: no waste was shipped
off-site during the 11 years of operation.
Representatives of the D!de County Department of Environnental Resources
Management (DERM) took ~les of illegally dunped and stored sludge, and fran
on-site wells at the Gold Coast Oil site at April 22, 1980. Q\ the same day
a notice to c:crrect a waste dlDping violation was issued by~. en November
17, 1980, IEIIt issued a citation to Gold Coast Oil to cease violation and an
eme&.~ order to '-'U&.&.~ a $llnituy nuisance. Q\ Novenber 19, 1980, Gold
Coast sutmitted Part A of the ReM pemit application to the EPA. An air
polluticn pemt vas issued to Gold Coast Oil by the Florida Department of
Envircnnental Regulaticn (PIER) em December 30, 1980, for operation of an air
pollution source. ~ issued a c:anp1aint for temp:)rary, petmanent, mandatory
and prohibitOry injunctive relief, civil damages, and civil penalties against
Gold Coast Oil, on January 14, 1981. Q\ March 16, 1981, the ccmplaint was
amended to include CSX Transporation, the owner of the property.
'!he DEIf! reported the site to the EPA in early May 1981. '!be EPA SUrveillance
and Analyses Division (SAD) conducted a sanpling investigation of the site in
June 1981. 'l!1e SAD scnp1ed groundwater £ran existing wells, soil, and waste
material. In August 1981, the EPA filed a ccmplaint against Gold Coast Oil
aloog with a Consent 1Ig&,'I;.c::n.ent and Pinal Order. In the fall of 1981, the
Gold Coast OU site was subnitted to the EPA for inclusion on the Interim
Natia'lal Prfcrlty List. '1\10 hazard ranking sc:cres were perfonned. '!he first
ranking by EM wa 58.14. . The 8eCOI.d ranking by Ecology and EnviroRDent's
(E , E) Field IbY-'>A i~ 'D!am (PIT) vas 46.51.
Also, in October 1981~ the PIER ccnducted a RCRA interim status inspection
and reported the results to EPA. Q1 Decenber 1, 1981, EPA filed a Default
Order against Gold Coast Oil for failing to file a timely answer to the
c:cmplaint issued previously and for non-payrnent of the civil penalty imposed.
In DeceTber 1981, an earth resistivity survey by FIT IV was cx:n:Ncted. In
early 1982, Dade County, with the assistance of FDER, began to prepare an
enforcement case against the property owner, the CSX Transporation Canpany,
as well as the Gold Coast Oil Corporation. c:sx Transporation was .
also advised that the EPA was going to undertake irmediate rencval of the
-]-
-------
hazardous waste on-site uOOer the authority of CERCIA. Neither of these
actions were undertaken because in June of 1982, CSX Transporation evicted
Gold Coast Oil fran the property and agreed to voluntarily clean up the site.
In July 1982, CSX Transporation subnitted for approval a cleanup and .
disposal plan to clean up the site's surface.
'Ihe cleanup action of the surface contaminants at the GCO site was
undertaken the following mnth. '!he clean-up, ccnducted by Chemical waste
Managenent under contract to the Railroad , involved rerrw:ning the drutIs,
~tying the storage tanks and excavating and removing contaninated soils to
a depth of approximately six inches.
In March 1983, the Florida Department of Envirormental ~lation requested
that EPA take the lead at this site, and in September 1983 the GCO site was
added to the National PrIority List with a 46.5 hazardous ranking score.
In June 1983, a Remedial Action Master Plan (RAMP) was developed by NUS
Corporation under an EPA contract. In March 1984, BOt Eastern Incorporated,
consultants for the PRP Steering Camtitee, produced an 8Enviromental
Investigation of the Gold.Coast Site8. In June 1984 a 8Draft Remedial
Alternatives Evaluation Report for the Gold Coast Oil Corporation Site8 was
produced by Engineering and Science under an EPA contract. In May 1985 BCM
Eastern sul:rnitted a 8 Select ion of Remedial Approach8 report, again a report
for the PRP Steering Camdttee.
'!he Biscayne Aquifer Study area-wide ground water Record of Decision was
signed by the Assistant Mninistrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response in September 1985. The cleanup levels established as a result of
that study and that Record of Decision have been revised and approved by the
Florida Department of Envirormental Regulation for the Q:)ld Coast Oil site.
'!he cleanup levels are described in Sectioo VIII. en July 31 and August 1,
1986, EPA's Enviromental Services Division conducted a resampling of the GCO
site to determine the current status of the site. In September 1986, a
8Private Well SUrvey Report8 was sutmitted following a well survey. '!he
one-half mile radius well survey was corxructed and reported by CI:M under an
EPA contract. In Decelber 1986, a 8Gold Coast Oil Site Endangerment Assessnent8
(FA) report was developed. '!he FA report was produced by CI:)! uOOer an EPA
contract. In JanuaJ:y 1987 a 8Gold Coast Oil Soil aeanup levels. report was
produced by aM under an EPA contract. In February 1987 a 8Cost E9timate
Report Gold CDl8t Oil Site8 report was sutrnitted by CI:M uOOer an EPA contract.
-4-
-------
--
- . . '.
-.- - -_.~-- --
." - .' '"
III. CURRENT SITE STA1US
Operations at the Gold Coast Oil site ceased in 1982. The site is currently
inactive and is enclosed by a fence with a locking gate to prohibit access to
the property. However, a portia'l of the fence in the southwest corner has
been ripped open and allows access, if desired. 'the site is littered with
debris and has becare extremely overgrown with vegetation, so DI1ch so that
remedial site activity may be hindered.
'!'he debris located on-stte includes storage tanks and abanda1ed cars. Other
ncn-hazardous debris has been discovered recently and, therefore, is assured
to have been discarded by access through the opening in the fence. Several
large storage tanks are located throughaJt the site. These tanks were emptied
of their waste contents as part of .the 1982 surface clean-up. 'I\r.1o concrete
slabs, an office, and a supply shed also remain on the property. 'these have
not been in use since the eviction of Gold Coast Oil Corporation and are in a
state of disorder. A plan of the site is shown in Figure 2.
Since 1980, data has been collected at the Gold Coast Oil site to detetmine .
the extent of the soil and groundwater c:cntaminatia'1. '111e data wa.f$ generated .
fran waste, soil, and groundwater samples taken fran the site. '1hese studies.
were performed by the Dlde County ~: the u.s. EPA and their contractors,
and the PRP c:ontractor, BOt Eastern, Inc., and the data has been incorporated
into several reports. 'these reports include the "Environnental Investigation
of the Gold Coast Site, Miani, Florida" prepared by BOot Eastern, Inc. and
"Draft Remedial Al ternati ves Evaluatia'l Report for the Gold Coast Oil Corporation
Site, Miami, Florida" prepared by Engineering-SCience. 'the investigations
have determined that the soil and groundwater are contaminated with organic
caopounds and heavy metals.
'the general type.s of contaminants expected to canprise the sol vent recovery
operation wastes are as follows:
- spent halogenated solvents,
- spent non-halogenated solvents,
- still bottans fran the recovery of these solvents, and
- heavy metals..
'IWo major S8IIpling efforts were undertaken at the (XX) site following the
voluntary cleanup in July 1982. '111e sampling efforts focused a'l the residual
surface contamination in certain portions of the site and the quality of
grcuniwater in the vicinity of the site.
1he first ~ling effort was conducted in August and in I)eoent)er 1983 by
BCM Eastern for the PRP steering cxmni ttee. 'thirteen meni tor wells were
installed and sampled. Fifteen soil ~les and two solid waste samples were
taken during this study.
'1he second sampling effort was conducted in July 1986 by Envirorrnental
Services Division, EPA. nIring this effort, gI'O.1ndwater fran seven of the 13
-5-
-------
I I I I
--
.
SHOPS
I I
0-
I
10. L
I ! I
"Z5rOR~--~#J
.AWELl
r;;~;~
; GA~_~
SEABOARD COASTLINE RAILROAD
,
I.
i
[:J
BOILER
SW 7151 AVE
FIGURE 2
/ 1- rANK 5_":126 rANKS) ~g
ri
~ I I fORMER. '---1 -
1/ WELL AI I DISTILLING-
AREA FORMER
L-.J WELL AI DRUM ~~~AGE I
... L=--~J
..,aa11C8
I I .. ..
SITE PLAN
GOLD COAST' OIL SITE. MIAMI. FL
'-~.._' .~- -. -~, c-
, .
, ,
-------
DCnitoring wells, the supply well on-site and the water well at the Delta Gas
Canpany were sampled. Eleven soil samples were collected at various locations
CX\ site. All mnitorirYJ wells and soil sampling locations fran both sampling
efforts are illustrated in Figure 3.
SUrface Soil
Analysis of surface soils obtained during 1983. indicate contaminants still
remained on the surface soils foll~ the voluntary cleanup of 1982. The
results of these samples indicate the levels of organic canpounds varied
depending on the locatiCX\, with the highest levels detected in the southeast
area, the area of the fonner distilling operations and in the northeast area,
the loCation of the foxmer drun storage area (Figure 2). '1hese areas were
shown to be contaminated with high levels of chlorobenzene, 4-ni trophenol,
toluene and di-(ethyl hexyl) phthalate. Tables 1 and 2 sunmarize the results
of the organic analYses and leachate extraction (EP Toxicity test method)
CX)I')Cjucted on these surface soil samples collected in 1983.
'!he analysis of the samples collected in 1986 also indicate residual-surface
contamination. The area of highest contamination was the southwest comer
identif ied as sample locations S-l and S-12 (Figure 3). 'Ihe contaminants in
the southwest area include toluene, ethyl benzene, total xylenes, styrene and
bis (2~thyl hexyl) phthalate. Tables 3 and 4 S\.Im\aI'ize the EPA-ESD organic
and inorganic analytical results of the soil samples collected in 1986.
SUbsurface Soil
Analysis of subsurface soil samples obtained during 1983 indicates continued
contamination following the 1982 cleanup. '!he analyses of these ~les
indicate the levels of organics varied with depth and location. '!hese results
are given on each S\.I'III\aIY table. Relatively high levels of organics were
detected in the southwest and north section of the site. '!he.se areas were
shown to be contaminated with high levels of tetrachloroethylene,
trichloroethylene, toluene, 2-nit:.rophenol and di-(ethyl hexyl) phthalate.
Tables 1 and 2 sunmarize results of the organic and leachate extraction (EP
Toxicity test method) c:cnducted on these ~les collected in 1983.
'!he analysis of the saaples collected in 1986 also indicated that the levels
of organic 6..".unds varied with depth and with location: however, it is evident
that the organic levels have significantly reduced since the 1983 sampling
episode. '!'he highest levels of organics were detected in the southwest area
of the site as identified in sample locations S-21A and S-21B (Figure 3).
'1'h1s area was shown to be contaninated with high levels of toluene, ethyl
benzene, xylenes, styrene and bis (2-ethyl hexyl) phthalate. Elevated levels
of phthalate were also present in the north central area identified in sample
locations S-8 and S-8A (Figure 3). Tables 3 and 4 8\..Im\arize the EPA-ESD
organic and inorganic analytical results of the 1986 subsurface soil analyses.
-7-
.~.-"'?"T'-')"i-.iL--;-::~" ;':;0-,. ,c~~_.r::-:::;::.''';',7:':C;:-J::2.~-;-,;-;:.~--,:,<.-_~L'J :';.-,'o-'7~;' f,'~!.....,"-~;.;: --.'.--;,:,: ,~" ~.C,;:~ -~.
27- -". >~.-'t'~"t~ 'C_--;,::-; ,'.:-;~'";::" "".~ --;-~ ;':'--:"","":-!~.:'~=,~,,~\,c j''J~,'~:{ '-"'" ,-:,e;,i--':;,>:":t.:c ~ ~."-: .l~ "~:: ~ -~':;';:;'-l~ 7-;:;:: ;>T<::.>::(~I,;- \';1-; ;~~~-'!-C:";'"';..::.-::,-;;-,r,"'.:;;,?P ~- ~'''/ ':::';':,;',:-...,';'-,~- ',!'.'.', :::- -"!,:',~:..' .J;;.:.-:~ '--,-. ", -c", -'. :
-------
,
. t. .4-
i;
.
,t
.)
i.1
I!
Ii
I~
I,j
j
j
.i
,
i1
'J
.j
,
~
i
J
~)
~
:1
"
Ii
:1
.~
:1
,J
)
',;
I~
~
"
~
FIGURE 3
n AS-I
.- .-1
/@ .
(9
A l-flA
I-S-Zlt..
..
a.
..
_C8_0
D
c:t -=- c:::I
SW 'h' Avr.
pC! It. Call WC! II
Monitor Well and Soil Sample Locations
Gold Coast Oil Site.
"AllnoAO
.
.
HNCE
.
'ANKS
A s-u .'O"EO ON OROUNO
@
g
IUPPl" WEllO
".
.
.
nUllOINO 0
.. ,0nuEn
OIStllllNG AREa
AS-.
.. IUI'PI. Y 8ttmDo, ANM
OFnCE
.. D
I@ ------
. . . FENCE . 'OA'E" .
As-! n
A $-'
S-IA
n
@)
CONCRE'.E Slal
aNICS
@
N 1111"
8.£OEHO
(!) ~."".'I". w."
loll I."'DI. lOCI"..
n RCH,. 198)
AS-I EPA - ESD. 1986
@
0,..1.. "01 I. 8C .1..
-------
TABLE I
I.O~ IT 1\'[ M.:~UI.1'~ OF ORGANIC ANAI.YSF.S 01" R(~H ~Ofl. ~A.'II"LES AT GOLD COA~T OfL SITECn)
~illllr'e 1.0. t 1 2 ) ..
Ct'nt "III n3nt S.1mr'e o..!rth: 5urr...ce 2 Inch-] rt Surf"ce 5-' Illch 5l1rr.1ce '-19 Inch Sur face 10-16 Inch
Hethyten~ chloride ~D~b) 0.8 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 NO
O\loroforll NO NO ND ':D ND NO ND
1.1.1-Trlchlnroethane NO t\D NO NO ';0 NO NO NO
Trlchlt'rt'ethylene "'0 t\O 0.6 0,6 O.ft 0.2 0.2 NO
Tetrachloroethylene NO NO 0.6 0.5 ND o.i 0.2 NO
Toluene NO NO 0.921 0.09ft 0.197 O.IU 0.]71 "ND
Ch'orobenz~ne NO "NO 2.5 ND NO 0.108 1.13 0.1ft)
Ethyl benzene NO NO 0.458 0.170 ND 0.471 0.701 O. 236
1."-Dlchlorobenzene NO NO 0."'8 1057 ND ND NO ND
2-Nltrophenol NO 9.S 6.1 NO "'0 NO NO II' NO
Phe no I NO 38.0. 17.0 NO ND NO NO ' NO
2."-Olchloropbenol NO Ift.9 19.0 NO NO NO NO NO
2.".6-Trtchloropbenol NO ':O 10.6 "'0 23.0 NO NO NO
Pentachlorophenol NO ,.0 3'.9 NO NO NO NO NO
. Io-Nluophenol NO NO 60.5 NO NO NO NO NO
\D
1 Dimethyl phthalate NO NO HD NO 21.) HD NO NO
Dlethyl phthalate NO NO NO NO 19.0 NO ND NO
Olbutyl phthalate NO NO NO "'0 106 NO ND ND
Butyl benzyl phthalate NO NO ND NO 81".5 NO NO 12.6
Ol-(ethylhuyl) phthalate. NO NO NO NO 700 ND NO NO
Ot-H-octyl phtha'ate NO 'CD NO NO NO NO NO NO
conttn~cI-
!
\
I
I
J
1
i
I
J
I
I
I
r I
(...) All c.."e....,,'''' Innll In 1I_/klt. IleH t:II~I,.rn 1I0000rl... Alljtllllt ft-'. '!tn.
(,,) Nil . ;111;" yr.,..' III.t "lit ....t "",..d.
-------
TABLE 1 - 4.""'" hm.'d
~.II"r I r. ,. P. t ') 6 7 8
f~,,"' ,111 I n.1"t Sallll'lc IIt.'rth: 5urr;lcc It.' I...,.. - 21 rt 5'lr r.1C"C ~ur r.ler IS-" Inch 511r r.1C" W-If, Inch
Hrthylcne chloride HI) ND ND NO 0.6 0.1e 0.]
O.loro rOI1l NO NO ND NO ND NO 1.0
1,1 ,I-Trichloroethane ~O NO NO ND rm ND 1.1
Trlehloro..'hylcne 0.1 NO NO NO NO 0.6 210.0
Tetrachloroethylcne 0.) NO 0.1e NO t\o 21.0 )60
Toluene 27.0 0.131 0.]22 0.118 NO 1e.06 NO
OIlorobenzen8 4.25 NO ND NO 0.780 2.1] NO
Ethyl benzene 5.)5 0.1]6 0.176 0.147 NO ].67 ND
l,)-Dlchlorobenzene NO . NO NO NO NO 0.]86 ND
l,Io-Plchloroben7.ene NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
l,2-Plchloroben7.pne tiO NO NO NO NO 0.2" roo
r' 2-C1alororhrnol NO NO ND HI) 6.8 ND NO r'
2-Nltrophenol NO NO NO "0 )5.0 NO NO
",enol NO NO NO NO 26.1 ].1 NO
'.Io-Ol.ethylphenol NO NO NO NO 21.5 NO ~O
2,lo-Olchlorophenol NO NO NO NO 21.0 ND ND
, 2,Io,6-Trlchlorophenol 14.1 NO NO NO roo ND NO
.. Pentachlorophenol NO NO NO NO NO NO ND
0
I 4-Nltrophenol NO NO NO NO r"D NO NO
DI8ethyl phthalate 15.0 NO NO NO ND 10.6 lID
Dlethyl phthalate U.2 NO NO NO NO )8.4 92.0
Olbutyl phthalate )5.4 NO NO NO NO 2.6.5 NO
Butyl benzyl phthalate 4).S NO NO NO NO 2).5 NO
Ol-(ethylheayl) phthalate 4]0 10.9 20.1 20.) NO )00 120
DI-N-octyl phthalate NO NO <100 NO NO ND NO
-------
TABLE 2
I'n~ IT, \'E IU':~UI."S ()I-" U::ACIIAn: ANAI.YSES m' n(~~1 ~;OIl. SMU'I.F.S AT (;01.1) CUAST 011. 5ITE(1I)
S;tar'e t. n. 1 1 2 ) It RCRA Il.1urdoul
C,'nt.1mln.1nt S....,.le ""p,t," I Sur r.,c~ 2 Inch-J' rt Stir r.1Cf' ~-9 inch ~tlr r .1CC 1)-ICt Inch Sur r :Ice 10-16 Inch ""!lte Criteria
Ars~nlc NOCb) NO NO NO 0.002 0.002 0.001 NO 5.0
n.n I UII ND NO NO NO KO NO NO NO 100.0
C.1dIlIUil 0.02 0.21 0.20 NO 0.,.5 NO 0.05 NO 1.0
Chrollh.. NO 1.13 " NO NO ~'D NO NO ND 5.0
Lead 0.165 2.2 0.62 0,26 1.6 0.029 2.) 0.008 5.0
tlercury 0.000) lID 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 t..'D NO 0.2
Se lentU8 NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO 1.0
I S t her NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO 5.0 ,
....
.... Ztnc 1.61 ".25 1.10 0.37 ".25 0.]) 0.86 0.07 None
.
Sa.ple 1.0.1 5 6 7 8 RCRA Haurdoul
Contaliinant Sa.ple Depth: Surface 16 Inch-21 rt Surface Surface 1"-26 Inch 5urface 10-16 Inch Waste Crhula
Arsentc NO NO 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.00) 0.00) 5.0
BarlUli NO NO NO ~O 0.61t 0.51t 0.1t5 100.0
Cad.lu. 0.57 NO 0.15 o.n NO 0.1t1 NO 1.0
Chr08lu. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO 5.0
Lud 1.)1t NO 0.52 O. J] 0.)1 0.52 0."2 5.0
Herru.., NO NO NO NO NO NO NO 0.2
5r.lf'nlu. 0.002 NO NO NO NO NO NO 1.0
SIIY~r NO NO NO NO NO NO NO 5.0
1.lnc 1.102 0.'" 7.05 1.22 O.Sft ft.107 O.)Z N"nc~
(..Y'All-,:-;;jj";.Iiit:ii.,,,,:. In ..,,/1.. 1'01 ":;'!lI,'rll :t.1I11rl..:\ 1;1."" AIII~tI~' "-(" 1""'.
, "' Nil . ;111.' I )'1."" . 01" .,,,. "..I ",,"'C h'''.
-------
TABLE 3
"USITIV.: I:E~~I'I,TS OF OIU:ANIr. A~AI.\"SI~~ OF(~:rA-F.Sn SOIL SAHru~s AT
(:OI.n (;OAS'r 011. SITF. ,.)
1
....
N
1
S.1IIpl~ J.D.: 5-1 5-2 5-3R 5-6 5-7 5-8 5-8A 5-11
CrntMlln:ent 5.1111111 e Dt'pth: 5ur f ,1Cl' 2-8 Inch Surface 2-8 Inch 8-12 Inch 2-8 Inch 12-tS Inch Surface
Tolur.ne 85.0 0.002(b) KD(c) 2.0 ND NO NO NO
Ethyl benzene lRO ND NO ND ND ND ND NO
Totnl Kyle-nes 500 ND ND 3.0 NO NO NO NO
Vinyl chloride NO ND ND It.O NO NO ND tm
Trlc~loroethylene NO 0.OO7(b) ..D ND NO ND ND ND
Styrene 500 NO ND NO ND NO NO NO
t~thyl ethyl ketone NO ND ND 25.0(b) NO ND 20.0(b) NO
Bls(2-ethylheKyl) phthalate 830 NO 130 ' NO NO NO 12.0 NO
1,2-Dlchlorobenzene ::D t.1) NO SO ND 360 (b) 130 (b) "O ~
S.1rhthaJene t;D NO t.'D t.'D ND 21'Yb) o.atb) t\D
I,J-Dlchlorobenzene "0 ND r;o NO NO 6'''(b) 3.2(b) NO
I, Co -0 I eh loroben7.C'ne tOO ND ND t:D NO 2.6 1.3 r:o
1.2 ,It-Trlch lurd'cnzene t;D t;D t\D NO ND 220 8"(b) ND
Benzo(! and/or K) ND ND NO :;D t.'D ND 1.2 ND .
f luoranthene
Sallple I.D.: S-12 SellA 5-218
Cont..lnant Sample Depth: Surface 5-15 Inch 21t-38 Inch
To luene 15.0 32.0 ND (b)
Ethyl benzene, 16.0 270 3.0
Total xylenes 38.0 litO 7.1
Vinyl chloride ND NO .NO
Trichloroethylene ND ND NO
Styrene ND NO NO
Methyl ethyl ketone 20.0(b) 60(b) Ito(b)
Ils(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate l)'~b) 560 NO
1,2-Dlchlorobenzene 1. 2(b) ND ND
N,1rhthalene 2.1 ND NO
I,J-Dlehlorobenzl'ne ND ND NO
1,"-Plchlorobt'nr.rne NO NO NO
1,2 ,"-TrlehlorC'henzene NO ND ND
Renw(1I and lor 10 Nil NO NO
fluoranthrnr.
L';
'\
l-
i
IJ
!'i
i~
I!
I'
I:
~ ~
I' .
!1
I~
"
"
j
'1
!
}
!
~
j
l,i
I,
'I
1
1
I'
"
I'~
i'
:1
!j
Ij
I~
,~
1
J
i
,
j
I
j
,
: I
f"J All ':""""IIII,,,II""!t In 81t/kllt. r.1'A-.:~;n !;:eml.I"!I 11'11"',, July 11, 1""1. 1'111,1 A",~II:l1 I. """"
(to) 1:"1 1111..1,',1 y,' h.".
(,,) rill .. .m..h",',1 III" I"., ..", ""'I.,.".d.
I
, .
, .
-------
. '
TJ\BJ...E 4
roSITIVF. Itt:Sl'I.T~ OF INORGANIC A~AI.YSF.~ OF F.rA-f.~p)SOIL SAHI'I.F.S AT
(:01.1) r:n:\~T Oil. ~I n:. .:I'A-I~SP I'JRr. ;'I
~.'mrlc 1.1'.1 1-1 S~2 S~]R 5-6 5~7 ~~8 S-RA 5-11 S~12 s-nA S~:n8
CC1r>t:tllllnant S.,I:II,I e I)(-r' h: Surrac. 2-8 Inch ~lIrrace 2-11 Inch 8- tZ Inch 7.-8 Inch 12-lS Inch Surface Surrace 5-15 Inch 21.-18 Inch
"arlu.. '2 lit 26 ItO 12 n )4 35 NO NO 2.3
Coblllt n NO(b) NO NO 20 NO NO NO I'D NO NO
ChrolDIUIII 200 26 65 9 25 71 48 68 lID 270 11
Ct'rrer 260 I" 21 ],2 11 17 12 18 " 21 1.5
Ho 1 yb de nUll ND NO NO NO NO h"D NO NO NO 57 NO
,
Lead 920 140 SItO 110 68 370 590 390 2.000 1.100 38
5t rt'nt It.. 3]0 640 510 590 1t60 1.000 850 It 30 220 780 100
I Tl tan lUll 1" It1 54 58 45 litO 91 140 " 89 31
~
w Vanadltlll .. 5.5 8 5 10 8 10 10 ) 8 1.2
I
YttrlulII 5 It 6 1 Hi) S 5 fi It 5 1.6
Zinc 280 51t 400 63 29 28 35 87 100 150 n
AI u,lI nUll 1,600 1,500 1,800 3,100 3,200 2,900 j,ltOO 2,900 ')0 2,000 2.100
.tansane.e 22 n 56 32 17 28 27 47 ~ 18 9.2
Calctu. '2.000 150.000 160,000 100,000 70.000 200.000 160.000 170.000 '1,000 190.000 IS ,000
."'Inu h.. 1,100 1,600 2.400 1,100 750 1.900 1.500 2, 300 1."00 1.800 180
Iron 2.100 2,400 6.400 4,400 ],]00 2,600 4.200 5.200 ".900 1,800 2.200
Hercury ",8 0.1 0.69 NO 8 0.33 0.55 2.9 0.35 16 2.9
C.,.... I U1II 12 2 16 NO 1.7(c) 37 2] 6 8 4 ND
T.'iTA m:; '".'"II , ..a' '''II~ In "";'"K. .:I'A-.:SII lIam"i"!f I "",'n .III Iy 11, l'I"t, .m.1 AI,,~""t I,i 1"IIf,.
f") fill .. .111.,1 y,,',1 I..r h,,' n..1 ...., "C ",.1.
f t') ':!I I 1...1 ",1 v "I".,.
-------
Groundwater
1hirteen (13) monitorirg wells were ccnstructed in the study by BOt Eastern
for the PRP Steerirg Carmittee in 1983. 'these wells ranged in depths fran 15
to 110 feet. Table 5 presents the locations and depths of the meni toring
wells. Figure 3 also indicates the location of each well. Eleven wells were
installed.on-site includirg one well drawing water fran the base of the
aquifer at 110 feet, t1IIO (2) wells sanplirg the ground water fran inteJ:mediate
levels in the aquifer at 40 to 46 feet, and eight (8) wells sampling the
gmund water £ran shallow levels at 5 to 13 feet. In addition, two shallow
. offsite wells were installed in the northeast area. BOt Eastern also sanpled
the cn-site water 8UR)ly well and the off-site water supply well at the. D!lta
Gas ~ny.
Groundwater samples were analyzed for purgeable halocarbons, purgeab1e
araratics, phenols and phthalate esters and nine metals. Table 6 presents
BO!'s organic analytical results, and Table 7 presents the inorganic
analytical results.
Nine (9) groundwater samples were taken by the EPA-ESD in 1986. 'the wells
scnpled included the t1IIO intermediate depth wells, five (5) of the shallow
wells. the m-site water supply well, and the off-site D!lta Gas Canpany
wen. '1tJe EPA-ESD grcundwater samples were analyzed fran the Hazardous
SUbstar1Ce List for pw:geable organics, pesticides/PCBs and other chlorinated
c:anpounds. extractable organics and metals. EPA's organic analyical results
are also ~(.sented in Table 6. Table 7 presents the inorganic contaminants
detected in EPA' s samples.
Concentrations of metals in groundwater sampled in both 1983 aoo 1986 decreased
with depth of sampling. Samples fran the shallow on-site wells were observed
to OJntain higher levels and greater numbers of metals than water fran the
intennediate and deep wells. The concentrations of the metals in the groundwater
have generally decreased between the 1983 and 1986 samplings. Arsenic,
cadnitm, lead, mercury, selenitmt and silver were detected in 1983 but not
founj in the 1986 sanples.
In 1983. organic c:aapcunds were detected above trace a:n:entrations in water
frail 8 of tb8 13 mcnitoring wlls. 'D1e highest Ca1centrations of organic
UA'V:>Unds wn fcund in w11s lOI:--t-d in the nOrtheast section of the site.
'u. c::cntamin8nts ~U6nt 1ncludecl 1, l-dichloroet.hane, trichloroethylene,
tetrach1croethylene and trans-1,2-dich1oroethy1ene. '111ese organic CXII'p:)Unds
have apparently migrated to a depth greater than 40 feet as evidenced by
their presence in water fraa the intetmediate depth wells.
Organic cxmpounds were again detected in 1986 in six of the eight ncnitoring
. wells, including ~ of the bIo intermediate depth wells, am the on-site
water supply well. The cxmpounds detected included trichloroethylene and
tetrachloroethylene.
-14-
':. "', ,yO'- . ,-'-;;,: ,":,'';;; - .-'-'7"..:,->-,;.....".~t-,",':~:,:;.,,;.\''::_' ,"'" ',',<:.--.>":-.'-:: ~"-':'~-""!':.),\:."-'::':.-~'.,-~.:;. ,'--
':,::,~-,~';~Y",--"---"':-'-"F"-;' "~-:""'~:"'~'. I."'" ""':"~"": ':' -;n ~.". -::?:-:~':":I?;:-~('~>:,:,,~.,...:~t"'~""~"" .
'i', '::.T-~',".'C-<;--,J~-'~~:~ ~',', ',,,, -;:~--':~,,' ,'" -~f,". :""";5:~-...-s.~'c-:'.;i. :";.'~":':"':..):~;;~~":;;;:;~~~::;::~.-.""" <
-------
TABLE 5
LOCATION/DEPTH OF MONITOR WELLS
Well No.
Depth. ft
Location
~-1
W-2-
W-3
W-4
W-5
W-6
W-7
1l-8
W-9
W-I0
W-ll
W-12
~-13
On-site Supply Well
Delta Cas Co. Well
'\
105-110
40-46
40-46
5-13
5-13
. 5-13
5-13
5-13
5-13
5-13
5-13
5-13
S(l~
: Depth unknown; assumed to be shallow wells.
-15-
-------
I~ '
t',
i~
I;'
II
,1
"J
J
i
i
I
f
i
;j
~J
.,
"
\1
:j
:1
;]
,
.
;1
.~
~
.;
j
"
:~
"
Iii
:..
;j
'"
:,
I~
l
~
;'j
.,
;:J
'1
~
,~
:i
, ~
!~
1'1
1"lt
~~
:.4
,~
7';
I:~
:~
I~
n
i~
I" I
TABLE 6
I'O~ITIVF. RF.5t1I.T5 0"- OIU:ANIC ANAI.YSF.S OF (:ICOll~f)WATf.R SMlrl.F.5 AT GOI.O COAST 011. 5,ITF.Ca)
I
...
(J\
I
5~rlc nrrth:'b) n I ' 5 5
,,~tt No.: c -v:r U-2 11-] Ir-1t U-~
ContaMinant Sa." tnK RC'und: ( ) -,- 1 2 ] 1 ] T ---L- 2 ]
Hethylene chloride ~o(d) NO 0.0077 O.OU(e) NO NO "D NO 0.0012 0.01"
I,I-Dlchloroethylene ND 0.001] 0.00] 0.00) NO NO NO ND ND ND
l,l-0lchloroethane NO 0.0106 0.8"9 0.0065 NO NO NO 0.006) 0.001" NO
tran,-l,2-0Ichloroethy'en8 ND 0.001 0.07 ND NO NO NO 0.0078 0.012 t,O
l,l,l-Trlchloroethane NO NO 0.0039 ND 0.002] NO :\D ND ND NO
~ro80dlchlor08ethane ND NO ND ND tiD ND "D ND ND ND
Trichloroethylene "'0 NO 0.009" ND ND ""0 ND 0.0)8] 0.0005 ND
Tetrachloroethylene ,.D ND 0.0"") NO ~'O NO "D ND ND I'D
O1lorofora "'0 NO ND ND ND "D ND ND ND NO
1,2-DlchlC'r~.thAne ~ "'0 NO 0.0007 I'D ""0 ND tiD NO 0.000lt I'D
cl'-l,]-Dlchloroprop.ne . "0 ND NO ..D ND ND ~'O ND .NO tiD
Renune t:o NO ND ND h'D ND t.O ND NO O.ool(e)
Toluene t.-o NO NO NO tc'O tm ND NO ND ND
Chlorobenzene ND NO "'0 ND NO ND ND 0.0631 0.122 O.OO~(e)
Ethylbenzene NO NO 0.0211 ND ND NO NO NO ND O'O"'(e)
l,2-Dlchlorobenzene ND NO 0.0166 ND ND ND ND NO NO 0.015
Vinyl chloride ND NO ND ND NO D.On "O NO NO NO
OIloroethane ND ND ND ND NO NO NO ND NO "D
Phenol NO NO NO ND NO NO ND NO NO NO
bls(2-Ethylhexyl) ND NO ND O.Oft ND NO NO ND ND ND
phthalate -( f) (e)
cls-l,2-Dlchloroethylene NO O.-OS(e) - NO
Ethyl ether ND 0.02 NO
DIlsopropyl ketone ND ND 0.02(e)
Total .ylenes ND ND 0.00](e)
NaphthAlene ND NO O.OOS,,(e)
I ~ophorene NO NO ND
cont Inued-
c.,) AJI cl'nc','ntrntlnn8 In IIR/I..
(I,) ~1t;l1I.", (S . /1""1'1.." 5-1] ft ....t>p), Int..rlle-dlnt..
It:) IU)I t:M.'e-rn fliI,,'IIIIA .."...": Rntln" I, AIIJl:lI!lt "-6~
"..Ie- ""ly 11. I"M'..
'.1) Nil .. ...",lv/,'.I I"r '"It IIn' ".",'c"'II.
(..) 1:,11111,,,.'.1 V,. "I". .
(f' 111.11.",11,'/1 81..1 allaly/.',1 r..r.
(.d 11'";'11' .111..1" 1111;,
(I . R:lllpl...1 "0-'" It d....p), nr..p (I) - RII.pl..d 10'5-110 It dN!p).
I,)Rli Mnund 7, p.'ct.'.lK'r 6-7, .."1). r.rA-t:Sb Round 3 lI:wpUnK
. "
. .
-------
i
)
,1
11
I'
I'
IJ
i:
,!
i~
Ii
1-:;
I~'
iil
::~
IJ
Ii
~
I]
,
~
.~
.j
'J
:
.
.~
]
,~
1
1
!~
'~
1.1
t~
:~
r~
Ii
H
i'j
,~
!j
'>,
:4
1:1
I.;
:fi
I~
1;\
:~
'~
'.1
~
j
,j
:~
11
" I
I
-
"
I
TABLE 6 - «'Oil' 1t"1..,I
f;..ple PIop'III ~ S S S S S
Wrll HR.: -u:r \1-1 \I-R -v:-r "'V=l1I"'" w-n
Cont:l81n:lnt 58..,lInl Rnund: I --1- -L- 2 ] -,- -,- Z ]
~thyl~ne chloride NO HI) 0.00It2 0.005 0.016 NO 0.0001 0.0008 0.0012 "0
l,l-0lchlororthylene NO NO "0 NO NO NO (e) NO NO "0 "0
l,l-0lchlor~..thane NO 0.011" NO 2.0 2.0 0.1 NO 0.0108 1m NO
trans-l,'-Dlchloroeth,lene NO 0.0677 0.000) 0.211 0.1]8 NO 0.0008 O.OOJ 0.000] NO
l,I,l-Trlchloroethane tOO NO NO 0.0189 0.026" NO "0 NO NO "0
ftro~lchlor08ethane NO NO NO NO NO NO "0 o.oon "O "0
TrlchlorOP.thylene NO NO 0.01102 0.018" 0.002" NO 0.0011 0.0011 O. DOlt 1 NO
Tetr:lchloroethylene "0 NO 0.00101 0.0001 0.02") NO 0.00106 0.0055 O.ODOlt 0.05(e)
O'Ilorofor8 NO NO NO NO NO NO O. OODlt 0.008) 0.0001 0.1t1
l,2-0lchloroethane NO NO 0.0005 NO o.oon HI) "0 0.0002 O. ooDlt NO
cls-l,]-Olchloropropene NO .NO NO NO 0.0008 NO' NO NO NO NO
8enzene NO NO "0 0.0111. NO "0 NO NO NO NO
Toluene 0.0001 NO 0.0101 0.15" 0.0172 NO ." 0.0)01 0.0)1.9 NO NO
Chlorobenzene NO tm NO 0.0501 t.o "0 NO NO NO NO
[thylbenz~ne NO NO t.o 0.0021 "0 NO NO "0 NO "0
l,2-Dlchlorobenzene NO' t\0 "0 0.0055 '.-0 tiO NO "0 NO NO
Vinyl chloride NO "0 "0 NO NO NO NO NO NO "0
Chloroethane NO "0 NO NO NO 0.6 NO NO NO "0
Phenol "0 NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
bls(2-Ethylhexyl) NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO "0 NO
phthlliate
cls-I,Z-Dlchloroethylene NO NO
Ethyl ether NO NO
Olls~propyl ketone NO NO
Total xylenu NO NO ...
Naphthalene NO NO
Isophorene t\0 NO
contlnued-
..
-------
TABLE 6 - c"III hill..,1
!:'U":I' h' 1"'1'1 h: :; S S 5
":"11 ro..,: \I- I:.' \0-1) UII-:oUt' $111'1'1, \0"11 Ih'lt ,1 (:,11
f', '111 :118111.1111 S.1'QI'IIIIK K"ulI.l: -1- 1 10ft;) --L- ) I --L- 3 2 -L
tl,,'hylt'ne chloride 0,0016 Nn tlO 0.0998 ..0 0.001) 0.001 o.on ND NO
1.1-IHchlorocthylene NO NO NO 0.0)7) NO "0 NO NO NO NO
1.I-blchloroeth~ne tOO NO NO 0.3 NO 0.0109 0.0087 NO NO NO
t rans-I . 2-01ch loroeth,lene ..0 NO NO 3.0 tOO 0.06S1 O.OS71 NO NO NO
1.1.I-Tr Ich loroelh~ne NO NO NO 0." NO NO NO NO NO NO
Bromodlch loromethm,e tOO 140 ..0 0.0032 NO ..0 1\0 NO NO NO
Trichloroethylene NO NO NO 2.0 ".8 ~O NO NO NO NO
Tetrachloroethylene NO NO NO 10.0 100 NO NO NO NO NO
OIloroCom NO NO NO NO ..0 NO NO NO ND NO
l,2-0lchlorocth8ne NO NO ~ ~O NO NO 0.0035 NO NO NO
cls-l,)-Dlchloropropene ND ND' NO ~D ':0 ..0 NO NO NO tOD'
Benzene NO ..0 NO h'D NO (e) t;O NO NO NO NO r-
Tolu.ne O. SIo5 "0 NO t\D 0.2 .,0 NO NO '.1), h'O
Chlorobenzene NO NO NO NO NO NO IlD NO NO NO
Eth)'lb...nzelle 0.0)2) NO NO ~O NO NO h'D IfD NO NO
1.2-bl~hlorubenzene O.lS) !
-------
'..
,
j
1
.'.1
. ;
'j
)
TABLE 7
l'O~lTtVE Rt:SUI.TS OF HETAI. ANALYSIS OF GROUNDWAn:R SAHIILES AT GOLD COAST 011. SITE(n)
,
.!
.,
.:'j
J
.,
:;1
, 1
:'r:
','
.1
I ~ 1
[.:j
.,
"J
:.'j
J
.~
.1
!1
:,.]
I'~j
i~:.j
!J
cA
, i3
~~
[,,:~
[..,
1.7"
:-:.::
I
....
'\0 '
I
5'-llle Depthl (b) S D I 1 5 S S S
Well NoI( ) On-site 5u("I("I11 \.Irll "1f-t W-Z \.1- J -,;:;;- WaS -v:r -v=r
Conta.lllant Sa.pllnG Round. c --1--- ~ ~ -,- 1 ] t ] -r- ---L- -L -.- -.-
Atu.lnW8 .(d ND( r) - NO 0.11 ND
Arsenic 0.003 ND NO 0.001 NO NO ND NO 0.002 NO NO NO
Barlu. 0.01-' ND ND ND NO NO 0.018 0.207 0.205 0.021 0.]09 0.111
Ca dill 1\118 0.075 0.37 NO 0.0013 0.0088 NO 0.001 NO NO 0.0005 NO NO NO
CalclU8 110' . 79.0 100 190
01 ro.1I U8 NO NO N~ NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
..
Coppe r NO NO , 0.018 - NO
Iron ".9 8.9 SS.O 9.0
Lead 1.6 ...5 NO 0.006 0.011 NO 0.009 NO 0.002 0.002 NO 0.002 ND
Hagne.lu. 3.0 1.8 3.1 2.7
Hana.nue NO 0.029 . 0.30 0.061 .
Hercury 0.0001 - NO 0.0002 0.0002 NO 0.0~1 t.'O 0.0002 0.0021 NO NO NO
Se1enlu. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
Silver NO ND ND ND NO ND NO NO NO NO NO NO
Sodlu8 28.0 -'.11 12.0 6.7
Strontlnu8 1.1 0.54 1.1 1.7
Tellurlu8 ND NO ND "0
TI tan lu. NO "0 ND "0
Zinc )12 2,(,(,9 1.4 0.0] 0.03 "D 0.11 0.02" NO 0.01 NO 0.01 0.008
continued-
c..) AU CUIIC,'IIIr"t lonll In -It/l..
(a.) '~h..I1,'" (1 - 1Ia.1,'ed S-I" ft Ilrrr). Interwlll..h' (I - '8111,1,'.. "0-'" rt drrp). ''''''1' (d - /In.III..d
III~- I I II It IIrl'I'). I()t r.,1I'Itrrn 11/l1li"""" Mum..' '1, IIo!cl'."..r .,-7, I'UU.
(d '11:.1 1':.1::' I'rn 1';'.'" hlKI R,....d I, AUKII!';t .. -f" I 'JR),
I-:I'A-I':SII 11,'181' II ilK Muu",1 ), .In Iy } I, J ""6.
(d) lIupllclI'c 8'lIlly.".
(r) - . Indlc.te. not .nalJled for.
. #, .... '" . t 'co , I.- ,., .. ...-, a.c.......;. D-t
,.J
'"
~ ,i
"
:,'1
I.i
~"1
1'.;1
~. j
J
I
.,
'1-:'
I'~
)
'J
j
I.'J
1..1
..i
I')
1'1
q
(.'11
::
" I
-------
I
H
j
:i
,:;
d
J
"
:J
.1
'j
.,
;'1
~
..i
I
.>
~~
1
,
,
~ ,
II
'I
:~
]
~~~
"
:..1
..'
-J
:1
"1
I,':,'j"
~ :-
~']
',:,
~. i
,::
'1.
'1
(~
'~
,1;1
J
.~
-i!
M
:,
']
~
J
'.
j
I:,;
,.j
.'J
\i]
,,:;1
;;~
:J
-~
c;
A I
I
N
o
I
TABLE 7 . coot I..tled
5.pl. I'Ppth: 5 5 5 S 5
Well Hu. t U-8 g:-yr U-u v:rr fiilla
Cootalllnnnt 5a.,lInl Round: 1 3 3 3 3D(d) 3 Ca.
AI wit n".. NO 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.51t NO
Arsenic NO NO NO NO NO ND NO
~rlUli 0.262 tI) NO NO NO 0.025 NO
Cadllh.. O.OOOS NO NO NO NO NO NO
Calef... 160 no 1.900 1.900 180 69.0
OIrOialua NO NO NO 0.09 0.17 NO NO
Copper NO NO NO NO NO NO
.
Iron 6.3 10.0 51 50 10.0 NO .
Lead 0.003 NO NO NO NO NO NO
H8snulUli 4.6 Lit 22.0 21.0 3.6 1.2
Hanlanue 0.079 0.036 HD NO 0.053 NO
Mercury NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
.
$elenh.. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO ~
Sliver NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
Sod lUll 6.3 2.0 35.0 )3.0 5.5 1.9
Strontlnull 1.' 1.5 32.0 31.0 1.6 O.U
TellurlUJI ND NO ".0 NO ND NO
Titanlull NO NO 0.1 0.11 NO NO
Zinc NO NO 3.1 23.0 22.0 5.9 0.032
-------
'!he highest concentrations were again found in two wells located in the
northeast part of the site.
Table 8 provides a cc:mparison of the organic contaminants detected in
groundwater fran 1983 to 1986. 'the data indicate that the mean concentrations
of trans-l,2-dichloroetha~, l,l~ichloroethane and toluene have decreased in
the shallow wells while the mean concentrations of trichloroethylene and
tetrachloroethylene have increased. '!he mean c:oncentratioo of methylene
chloride in shallow wells has remained about the SI.IID8, while the mean
concentration of methylene chloride in the intetmediate wells has increased
slightly. The decrease and increase in concentrations may be attributed to
the physical characteristics of the chemicals in soil, particularly JOObility
and volatilizatioo.
Previoos to the 1983 and 1986 grouOOwater sampli~ studies, an earth
resistivity survey was conducted at the site in January 1981. '!he survey
consisted of both areal resistivity profiles and vertical resistivity sounding.
The areal resistivity profiling identified a significant resistivity anomaly
at the northeast comer of the site (Figure 4). '!his ananaly was interpreted
to be contaminated groundwater. The an::naly extended generally northeast of
the site, and groundwater contaminatioo extended to a depth greater than 30
feet at the northeast corner of the property boundary. The results of the
resistivity s~udy are confirmed by the analytical results of the 1983 and
1986 sampling studies.
In S\J"ll'Daty, the groundwater data indicate an area of significant contamination
in the northeast corner of the site extendi~ to a depth greater than 40 feet.
These findings confirm the earth resistivity study anamoly that was found in
1981. The levels of contaminants have generally decreased across the site
except for the levels of trichloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene which have
. increased in this northeast corner. The levels of metals in the grouRdwater
are considered to be at normal environnental levels since they are relatively
constant throughout the entire area of the site. Contaminants were found in
the two off-site shallow monitoring wells in 1983. However, since these
shallow wells were not sampled in 1986, no definitive conclusions can. be
reached regardi~ the continued TlDVement of this contaminated groundwater off
site. No c:cntaminants were identified at the off-site deep water ~ly well
at the Delta Gas ~.
Factors Affecting Migration
Soil/Geological Envircrment:
'Ihe surface material of the site consists generally of unconsolidated sandy
limestone varying in thickness between two to six feet.
UOOemeath the Miami, Florida area are deposits of unconsolidated sand, shell
and consolidated limestone, that together form the BiscaYne aquifer. '!he
base of the Biscayne Aquifer is approximately 90 to 100 feet below mean sea
level in the study area. This elevation corresponds to a depth of approximately
-21-
----:-"'j.~';.':",,' -i".'--P~--:-'""'~'~-"-;''' ,
. t' ""'C;~'>',':o~ :,'~ ._.~;:" ~:; .,;c.:-<~:-~o: ~,.~,,-'~"''''-~~> '. ., ,'-:' ".'.' -.-. '~::~:::.-;:--;.. ,1--;-;"L~=:- ;'C '~-i7; '-::-~'~;'"-;:"'':',.;';:;-':,'~~'~-':-.,'1',~. ',;-;"'':;;':~-:)';'-::-,"?'''~::'''';'''~:~''':;'':) "".
\.; ~':"~-;'''' .:~~{ ,<,-~C.-;C.~f: ~':;;-:-"'\'-:' ;-::~7_" :;:;
-':;;- "-"~--: ';:. .~. ;,~-:;<';'''''''
-------
TABLE 8
COMPARISON OF CONTAHI~"TS DETECTED IN GROUNDWATER
Intented1ate. On-dte Vells Sh.llow. On-lite Velll
"lOt, 1983(b) EPA, 1986(C) IHC, 1983 EPA, 1986
Contamin.nt "-3(d) N-2 N-13 ..-"'7
1.1-Dlchloroethane 8O(e) 0.849 0.0065 2.0 0.1
~I' (f) 0.28653 0.00325 0.33375 0.014
. 2 1 8 1
tr.ns-l,2- 80 0.07 lID(h) 3.0 NO
Dlchloroeth.ne ..an 0.0244 0.27841
. 3 10
lA.d .ax 0.013(1) lID 4.5 (j) 1m
.e.n 0.011 0.87
. 2 6
Methylene chloride ux 0.0077 0.013 0.0998 0.014
...n 0.00257 0.065. 0.0101 0.0135
a 1 1 9 2
Tetr.chloroethylene aax 0.01043 Nt) 10.0 100
..an 0.01477 0.77145 14. 34
. 1 5 2
Ioluene .ax lID Nt) 0.545 0.2(1t)
.an 0.05751 0.029
. 5 1
Irlchloroethylene ux ~ 0.0094 Nt) 2.0 4.8
..an 0.00313 0.15988 0.69
. 1 7 2
(al All concentrations in ..IL.
(b) I~ Ea.tern, Inc. ..-ple. taken AuCU.t 4-6, 1983 and Dlce.ber 6-7, 1983~ Raw data
provided in Append1cie. 6 and 7.
(c) EPA-ESD, Rellon IV '8111'1.. uken Jul, 31, 1986. bw dau provided in
Appendices 6 and 7.
(d) N - number o( .8IIple./analy... uaed 1n calculation. of the ..an valu..
(e> .ax - 8&X18ua concentration detected.
(I) ..an calcul.ted a.aunlnl all value. 1... than the detection 118it equal to
zero.
(I) . - number o( .ample./.naly.e. creater th.n the detection li.it.
(h) ~~ - Not detected.
(l) S - 2
Cj) N - 7
(k) Estl.ated value.
-22-
-------
o
o
o
\
...-ow A
-'-" V
".....
-...
-.. '''''''...
~ . '... ....
./ ...'.. . r..,.".. ..
: : ... "'. c... '..
.. .:' ... '..".~
"......
, .
.. .
',~
.", ."".
"'.. .
". . -...
"',
.. , I "'"
!1 \. 1 '''".
, . .
. . .. "-
. .",
. . .
, ..... ".
" ~,"
... .
" "".
.",' ''''.
"..... '''to..
"" -
./
/.
-'
-
1
..
. J
Bose from Ecology and Environment (1981)
. .
SCALE ~ 1~0' 290 390 4~0 FEEl:
O ~
':. Area of resistivIty anomaly I cpproximatelY located.
FIGURE 4
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF AREAL RESISTIVITY ANOMALY
-23-
"".Jf"J:, .""J!"'~.~:;--..:. ~.-~Y:::;~ ~:!~.:~~~~:~{7~'i:~','~~~.!'.~;-r~71;5?:;.~~j.'~~~73'::~:;~~:~''Jp-'',v:~:7~ ~~!;;.4~.,~~~~~~q-~!"'J.~.,~.'.~;:_..~~T_~~~~~~~~~~~~-;::~:;'-
-------
100 to 110 feet below land surface. '!he upper layer of the Biscayne aquifer
is Q(A~ of sandy limestone. It is highly penoeable with mmerous small
solution openings, many of which are sand filled.
'!he Miami OOlite directly underlies the sandy limestone layer of the BiscaYne
Aquifer and is ccmposed of. limestone, raDJirg in thickness fran 10 to 15 feet.
A layer of fine sand of varying thickness uroerlies the Miami OOlite. Below
the sand is the Fort 'l11aapSon Formation of Pleistocene age. Figure 5 shows
a generalized geologic section of the aquifer for an area near the Miami
International Airport which is approximately three miles north of the site. \
It is cxmposed of hard, condensed limestone and thick layers of solution-
riddled limestone. '!be botton of the Fort Thcmpson Formation represents the
base of the Biscayne Aquifer. Underlying the Biscayne Aquifer are the Tamiami
Formation and the Hawthorne Formation, cxmposed of sand, silt, marl and clay.
These formations reach a depth of about 700 feet and separate the BiscaYne
Aquifer from the Floridan Aquifer.
Soil Assessment:
Soils at the site are contaminated by organic ccmpounds and lead. The presence
of these contaminants poses a potential risk for further contamination of
ground water beneath the site, by continued leaching of the contaminants and
overland runoff.
Hydrological Characteristics:
'!be non-artesian Biscayne Aquifer is the only groundwater "source of drinkin;J
water in southeastern Florida and has been designated a sole-source aquifer.
At the GeO site, the water table of the Biscayne is normally seven to eight
feet below the land surface. The aquifer is wedge shaped. In coastal Dade
and Broward Counties it is over 200 feet thick, but decreases progressively
westward to only a few "feet in western Dade and Broward Counties. The GCO
site is located in coastal Dade County. 'l11e aquifer is recharged primarily
by rainfall. Discharge occurs through evapotranspiration, canal drainage,
~ing and coastal see~e.
Regional flow of the Biscayne Aquifer is east toward the Atlantic Ocean with
a very low hydraulic gradient. Lateral flow velocity averages two feet per-
day, which indicates a high peDUeability coefficient. However, local ground
water flow is intimately associated with drainage of the Coral Gables and
Tamicai Canals. In effect, the canals dissect- the aquifer, and water 11IOVement"
is unrestricted between the two systems. Evidence of this hydraulic connection
between the two systems is doonented by Klein, who has shown that a sudden
rise in canal water levels instantaneously raised groundwater levels in
nearby wells.
Ilxalized flow of groundwater is dePendent upon the canal water levels in the
Coral Gables Canal (south of the GCD site) and the Tcwniami Canal (north of
the site) as opposed to the groundwater level. When the water level is
" higher in the local ground water than in the canals, flow is toward the
canals. 'l11is causes a localized north-south groundwater flow in the vicinity
-24-
-------
.1
'j
.
j
'1
I
I
I
i
.\
IJ
'I
,1
~
,'I
~
"
"J
,~I
,
"j
';
.
,;
11
"
-:1
..,
,
:j
!,
"
.
.,
1 I
'.j
(J N
'.) \II
.1 I
'1
.;
,',
1
1
.j
:1
:j
.~
.~
,.
~
~
I,
1\1
"j
I~
;1
'1
rfl
~
,;~
I~
~'~
I"
.~
i~
.j
;~
WEST
EAST,
20
-
FEC CANAL-
-FEC BORROW CANAl
MIAMI SPRINGS WELl m..o
SE A LEVEL
o
MIAMI OOLITE
-20
i}(:,}{\{i'i\~~~\~!t;Y({i;2~~?:,\~rii~i~~~~~,~%n~}~tMj{$f,f.t.\i*.~!(~t~~1%~!i;!};fj;{~!.~1.i~ffi~~~j!~r#f~illin~~({;{~~~~j!Wj~N;tw;&;
-40
-
-.
FORT THOMPSON FORMATION
-60
- "
....."
~, ' .' ,:' ,
I .0:-'-.;- ~;..J=.,.:I:...,.:.
, .. .,1. '.', '-'L','
.' .'...~.~. .',
,',
., -
-
-
-
----
-
.' ':::;r,~ A iF' '\I:' 81~rAv",~'
. .
,-
-.
---
. 'f. . i. '::" ". ' .~ ,
',4: .~,-~U' .
eo .'~' ~..,.. .-..
- ' ::o'"r " , '.,' ~', :.:.:-
-
-
.-
--
-
-
--
-80
-
---
--
-,
-
-
-
-
-. ..
-.- -
---
-
-
-
-
-
-
----
-
-
-
-
---
-
-
.-
-
-
--
----
~ - --_: - - -:.::: _:-- -- -- - - -TAMIAMI FiORMAJION.- - -.,...- --- ------------------ - --~
------------ ----------------------------
------- ----.--------------.------------------------------------------
-100
..
-
-
..
-
- --
-
I :~';::.?~{:'I SAM)
t-=--:-~'ICLAY
I "
.
. ". f LIMESTONE
~oa..ITIC LIMESTONE
SOURCE, CII2M lULL. 1982
FIGURE 5
GE~ERALIZEO GEOLOGIC SECTION NEAR MIAMI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
GOLD COAST OIL SITE. MIAMI. FL
1~I'7nt.ITAI
crAI':: I" . ?,.. ...11-
-------
of the GCO site.
vertically impermeable layers restrict the saline Floridan aquifer fran .
infiltrating the Biscayne. However, lateral intrusions of saltwater do occur
and may be accelerated by overdrainage of the canals and urx1er drought
condi tions.
Gr:cundwater Assessment:
'!be presence of organics in the soil and a water table located close to the
surface provide an ideal pathway for leaching of contaminants into the
groundwater. Leaching of organics fran surface and subsurface soils has
occurred as evidenced by the presence of these contaminants in the groundwater
samples. Also, the earth resistivity survey conducted in 1981 indicated a
plume extending to a depth greater than 30 feet at the northeast comer of
the property. '!be potential exists for this plune to migrate towards the
Coral Gables Canal or downward further into the Biscayne Aquifer, as dictated
by the aquifer configuration. . .
Topography:
'l11e GCO site is located in the (distal) Coastal tDilands physiographic
province, which is characterized by low elevation. The site covers approximately
two acres of flat, saOOy land. The site is located in the 10Q-year flood
plain, however the Coral Gables Canal is located 850 feet south of the site,
and is flow-regulated, so flooding in the area of the site is not likely.
'l11ere is no surface water traversing the site, ~ there is no distinguishable
drainage pathway fran the site, and water may pond after a rainstorm.
'l11e site is located between two drainage canals: the Coral Gables Canal,
loc.ated about 850 feet south of the site, and the Tamiami Canal, located 1.25
miles north of the site. The Coral Gables Canal drains to Biscayne Bay and
. then into the Atlantic Ocean. Figure 6 illustrates the location of the Coral
Gables Canal in relation to the GCO site. 'Ihe nearest stom drain is abOut
100 yards south of the site in the road. '!'his wfrench drain- discharges into
the ground and not the canal.
Surface water Assessment:
'!'he GCO site has no surface water features to transport the contaminants
off-site. Since the site is flat, the transport of contaminated soils to
surface waf.8r via erosion and scouring of contaminated soils fran surface
water runoff 18 not prcba.ble. '!'here is the potential for subsurface migration
of ccntaldnated groundwater to discharge to the Coral Gables Canal. '!he
subsurface migration is controlled by the water table configuration in the
area.
The GCO site is located in the 10Q-year flood plain of the Coral Gables Canal,
which could result in surface water contamination in the event of a flood.
However, floOOing is not likely to occur, as the canal is flow regulated.
-26-
-------
-. ----.
.. ...,.. -'.. -
:.-=---..-.~... ~
jT
27
:::1
ST
:-t
JTER .
~.
1)
)T ST
TER
TER
TER
TEA
T
sw
SW
SW
U':
SW C&.
SY{
""-
At
S'N
FIGURE 6
COLD COAST on LOCATION MAP
-27-
-------
Climate:
The climate of Miami is essent~ally subtropical marine, featured by a long
warm sunner with abundant rainfall, followed by a mild, dry winter. 'the
marine influence is evidenced by the narrow daily range of temperatures
and the rapid waming of cold air masses which pass to the east of the
state. '!be area is subject to winds fran the east and southeast. '!he
average annual precipi tat ion is 59 inches per year. '1'he average annual
b!q)erature is 75.5° F.
AblDsphere Assessment:
The greatest potential for contaminatiat of the atmosphere is through
volatilization of organic ~ present in the soil. However, the
evaporation process is expected to be in equilibri\IU at this time at a level
which is probably belCM measuxement capabilities. Since the area is open, the
accumulation of vapors is not likely. A lesser potential for discharges of
volatile organic o:mpounds to the air is ~h volatilization of contaminants
present in the groundwater and surface water.
Conclusion
In S\.1I"LIMry, the potential contaminant migration pathways at the 00) site include:
- Leaching of contaminants fran surface and subsurface soils to the groundwater7
- SUbsurface migration of contaminated groundwater to surface water7 and to a
lesser extent,
- o.rerland flOli of contaminants to surface water via surface runoff 7 and
- Volatilization of contaminants fran contaminated surface soils and surface
water.
Contaminants of Concern .
Based on the results of the available DDnitoring data, seven contaminants.
were selected as contaminants of concern for this site. 'these contaminants
are intended to be representative, in teDUS of physicochemical and toxicological
properties, of the majority of contaminants present at the GOO site and were
selected in accordance with the guidance provided in the Enda~erment Assessment
Handbook. The contaminants of concern for the GCD site are: methylene chloride,
, 1, l-dichlorcethane, trans-l, 2-dichlorcethylene, trichloroethylene,
\tetrachlorcethylene, toluene and lead. The organics were selected because
ihigh ccncentratiaus were detected in grcurWater sanples in both sanoling
I episodes. .
'1'be extractable organics detected during the 1986 sampling are not considered
contaminants of concern at this time because they were detected at very lCM
concentrations in scattered wells, with no apparent pattern. In addition,
the contamination levels were estimated or based on presuapti va analytical
techriiques that may indicate the presence of the contaminant (see each S\m'Rary
table for the estimated concentrations).
-28-
-~. '~:' ~T-:~""",,~:-,,-,:,,~,-'O". ';'::~- "'3-";-.-
. ;,J -.- "-.''''.'~ .--< ': ~'':'.'-;''~C''''-:-~-::::-:::::''G~~£7".~.':::~f.!.,";?~;::'-'',<;; -'5.;':_-;:~--'''~;;~:.::-c''\~,::'-''.~;';', "
- ~-:; j~: '":'- ~;:.; ~ ;.'~~~" - '-, Y';": :"-~-;:; ~'~-;:,~ ~ ;',,'1 ~'-;-:';~cf~~' ,.,.,.y:~ ,/:;~~;~~ ~.'~'~:':;:.I~[~-:': ';{~.~ ~"c~:.- ~'.;t:;~" .:(~~~,..:';I'~'~~::iK .:,,,'!.-, :,~,~':.I-;\--;i2::- ;-;~ :<;.:'- ~,:~~0.~'; ',~- ;:;:~')\c:5' Y:Y ,/t'
-------
-.......,--.--
.. . . . -.
IV. ~ ANALYSIS
Enforcement History
D.1rirg 1981, the State of Florida, Dade County, and EPA sought to remedy
conditions at the Gold Coast Site through various enforcement actions against
the facility and its operator. When it becaDe apparent that the cxmpany was
financially and technically incapable of takirg effective action, EPA initiated
an investigation to detemine whether CERCIA response would be appropriate.
'!'he EPA Surveillance and Analysis Division sampled soil and grouJ'¥iwater at the
site, and the Region rv FIT team conducted a resistivity study. Data fran
these studies indicated that heavy metal and organic chemical contaminatia1
was present in the soil and groundwater. O'l February 2, 1982, EPA approved
CERCIA fundirg for a planned rerooval action.
CSX Transporation, the site owner, was contacted and agreed to- undertake the
cleanup in lieu of federal action. CSX Transporation conducted a Itmited
bidding and selected Chemical Waste Management, Inc. to be its cleanup contractor.
Both EPA and the State of Florida reviewed the Chemical Waste Management
clean~ proposal and an EPA On-Scene Coordinator was present during UDSt of
the actual site work. The CSX action was voluntary and was not directed
by an EPA administrative order or civil action consent agreement. DJrirg the
sixteen (16) day cleanup, thirty-nine (39) loads of solids, one (1) load of
overPacked flamnable solids, and five (5) tanker loads of liquids were rertDVed -
fran the site to Chemical Waste Management's disposal facility in Emelle,
Alabama .
Settlement Potential
Because there are several financially viable potentially responsible parties
(PRPs) who have participated in various aCtivities related to the site, it is
likely that EPA will be able to achieve a negotiated settlement in this case.
In addition to the CSX rem:JVal action, fifty-seven (57) generators forrred a
steering carmittee in 1983, and agreed to perform a Remedial Investigation to
address the remaining contamination at the site. the RI workplan was initially
reviewed by EPA and the state. Although there appears to have been a break
down in CCiIIIII.1nication between the parties concernin;J final workplan approval,
the PRPs oont.racted with BOI, Inc. to carry out a study at the site. EPA then
followed with an Agency-funded Feasibility stuSy. In November 1985, the
generators offered to perfom the remedial action indicated as UDSt appropriate
in- the RI and PS reports and sut:mitted an alternatives selection report, prepared
by BOI. Since that time, the generators have maintained contact with EPA and
have requested an o~rtunity to consider undertaking the remedial alternative
selected by the kjency. Information sutmi tted by the steerirg c:cmni ttee
indicated that the PRPs have spent a~roximately $75,000 to date.
Because the remainirg work at this site is remedial, settlement must be
achieved through a 106 Consent Decree filed in district court~ '!be Attorney
-29-
-------
1-
General must approve the agreement before it is filed and after fili~ must
provide the public with an opportunity to c:arment on the proposed agreement
before its entry by the CX)Urt as a final judgement. '!here are several factors
which may expedite the settlement process in this case. First, the PRPs have
expressed a desire to resolve this matter as quickly as possible. Second,
EPA and the PRPs have excharged info~tion and ccmnents duri~ the developnent
of the Ja) and are in a position to define areas of disagreeuent. Moreover,
the PRPs have been workirvJ with a technical consultant throughout this process
and should be able to present a settlement propoeal within a short time
period. For these reasons, it is reasonable to anticipate that EPA will be
able to determine whether settlement of this case is possible wi thin sixty
days. If a settlement agreement has not been reached wi thin that period, EPA
may proceed with a fund financed cleanup or may p~ with a 106 referral
to canpel the PRPs' to perform the final remedial action.
-30-
-------
V. ALTERNATIVE EVAUJATICN
Envirormental and Public Health Q)jectives .
Envirormental Q)jectives:
'!he Dade County Department of Envirormental Management (DER.n reports that the
Coral Gables Canal supports a caaplex aquatic coamunity, including species
such as bass, bluegill, catfish and gar. Other animals present include
snakes, turtles, frogs and ducks. It has been detEmined that neither releases
fran the GCO site nor the site itself has affected any lands, minerals,
water, endangered.or threatened plant or animals species, anadraDOUS fish, or
Indian resources managed by the the Department of Interior. Aca>rdirgly, the
Department of Interior has determined that no cause exist$ to pursue a claim
for damages to natural resources, under the trust of the secretary of the
Interior, that may have been affected by the hazardous wastes at the Gold
COast Site in Miani.
In sumnary, the need to address the environmental, concerns is currently based
on the need to eliminate the risk of possible exposure fran the contaminants
identified at the GOO site.
Public Health Objectives:
Land use in the vicinity of the Gold Coast Oil site is industrial, ccmnercial
and residential. The area has been designated tow Density Residential which
allows a maxi.nn.m of six dwellirg units per gross acre. A population of
approximately 89,000 reside within a ~ile radius of the site property. It
is estVna~ed that this population will increase to 94,000 by 1990 and remain
unchanged through the year 2005.
Public drinkirg water is obtained fron the Alexaroer Orr Well Field, located
. approximately three miles soutl'M!st of the site. An additional water supply
well field, the Hialeah-Miami Springs well Field, is located approx~te1y
5.5 miles. north of the site. Based on the annual water table al ti tude maps
published by the USGS, the site is not within the cone of depression of these
well fields and, therefore, is not expected to impact these public drinking
water supplies. .
Public drinking water i8 unavailable for a few of the residents wi thin the
three-mile .radius of the site. '1bese residents use shallow, private wells
for p:»tabl. .tar. Graundwater usage wi thin the three-mile radius includes
irrigation and Wustrial uses, as well as serving as a drinking water source.
'!he nearest private well is .within 100 feet (east) of the site at the Delta
Gas Caupany. Based on a survey of 987 residents and 78 businesses and
nonbusinesses (sctDJls, etc.), 84 water wells were identified within a one-h.a1f
mile radius of the site. Of these, there were four identified residences'
which currently use well water for drinking/cooking purposes. 'l\io residences
are located 0.4 miles southwest of the site and across the Coral Gables
Canal~ 'the other two residences are located 0.44 miles northeast of the
site.
-31-
'----l,C ,-;:.,..cc;-;." ~.c=---.,~: '-~-J"'~-:.>'-',. .:.-..__..,~c-" -~. ""---~'."' ".1""';' ;-:t-'';-' '-, ,<:- "-, l -', ~,- ~iT--:';"''''?~~.~-;::r"T.-
-------
In conclusicn, there is a need to address the public health concerns by (1)
eliminating the risk of exposure fran contaminated soils and then by (2)
remediating the (X)ntaminated drinki~ water source before the (X)ntanination
plume can 1'Idgrate further offsi~ or (X)ntaminates a greater portion of the
Biscayne Aquifer. ..
Clean up objectives for the GCO site are based on the above stated enviromental
and publi~ health concerns and are ccnsistent with the National Oi1 and
Hazardous SUbstance Contingency Plan (NCP), EPA guidance, state an:i local
regulations and are listed in SectiCX1 VIII.
'!'he main envircnuental and public health (X)ncern at the site is further'
migration of the locally polluted grouOOwater into the Biscayne Aquifer and
possibly to nearby private wells. '1'he Biscayne Aquifer has been the subject
of numerous studies by DER-1, the Florida Department of the Environmental
Regulation (FDER), the Florida Health am Rehabilative Services, the u.s.
Geological Survey, the Agency, for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and
the u.s. Envirormental Protection k;Jency. '1'he regulatory agencies have
carefully evaluated and agreed on the remedies am cleanup levels at other
NPL sites such as Varsol-Spill, Miami Drum, and Pepper's Steel, all just north
of the GCO site (Figure 7). Not all of the information generated fran these
studies will be used for the G:O site, but. only the ground wat.er cleanup
levels. Therefore, selected al t.ernati ve (s) must dena1strate that control of
leachate fran the contaninated soils am recovery, treatment and disposal of
contaminated ground water will meet the a~licable, relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs) for this sole source aquifer as referenced in the Biscayne
Aquifer Study (BAS) and Record of Decision (revised, ac(X)rdi~ to Section
VIII) and the Safe Drinki~ water Act. '!'he clean up for the groundwater
, contamination plume is based on the revised BAS cleanup levels once the
source of the contamination has been remediated.
-32-
. ,,~~---c:',~ l'~-::-: -,;.<. " ~~:~';- -.,;:e~ ~~.:.~;~. 1 .~.~ ,~: :;' ~ ~-.~;;: :,C;' I:~:~/-';-'~_:~-~:~';' {~.C"'-~f-}::~-l:',;S:;-~(-(~~J~:- !;:~-:::.y-:;::,~ -:>~!,"?':;:~/~:pf;-':>: '>};:.,-:"~-: ;:,~::' ::jf;;S'~'-:~'~-.<:r~J~~i~ '~" :,~-::",-::~,:~.;:::':_c~~~~~~ti>.-',',~<'':~~ ~~~Y:-??3' ~9~:~'! :.i~;'::7':.,'?'7~r~-:'..'\ :::::0;~?':7~1:'_:,?::;:1':'~f';':-'.~~,~.:r'\,;:~., ,'~ -~\~:.. t~; '- .
-------
.--.-.- -
..~ ...._....~,',,, .,"'::."; ~,~:.~
- - -: ..17_:":'- .-"'----:::=:=-----::--- .....----;....~ ,-. ~~:;-~-- .-;."-"
------
.-.'. ...-"--'-" ..-....._--..~-
Gull 0' Mell/co
w. ,..,'"
IuCtI
F\.~
@
0 '0 20 C)
. I
Scaallft .....
""l' .
"""
... .....
.,.::..
......,.t;.
Addll6r1ll Ar88 Supplied . ...:~:i!.:~t~:~:~'
hu R CI me ..a._... ...,~"""
W., ".....-' "~":':::~:',~~"I'H.';W..:.:.:.::::~..:...
~'.'."::~.....'..'-8J'--".'...
." . ..:~::~:~f:.i}t\.......:;::::.:,o;I' .
,d.'.tiJtiIi1.:.:...........,..
~~~y::'~.:.~...
IC8r --
LEGENO
~
8i1C8yn8 AQuifer
.
HIzardouI W81t8 Sit8
Atlantic Oce,,,
.0
Florida
\.
FIGURE 7
LOCATIO~ OF GOLD COAST
\:ITHI~ THE
BISCAY~E AQLIFER Sr:DY ARL;
-33-
-------
-~_.- -
-' . .'" - .
Technologies CDuJidered
Several technologies were considered for ~ GCX) site. 'these technologies
considered are presented in Table 9.
Group I technologies are those technologies for source control of the
contaminated soils.' '1be purpose of considering any technology frau Group'I is
to address the contaminated soils, which act as a source of oontaminated
leachate to the grcurdwater and a source of wmecessary risk by the breathirg
or the ingestion of oontaminated dust. Group I technologies are divided
into those that may be comucted oo-site and those technologies that may be
ccnducted off-site.
Group II technologies will address the groum water contamination. '!he Gro..1p
II technologies are not divided into oo-site or off-site, but will address
the entire area of contamination, both on and off the GCD site.
A canbination of the technologies fran Group I am Group II will be considered
and screened as potential alternatives. These alternatives will be considered
for the selected remedial action at the GCX> site. The selected remedial
alternative nust conply with all applicable or relevant and appropriate
environmental laws.
-34-
-------
TABLE 9
ROtEDIAL TEX:HNoI."- >;' ::. .----:;.- -~ ~h. ~ ;-': ,;~ """'"-:.."";:':.;y.:- :,-,:~:';"7:.'\-':;.';;;:-C~~.:~-;:':-:'~':"-"C-!':-'-< '.:-;:-,:~-'::O-~ :~/~. - '-,--"'~:~.:~-.:~:-~~;'----::~,~:,~~ ~~;::'~?"'- c:_,'~,<~-;;.:,:'i~. c:' '_:, 'r:"".'
-------
Preliminary Technology screening
'!he purpose of the preliminary screening is to identify those technologies
that apply to the site.
.~/....~
For the GCO site, the preliminary screenilYJ will exclude those techoologies
not applicable based on the characteristics of the site or the site' s'
contamination. '!he preliminary technology screening process will prcxiuce
remedial technologies that will be considered further as alternatives.
SC-2.a. surface capping alone offers no pemanant treatDent to the identified
contaminants. Capping. fails to reduce the toxicity by treatment or destruction
and does not reduce the volune of contamination. Sane source control is
achieved by the reduction of contaminant nebili ty to the grouOO water by
prohibitilYJ infiltration. Surface capping alone does not achieve any treatment
or reduction to the contamination.
SC-2.b. On-site land disposal alone does not present a pennanent treatment of
the identified contaminants. Land disposal is IIX)re effective in reducing
. IIX)bili ty of the contaminants than surface capping described above. A land
disposal facility constructed to current RCRA guidelines would be undesireable
at this site, in light of the leachate collection system and the construction
of the bottan and side-wall liner required because of the high water table.
Realistically, land disposal facilities are subject to failure at some future
date. Therefore, land disposal facilities require loog-term xoonitoring and
maintenance. Administrative and institutional variances would be required
for a land di~sal facility in this area of Miami.
~2. A slurry wall alone would not effectively address the contaminated ground
water. The walls do not reduce the toxicity or vol\.lDe of the contaminated
ground water, only contaminant nDbility. Construction of slurry walls are
technically difficult because a Well-defined or continuous confining stratu'n
in the area of the site does not exist. '!he aquifer is cavernous in areas,
contributing to construction difficulties. Escape of the contaminated groun:1
water fran the slurry wall area is likely during wet/dry cycles where the
ground water level changes.
Since the local canals, the Ceral and Tamiani, are controlled water ways,
contaninant escape may occur IDJre frequently than during wet/dry cycles
ala1e.
G1-3. In-situ physical/chemical treatment beds could apply sane degree of
treatment to the contaminated ground water. However, based on the depth
and areal extent of ground water contamination, treatment beds are not
technically feasible. Contaminants have been identified at depths in excess
of 40 feet while the base of the aquifer is estimated to be 100 feet. Under
these conditions, treatment beds would be impractical to construct or ltrX1itor.
Table 10 presents a list of those technologies that have failed the initial
screening and are eliminated fran further consideration.
-36-
, ' ~..'....._.-:-;,'.",:;:,,~ C',C>."",-;CC,-- -,- ~,,- '-.. :.,' .,',' _""',,,';~">..I.~",:--~ "~~'''''~"'. -.,'--< ""~'".:~ :':." "
, ,.",--..';." ",'''' --'. '''..>_'-''--~-4-.1'''.'.,:1'''' > ~ ",.~:';:'-"'"..".~- 'f',' ... . T_. 'I."~-;C'"''''C-~''' .'.,<-:--0. ,:--T~~.~--r..'j--:.~~.."".;:<',~:~,.c:"'; ''':-1:''~7:-''~j r.- :>.--=--I"}'''''~-~''--;-C:-''":'!7..",:'-:-':.;-;::c",.""",-:,,:~,-;;;:c;--:;o_,,:.''?':;:i'-<.~--'; :,-;1- :".:.0,;: ":,":,">--,;0-,-:. c,
-------
--- - - - -----
. - . -. .. -
TABLE 10
TECHNOlOOIES ELIMINATED OORING 'mE SCREmING ~
EFFECTIVEmSS IMPLEMENrABILI'l'Y
Techn1cal Administrat1ve
Protectiveness Feasibilitv Feasibilitv
SCX1RCE a:N1'RDL TECHNOIOOY
SC-2. cn-Site Technologies
a. Surface Capping F
b. Land Disp:>sal F F
GRJUND WATER TE0iN01OOIES
~2. Slurry Walls F F
~3. In-situ PIC Treat Beds F
I I
F D Failure to provide
-37-
-------
.- -
Alternatives Considered
'lhase technologies remaining follOliing the initial screening may be ccrabined
and considered as potential alternatives if they meet requirements of SARA,
base( on the characteristics of the site and the contamination identified.
'l11e alternative cxmparision and analysis process reflects the remedial actions
EPA may conduct. 1be seven alternatives have been fot'l'llJ1.ated and are presented
in Table 11.
'!he no-action alternative for source control of the soils and for ground water
treatment is included as an alternative to fulfill the requirements of 40 CFR
300.68. The no-action optiat, at a minimum, will address those non-hazardous
i terns identified Table 11, as well as provide continuous environmental monitoring.
These itens are COtm:m to all the alternatives considered.
-38-
-------
TABLE 11
~IAL ACl'IOO ALTERNATIVES CXN)IDERE:I)
FUR DETAILED ANALYSIS*
Alternative 1 : No Action**
Al ternati ve 2
: Air Stripping of Soils/ Ground water Recovery, Treatment,
and Disposal
: Steam Stripping of Soils/ Ground Water .REovery, Treatment,
and Disposal (I
Alternative 3
Alternative 4 : Onsite Incineration of Soils/Ground Water Recovery, Treat:lrent,
and .Disposal .
Alternative 5 : Stabilization/Solidifcation of Soils/Grourxi water Recx7very,
Treatment, and Disposal
Alternative 6 : Offsite Incineration of Soils/Ground Water Recovery, Treatment,
and Disposal
Alternative 7 : Offsite Disposal of Soils/Ground Water Recovery, Treatment,
and Disposal
* Components cammon to all remedial action alternatives which will not be subject
to the detailed analysis include:
o Repair of the chain link fence, aprroximately 50 linear feet:
o Rerooval and disposal of four to six storage tanks:
o RerlDVal and disposal of concrete block office and supply shed:
o RenDTal and disposal of two abandoned autaoobiles and an aircraft
e~~J
o R8III:Nal and disposal of two concrete slabs:
o ~al and disposal of concrete storage saddles: and
o Testing and ~quissioning of the onsite supply well.
** The No-Action altemative also includes contiruous envirauaental monitoring.
-39-
*~-'i,""=,-o '-.-'--'~"'-;:~-7'~'T"'-'_:-;_~<---,: -'""7r:;c.--:-.~--,
. -' ._-.:",")'-'-)"J,-'C_..-;'J,~ ';~<;'-..: -0';:-: -,'.c;.'" ~-'. ~~'.c -',,'; c.-.: .~, .->~;-;, :T"--;:~..,....,-- :~-'. ',' .:--. '.C"\' ,. -'- ". -.~.r.<.~.tr'- .,;,~;,~,-'';'' ,'~<.";'::;- :T"(' '~,;~",-:-..:,;~..,,...,.< 'I<>r ~.. ,:'c', .,:
:: ~.;;".; c-;. '--~r.,~':--..;.,-' r,"'."
."-;C:;-"">,c,~"7,,,;;~:O:'~,c;j:;(ft~:~-~' "-,":,',,' ~ : "~-::;'''"-:\-.' "-' , .:~?, '" ,.'.,-:-;-J:'.-
-------
Detailed Analysis of Alternatives
Analysis Criteria. 'the Superfund Amencinents and Reauthorization Act (SARA)
of 1986 specifically requires a detailed analysis of proposed ,remedial actions
on the basis of effectiveness, implementability, and cost. The following is
an outline of these o::raparisons, except for cost which is presented in Section
VIII.
Effectiveness, as defined in SARA, refers to how a particular technology may
provide:
- protectiveness: in the short-tem, refers to the risk to workers or to
the ccmnunity duri~ constructionf in the l~-tem refers to what risk
may occur to workers amducting notmal operations and maintenance or risk
to the carmuni ty fran residual hazardous substances.
- reliability: in the short-tem, refers to the probability of failure of
the remedy and the resulting risk to workers and the ccmnunity; in the
long-term, refers to the prevention of future exposure to residuals by
the camtuni ty and the potential need for replacement. This may also
imply an industry-wide acceptance of the techoology for treati~ the
waste. .
- reduction in toxicity, nd>ility or volume: in the short-tem, refers to
the degree of destruction or the arD:)unt of treatment and the arrDmt of
waste destroyed or treated; in the long-term, refers to the degree of
destruction or treatment, the amount of waste destroyed or treated anj
reversibility of treatment that may result in the potential for increased
mbility.
- applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs): in the short-
and long-term refers to caupliance with ARARs for health-based or technology-
based criteria or cleanup levels, also if waivers are being considered
frou appl icable ARARS.
Implementability as defined in SARA refers to how a particular technology may
provide:
- technical feasibility: in the short-term, refers to the current technical
limitationf in the long-tem, refers to the ease of undertaki~ additional
remedial action, if nece:ssary, or the ability to monitor and review
effectiveness of temporary remedies or the likelihood of developDent of new
applicable technologies and the maintenance of 0 , M equipnent.
- aaniniatrati ve feasibility: in the short-tem, refers to o:mnuni ty relations
or COOEdination with other agencies or obtaini~ approvals needed for site
accessf in the latg-term, refers to ccmuunity relations and/or coordination
wi th other agencies.
- availability: in the short-term refers'to the capacity and location
of available treatment, s~rage and disposal (TSD) services and the
availability of necessary equi};m!nt and specialists; in the long-term,
refers to any A{1ticipated short-fall in TSD capaci ty .
-40-
',,':.-,-;..' _.~t;. -,,,,.,,.., -C_'-';
'-.-- . _-,r.,- ",'J. '-..' ,.~"~,-- ..'..'-~..". "_"4," ~.'-'''-' .' -'
. :.":o'j,r,'--\,.:,,'''-'''''
,-".",'-"'.-~!;;:7.:'".-- -.',
- "-.,I'J'-~C;:"-;':-<-"=-'-",; .--;. ,;::"j.;.-.--,-;-:-"",,~;;-:'.7!":."".';;" ,:_-:,.::..,:.,~-,::-.:;--:;c,)~,,-{,,-,~ -';=:~S.':'7~'"':1'_'.'.:r:',:' .::-:-:-.>:'~"~-:,,::~~:~{,, 5 -::-_r1.'-".~-~."7...?"'.:,-~=- -~:~ :2.:c.
-------
Alternative Analysis. '111e remedial action alternatives have been analyzed
according to the criteria mentioned above. ~ince technology GW-4. Ground
Water Recovery, Treatment, am Disposal is o...wuOu to all seven remedial
action alternatives, except no action, the detailed analysis of technology
Gl-4 is discussed separately below, followed by the discussion of each remedial
action alternative.
GI-4. Grcun:1 Water Recovery, Treatment, and Disp:>sal: Reo::wery of the
contaminated grounj water at the GCO site can be acccmplished through a systan
of recovery wells. '1'he recovery system will require additional field investigation
to design it. Technologies and techniques for the installation of recovery
wells are well established in the well drilling industry.
'n1e treatment system designed to treat the recovered ground water will be
. based on current, proven techniques. Bench and/or pilot studies will be
performed during the design to determine the JlKJst appropriate and effecti va
treatment method. For example, air stripping of the contaminated ground
water to reJ1¥:)ve the volatile organics followed by carbon adsorption for the
removal of rvJn-Yolatile organics may be an acceptable treatment system.
However, air stripping alone may be all that is needed.
Conceptually, the treatment system could consist of two treatment trains for
process efficiency and safety. The pretreatment unit would consist of flow
equalization basins, chemical precipi tation-coagulation treatment, and a
sedimentation basin. The next unit would contain the air stripping unit
consisting of a contact system that provides for mass transfer of volatile
organic contaminants fran a dilute aqueous waste stream into an air stream.
The final unit would be a tertiary treatment unit consisting of a filtration
basin, carbon adsorption. units, effluent storage tanks, sludge thickening and
dewatering units, and sludge and spent carbon storage units. Disposal of the
sludge and spent carbon would be addressed in the ~ial design but walld
meet the required environnental laws.
For disposal of the treated ground water, several options exist. Each of
these disposal options employs standard techniques available in the industry
and have been proven reliable. 'lbese are:
o Discharge to the Coral Gables Canal
o Rec:bEge to the Biscayne Aquifer
o Discharge to the lcx:al publicly-owned treatment works JPOlW)
The ultimate disposal following treatment is dependent on certain aquifer
characteristics that will be detemined during the design of the remedial
action. The degree of treatment of the recovered ground water will be dictated
by the disposal option an:! will be in accordance wi th all applicable or relevant
and appropriate enviroomental laws.
a.) Disposal to the Coral Gables Canal carries the potential of contamination
to the canal should the onsi te treatment system fail. If the treatment
-41-
-------
system were operated in the batch J'II:Ide, the final settling basin could
be checked to determine whether eaqh discharge to the canal had achieved
the desired clean up level. "Prior to discharge, the treated grouoo
water must meet the technical requirements of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) limits of the Clean Water Act for
discharge to surface water.
b. ) Disposal to the groun:1 water by reinjection is a viable option, however it
is dependent on the local hydrogeologic conditions. The local ground
water table is known to be high and reinjection may result in local
flooding of the surface areas. Any flooding of this type could result
in structural damage to surrounding streets or building foundations.
This option may prove attractive if it is detennined fran aquifer
characteristics that the possibility of drawing contamination fran
neighb:>ring areas into the recovery zone exists. If this is the case,
recharge to the aquifer at select locations can minimize this problem.
c.) Disposal to the PJblic1y~ed treatment works (PO'lW) appears to have the
least envirormental impact. Pretreatment standards have been established
under the Clean Water Act and by the POlW as maximum contaminant acceptance
levels. '!bese standards will be wt prior to discharge to the PO'lW.
The problems mentioned for reinjection would not apply for this disposal"
option.
Ground water recovery and treatment can meet the requirements of SARA for
both implementability and effectiveness. Similarly, the disposal option
selected can also meet the SARA requirements for effectiveness and
implementability.
Alternative 1 - No Action: This alternative implies that there is no threat
posed by the contaminants present at the GCX) site and that no remedial action
is needed. Contaminated soils and sludges. would remain in place and continue
to be a source of envirormental and public exposure. More importantly, the
contamination of the Biscayne Aquifer would not be addressed. The Biscayne
Aquifer, a sole source aquifer, would remain contaminated, and the contaminated
plume would migrate further offsite and, possibly, to nearby private drinking
water wells. This alternative has been considered under the mandates of the
NCP~ however, based on the site-specific infoJ:mation and the above discussion,
this alternative would not meet the public health and envirawental objectives.
Alternative 2 - Air Stripping of Soils/GW Recovery, Treatment, aoo Disposal:
Onsite air stripping involves contacting clean air with the contaminated
soils to transfer the volatile organics frau the soil to the air stream. A
number of different methods have been ccmnercially developed for this process
including the enclosed mechanical aeratiat system and mechanical rototilling.
An enclosed mechanical aeratiat system consists of mixing the contaminated
soils in a rotary drum system. The volatile organics are released fran the
soil matrix by the churning action (air/soil contact). The key is an induced
-42-
:'-:<".:;" ~-:;,:~.~r:i ,'.;i:"'~ .-f;"~::' ~-. >~' .'. '.:.V'.::-:: ;,;';,:, '. "'}'.:'~:C;'::;;-, ,,-:. ..0:.,;;,,:;<,;,;',':, :'; :--:';-:'::~ :!:~,:\~;.y'-:'(:~;:~:-:s:,~,~:-';'-~:'.::.",'C;,.:;1;~y:~-::;::."-.;~-.~.:;:, 'f-';~.:;,~'f:'f:~i~ '::'~';>;,.;~,)l':!::'~.'~~'-.-. <'.;",~:.~.':--';;l~;~:::;'G(~-;::'Y::;~::' .:.~::--:.~.:,~",~' ~~:~;:,;;;~c~.--';-~",,:;~.c:q:'~:-:-:':-~)." ~ :~~.-" ~~ .
-------
air-fl~ system within the cover structure that carries the volatile organics
fran the soil particles.
'!'he JllJbile air stripping process produces air emissions of volatile .organic
cx:mpoums. These emissions can be treated by activated carbon caMisters
and/or water scrubbers. Carmercial use of toobile air stripping units for
soil have a wide range of applications and therefore have been proven reliable.
O1-site JllJbile air strippi~ or aeration alone could be designed to meet the
requirements of SARA for imp1ementability, but not for effectiveness. 'I11e
lead contamination can not be effectively treated by aeration.
AI ternative 3 - Steam Strippi~ of Soils/GW ~ery, Treatment, and Disposal:
On-si te mobile steam stripping is a uni t process that uses steam to extract
organic contaminants fron a slurry. Direct injection of steam or a multiple
pass heat exchanger are two of the C..umU1 methods of steam stripping. This
process is less effective when the ~lids content is extremely high, since
the contact between the steam and solid material is difficult to achieve.
'!he process is also energy intensive aoo steam production may account for a
major portion of the operating cost. On-site ID:)bile steam stripping produces
volatile organic canpound emissions, which can be treated by capturing them
using vapor phase carbon adsorption. fiJwever, the wasteWater stream fran the
stripping process may require further treatment to rE!OOve metals or oon-volatile
organics stripped during treatment. Commercial mobile steam stripping units
for soil have been developed.
O1-site mobile steam stripping could be designed to meet the requirements of
SARA for implementability, but not for effectiveness. The effective treatment
of lead is not accanplist)ed by steam stripping alone.
Alternative 4 - Onsite Incineration of Soils/GW Recovery, Treatment, and Disposal:
. an-site mobile incineration by a rotary kiln incinerator or thermal treatment
system utilizes a rotary kiln as a prtmary furnace configuration for combustion
of soils. The operation involves the introduction of wastes and auxiliary
fuel into the high end of a cylindrical, refractory-lined kiln. As the waste
and fuel pass through the kiln, wastes are substantially oxidized to gases am
ash. '!he applicatioo of rotary kiln technology in mobile systems is based on
extensive operating experience at fixed facilities. As of this time, it is
the a11.y ~, techi1Ology with operating experience as a full-scale mobile
system. A large number of firms, as well as the EPA~, are currently
applying rot.azy kiln technology to JllJbile systems. Incinerator residues may
require further treatment depeooing upon the level of c:ontaminatioo remaining.
Waste with very high heavy metals concentrations can result in elevated
emissions of those sane metals, which are difficult to collect with air
pollution control equipment.
On-site JllJbile rotary kiln incineration coold be designed to meet the
requirements of SARA for implementability, but again, not for effectiveness.
'!'he lead contamination may prevent achievement of all ARARs by incineration
alone.
-43-
._--,.'~~-,~r'-~ -,~-~ . c~~,.. '.-~-' .~, ~_...........---~ -, "". ,.' "'
. - --'-,." .:,-"--'~"7'-"'O"''''''""",,''r.,'7'''''''._:'' :,"- ~.,".., "
.'. -,~--;;-~.'.-: C-::.--;' ~"~--;::;'""""'."-,'.c-,-,r."",,_.-..o;-~ _.:~.., ,', ,~,
. :"~':,!,.:r-~~.', .';..:::.. . ..-------.-
-------
Alternative 5 - Stabil/Solid/Gl Recovery, Treatment, and Disposal:
On-site mobile stablization!solidification would involve the stabilization!
solidification (s/s) of contaminated soils with onsite placement arx3 construction
of a cap. The process of s/s can address inorganics or organics of heavier
nclecular weight. 'l11e s/s plocess always requires pilot studies. The resultirY;J
solidified waste must pass a variety of specifications for leachability, free
liquid content, physical stability, reactivity of waste, ignitability, ability
to support microbial gmwth, stre~th, permeability, durability and others
that may be required because of the characteristic of site's hydrogeology and
meterological c:ondi tions. Most solidified wastes are not designed for constant
exposure to weatheri~. A cap that is thick enough to insure that the solidified
material maintains unifom DDisture and is not subjected to freezi~ may be
necessary to insure that the remedy does not deteriorate. '!be cap also should
minimize the percolation of water into the waste. A periodic inspection and
maintenance of the waste cap is generally part of the remedy.
This alternative can be designed to effectively achieve ARARs for lead as
well as other heavy rrcleeular weight organics associated with the site.
Alternative 6 - Offsite Incineration of Soils/GW Recovery, Treatment and Disposal:
'l11is alternative involves transporting contaminated soils offsite by rail for -
incineration. A mobile infrared incinerator is located in Tampa, Florida.
The incinerator is bei~ used to treat the sludge at the Peak Oil site.
'l11is alternative is difficult aaninistratively. EPA is not in the hazardoos
waste disposal business, am the treatment of the GCX) waste material at the
Peak Oil site will require special negotiations and/or pemits to treat waste
fran one NPL site at another NPL site. AlttnJgh the infrared system is expected
to be of greater capacity and use less excess air than the m:>bile unit described
in Al ternati ve 4 above; similar problems concerning achieving the ARARs for
lead are expected to remain for the infrared systen.
Alternative 7 - Offsite Disposal of Soils/GW Recovery, Treatment, and Disposal:
Off-site disposal alone at a RCRA approved facility does not present a permanent
treatment of the contamination, but simply nt:)ves the contaminated soil fran
one location to another. Off-site remedial action, such as the transfer of
contaminated soil, is aaninistratively feasible only if a n\.lDber of RCRA and
state requirements are met. One requirement is that the facility receivi~
the contaDinants is in canpliance with RCRA. .A pretreatment requirement is
~lied to bazardcus waste containing Dl)re than 1.0' total solvents of RCRA
interest. '1he hazardous waste must be treated by what is referred to as the
best demonstrated available technology to a predetemi.ned level before disposal
of the waste at the ~owd RCRA facility. - Other achinistrative requirements
include permits to transport the waste fran the site to the approved facility.
Table 12 S\J'IIDarizes the detailed analysis described above for implementability
and effectiveness. Notice that the oo-action al ternati ve is still included.
-44-
. .- :':'~~~'-i;-{-r~:~:-:".'''.:-:::~>'~-"-::=:-'~~~,.~.-~:~,~;-;':"";;~-:-""~'~~".' ~
-------
TABLE 12
ALTERNATI~ DETAILED ANALYSIS
I
~
""
I
EFFFrrIVENESst IMPlDtDn'ABILITYt
Reduction to Technical Mninistrative
Protectiveness ft:b/ 1bx/ Vol Reliability ARARs Feasibility Feasibility Availability
ALTERNATIVES-- S'r LT8 ST LT Sf LT Sf LT ST LT Sf LT Sf LT
Alt I - No Action I I I I I I I 1 I I I I
Alt 2 - Air Stripping 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 I 3 3 3 3 3 3
of Soils/Qi
Remediation
.
Al t 3 - Steam Stripping/ 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 I 3 3 3 3 3 3
Ql Remediation
Alt 4 - O1site Incin/Qi 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 I 3 3 3 3 2 2
Remediation
Alt 5 -, Stabil/Solid/Qi 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 '3 3 3 3 3
Jemed iation
Alt 6 - Offsite Incin/Qi 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 I 3 3 I 1 I I
Remediation
Alt 1 - Offsite Disposal 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3' 3 2 3
Ql Remediation '
**~4. GW Recovery, 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Trea~nt, ,
Disposal
a. Coral Gables Canal 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3
b. Recharge to aquifer 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 J
c. POIW 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
;,
t Degree of Achievement
I = unfavorable
2 = fair
3 = favorable
* Sf = Short Term
LT = Long Term
** For clarity, the GW Remediation detailed analysis is
listed separately to illustrate the analysis for the
various disposal options.
-------
I~
VI. ,,~',' ... .~.. '. -' '..; .. ,':. - ":-.,,:,", -;., l-:~"-'~'~",", .,-, '," ", ';;"-';I-~-,,',":",,' '-' --.:,.-...,,'~"~ ."".,~..~-..~",. -O"'-I,''''-~'' :.-' ':'~c -«'",'.-,-. -., '." '~"-""---~~-~'~'~ -;",'<' -~ '. ,;-";:, -~,~;----; ','-~-' - ~
".,H.- ~ '".,..---:>-~. .~"-";~'-::.~',,;' -..';- 'i"",.-,-C:;;"?'-'-::;~ --~-'--;-"'-------;",.-,;;"":-, ",.'''':'. ~",~,;,'-,~"7_;-:f...,.- .~- ., -;:''':''.'~-::,'-;-;';:;-;:.-~;;
-------
'l'he Public Meeting was held at the West Dade Regional Library in Miami,
Florida on June 11, 1985.. The purpose of the meeting was to present the
RI/FS Reports and the r~wucnded site remedy, and to respond to questions
£ran citizens. Approximately 23 people attended the meeti~, including
area residents and media representatives: however, the majority of the
attendees were representatives of potentially responsible parties.
()1estions raised during the meeting pertained to the rec:cmnended alternative,
liability c:oncems, area grour¥1 water characteristics, and the project
schedule. Overall, public atterxSance and participation was minimal.
The Public Meet~ marked the beginn~ of a formal 3-week p.1blic cament
period (6/12/85 - 7/3/85), during which time the public was encouraged to
sutmit written cxmnents to EPA concem~ the FS and the recuwuended
remedy. However, no written ccmnents were received by EPA. '111e
Responsiveness Sumnary is attached as Appendix B. .
Future community relations activities will include revision of the Community
Relations Plan to accomodate the remedial design and remedial action phases.
The revised Community Relation Plan will utilize all four (4) established
repasi tories. .
-47-
-------
r ,
vII. <::oo5ISmCi wrm ornER ENVIRCNMmrAL I.a.ws
In selecting remedial alternatives, primary consideration must be granted
under the Superfund AmenciDents and Reauthorization Act of 1986 to remedies
that achieve applicable or relevant and appropriate regulations (ARARs)
for protection of public health and the envirornent. For the GCX) site, ,
such Federal laws and guidelines to be considered include:
- National Envirormental Protection Act
- Toxic Substances and Control Act
- Department of Transportation Hazardous Material Transport Rules
- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
- Clean Air Act
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Clean Water Act
The requirernents of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) have
been met by conducting the functionally equivalent remedial investigation
and feasibility study. Additionally, the results of these studies have
been presented to the public at a plblic meeting, and the public was
given the opportunity to carment on the results of the studies and the.
proposed plan for remedial action.
The Toxic Substances arx1 Control Act (TSCA) requirements do not apply to
any of the remedial alternatives urx1er consideration for the GCX) site.
None of the contaminants found at the GCX) site are regulated under TSCA,
and therefore, there are 00 ARARs to be considered under this regulation.
For alternatives which ir)Clude transportation of contaminated soils and
hard~ned waste sludges,' the Department of Transportation (OO!) Hazardous
Material Transport Rules require that the proper labeling and safety
'requirements be followed.
en November 7, 1986, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
established restrictions on the disposal of contaminated soil in permanent
land disposal facilities. 'nlis "land ban" r-.;;quires t."'.at total soil cont-~
ination content exceeding 1.0\ must be pretreated prior to disposal in a
RCRA-approved hazardous waste facility. At the GCO site, the total contaminant
ca1tent of the entire soil/solvent mixture that is of RCRA interest is 0.2\.
Therefore, di8poeal of contaminated soils at an offsite, approved RCRA
facility is consistent with this ARAR. Additionally, the RCRA land ban does
not officially take effect until November, 1988. It is expected that offsite
disposal of contaDinated soil would be ~lemented prior to that time.
HcMever, should the soil to be disposed offsi te exceed the 1.0\ limit or should
implementation occur after the November, 1988 deadline, other measures will be
taken to ensure that the remedial action is consistent with the RCRA larx1 ban.
If stabilization/solidification is the preferred remedial alternative, this
procedure must be in ~liance with the ~ guide to disposal of chemically
stabilized arx1 solidified waste arx1 the RCRA requirements for closing
-48-
','.' i:.>.::::';':';":"::'TJ'{?;;"~' :-:~-'7,~7.~':,:""~':::;:~~~~ .~~"- .:::.""
."-'. ,"'.~"~.: :~,. -';'-,
".', ',".
". ..- . ~,,-,~::,-.>:::';;',:-~ :.:-, '.,:> . ,:'-. ,.~t~!,'_:': "~T :'?" ;;:~",;':7._~:-~,~J-~':::CC... f.c',~~::~~:~~t::f-~.n::~-.,"::;~.o::}':::~F,:i:r::!'~~;,~f&;0~''':-SC~",~.:";,-\ s ;:
-------
waste in place. ~ requirements for the incineration of waste would
apply to the incineration of contaminated soils, both onsite and offsite.
However, incineration would not effectively eliminate the lead Ca1tamination
and, therefore, RCRA requirements would not be met".
D.1ring remediation of the GOO site, it will be important to preserve the
quality of the ambient air at the site. Therefore, the requirements of
. the Clean Air Act (eM) will apply to the excavation of contaminated
soils and hardened waste sludges, the aeration and incineratia1 of contaD- "
inated soils, and the treatment of contaminated ground water. Continuous
air meni tors will be installed onsi te during the aeration of contaminated
soils and treatment of contaminated ground water due to the potential of
contaminating the ambient air by these remediation processes. Any Ca1tcm-
inants being emitted into the ambient air will be in caapliance with the
appropriate National Ambient Air ()Jality Standards. Should a violation
occur, the proper measures will be taken to remedy the violation. Since
the excavation of contaminated soils often ca~es fugitive emissions
(dust particles) to occur, the appropriate dust control measures will be
in place during soil excavation.
'11'1e Biscayne Aquifer is a .Sole Source Aquifer. umer Section 1424 (e) of
the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), as well as a Class I ground water
under EPA's ground water classification system. As such, it deserves the
highest level of protection afforded by EPA P£U\:I£C2Ias. Therefore, chemical-
specific cleanup goals have been set for the contaminants of concern in
the ground water under the GeO site (see Section VIII). The standards
are consistent with the Reccmnended Maximum Contaminant Levels (RMCLs)
designated by the StMA and the Cancer Assessment Group (CAG) estimate of
a 10(-6) risk level fran a lifetime exposure. '!bese cleanup goals have
been determined for cleanup of the Biscayne Aquifer in the Biscayne
Aquifer Study and have been revised using updated regulatory and.
toxicological information, including the Florida Administrative Code (FAC)
Chapter 17-3 which specifies water quality standards for ground water and
drinking water. Both the State and EPA have determined that the use of
these goals as ARARs for ground water treatment will ensure that the
BiscaYne Aquifer is restored to acceptable levels for drinking water
purposes. Additia1ally, should recharge to the Biscayne Aquifer be the
preferred disposal option, the recovered grourd water must also be treated
to a degree that is ccnsistent with the established cleanup goals for the
Bisc:ayne 14dfer. This will ensure that any water returned to the aquifer
is of a quality sui table for drinking water purposes.
Several aspects of the Clean Water Act (~) are considered ARARs - for
remediation of the GCD site. Specifically, the National Pollutant
Discharge Eliminatioo System (NPDES) would apply to the discharge of
treated ground water to the Coral Gables Canal. '!be FN; Chapter 17-3 also
specifies surface water discharge standards that would apply to discharge
to the canal. Should this disposal option be implemented, the technical
requirements of the NPDE$ and the FN:. for discharge to surface waters
-49-
-------
I1I1st ~ met by the ground water treatment process. Additionally, the CWA
specifies pretreatment standards for discharge of treated ground water to
the POTW. For this action, coordination with the Miami -Dade Water and
Sewer Authority must take place to ident.ify any JlK)re stringent pretreatment
standards they may have. .C-
As there are no regulatioos governing the treatment of contaminated soils,
the EPA and FDER have negotiated soil cleanup goals that will apply to
the soil remediation at the GCD site. '1hese cleanup goals can be. considered
the ARARs for the soil remediation and have been established by examining
the level of contamination in the soils and estimating the effect on the
ground water system. This has resulted. in the establishment of 100 ppn
total lead in the soils as the ARAR for soil remediation. .
A preliminary natural resources survey was conducted by the Fish and
Wildlife SetVice of the Department of Interior. The result of the sUIVey
is that neither releases fran the site nor the site itself have affected
any lands, minerals, water, erda~ered or threatened plants, animal
species, or Indian resources managed or protected by the Department of
Interior. No natural wetland areas are being affected by remediation of
the GOO site.
No waiver of canpliance fran any envirormental requirements is planned
for the remediation of the soi15 or grourd water at the GCO site.
Table 13 sUltltlarizes the alternatives ard their canpliance with other
environmental laws.
-50-
-------
TABU: 13
SUMMARY OF Q)MPL!ANCE WI'IH Ol'HER ENVI~ I»C
A L T ERN A T I V E S'*
Institutional Criteria Altl Alt2 Alt3 Alt4 Alt5 Alt6 Alt7 *'*GW-4.a .b .c
National Environnental C C C C C C C C C C
Protection Act
Toxic Substances COntrol X X X X X X X X X X
Act
oor Hazardous Transport X X X X X C C X X X
Rules
Resource COnservation and N X X N C N C X X X
Recovery Act
Clean Air Act X C C C C C C X X X
Safe Drinking Water Act N C C C C C C X C X
- ~an Water Act N X X X X X X C X C
r~orida Admdnistrative N C C C C C C C C X
Code Chapter 17-3
Water Quality Standards
C - Canpliance N - Non~liance X- Not Relevant or Applicable
'* Al t 1 - No Action
Alt 2 - Air Stripping of Soils/GW Remediation
Alt 3 - Steam Stripping of Soils/GW Remediation
Alt 4 - Onsite Incineration of Soils/GW Remediation
Alt 5 - Stabilization/SOlidification/GW Remediation
Al t 6 - effsi te Incineration of Soils/GW Remediatioo.
Alt 7 - Offsite Disposal of Soils/Gl Remediation
Gi-4. - GW Recovery, Treatment, and Disposal
a. Discharge to Ceral Gables Canal
b. Recharge to aquifer
c. Discharge to POIW
'**For clarity, the GW Remediatioo analysis is listed separately to illustrate the analysis
for the various disposal options.
-51-
-------
VIII. REaH£NDED AL'l'ERNATIVE
Contamination of surface and subsurface soils and ground water. has resulted
fran the sol vent recovery operations of the Gold Coast Oil Caapany. The PRPs
have conducted a renDVal action for J1DJch of the original contamination.
However, enviroomental sampling data indicates contamination continues to
exist. Contamination of surface and subsurface soils acts as a continuous.
source, leaching contaminants to the Biscayne AqUifer. Protection of this
sole source aquifer is of singular importance in the devel~nt of applicable
remedial al ternati ves.
Of the thirteen technologies ca1Sidered for the GOO site, seven technologies
for source control of soils aOO two technologies for addressing the ground
water remain. These technologies have been canbined to fom seven remedial
action al ternati ves. .The estimated costs of these al ternati ves are presented
for comparison in Table 14. These costs are estimated as if £FA were to
conduct the site remediation.
The remedial action alternative recatmended for the GOO site includes excavation
of cOntaminated soils and hardened waste sludges (both inside and outside the
fenced area) with offsite disposal at an approved RCRA facility~ and
stabilization/solidification (s/s) of the remaining contaminated soils. To
address the contam~nated ground water beneath the site, the reccmnended
alternative also includes recovery of the contaminated ground water by means
of a recovery well field, treatment of the recovered ground water, and disposal
In addition, the recanmended alternative includes construction of a cap over
the stabilized/solidified soil ~ grading and revegetation of the si te ~ repair
. of the chain link fence~ renoval and disposal of the storage tanks, office
and supply shed, the abandoned autanobiles and aircraft engine, and concrete
slabs and storage saddl.es: and testing and deccmnissioning of the onsite
supply well. (Alternatives 5 and 7). This remedy provides source control
and management of migration and employs alternative treatment technologies to
address the principle threats of contamination at the GOO site.
A ccrnbination of alternatives (Alternatives 5 and 7) have been chosen as the
t~';Unlllended alternative at the GOO site in order to adequately address the
di verse c:ouponents of soil contamination at the site. The contamina~ soils
fall into two categories: soils containing metals contamination and soils ,
containing obvious quantities of hardened waste sludges and metals contamination.
Therefore, 8:)ils remediation will be a staged proces,s. The contaminated
soils (inside and outside the fenced area) will be excavated with the hardened
waste sludges (containing relatively high levels of lead) being separated and
disposed of offsite at a RCRA-approved waste management facility. These
sludges have remained oosite since the operations ceased and are not
considered amenable to treatment that will effectively reduce the toxicity,
ncbility, or vohrne.. This action will be consistent with the RCRA land ban
requirements because the total contaminant content of the entire soil/solvent
mixture is approximately 0.2%. This solvent content is below the 1.0% limit
-52-
-------
.~-_._..-
. ~ -. . -
TABLE 14
ALTERNATIVES CXSl' ES'I'IMATESt
Alternativestt Initial AnrDJal * Present N:)rth
Q)st 0&" (Base)
Alt. 1 - No Action** 8.5 25.8 342.5
Al t. 2 - Air Stripping 2,643.3 52.5 3,708.9
of Soils/GW
Remediation
Al t. 3 - Steam Stripping/ I 2,900.2 52.5 3,965.8
GN Remediation
Alt. 4 - Onsite 7,380.6 52.5 8,446.1
Incineration/GW
Remediation
Alt. 5 - Stabil/Solid/GW 1,942.6 75.5 3,224.7
Remediation
Alt. 6 - Offsite 3,340.4 52.5 4,405.9
Incineration/GW
Remediation .
Alt. 7 - Offsite Disposal/ 2,931.3 52.5 3,996.8
Gl Remediation
'l11ousanjs of tollars
t Capital costs include unit labor, materials, and equi~nt costs, as
appropriate. Also considered in the calculations of the capital costs
are the levels of health and safety protection, health and safety lOOni tori~
durin; the 1DIplementation of the alternative, project conti~ncy funds,
and achinistration and engineering costs. Typical major cap~ta1 cost
items are site work and utilities, remedial and support facilities, and
site closure.
tt GW Remediation for all al ternati ves includes ground water recovery,
treatment, and disposal. Costs presented are for discharge to the POlW.
'!he other disposal options are -$100 to +$200, in thousands, for discharge
to the Coral Gables Canal and recharge to the aquifer, respectively.
* 111e annual O&M costs presented are the 3Q-year averages.
** The cost for the No Action alternative includes those non-hazardous
items that are camen to all alternatives, as well as continuous ground
water IOOni tori~ .
-53-
-------
for disposal without pretreatment. RCRA a:X1resses 25 solvents under its land
ban regulations, however.only five (5) solvents of RCRA interst have been
identified at the GOO site. However, should it be evident that the total
contaminant content exceeds the 1.0% limit (or sOOuld inplementatioo occur
after November, 1988), the sludges will be remediated with the remaining
contaminated soils.
'!be remaining contaminated soils will be treated on-site by s/s (to addre!i5S
arrf remaining metals contamination and residual volatile organic contamination)
and placed onsite. A cap will be constructed over the solidified soil.
Excavation and treatment of the contaminated soils will be consistent with the
site-specific cleanup levels established for the soils. (A discussion of the
soil cleanup levels follows this discussion.) An estimate of 1500 cubic yards
of soil has been considered for excavation and treatment or disposal. Actual
soil volumes could differ in response to soil sampli~ and analysis performed
duri~ the design and/or cleanup phase.
The only viable ground water technology remaini~ after the technologies
screeni~ is recovery, treabnent, and disposal. Further aquifer studies will
be required to determine recovery characteristics in the local area, however,
at this time it does not appear that purtt)i~ will have a significant impact
on the aquifer. A very conservative 100,000 gallons per day was estimated
for recovery and treatment. 'n1e ground water remediation program will be
designed to remove contaminants down to the aquifer cleanup goals. (A
discussion of the ground water cleanup levels foilows this discussion.)
A ground water treatment method that offers permanent treatment will be the
selected method for treatment. For example, a treatment method such as air
strippi~ followed by carbon adsorption would permanently and significantly
reduce the levels of volatile organics and non-volatile organics in the
ground water. However, at this time, the lack of pilot and/or bench scale
testing and insufficient data on localized aquifer characteristics does not
allow selection of the exact ground water treatment method. DJring the
design of the selected al ternati ve, data will be obtained to enable approval
by the Agency of the treatment method.
Several disposal options for the treated ground water have been presented and
evaluated. 'I'hese are: recharge to the aquifer, discharge to the Coral Gables
Canal, and discharge to the PC7lW. All these options are inplementable and
effective opticns. However, as previously mentioned, discharge to the PO'1W
does not have the potential for envirormental contamination should treatment
equipDent failure occur and thus has the least enviramental impact. 'n1is
option does depend on successful negotiations with the Miami-Dade Water and
Sewer Authority to allow discharge of treated water to their facility.
Preliminary indications show that this option is negotiable.
'l11e degree of treatment of the recovered ground water is dependent on the
discharge option implemented. For instance, for ground water discharge to
the PaIW, treatment of the ground water would achieve the CWA and POI'W pre-
-54-
."-~ ~.. .,;; C T '~': -:";'" :--' -. :::>~~, J'".~.-:;--;",:"""".! :j,;" :~~";T~~0'-"'~?:~,:-"-=;;:-'? :'7::r~,:, ';-r~--7--:';'_"J:;:y.~-.="";,,,. '".::;;:'"'~,"::. ~;;'-:""-:~;-::-:-.'~,';-:~:":;':": ~_:_"::-Y.~';--~':;/ ,"', '~:;;:-'"'~"~' ;~'.v-:7;:.\'::"~'~.r,:'~':- :-;:'?;::,-;~;:).;,-";;-::;','::::-:~';~:->~<"~~:'.\7 ;:''i'.:;:-:i>'';:>~:,-; '::::.' n"(".7:-:;:'. ~'.~,r.-J-0- ~~--i;::;i;~'"~- c-;;::,.:.:~
-------
treatment standards. Discharge to surface waters involves disposal of treated
grc:AJnj water to the Coral Gables Canal. 'lhe treatment process would be
operated in the batch mode to allow nrJnitoring of the final settling basin.
This enables confimation that the appropriate ARMs have been met prior to
discharge to the canal am minimizes the potential for surface water
contamination of the canal should the a\Site treatment system fail. .
'!he third ground water disposal optial is reCharge to the aquifer. 'Ibis is
an attractive option if it appears that recovery of the ground water will
cause migration of contamination fran surroundi~ areas into the recovery
zone. This is dependent on local hydrogeologic condi tialS to be determined
duri~ design. In this case, the treatment of the recovered ground water
will achieve the aquifer cleanup goals.
Site-specific cleanup levels ttave been determined for the soils an:S ground
water at the site. For grourd water, the classification of the Biscayne
Aquifer as a sole source aquifer and Class I ground water is the primary
driving force for determining cleanup levels. EPA, with coordination ard
approval by FDER, has revised the Biscayne Aquifer Study ground water cleanup
levels accordi~ to updated and appropriate toxicological information and .
Federal and State ARMs. As discussed in Section II, this study established
ground water cleanup levels for the Biscayne Aquifer acceptable to FIER and
EPA. '1he cleanup levels are set at concentrations that would cause no significant
health effects if the water is used as a potable water source for a lifetime
exposure. '1he ground water cleanup levels for selected contaminants are:
Contaminants
Cleanup !Bvels, ug/l
l,l-Dichloroethane .
trans-l,2-Dichloroethylene
Methylene Chloride .
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
TriChloroethylene
5.0
70.0
5.0
0.7
340.0
3.0
For source control, soil cleanup levels are defined as concentrations in the
soil which will not result in exceeding the cleanup levels in the aquifer.
EPA, in consul tatiat with FDER, has evaluated .the contamination detected at
the site and ccncluded that the organic levels have significantly reduced
fran the 1983 to 1986 saupling episodes. Based on this, lead has been identified
as the c:cnt8inant of ccncern for source control. The soil cleanup level for
lead has been set at 100 ppn.
The alternative outlined above is the preferred alternative because alternative
treatment technologies are ~loyed to the maximum extent practicable in
treatin;;J the principle threats posed by the GCO site. The remedy also employs
permanent solutions to significantly reduce the toxicity, J'ld)ility, or volume aOO
to provide protectiveness of human health and the envirorment by eliminating
the source of groun:! water contamination and the risk of public exposure to
-ss-
-------
contaminated soils and ground water. AltOOugh this remedy is not the least
expensive alternative considered, it is cost-effective since the canbination
of offsite disposal of hardened waste sludges, s/s of soils, and recovery,
treatment, and disposal of groum water is the least expensive alternative
that achieves the ARARs for volatiles and non-volatiles in the soils and
grourd water. The total cost is estimated at $3,711,660. The 3O-year average
O&M costs for this alternative is $74,850. '!his estimate is based 00 the
fOllowing assunptions: .
- 500 cubic yards of hardened waste sludges will be excavated and disposed of
offsite at a RCRA-approved facilitYJ .
- 1000 cubic yards of metals-contaminated soils will be stabilized/solidified
and placed onsite with a cap: and
- the ground water disposal option included in this estimate is discharge to
the FOl'W. .
The no action alternative was rejected because it does nothi~ to mitigate
the risk of public exposure to the contaminants at the site. Cleanup of the
surface debris would be accanplished (canponent of all alternatives)J however,
ooth the public health and environmental objectives would not be met, and the
Biscayne Aquifer would remain contaminated above acceptable levels. Additionally,
the no action alternative does not mitigate other exposure pathways, such as
direct contact, inhalation, and ingestion.
Only one ground water technology remained after the technologies screeni~,
thereby establishing this techrology as the preferred techrology. Of the
remaining alternatives (Alternatives 2,3,4, and 6), the soils technology is
implenentable but not effective due to the presence of lead in the soils at
the site. All these technologies are effective for reduci~ the levels of
volatile organics in the. soils but are not effective for reduci~ lead
concentrations in the soils. In addition, incineration (Alternatives 4 and
6) is not considered cost-effective for use on such small quantities of
soils, as well as not being effective for the incineration of metals
contamination. Alternative 6 is not implementable as well because it involves
incineration and disposal of the contaminat.ed soils at. another Superfu..rx:1
site. This is not considered administratively feasible.
-56-
-------
IX. OPERATIOO AND MAINI'ENANCE (O&M)
When inplementation ~f the reu....aur=nded al ternati ve is ccmplete, long term
operation am maintenance (O&M) will be required for the source control of
the soils to deroonstrate stability and resistance to leaching of the treated
waste block. IDng term maintenance of the cap will also be required. Once
the ground water recovery and treatment progr:am has restored the aquifer to
the established water quality levels, periodic ground water DD1itoring will
be required to ensure that l~-term performance has been achieved. Should
the ARARs for the ground water quality be exceeded due to the soils actirrJ as
a source, additional soil remediatioo will be performed. torg-term O&M for
the ground water has been estimated at 30 years for costing purposes. '!he
exact duration will be established during remedial design.
'!he estimated annual O&M costs are presented in Table 14. '!he annual O&M
costs include those for environmental sampling and ncnltoring, energy, supplies
and materials, labor and laboratory fees.
x. SCHEOOLE
Issue Record of Decision to Public Repository
Issue Notice letters with JD) to PRPs .
Completion of .Enforcement Negotiations
Start Remedial Design
~lete Remedial Design
Start Remedial Action
Complete Remedial ACtion
9/87
10/87
2/88
3/88
12/88
1/89
12/90
~
XI.
FUTURE ACTICNS
2.
1. Gather environmental data that will define the extent of soil contamination
at the GO:) site and confirm the volume of soil requiring remediation.
'!his effort will be sensitive to the different remedies for hardened waste
sludges am metals-contaminated soils.
If necessary, pilot studies will be performed for the stablization/
solidification portia') of source control. . The best mixture of soil to
stabilization/solidification material will be dete~ned by field-pilot
studies. 'l11e reliability am effectiveness of the best ratio needs to be
confitmed by bench-sca1e studies. '!he resulting mix of treated waste
will be tested for leaching, permeability, unconfined CCJDpressive strength
and wet/dry durability.
3. Additional gro.md water and aquifer studies will be required to define
the contamination plume and aquifer characteristics for ground water
recovery, treatment, and disp:>sal. Ground water treatability studies
will be performed, also, to detemine the appropriate grouOO water
treatment methcrl.
-57-
-------
APPEM>IX A
U/EI'iIl .
Index Ooa.8nt ,*-"r O~er
0010 !X'AST OIL Documents
Pagf: 1
-
'\
Ooo8fnt Nullber: ~l.-J. To 1853
Date: ~/01/81
Title: Hazardous Waste Site Inwstigation Report iftd Data Sheets
Type: PUfI
Author: IICIM: Gold Caist Oil .
Rec1pietlt: none: none
Ooa8tnt ruber: (to-eel-et1J64 To 8056
Date: 12/31/81
Title: (Lttter rtgarding ~rth resistivity sur"t'e)')
Type: CCPMSftN)fN:f
Author: Hal'llall, H Dan: fcology & Environment
Recipient: Stonebraker, Richard 0: US EPA
AttacMd: GCl).4J01~7 ~1-e06S
Documnt Nullber: ~1-t057 To e064
Parent: G:XH01~
Date: 12/3l/81
Title: (Glnerilized hydrogeologic cross SKtion in site vicinity)
Type: SWlHIC
Author: none: none
Recipient: none: none .
Ooa8ent Numbe~: G:XH01~ To ee68
Parent: ClXH01~
Date: 12/31/81
Title: Recoauended Drilling and Sampling Locations
Type: SWlHIC
Author: none: none
RKipient: none: none
Doa8ent Nlllber: s:o-tIl~ To.7I
Date: l1/81/fA
Title: 6roun_ter ~tariA9 Study NUh ..11 Location And Construction "Itthod
Ty,.: P\M
Author: none: eo. Eastern (Bftz Conwrse "'rdoch)
Recipietl t: none: none
. .
A-l
-------
,-
U/f£J/fIl
Index OocuIIIMIt Nullber Order
91D ~ OIL Dxulienrs
Page: 2
-
"\
eoa.nt Nlllber: GJHIl~l To .79
Date: t4/Z6/83
Title: (Lft~r providing progms reo~rt and CCIIIIfIIts on site actions taken)
T~: (XR{ESPIH)8Cf
Author: BamtS. 6eoffrwy Ie: Squirt Sinftrs , -Sf)'
Recipient: 81olen. Joan: US EPA
Doa8nt Nullbtr: ~1~ To'173
Date: ~/0l/83
Uta: A8tdial Action !'\aster Plin
Type: PtJIN
. Author: Turnbull. Kim C: N.£ Corp
Recipient: none: US EPA .
---
Oocu8ent Number: 00HI01~4 To 1175
.
Date: .7/8l/ff3
uta: (Letter clarifying Ctrtain points to Remedial IlM'S'tigation/Feasibility Studies)
Type: ~E
Autllor: DeYint. Thalas W: US EPA
RKipient: BaI'lltS. Geoffrey K: Squire Sanders & OeIIIpsey
Oocu8ent Nl8ber: ~1-4V6 To 1177
Date: '7/81/83
Title: (Letter regarding t6/'l'd/'03 IIMting)
Type: ~
Autllor: Orbin. .18es E: US EPA
Recipient: funk. Don&ld: P'liUer Industries
OcIa8nt Nu8ber: G:O-tI1~ To 1178
Dati: f8/U/83
Tita: (letter nplliJWl, 1IIW1ty to dtttnlint idequcy of propos" study ~sed on only 1M) page
autliDt )
Typt: ~
AuthoJ:: ~rs. "-man 8: fL Dt9t of Envir'Ol8fllW Rtgulation
RKUient: Orban. Ja8e5 E: US EPA
Atud!ed: (D)-tt1-tl79 a:o-tel-t1S0
A-2
-------
WEt!!
Indn Doc:ument Nullber Order
a:x.o t»\ST OIL CocJIents
Page: 3
'\
Doa8nt tMlber: s:cH0l-tl79 To 8119
Parent: a:o-e8l~
Da~: fB/U/~
Title: (Letter concerning Rlaltdial IlMstigation)
Type: ~ea
Author: O~. J.rs E: US EM
Rlcipient: SImes. Geoffrey K: Squi,.. Slndtn , Dempsey
Docu8nt Number: 1l:'O-te1-41B0 To 81B8
Parent: 1lX)-4I1-4178
OI~: I3/lB/~
Title: (Left" CCIIparing plan of study with the e7/81/~ plan)
Type: (XRR£SR:N)£'CE
Author: Barnes. Geoffrey K: Squire Sanden & Dempsey
Recipient: Orban. JaDes E: US EPA
Doc:uEnt Numb,,: Il:'O-tel..fJ.8l To 8186
Date: 1t/ell~
Title: (Newslett" conCtnUng hiza~s ..aste issues)
Typt: OTHER
Author: none: US EPA
Recipient: none: none
Oocu8ent Humber: oc.o-t01~1B7 To 8188
Oat,: WW3/~
Title: (Letter ntgarding status of Remedial I~stigation)
Type: (XRR~
Author: SImes. Geoffrey K: Squi,.. Sanden & OeIIpsey
~ient: Ne.fton. Ptidlael: US EM
Ooa8ent tt8r: D4I1-t189 To 1189
Date: 12/82/'43
Title: (Letter rtgi..w9 QaIlity Asnranet/Quility Cont~ MM.", durinq drilling iftd Y8Ple ~l.:.ec!ior.
,ffort) . . .
Type: ~
Author: Till. Charles A: US EM
I
Rtcipient: LAIR. .. 0: US EPA
A-3
-------
r-
-...----
. -. . -- ..-' ,
U/E/~
Index OocuII!n t NurItIer Order
e:x.o ~ OIL Oocuft>nts
Paqe: 4
-
"\
Oocvmfnt Nu8ber: ~1~198 To 8lge
Date: '1/04/84
Title: (Letter regard.ing effects of site on Indian lands) .
Type: OBESPQOOCE
Author: BUndllrd. Brvc.: 15 Oept of t~ Interior
Recipient: Luc.ro. ~ A: 15 EPA
Ooa8nt Nullber: ~1~191 To 8191
Date: fI3/19/PA
Title: (Letter regarding final report)
Type: Q:RRfSPCN)OCE
Author: 6rzywinski. Richard J: ED! Eastern (Sftz Conwrse P"AIrdoch)
Recipient: Barnes. Geoffrey K: Squire Sinders & Dempsey
Att.c~: 9:O-t01-f19Z
OocuRnt Nu.ber: OO>-e0HJ19Z To 12'j7
Parent: a:o-tel~191
Date: 13/81/84
.
Title: Envil"Ollllttltal InwstigJtion of Site
Type: fII.AA
Author: Farler. John W: EDI Eastern (Ben Converse ~rdoch)
Recipient: none: none
Document NUllber: G::O-t01-tZ38 To 8Z39
Date: fI3/Z6/84
Title: (Cowr letter for final Remedial Investi~ticn Report)
Type: Q:RRfSFtH)OCE
Condition: ItmU'LfTE
Author: SarntS. Geoffrt)' K: Squire Sinders & OeIIpsey
Rldpient: Newton. PtidYtl: 15 EllA
Ooa8ent Nullbtr: s:t:HI1.. To 1Z41
Title: (Letter rtgJrding f1nll R8edal Inwstig.tion Rf9ort)
Date: E/E/84
Typt: OBESPQOOCE
Author: Bar'llf\. 6eof f rt)' K: Squi... Sindtrs & OeII!Isey
RKipient: Orban. ~ E: 15 EPA
A-4
-------
.. -
- --.... "
--------------- -..
. - --, -. . "-_.'. .
U/E/'!1
Indtx [)ocuIaent Number Order
OOLD COAST OIL Ooc1nIer:ts
Page: 5
-
==
DocIIa!nt Nu8ber: 9J)..«U -t242 To ez~
Daft': E/2l/84
'\
Ti tlI: (lItttr rtgirding ill cwrview of tilt 5a1!19ling oPeration)
T~:~
Author: Till. CllArles A: US EPA
Rldpilnt: OrUn. Ja8fs E: US EPA
Attached: s:o-«a1-f243
Doa8nt rtIIber: 0CD-ee1-tZ43 To 1256
Plrtllt: 9::O-401-tZ~
Date: 82111/84
Title: (Analytical results fraa ()Iality Assurance/Qu.W.ty Centrol s.ples)
Type: DATA
Author: none: ED'! Eastern (Betz CQnverse I'Iurdoch)
~itnt: none: none
Doa8nt Nulllber: 0CD-ee1-flS7 To 8ZS7
Oar.: ~/1l/84
Title: (CcMr letter for drift Fusibility Study)
Type: aJlRESfOO&a
Author: PlcLeod. R S: Engineering - Science
Recipitnt: ~r. C Ie: US EPA
AtUched: s::o-e01-f258
~t Number: G::O-tel-1258 To 1340
Plrent: G::O-tel-f2S7
Date: ~/el/84
Title: Orlft Remedial Al ternatiW5 Evaluation Re90rt
Type: fIlM
Author: none: En91llt'tring - Science
Recipient: none: US EPA
ODcI8tnt Nl8ber: tm-4I1~ To 1348
Oat!: 17/81/84
Titll: (Updlte of blzardon I85tt !sSUtS)
Typt: OMIt
~tbor: 110ft: US EM
~ient: none: none
.
A-S
-------
. .
U/E/W
Index Document Nullbtr Order
00lD a)\5T OIL OocUEllts
Page: 6
'\
Ooa8nt Nu8ber: ~1-4349 To 1349
Dite: 17/11/8A
Title: (litter rtgarding l'fYiew of draft Remedial Alternatives Evalllition ~eport)
Type: ~
Author: Brant. NiJ.1.i8:.: County of Da~ Fl
Recipient: Ortlin. J8es E: 1.5 EPA
Ooa8nt Nu8ber: a:o-tel~ To I3Sl
Dite: fB/31/8A
Title: (CC8Ients on draft Alternative Evuuation Report)
Type: ~OCE
Author: Hilty. Cindy: FL Dept of Envil"Ollllental Regu~tion
Recipient: CLuu. I'Ieredith: US EPA
eoa.nt Nullber: a:o-eel-t352 To 838Z
. .
Dite: E/el/'g)
Title: F1W Report Bistayne Aquifer/Dide County
Type: ~
Author: none: none
Recipient: none: none
Doa8ent Nu8ber: G:O-0tl~ To f384
Dite: E/VF.J/85
Title: (btttr regarding the selection of rllllfdial approach)
Type: CXRRfSPCN)8U
Author: 6~inski. Richard J: D wtern (8ftz Converse Pklrdoch)
Recipient: none: none
Attidltd: D-eIl-t:3BS s:o-tIl-t386 &:O-t81-t3S9
Doa8tnt IUlMr: tIXHIl... To UI5
Pamt: CIXHIal-«E3 .
Date: f6/VS/BS
Title: Exhibit A: PropoMt 6tauadllittr RI8WJ.. Appralcll
Typt: fII.M
Author: none: ~ Easttm (Bttz CclnwrSf Pklrdoch)
Rtdpient: 1ICfIt:. none
A-6
-------
U/E/'Cl
lndtx Ooc18tnt ttDber Ordtor
OOI.D OO\ST OIL DocuRnts
Paqt': 7
---=
'\
Ooaant Nlaber: a::o-481-«B To UI3
Parent: s:o..erU-«3B3
Oa~: E/VJ9/'=
Utlt: Exhibit B: Of~raination of Progl'all Duration
Type: ~
Author: nont: ED'! wt.rn (EIL'tZ ConYtrv "'rdocII)
Atc:1I1tnt: none: none
ODa8ent Nu8btr: CJ:IHIl~ To 8392
Parent: a»-eel~
Oa~: E/fi/8S
Titlt: Exhibit C: CDntents
Typt: fUN
Author: none: ED'! ~stern (Betz Conwn. "'rdoch)
Rtcipient: none: none
Doa8nt Nu8btr: 1J:CHI01~ To ...~
DI~: E/10/85
TitI.: (Cowr l.tt.r rtgartillg tilt seltetion of reEdwlpproacfl)
Type: ~
Author: Barnfl. Geoffrey K: Squire Sindtors & Dempsey
Recipient: Clarke. I'Itrtdittl: US EPA
ODa8ent fUlbtr: G:O-t01-f396 To 1396
. .
Oate: E/24/85
Titlt: (PCtice of public El'ting)
Type: OTHER
Author: none: US EPA
Recipient: nont: none
AtUdItd: o.tI1-t397
Ooa8tIt fUlbtr: tm-IIl-4!!J7 To ..
Parent: s:o-eel~
Oar.: 16/81185
Title: fw Sbttt
Typt: ~
Author: nont: IIOftf
Rlcipitnt: nont: DOnf
.
A-7
-------
'" - -------=-----
U/EI'ifl
Index 00cIftn t MIIIIbt>r 0 r6t>r
ax..o OJAST OIL 00cu8Ien ts
?age: 8
Ooa8tnt Nulllber: 1m-0I1~1 To I48Z
Da1e: E/18/'=
Title: (Camlfnts on selection of 1"eIIedUJ. ~~roadl)
Type: CXRRESFtf()f]U
Author: Collins. Plarvin: Fl Oept of fnvil'OnElltu Rlqulation
Recipient: Clarkt. ~redittl: US EPA
,
eoa.nt Numbtr: ~1-+1e3 To 1414
Date: E/U/'=
Ti tl.: (ft)tice of public Iftting)
Type: OTHER
Author: none: none
Recipient: none: /lOne
Doa8ent Numbtr: cm-te1-t4lS To 0415
.
Date: E/28/$
Titl.: (PBIo giving public notice of F.1Sibillty Study) .
Type: CXRR~E
Author: non.: ICF
Recipient: none: none
Doament Nlllllber: ~1-t416 To 0418
Dat.: E/el/'=
Title: Callnunity Relations RtsponSiwnfSS Su8ary
....
Type: PI..PN
Author: none: none
Recip1lnt: none: none
Ooa8nt Nullbtr: CJ:C)41-M19 To 1419
Oltl: I7/JJ/'=
Titl,: (t..tttr rtgirding ,ro,ostd R8fWl Actions for site)
Typt: CIJIRfSPI]()eU
Author: Brant. WilliaIII'I: County of Dade Ft
Recipient: Cl1rke. ~rtd.1tt1: US EPA
A-8
-------
U/E/'!7
Index ~t PUrber Order
ID.O COAST OIL Documents
Page: 9
-
::
OocuIIent ~r: a:rHJ91~ To 8429
Dat!: 89/'IEJ/$
Tit!,: (lIntr regarding site I'8Iediation cost fStimate)
Type: ~
llutflor: ~ski. Richard J: ED! wtfrn (Betz CoIMrse ~rdoch)
Red.,itnt: CUrb. "'redith: US EM
AtUdIed: a::o-t01~
Ib:I8ent IUlber: a::o-te1~ To 8421
Parent: ~1~28
Da~: 89/W5/f5
TiU,: Projected Rellledial Costs
Typ.: ~IAl/T~ICAl
Author: none: none
Recipient: none: ~
DoaBnt NlBber: a::o-te1-e42Z To 8509
Date: WJ/2.4/PiS
TiU,: FiMl Rlpert Sclptrfund Site
.....
Type: ~
Author: 110ft,: Camp Dresser' l'IcI(ee
Rlcipient: none: US EPA
Doa8tnt Number: a:o-ee1~e To 8510
Da te: a/07/fJ5
Title: (CoYer letter 10r Trip Report)
Type: a:RRESftN)OCE
Author: !tnoy. Barbara H: US EPA
Recipient: Bartcsd&l!. JaRs 0: US EPA
Atuchtd: e::o-t01-f!611
Doa8tnt ruber: 9:XHIl-tS.U To 85Z2
Parent: ~~e
Date: E/el/~
Titll: Trip Rlpert
Type: fII.M
Author: nont: nont
Rtdpient: nont: none
.
A-9
-'.--=.-"-," ',-~.-''''-; "''':' ~--'~~-'-
~--,-,----o-cr;'':7''',o '-C"', >~-". ~ ':.,
'. "~.-=,--": -- '!> 'r:: .~... .-!'~".""-~_.""'':":.''''-~' .
c , ~.' ....~~. ',' .',-- - ,. "
'- -':: Or"~ :...' ,..-~-i~ - _.-:-~,-',-.o::::.::;"" ~,
~ 'j-";'-"':'" ""..~-,~'c.j - ,,-,!-;-~;::-~'::<>~-~ ~!" <~;-'~~'~-:::-;'~-:;-~',-""~1-7;::'-:" ,-:=--;: "-:-7 ':;:;~~.;;-;--".;:,.,:-- ...
-------
U/E/'01
Index ~t Number Or~r
ax.? ~ OIL OocuEnts
Paqt': 10
-
--
00cI8!ft t Number: IS::O-4el ~ To 1583
Dite: J2/22/a5
Titlr: Final Report on Site EnUngrra'llt ASSfSSlltnt
Type: fILM
Author: none: nonr
Rec1pitftt: Done: US EPA
Doa8ent Nu8ber: (JXH0l-fS84 To 8Q6
Dite: 12/r3/'Cl
Tith: Fiul Cost Estillate Report
Type: ~
Author: /IOIIe: AEPCO
RKipirnt: none: US EPA
Docu8nt Number: G::IH01~7 To 06V
.
Date: I2/rJ/87
Titl.: (L.ttrr rrgarding soil cleanup levels iIId costs estiMates)
Type: aRRfSPtNJen::E
Author: Collins. P'larvL,: FL Dept of Environmental Regulation
Red.pitnt: Barksdale. .Janes 0: US EPA .
eocu.nt ruber: a::o-tel~ To 064Z
Parent: G:XH01-t60'"Z
Date: 13/11/87
Title: PreliJlinary Re>.oie.. of Cleanup Plan
Type: FVH
Author: none: EnvironaenUl & Energy Consultants
Recipient: none: Gold Coast Oil Steering ec.ittee
Ooa8nt tUber: a:o-tI1.-a To t661
Date: 13/20/67
Title: final Report ~ Soil ClHnup IAwls: Support for tilt Endingtrwnt AsSesSEllt
Ty,.: fIlM
Author: 110M: Ufe ~t8s
Rtcipitnt: none:. US EPA
A-IO
~.~.c-:::"",<_,,""}' .
";! '.u: ~"""'''~"--',,, - ;-O~-~'.' ;..~ . .C-~",-,-"",,:,- ~
'"~ - .-N-.c'":.;;.,r;-;-.,,-=-_::-:::~-:-'T":"=;'-
'. <,':'C~-':-~ >~:n.'---':';. ,'f':"::"t"":. -:-.::'="C~-;,,~-:;:C-:.:o; ~.".''''''~'~.-'--'-~,- '..--:c-'?~~-5:::::::"(.::':-:~1 ;,.--:;-;.:'-.-:-,-: '. '~T'~;' 'r> ~''"";:'~-,~- ;-",' J_.--.J.c-; {
.- -,-~:;,,~.,,~,~;.; :J',m::>~~--:.~,::-"'.'7:~~,-.~';,---?f~'~~-'
-------
U/V/5/87
Indn ~t i'Ulber Order
ID.O (X)AST OIL Coc:ua!n ts
Page: 11
-
Ooc:uuent NlAlber: G:O-tIl-465Z To tSE1
Date: rJ/24/87
Titl,: (Cowr lttter for Prtliainlry Re\liew)
Typ.: ~EtC£
Author: Barnts. Geoffl'tl)' K:
Rldpient: HNrd. Ann: IS EPI\
Amdttd: (D).tIl~
Squire Sind.rs- , 0e8pSf)'
Ooa8tnt Number: G:O-tIl-t668 To 866B
Oat.: rJ/~/81
Titl,: (letter transaitting Superfund I"tCOrd of canuniations bt~th assesS8eflt)
. Type: CXRRfSRH)OCE
Author: Pietrosetticz. Casmier V: IS Dept of Hralth & tWan Services
Recipient: Sarltsdale. James 0: IS EPA .
Attached: oco-e01-69
Docu8?nt Number: 1DH01-t669 To 867S
Paren t: a::o-e81-4568
Dat,: r3/~/87
.
Title: (Letter regarding HNlth AssesS8eflt)
Type: CCP.RE5FCN)0Cf
Author: Reyt>s. Juan J: IS Dept of Health & .wan Services
Recipient: Pietrosewicz. Cawer V: IS ~t of Health & HuNn Services
Document Number: 1DH01~6 To 0676
Date: t4/fS/e7
Ti tle: CLetter regarding agr~nt to extend tille for COIIIIents submitted on the aat!rials ~ntly
finished)
Type: CCP.RfSP(N)OCf
Author: Sames. Geoffl'tl)' K: Squirt Sinden , Dempsey
Recipient: Hurd. Ann: IS EPR
ODa8ent Nu8ber: a:xHIl417 To fIi17
Oa~: tltl'Sll81
Uta: (Ca8ats on 1I8l1ft JSWSS8IIt and prtlWnary l'IYiew of ~ dt1llUP plan)
Ty,.: ~
Author: ~s. I'Iarvin: fL Dtpt of Envit'0f8nt~ Regul1tion
Recipient: Barttsdi.lt. .-s 0: IS Ef'R
~
A-ll
, <.;. -, >, ,,:",""~-' ,. . ~'. -o_''-'-'---'''''''',,---,<:,..,-~.-.'.~-'..o~.'''-- '-';-.'--'.--,'c""7"'"",,"'.O-;-"-.~~'""-~ ...""~,...." ~ ="""''-;.:''''';O-:-_'''''''-;~'''': .'~,' -','" ~""'--~"'.~~--'.'
-------
. .... .'~ -~.
-- ; - - -. . . ~
U/E/'81
In~x OocuIIIent ~er Order
9JU) CQA~ OIL Ooc:uments
Page: U
Doc:umnt Number: a::o-tal-tS78 To 1678
Date: E/E/87
Ti tle: (Cowr letter for C'CIIIIIefIts on-si te Heal. th AssesSlll!llt) .
Type: ~
Author: Collins. tIatvin: Fl Oept of Enviror8lltal Rlgu1ation
Recipient: Barts~. JIles 0: ,US EM
AtUc!Ied: s:o-tI1-t679
Ooa8nt Nu8ber: e:o-eel~9 To 86B0
Pamt: ~l ~
Date: E/rJ/87
Title: (Caanents on Hfalth Asses~nt)
Type: ~ESPtN)ea
. Author: Renfrow. John W: FL ee,lt of fnvirolllllenta.l Regulation
Recipient: Collins. !'\arvin: Fl Oept of Enviromnental Regulation
Oocument Nu8ber: a:o-t01-t6Sl To 8683
Date: E/W87
Title: (CantlIn on draft Record of Decision)
Type: ~ESPtN)ea
Author: Pti.tdtell. Ga.il 0: US EPA
Recipient: Barlcsdale. Jamts 0: US EPA
Cocllllltftt NUlllber: a::o-eel~ To 068S
Date: E/'Z9/'81
Title: (Cc8aents on use of Donigian I'Itthod)
Type: ~
A!!thor: Stir!!. Jeff!"Y; !.5 EPA
Recipient: Barlcsdlle. J8es 0: US EPA
AtUched: a::o-te1-t686 ED).tIl-t687
e::o-«Il-t683
Doa8tnt "'r: a:xHI1... To 8686
PAmt: &::r:H81~
OIft: / I
Title: 6rounMttr ClHmrp GDIls
Ty,.: ~TA
Author: none: none
Rtcipitnt: none:. none
A-12
-------
U/E/81
Index ~t NuJlber OrdE'r
GJl.O ~T OIL OocwnL>nts
?.1~e: 13
Doa8nt NlMlbtr: IDH8HI681 To 8687
Parent: a::o-eIl-e6S4
Dite:
/ /
Title: Aquifer Oilution/Plixing Factor
Type: ~
Author:: IICIM: Ufe SystellS
Rld.pient: none: none
Oxu8nt tUber: CJ:IH81.~ To 8693
Paren.t: D-0el~
Dite: / /
Ti tle: (Worltsheet for r.apid iS5eSSllellt iIIOnog rap h)
Type: FItWCIAl/T~ICAl.
Condition: ILLEGIBlE
Author: illegible: none
Rld.pient: illegible: none
.
Doa8tnt ~r: D-0el494 To t694
Dlte: 87/f9/81
Title: (Cowr letter for stetring C'aIIIIittee rtpOrt)
Type: ~~
Author: Barltsdale. Jaaes 0: US EPA
Recipient: Barne5. Geoffrey IC: Squirt Sanders' Dempsey
Attached: s:xHa1-069S oco-t01-t697 .
eocu.nt Number: a::o-eel-069S To e696
Parrnt: OOHel~94
Date: / I
Title: (CccIIIents on Stetring CcIInitttt rtCQu.IHdH RMedial Plan)
Type: ~f.SfICN)fN:E
Author: none: none
Rec:ipient: nont: IOIIt
Doc8Int lt8Der: s::o-tI1~ To .7
PUlllt: 1I::O-4Il~
CIte:
I I
TitU: (Rlsponw to Stftring Cl8ittlt rMew of PropoHd Pw)
Type: ~
Author: nont:' none
Rtcipitn t: none: none
A-13
-------
U/E/~
Index DocuIe!It Nullbl'r OnJer
InD OOAST OIL. Ooc:tments
Document Number: oco-ee2-t715 To Ie64
Dite: U/el/~
Title: Rapid Assessment of Potential Groundtet.r Containltion lkIder f8ergency Response Conditions
Type: PlM
Author: Dcnigan. Anthony S: US EM
RIc19ient: none: none .
A-14
Paqe: 14
-
--' '-J'-'-C ,~_. '""""~.'._-,,--,
-------
- - --
. r -..' --- - - .
-~"----
. . ,,;.- ~-
------~-~
"..... .
. -----;-
APPEM>IX B
-------
. --- : - ~- r.. u. -
SUperfund sites in the past and is not anticipated to create a health
hazard by the release of airborne contaminants. 'l1'1e arrDUnt of gt'O\.1OOwater
requiri~ treatment at the Gold Coast Oil site is relatively low, and
therefore allows for easy design of a system that would be adequate to
meet the mER air emission requirements. Ii:Jwever, the emissions produced
by the air-strippi1'YJ process will be m:mi tared to insure that they are
below the allowable air emission limits.
Issue :
A second citizen attendi1'YJ. the public meeti1'YJ questioned whether it is
possible to withdraw contaminated groundwater for treatment without
drawi1'YJ in the contaminated groundwater plune fran an adjacent SUperfurd
site (and thus causing a spread of contamination beyond its current
boundaries and creating a liability probleu).
EPA Response:
Based on the experience of Dade County Dmot in overseeing numerous
groundwater recovery pruyxau.st, EPA officials, DERM, FDER, and the
consultant for the responsible parties determined that a groundwater
recovery program can be developed that will insure that additional
contaminated groundwater is not drawn in. 'Ibe recovery program will
include the developnent of a caaputer 11KJdel, based on aquifer studies and
mnitor well results, that will predict the effects of the ~i1'YJ program
on the aquifer (and therefore predict the ncvement of the adjacent
contamination plume). 'this ncdeling process will be conducted during the
remedial design process.. In addition, an additional monitor well will be .
installed between the two sites to serve as an early warning well that
will detect migration of the adjacent plume toWards the Gold Coast Oil
. site, if it occurs.
Liability Concerns
Issue :
Citizens attending the public meeting requested infotmation about who
becaDes r&l(DlSible for waste materials once they are transported off-
site.
EPA Response:
According to the Superfund law, all responsible parties at a site remain
responsible for that waste.
Issue:
Citizens attending the public meeti1'YJ asked questions about the liability
incurred by purchasers of the Gold Coast Oil site property and about the
~2
-------
-,~ ..---::'c..
---~- --.- -~--
. '
- - - --
- .-.
. -.'..
.
financial responsibility for clean-up activities at the site.
EPA Response:
Any person or organization that purchases the Gold Coast Oil site property
could becc:me a responsible party for the waste at that site. Under EPA.
policy, EPA enters into negotiations with responsible parties at SUperfund
sites in an effort to reach agreement on a cleanup financed by the
responsible parties. Potentially responsible parties at the Gold Coast
Oil site include "the generators of the waste material, the operators of
the facility am the current site owners. At present, EPA believes that
negotiations with the responsible parties are likely to produce an
agreement providi~ for a responsible party-financed cleanup. Pt)reover,
under Superfund, any responsible parties not participating in cleanup
efforts continue to be liable and could have further action taken against
them.
Miscellaneous Issues
Issue:
'three ci tizens at the public meeting requested infotmation about groundwater
in the vicinity of the Gold Coast Oil site. Specific questions addressed
the type of contaminants present in the groundwater, the location of
nearby private and municipal wells, and the characteristics of the area
groundwater gradient.
EPA Response:
In response to the type of contaminants present in the gro.mdwater at the
Gold Coast Oil site, the list of contaminants in the Remedial Investigation
report was read. A well owned by the Delta Gas Canpany, located across
the street fran the Gold Coast Oil site, is the nearest private well to
the site. The nearest" 11I.JJ\icipal well is at the Alexander Orr Well field,
located a few miles f~ the site.
the groundwater aquifer gradient at the site, according to studies
perfomed at the site, 1s approximately 1/2 foot per mile. This figure
is low bee.... of the effect of the Coral Gables Canal, located near the
site, an:! till Dance of atrf major wells nearby.
Issue:
Several questions were raised at the end of the public meeti~ ccncerni~
the time frame for remedial design and remedial action at the Gold Coast
Oil site.
EPA Response:
B-3
-------
.J - .;. .-. .-.
The schedule for completion of technical activities at Superfund sites
is always difficult to predict in advance. At present, however, EPA
expects that remedial design will take approximately four (4) to six (6)
months with subsequent groundwater recovery efforts lasting anywhere fran
two (2) to twelve (12) months.
8-4
------- |