United States         Office of
          Environmental Protection    Emergency and
          Agency            Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R04-93/140
June 1993
£EPA   Superfund
          Record of Decision
          Anodyne, FL

-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION 11. REPORTNO.
PAGE EPA/ROD/R04-93/140
4. TItle and Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Anodyne, FL
First Remedial Action - Final
7. Authar(s)
2.
3. Recipient. Ac:caalon No.
s.
Report Date
06/17/93
6.
8.
Pwfonnlng Organization Ropl No.
9.
Performing Organization Namll and Addf1lSS
10 Projad T88IcIWork Unit No.
11. Contrac:t(C) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(Gj
12. Sponsoring Organization Namo and Adclrass
U.S. Environmental Protection
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type of Report & Period Covered
Agency
800/800
14.
15. Supplementary NallIf'
PB94-964041
16. Abstrad (Umlt: 200 _Ids)
The 4.25-acre Anodyne site is a former manufacturing facility in the Sunshine State
Industrial Park, Dade County, Florida. Land use in the area is mixed residential,
commercial, and industri~l, with the nearest residential areas one mile north and west
of the site. The site overlies the Biscayne aquifer, a shallow water table aquifer
that serves as the sole source of drinking water for Dade and Broward counties. From
1960 to 1978, Anodyne, Inc. used the site for manufacturing anodized aluminum products,
lithographs, and silk screen prints; embossing; and die and diamond cutting and
laminating. Process waste was discharged via pipes through the building wall directly
onto the ground. Waste discharged along the southwest side of the building reportedly
flowed overland and pooled in a low-lying area approximately 100 feet south of the
Anodyne building. A 10-inch diameter, 90-foot deep well, located adjacent to the
building, was used as an injection well to dispose of waste from the manufacturing
process. In 1970, an EPA investigation showed that the facility was using a wastewater
pretreatment system to provide pH control of process effluent prior to discharge into
the municipal wastewater treatment plant. In 1973, a State investigation documented
numerous instances where raw process chemicals and process waste were discharged
(See Attached Page)
17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors
Record of Decision - Anodyne, FL
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: soil, gw
Key Contaminants: VOCs (PCE, TCE, toluene, xylenes), other organics
pesticides), metals (arsenic, chromium, lead)
(PAHs, PCBs,
b.
kI8ntlller8lOpen-Ended Terms
c.
COSATI FI8IcIIGroup
18. Availability Statemom
1 II. Security Class (Thle Report)
None
20. Security Class (ThI. Page)
None
21. No. of Pages
128
22. Price
(Sea ANSJ.Z39.18)
SHlnstructioM on R.-
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formeriy NTJS..35)
Department ot Commarc8

-------
EPA/ROD/R04-93/140
Anodyne, FL
First Remedial Action - Final
Abstract (Continued)
accidentally and/or intentionally onto the ground surface in proximity to the site. These
discharges included overflow of caustic and acid holding tanks onto the ground, spent
naptha solvent in the surface soil from cleaning machinery, disposal onsite of asphalt
residue from equipment cleaning, discharge from the art department sink, and discharge of
sewer wastes onto the ground. As a result of investigations in 1992, EPA learned that
spent solvents from anodizing tanks drained outside onto the ground, and that metals were
cleaned and prepared for printing using TCE and PCE. Subsequent to the closing of the
facility in 1978, the Anodyne building and property were purchased, in 1980 and 1985,
respectively, by 745 Property Investments. Based on disposal history and the potential
for environmental contamination at the site, EPA conducted a series of investigations in
1985 and 1986. Results of the remedial investigation revealed the presence of two
distinct zones of contamination in the Biscayne aquifer. The upper (shallow) zone, "zone
1 (i.e., water table to approximately 20 feet below land surface) is comprised of several
metals. The lower (deep) zone, "zone 2 (i.e., 55 to 95 feet below land surface) is
primarily comprised of chlorinated VOCs originating from the deep injection well. This
ROD addresses a first and final remedy for the contaminated soil and ground water at the
site. The primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil and ground water are VOCs,
including PCE, TCE, toluene, and xylenes; other organics, including PARs, PCBs, and
pesticides; and metals, including arsenic, chromium, and lead.
The selected remedial action for this site includes excavating approximately 5,000 yd3 of
contaminated soil to the depth of the water table to the lateral extent where the
contaminant levels for the indicator chemicals (chromium, lead, and nickel) do not exceed
cleanup criteria; treating contaminated soil offsite using solidification/stabilization;
backfilling the excavated area with clean fill and revegetating; allowing ground water in
the upper portion of the aquifer to naturally attenuate; extracting and treating
contaminated ground water from the lower portion of the aquifer onsite, using air
stripping to remove organics; using fume incineration or carbon adsorption to treat the
VOC residuals from the treated water, if necessary; reinjecting the treated water back
into the Biscayne aquifer; and monitoring ground water periodically until the performance
standards are met; providing for a contingency remedy for the upper portion of the aquifer
by extracting and treating ground water onsite using chemical precipitation/pH adjustment,
followed by a clarification and filtration process, off site disposal of residuals, and
reinjection of the filtered water into the aquifer, if the contaminant levels are not
reduced by natural attenuation. Pending results of a treatability study, the deep ground
water may be treated with ultraviolet chemical oxidation. The estimated present worth
cost for this remedial action is $20,726,000, which includes an estimated annual O&M cost
of $2,873,000. The estimated present worth cost for the contingent remedy is $4,854,000.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS:
Soil excavation standards are based on detected levels of three representative chemicals,
and include chromium 11 mg/kg; lead 31 mg/kg; and nickel 0 mg/kg. Chemical-specific
ground water natural attenuation goals for the upper zone ground water are based on the
ability of three representative chemicals to meet State and Federal MCLs in two to six
years, and include chromium 100 ug/l; lead 15 ug/l; and nickel 100 ug/l. Chemical-
specific ground water cleanup goals for the lower zone ground water are based on Federal
and State MCLs, and include PCE 3 ug/l; TCE 3 ug/l; l,2-DCE 70 ug/l; and vinyl chloride 1
ug/l.

-------
RECORD OF DECISION
for the
ANODYNE, INC. SUPERFUND SITE
NORTH MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
JUNE 1993
#~ 87"<4",
'j ~,
~s~
'I. PRO'~'#
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365

-------
RECORD OF DECISION
DECLARATION
Site Name and Location
Anodyne, Inc. Site
North Miami Beach, Florida
Statement of Basis and Purpose
This decision document represents the selected remedial action for
the Anodyne, Inc. Site ("the Site"), located in an unincorporated
portion of Dade County, Florida near the city of North Miami Beach.
This action was chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive
Environmental, Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of
1980 as amended through the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986, and to the extent practicable,
the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan (NCP). Furthermore, this decision is based on the
Administrative Record (AR) for this site.
In accordance with the National Contingency Plan, Part 300.430, the
State of Florida, as the support Agency and as represented by the
Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER), has provided input
during this process. Based upon comments received from FDER, it is
expected that formal concurrence will be forthcoming.
Assessment of the Site
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances for this
site, if not addressed by ~plementing the response action selected
in this Record of Decision (ROD), may present an imminent and
substantial endangerment to public health or welfare. This Site
does not pose a threat to the environment.
Description of the Selected Remedv

This remedy is the first, and is intended to be the final, remedial
action at the site. The remedial action is intended to reduce
risks to human health by abating the threat posed by the
contaminated groundwater. The response action should reduce risks
to human health by collecting and treating contaminated groundwater
to levels consistent with federal and state drinking water
standards. While the goal of this response action is intended to
restore the portion of the aquifer affected by the Site,
information gained during the ~plementation of the action may
reveal that it is technically impracticable to achieve health-based
standards throughout the area affected by the Site. Should this
occur, the selection of another remedy or waiver of applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements may be appropriate.

-------
The major components of the selected remedy are as follows:
.
Hydrogeologic and water quality studies, as necessary, as
part of the remedial design to verify the extent of the
volatile organic groundwater contamination plume and aid
in the sizing, number, and location of wells for the
recovery of contaminated groundwater,
.
Treatability study to assess the potential application of
an innovative technology to treat the volatile organic
contaminated groundwater,
.
Collection of volatile organic contaminated groundwater
via recovery wells from the lower portion of the Biscayne
aquifer; onsite treatment via air stripping with emission
control as needed; onsite injection of treated effluent
into the Biscayne aquifer,
.
Excavation and offsite disposal of contaminated soils to
facilitate shallow groundwater restoration; pumping and
treating of shallow groundwater, as necessary, to reduce
levels to within cleanup standards,
.
Monitoring of groundwater,
.
The total present worth cost for the seler.ted remedy is
estimated at $25,580,000.
Statutory Determinations
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment, complies with Federal and State requirements that are
legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial
action, and is cost-effective. The remedy utilizes permanent
solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum
extent practicable, and satisfies the statutory preference for
remedies that employ treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility, or
volume as a principal element.
This remedy will serve to mitigate the threat to human health
through the collection and treatment of hazardous substances
released from the Site. As required by the NCP, a review of the
remedial action will be conducted every five years after the
initiation of construction to ensure that the remedy continues to
provide adequate protection to human health and the environment.
~~iYl~

Patrick M. Tobin
Acting Regional Administrator
(,,-/7-93
Date

-------
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
7.1
8.0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
. Section
INTRODUCTION
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .. .
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION . . . . .
2 . 1 Loc at ion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2 Site Description. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
. . . . .
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
. . . .
. . . . .
SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION
. . . . . .
. . . . .
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS. . . . . . . . . . . .
6.1 Hydrologic Setting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2 Environmental Setting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.3 Nature and Extent of Contamination. . . . . . . .
6.3.1 Scope of Remedial Investigation. . . . .
6.3.2 Results of Remedial Investigation. . . .
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
. . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
Human Health Risks. . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.1.1 Contaminants of Concern. . . . . . . . .
7.1.2 Exposure Assessment. . . . .
7 . 1 . 3 Toxic i ty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.1.4 Risk Characterization. . . . . . .
7.1.4.1 Noncarciongenic Risks. . . .
7.1.4.2 Carcinogenic Risk . . . . .
7.2 Environmental Assessment. . . . . . . . . .
7.3 Baseline Risk Assessment Summary. . . . . . . . .
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.1 Scope of Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.1~1 Alternative 1 - No Action. . . .
8.1.2 Alternative 2 Long-term Groundwater
Monitoringwith Institutional Controls.
Alternative 3 (Zone 1) - Soil Excavation
with Shallow Groundwater Attenuation
Alternative 4 (Zone 1) - S011 Excavation
and Shallow Groundwater Recovery,
Treatment, and Disposal. . . . . . . . .
Alternative 5 (Zone 2) - Deep Groundwater
Recovery, Treatment and Disposal. . . .
8.1.3
8.1.4
8.1.5
-i-
PaQe
1
1
1
1
4
8
8
9
9
10
10
11
11
17
17
17
24
24
25
25
31
31
33

35
35
36
36
36
40
41

-------
9.0
10.0
11. 0
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
9.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and
Environment
Compliance with ARARs
Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through
Treatment.
Short-Term Effectiveness
Implementability
Cost
State Acceptance
Community Acceptance
9.2
9.3
9.4
9.5
9.6
9.7
9.8
9.9
10.1
10.2
11.1
11. 2
11. 3
the
SELECTED REMEDY. . .
Zone 1 Soil Excavation and Shallow
Groundwater Recovery, Treatment and, Disposal
(Alternative 4)
10.1.1 Source Control. . . . .
10.1.1.1 Major Components of Source Control.
10.1.1.2 Treatment of Excavated Soi16
10.1.1.3 Performance Standards
10.1.2 Shallow Groundwater Recovery, Treatment,
and Disposal
10.1.2.1 Major Components of
Groundwater Remediation
10.1.2.2 Treatment of Shallow Contaminated
Groundwater
10.1.2.3 Disposal of
Groundwater
10.1.2.4 Performance Standards. . . . . .
10.1.2.5 Compliance Testing. . .
Zone 2 - Deep Groundwater Recovery, Treatment
and Disposal (Alternative 5) . .
10.2.1 Major Components of Deep Groundwater
Remediation. . . . . . . .
Treatment of Contaminated
Groundwater.
Disposal of Treated Deep Groundwater
Performance Standards. . . . . . . . . .
Compliance Testing. . . . .
Shallow
Treated
Shallow
10.2.2
Deep
10.2.3
10.2.4
10.2.5
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS. . . .
Protective of Human Health
Environment. . . . . . . . . . .
Compliance with ARARs ... . . .
11.2.1 Contaminated 50il ARARs Compliance
11.2.2 Groundwater ARARs Compliance
11.2.3 Air Emission ARARa Compliance
Cost-Effec~iveness . .
the
and
-1i-
43
43
45
46
46
46
47
48
48
48
50
50
51
51
52
52
53
54
54
54
55
55
56
57
58
58
59
59

60
60
60
61
61
62
62

-------
12.0
11.4
11.5
12.1
12.2
12.3
Use of Permanent Solutions and Treatment
Technologies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Preference for Treatment as a Principal
Element. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES. . . .
Potential Treatment Variations. . . . . . . .
Groundwater Remediation Cleanup Criteria
Active Restoration of Zone 1 . . . . . . . . .
-iii-
63
63
64
64

-------
FIGURES
Number
Title
Paqe
1-1
Sit e Lac a t ion Ma p. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2
1-2
Site Layout Map........................ 3
1-3
Facility Layout........................ 5
6-1
RI Monitoring Well Location Map... "'" 12
6-2
USEPA Monitoring Well Location Map..... 13
6-3
RI Soil Sampling Location Map.... ...... 14
6-4
Estimated Extent of VOC Contamination.. 16
6-5
Conceptual Site Contamination Model.... 18
8-1
Alternative 3 - Soil Removal Plan...... 39
9-1
Alternatives Cost Comparison........ ... 49
-iv-

-------
TABLES
Number
Title
Paqe
7-1
Chemicals of Concern for Groundwater...... 19
7-2
Chemicals of Concern for Shallow

Groundwa ter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . : .. 20
7-3
Chemicals of Concern for Soil............. 21
7-4
Regulatory Standards for Constituents
Detected in Groundwater (Three Zones)..... 26
7-5
Regulatory Standards for Constituents
Detected in Shallow Groundwater........... 27
7-6
Regulatory Standards for Criteria for
Surface Water Protection of Human Health.. 28
7-7
Summary of Noncarcinogenic Risks
Current and Future Groundwater Scenarios.. 29
7-8
Summary of Noncarcinogenic Risks
Current and Future Shallow Groundwater

Scenar ios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30
7-9
Summary of Carcinogenic Risks, Current
and Future Groundwater Scenarios.......... 32
8-1
Comparison of Maximum Shallow Zone
Groundwater Concentrations to Ambient
Water Quality Criteria.................... 34

Summary of Major Components of Remedial

Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37
7-10
9-1
Evaluation Criteria for Remedial

Alternatives. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 44
-v-

-------
APPENDICES
Appendix
Title
A
Responsiveness Summary
B
Analytical
Supplemental
1986
Data Summary,
Site Investigation,
C
Analytical Data Summary,
Investigation, 1992
Remedial
D
Estimates
Intakes
of
Pathway-Specific
E
Toxicity
Concern
Values
for
Che~icals
of
F
EPA Memorandum - Chemical Oxidation
Evaluation and Preliminary Cost
Estimate
-vi-

-------
1.0
INTRODUCTION
The Anodyne, Inc. Site is the former location of a manufacturing
facility that produced anodized aluminum products, lithographs, and
silK screen prints during the period 1960 through 1978. The Site
was placed on the National Priorities List (NPL) in February 1990,
due to the potential threat it posed to the Biscayne aquifer.
Studies conducted by EPA and a consultant for the property owner
demonstrated that the Biscayne aquifer had been contaminated by the
release of organic and inorganic chemicals associated with the
former Anodyne, Inc. manufacturing processes. An evaluation of the
risks posed by the release of these contaminants indicat~ that, if
no action is taken in response to the release, the contaminated
groundwater would pose an unacceptable risk to current and future
consumers of drinking water obtained in proximity to the Site.
On this basis, EPA, in consultation with FDER, has determined that
remedial action is warranted pursuant to Section 104 of CERCLA, as
amended. The goal of this action is to restore, to its beneficial
use, portions of the Biscayne aquifer in proximity to the Site that
were degraded by the release of hazardous substance from the Site.
2.0
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
2.1
Location
The Ahodyne, Inc. Site is located at 1270 N.W 165th Street in the
Sunshine State Industrial Park, an unincorporated portion of Dade
County, Florida near North Miami Beach. The industrial park is
located in a mixed residential, commercial, and industrial district
of northern Dade County, Florida. It is bordered on the north by
the Palmetto Expressway (State Route 826); on the east by
Interstate State 95; to the south by u.S. Route 441 and Biscayne
Canal; and to the west by Bunche Park, a residential development
(Figure 1-1).
2.2
Site Description
The former Anodyne, Inc. facility is located on a parcel of land
approximately 4.25 acres in size. Buildings that formerly housed
the Anodyne, Inc. manufacturing operations are now occupied by a
packaged snack distribution center and a furniture/warehouse
facility (Figure 1-2). The manufacturing processes were conducted
wi thin the Anodyne, Inc. building. Some storage of process
chemicals occurred in above ground tanks enclosed in concrete block
structures along the south site of the building.

Information regarding disposal of process waste is limited.
Available information, however, indicates that wastes were
discharged via pipes through the building wall directly on to the
1

-------
j ~j ~ .~: p ; \~ ~." ,Jr~L r'~ ~t'fj ~ 1~:r=-1 ~
-~ ,.! L '~~~lI[br~:7f"'II'DI'O~ f TI~~:::::~


.- ~ ~ I I ~ r -s; ~ j -'.
, il -j f ~~ 1 . i \
Q .~.' C'-h~- l ~ ~ ;; '. j " '\...... ~
~ -5< " , ~ :1
" ,,.,, . -. NW I.':H lsr'i '. ..._= ~ -"'''''' ~ ~~(,.,w ,.,TN r-5ri

.[. . ~ ,. ~ ~. .. I ~~'.~ !o--~~I'PO
, ~ "lXI''! " "C', r~., '--
:1 I... I '. ~ --:- "WID""] ~f/ijp~;~,,-- ~
, -;ioioi""" :/AAI/i'" _.8.: G~ Or\ " ,~.) .- /r It;:=. ': ~;:....
~A ~N . r l' -. DRIVE ..~. ~ C .

'.~,,~ ~., ~ ~ ~~ ,",: ;.'~ i " '8i8r ~~ .. ~i'C .""':,;:f"1 ~I r :-)1'11, ~
.. "~ ,r . ..... I" ~ n 1 r
ru:::' . -,:. Ip,~..., ,a I..w It....... ,r . I." -r I,,, I
~. ~f,"=~: ::..:': ;18 I ~ I.. . I : "on' no,-
- ~ . "., . w.'.. ~ ~ leu U U u
~t ~ . ! 1:0 :.. : ~ ~; ~ Ti1~ ~ ~ Ol~~ .!JO~ /'@ I ~.

r '" '," -'.... .-. I.. I I '_IL. / - y;;.
'[ , --'" .... ....... ~ I . 10 ~.J--
~ . . ' . I' .. ~!cou La.' . .. --
,K ., ~. 7.' I : ,. ~ J, Sell( ~ ~ Y' ~." -
~ 1 ..~: c:;: :, . . " . - / -

. .:,... ':.... ~:.::~. ..~ d ~.""i~.)~/- :~fJ ~ ~~. -. J;'7; {~
IW~"-"~~~:;':$I;fE ~ /.' _w.''''"'..; :~\~ ~~~~~. ~
I. .t "" "'-. I 1 ." ;f ~ ,--.."" .~ 'fp' ~
'. . . '.' 'SWA~ ~,~ .~..~ VA

)n ~! h II I: I: ,a I. -' . I~ 4" ~j„i~ GL
IT ~ I '< !o- . ... :>:..: x, ')i. ~ ';
"'. P'Ir~ ~ ! J. I.) . ~~'p [j~ ':; ';~4::
-:iLl. ... ~ 'I" ~ . if. ,~,t , ~ ~.; :w ,.'.sr.: ..8r !
-{ ~ . c: Ii k' ..... ill' 0 . ~: '~
~~ "-r / Ij , - '- .'; ~'r~ '.r ~ ;..~. ~.. ~')J~".l
~~ ~~x I ~ .~. ~ L ... .~~
'''f''. -.T'~ ~~.I- --. ~~ 4:.~:..t];f:
.~~ 1/ ~~:~.;{~f,,~f-':r~) . ~~
I .I .:;.-~:.:~,;, -:-'y /' - n"7................. .~
8T 1 ' .': :.:'!:-':' / ~ "WIT l... ""-. ".,j."

B~:C~~ ,;/'.,:' c;' ~j./11}'0 ) _\n~ I' ~\
4" ... ....'... 0-., =111U
.
..... /./...
SCAlE IN FEET
I
o
2000
I
4000
SITE LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 1-1

ANODYNE. INC SITE
NORTH MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
SOURCE: U s..c.s.. TOPOCRAPHIC OUAORANcu:, NQRn1 ...A",.
FLORIOA., 1962 (PR 1962 ANO 1972)
2
POOR QUALITY
ORIGH~AL

-------
 W ANOD'r'NE
 ::> BUILDING
 Z
 W 
 > (ONeR[ '[
 ORtY(w.,
 «
\,.oJ I 
 .- 
 I") 
 ~ 
 ~ 
 Z 
,
I


I
N.W.
A5Pt1AL I
PAvrO AIt(A
I
I

~~g~51~~TE I

RAMPS I
I

- I

I
I

~Yr' fg~~~
--: I DOCK
.. I

:; I

I I
~j I
- - -INJEcnoN"""WElL -
[AS' IIItAI\.t(NI
[NCLOSuRE
165TH
STREET
"
) '''''', ,,-
/-
/
///
/
~
0~'
- (J~
~~(J
",ro
~. -
~.
SCALE II; rf[ r
o
1
240
120
LEGEND
- - - - ANODYNE PROPERTy LINE
SITE LA YOlfT MAP
RGURE 1-2
SOJRct .[11" ANO SCHNARS- P A '/13/9'
ANODYNE, INC SITE
NORTH MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA

-------
ground. A site inspection in 1973 by DERM recorded pipes
protruding through the building wall with stained areas on the
ground surface along the west central and south central walls.
Stained surface soils were also observed on the east and northeast
sides of the building. Waste discharged along the southwest side
of the building also reportedly flowed overland and pooled in a
low-lying area approxLrnately 100 feet south of the former Anodyne,
Inc. building.
Another site feature is a lO-inch diameter, 90-foot deep, well
located on the south central side of the Anodyne, Inc. building.
Available information indicates that the well was used 'as an
injection well to dispose of waste from the manufacturing process.
The well, however, is not located on the property formerly occupied
by Anodyne, Inc. The well is actually located on a railroad right-
of-way that borders the southern boundary of the property on which
Anodyne, Inc. formerly operated.
DUQ to the urbanization of the area, relatively few natural
resources or ecologically sensitive areas exist in proximity to the
Site. Surface water features such as drainage canals and water-
filled borrow pits are located less than one mile from the Site.
However, the flat land surface and sandy soil promotes rapid
infiltration of rain fall resulting in little runoff from the Site.
The Site overlies the Biscayne aquifer, a shallow water table
aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for Dade
and Broward Counties. The aquifer has been Federally designated as
a Class I drinking water aquifer under the Clean Water Act and as
a Sole Source Aquifer. The State, based on a separate
classification, has designated the Biscayne aquifer as a Class G-II
aquifer. Six public wellfields are located within a four mile
radius of the Site. However, only two of the wellfields, the W.A.
Deffler and Westside, are still active. Groundwater studies
conducted at the Site do not indicate that these wellfields are
currently threatened.
3.0
SITE HISTORY AND ENFOFCRMRHT ACTIVITIES
Anodyne, Inc. is believed to have begun operation in 1960, although
the exact date is unknown. Ownership of the facility changed
several times, and underwent an expansion in 1968, before closing
in 1978. Company literature indicates that it was one of the
.. nations foremost producers of metal decorating products". Some of
the consumer products produced included colorful decorative trim,
control panels, faceplates, and equipment dials. Production
activities conducted within the plant included aluminum anodizing,
embossing, lithograph development and printing, silk screening, die
and diamond cutting, and laminating. A layout of the interior of
the facility in 1976 is shown in Figure 1-3.
4

-------
-.--..
V1
Vinyl Bondinl
A~
Balch Anodizinl
Area
Tool and Die Area
~-

~
Source: TAC.Anodyne Brochu"". 197(,
FACIUTY LAYOUT
AGURE 1-3
ANODYNE, INC SITE
NORTH MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA

-------
Based on a review of files obtained from the Dade County Department
of Resources Management (DERM) and interviews of former plant
workers, a general overview of the handling of raw materials and
process waste was developed. Overall, however, the information is
ILffiited and questions regarding the actual waste disposal practices
remain.
EPA and DERM inspected the facility in 1970 and reported that the
facility was using a wastewater pretreatment system to provide pH
control of process effluent prior to discharge to the Myrtle Grove
wastewater treatment plant. A DERM inspection in 1973 documented
numerous instances where raw process chemicals and/or process
wastes were accidentally and/or intentionally discharged onto the
ground surface in proximity to the Site. These discharges are
summarized below.
.
Caustic and acid holding tanks were located along the
south building wall, near the west corner. According to
the assistant plant manager, the tanks periodically
overflowed onto the ground and the associated piping
leaked periodically,
.
Machinery was cleaned with a naphtha solvent several
times a year along the edge of the east parking lot.
Blue and black stained surface soil was observed in the
cleaning area,
.
A blackened strip of ground was observed near the
northeast corner of the building. The assistant plant
manager indicated that the area was used for disposal of
an asphalt-containing material that was a residue from
equipment cleaning,
.
A pipe discharging hot water was observed along the west
building wall, near the north corner. The pipe
reportedly handled overflow from the art department sink,
.
A second discharge pipe was observed along the west
building wall. It reportedly handled overflow from a
rinsing tank,
.
Although the assistant plant manager verified the
facility was connected to a public sewer, the manager
explained that not all wastes went to the sewer. Some
wastes were discharged onto the ground since it was
easier and cheaper to run a pipe through the building
wall and allow wastes to discharge onto the ground.
EPA interview of a former plant worker in 1992 revealed
anodizing tanks within the building were connected to pipes
drained spent solutions outside onto the ground. The pipes
these tanks exited the building along the west central wall.
that
that
from
The
6

-------
former worker also reported that wastes were discharged near the
southwest corner of the building. Interviews of former workers
also indicated that metals were cleaned and prepared for printing
using trichloroethene and tetrachloroethene.
EPA efforts to determined the use of the large diameter well south
of the former Anodyne, Inc. have not been conclusive. An interview
of a Dade County Water and Sewer Authority employee by an EPA
contractor in 1990 revealed some information regarding the use of
the well. While formerly employed with the Bay Water Company
(later City of North Miami Beach), the individual was responsible
for conducting inspections of environmental facilities in the
Sunshine State Industrial Park. The inspector recalled the
installation of the injection well and local construction permit
paper work. A 1984 EPA inventory of wells records the well as an
injection well, but the date of installation was not reported and
appears to pre-date FDER well installation records. In a
subsequent interview of the inspector by EPA in 1992, the inspector
recalled that the well was installed around 1964.
Subsequent to the closing of the facility in 1978, the Anodyne,
Inc. building and property were purchased, respectively, in 1980
and 1985 by 745 Property Investments. Based on the disposal
history of this site and potential for environmental contamination,
EPA conducted a series of inspections of the Site in 1985 and 1986
that included the collection of soil and groundwater samples.
These results indicated that the groundwater and soil had been
Lmpacted by the Site by both organic and inorganic contaminants.
Based on these findings and the potential threat posed to human
health and the environment, the Site was placed on the National
Priorities List (NFL) in 1990.
Prior to the inclusion of the Site on the NFL, EPA notified several
former property owners and the current property owner of their
potential liability under Section 107 of CERCLA, as amended and
that EPA was considering expending federal moneys to conduct a
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RIfFS) of the Site.
After a period of negotiation, the current property owner, 745
Property Investments was the only Potentially Responsible Party
(PRP) willing to perform the RIfFS. 745 Property Investments
subsequently entered into an Administrative Order by Consent in
March 1990.
The RIfFS was conducted under EPA's supervision, spanning an
approximate two year period. The RI Report was approved by EPA in
July 1992. The final FS report was submitted to EPA in December
.1992 and will be approved pending the consideration of public
comment on the Draft FS and Proposed Plan. The findings of the
RIfFS are discussed in detail in subsequent sections of this
document and serve as the technical basis for the development of
the selected remedy.
7

-------
4.0
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
EPA released the RI and FS reports along with the Proposed Plan to
the public in November 1992. These documents were made available
for' publ ic review in the Adminis tra t i ve Record and information
repository maintained at the North Dade Regional Library in Miami,
Florida and the EPA Docket Room, Region IV, Atlanta, Georgia. The
notice of availability for these documents was published on
December 8, 1992, in the Miami Hera ld. At that time, the publ ic
was also notified of a comment period that extended from December
8, 1992 through January 7, 1993.
A public meeting was held on December 14, 1992, at the Scott Lake
Elementary School, North Miami Beach, Florida. EPA was present at
the meeting to answer questions from the public. EPA also issued
a fact sheet for proposed amendments to the proposed cleanup
alternative. EPA solicited comments during the period April 29,
1993 through May 28, 1993. A response to the comments received at
the meeting and during the comment periods is provided in an a
Responsiveness Summary and is included as Appendix A to this ROD.
This decision document represents the selected remedial action for
the Anodyne, Inc. Site. This decisions is based on the
Administrative Record and is chosen in accordance with CERCLA, as
amended, and is, to the extent practicable, consistent with the
NCP.
5.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION
Results from the 1992 RI Report demonstrated that the soil and
groundwater in proximity to the Site had been adversely affected by
the release of contaminants associated with the former operations
at the Anodyne, Inc. facility. The report concluded that the
shallow soil and groundwater along the west and south side of the
building had been contaminated by metals and organic com~ounds.
This contamination appears to have been the resulL of poor
housekeeping and/or waste disposal practices. The RI also
identified groundwater and soil contamination in the lower portion
of the Biscayne aquifer. This contamination appears to be the
result of the disposal of wastes contaminated with volatile organic
compounds in a 90-foot deep injection well along the south side of
the building.
Many of the contaminants were detected in the upper and lower
portions of the Biscayne aquifer at levels exceeding Federal and
State drinking water standards. Some of the contaminants also
posed an unacceptable risk to humans potentially using the
groundwater in the future. Although risks posed by the soil were
within an acceptable range, they were considered as potentially
posing a long-term threat to the groundwater.
B

-------
Based on these findings, a cleanup strategy was developed with the
primary goal being restoration of portions of the Biscayne aquifer
to leve 1 s within MCLs that has been impac ted by the Site. The
cleanup strategy also includes the removal of contaminated soil
along the perimeter of the building to facilitate the cleanup of
the groundwater. The cleanup strategy, when implemented, is
intended to be the final response action for this Site.
6.0 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The nature and extent of the contamination at the Anodyne" Inc.
Site was investigated through a Remedial Investigation conducted in
1991, under EPA supervision, by the property owner's consultant,
Law Environmental, Inc. Based on the findings from these studies,
a summary of the hydrologic setting, environmental setting, and
nature and extent of contamination are provided in the following.
6.1
Hvdroloqic Settinq
The Anodyne, Inc. Site is located at . the southern tip of the
Florida peninsula, the portion of the Florida plateau which is
exposed above sea level. The surrounding area is
characteristically flat and low lying. The Site is located within
the Atlantic Coastal Ridge, but is bordered by the Sandy Flatlands
and Mangrove and Coastal Ridges a few miles to the west and south,
respectively. The Atlantic Coastal Ridge is about five miles wide,
occupies approximately 600 square miles, and ranges in elevation
from about 8 to 24 feet above mean sea level (amsl). Land
elevation at the Site is approximately 8 feet amsl.
The Site is underlain by the Biscayne aquifer. This aquifer is a
shallow water table aquifer that serves as the sole source of
potable water for Dade and Broward counties. Based on the
aquifer's use and vulnerability to contamination, the aquifer has
been Federally d 'signated as a Class I drinking water aquifer
pursuant to the Clean Water Act. It has further been designated as
a Sole Source drinking water aquifer.

Regionally, the aquifer is wedge shaped along the east-west axis,
originating in the everglades west of the Site and extending to a
depth of 200 to 250 feet below land surface (bls) along the east
coast. In proximity to the Site, the aquifer extends from near
surface to a depth of approximately 150 feet bls. The aquifer
typically occurs in the permeable portions of several sand and
limestone formations. The water table levels can fluctuate from 2
to 8 feet bls depending on rainfall amounts and distribution. The
stratigraphic units which comprise the Biscayne aquifer include, in
descending order, the Pamlico Sand, Miami Oolite, Fort Thompson
Formation, Anastasia Formation, Key Largo Limestone, and Tamiami
Formation. The lower clastic unit of the Tamiami Formation serves
9

-------
as the base of the Surficial Aquifer system. Underlying the
Tamiami Formation is the Hawthorne Formation, which serves as the
Intermediate confining unit, separating the Surficial Aquifer
System from the underlying Floridan Aquifer System.
Groundwater flow in the Biscayne aquifer is generally toward the
east coast in a east and southeastward direction. However, the
direction of flow is highly influenced on local basis by surface
water features such as canals and lakes and by pumping at
well fields . The Biscayne aquifer is known as one of the most
permeable aquifers in the world with the upper limits of hydraulic
conductivities ranging between 7,000 and 10,000 feet p~r qay and
transmissivities averaging about 5 million gallons per day per
foot. Although the aquifer is extremely permeable, the groundwater
gradient is relatively flat unless induced by local pumping or
discharges to area canals. A comparison of water level elevations
of onsite monitoring wells revealed no discernable hydraulic
gradient. The gradient is estimated at approximately 8 x 10-6.
The aquifer is recharged directly both by rain fall and the canal
system that criss-crosses the southeastern Florida area. Although
the region is considered subtropical marine and experiences
relatively high amounts of annual rainfall, significant amounts of
discharge from the aquifer occur from well field pumping,
evapotranspiration, and discharge to local canals in the wet
season. Adequate water levels are maintained during the dry season
by maintaining higher water level in area canals.
6.2
Environmental Settinq
As discussed earlier, the Site is located in an industrial park,
surrounded by commercial/light industrial and residential areas.
The closest residential areas are approximately one-mile north and
west of the Site. Due to the sandy surface soils, rainfall
infiltration is high, thus minimizing runoff to nearby water
bodies. Because of urban location and negligible potential for
overland transport of contaminants, the environmental threat posed
by the Site is limited. The primary resource threatened by the
Anodyne, Inc. Site is the underlying Biscayne aquifer.
6.3
Nature and Extent of Contamination
EPA and the property owner have sponsored several studies to assess
the potential for contamination, and once it was detected, assess
the nature and extent of the contamination. An initial and
supplemental investigation was conducted by EPA in 1985 and 1986 to
assess the potential for Site ~ontamination. After documentation
of soil and groundwater contamination, EPA negotiated an agreement
with the property owner to conduct an RI of the Site. Since the
ROD relies primarily on the results from the RI, only those results
10

-------
will be summarized. The following sections will summarize the
scope and results of investigations conducted at the Anodyne, Inc.
Site. Detailed reports of the findings from the initial and
supplemental studies along with the results of the RI are provided
in the Administrative Record for this Site.
6.3.1
6.3.2
Scope of Remedial Investigation
.
Installation and sampling of five shallow, four
intermediate, and nine deep permanent monitoring wells
(refer to Figures 6-1 and 6-2 for well locations),
.
Sampling of water column at three intervals in injection
well and collection of soil sample from bottom of well,
.
Collection of soil samples from 19 surface, 12
intermediate, and seven subsurface locations (refer to
Figure 6-3 for sampling locations),
.
Horizontal and vertical survey of monitoring well
locations to establish horizontal control and evaluate
local groundwater gradient,
.
Caliper log of injection well.
(A summary of the analytical results is provided in Appendix
B. )
Results of Remedial Investigation
.
Results from the groundwater investigation revealed the
presence of two distinct zones of contamination in the
Biscayne aquifer. The upper zone ("Zone 1") of
contamination is comprised of several metals in the
shallow portion of the aquifer (i. e. water table to
approximately 20 feet below land surface). These metals
were detected in excess of background tolerance limits
and MCLs. Background tolerance limits (i.e., levels in
excess of two times the mean of the standard deviation of
the background concentration) were calculated for
specific contaminants to assess whether contaminants were
present at levels significantly above background. Metals
contamination primarily included chromium, nickel, and
lead. Although other metals were detected, they were
detected less frequently and not at toxicologically
significant levels. The highest levels of metals were
detected in wells installed in proximity to areas along
the west and south building where waste were discharged
onto the ground. In general, concentrations of the three
primary contaminants were reported at levels three to six
times Federal groundwater MCL's.
11

-------
-
N
// ~/
(~~
._-~ /:0 .MW-IA
/ /~~0 MW-18
/\)--' +
:;:4- ~

o /

/~/
/ /
/ /
/ //
,/
~"'-eY /
q.,' /
"--- ---'- "/'

h- --- ../'
-- - --...-.----- --'
N.W.
165TH
-- ---.---.----
-- --- --
-- --- -----
~_IA --------------
IW-1 ,
MW-IC :
I

W MW-2A
~ AW-~~
Z I
W I
> I
<{
I
l-
n
- ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
- J
~!.IW f>C
- - .'NJfCTioN"WE'Li: -
....... ---
!.IW-SA
Mw-S8
~~W- 7C
.--
3:
Z
----.-
Mw-9C
SC-L[ 114 f[[1
o
STREET
~
------- .
-._-
"
,
-----...


)

/./'
/
. ,
',>/
/
LEGUm
SHALLOw MOtHIOPII'(; ...ilL
(10-20 fEE T)
"n(R"'[O'A f( 1.<0'" r,wII": well
(JO-
-------
~
....
w
~ / //
'" / /
-"-,---/ /
//
/
/
/
---
N.W. 165TH STREET
w
::)
z
w
>
«
I
l-
I')
ANODYNE
BUILDING
)

// /
/ /
/ /
/
//
/
1
I
I
I
I
I
J
~
Z
(ASt ",(A"'CNr
(NC\~(
/

li
----
MW-llC
o
//
/' /
./ /
/ .
/"'-<- /
/",q //
/ ,,'J /
/ /

///
//
/ /
/ /' MW-12C
/ / ~
MW-IIC
qt)
LEGEND
ANODYN( PROPER TY LlN(
USEPA MONITORING WELL tOCA TlON
~
SCAI L '" r[[!
I
o
:>00
-1
.\(I{)
USEPA MONJTORING \NELL
LOCA TION MAP
AGURE 6-2
ANODYNE, INC SITE
NORTIi MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA

-------
-
~
I ~~--- ~,-,

I I
N1'. J.95TH ~TREET
056-1
w
::>
z
~
q:
~I
I')
r

05B-5
, I
,7'
I SO-1
I
59-B
I E
~
Z
I
.58 -lOA
5B-IO
59-18

'+INoItCIiON
WELL
- ---
~
--I
R.......P -
-,
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
--1
, S!1.- 12..
llilliQ
058 - 6
50lL OORltlC
-+
ItU(C "Oij W(LI
~
SCALE '" fEE r
I
o
.~
80
It,1.J
RI SOIL SAMPUNG LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 6-3
ANODYNE, INC SITE
NORTH MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA

-------
Groundwater samples collected from wells installed at an
intermediate level (i.e., 30 to 40 feet below land
surface), indicated some low levels of metals and organic
contaminants. However, based on the contaminant
concentrations and frequency of detection, the degree of
contamination detected in the intermediate zone does not
pose a significant threat to human health or the
environment.
Results from analyses of samples from deep groundwater
wells (i.e., 55 to 95 feet below land surface) indicated
the presence of a large plume of groundwater
contamination in the lower portion of the Biscayne
aquifer (" Zone 2"). The contamination is primarily from
chlorinated volatile organic compounds (i. e. ,
tetrachloroethene, trichloroethene, 1,2-dichloroethene,
and vinyl chloride) which appears to have originated from
the deep injection well located along the south side of
the former Anodyne, Inc. facility. Concentrations of
these contaminants were frequently well in excess of
Federal and State MCL's. Based on currently available
data, the approximate extent of the plume was estimated
to expand over an area approximately 21 acres in size.
The estimated plume boundary is shown in Figure 6-4.
However, it should be noted that some of thedowngradient
wells, still indicate contaminant levelsabove MCL's for
vinyl chloride. As a result, future work at the Site
would require verification of the full extent of the
plume. No significant levels of metals were detected.
.
Resul ts from the sampling of water column at three
intervals in injection well and collection of soil sample
from bottom of well indicated the presence of significant
levels of VOC's. Among the water samples collected from
the well, 1,2-dichloroethene, tetrachloroethene, and
trichloroethene were detected. Tetrachloroethene and
dichloroethene were detected in the soil sample collected
from the bottom of the injection well.
.
Results from analysis of the soil samples indicated the
presence of numerous metals and organic compounds at
levels above background tolerance limits. Most of the
contamination was in proxLmity to areas along the west
and south building walls where wastes had been discharged
directly on to the ground. Moreover, contaminant
concentrations were highest in the surface soil samples
and generally decreased with depth. Among the metals
detected, chromium, nickel, and lead were detected the
most frequently in the soil and shallow groundwater at
significant concentrations. With regard to organic
compounds detected in the soil, they were comprised of
semi-volatile organics (e. g., coal tars), pesticides, and
15

-------
N.W. 165TH STREET
~
z
o
300
1.1.-1;' -"''''-'''-

",,,,eC"''''---
I ""-1 ,
,
,
....
:>
z
~
«
~ .. -
.....
(sm..rro vQlAnlC
~C;'N'C PlUU( I~
0[[0 CAOU~O ", T1:~
.~Hf-I"

~"-1B
.
...... - 1C
e
''''-IIC
.
.
A
-....-
~
U",-I1C.
~
SMAllC"", uC"'. ';1fJ .,. ~',
(10- ,I: rr [11
1~T1~u[D"~t ....r_",' n;'j~ ,,~
(JO- ,., ,,! T
O((P 1.1(1-.«( ro~',,: of„{
(1S.q~ '1('1
""cK ('to~ Wf l
P,:JOPO~)(O R(:",J..1:P. ....-tu
A~OOrNr PR'J'fR'T l"4[
SC AL E '" r r [ T
ESllMATED EXTENT
OF VOC CONTAMINAllON
FIGURE 6-4
ANODYNE, INC SITE
NORTH MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
.-.

~

I

-------
PCBs. However, the concentrations of these organic were
comparatively low and determined to be of little
consequence.
. .
A conceptual site contamination model was developed based
on the extent of contamination at the Anodyne, Inc. site.
The conceptnal model is depicted in Figure 6-5.
7.0
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
The following sections summarize the risks to human health and the
environment potentially posed by releases of hazardous substances
from the Anodyne, Inc. Site. The human health section evaluates
the potential risks in terms of contaminants of concern, exposure,
toxicity, and overall risks. The environmental section evaluates
the contaminants of concern, characteristics of the environment,
and biological factors. The results of the human health and
environmental risk assessment are contained in the Final Baseline
Risk Assessment (July 1992). This document may be reviewed as part
of the Administrative Record for this site.
7.1
Human Health Risks
Risks to human health were evaluated using data collected as part
of the RIfFS conducted by the PRP's consultants, under EPA
supervision, during the period March 1991 through December 1992.
7.1.1
ContAminants of Concern
Chemicals of concern are primarily selected for the public health
assessment based on several contaminant criteria, including
concentration and frequency of detection, toxicity, physicochemical
properties relating to mobility and persistence. Contaminants of
potential conce-n for the groundwater included a variety of
volatile organic compounds and. metals. Most of the volatile
organics were chlorinated hydrocarbons and were detected in samples
collected from the lower portion of the aquifer (i.e., Zone 2).
Al though a few volatile organics were detected in the shallow
groundwater, the shallow groundwater contamination (i.e., Zone 1)
was comprised mainly of metals. Soil contaminants of potential
concern at the site were comprised primarily of semi-volatile
organics (e.g., pesticides, PCBs, and coal tar derivatives) and
metals. Chemicals of concern used in the development of the risk
.assessment for groundwater are identified in Tables 7-1 and 7-2,
and chemical of concern for soil are identified in Table 7-3.
17

-------
...-
(X)
~

\..
N
I~
c=v/
ANODYNE
CONCEPTUAL SITE CONTAMINATION MODEL
FIGURE 6-5

ANODYNE, INC SITE
NOAl1-i MIAMIBEAa-i, FLORIDA

-------
TABLE 7-1
CHEMICALS OF CONCERN FOR GROUNDWATER
Anodyne, Inc. Site
North Miami Beach, Florida
   Contract RequJred   
  Frequency or Quantltallon Limit Range or Reported Arlthmelic Mean (h) 95'7c Upper L"onndenre
 Constituent detection (a) (CRQL) (ugll) Concentrations (ug/l) (ugll) Limil II'I (ul:/I)
 VOLATILE ORGANICS:     
 1,2.Dlcbloroetbene (total) 12/16 5.0 4.0-1,000 152 2.IIJII
 Acetone 14/16 10.0 28-430 102 .165
 Carbon Dlsutnde 10/16 5.0 0.5-26 3.2 5.0
 Tetracbloroetbene 2/16 5.0 35-200 17 1'1
 Trtcbloroetbene 3116 5.0 3.0-220 20 2-1
 Toluene 4116 5.0 0.5-18 3.1 5..1
 VInyl Cblorlde 8/16 10.0 12-150 2.6 61
\0 METALS (TOTAL):     
 Aluminum 18118 200 150-140,000 29,244 (,7.51111
 Anllmony 3/18 60 34-43 (BOl) 32 .\.1
 Cadmium 3/5 4,000 5.2-7 (nDl) 4.3 12
 Chromium 14/18 10 11-350 110 7(,-1
 Copper 13118 25 3-44 16 21
 Iron 18/18 100 110-10,200 2,561 (,)170
 Lead 11/18 3.0 1.0-25 7.5 17
 Manganese 18/18 15 10.1-120 56 XI
 Mercury 3118 0.20 0.24-0.46 0.14 0.17
 NIckel 8/18 40 35.4-632 108 25')
 Zinc 18/18 20 11- 109 44 ,,-1
 (a) Number or samples In which chemical was detected versus number of samples available.   
 (b) Arithmetic average calculated by Including one-balr detection limit for sample points wllb non-detertahle rnnrenlratiuns.  
 (c) 95 Percent upper confidence limit calculated based on lognormal distribution (Gllberl, 1987).   
 (d) RDI. indicated that constituent was detected at a concentration heluw the CRQL.   

-------
TABLE 7-2
CHEMICALS OF CONCERN FOR SHALLOW (;ROUNDWATER
Anodyne, Inc. Site
North Miami Beach, Florida
   Contract Rrqulred Ran!o:e of Reported  
  FnqutDcy of QuantltaloD Limit Concentrations ArHhmel1c Mfan (h) 95 "'0 I pPH Confidence
 Constituent Detection (a) (CRQL) (ug/)) (ugil) rug.i)) Lirnill!} IlJg'))
 VOLATILE ORGANICS:     
 Acetone SIS 10.0 69.430 \7(, 710
 Toluene )IS S.O 07-18 H 2111
 METALS (TOTAL):     
 Cbromlum 8/10 10 50-350 \RO 5.11111
N Copper 8/10 15 3-44 18 39
o
 Ltad 7/10 3.0 1.0-25 R.4 41
 Mercury )/10 0.20 0.24-0.3 0.17 0.27
 Nickel 7/10 40 3S - 630 IRO 9911
 Vanadium 6/10 50 12-67 J3 511
 Zinc 10/10 20 11-1\0 S\ 1111
(a) Numbtr of samples In wblcb chemical was detected versus numhH of samplrs avaUablf.
(b) Arltbmetlc anrage calculated by including one-half detection Umlt for sample points with non-dfttCtahle concentralions.
(c) 9S Percent upper confidence limit calculated based on lognormal distribution (Gilbert, 1987).

-------
  TABLE 7-3   
 CHEMICALS OF CONCERN FOR SOIL  
  Anodyne Inc., Site  
  North Miami Beach, Florida  
  Contract   
  Requl~d   
 F~quency or Quantltalon Limit Range or Reported Arithmetic Mean (hi 95 '7(. t'pprr Cnnridence
Constituent Detedlon (a) (CRQL) (ug/1) Concentrations (ugfIJ (ugil) Lindl Icl (ug/1)
VOLATILE ORGANICS:     
Acetone 6/38 0.00 1 0,009-0.06 O.OOft 11.008-4
Methylene Cblorlde 11/38 0.005 0.02-0.2 0.03 O.o.t
TetrachloroetbeDe 3/38 0.005 0.001-0.005 0.003 0.003
Toluene 4/38 0.005 0.003-0.00 I 0.003 n.003
Xylenes, total 8/38 0.005 0.0008-0.02 0.003 11.003
"     
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS:     
4,4-DDD 5/38 0.016 0.0006-0.0 II} O.OOft 11.01
4,4-DDT 3/38 0.016 0.01-0.016 0.01 11.0-4
Anthracene 18/38 0.33 0.009-0.5 0.14 11.29
Benzo(a)antbracene 31/38 0.33 0.006.2.0 0.23 IIA8
Benzo(bJnuorantbene 29/38 0.33 0.02-4.0 0.42 IUd
Benzo(k)nuoranthene 18/38 0.33 0.01-0.5 0.14 11.27
Benzo(g,h,lJperylene 14/38 0.33 0.01-1.0 0.17 0..11
8enzo(a )pyrene 26/38 0.33 0.01-2.0 0.24 O..tl
BIs( 2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 15/3!I 0.33 0.05-4.0 0.35 IIA
Chrysene 29/38 0.33 0.01-2.0 0.28' II.H
Dlbenzo(a,b)antbracene IJ/3!I 0.33 0.006-0.5 0.14 11.29
Dieldrin 9/38 0.016 0.003.0.0-44 0.009 11.02
Dlehtyl phthalate 17/38 0.33 0.00-4.1.0 18 11.7-1
Endrin 3/38 ' 016 0.003-0.12  11.111

-------
   TABLE 7-3 (CONTINUED)  
  CHEMICALS OF CONCERN FOR SOIL  
   Anodyne Inc., Site  
   North Miami Beach, Florrda  
   Contract   
   Required   
  Frequency of Quantltalon Limit Range of Reported Arithmetic Mean I h) 9S'7r l pprr Confidence
 Constituent Dtlectlon (8) (CRQL) (ugll) Concentrations (ug!l) (ugll) Limit Ie) (u~,1)
 Endrln Ketone 2/38 0.016 0.009-0.047 0.009 0,06
 Fluroanthene 33/38 0.33 0.01-S.0 0.43 09J
 Gamma BHC 6/38 0.008 0.002-0.009 0.004 (1.1)04
 Gamma Chlordane 4/38 0.08 0.001-1.6 0.08 0,10
 Heptachlor Epoxlde 3/J8 0.008 0.003.0.0113 0.006 0,04
 Indeno( 1.2,J-cd)pyrene 25/38 0.33 0.01-1.0 0.16 11,-'2
 PCB.12S4 3/38 0.16 0.38-6.3 0.26 (LIR
'V      
'V PCB.1260 6/38 0.16 0.6R-10.0 0.64 0,57
 Phenanthrene 30/38 0.33 0.005-4.0 0.38 (UR
 Pyrene 32/38 0.33 0.009-4.0 0.38 07!)
 METALS (TOTAL):     
 Aluminum 38/38 0.2 13.8.32..10 585 I H1.00n
 Antimony 1/38 0.06 7.0 0.21 0,07
 Arsenic 14/38 0.01 0.42-6.6 0.6 10.1
 Barium 18/38 0.2 4.8.34 5.4 74.9
 Beryllium 4/38 O.OOS 0.57.0.94 O.OR not,
 Cadmium 3/38 O.OOS 1.1 ~.2 0.23 o,n7
 Calcium 37/38 S 20.3.93,400 11,225 245,000
 Chromium 25/38 0.01 2.0.72.9 9 17,200
 Coball 1/38 0.005 4.9 0.15 1J.f)fi
 Copper 29/38 0.025 2.1-59.7 II 2.fi50

-------
   TABLE 7-3 (CONTINUED)  
  CHEMICALS OF CONCERN FOR SOIL  
   Anodyne Inc., Site  
   North Miami Beach, Florida  
   Contract   
   Requll'id   
  Frequency or Quantltalon Limit Range or Reported Arithmetic Mean (h) 95 '7c l:pprr Confidence
 Constituent Detection (a) (CRQL) (ugll) Concentrations (ug/1) (ug/l) Limit Ie) (ugll)
 Iron 38/38 0.1 15.3.3,730 653 1.760
 Magnesium 20/38 5 40.305 72.4 .t39
 Manganese 17/38 0.015 J. 7 -689 36.1 "7."00
 Mercury 6/38 0.000 0.09.0.75 0.05 11.30
 Nickel 16/38 0.04 5.6-206 17.4 1<,I.tO
 SelenIum 18/38 0.005 0.22-0.80 0.21 HAS
 Sodium 4/38 5 134-276 21.2 16.9
N Vanadium 17/38 0.05 2.3-23.9 3.2 IJSA
I,;.J
 Zinc 38/38 0.02 0.9-291 34.7 S.U
(a) Number or samples In "blcb cbemlcal "as detected versus number or samples avaUable.
(b) Arithmetic an rage calculated by including one-balf detection Umlt ror sample points with non-detectable concentrations.
(c) 95 Percent upper confidence limit ralculated based on lognormal distribution (Gilbert., 1987).
(d) DDL Indicated tbat constituent "85 detected at a concentration below the CRQL.

-------
7.1.2
Exposure Assessment
The objective of an exposure assessment is to estLffiate the type and
magnitude of exposure to the chemicals of potential concern that
are- present or migrating from a site. This assessment was
performed for the Anodyne, Inc. site by characterizing the exposure
setting, identifying the exposure pathways, and quantifying the
exposure. The results from the exposure assessment were then
combined with chemical-specific toxlcity information to
characterize potential risks.
With regard to the exposure setting and exposure pathways, the site
is located near the center of an industrial park. Some residential
areas border the industrial park approximately 2500 feet to the
north and west of the Site. Several surface water features (i.e.,
canals and borrow pits) are located in proximity to the Site. The
closest feature is an unnamed canal located approximately 0.7 miles
to the west. Located down gradient of the Site is the Biscayne
Canal, at approximately 0.8 miles from the Site. However, due to
the flat topography and high infiltration rates of the sandy
surface soils, contaminants are not expected to be transported off-
site via overland flow to nearby residential areas nor to nearby
surface water features. The prLffiary migration pathway identified
in the risk assessment was for the groundwater. Potential
receptors of contaminated groundwater include groundwater public
drinking water supplies and nearby surface water features. The
closest drinking water supply and surface water feature are located
1.75 miles and 0.7 miles from the Site, respectively. Current
contaminant concentrations and hydrogeologic conditions, however,
indicate that contaminants levels potentially entering public
drinking water supplies or nearby surface waters would be greatly
diminished. The primary exposure route would be to current and
future users of groundwater in proximity to the Site.
Potentials for exposure are quantified by estimating the magnitude,
frequency, and duration of exposure. Pathway specific intakes were
estimated for potential groundwater exposures through innestion,
dermal contact, and in inhalation of vapors from r:onLaminated
groundwater. Potential soil exposures were estimated for ingestion
of contaminated soil, inhalation of fugitive dusts, and dermal
contact. Estimates for pathway specific intakes are provided in
Appendix D.
7.1.3
Toxicity
The toxicity assessment included both a qualitative and
quantitative evaluation of risks potentially posed by the site.
The qualitative assessment was conducted through a comparison of
Site contaminants with current regulations. Regulatory standards
considered in this evaluation included Maximum Contaminant Levels
for groundwater and Ambient Water Quality Criteria for surface
24

-------
water. The quantitative assessment was conducted through a
comparison of contaminants of concern with standard estimates of
toxicity such as Reference Dose or Reference Concentration
(RfD/RfC) and Carcinogen Slope Factor (CSF) that are based
primarily on human and animal toxicity studies. This assessment
then provided separate estimates of non-carcinogenic and
carcinogenic risks.
MCLs and AWQC for contaminants of concern are provided in Tables 7-
4 through 7-6. RiDs and CSF used in the quantitative estimate of
risks for contaminants of concern are summarized in Appendix E.
7.1.4
Risk Characterization
The risk characterization integrated the results of the exposure
and toxicity assessments into quantitative and qualitative
expressions of risk. These risks are summarized for contaminants
of concern detected in the soil and underlying groundwater at the
Site.
7.1.4.1
Noncarciongenic Risks
Noncarcinogenic risks were estimated by comparing estimated
chemical intakes to the appropriate RfD value. Exceedances ~f the
RfD were interpreted as a potential for noncarciongenic effects to
occur from exposure to the chemical evaluated. The ratio of the
chronic daily intake to the chronic RfD is referred to as .the
hazard index. A hazard index greater than one indicates that the
"threshold" for that chemical has been exceeded. Because
noncarcinogenic effects from exposure to a mixture of chemicals are
considered additive, chemical-specific hazard indices are summed to
yield an overall pathway hazard index. Noncarcinogenic risks were
estimated for contaminants present in the groundwater and soil.
Because of the ")resence of two distinct zones of contamination
within the aquifer underlying the Site, estimates of
noncarcinogenic risks were developed for the aquifer as a whole and
exclusively for the shallow zone of contamination. A summary of
pathway-specific hazard index estimates for exposures to
groundwater contaminants are provided in Table 7-7. Hazard index
estimates for the shallow groundwater are provided in Table 7-8. In
summary, the only potential exposures to the aquifer as a whole
that would result in a total hazard index greater than one is for
current and future residential scenarios. The hazard index was
estimated at 13 (Le., Adult (3) and Child (10». Similar
estimates were also made exclusively for the shallow aquifer.
Current and future residential scenarios were the only potential
exposures that resulted in a total hazard index greater than one.
The hazard index for the shallow zone was estimated at seven (i. e . ,
Adult (1) and Child (6».
25

-------
Constituent
~-~-'._--
~'OLAllLE ORGANICS
TABLE 7-4
REGULATORY STANDARDS FOR CONSTITUENTS
DETECTED IN GROUNDWATER (THREE ZONES)
Anod)'ne. Inc. Site
:'\orth ,\liami Beach. Florida
-------"-~'-.-
I,2-Dicbloroetbene (total)

Acetone

(~rtx)n Disulfide
Tc t rach loroe t he ne
Trichloroethene
Toluene
Vinyl Cbloride
Metals (Total)
Aluminum
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
CAJpper
Iron
le.1 d
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel

Zinc
Maximum
(-;round\llalcr
Concentrations
~gfL)
Federal
MaXImum
Cont3rrunanl
Levels
--~--- '-~---,-_.----
~gfL)
1,000
4~O
26
200
no
18
150
140,000
43
7
J50
44
10,200
2S
120
0.46
6J2
109
~"""""""'-""""""""--'
; 79/100Jb)'
'5 ~".,
5.,
1,000
~"-"''',y",~~-.,~~
~;,.' ~.2. ~,.-:.
FS\so':~:w~
!(}.()W.oos J>
~i~~i~1
I,JOO IT

ii~I~1.r
IJt~
2
~!;MTG,£P
';"'~"'~:(~~~~~
5,000 S
------~-- -.. ---.- -
IlonJ.a
Maximum
Cont3minant
Levels
~gfL)
: ~3"""'-
< , 3.-
f -1-:--'
t - '.- "M.-
10
~,Z,'<-A,,' ',",,'
t;...~
1,000 S
~
L300..lf,S
50
~
2
5,000 S
- -----.-----
110mb
Ground Water
Guid.1nce
(DncentratioQ.~ (a)
~!'.IL)
_.~ -..-----
~..........~
;"-»~~J,.., .'~'
700
'~
3
24
~~.~~ C"'-
-r"""",-"--""""--,--'

t,: ~:::..,~y;'..:.,-<.,->~
10
r~"~-""~'~/"."':Y
2~L~l;~'
1,000
~n..:, {~.-, ~
~~~«~
50
Wlli" '~"'r::C"'
,':P '~-W
,,",,,, "Ii -,
2
Y"'''funo~-~""
tk.,UQ<~i
5,000
IT - Treatment Technique; "at the tap" actlun level for lead and copper
P - Proposed Ma, Federal Register, 1990, 1991
S - Secondary Ma, Federal Register, 1987, 1991
(a) Rorida Department of Environmental Regulation, Bureau of Ground Water Protection, 1989
(b) cis - 1,2 - Dichloroethene/trans -1,2 - Dichloroetbene
- - - = Not Available
Re-~~'~~ria'are~e~ded
26

-------
TABLE 7-5
REGULATORY STANDARDS FOR CONSTITUENTS
DETECTED IN SHALLOW GROUNDWATER
Anod)'ne, Inc. Site
~orth Miami Beach, Florida
----    
  Fcderal Florida Florida
 Maximum Maximum Maximum Ground Water
 ShaUow Ground Water Conuminant Conuminant Guidance
 Concentrations Levels Levels Concentrations (a)
Constitue.nl (jLgIL) (jLgIL) (jL&IL) (jL&IL)
VOLATILE ORGANlCS:    
Acetonc 430   700
Tolucne 18 1,000  24
Metals (Tou))
2
KDsJt(6O[;f%'p
i!1;5OlI
1,000 S
50
2
~~I
1,000
50
2
liS1ttSQtl
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
VanadiuD
Zinc
350
44
25
0.3
630
67
110
11i~{.
1 ~100 IT
mI'~~~fihT
5,000
S
5,000 S
5,000
TT - Treatment Technique; . At the tap. action level for lead and copper
P - Proposed MQ.., Federal Register, 1990, 1991
S - Secondary MCL, Federal Register, 1987, 1991
(a) Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Bureau of Ground Water Protection, 1989
(b) cis-l,2- Dicbloroetbene/traos-l,2- Dicbloroethene
- - - = Not Available
R~;Yl~iiIL~
27

-------
TABLE 7-6
REGULATORY STANDARDS FOR CRITERIA FOR SURFACE WATER
PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH
Anodyne, Inc. Site
North Miamj Beach, Florida
Constituent
--- - -----". --
-_._---_._~-----
AMBIENT WATER QUAUn' (IUTERIA
HUMAN HEAL 111
Florida Surface Water
Quality Standarll,
Aquatic Life
Protect ion (I-»
(ug/l)
Maximum
Shallow Ground Water
Concentrations(a)
(ugiL)
--~-----
Ingestion of Fish
(ugiL)
-------
VOLATILE ORGANICS:
1,2- Dichloroethene
Acetone
Carbon Disulfide
Tolue ne
N
co
METALS (TOTAL):
Aluminum
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
7
410
2
18
1.85
424,000
140,000
41
7
1<;0
44
10,200
25
120
0.46
612
109
45,000
\41\,000 (0)
o RI1.2 (f)
50 (e)
10
1,000
.10
100
0.146
100
0.2
100
.10
~_._------------- -
(a) Shallow Ground Water was sampled at a depth of 20 ft.
(b) Florida Dcp\. of Environmental Regulations, DER 17J02.510, 1991.
(c) Dade County Code 24-11(4); limits for olher compound~ may be specified hI' the pollution conlrol officer based on !.lICS!
scientific knowledge.
(d) Trivalent Chromium
(e) Total Chromium
(f) Dependent on water hardness
- - - = Not Available
Regulatory Criteria exceeded
[1,lck ('nunty
W;ilcr OU:1lity
<;1.llhllrll, (c)
(ug.l )
';(H)
';11 (c)
~()(I
'I It{)
9c;0
I(J
I ,(J(I()

-------
TABLE 7.7
SUMMARY OF NONCARCINOGENIC RISKS
CURRENT AND FUTURE GROUNDWATER SCENARIOS
Anodyne, Inc. Site
North Miami Beach, Florida
 -~ ;rounu - Water Exposures _~oil Exposur<:s . ---., T,JI;lb
       For
Receptor Ingesti'1n Dermal Inhalation I ngestioD Dermal Inhalation Each Receptor
CURRENT POPULATION       
Residential Adult ~E+OO IE-OI 7E-02 NA NA NA ~l:.'""
Rcsidenli:lf Child IE+OI 3E-01 7E - 02 NA NA NA IE+OI
Ulility Workers NA NA NA 3E-04 2E-02 6E-04 2E-02
On - site Workers NA NA NA NA NA 2E-01 2E-O,~
FUTURE POPULATION       
Residential Adult 3E+00 IE-OI 7E -02 NA NA NA 3E~
Residential Child IE+OI 3E-01 7E-02 NA NA NA !;'
UtililY Workers NA NA NA 3E-04 2E-02 6E-04 2E-i)-
Construction Workers NA NA NA 8E-m 4E-Ol 7E-04 4E-0!
On-site Workers NA NA 9E-05 NA NA 2E - 03 2E-O~
NA = Not Applicable
29

-------
TABLE 7-X
SUMMARY OF NONCARCINOGENIC RISKS
CURRENT AND FUTURE SHALLOW GROUNDWATER SCENARIOS
Anodyne. Inc. Site
:\orth \liami Beach. Florid;.!
(;r,~unJ ~ \\;ilcr LXJ'<)su~es
I()ub
For
IZeccptOf
Ingestion
Dcrm:li
Inhabtlon
Each IZcccfJlor
CURRENT POPULAllON
--
--- -- ~--
Residential Adult
Residential Child
IE+OO
6E +00
2E-0l
4[-0l
IE-Ol
IE-Ol
1E+00
6E+00
[UTURE POPULATION
Residential Adult

Residential Child

On-site Workers
IF+OO
6E+00
NA
2E-01
4E-01
NA
lE-Ol
lE-01
IE-06
IE+OO
6E+00
1[-06
-------------
NA = Not Applicable
30

-------
Hazard indices were also calculated for potential exposures to
contaminants detected in onsite soils. Because of the industrial
setting, no scenarios for residents living onsite were calculated.
Hazard indices for potential exposures to soils were only
calculated for utility and construction workers potentially exposed
to contaminated soils through the ingestion or inhalation of
fugitive dusts, or dermal exposure. Hazard indices for these
potential exposures were all estimated to be below one.
7.1.4.2
Carcinogenic Risk
Risks from potential exposures were estimated as probabilities of
excess cancers resulting from exposures to chemicals at the Site.
Chemical specific cancer risks were estimated by multiplying the
cancer slope factOr by the chronic daily intake estimates.
According to the National Contingency Plan (NCP), EPA considers
risks within the range of 1 x 10-4 to 1 X 10-6 or one excess cancer
in a population of.ten thousand to one million an acceptable level.
EPA also uses a standard point of departure of 1 x 10-6 for
evaluating risKs to human health.
~arcinogenic risks were estimated for residents, and utility, on-
site, and construction worKers. A summary of the carcinogenic
risKs is provided in Table 7-9. In summary, the only potential
exposure that resulted in an unacceptable risk was for current and
future users of contaminated groundwater for potable purposes.
Individuals exposed to contaminated groundwater through ingestion
and inhalation of volatile contaminants may experience an excess
cancer risK of 1 X 10-3. Other routes of human exposure to
contaminated groundwater and to contaminated soil did not indicate
and unacceptable level of carcinogenic risk.
7.2
Environmental Assessment
The objectives of the environmental assessment included the
determination of values or uses of natural resources potentially
threatened by the Site, identify and quantify environmental
impacts, and assess the significance of environmental impacts. As
discussed earlier, this Site is located in an industrial/commercial
setting and was expected to have limited environmental impacts.
The primary habitats identified at the Site and surrounding areas
are landscaped areas and vacant lots. Canals in proximity to the
Site also serve as habitats. vegetation identified includes a
variety of grasses, shrubs and trees in the landscaped areas. Some
aquatic vegetation was also observed along the banks of the canals.

No occurrences of Federally or State protected species or habitats
were identified for the Site. There were, however, reported
occurrences of the West Indian manatee and gopher tortoise, both
protected species, within a two mile radius of the Site. The
31

-------
------------
!{cceptor
TABLE 7-9
SUMMARY OF CARCINOGENIC RISKS
CURRENT AND FlITURE GROUNDWATER SCENARIOS
Anodyne, Inc. Site
!\orth Miami Reach, Florida
-- ---~- ------~-------~~--
( I, \ 11111J -~ \\,Ite 1_[ \T'\Js~r~~-
---- - -----~--
! n!:cS(lon
CURRENT POPULATION
-- ---------~
Residential Adult

Utility Workers

On-site Workers
FU"llJRE POPULA'llON
- --- - ----- -- -
I{csidcntial Adult
Utility Workers
Coostruction Workers
On-site Workers
--- -----
NA ::: Not AppliC4ble
IE-O'
NA
NA
IF-m
:'-iA
NA
NA
De rmal
2E-05
NA
NA
2E-05
NA
NA
NA
Inbalation
3[-04
NA
NA
1 E - 04
NA
NA
3[-07
----
~------- --~ -- --- -- -
-----~~\~~\T0"-U re s-
!,)(Jb
For
1 ngcstlon
Dermal
InhJI3tlon
E.Jch Rcccp[n[
------ ~-----
NA
6E-C9
NA
NA
4E-06
NA
j-.;A
2E - 10
3 E - 09
11--0'
4E - Uh
3E-O'l
NA NA NA 11:-\)'
6 E - 09 4[-06 2[-10 4E - ()I)
1 [ - 07 1 E - 04 5 [ - 09 lE-()~
NA NA 3 [ - 09 W-(17
32
~- -- ----- --------

-------
Burrowing owl is listed by the State of Florida as a "Species of
Special Concern".
As shown in Table 7-10, a comparison of groundwater contaminant
concentrations underlying the Site to Ambient Water Quality
Criteria and Florida Surface Water Quality Standards indicates that
there were some exceedances of the criteria for some metals. This
is assuming, however, that there would be no attenuation or
dilution of these metals prior to reaching nearby water bodies.
Potential risks to organisms inhabiting nearby surface water would
be dependent on the concentration of contaminants actually entering
the canals. Because of the distant location of the nearest. water
body (0.7 miles), the upgradient location of the water body, and
flat groundwater gradient, it is unlikely that Site related
contaminants would pose a significant threat to organisms
inhabiting nearby water bodies.
Potential exposures to contaminated soils at the Site are not
expected to pose a significant risk to nearby terrestrial
organisms. The aerial extent of soil contamination at the Site is
comparatively small compared to adjacent uncontaminated areas.
Moreover, the contamination, although elevated above background
levels, is not present at levels that would be expected to pose a
significant threat to terrestrial organisms.
7.3
Baseline Risk Assessment Snmm",rv
The Baseline Risk Assessment for the Anodyne, Inc. Site indicates
that there is an unacceptable degree of risk to human health from
exposures to contaminated groundwater at the Site. Potential
exposures include ingestion of contaminated groundwater and
inhalation of contaminant vapors from the groundwater. The risks
are primarily due the presence of elevated levels of metals in the
shallow groundwater zone and chlorinated volatile organic compounds
in the deep groundwater zone. Assessment of noncarcinogenic risks
for current and future users of groundwater estimated a hazard
index of 13. Assessment of carcinogenic risks for current and
future users of groundwater estimated an excess cancer risks of 10
X 10-3. Continued releases of hazardous substances from this Site,
if not addressed by implementing the response action selected in
this ROD, may present and imminent and substantial endangerment to
human health and welfare.
Other types of groundwater exposures did not indicate the presence
of unacceptable levels of noncarcinogenic or carcinogenic risks.
Likewise, assessment of potential exposures to contaminated soils
at the Site do not indicate an unacceptable level of risk to human
health. Finally, as discussed in the preceding sections, the Site
is not expected to pose a significant threat to the environment.
33

-------
TABLE 7.)(1
COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM SHALLOW ZONE GROUNDWATER
CONCENTRATIONS TO AMBIENT WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
Anodyne, Inc. Site
North Miami Beach, Florida
-------- -
Indicator
Constituen~
Maximum Shallow
Ground Water (a)
Concentrations (ugjL)
Florida Surface \\'ater
Quality Standards (e)
Aquatic Life Protection (ug, 1 )
Background Shallow
Ground Water (b)
Concentralions (ug,L)
----, ----
VOLATILE ORGANICS:
1,2 - Dichlaroethene (talal)
Acetone
Carbon Disulfide
Toluene
7
4.\0
2
18
4\0
I
I
w
J:-.
r-1ETALS (TOTAL):
Aluminum
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
140,000
41
7
140
44
10,200
25
120
0.46
612
109
I,QOO
10
7
5
11
1,200
11
120
0.1
R
2\
'. '.., ~." ,,'''' "'J1' ;<\,.,.". ,
~ ; ~.' ,,';' 0.8 ...t.(d).,
~::,,~'i:~'~:::~~>:::<->" ::..- :-: ,>. -.
, " SO(e) .
,.' .; :;,:~~, ."

10
~ ',"" ~" ''0.2'

100
'30'
(a) From wells designated "A" zone wells
(b) Results for MW-01A
(c) Florida Dcp!. of Environmental Regulations, DER 17:
(d) Dependent on water hardness
(e) Total Chromium
- - A WQC not availahle or those compounds
~ediXtA~ {or the: pr'oiec&o of aquatic life
,.'~A>5
.\02. 510, 1991
\'1 \I;, t;c life,:
Iresh,-,;, tu
1\(\11\
Freshwater
Chr,)n;c
11 ,hi I"
! 7, S(III
9,()(1I1
3D
1f)
18
I,()()()
1.1
11
12
1,000
3,2
1"
2.J
O.!H
160
11()
1,.J11i1
I ~(I

-------
8.0
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
Based on the results of the RI and Baseline Risk Assessment, EPA
concluded that former operations conducted at the Anodyne, Inc.
facility have resulted in the contamination of soil in proximity to
the facility and the underlying Biscayne aquifer. Evaluation of
potential risks indicate that current and future exposures to
contaminants in the groundwater pose an unacceptable level of risk
to human health. Levels for various contaminants also exceed
Federal and State drinking water standards. Although the soil
contamination does not pose a significant threat to humao he~lth or
the environment through ingestion or dermal contact, the Agency
believes that removal of the soil will facilitate the groundwater
restoration.
Based on these findings, a series of Remedial Alternatives were
developed to mitigate the threat to human health and the
environment. These alternatives are designed to adhere to ARARs
and be protective of human health and the environment through the
reduction in toxicity, mobility and/or volume of waste and reduce
the short-term and long-term potential for exposures to
contaminated media during the implementation of the actions.
The scope of each of the potential remedial alternatives are
presented in the following along with a discussion of ARARs and
cleanup criteria for each alternative. As discussed in Section
6.3.2 of this document, there are two separate and distinct zones
of contamination at the Site. Zone 1 consists of metals
contaminated soil and groundwater ranging in depth to approximately
25 feet bls and expands over an area less than one acre in size.
Zone 2 consists of chlorinated VOCs contaminated groundwater that
ranges in depth from about 55 to 95+ feet bls and expands
horizontally over an area. approximately 21 acres in size.
Because of the separate and distinct zones of contaminations,
active forms of remedial action will be presented according to each
zone of contamination. Alternatives that do not provide for-active
cleanup are not separated and apply collectively to both zones of
contamination. Finally, cost estimates were developed for each of
the alternatives based on a 30-year present worth cost analysis.
8.1
Scope of Alternatives
Remedial alternatives developed for this Site include No Action for
baseline comparison purposes and long-term groundwater monitoring.
These alternatives apply to both zones of contamination. For Zone
1 of the contamination, two alternatives were developed that
address the potential threat to human health posed by the
contaminated soil and groundwater. Zone 2 includes one alternative
that actively addresses the threat to human health posed by the
35

-------
groundwater contamination. A summary of the general components of
the alternatives, according to each zone of contamination, is
provided in Table 8-1.
8.1.1
Alternative 1 - No Action
The no action alternative, as required by the NCP, is used as a
baseline for comparing other alternatives. This alternative was
developed for both the shallow and deep zones of cu~tamination at
the Site. Under this alternative, EPA would take no further action
to minimize the impact soil and groundwater contamination could
potentially have on the area. Moreover, groundwater contamination
would be expected to continue to expand. There is no cost
associated with this alternative since no additional activities
would be conducted.
8.1.2
Alternative 2 - Long-term Groundwater Monitoring with
Institutional Controls
This alternative would consist of long-term monitoring of the
groundwater, and would monitor the movement and change in
contaminant concentrations in both the shallow and deep portions of
the aquifer. The alternative would include the installation and
monitoring of three new wells along with monitoring of the eighteen
existing wells. The alternative would not actively achieve cleanup
goals through treatment, but the toxicity and mobility of the
contaminants would be monitored over time. Groundwater monitoring
estimates are based on a 30-year monitoring period.
Al though the FS did not contemplate the use of institutional
controls for this alternative, EPA determined that this alternative
should be expanded to include institutional controls in the form of
deed notices for properties impacted by Site related contaminants.
The imposition of deed notices would further restrict the potential
for human exposures to contaminated groundwater.
The total present worth cost for this alternative, including design
and construction costs and operation and maintenance costs is
estimated at $1,470,000. It is estimated that this could be
implemented in approximately 3 months. Actual cost of design and
construction is estimated at $28,000 and annual operation and
maintenance costs are estimated at $89,000.
8.1.3
Alternative 3 (Zone 1)
Groundwater Attenuation
- Soil Excavation with Shallow
Alternative 3 was developed exclusively for the shallow zone of
contamination and is designed to mitigate the potential threat to
human health posed by the metals contaminated groundwater. This
36

-------
TABLE H-I
SUMMARY OF MAJOR COMPONENTS OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
Anodyne, Inc. Site
North Miami Beach, Florida
I RESPONSE ACTION I  ALTERNATIVES  I
  BOTH ZONES ZONE I ZONE 2
  I 2 3 4 5
TECHNOLOGY DESCR IPTION No Action Long-term Soil/Shallow Soil/Shallow Ueep
   Monitoring Ground Water Ground Water Ground
      Water
No Action  .    
Removal Soils to Kiln and Replacemenl   . . 
Recovery or Groundwater via Wells    . .
.     
Air Stripping with Air Treatment     .
Filtration     . .
Chemical Precipitation    . 
Groundwater Monitoring  . . . .
Di.'iposal via Injection Wells    . .
. ,

-------
alternative includes the excavation and offsite treatment of
contaminated soils and long-term monitoring of groundwater to
ensure compliance with MCL's through natural attenuation and
dispersion of the metals. It is anticipated that the excavation of
the contaminated soils would facilitate the natural attenuation and
dispersion of the metals groundwater contamination.
In general, contaminated soils would be excavated to the water
table (i. e., 5 to 7 feet below land surface). This depth is
generally consistent with the depth of soil contamination.
Although some soil contamination may extend below the water table,
it is considered negligible and would not warrant dewatering and
excavation below the water table. Moreover, high aquifer
permeability would make dewatering technically difficult and would
be costly with marginal benefits. The excavation would generally
extend outward from the building to a point where contaminant
concentrations are achieved for three indicator metals.
These metals are among the original list of contaminants of concern
and were selected on the basis that they should afford the highest
degree of protection to the underlying groundwater. Results from
the risk assessment indicated that nickel posed the greatest degree
of non-carcinogenic risk to human health through the ingestion of
contaminated groundwater. Two additional metals, chromium and
lead, were detected in the soil and groundwater with a relatively
high degree of frequency and exhibited the highest concentrations
and persistence in the environment. Cleanup levels for these three
metals contaminants are based on background levels calculated
during the RI. Cleanup levels for the metals are estimated as
follows: chromium (total) - 11 mg/kg; lead - 31 mg/kg, and nickel -
o mg/kg. An estimate of the lateral extent of the soil removal is
shown in Figure 8-1.
Based on the extent of lateral and vertical excavation discussed
above, it is estimated that approximately 5,000 cubic yards of
contaminated soil would be excavated for disposal. The excav~tion
would be backfilled to the natural land elevation with clean,
native material. Contaminated soils would be transported off-site
for disposal. Due to the relatively low levels of soil
contamination, the excavated soils would most likely not be
considered hazardous pursuant to the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) and would be disposed of at a commercially
operated cement kiln for use as the base material in the production
of portland cement. This disposal process would be similar to
conventional solidification/stabilization treatment processes. In
essence, once the cement completed the curing process the metals
would be bound within the cement matrix and would be rendered
immobile.
Pursuant to Florida ~dministrative Code (FAC) 17-775, criteria have
been established for the disposal of contaminated soils at cement
kilns. Maximum allowable concentrations for heavy metals in soils
38

-------
\.oJ
\D
.,
oi:.
'!j.
~-:~;
"
..J
C
~
1M
o
in
--
~
SIDEW~LK
----------------~


!SPHALT I

! PAv(D "REI i

I
, I
,

I

I
~- PROPER 1Y LINE

I

I
,

- - , I

I I
I I

i I

: I
, I

! I

I I

~~~--j
CONCRE T(
LOADING
RAIoIPS
OCCUPIED
BUILDING
SOIL TO BE EXCA VA TEl), REMOVED
AND REPLACED THESE AREAS
---
CONCRETE BLOCK TREATMENT
ENCLOSURE TO BE REMOVED
SCALf IN rEf J
L-
o
80
I
160
AL lERNAllVE 3 - SplL REMOVAL PlAN
FIGURE 8-1
ANODYNE, INC SrTE
NORTH MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA

-------
are as follows: arsenic - 10 mg/kg; chromium - 50 mg/kg; selenium
- 389 mg/kg; barium - 4940 mg/kg; lead - 108 mg/kg; sliver - 353
mg/kg; cadmium - 39 mg/kg; mercury - 23 mg/kg. Soil concentrations
identified during the RI are below the maximum allowable
concentrations and, therefore, disposal at the cement kiln would be
in compliance with FDl:R disposal regu:ations. Should, however,
during the excavation of the contaminated soils, "hot spots" of
soil contamination be identified that are not in compliance with
Federal, State and local regulations, other forms of disposal would
be employed.
Restoration of the shallow groundwater would rely on natural
attenuation and dispersion of the metals contamination.
Calculations from the FS indicate that once the contaminated soils
are removed and no longer pose a potential future threat to the
groundwater, metals present in the groundwater would naturally
attenuate and disperse to levels below MCLs in less than ten years.
Estimates of the natural attenuation were developed using a three-
dimension_i reathematical dispersion model. EPA would monitor the
progress of the natural aquifer restoration using the Bame three
indicator chemicals as identified for the soil. MCLs for chromium
and nickel are both 100 ug/l. For lead, the treatment standard of
15 ug/l would be used to monitor the progress.
The total present worth cost for this alternative is estimated at
$1,028,000. It is estimated that implementation of this remedy
would take approximately 18 months. Actual design and construction
costs for this remedial action are estimated at $442,000. Annual
operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $38,000.
8.1.4
Alternative 4 (Zone 1) - Soil Excavation and Shallow
Groundwater Recovery, Treatment, and Disposal
Alternative 4 also applies exclusively to the shallow zone of
groundwater contamination. This alternative is the same as
Alternative 3 with respect to excavation and treatment of the
contaminated soils. It is anticipated that the excavation of the
contaminated soils would facilitate the remediation of the metals
groundwater contamination. However, this alternatives would
incorporate remedial measures that would actively reduce
contaminant concentrations in the shallow groundwater through
pumping and treating. The contaminated groundwater would be
collected through a series of recovery wells and treated onsite by
chemical precipitation of the metals. The treated groundwater
would be returned to the aquifer onsite via injection wells. If
during the remedial design of this alternative a determination is
made that injection of the treated effluent is no longer feasible,
an equivalent discharge method would be developed.
With regard to the cleanup criteria, this alternative would use the
same indicator chemicals identified in Alternative 3 for the soil
40

-------
and groundwater. For the soil remediation, cleanup would be as
follows: chromium - 11 mg/kg; lead - 31 mg/kg; and nickel - 0
mg/kg. For the groundwater, cleanup levels would be as follows:
chromium - 100 ug/l; lead - 15 ug/l; and nickel - 100 ug/1.
background (or the State standard of 200 ug/l, which ever is
higher) .
The total present worth cost for this remedy, based on a standard
period of 30-years of operation and maintenance, is estimated at
$28,246,000. However, modeling estimates from the FS predict that
the metals contamination would be reduced to levels within the
cleanup criteria within two years of actively pumping and"treating
the shallow contamination. Using the predicted cleanup time of two
years, the total present worth cost would be $5,882,000.
Implementation of this remedy is estimated at 18 to 24 months. The
actual costs for design and construction of this remedy is
estimated at $2,417,000. Annual operation and maintenance costs
are estimated at $1,680,000.
8.1.5
Alternative 5 (Zone 2)
Treatment and Disposal
- Deep Groundwater
Recovery,
This alternative is designed to exclusively address the threat to
human health posed by the deep zone of groundwater contamination.
Results from the RI indicate that a large plume of VOC groundwater
contamination extends from approximately 55 to 95+ feet beneath the
Site. This plume also encompasses an area approximately 21 acres
including portions of the former Anodyne, Inc. facility. and
numerous parcels of land down gradient of the former facility.
Because some of the monitoring wells at the Site installed to
define the boundaries of the plume with regard to depth and
horizontal extent still indicate the presence of some contaminants
at levels above MCL's, the full extent of the plume may be larger
than currently estimated and would need to be verified as part of
this alternative. The scope of this alternative includes the
collection and treatment of contaminated groundwater with onsite
disposal of the treated effluent.
To maximize the efficiency of the recovery system, the remedy.would
be implemented using a phased approach. The initial groundwater
extraction system would consist of one recovery well located near
the center of the VOC contaminant plume. Based on the extent of
the capture zone, additional recovery wells would be installed, as
needed, to capture the full extent of the VOC plume. The
contaminated water would be transferred through a common header to
an equalization storage tank for treatment.

Treatment of the contaminated water would be accomplished using a
well demonstrated technology known as air stripping. This
technology uses air to volatilize and remove organic compounds from
the water. The volatile organics are either emitted into the
41

-------
ambient air, or if necessary to comply with air quality standards,
further treated through fume incineration or carbon adsorption.
The air stripping system would be designed to reduce effluent
contaminant levels to within MCL's for four primary groundwater
contaminants. These contaminants were contained within the
original list of chemicals of concern, but based on the results of
the risk assessment were determined to pose the greatest risk to
human health through the potential ingestion and inhalation of
these contaminants. The cleanup criteria for the deep groundwater
remediation are as follows: tetrachloroethene 3 ug/l; 1,2-
dichloroethene - 70 ug/l; trichloroethene - 3 ug/l; and vinyl
chloride - 1 ug/l. A representative background concentration will
be established during the remedial design. The design of the air
stripping system would also ensure that emissions from the
stripping towers would comply with Federal, State and Local
regulations.
After treatment of the water to attain MCLs, the water would be
return to the underlying Biscayne aquifer. Recycling of the
treated water back into the aquifer is preferred to surface water
discharge to reduce "net losses" of water from the aquifer and
intrusion of saltwater from nearby bays and the ocean. The
disposal system would rely on a series of injection wells. Because
of the large volume of water requiring disposal, the treated water
will need to be injected into the aquifer under pressure as opposed
to gravity filtration. Moreover, the treated effluent would be
injected into the aquifer in a manner that would not be disruptive
to the recovery system. Should, however, during the design of this
alternative injection be determined to no longer be feasible, an
equivalent discharge method would be developed.
A long-term groundwater monitoring program would also be
implemented to monitor the progress of the cleanup. This monitor
system would rely on the current groundwater monitoring wells and
newly installed wells to maximize the effectiveness of the
groundwater monitoring system.
In addition to the collection, treatment, and disposal of
contaminated groundwater and long-term groundwater monitoring, this
alternative includes several other components. Prior to the design
of this remedy, additional field activities would be conducted to
verify the horizontal and vertical extent of the VOC groundwater
plume and to assess site-specific hydraulic properties of the
aquifer. Additional deep groundwater monitoring wells would be
installed and groundwater samples collected for chemical analyses
to verify the extent of the VOC groundwater plume. As a minimum,
an aquifer test of sufficient duration, would need to be conducted
to obtain a representative estLmate of the hydraulic conductivity
of the aquifer contaminated by VOCs. This effort would also
attempt to assess contaminant response under actual pumping
conditions. Effluent from the aquifer test would need to be
42

-------
disposed of in a manner consistent with applicable Federal, State,
and local regulations.
As a final component of this remedy, the injection well south of
former Anodyne, Inc. facility would be abandoned in a manner
consistent with Federal, State and local regulations. It is
anticipated at this time that VOC contaminated soil at the bottom
of the injection well will not pose a significant Eource of future
groundwater contamination and will not require removal prior to
abandonment of the well. Moreover, this soil contamination would
be well within the zone of capture for the recovery system and any
contaminants released from the soil would be co~lected ana treated
as part of the remedial action for Zone 2.
Assuming that four recovery wells will ultimately be needed to
capture the full extent of the plume, the total present worth cost
of this alternative is estimated at $19,698,000. It is anticipated
that this alternative will take approximately 18 to 24 months to
design and construct. Actual costs for design and construction of
the remedy are estimated at $1,290,000. Annual operation and
maintenance costs are estimated at $1,193,000.
9.0
SUMMARY OF COHPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
This section provides the basis for determining which alternative
provides the "best balance" of trade-offs with respect to criteria
in CERCLA. A summary of the evaluation criteria are provided on in
Table 9-1. The following is an evaluation and comparison of. the
alternates in light of these criteria. Because of the separate and
distinct zones of contamination and alternatives specific to each
zone, this evaluation will be conducted separately for Zone 1 and
Zone 2 of the contamination.
9.1
Overall protection of Human Health and the Environment
This criterion addresses whether each alternative provides adequate
protection of human health and the environment and describes how
risks are eliminated, reduced, or controlled through treatment,
engineering controls, and/or institutional controls.
ZODe 1: Alternatives 3 and 4 would remove the source of shallow
groundwater contamination and provide for the restoration of the
shallow aquifer. Alternative 3 would rely on natural attenuation
and dispersion, while Alternative 4 would rely on active
restoration of the shallow groundwater contamination through
pumping and treating. Although alternatives 3 and 4 would
eventually provide equal protection of human health and the
environment, Alternative 4 would achieve protectiveness more
quickly. Alternative 2 would provide protection of human health
through the use of institutional controls to restrict human
43

-------
,
TABLE 9-1
EV ALUA TION CRITERIA FOR REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
Anodyne, Inc. Site
North Miami Beach, Florida
Threshold Requirements
Overall Protection of Hwoan Health and the Environment Assesses degm to which alternative eLiminate~,
reduces, or control" health and environmental thruts through treatment, engineering methods, or institutional
controls.
Comptiance wjth ARARs: Assesses compliance wjth Federal and State requirement".
Primary BaJanciOf. Criteria
Cost: Weighing of benefit" of a remedy ~inst the cost of implementation.
Implementability: Refers to tbe techniail feasibility and administrative ease of a remedy.
Sbort-Term Effectiveness: Lengtb or time for remedy to acbieve protection and potential impact of
construction and implementation of remedy.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence: Degree to whicb a remedy can maintain protfi:tion of health and
tbe environment once cleanup goals are met.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment Refers to expfi:ted performance of the
treatment tfi:bnologies to lessen harmful nature, movement, or amount of contaminants.
ModifyillE Criteria
Slak Acceptance: Consideration of State's opinion of the preferred alternative.
Community AcceptaDtt: Consideration of public comments on tbe Proposed Plan.
Source: 40 CFR 3OO.43O(e)(9) (1990) or 55 FR 8849.
44

-------
exposure to contaminated groundwater, as long as the institutional
controls remain in place. Alternative 1 would not include any type
of active cleanup to reduce the risk levels and would, therefore,
not be protective of human health.
Zone 2: Alternative 5 would include active remediation of the deep
groundwater contamination through pumping and treating and would
provide tha greatest degree of protection of human health and the
environment through actual reduction in contaminant concentrations.
As discusses above, Alternative 2 would provide protection to human
health by restricting assess to the contaminated groundwater
through the use of institutional controls. However, Alternative 1
would include no further action and would, therefore, provide no
protection to human health.
9.2
Compliance with ARARB
Section 121 of CERCLA incorporates in to law the CERCLA compliance
policy, which specifies that Superfund remedial actions must meet
Federal and State standards, criteria, a~d requirements that are
determined to be legally applicable or relevant and appropriate for
a site. State standards must be incorporated if they are
promulgated, determined to be more stringent than federal
standards, and are identified in a timely manner.
Applicable requirements are those standards, criteria or
limitations promulgated under federal or state law that
specifically address a hazardous substance, pollutant, contaminant,
remedial action, location or other circumstances at a CERCLA site.
Relevant and appropriate requirements are those that, while not
applicable, still address problems or situations sufficiently
similar to those encountered at the site that their use is well
suited to the particular site.

Zone 1: Alternative 4 would include active remediation of the
groundwater and would be designed to comply with Federal and State
drinking water standards. Alternative 3 would be designed to allow
for attainment of the KCL' s through natural attenuation of the
groundwater contaminants. Alternatives 3 and 4 also include the
disposal of contaminated soils from the onsite excavation.
Offsite, or if necessary onsite, disposal of contaminated soils
would both comply wi~~ Federal and State ARARS, and to the extent
practicable, local disposal regulations. Alternative 2 would
monitor the potential compliance with ARARs. Alternative 1 would
. not comply with Federal and State drinking water standards (i.e.,
KCLs) .
Zone 21 Alternative 5 would provide for the active remediation of
the groundwater and would be designed to comply with Federal and
State drinking water standards. Alternative 2 would monitor the
potential compliance with ARARs. However, Alternative 1 would not
include any action and, thereby, not comply with ARARs.
45

-------
9.3
Lonq-term Effectiveness and Permanence
Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers to the ability of an
alternative to maintain reliable protection of human health and the
environment over tLme, once cleanup levels have been met.
Zone 1: Al ternatives 4 would provide for the recovery of the
plume and reduction in risks on a long-term basis through
treatment. Groundwater modeling estimates from the FS indicate
that groundwater cleanup times for Alternatives 3 and 4 are both
less than ten years and are within the cleanup time of the overall
site. Because of the greater extent of groundwater contamination
within the deep portion of the aquifer, cleanup of the deep portion
of the aquifer is expected to take significantly longer than
cleanup of the shallow aquifer. As a result, no distinction is
made between Alternatives 3 and 4 with regard to long-term
effectiveness and permanence. Alternative 2 would not provide for
active remediation, and therefore, would not provide for a long-
term nor permanent reduction in risks to human health.
Zone 2: Alternative 5 would provide for the recovery of the plume
and reduction in risks on a long-term basis through treatment.
As discussed above, Alternative 2 would not provide for a long-term
nor permanent reduction in risks to human health.
9.4
Reduction of Toxicity- Mobilitv. or Volume throuqh Treatment
This is the anticipated performance of the treatment technologies
an alternative may employ. The degree of reduction of toxicity,
mobility or volume through treatment varies depending on the
methods of groundwater extraction and treatment employed.
Zone 1: Alternatives 3 and 4 would be designed to remove the
source of shallow groundwater contamination and reduce the TMV of
soil contamination. Moreover, both alternatives would res'llt in
the reduction of the TMV of the shallow plume of contamination.
Alternative 2 would not reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume (TMV)
of the contaminants through treatment.
Zone 2: Alternative 5 would be designed to reduce the toxicity,
mobility, and volume of the VOC groundwater plume through capture
and treatment. This would result in the reduction of the TMV of
the deep groundwater plume of contamination. As indicated above,
Alternative 2 would not reduce the TMV of the contaminants through
treatment.
9.5
Short-Tera Effectiveness
This criterion refers to the period of time needed to completely
achieve protection of human health and any adverse impacts on human
46

-------
'-
r
health and the environment that may be posed during the
construction and implementation period and until cleanup objectives
are achieved. The following factors were used to evaluate the
short-term effectiveness of each alternative: protection of the
community during remedial actions, protection of workers during
remedial actions, environmental impacts from implementation of
alternatives, and the time until remedial action objectives are
met.
Zone 1: Alternatives 3 and 4 could potentially result in some
short-term risks to workers and the community during the excavation
and transportation of the contaminated soil. Alternative 4' also
involves the construction of a groundwater recovery, treatment, and
disposal system that could potentially result in some short-term
risks to workers. These risks could be minimized through the
implementation of an appropriate health and safety program.
Alternative 2 could result in some short-term risks to workers
health during the installation of the new monitoring wells, but
would provide no protection of human health.
Zone 2: Alternative 5 involves the construction of groundwater
recovery, treatment, and disposal systems that may result in some
short-terms risks to workers, but should have the most rapid
achievement in protection of human health. Any short-term risks to
workers involved in construction of the remedy would be reduced
through implementation of a health and safety program. As
discussed above, Alternative 2 could result in some short-term
risks to workers health during the installation of the new
monitoring wells.
9.6
Tmnlementabilitv
This criterion refers to the technical and administrative
feasibility of an alternative, including the availability of goods
and services neede~ to implement the solution. .
Zone 1: Alternative 2 can be easily implemented and maintained.
Provided Alternatives 3 and 4 meet acceptance concentrations limits
for the cement kiln, these alternatives are easily implemented.
Alternatives 3 and 4 would result in a reduction of groundwater
contamination to levels within KCLs. However, since Alternative 4
would require the design, installation, and maintenance of a
recovery, treatment, and disposal system, Alternative 3 would be
more easily implemented since no design, construction, or
maintenance of a recovery system would be required.
Zone 21 Alternative
Alternative 5 would
other alternatives
protection.
2 can be easily implemented and maintained.
require greater effort to implement thari the
but would achieve a greater degree of
47

-------
9.7
Cost
The following alternatives were evaluated on a total cost basis
using the estimated capital cost to perform the remedial work and
the present worth cost for operation and maintenance costs. The
total present worth- cost was estimated using a five percent
discount rate over a 30-year period. A comparison of cost among
the alternatives is shown in Figure 9-1.
Zone 1: The total present worth cost of Alternative 3 is
estimated at $1,028,000. Alternative 2 represents monitoring for
both zones of the aquifer and has an estimated present worth costs
of $1,470,000. Based on a cleanup time of two years, the present
worth cost of Alternative 4 is marginally higher than the other
alternatives with an estimated cost of $5,882,000.
Zone 2: The total present worth cost for long-term groundwater
monitorinq (Alternative 2) was estimated at $1,470,000. The
present worth cost for active pumping and treating of the VOC
groundwater contamination (Alternative 5) is estimated at
$19,698,000.
9.8
State Acceptance
The State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, has
been consulted in the development of this document. Based on
conversations, FDER supports Alternatives 4 and 5 which are
designed to pump and treat the groundwater to reduce contaminant
levels to within Federal and State drinking water standards. EPA
anticipates State concurrence with this document.
9.9
Community Acceptance
EPA solicited public comment on the remedial alternatives discussed
in Section 8.0 of this document during the period of December 8,
1992 through January 7, 1993. No comments were received from
communities in proximity to the Site. The only comments received
were from legal counsel for a Potentially Responsible Party, legal
counsel for an adjacent property owner, and a local water works
director. None of the commenters opposed the cleanup strategy
proposed by EPA. One commenter did, however, propose an alternate
approach to addressing the VOC contaminated portion of the aquifer.
EPA will explain how it considered comments in the Responsiveness
Summary included as Appendix A of this ROD.

Based on comments received from FDER, EPA published a subsequent
announcement that notified the public of potential amendments to
the proposed cleanup alternatives. Public comment on these
amendments was solicited during the period April 29, 1993 through
May 28, 1993. The majority of the comments were received from
48

-------
~
\C
:;
,
,"'. .
30,000,000
25,000,000
20,000.000
~
8 15,000.000
10,000.000
5,000.000
o
1
2
. Total Present Worth Costs
~ Capital Costs
~ Annual O&M Costs
3
Alternatives
5
4
ALTERNATIVES COST COMPARISON
FIGURE 9-1
ANODYNE, INC SITE
NORTH MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA

-------
r-----
legal counsel for two of the PRPs. The attorneys commented that
active restoration of the shallow groundwater through pumping and
treating was not needed to be protective of human health and the
environment. The attorneys also commented that State secondary
drinking water standards should not be applied as groundwater
cleanup criteria for this site.
10.0
SELECTED REMEDY
Based upon consideration of the requirements of CERCLA, the NCP,
the detailed analysis of alternatives and public and -state
comments, EPA has selected a combination of remedial alternatives.
This combination of alternatives was selected since it is
protective of human health, complies with ARARs, and provides the
best balance among the alternatives with regard to effectiveness,
implementability, and cost.
The first component of the remedy will serve to control the
potential threats posed by Zone 1 of the contamination (i. e. ,
metals contaminated soil and shallow groundwater). The second
component of this remedy will address the threats posed by Zone 2
of the contamination (i.e., deep VOC contaminated groundwater).
Both components of this remedy will attempt to restore Site related
contaminated portions of the Biscayne aquifer to its beneficial
uses. At the completion of this remedy, groundwater contaminants
levels will be within Federal and State MCLs which should result in
an acceptable level of risks to human health (i. e., 10-6). The
total present worth cost of the selected remedy, (Alternatives 4
and 5) is estimated at $20,726,000. However, this estimate
assumes that natural attenuation of the groundwater contaminants
will be adequate and that pumping and treating of the shallow
groundwater will not be necessary. In the event that pumping and
treating of the shallow groundwater is required to reduce
contaminant levels, the total cost of remediation of the site could
increase to $25,580,000. The major components of the selected
remedy are described, according each zone of contamination, in the
following sections.
10.1
Zone 1 Soil Excavation and Shallow Groundwater
Recoverv. Treatment and. Disposal (~ternative 4)
Implementation of this component of the remedy will include the
excavation and off-site disposal of contaminated soils along the
west and south side of the former Anodyne, Inc. facility. As
necessary, the shallow plume of metals contamination will be
collected for treatment and onsite disposal. EPA estimates that
the associated shallow groundwater contamination will be reduced
through natural attenuation to levels below MCL's in less than ten
years.
50

-------
However, the remediation time required for the deep groundwater
contamination (Zone 2) is still expected to far exceed the cleanup
period for the shallow groundwater contamination (Zone 1). With
regard to the probability of this portion of the aquifer being used
as a potable source in the future, Dade County development plans
demonstrate that wellfields in coastal areas will be gradually
phased-out with the construction of new wellfields further inland,
away from saltwater int~usion.
Because of these considerations, EPA believes that it would be
appropriate to first conduct pre-design studies for this
alternative to monitor the shallow groundwater contaminatlon for a
sufficient period of time to refine the plume boundary and to
verify the modeling predictions for the natural attenuation of the
plume. This would be accomplished by determining the full extent
of the metals contamination plume during the remedial design and
then periodically monitor the contaminant levels to verify that the
levels were decreasing through natural attenuation as predicted in
the FS. However, if after a sufficient period of natural
attenuation, (i.e. 2 to 6 years as estimated in the FS) there has
not been a reduction in metals contamination, EPA will consult with
FDER to determine if additional monitoring is appropriate or if the
pre-design studies should be concluded and the Remedial Design and
Remedial Action be initiated for the groundwater recovery,
treatment, and disposal system.
10. 1. 1
Source Control
Source control for the Zone 1 remediation will address the metals
contaminated soils at the Site. Although the soils are not
considered hazardous pursuant to RCRA regulations nor do they pose
a risk to human health, they may pose a long-term threat to the
shallow groundwater. Excavation of these soils are expected to
facilitate the natural restoration of the'shallow groundwater.
10.1.1.1
Kajor Components of Source Control
Source control includes
backfilling of excavations.
the following.
excavation, offsite disposal, and
The major components are outlined in
a)
Excavation of contaminated soils along the west and south
sides of the former Anodyne, Inc. building. The vertical
extent of the excavation will be determined by depth of
the water table which is generally consistent with the
depth of contamination. The lateral extent of the
excavation will extend outward from the building to a
point where contaminant levels for three indicator
chemicals (i.e., chromium, lead, nickel) are within the
site-specific cleanup criteria. The criteria are based
51

-------
on background levels established for the Site and are
specified in subsequent sections. It is estimated that
approximately 5,000 cubic yards of contaminated soils
will be excavated for disposal. A Figure denoting the
expected extent of excavation is pre6~nted in Section
8.1. 3.
b)
Transportation of contaminated soils to a cement kiln for
treatment.
c)
Backfilling of the excavations with clean native- material
and re-establishment of a native vegetative cover.
10.1. 1. 2
Treatment of Excavated Soils
The contaminated soils, which consist primarily of sand, will be
used as a based material in the production of portland cement.
Once the cement is mixed with water and has completed its curing
process, the metals will be rendered immobile. This process is
analogous to conventional solidification/stabilization treatment
technologies used at other Superfund Sites.
As indicated above, the metals contamination is not subject to RCRA
regulations. However, FDER has established criteria governing the
acceptance of contaminated soils by cement kilns for base material.
Al though contaminant levels identified during the RI are well
within these criteria, the criteria will be considered as ARARs for
this treatment.
10.1. 1. 3
Perforaance Standards
Performance Standards for the lateral extent of excavation and the
use of the contaminated soil by a cement kiln for a base material
are specified in the following.
a)
Excavation Standards
Excavation of contaminated soils shall continue outward
from the building until the remaining soil and material
achieve the following concentration levels, or at such
point the excavation must be terminated by a permanent
structure (L e., building or road). All excavation shall
comply with ARARs and with appropriate OSHA regulations.
Testing methods approved by EPA shall be used to
determine if the concentration levels have been achieved.
52

-------
Contaminant
Concentration lma/kg)
Chromium
Lead
Nickel
11
31
o
Source: Tolerance Limits, Anodyne RI Report, Final,
1992
b)
Cement Kiln Acceptance Standards
All excavated soils will be tested in a manner to
determine a representative concentration for the metals
specified in the following. Acceptance of the
contaminated material by a cement kiln will be
conditioned on representative contaminant levels for the
excavated material being at or below the concentrations
specified below. Should, however, these criteria not be
met, other forms of disposal will be employed.
Contaminant
Concentration (8I9/ka)
Arsenic
Chromium
Selenium
Barium
Lead
Silver
Cadmium
Mercury
10
50
389
4940
108
353
37
23
Source: Florida Administrative Code, 17-775.
10. 1. 2
Shallow Groundwater Recovery, Treatment, and Disposal
Subsequent to the excavation of the contaminated soils, groundwater
modeling estimates indicate that the shallow metals contaminated
groundwater will be restored naturally through attenuation and
dispersion of the metals. It is expected that the metals
contaminated groundwater will be restored to levels within KCLs in
a two to six year fcriod after the removal of the contaminated
soils. If groundwater monitoring results conducted during the pre-
design studies do not demonstrate a reduction in metals contaminant
levels within a reasonable period of time (i.e., two to six years),
EPA, in consultation with FDER, may conclude the pre-design studies
and initiate the RD/RA for the groundwater recovery, treatment, and
disposal system to actively reduce the metals contamination.
53

-------
10.1.2.1
Major Components of Shallow Groundwater Remediation
This alternative will include pre-design studies to verify the
extent of the groundwater plume and assess the effectiveness of
natural attenuation of the shallow groundwater. If natural
attenuation is found not to be effective, pumping and treating of
the groundwater will be employed. The major components of the
remediation include the following:
a)
Pre-design studies to refine the shallow groundwater
plume boundary and verify the modeling predictions of a
2 to 6-year post-soil removal natural attenuation period
to attain cleanup criteria,
b)
If results from the pre-design studies demonstrate that
natural attenuation is not adequate to achieve the
cleanup criteria, the scope of the RD/RA is as follows:
.
Collection of shallow contaminated
through a series of recovery wells,
groundwater
.
Onsite treatment of shallow contaminated
through chemical precipitation of metalsr
water
.
Recycling of treated water to the Biscayne aquifer
through a series of injection wells. If during the
remedial design of this alternative a determination
is made that injection of the treated effluent is
no longer feasible, an equivalent discharge me~hod
will be developed,
c)
Long-term monitoring of groundwater restoration,
10.1.2.2
Treatment of Shallow Contaminated Groundwater
The shallow contaminated groundwater would be treated Lhrough
chemical precipitation. Conceptually, the treatment process would
employ an adjustment of the pH to chemically precipitate the metals
followed by clarification and filtration processes. Filtered
material would be collected for off-site disposal in a manner
consistent with applicable Federal, State and local disposal
regulations. The pH of the filtered water would be readjusted to
neutral prior to injection into the aquifer.
10.1.2.3
Disposal of Treated Shallow Groundwater
Effluent from the treatment system will be below MeL's for the
three indicator chemicals specified as performance standards for
this alternative. The treated effluent will be returned to the
aquifer onsite through a series of injection wells. Because of the
54

-------
large volume of water to be processed, the water may need to be
returned to the aquifer under pressure. Moreover, the treated
effluent will be injected into the aquifer in a manner that will
not be disruptive to the groundwater recovery system Lfor Zone 1.or
Zone 2.
10. 1. 2 .4
Perfo~ce Standards
The rest9ration of the shallow portion of the aquifer will be
monitored with time using several indicator chemicals. Contaminant
levels ( i. e., Performance Standards) for these chemicals' are
specified in the following.
Contaminant
Concentration (ug/l)
Chromi.um
Lead
Nickel
100
15
100
Source: Federal and State KCLs.
.'
Aluminum also exceeded background levels and the State Secondary
Drinking water standard. As a result, the State identified the
secondary drinking water standard for aluminum as a potential ARAR
pursuant to FAC Chapters 17-550.320 and 17-520.420. However, FAC
Chapter 17-520.520(1) provides that existing installations (i.e.,
facilities that in fact discharged to Class G-II groundwater on or
before July 1, 1982, FAC S17-522.200) are exempt from compliance
with secondary drinking water standards unless the State determines
that compliance with the standards are necessary to protect
groundwater used or reasonably likely to be used as a potable water
source. Based on site specific hydrologic and monitoring data
provided to FDER, the discharges from the facility do not appear to
have violated se'"'ondary drinking water standards for aluminum
outside the zone of discharge. Hence, FDER will not apply the
secondary drinking water standards to the cleanup of Zones 1 or 2
of the groundwater contamination at this Site.
10.1.2.5
Compli.ance Testing
A long-term groundwater monitoring program will also be implemented
to monitor the progress of the shallow groundwater remediation.
This monitori.ng system would rely on the current groundwater
monitoring wells and newly installed wells to maximize the
effectiveness of the monitoring system. Groundwater samples will
be collected from this system periodically (e. g., quarterly or
semi-annually). This monitoring will continue periodically until
the performance standards are met.
55
. .

-------
After demonstration of compliance with the performance standards
and the remediation system is shut-down, the groundwater shall be
monitored to verify compliance with applicable cleanup standards.
If monitoring indicates that the performance standards set forth in
Section 10.1.2.4 are significantly exceeded at any time after
pumping has been discontinued, extrac~ion, treatment, and disposal
of the groundwater will recommence until the performance standards
are once again achieved. This process will cease subsequen~ to two
years of consecutive monitoring in which none of the performance
standards are exceeded.
10.2
Zone 2 Deep Groundwater
Disposal (Alternative 5)
Recoverv.
Treatment
and
This component of the remedy will include the recovery and onsite
treatment of VOC contaminated groundwater in the lower portion
(Zone 2) of the aquifer. The treated groundwater will be recycled
back in''-J the Biscayne aquifer through onsite injection wells.
Al though numerous alternatives were evaluated in the FS, this
alternative was the only one identified that relies on technologies
demonstrated in the remediation of VQC contaminated groundwater and
that could be conducted in a reasonably cost effective manner.
The goal of this remedial action 1s to restore groundwater impacted
by VOCs from this Site to its beneficial use, which is, at this
Site, the sole source of drinking water for Dade County, Florida.
Based on information obtained during the remedial investigation and
on a careful analysis of all remedial alternatives, EPA believes
that the selected remedy will achieve this goal. It may become
apparent, during the implementation or operation of the groundwater
extraction and treatment system, and its modifications, that
contaminant levels have ceased to decline and are remaining
constant at levels higher than the remediation goal over some
portion of the contaminated plume. In such a case, the system
performance standards and/or the remedy may be reevaluated.

The selected remedy for the lower portion of the aquifer will
include groundwater extraction for an estimated period of 20 to 30
years, during which the systems's performance will be carefully
monitored on a regular basis and adjusted as warranted by the
performance data collected during the operation of the system.
Modifications to the system may include, but not be limited to, any
or all of the following actions. Other actions deemed appropriate
by EPA may be undertaken during the course of the remedial action
to ensure the effectiveness of the recovery, treatment, and
disposal system.
.
discontinuation of pumping at wells where cleanup goals
have been attained,
56

-------
.
alternate
points,
to
eliminate
stagnation
pumping
at wells
.
pulse pumping to allow aquifer equilibration and to allow
adsorbed contaminants to partition into".groundwater,
'", :.
.
installation of additional extraction wells to facilitate
or accelerate cleanup of the ~ontaminant plume,
,.,,'.'<
.
variation of pumping rates to maximize the efficiency of
the recovery system.
To ensure that the cleanup goals continue to be maintained, the
aquifer will be monitored at those wells where pumping has ceased
at least once a year following the discontinuation of groundwater
ertr~t~n. ,", ,
10.2.1
Major Components of Deep Groundwater Re..:.ediation
Groundwater remediation will include the extraction and onsite
treatment of contaminated groundwater followed by onsite disposal
of the treated water~ 'The ~major components'of.:.
-------
f)
Onsite disposal of treated groundwater into the Biscayne
aquifer via injection wells,
g)
h)
Long-term monitoring of groundwater restoration,
Abandonment of the injection well in a manner consistent
with Fede~al, State and local requirements.
10.2.2
Treatment of Contaminated Deep Groundwater
Treatment of the VOC contaminated will rely on a demonstrated
technology know as air stripping. This technology uses air to
volatilize and remove organic compounds from the water. Volatile
organics removed from the water are either emitted into the ambient
air, or if necessary to comply with air quality standards, further
treated through fume incineration or carbon adsorption.
However, prior to the design of the treatment system, applicability
of an innovative treatment technique that employs chemical
oxidation with ultra violent (UV) light as a catalyst will be
further evaluated. If through a treatability study, this
technology is proven to provide for comparable or superior
treatment performance or implementability, fewer or lesser adverse
impacts, or lower costs for similar levels of performance than air
stripping, this innovative approach will be used in the treatment
of the groundwater.
The VOC contaminated groundwater will be treated onsite to reduce
contaminant levels for the four indicator chemicals to levels
within MCL's. The treatment system will be designed to accept the
influent from the recovery system and reduce the levels to comply
the performance standards set forth below with one pass through the
treatment system. Emissions or by-products from the treatment
system will be further treated or disposed, as necessary, of in a
manner consistent with Federal and State AHARs governing these
activities.
Finally, aluminum was detected in the groundwater at levels that
exceeded background and the State secondary drinking water
standard. However, as noted in Section 10.1.2, this facility is
exempt from compliance with State secondary drinking water
standards.
10.2.3
Disposal of Treated Deep Groundwater
Effluent from the treatment system will be below MCL's for the four
indicator chemicals and will be returned to the Biscayne aquifer.
Based on the large volume of water to be processed, the water will
be returned to the aquifer under pressure through a series of
58

-------
injection wells. Moreover, the treated effluent will be injected
into the aquifer in a manner that will not be disruptive to the
groundwater recovery system.
10.2.4
Performance Standards
Performance standards have been established for the groundwater
effluent from the treatment system and any emissions to the
atmosphere. These standards are as follows:
a)
Groundwater Treatment Effluent
Contaminant
Concentration uo/l)
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
1,2-Dichloroethene
Vinyl Chloride
3
3
70
1
Source: Federal and State MCLs.
b)
Air Emissions
Air emissions from the air stripping system must comply
with EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Directive 9355.0-28 titled Control of Air Emissions from
Superfund Air Strippers from Superfund Groundwater Si'tes.
Air emissions must also comply with any comply with State
regulations identified as ARARs for this Site.
10.2.5
Compliance Testing
A long-term groundwater monitoring program will also be implemented
to monitor the progress of the groundwater remediation. This
monitoring system would rely on the current groundwater monitoring
wells and newly installed wells to maximize the effectiveness of
the monitoring system. Groundwater samples will be collected from
this system periodically (e.g., quarterly). This monitoring will
continue periodically until the performance standards are met.

After demonstration of compliance with the performance standards
and the remediation system is shut-down, the groundwater shall be
monitored to verify compliance with applicable cleanup standards.
If monitoring indicates that the performance standards set forth in
Section 10.2.4 are siqnificantly exceeded at any time after pumping
has been discontinued, extraction, treatment, and disposal of the
groundwater will recommence until the performance standards are
once again achieved. This process will cease subsequent to two
years of consecutive monitoring in which none of the performance
standards are exceeded.
59

-------
11.0
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
EPA has determined that the selected remedy will satisfy the
statutory determinations of Section 121 of CERCLA. The remedy will
be protective of human health and the environment, will attain
ARARs, be cost-effective, and will use permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies to the.. maximum extent
practicable. No short-term risks or cross-media impacts will be
caused by the implementation of this remedy. Finally,
implementation of this remedy will comply with the CERCLA, Section
121(b)(1), preference for treatment. .
11.1
Protective of Human Health and the Environment
The selected remedy will provide adequate protection of human
health and the environment by reducing groundwater contaminants to
levels within Federal and State MCLs for both zones of
contamination. Once complete, this action will result in a
reduction of risk to human health to within the 10-4 to 10-6
range for carcinogens and Hazard Indices for non-carcinogens will
be less that one. The reduction in risk posed by the Zone 1
contamination will be accomplished by removal and off-site disposal
of metals contaminated soil. Subsequent to the removal of the
contaminated soils, the metals' concentrations in the groundwater
are estimated to decrease naturally to levels within MCLs in less
than ten years. If groundwater monitoring does not demonstrate a
significant reduction in metals contamination through natural
attenuation, the groundwater will be collected and treated, as
necessary. With regard to Zone 2, the risks to human health will be
accomplished by actively collecting and treating the contaminated
groundwater. Use of the innovative treatment technology, if
selected, will provide a comparable level of protection a6 the
demonstrated technology. Finally, implementation of either
components of this remedy will not result in any short-term risks.
11.2
Compliance with ARARs
Section 121 of CERCLA incorporates in to law the CERCLA compliance
policy, which specifies that Superfund remedial actions must meet
Federal and State standards, criteria, and requirements that are
determined to be legally applicable or relevant and appropriate for
a site. State standards must be incorporated if they are
promulgated, determined to be more stringent than federal
standards, and are identified in a timely manner.
Applicable requirements are those standards, criteria or
limitations promulgated under federal or state law that
specifically address a hazardous substance, pollutant, contaminant,
remedial action, location or other circumstances at a CERCLA site.
Relevant and appropriate requirements are those that, while not
applicable, still address problems or situations sufficiently
similar to those encountered at the site that their use is well
suited to the particular site.
60
,.:....;
.;

-------
Implementation of this remedy will comply will all Federal and
State ARARs and will not require a waiver. ARARs for this action
pertain to the disposal of contaminated soils for Zone 1,
groundwater performance standards for Zones 1 and 2, air emissions
for Zone 2.
11. 2.1
Contaminated Soil ARARs Compliance
Contaminated soils excavated from the Site will be disposed of at
a cement kiln. - State regulations governing the disposal of
contaminated soils at thermal destruction facilities (i.e., cement
kilns) are provided in the Florida Administrative Code S- 17-775.
These regulations establish criteria for the acceptance of
petroleum contaminated soils by thermal destruction facilities.
While these regulations establish -acceptance icriteria
-------
11. 2.3
Air Emission ARARs Compliance
Air emissions from the air stripping system will comply with
Federal and State ARARs. While no Federal air quality standards
exist for air emissions, EPA Office of Solid. Waste and Emergency
Response Directive 9355.0-28 provides guidance in the control of
air emissions from air strippers at Superfund groundwater sites.
This directive will be considered in the design of the air
stripping system.
Air emissions must also comply with any with State regulations
identified as ARARs for this Site. Although no air emission
standards have been promulgated for air stripping system,-FDER has
developed an internal policy for the review of air stripping
permits. Air emission criteria for air stripping systems will be
considered in the design of the air stripping system.
11.3
Cost-Effectiveness
In terms of capital costs, operation and maintenance costs, total
present worth cost, and active remediation to restore the aquifer,
a combination of Alternatives 4 and 5 is the most cost-effective.
The total present worth cost is estimated at $25,580,000. EPA has
also determined that the cost of implementing the selected remedy
is proportionate to the overall effectiveness of the remedy and is
a reasonable value for the money.
11.4
Use of Permanent Solutions and Treatment Technoloqies
The selected remedy uses permanent solutions and treatment
technologies to the maximum extent practicable. By excavating the
contaminated soils in Zone 1 and by collecting and treating the
contaminated groundwater in Zones 1 (as necessary) and 2, the
toxicity, mobility, and volume of contaminants will be reduced both
in the short and long-term. Implementation of this remedy will
fulfill the statutory requirement to utilize permanent sulutions
and treatment technologies, to the maximum extent practicable.
11.5
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
The statutory preference for treatment will be met since principal
elements of the remedy include treatment for both zones of
contamination. With regard to Zone 1 of the contamination, the
contaminated soils will be excavated for offsite disposal. The
contaminated soil will be used as a base material in the
formulation of portland cement, and once cured, the cement will
serve to render the metals permanently immobile. Removal of the
metals contaminated soil will enable the shallow portion of the
Biscayne aquifer to be restored to levels within MCLs and within
reasonable period of time. However, if necessary, pumping and
treating of the shallow portion of the aquifer will be conducted to
restore the shallow portion of the aquifer to levels within the
cleanup standards.
62

-------
The remedy for Zone 2 of the contamination will collect and treat
the VOC contaminated groundwater to levels that could no longer
pose a threat to human health. Treatment will be accomplished
using a demonstrated technology that will physically remove the
VOCs from the groundwater and discharge them in to the air at
levels that will not pose and unacceptable level of risk to human
health or the environment. Should, however, the innovative form of
treatment be selected to treat the groundwater, the VOCs will be
chemically destroyed through oxidation, leaving no toxic by-
products.
12.0
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
Subsequent to the release of the Proposed Plan, several significant
changes were made to the proposed remedy. These changes are a

result of further consideration of the treatment approach for the
VOC contamination and response to FDER comments with respect to
ARARs and remediation of the shallow groundwater contamination. A
summary of the significant differences is provided in the
following.
12.1
Potential Treatment Variations
During the development of the FS, technologies were considered for
the treatment of the VOC contaminated groundwater. Air stripping
was identified as the most reliable and cost-effective treatment
technology. Furthermore, its performance has been well
demonstrated in the cleanup of numerous groundwater contamination
sites. As a result, EPA proposed to use air stripping in the
treatment of the VOC contaminated groundwater in its Proposed Plan
released to the public on December 6, 1992.

Subsequent to the release of the Proposed Plan and during the
development of the selected remedy, EPA gave further consideration
to an innovative.. treatment technology that relies on chemical
oxidation with UV light. This technology was initially identified
in the FS as a potential form of treatment for the VOC contaminated
groundwater but was not given full consideration as a viable
treatment technology due to questions regarding cost-effectiveness
and limited application in treatment at other Superfund sites.
Upon further consideration of chemical oxidation with UV light, a
commercial vendor of the technology was consulted. Based on the
contaminant levels identified during the RI, the vendor indicated
that the chemical oxidation with UV light could effectively treat
the groundwater to levels within MCLs. Preliminary cost estimates,
indicate that the cost of this technology would also be comparable
to air stripping. A memorandum documenting EPA's consideration of
this alternative is provided in Appendix F.

Because of the potential application of this technology and since
chemical oxidation would better fulfill the statutory preference
for treatment, EPA determined that this technology should be
63

-------
evaluated as part of the remedial design. A treatability study
will be conducted and if the results indicate that chemical
oxidation with UV light will provide for comparable or superior
treatment performance or implementability, fewer or lesser adverse
impacts, or lower costs for similar levels of performance than air
stripping pursuant to the NCP (Part 300.430 (a)(l)(iii)(E), this
innovative approach will be used j n the treatment of the VOC
contaminated groundwater.
Should EPA decide to employ chemi~al oxidation with UV light in the
treatment of the VOC contaminated groundwater, the public will be
notified of the decision through an Explanation of Significant
Differences (ESD) and given an opportunity to review and comment on
the ESD. . .
12.2
Groundwater Remediation Cleanup Criteria
Subsequent to the publishing of the Proposed Plan, FDER notified
EPA thr~ aluminum should be included as a cleanup criterion for
remediation of the shallow and deep zones of groundwater
contamination. Pursuant to Chapters 17-550.320 and 17-520.420 of
the FAC, aluminum has an enforceable standard of 200 ug/l and is
applied by FDER in the evaluation of general groundwater quality of
Class G-I and G-II aquifers.
However, FAC Chapter 17-520.520(1) provides that existing
installations (i.e., facilities that in fact discharged to Class G-
II groundwater on or before July 1, 1982, FAC S17-522.200) are
exempt from compliance with secondary drinking water standards
unless the State determines that compliance with the standards are
necessary to protect groundwater used or reasonably likely to be
used as a potable water source. Based on site specific hydrologic
and monitoring data provided to FDER, the discharges from the
facility do not appear to have violated secondary drinking water
standards for aluminum outside the zone of discharge. Hence, FDER
will not apply the secondary drinking water standards to the
cleanup of Zones 1 or 2 of the groundwater contamination at this
Site.
12.3
Active Restoration of Zone 1
Comments from FDER also indicated a preference for actively
attempting to reduce the shallow zone of contamination through
pumping and treating of the groundwater as opposed to natural
attenuation of the groundwater. FDER is concerned that natural
attenuation of the shallow groundwater contamination will not
return the aquifer to its t ~neficial use within a reasonable
period.
To address FDER' s concerns, EPA selected Alternative 4 which
includes pumping and treating of the shallow zone of groundwater.
However, EPA has added several provisions that provide an
opportunity to evaluate the effects that natural attenuation and
dispersion will have on the contamination. If there has not been
64

-------
a reduction in the contaminant levels as estimated in the FS, EPA,
in consultation with FDER, may initiate a groundwater recovery,
treatment, and disposal system to acti vely reduce contaminant
levels within the shallow groundwater.
Implementation of this alternative could potentially increase the
overall cleanup costs for this site. The total present worth cost
of the proposed remedy (i.e., Alternative 3) in the proposed plan
was $1,028,000~ Although Alternative 4 in the proposed plan had a
total present worth cost of $28,246,000, this es~imate was based on
a 3D-year operational period. Remediation estimates in the FS
indicate' the active restoration of the aquifer would be
accomplished in approximately two years. Based on a .two-year
operational period, the remediation cost may be significantly
lower. The total present worth cost, based on a two-year
operational period, is estimated at $5,882,000. If active
remediation of the shallow zone of contamination is required, the
cost of cleanup for the shallow zone of contamination may increase
by approximately $ 4.8 million dollars.
65

-------
APPEHDIX B
AHALYTICAL nATA SUlOIARY
SUPPLEMENTAL SITE INVESTIGATION, 1986

-------
Table 1 -9. Ground Water Sampling Results- NUS Supplemental Site Investigation
ANAL YTES (UgJl) : GW-01 GW-02 GW-03: GW~().4 GW-05 GW-08 GW-eJ7 GW-08 GW-09
  Background Backaround BackarOund    .-  
VOLATILES          
Trans-1,2-dlchloroethene --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 24
Trlchloroethene  --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 3J
Tetrachloroethene  --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 15
Toluene  --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 30J
PESTlCIDES/pCBS          
PCB-1254  --- --- --- --- --- 0.4JN --- --- ---
METALS          
Aluminum  5,000 10,000 14,000 30,000 8,700 13,000 19,000 . 26,000 ---
Antimony  --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Arsenic  --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Barium  20 34 35 52 21 230 130 55 110
Beryllium  --- --- --- 1.0 --- --- --- --- ---
Cadmium  --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
CalCium  91,000 64,000 220,000 133,000 120,000 24,000 28,000 24,000 82,000
Chromium  13 13 44 89 23 1,900 86 36 5.9
CObalt  --- --- --- --- --- 0.12 J --- --- ---
COpper  --- --- --- --- --- 100 --- --- ---
Iron  1,500 1,600 3,000 7,900 2,500 22,000 3,900 5,600 ---
lead  --- --- 6.8 13 5.3 250 150 23 ---
Magnesium  840 1,600 2,200 2,600 1,300 1,000 1,100 470 2,900
Manaanese  4.3 2.5 5.0 11 a.a 29 13 5.0 470
Mercury  --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Nickel  --- --- --- --- --- 210 70J --- ---
Potassium  1,100 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Selenium  --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Silver  --- --- --- --- --- 5.5 --- --- 6.4
Sodium  8,200 --- 16,000 --- 13,000 --- --- --- 17,000
Tin  --- --- --- --- --- --- 23 --- ---
Vanadium  23 8.6 21 69 20 140 16 31 4.1
Zinc  --- --- - --- --- 70 --- --- ---
Cyanide  --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Notes:
- - - Compound analyzed for but not detected
J Estimated value

-------
,-~
Table 1-4. Surface Soil Sampling Results- NUS Supplemental Sile Investigation
      ANAL YTE5 (mgf1
-------
Table 1-4. Surlc..ce Soil Sampling Results- NUS Supplemental Site Investigabor,
------.~-
.
i
!
iVO!!,.TILES
I Toluene
T etrachloroethene
SEMI-VOLATILES
Isophorone
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Di-N-Butylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo (A) Anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo (B and/or K) Fluoroanthene
Benzo-A- Pyrene
Indeno (1,2,3, - CD) pyrene
Phenol
Dibenzofuran
2 - Methyfnaphthalene
Anthracene
, - . Unidentified Compounds
___12~ .

~:~F

21).
9).
I 18).
:_---- 3).
t Petroleum Product
PESTICIDES/PCBS
l Endosulfan Sulfate
PCB-1242 (Aroclor 1242)
PCB-1260 (Aroclor 1260)
4,4'-ODT (P,P'-OOT)
4,4'-DDE (P,P'-ODE)
Chlordane (Tech. Mixture)
Endrln Ketone
I METALS
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
, -- - Cadmium
: Calcium
1 Chromium
I Cobalt
I Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
M ang ane sa
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silyer
Sodium
Thallium
Tin
Vanadium
Zinc
ANAL YTES (mglkg)
-
.
i

I
,-
.-
I
I
I
I
r.
I
5S-11 ! S5-12
-- -
---
---
0.37J
047
4
---
63
4.5
2.7
2.9
2.9
2.3
0.9
0.68
0.23J
O.065J
0.86
-- -
-- -
-- -
---
---
u- i
---
---
---
---
---
0.43
0.34
---
1000
---
55
4.1
---
---
34,000 J
5.3
---
300
1,400
27
150
17
1.0 IN
- --
340
- - -
---
102
- --
10
5.9
580
046
O.OIIJ
0.15J
---
0.24J
0.33J
0.64
0.53
0.43J
---
0.56
---
---
---
---
---
- --
---
---
- --
---
50J
- --
---
-- -
N
---
55-13
2.4
---
-- -
---
0.37J
0.14J
0.5J
0.34J
---
0.26J
0.24J
---
---
---
S5-14
---
0.007 J
---
---
--
---
0.32J
O.09J
0.43J
---
---
0.25J
---
---
---
---
--- I ---
_u I u-
=== i- ===
--- I ---
55-15
0.34J
0.35J
O.25J
5S-16
-----,--- I
5S-17 I CS-10 i
I
1
- --
I
-----+- - I

L _.:: = -I _n=--=-=-_-+~-
u- j
---
---
---
---
0.19J
- --
0.53J
O.4J
---
---
---
- --
---
---
---
- --
- --
---
- --
- --
---
-- -
-- -
- --
---
-- -
- --
-- -
-.-- --
- --
-- -
- --
u_-.J
--- I
u- I
17J I
-1
---
---
- --
0.32
---
---
---
1,300 I
---
-- -
8.9
- --
---
---
21
1,300
42
180
24
---
---
---
---
---
62
---
12
4.0
34
---
- --
---
---
- --
0.083
-- -
I
~
- --
---
---
21
20,000
43
---
---
- --
-- -
---
---
-- -
22
'O.25J
5
0.25N
06
4.8
-- -
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
3,200
---
---
22
---
---
- --
---
---
3J
---
---
N
---
---
---
0.13N
---
---
---
---
830
---
---
11
- --
---
140,000 J 300,000 J
9.3 7.7
---
- --
- --
79
6.1
22
23
1.7
1.4
O.27J
0.2J
20J
15J -1

--- --- I
0.15J J - - -~J
o. t J - - - 1
-- ===1 ===-1

,
---
---
-- -
---
950
---
11
4.2
---
---
4,500 J
81
---
23
2,200
51
---
110
0.14 IN
---
73
---
---
51
---
14
5.3
260
---
---
3,300
11
1,120
25
---
---
1,600
---
---
120
---
15
6.7
12
---
953
5.2
2,100
28
0.31 IN
---
1,600
---
2.6
220
- --
9.4
5.8
25
- --
- --
-
- --
- --
0.28
--- I ---
t~--
--- I ---
I-~r-=-=-...-nl
1 ._:---=--1-- - --~-- 1
- --
- - .
--- ----~ u~._+= --~ 1
-- - - - - - - -. ' ~ '
--- --- --- I
,
- - - -- ~=-=--.: --i~ 300J
--- --- -----~- J
N --- N --- I
1
,
O.056N
4.900 J
4.6
---
-- -
---
- --
-~ -_.~-
2.4N 046
-~
20
-- -
-- -
- --
2.9
- --
- --
- --
..
I
-- -
--- - ,
100
I ~ ~- . t ~~o:
--=-=-=-~-g:5
27 13
1---- --
-;
4.8
150
- --
==~ - I

18,000 J 1
21 !
- --
380
24
1,200 J
89
-- -
-- -
---
56
2.800
63
t90
330
14 IN
120
240
d'
220
61
- --
;
230
I
1.6
- --
- --
- --
---
I
I
1
---
-- -
---
1.3
91
-- -
72
---
- --
- --
12
12
16
9.t
1.7
20
i
I
11
10
2sCJ
Noles:
- - - Compound ~yzed for but 001 detected
J Estimated vaJue
. Number in () indicates the number 01 unidentified compounds found 81 given quantlly
N Presumptive evidence of presence ot matenaJ

-------
Table 1 - 5. Surface Soil Sampling Results- NUS Supplemental Site Investigation
ANAL YTES (mg/kg) S8-01 S8-02 S8-03 58-04 58-05 S8-06 SB- 07 S8-08 S8- 1 1 S8-12 SB-1S SB-14 SB-15
VOLA TILES               
Ace10ne  --- - --- -- - --- --- - - - --- --- - - - 840 - - - ---
T etr achloroethene  --- --- --- -- - -- - --- - - - --- 5J 7J --- - -- ---
Toluene  - -- --- --- -- - - -- 440 - - - 250 170 200 --- 130 ---
SEMI- VOLATILES               
Unidentified Compounds" --- (3) IOJ (3) 4J (3) 4J --- --- - - - --- --- --- --- --- ---
Petroleum Product  N --- --- --- --- --- N --- --- --- --- --- ---
PESTICIDES/PCBS               
PCB-1260 (Aroclor 1 260) -  --- -- - - --- - - -  --- 0.46 --- --- ---
METALS            I   
Aluminum  1,100 650 510 1,700 2,100 --- 280 590 4,000 --- 1,700 540 770
An11monv  --- --- --- --- --- --- -- - --- --- --- --- - -- ---
Arsenic  --- --- --- --- --- --- - - - --- --- --- --- --- ---
Barium  2.0 1.5 2.8 2.3 2.8 1.3 3.5 --- 4.8 --- 2.0 1.5 1.9
Ber v Ilium   --- --- --- --- --- --- -- - --- --- --- --- --- ---
Cadmium  --- --- --- -- - --- --- -- - --- --- --- --- --- ---
Calcium  13,ooOJ 320 61.oo0J 3,600 J 28,000 J --- 690 J --- 44,000 J --- 15.000 J 4.100 J 30,000 J
Chromium  2.7 --- 1.6 4.5 7.4 15  2.9 0.87 11 11 4.1 1.3 2.4
Cobalt  --- --- --- --- --- --- - -- --- --- --- --- --- ---
CODDeI'  --- --- --- --- --- --- - - - --- --- --- --- --- ---
Iron  310 140 120 430 580 120 130 140 890 --- 410 140 200
lead  2.9 --- --- --- 2.2 2.5 7.2 --- 2.5 3.3 1.5 2.5 2.0
Maaneslum  30 --- 52 30 54 --- - - - --- 86 --- --- 57 33
Manaanese  0.78 1.0 0.49 0.72 1.1 --- 0.90 0.51 1.7 3.2 0.85 1.2 0.68
MeI'curY  --- -- --- --  -- - - -- --- --- --- --- ---
Nickel  --- --- --- --- --- --- - - - --- --- --- --- ---
Potassium  --- --- 480 --- 260 --- -- - --- 460 --- 130 --- 170
Selenium  --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Silvel'  --- --- --- --- --- --- -- - --- --- --- --- --- ---
Sodium  43 35 160 35 79 --  32 23 100 24 39 34 81
Thallium  --- --- --- --- --- - - -- - -- --- --- --- --- ---
Tin  13 15 12 12 9.6 11  15 9.6 12 9.0 13 8.5 13
Vanadium  1.4 --- 1.0 2.9 4.2 0.74 0.82 0.85 3.9 --- 3.3 --- 1.9
Zinc  --- --- --- --- -- --- -- - --- 46 --- --- --- ---
CYanide  --- --- --- --- --- --- - - - --- --- --- --- --- ---
Notes:
- - - Compound analyzed fa bu1 not detected
J Estimated value
.. Number In () indicates number of unidentified compounds found at given value
N Presumptive evidence of presence of material

-------
~
I
APPENDIX C
ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION, 1992
"
75

-------
T- .-:18. ~c...-""",- - T- u....
i
, ,
 AHALYTE8 c-D/IIa) 88-ot '88-Ql 88-G:I X . T-  
        ~  
 --         
-run  .eo 1110 eeo 1163 225 1100  
Am"""""  --- --- --- 0 0 0  
--=  --- --- --- 0 0 0  
Be"""  11.7 3.' 3g ..11 I.g II.  
ilMrYl.....  --- --- --- 0 0 0  
CAdmiln  --- --- --- 0 0 0  
CaIckIn  32.oooJ 15.oooJ 1.8OOJ 1 e.:IOO 15100 .7000  
0wamIurn  11.3 11.11 O.a. ..11 3.2 II.'  
Caba"  --- --- --- 0 0 0  
~  25 12 --- 12.3 12.5 37.3  
loon  730 1>«1 .'0 IiIIO 'III eeo  
I..88d  2\ III 3.11 1311 8.8 31.3  
'M8Q.-....  180 ~ 100 12. .a 220  
IM- 17 10 3.2 10.1 lI.g 2.  
I......."  --- --- --- 0 0 0  
NicI<8t  --- --- --- 0 0 0  
p-  280 '30 --- 137 ,~ ~ - 
S8I8nUn  --- --- --- 0 0 0  
1-  --- --- --- 0 0 0  
Sodia.m  88 .a ~  55 11.3 78  
Tholl;....  --- --- --- 0 0 0  
ron  13 13 10  12.0 1.7 '5.5  
V8rwdh..rn  2.0 3.11 --- 1.11 l.g 5.7  
~""  '11 I. --- g.O 11.2 25.  
 ANAL YTa CJnG/II8) E-ot E-Q2 E-G:I X 8 T-  
        &.-.  
 ~- Sol         
AJ~irum  1.'00 850 510 753 308 ,.00  
An"monY  -- --- - - 0 0 0  
",-,"C  --- --- --- 0 0 0  
8."111'1  2.0 '.5 2.11 2.' 0.88 3..'  
I tHot'Yllum  --- --- --- 0 0 0  
~OmU'TI  --- --- --- 0 0 0  
c..lC>um  13.oooJ 320 1I,.000J 2.eoo 32000 8QOOO  
Ctwomlum  2.7 --- 1.11 ... 1.38 '.1  
Ceo.1I  --- --- --- 0 0 0  
COC>o8<  --- --- --- 0 0 0  
"on  310 1~ '20 .go 'OO .00  
I..88d  2.g --- --- 1.0 1.117 ..3  
MoO,..;um  30 --- 52  27 28 7g  
Monoorww  0.78 1.0 O.~ 0.711 0.28 1.3  
"'"""""  --- --- --- 0 0 0  
N,,*,,'  --- --- --- 0 0 0  
PO..",,,,,  --- --- .eo '80 277 710  
........um  --- --- --- 0 0 0  
SO...,  --- --- --- 0 0 0  
Sodium  43 35 '80 7g 70 220  
Th8l1n.rn  --- --- --- 0 0 0  
r,n  13 '5 12  13 1.5 III..  
Vered"6n  I.. --- '.0 0.8 0.72 2.2.  
.u""  --- --- --- 0 0 0  
(;,"8rjde  --- --- --- 0 0 0  
 NW.YTE8 C....... fM-ot fM -CR fM-G:I X . T- MCl 
        ~  
 Gnxrd w-         
AJ~n..m  5.000 '0.000 ".000 0700 .sea , l1OOO 50(. 
AnIomonY  --- --- -- 0 0 0  
"""noc  --- --- --- 0 0 0 50 
5ant6n  20 30< 35  30 II.' .a.5 '000 
BetYllum  --- --- --- 0 0 0  
CedmUn  --- --- --- 0 0 0 5 
c..1ci....  111.000 a..000 Z2Q.000 125000 l13OOO 2IIOODO  
ChromI....  '3 13 "  23 18 5Q 100 
eco."  --- --- --- 0 0 0  
CcI>I>e<  --- --- --- 0 0 0  
Iron  '.500 '.000 3.000 2000 1\000 3700 3001. 
I..88d  --- --- 11.11 2.3 3.g '0.2 50 
Maa,...;,"",  IW: 1.800 2.200 1800 eeo 2IlOO  
MarGa,....  ..3 2.5 5.0 3.g 1.3 11.5 50(. 
-......  --- --- --- 0 0 0 2 
NOCI<.I  --- --- --- 0 0 0  
Po...."""  1.100 --- --- 370 1\000 1000  
-....  --- --- --- 0 0 0 50 
SO-  --- --- --- 0 0 0  
Sacs,....  8.200 --- 111.000 8100 8000 2.000 1 eoooo 
TNn","      0 0 0  
TIn  --- --- --- 0 0 0  
V8rwdi""  23 11.8 21  18 7.8 33.'  
ZI""  --- --- --- 0 0 0 5000/. 
01'-  --- --- --- 0 0 0  1
So.nIo: NUS So.. 1_1Igo1lOt\ 10117
NOTES: I 
I Nol Nmpled
eo..u",",aralyad tor and...,. cl811C:11d
J E.'matlld val...
x . "-an
5 . Staraard o..I8l1on
T068rwInD8 UmU. - X + 2S

-------
Table" - 3. AI Soil Sampling Aesults: List of Detected Volatile Organics
ANAL VTES (mg/kg) SB-01 SB-02 SB - 03 SB-04' SB-OS SB-D6 SB-07 SB-08 SB-09 SB-10
u._--_.      ..       
Soil Samples 0 to 1 Feet           
1,1,1 - Trichloroethane  --- --- --- --- --- 0.OO03J 0.0005J --- ~-- ---
1,1.2,2 - Tetrachloroethane --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.004J --- --- ---
Acetone   --- --- 0.01 J 0.02 J --- --- --- --- --- ---
Benzene   --- --- --- --- --- ---  --- --- --- ---
Carbon Disulfide   --- --- --- --- --- ---  0.0002 J --- --- ---
DichlOfomethane   --- 0.03J --- 0.05J --- 0.05  0.06 0.03 0.05J 0.05J
Ethvlbenzene   --- --- --- --- --- ---  --- --- --- ,---
Styrene   --- --_. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 
Tetrachloroethene   --- --- --- --- --- ---  0.002J --- --- 0.005J
Toluene   --- 0.003 J --- --- --- ---  --- --- --- ---
Xvlenes (total)   --- --- --- --- 0.0006 J --- --- --- --- ---
Soils Samples 1 to 2 feet           
1.1,1 - Trichloroethane    --- --- --- 0.OO06J ---   ---
1,1.2.2- Tetrachloroethane   --- --- --- ---  ---   ---
Acetone     --- --- --- ---  ---   ---
Benzene     --- --- --- 0.001 J ---   ---
Carbon Disulfide     --- --- --- 0.002 J ---   ---
DichlOfomethane     --- --- --- 0.04  0.03   ').02
~ylbenzene     --- --- --- ---  ---   ---
~y!~ne     --- --- --- ---  ---   ---
~trachloroethene     --- --- --- ---  0.OO3J   ---
Toluene     --- --- --- 0.01J  ---   ---
_c-             
~j'~~~s (total)     --- --- --- 0.004J ---   ---
Soil Samples "to 5 Feet           
1 .1 " - Trichloroethane    ---   ---     
1',1,2.2- Tetrachloroethane   ---   ---     
Acetone     0.009 J        
Benzene     ---        
Carbon Disulfide     ---   0.OO04J    
5ichiOfomethane     ---   ---     
Et~ylbenzene     ---        
~rene     ---        
Tetrachloroethene     ---   ---     
Toluene     ---        
~y~r1es (total)     ---        
NOTES:

l
I Not sampled
Constituent analyzed for and not detected
J Estimated value

-------
!--~
Table 4-3. (Con't) RI Soil Sampling Results: List of Detected Volatile Organics
ANAL YTES (mg/kg)
----~-
.- ------~~--
Soil Samples 0 to 1 Feet
1,1,1 - TrichlOfoethane
~-- ----------~- -- ~---------
1,1,2,2- Tetrachloroethane
~------
Acetone
Benzene
Carbon Disulfide
DlchlOfomethane
Ethylbenzene
~yr~r1e
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Xyl~nes ('9tal)

_~<:>ils_Samp~~t_o_~ feet
1,1,1 - TrichlOfoethane
f----
1,1,2,2- Tetrachloroethane
Acetone
Benzene
Carbon Disulfide
DichlOfomethane
Ethylbenzene
~tyrene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Xy~~e_s- (tQl~I) ----

Soil Samples 4 to 5 Feet
1,1,1- TrichlOfoethane
- -----~ ~
! ,!..,.?,2---=-Tetr8chloroethll.~__-
Acetone
Benzene
Carbon Disulfide
-------
DichlofOmethane
--- ----~--
~~y!benzene
S_tY~fl~~_- --
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Xy~~es l,-<,-~aD~
SB -11
---
_.~.- ----
-- -
---
---
---
---
---
---
- --
-- -
-- -
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
- --
---
---
-- -
----
-~---
--------
0.0002 J - - - 0.0001 J
0.07 0.04J I 0.1 J

= = = = ;-= --+=~-~O~~ J

.... ~ ~ ~. ~ =~+o;~;~ -;;; - ~-;; ;t~;~


--- --- O.06J
SB-12
---
--- ~--- --
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
------- --
---
---
---
---
---
- --
8B-13
8B-14
-~~~~-- !~-~B~_1~_I=i!3;_~-J-. SB --18
-~-J
- -~~- = - ~ = = ~-j -_?_~~O~~-
-
- --
-- -
-- -
-~-~--
0.0005J
---
---
- --
-- -
---
-- -
-- --
- --
- --
- --
---
---
--~---
---
- --
---
---
---
-
- --
0.02 J
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---~----
~---
---
---
- --
- --
---
0.0005 J
-- -
--~-
---~
-- -
-- -
-- -
---
---
-- -
---
---
---
-- -
---
-- -
- --
- --
-- -
---
---
---
-~
-----
- --
- --
---
--- ----
--
- --
-- -
-
---
---
- --
---
---
~: = = ~:-=i~~ O! .!~-
- - - 0 0008 J
-~---- ------
0.2J O.1J
- - - 002
-~f-------~--
0.0002 J
-~- -----
-- -
--------.-- --
---------
-- -
---
--
---
- --
---
-- -
--"---
-- -
---
~
~--
--------
- --
- --
- --
- --
---
---
---
---
---
0.022J
---
---
---
SB-19
---
---
---
---
---
O.2J
0.003 J
---
---
0.003 J 0.01 J
--- 0.02 J
-~---_.~- -
~--
-
--
- --
-- -
- - :~=-I::_u--:u~~~
t~~O~;Jt=~~
---- ~- --- ----------- --~- - - - J-

-~ ~== =-~ ~-=- r-~==2=j
- ~ _.-----
---~
- --
0.001J
-----~
-----
I
--- I
o 002 J
..~- -----~--- ----- --- "---
NOTES

lu--~~~ =1

J
--
Not sampled
Constrtuent analyzed for and not drtr>c1ed
Estimated value

-------
hblrf ,. -,. AI SOli Semptmg R.sufts l,,' 01 Detected SemNOlall18 Org8nci
ANAL YTE5 (mglkg) 58-01 58- 02 68-03 68-04 68- OS 58- De 58- 01 58-De 58-08 58-'0  58-II SB-t2  58- 13 58-" 58- 15 sa-ul 68- 17 58-18 58-10
~...!!....~.'!!!p1f" OtofF..,                     
2~~~~hlh.len. -- - - - - --- OoeJ --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - --  - - - - - -  OOJJ -- - O.02J -- - 0.008J -- - ---
"C.~h""I""'  - - - - -- --- OJJ --- OOJJ - - - - - - 002J - - -  - - - - - -  02J -- - O.'J -- - 004J - - - 0 008J
~p!'.~~~"e  - - - - -- --- 0.00eJ --- - - - - - - - - - -- - - --  - - - -- -  -- - - - - 0 00eJ --- 0.004J - - - ---
Anthf8Cf".  - - - OU - - - O. 0 008J 0Q5J - - - - - - 002J - - -  - - - OIJ  02J - - - 0.2J - -- OU - - - O.OOQJ
~~~l..nlh'ac.n. - - - 05.1 003J I 004J 02J 02J 002J OOBJ OIJ  OU 0 06J  00 - - - 00 002J 0.5 OOJJ O.O~
!!~~L-}PY!.~~.  - - - OBJ 004J . 0Q5J 02J 02J OOJJ OOBJ 0 tJ  OIJ 0 06J  0.7 - - - 0.0 002J O. 003J OO~
~~~}~~o.!.!-"-th.n. - - - OOJ OoeJ 2 007J 02J 03J OOSJ 01J 02}- ~2-"- 0 IJ  2 - - - 2 004J 08 OoeJ 007J
B~{g.~9p!'Y.1e". - - - O~ --- 08 003J 009J 02J OOJJ 005J - - -  OOBJ 004J  O. - - - 05 0.02J 0.2..1 002J O.OJJ
B.n~~nuo'anlh.". - -- O~ 002J 05 003J 007J 02J - - - Oo~ ou  - - - ~- - - - - - - - - - 0 009J 0.2..1 - - - 002J
~.mlc":C1d  - - - -- - --- - -- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - --  - - - 01J  ooeJ - - - 02J 005J 0 02J 005.1 OOJJ
.~~~~~'Yr~"te --- OOOJ O.02J O.O'J -- - 002J - - - - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - -  - - - -- - --- --- O.OOQJ - - - O.O'J
Ehf)'un.  - - - 0.7J 0.05J 2 OoeJ 02J 02J 003J OU 0 tJ  O.'J OOBJ  08 - - - I 0.03J 0.5 0.03J 0.Q5J
Q~~~~lanttw"CP". - - - - - - - - - 02..1 002J OOJJ - - - - - - - - - - --  002J 001J  02J - - - 02J 0.007J OOJJ - - - 0 ooeJ
Q!No~.!~~U!.n  - - - -- - - - - 02J - -- 002J - - - - - - 002J -- - f---2:" - - - - -  O'J - - - 001J -~ 002J - - - ---
 ---
p~:.....~: ~u'Yrp~l.h~.~'. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - -  - - - - - - - -- - - - --- - - - ---
----- 
~~'!,ylp~~~~:~~~ --  003J ,J 07 - - - OIJ 0007J - - - OO.J - - - - - -  - - - - - -  - - - - - - 0001J 0.004J 0.004J - - - OOQ~
~~~_.~lh."8  - - - IJ OOOJ 3 O.J 03J 0<.) 005J 02J 02J  OIJ ~ ~. - - - 2 00<.) 0.0 005J O.U
~IuO''''''8  - - - - - - - - - O.JJ --- OOJJ - - - - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - 02J - - - 02J - -- 0.05J --- O. 005J
---.         
~~~.?( '.J?J~~~PY!_ene - -- O.~ 003J 08 OOJJ OOBJ OU 002J 004J - - - - OlJ 004J  0.. - - - 0.5 O.OU 0.2J 0.02J 0.02J
N- N"'~!~tp~~yI8m,". - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - -  - - - - - - 00<.) 00<.) - - - - - - ---
!!~p'~~~_~n.  - - - - - - - - - 00<,) - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - --  - - - - - -  003J - - - 002J - - - 0.00eJ - - - 0 OOQJ
Phpnanthrpne  - -- OBJ 005J 2 0.07J 03J 03J 002J 02J ou  003J OOOJ  2 - -- . 003J 01 003J OOBJ
Phpnol  --- --- - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - -  002J - -- 0.2J -- - --- - - - ---
~.!!~!  - - - OOJ OoeJ 2 001J 02J 03J OO'J OU 02J  O.J O'J  . - - - 2 0.03J 0.8 OO'J OOBJ
~~{~ - Chtoro_~r~i\.the' - - - - -- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - ---  - - - - - -  - - - - - - - -- 0 OOOJ - -- - - O.O'J
~1~{?~1!h.!9~ph1h'l8te - - - 00 - - - - -- - -- - - - 05 . - - - - -- OBJ  01 - - -  02J --- 03J --- - -- O'J ---
Tol.1 Phthjllla'8'  003 I.oa 072 001 0.. 0027 05 001 0 08  07 0  02  0307 O.~ 0.013 0.1 0011
~At4a  0 5.0 0..3 '8.208 0.518 2 2. 020 1.05 ...  003 0.78  ".1ee  11.816 0.258 5.28 0.31 0.585
NOTES
r==:::J Not .empled
[.==:.:::::::=J Con,t.uent 8n8fryr8d to, 8nd not .tect8d
J eltlmeled value

-------
..
T.~lfI . ~. rCon!) nl Sod S#\mp!,r,g n"'u"t t ,,' 01 O"pr1.d S.mt'lA'1ll'tlrW 019""""1
~~-
Sol
'2- ~.1
;:C~~'_P

~!:'.p
""""'11
1--


,1:£\_.'- ""
B--~lDl
£\0,,"\
e."mt
s..n1'O(
IBonm>c
Bu')'lb4>
~Chryu
19~~"_1
; Olbf""l
!,.,doI>no
------~ ~- --            -- ---.,.             se~~l~~~ '~~~~l                  
.A""'''L YT[S ("'g/'g)  50-01 SlI- 02 68 - OJ 68-0' 58 - O~ ~R - Oft SR- 01 SB- Of!   SA- OQ S8- t 3 ! SR- " 68-15 £9-.8 88- 11 SR- t. se- ,.
_._-----~~_.              - - --- f-------   -~T"l);~              ---- -----
'~-~~P--.!~'- to 2 tH~_-                            -==-i -              ---
-~~!p~~_~n._____-   - - - 002J  - - -  - - -   - - -     - - - - - - - -- - - -   ---. n
               - ~-- __n       
hI h.!"!,        - - - 0 IJ  - - -  - - -   - - -        - - - - - - - -- - - -    
-                     -- n  - -               
~~~..,.       - - - - -  -  - - - - - -   - - -  - - -- -- -------  - - - - - - - - - -- -   --
                   ~ - -~-               
Cf'rf"        - - - 0 IJ - - - -  0 02J   - - -        - - - 001J - - - 0 ooeJ    -
-              -          --       
,.J.n_'.~~.~f".". ~~--- ---- -- --=:.: _n oe   o OS.!  0 06J  ~~~   -- -  0 ~ 0 04J 0 QOe.J 0 =   --
          ---- --      
8JPt~~~_._--   - - - 0 ~   - - -  9~  002J     --  0 ()4J 0 04J . - - 0 OU   ---
 -- --.-.-        ~-          
bl'Tu_o'~~h.n. -----   - - - O .   0 OS.! .Q.~  0 O~   --  - - -  I  - - -  - - -    0 IJ 0 O&J - - - 0 02J   -~
g hJry~ryl.n. -    - - - 0 JJ  - - - ! 0 ()4J   0 OIJ      - - -  L---:-:-:--- - - -    0 OJJ 0 OJJ - - - 0 OtJ    
,1t}"uor.rlhfl"l --~   - - - 0 ~  === j -~~~   0 01J      - - -    - - -  - - - -  - - - - - - - - - 0 OtOJ   ~-
               -      --  ---- --           
'-"c\d       - - - -  -  -   --"~~-      - - -   --=-=--=-  OO:\.)   ~~ 0 IJ 00:>.1 0 04J    
 ---- ---         -- --- ----~ ----..      ---            
nT'f1ph_'!,'~"-- --  - - - - -  -  ~;~ j -- -   C'-"-'-"'-      - - -    - - -  - - - --  - - - - - - - - - 0 OOGJ   ---
               - ----- -~ --'--   -  -            
'.        - - -  0  '   _OO!~  002J    ----  - - -    OOu  - - -    0 06J 0 05.J - -- 0=    
                      - --       -                  
I}tfl~~~~flC"_~~-   - - - 0 IJ  - - - - - -   - - -      - - -    - - -  ~4-  - - - 0001J - - - - - -    
           -~            
ofU1er1       - - - 0 OI\.J  - - - - - -   - - -                 - - - - - - - - - - - -    
                --- ----- - -             
-~u'ylp~"IA'4!~    - - - - -  -  - - - - - -   - - -      - - -         - - - - - - - -- - - -    
         ---- ._-~-'--           
Ip:,'_~~'.       0  ' O 'J  0 S.!  - - -   0 OO'>J      - - -         - - - - - - 0 QOe.J - - -    
                   -~-             
..,n-'~..,.       0 OIJ   1    0 O~ 0 IJ   0 O_~- --- --- - 0 OIJ   - 0 O'J  - - - J-  0 IJ 0 OQ.J - - - 004J    
                --            ----              
'.        - - - 0 \J  - - - - - -   - - -   ---  - - -    - - -  - - - --  - - - - - - - - - - - -   --
             -     -------  -- ------             
{~j2~d)py'.~-    - - - 0 J,J  - - - O~ _0.C'-'''----   --  - - -    - - -  - - - -~  0 OJJ- e---2- () JJ - -- 0 OOGJ --- -- ------
-      - --- --~-- ---   -- ----- ---     
~o!.~~-lp~"'1~-~~:'~    - - - - -  -  - - - - - -   - - -      - - -   - - - -  - - - --  - - - - - - - - - - - -  --- ---
            -  --~,-- ----      
118.".       - - - 002J - - - - - -   - - -      - - -    - - -  - - -    - - - - - - 0 ooe.J - - -    
n,h,.".       0 001J   ,    OOJJ 0 tJ   0 02J      - - -    - - -  - -- ~-  0 oe.J 001J - - - 004J    
                       ---               
I        - - - - - -  - - - - - -   - - -      - - -    - - -  - - - --  - - - - - - - - - - - -   ----
                           -- ------              
        0 OOGJ  O.  O_~ O 'J   0 (}2J      0 Ou   ~Q~~ - - -    001J 0 oe.J - - - 0 OJJ --- -----
~~!?rOItOpf~p)'?!~   - - - - -  -  - - - - - -   - - -      - - -   -------=-=-::.- - - - ---  - - - - - - 0 ooe.J - - - ---~._---  
        - -"'---  ---        
£'h ~~pt1I""'I8'.    0 ~  08  - - - - - -  - - -      - - -    - - -  - - -    0 O<\J 0 05.J 06..1 -- -    
               ---          
Ph1luI81..       "  0 t  0  '   0    001'       0      0    0     0 De 005 0 soe 0 000    
PA~~.--- -       0 (}2' "  32  2~  0 !_'-L--.-?-      0 02  ~O ()
-------
hbiP .. -.. (Con'I)'m Soli Sampling R..ult. lI.t 01 O,tK1,d S,m""'Ol.trle Oro,nict
 "N"l YfE6 Imw>g) 68-01 88-02 &8-03 68-04 S8- 05 68-011 88-07 68-011 68-og 68-'0 68-" 69-12 68-13 58-'" 88-tS 88-ui 88-17 89- II 68-10
f--                   
~...!!~-~~. .. to 5 1.,1                   
~!!..~ln'Dhl"'''n'   ---   - - -      - - -  -- - --- --- ---  
Acen,p"lh.n'   - - -   - - -      - - -  -- - --- --- ---  
Ac.n, ~1It"e   ---   - - -      - - -  -- - --- --- ---  
Anlht8c.n,   0011   002J      - - -  --- --- --- O.OOGJ  
e.nm{!I"nthrac,n,   O.IJ   004J      - - -  --- O.OIJ --- 0.04J  
e!~~l~Vt'.n,   O.IJ   ---      - --  -- - --- --- 0.03.1  
B.nZD(bJ nuorenlh.n'   0.2J   0.04J      - - -  -- - 0.02.J --- 0.04J  
~1I8'J"''YI.""   0.07J   ---      -- -  -- - --- --- O. 02.J  
~t~)nuO'8n~h.ne   O.~   OOU      - - -  -- - --- --- O. 02.J  
e~nmlc Acid   ---   - - -     ..- - - -  - - - O.OGJ 002.J O.V  
=---           
e~"'I,~~l)'lp~th',~'t   - --   - - -     - - - -  -- - --- --- O.O'J  
~_~n.   O.IJ   0.03.1      - - -  - - - --- --- 0.04J  
E'~{! h)'nU'nc'n'   - - -   - - -      - - -  -- - --- --- ---  
OlMnlotUl8n   - - -   ---      - - -  -- - --- --- ---  
01- N'; butv~hlh.III"   ---   - - -      - - -  - - - --- --- 2  
~~Ip"'h.t8"   - --   ---      - - -  --- --- 0.005J O.oaIJ  
Ftuor.nt".n,   OV   0.1J      O()O(\J  OOU - -- --- 0.07J  
rtuol.n'   ---   O()O(\J      - - -  - - - --- --- ---  
~c:-no{' ,2',3- c(ftDW,.ne   0.07J   ---      - - -  - -- --- --- 0.02.J  
~!lfI'o'OdIE",nYlemm'   ---   -- -      -- -  --- --- --- ---  
~p"I"'e~n'   ---   ---    -  - - -  --- --- 0.007J ---  
~!n."t~~'   ov   007J     '---. - - -  o-OIJ --- --- 0.07J  
~,.nol   - --   ---      - - -  -- - --- --- ---  
Pvr'"t   O.V   o. OIIJ      ---  O.OOOJ --- --- O.~  
b"{2 - Chloro.o~. "t1h.r   ---   ---      - - -  - -- --- --- ---  
b"{2 - £thylh'IY~p'h'hal8t.   ---   ---      - - -  O~ O.OIIJ --- ---  
Tol8t Phthalat,.   0   0      0  O.M 008 0.005 2.015  
~~--   1.32   0.378      0 DOe  0020 0.03 0.007 ,'00  
~.IPAH.            
NOTES'
r-===J Not .'mpled
r~ Con.llut"t ,n'trnd tor and no' detecttd
J E81Ima,.d ",tu,

-------
Table 4-5. RI SolI Sampling Re8uIIa: Ud d 0ee8cI8d P8tidd88JPC8a
.. NW. vres (mglkg) 88-01 SB-02 SB~ 88-G4 88-06 88-08 88-{f7  SB-oe 88-08  SB-10  88-11 
Soil SamDies 0 to 1 Feet                   
4,4-000    --- 0.0144 --- --- 0.008 - - 0.01g.)  - ---  ---  --- 
4,4-00E    --- --- 0.087 J --- --- --- ---  --- ---  ---  --- 
4.4-00T    --- --- --- --- --- - - 0.012J  --- ---  ---  --- 
Oieldrin    - - --- --- --- --- --- ---  -- 0.0027  ---  - -- 
Endo&ulan I    - - --- --- --- --- --- ---  --- --  --  --- 
Endo&ul." sullale     -- --- --- ---  -- 0.0044 0.0045  -- ---  ---  --- 
Endrin    --- - - --- 0.12J --- --  ---  --- ---  ---  --- 
Endrin Ketone    --- --- --- --- --- --- ---  --- ---  ---  --- 
Hepl8chlot    --- --- --- --- --- --- ---  --- ---  ---  --- 
Hepl8chlot Epoxide    --- --- --- --- --- --- ---  --- ---  ---  --- 
PCB-12So'    --- ---  --- --- --- --  --- ---  ---  --- 
PCS-1260    --- 1.2 --- 10J 2.2J 5.8J 1.2  --- ---  0.11  0.68 
alpha-CNOfdane    --- 0.025 --- --- 0.004 0.008 0.012J  -- --  ---  --- 
della-SHC    --- --- --- --- --- --- ---  --- ---  '---  --- 
gamma-SHC    --- --- --- --- - - --- ---  --- ---  ---  --- 
Qamma - ChlOfdane    --- --- --- --- --- --- ---  --- ---  ---  ---
Soils SamPles 1 to 2....                   
4.4-000        --- 0.0027  -- --- ---     ---  --- 
4.4-DDE        --- --- --- --- ---     ---  --- 
4.4-0DT        -- ---  -- --- ---     ---  --- 
Oield,in        --- -- --- --- --- i    0.0065  0.0019 
Endosulan I        --- --- --- - - --- I    ---  --- I
Endosulan sulfate        --- --- --- --- --- I    --  -- - :
End,;,        --- --- --- --- --- I    -- -  --- I
End,;, Ketone        --- --- --- --- --- I    -- -  --- 
HeptachlOl     I   --- --- --- --- --- I    --- I -- - 
HeptachlOl Epoxicl.        --- --- --- --- --- I    ---  - - -
PCB -1254        -- ---  -- --- ---    I --- I --- ;
PCB-1260        --- --- --- --- --- I   I - - - I - - - 
alpha - ChiOI dan.        --- --- --- --- ---     --- I - - 
. delta-SHC        -- --- --- --- ---     ---  -- - 
aamma - BHC        -- --- --- --- ---     0.0023  - - - 
gamma- ChiOldan.        --- --- --- --- ---    I 0.0014  - - -
Soil Samples 4 to 5 Feet               I    I
4.4-000        0.00057    - -       I  I
4.4-00E        ---    ---       I  :
4.4-0DT        --    0.01       I  i
Dieldrin        0.044    ---     I  I  :
'Endosulan I        ---    ---         I
Endosulan sulfate        ---    ---       I  I
Endr;,        ---    ---       I  :
End,,, Ketone        --    ---       I  I
HeptachlOl        ---    ---     I  i  I
'HeptachlOl Epoxide        ---    ---         !
I PCB-1254        ---    --          :
IPCB-1260        ---    ---     I    
alpha-CNOIdane        0.00058     --     !  I  i
I delta-BHC        ---     --     I  I  ,
Igamma-BHC        O.OO8Q    --      I    
\gamm,,-ChIOldane      I ---    1.a.!     ,    
NOTES:

I
I Not sampled
Cons lituenl eneIyzed for and net detected
J Estimated value

-------
 NW. YTES (mglkg)  SB-12  SB-13  SB-14  SB-15  S8-10  SB-17  SB-18  SB-HI   
Soil Samplea 0"'1 Feel                       
4.4-000     -   ---     -  ---  ---  ---  ---   !
4.4-00E     ---  ---  --- I ---  ---  ---  - --  - - -   
4.4-00T       ! O.le    -   --  ---  - --  - - -   :
O..'dnn     --   0017  -- i    -- -  004J  -- -  - - -   I
End05ulan I      -  -- -  O.oa5J  ---  ---  ---  ---  - - -   
Endo&ulan .uHate     ---  ---  ---  ---  ---  ---  ---  ---   
End",      ---  0.0031  ---  ---  ---  ---  ---  - - -   
Endrn KetoM        Ooog  0.C47J  ---  --  ---  ---  ---   
Heplac h'o<     -   ---  --   -  ---  ---  ---  ---   
Heplach'o< EpoXJde    ---  0.01  O.o.uJ  ---  ---  ---  ---  0.0077   
PCB 1254     ---  ---  e.3J  ---  .54.1  -   .38  ---   
PCB 1200     - -  - -  --  ---  -   -  ---  ---   
aJpha - Ct-/o< dane     0.003e  0.004  -  ---  ---  ---  0.0045  ---   
delta-BHC     ---  ---  0.0045  ---  ---  ---  ---  ---   
I gamma-BHC     ---  0.00«  ---  ---  0.0022  -   0.0037  0.0072   
I gamma - Chlo
-------
'Table 4-0. RI Soil.Sampling Re.u!ta: Uat of Detected tnorlJ&ft8c AMJyt.e.
 ANAL YTC8 Cmlllkg) 88-01 S8-02 88-03  88-04 88-05 SB-oe  88-07  88-08 SB-OO  S8 - 1 0   
 Soil Sample. 0 to 1 Feet                     
 Aluminum  1600 1050 1270  1400 8115 2150  11100  ~37 02~  100   
 Antimonv  - --- - -  --- --- ---  ---  --- ---  ---   
 Atsenic:  --- 1.11 J 1.1 J  2.8 O.64J 1.3 J  ~.~ JS  8.8 0.~4 J  ---   
 881ium  --- 8.8 J ~.II J  12.0J 7.3 J 7.7 J  34.0 J  --- 5.~ J  22.1 J   
 BerYllium  0.57 J --- ---  0.70J 0J14 J ---  ---  --- ---  ---   
 Cadmium  -- -- ---  --- --- 1.1   0.2  --- ---  ---   
 Calcium  84100 311110 7170  84200 03400 22700  31110  10700 17700  373 J   
 Chromium  4.8 3.7 2.4  0.1 5.8 15.1  38.0  3.11 3.11  72.11   
 Cobalt  --- --- ---  --- --- 4.11 J  -  --- ---  ---   
 Cooper  7.2 22.2 8.2  511.7 24.3 23.0  211.5  8.8 12.8  111.3   
 Iron  422' 038' 1040'  3730 . 7211' 1020'  1570'  5511' 727"  044'   
 lead  1.2 113 S 10.5  42.4 2.8S 13.0  3".8  11.7 13.4  10.1   
 Maanesium  811.11 J 00.11 J 101 J  305 J 218 J 205J  135 J  lOCI J ~211 J  ---   
 Manaanese  15.0 18.2 28.5.  83.4 80.2 8811  18.0  23.0 30.7  7.6    
 Mercu",  --- --- ---  0.75 --- ---  0.31  0.~3 ---  --- i
 Nickel  --- --- ---  0.7 20.1 208  88.5  --- 7.lJ J  e.7 J I
 Selenium  0.34.IN 0.88.-.J 0.511JN  0.~1 IN 0.33 IN 0.53J  0.54 IN  0.38 IN O.~O IN  0.32 IN !
 Sodium  134 J ---  -  152 J 27/1 J ---  ---  --- ---  --- I  
 Vanadium  3.11 J --- 3.11 J  IU' 5.8 J 4.5 J  ~.1 J I 4.2 J 21.1  13.0 I
 Zinc  8.5 38.3 11.8  2111 111.8 14.7  158  87.5 13.3  ~3.7 !
               I      I  
                     I  
                     I  
 Soils Sam ales  1 to 2 "et                   ;  
 Aluminum    253  582 1150 883  383 I    174 I  
 Antimonv    ---  --- --- ---  - - '    - - i  
      ,     
 Ar$enic    - -  --- O.OIlJ - -  0.06 J I    --- I
 Balium    ---  --- 8.1 J ---  --- :    ---   
 Bervllium    --- I --- O.60J ---  --- I   -- I  
 Cadmium    ---  --- --- ---  ---     --- I  
 Calcium    1440  7360 82100 5480 I 1050 J I    51.2 J I
 Chromium    ---  --- ~.5 11.8  5.0 I    6.7  '  
          ,  
 Coba"  I ---  --- --- --  ---    : --- :  
 Copper    ---  3.3 J 12.1 5.0 J  7.2     2.1 J I  
 Iron    2111'  842' 823' 883.  282.     66.2.   
 Lead    2.5  2.2 3.11 ~.3  11.8    1.1    
 Magn.sium    ---  7~.1I J 200 J 58.~ J  ---     ---   
 Mangan....    8.7  5.~ 28.8 1811  ~.2     ---   
. Mercurv    ---  --- --- 0.12  0.0110     ---   
I Nicke'    ---  --- --- 1211  22.11     - -   
I Selenium    ---  0.55 J O./lIIJN 0.80 IN  0.35.IN     ---  I 
 Sodium     -  -- 160 J ---  ---     --- I
 Vanadium    ---  2.11 J 4.7 J 2.3 J  ---     ---   
 Zinc    4.0 J  8.5 5.2 11.2  50.11    6.5 I
                     !
! Soil Samples 4 to 5 Feet                   I
'Aluminum    740    281          I
I Antimonv     --    ---      I     , 
I Ar5enu:    1.2 J    ---            
I Balium    ---    ---           , 
I B-rvllium    ---    ---           i 
I Cadmium    ---    1.3            
I Calcium    53~0    0117 J           I
I Chromium    ---    10.3            
I Cobalt     ---    ---           I
I CODDer    11.1    2.0 J           I
               -I
,Iron    SCI4 .    4811'           ,
 ,lead    14.8    2.8           ,
 Maonesium    67.7 J    ---      I     I
 Manganese    21.1    36.8           I
 Mercurv-    ---    ---            I
 N,ckel    ---    18.8            
 Selenium    0.28J    O.:s. ~            
 ; Sodium    ---    ---            :
 I Vanadium    ---    ---            ,
 IZ,"c    15.3    4.0 J          I
NOTES
a Not s8lnpled
- - - Constituent analyzed tOf and not del8cl8 d
Sample exceeds tolerance limila
J Estim8led value is Ie.. than CRDl
D V~ue obtained nom . diloJl8d sample
N Estim8led value: spike sample recovery is not within control limb.
. Estimal8d value: duplica18 analysis is not within control limits.
E Esbmal8d due 10 the preunce 01 an interferent

-------
Tab.. 4-11. (Con'l) RI Soil Sampling R..ulta: Ual at D.IM:t8d Inorganic Analyt-
                          I
ANAL YTES (mg/kg)  SS-11 S8-12  S8-13 SB-U S8 -1 5  sa-111  S8-17  S8-1I   S8-111  I
Soil Sample. OlD 1  Feel                  I  i
AJumlnum     38.11 J 11115 I 520 E 5111 ,.11 E  200 j  5111 j  IllS  : 2110 j I
Anbmony    I --  -- I --- --- --- I -- -  70J  ---   - - - I
Arsenic    i -  -- I --- O.IIS j ---  -- -  0.42 j I - -   043 j  ,
Barium     15.11 J 211.0 J  5.4 j 7.3 j --  11.5 j  5.11 j , - - - i 4 S j  
Beryllium      - ---  - --- --  --         --  
Cedmlum     --- - -  - - ---  ---  ---  -   ---  
I",,&Iclum     50.2 J' 5112 j'  1 4300 J' 20000 8112 J'  2500 j  1080 j  1050'   851j  
Chromium     34  50.:  47J8 114 2.8  - -  4.3 j  -   20 j  
Cobalt      - -   --- - --  ---  ---  --   ---  
Coppe<     110 11.11  111.1 33.0 338  10.0 j  117J  10.0   58j  
Iron      323 3011  7110 3070 75S  1125 j  811 j  2110   g(\7 J  
Lead     10.2 214  11.0 44.5 242  5.7 j  2.3 j  5.4   22 j  
Magnesium     --- ---  122 J 2114 J 42 J  48.2 j  44.5 J  ---   -400 j  
Mang~.e     1.8 J 5.3  15.11 40.5 8.0  5.0 j  211.4 J  2.3 j   34j  
Mercury     --- ---  --- 0.21 ---  -- -  -- -  ---   ---  
iNlckel     --- 7.5 J  84.2 30.2 ---  11.3 J  411.3 J  --- I  -- -  ;
Selenium     --- 0.30 J  0.22j --- ---  ---  ---  - - -   --- I
Sodium     - - - -- - I --- --- ---  ---  ---  --- I  -- - I
Vanadium     2.3 j 3.5 j I 23.11 11.3 J 3.3 J    '     I  - - - ,
Zinc     ' 4 II  208 I 241 2811 28.5  74.11 j I 204 j  104   8 II J  
I          I                
     I            I   I  I    
                  i     i
Soil. Sample~lo :z ," 'I               i    I
i Aluminum    , 138 21..IE   500 E 23 2 jE  40.5 j  411 0 J       
: AntJmonv - .--- -                      ..
    - -  - - -   - - -      - -       
f~~~:~ ~------ - -   --- - --   --- ---  - - -  - - - I  I    
  - - ---   - -  - -    I  ,    
iSef  -----.-                  ------- - -. 
Ilium     -- - - - -   -- - - - - I - - -  - --       
.-~~--- -
I CadmLum

-------
Tab.. 4-1. RI ~ Will., SampRng R_uII8: lilt 01 Detected Volall.. OrgenIc8
 ANAlTTEB (uWL) IIIW-Ot IIIW -02 IIW -03 1IW-04 IootW-1J5 IIW-Qe IootW-01 "W-01 IIW-08 IIIW - 00 IIIW-OO IIW- tt IIW-12 ".cteral
            EPA   EPA EP.\ EPA MCl
 8he11ow Ground W8te.                
  10 to 20 Feet                
I. I. I - Trichloroethane O.OJ 2J --- --- ---          200
I. I -Oich~I"- --- --- --- --- ---          NA
I.I-Oich~t,*,- --- --- --- --- ---          1
1.2-0ich~then. (lotal) --- --- 1  --- ---          10
cil - 1.3 -Oichlotopropene IJ --- --- --- ---          NA
A_one  43OO.AB lDORB 83AB t goRB OOAB          NA
Ben~-  --- --- --- --- ---          5
Carbon Ollulfide IJ 0.1J --- --- 2J          NA
Oichlotomlllhan. --- --- --- --- ---          5
T III,achlorollthene --- --- --- --- ---          5
Toluene  IJRB 0.1J.AB --- leAB ---          1000
T richloroethene --- --- --- --- ---          5
T richlotomet"- --- --- --- --- ---          100
Vinyl Chlonde --- --- --- --- ---          2
Xylene (lotal) --- --- --- --- ---          10
 lnIermedIIII. Goound Will..                
  30 to 40 Feet                
I. I . I - Trlchloroet"- --- --- ---  ---          200
I. I -Olch~lhane --- --- ---  ---          NA
I. , - Oichloroelhene --- --- ---  ---          1
I.2-0ichloroelh8ne (lotal) ~ 1G G   30          10
cis-I3-0ichlotoprope". --- --- ---  ---          NA
A_one  J/jAB --- 2eAB  .ooB          NA
Ben~-  --- --- ---  ---          5
Carbon Ol8ullide 0.5.1 O.OJ ---  ---          NA
Oichloromlllhane --- --- ---  ---          5
T lllractoloroelh8ne --- --- ---  ---          5
T oIue".  --- 0.5J,RB ---  ---          1000
Trichtoroeth8ne --- --- ---  ---          5
T richlotomel"- 2J IJ ---  ---          100
VInyl Chloride --- 22 ---  2.          2
Xylene (Iota/) --- --- ---  ---          10
 DMp ~ Will.                
  15 to 115 Feet         . --       
1.1 I - T rlchloroelhane ---  --- ---  ---  --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 200
, . I - Oichloroel"- ---  0.3.1 -  IJ  O.OJ --- --- --- --- 0.D7J I.~ NA
1.1 -Oichloroelh8ne ---  - - ---  ---  3.1 --- 0.5.1 5.1 4.3.1 --- 0.8OJ 1
I.2-0ichloroelh8ne (lotal) II  ~  2100  !>300 u 300C 1.G DI '0000 1020 41.2 .OJ 10
cis - I .3-0ichlotopropene ---  --- ---  --  --- -- --- --- --- --- --- NA
A_one  33AB  110 2DRB  lOORB  -- - ... 330 --- --- --- NA
Benzene  ---  --- ---  ---  --- --- --- --- I.~ 0.504J --- 5
Catbon Ollulfide O.OJ  IJ  2J  :Ie  2J --- --- --- --- --- --- NA
D'chloromlllhane ---  26AB. TB ---  ---  --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 5
T etmchloroelh8ne ---  --- 3:>  ---  --- --- --- 200 10 --- --- 5
T oIue".  ---  3J.AB ---  ---  --- --- --- 31J AB -- 0.75.1 --- 1000
Trichloroelh8ne ---  0.5.1 GO  3.1  --- --- --- 220 ::12 --- --- 5
Trichloromethane ---  OOJ RB T ---  ---  --- --- --- --- -~- 0.51J --- 100
Vinyl Chloride ---  12  43  2\  ,. 0.e..J 38 150 DIJ 14 2D 2
y~n. (lotal) ---  - - ---  -  --- --- --- --- --- 0.""" --- 10
NOTES:
~
o
RB
TB
NA
Not an&JY18d
Sample ..,,&Jyzed fOr and not detected
Sample ..ceedl MCL
Elttmaled v&Jue
V&Jue obl&Jned 110m a dilUted lamp Ie
COnllnuent detectld In aeloclaled Itnl"'l blank
Con8lrtuent detected In aelocl"'ld trip blank
No Federal MCl e.1111

-------
Table 4-8. Injection Well Sampling Results: Ust of Detected Volatile Organi~s .
    Federal
ANAl YTES  MW-10  MCL
Intermediate Ground Water (ug/I)    
45 to 50 Feet    
1 ,2- Dichloroethene  2J  100
Carbon Disulfide  ---  NA
Dichloromethane  ---  NA
T etrachloroethene I 130 I 5
Trichloroethane  3J  NA
Intermediate Ground Water (ug/I)    
60 to 65 Feat    
1,2- Dichloroethene  16  100
Carbon Disulfide  ---  NA
Dichloromethane  ---  NA
T etrachloroethene I 130 I 5
Trichloroethene  4J  NA
Deep Ground Water (ug/l)    
75 to 80 Feet    
1.2- Dichloroethene  5  100
Carbon Disulfide  3J  NA
Dichloromethane  ---  NA
T etrachloroethene I 82-110 I 5
T richloroethene  3J  NA
Sediment (mg/kg)    
1,2- Dichloroethene  0.17 J  NA
Carbon Disulfide  ---  NA
Dichloromethane  2.9  NA
T etrachloroethene  5.5  NA
Trichloroethene  ---  NA
NOTES:

~
~ Constituent analyzed for and not detected
I Sample exceeds MCL
J Estimated value
NA No Federal MCL exists

-------
Table 4-9. RI Ground Water Sampling Results: List of Detected Semivolatile Organics
                I  Federal I
                I  I
  ANAL YTES (UQfI)  MW-01  MW -02  MW -03  MW-04  MW -05 MW -06 MW-07 MCL  i
 Shallow Ground Water           1     
           !    i
  10 to 20 Feet             
 Benzo(a)anthracene  ---  -  ---  --- I --- I   NA  
 D,-N-butvlphthalate  ---  --- ! ---  --- I ---    NA  
 Fluoranthene    -  -  -  ---  -  I  NA  
 Phenanthrene    ---  -  ---  ---  ---    NA  
 Pyrene    ---    -  - I     NA  
 bls (2 - Ethylhexyl)phthalate  1 J  0.8 J  ---  --- I ---   I 4  
          ,
 Total Phthalates   1  0.8  0  0  0  I  NA i
 Total PAHs    0  0 I 0  0  0   I NA I
I Intermediate Ground Water           I ! I  I
          I  I
I  30 to 40 Feet           I   
I Benzo(a)anthracene  ---  --- I 0.2 J    ---  I I NA '
I DI-N-butylphthalate              ---- 
 04J  0.7 J I ---    0.2 J  .  NA  
I Fluoranthene   I ---  ---  0.2 J    --- I  I NA  
            ,     
 Phenanthrene   1 --- I ---  0.1 J ;  . -- -    NA  
 Pyrene   I     0.1 J   !    I NA --,
   ---  ---  I  --- , I  
 bls 2-Eth Ihex I hthalate  --- 1 04J I --- I   07 J    4  
( y y)p
! Total Phthalates
~tal PAHs

Deep Ground Water
75 to 95 Feet
1 Benzo(a)anthracene
I D,-N-butylphthalate
. Fluoranthene
Phenanthrene
I Pyrene
~ bls(2 -Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Total Phthalates
: Total PAHs
04
o
I 11
[_0

-I
09
o
NA
----~
NA
"- ,,--=---;~:,--=--:=---==-=--,-_. ~
ni
06_~
I I
I
I
------.. ~._- --- -------- -
J----
0.2 J
o 1 J
NA
NA
---+-_.~-----------------
.~-
- ~A- - .
02
o
04 J
0<:
o
1
i
- ---r---
---~------NA- -
~---~~-NA'
05 J ,- 4
0:: ° 1 . NA
~O~~---C~--;--N~~
----......_-~~
NOTES
I j Not sampled
Constituent analyzed lor and not detected
1'----11 Sample exceeds MCL
J Estimated value
NA No Federal MCL eXists

-------
Table 4-10. AI Ground Water Sampling Aesults: Ust of Detected PesticideslPCBs
I                  Federal  ,
i  ANAL YTES (ug/l) MW -01 MW -02 MW -03  MW-04  MW -05  MW -06  MW-07   MCL  
          I    I   '   
I Shallow Ground Water            I   I
i             I
;  10 to 20 Feet        I    I   ! 
 Aldrin  ---  -     I -   !  i NA I
 Endosullan I - 0.022 J   0.020 J  ---     , NA I
 Endrin Ketone --- - - -     --     I NA I
 Heptachlor 0.0093 J --- 0.012 J     ---     I 0.4  
! Qamma - Chlordane  -  0.013 J  0.034 J  ---     I 2  
i                    
 Intermediate Ground Water                  
  30 to 40 Feet                  
 Aldrin  0.057 --  --            NA  
 Endosullan I  0.023 J -          I  NA  
 Endrin Ketone 0.020 J  -      ---       NA  
 Heptachlor  0.018 J      -     I  0.4 i 
: Qamma - Chlordane 0.011 J 0.025 J 0.028 J     0.019 J     I  2  
I  Deep Ground Water                 I
 75 to 95 Feet                 I 
IAldrin  --     - -    ---  --- I NA I
 Endosullan I 0.039 J     0.032 J !   ---  ---' I NA i 
       -I     i  I  I  
 Endrin Ketone ---    --- I  --- ! --- NA ! 
 HePtachlor 0.040 J    I ---    0.012 J i --- i 0.4 j
I Qamma-Chlordane     I     , --- I ---   2
NOTES:
I
I
I
I Not sampled
I Consti1uent analyzed lor and not detected
~ Sample exceeds MCL
J Estimated value
NA No Federal MCL exists

-------
Table" - ". RI Ground Water Sampling Re..ult..: Ust 01 Detected Inorganic "nalytes
ANAL YTES u II
Dale
I
I MW-OI
MW-02
MW-03
Federal
MCL
     I  i    :  I   I  I  I  
 Shallow Ground Water   I           
   I  I            
 10t020Feel   I     i  I   I  '  I  
    I        I  '  
 i Aluminum Tota:  3191 ' 1900  80900  3700 I 52800  19300 I   ._-+--~--
     I      Nt. 
  :             i   --~--
   12/91  1550  130000  7150  38700  140000 I    NA --J
  Dissolved  12/91  149 J  207  151 J  197 J  254   i   NA I
 I Antimony Total  3/91  ---  - --  ---  - - - I 43J I  T   5' 
    12/91  - - -  - - -  ---  - --  - - - -1 I     ---~ .
            5' 
  Dissolved I 12/91  -- -  - - -  - - -  - - -  - - - I  I   5" 
I Arsenic Tota:  3/91  11  3.9  ---  - - -  4.0 I  T    ---
         50 
1    12/91  5.5  B-2    -     I     -.
             I  50 
  Dissolved  12-91  47  6.7         I    --.
I      ---  - - -  -- -     50 
I Barium T 01.81  3/91  22 J  84 J  84 J  93 J  44 J   I  I 1000 I
I    12/91 ' - - -  165 J  100 J  62.2  192 J I  I  ! 1000 
  Dissolved . 12/91 I 41.3  - - -  - - - I - - -  - - - I  I I  1000-.
 >------                
      - - -   I - - -  - - - I - --        
I Toto,
I

! Dissolved
. Cadm~~;;;---. T 018 I
I
Beryllium
--
Calclur:1
CrHomlum
Cobal~
Copper
Iron
.--~--
Lead
Magnesium
- -
-- -
Mang/1I1est'
Mercur y
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Vanad,um
----
ZinC
2 1
~!
3.4 I'
Dissolved 12191
i Total 3191
I 12191
I Dissolved 12191 I
--ITot~~-~~~
l 12191
I Dissolved 12191
!Total 3/91
i 12191
Dissolved 12/91
TOI.8I 3/91

fDlssolved ~~;::

I Total I 3/91
i I 12/91 I
Dissolved I 12/91 I
ITotal i 3/91 I
. I 12/91 I
I Dissolved 12/91 I
I Total 3191 !
I 12/91
i-DIssolved 12191
i, T ot~---;-- 3191
i
, 12191
Dissolved 12191 I
Tolal 3/91
12191 I
I 12/91 i
3191 I
12/91
I 12/91 I
I 3191
12191
12/91
3191
12/91
I 12/91
3191
12191
12191
3191
12/91
12191
3/91
Dissolved
Total
Dissolved
Total
Dissolved
Total
Dissolved
I T0181
I
I Dissolved
Total
Dissolvec
l Total
12/91
.-.._~-~
---------.
, Dissolvec
, '2 /9 ~
I
509:xJ 66400:
74800 94300 I
6!~OO~__9.2J,.()()~.J
- - - I 170 1:
t' 313 Ii
3 J
1200
576
356
1.1
- ---
- --
2100 J
1210 J
1010 J
120
75
644
- --
- --
- --
-- --
- --
-- ----
I
I
I
!
750 J
505 J
402 J
- --
2.1
- --
16700
7580
7430
-- --
- ---
- ---
----
23
19 J
~ 8
19 J
19.7
34
44
I
6900
8930
923
12 N
- --
- --
i
!
I
3100 J
4000 J
2670 J
68
59.8
37.1
0-3
0.46
- --
370
632
34.2
2400 J
2240 J
1360 J
- --
3 J
-- --
~
4000
26100
26300
40 J
66.6
7.5
57
109
i 48
26600
16700
15700
89
192
'4 J
14.4
1000 E
1940
37.6
5.8
25 J
- --
880 J
721 J
554 J
28
10.1
5J
- --
-- -
- --
- --
35.4
- --
450 J
388 J
300 J
- --
- --
- --
6500
3280 J
3240 J
- --
11.8
54
11 J
278
9.6
52
1
1
I"
I"

5
5
22
I
-;
5.3
5
28600 31000
37900--1 37700
348:xJ I 24400
] 34o-r---SO
1~31.cJL350 - 1
1 172 I
I
NA
Nf..
I NA
-------- - -. ~
10('
100
100
r,f..
-
- -----._~ "--
- --...--..,.
87
3800
3440
288
12 N
i
I
I
- --
- --
1100 J
948 J
520
92
58.8
47.8
---
-- -
- --
100
109
26.2
870 J
1310 J
1010
- --
-- -
---
3200 J
10700
10400
25 J
22 J
- --
100
27.3
-~~---
18
14.8
r~ f..
ru,
130e
130e
.~-"
130e
_. --- -'-'" --- -
-. ------- +- -
2000 I
102~-~~----
37.6 I
5.1
18.7
Nf..
-..- ----
NA
..-.-- --- -- ---
NI.
50
5~)
--- 1
670 J I
1720 Jl
262 I
73
44 4
14.8
50
Nt~
- -------+-----
. NI.
-+..--- -----
NA
-------
Nt.
NA
NA
2
:
~
- --
I
024
"
L
-
- ---
I
I
I'
~
560 J
1400 J
570
i
1
100"
10C"
10C
Nt.
Nt.
NA
-_.~--
I 50
I 50
I 50
--
--~~-
Nt.
79
368
--
- --
"1
on
-
~ -
-- --
--
- --
- --
2400 J
3280 J
19900
--
Nt.
Nt.
NA
r~t.
Nt.
- ---
65
- ---
- -..---------
-~ ------
32
- ~-----
102
r~ I.
----- -
r.f..
( 2

-------
Table 4 - 11. (Con't) RI Ground Water Sampling Results: Ust of Detected Inorganic Analytes
                Federal !
ANALYTES (ug/L)  MW-01   MW-02  MW-03 MW-04  MW-05  MW-06  MW-07  MCL 
Intermediate Ground Water                 
30 to 40 Feet                 
Aluminum  19200   3600  2~200   2800      NA 
An~mony  ---  I 42 J I ---   ---      5. 
Arsenic  4.8   2.3  2.5   ---      50 
Barium  190 J   65 J  150 J   43 J      1000 
Beryllium  ---   ---  ---   -      1" 
Cadmium  ---   ---  ---   ---      5 
Calcium  37200   53400  31100   48500      NA 
Chromium  34  12  54   17      100 
Cobalt  -  --  ---   --      NA 
Copper  13 J   10 J  14 J   --      1300 
Ilron  1300   950  1300 E   740      NA 
I Lead   7.8   1.0  9.5   1.3      50
! MaQnesium  1800 J   2700 J  1800 J   11 00 J      NA 
I ManQanese  17  47  90   30      NA 
I Mercury  -- -   ---  - --   ---   I   2 
INickel  ---   ---  60   - - -   ,   100. 
        I   
I Potassium  3000 J   2800 J  770 J   660 J   I   NA 
I Selenium  1.3 !  -  1.1   - - I  !   50 ,
I Sodium  53800   58700  27700   13200 I  I   NA i
I Vanadium ! 130   - - -  23 J   --- I  i   NA 1
I Zinc I 21  28  36   25 I  i   NA
: Deep Ground Water           I  \    I
i 75 to 95 Feet              
I Aluminum  470      750   I 230 I 150 J  NA I
I Antimony        -    - I 34 J I: 5. i
i Arsenic  ---      -- -    - - - ! - - - i 50 I
Barium  53 J      33 J    42 J  61 J  1000 
I Beryllium  ---      ---    - - -  - - -  ,. 
Cadmium  ---      ---    - - -  - - -  5 
Calcium  67000      53700    79300  50500  NA 
I Chromium  -- -      11    - - -  12  100 
ICobalt  ---      ---    - - -  - - -  NA 
I Copper  -- - I     ---    t3 J  10 J  1300 
.Iron  340      410 I   970  110  NA i
; Lead   - --      ---    - - -  - - -  50 J
: MaQnesium  2800 J      2600 J    2500 J  2900 J  NA 
I ManQanese  29      45    73  46  NA 
I Mercury  ---      ---    ---  - - -  2 I
INickel  ---      ---    -- -  -- -  100. I
I Potassium  2500 J      1300 J    1300 J  1900 J  NA 
I Selenium  - --      ---    - - -  - - -  50 I
. Sodium  41400      32700    21600  46200  NA I
           I
! Vanadium  ---      ---    -- -  - - -  NA I
IZinc  15 J      27    38  89  NA 
NOTES:
~
~

J
N
Not aampled
Cons~tuent analyzed lor and not detected
Sample exceeds tolerance ~mits
Sample exceeds MCl
Es~mated value
Estimated value: spike sample recovery not within control limits
Proposed MCl
NA No Federal MCl exists

-------
APPENDIX D
ESTLMATES OF PATHWAY-SPECIFIC INTAKES
76

-------
TAlllE 3-12
CURRENT AND fUTURE OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES
INHALATION Of fUGITIVE DUST fROM SOil
INHALATION INTAKE FACrORS
Anodyne Inc. Site
North Miami Beach, florida
I NHAL All Of\ If\TAKE
Whcrc: C =
 IR 
 ET =
 EF 
 ED 
 BW 
 AT 
 CF 
..-------.
Exposu re Va ri;l hie
CI:
IR
ET
EF
ED
13W
AT
AT
(Noncarcinogen)
(Carcinogcn)
C " CF " IR " ET " EF " ED
I3W"AT
Concentration in Soil. mglkg
Inhalation Rate, m3/hr
E:I:posure Time, hours/day
Exposure Frequcncy. days/yr
Exposure Duration. ycars
Body Weight, kg
,\\'cragin,!: Time, days
Conversion Factor from Cowherd 1\1odel. kg/rn'
.-.. -. - -'-__._.-n
....- --_..
Construction Worker
Inhabtiun of Dusts
Utilit\' Worker
On - Sile Worke r
.---- .--
7.4E-09 7.4[-n9 (J.75E-]O
2.5 2.5 2j
8 ~ I
125 5 250
1 1 25
70 70 70
365 365 9,125
25.550 25,550 25.550
PATHWAY-SPECIfIC INTAKES:
Inhalation of Dusts from Soil:
Future:
Construction Worker (Noncarcinogens)
Construction Worker (Carcinogens)
Current and Future:

Utility Workers (Noncarcinogens)

Utility \I.,'orkcrs (C1rcinogens)
Current ;lnd Future:
On - Site Workers (!'Jonc.1rcinogens)
On - Silt' Workers (Carcinogens)
= C (mglkg) .
= C (mglkg) .
7.24E-1O Iday
l.03E-ll/day
= C (mgjkg) "
= C (mglkg) "
2.90E - 1 I 1d.1Y
4.14E- 13 Iday
= C (mr..'kg) "
= C (mr.'kg) "
1.65E-Il/d:i\'
5 .90E - 12 Id;l~'

-------
2
TABLE 3-13
CURRENT AND FUTURE OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURr:.s
DERMAL CONTACT WIllI son~~
DERMAL DOSE FACfORS
Anodync Inc. Sitc
North Miami Beach, Florid..a
I DERMAL I NT AKE (SI!O;;:I~)

C
I SA
AF
1 ABS
EF
ED
BW
Al
(,F
--
C 0 SA 0 AF . ABS 0 EF . ED . CF
B W . AT
Concentration in Media of Concern, m~/kg
Surface Arca of Exposed Skin, cm2/day
Soil to Skin Adherance Factor, mycm 2
Ahsorpt ion Factor (unit less)
Exposure Frequency, dayslyr
Exposure Duration, years
Body Weight, kg
Avcraging Time, days
Conversion Factor, IF-OI) kg/IT'"
,

I Fxposu;e
, Variable
------------------------
---- __0-
Const ruetinn \Vorke rs
- -- -
t1tillt\ Wnrkcr
-- -
I
i
l
SA
AI.
ABS
IT
ED
HW
AT
Al
CF
1.90(J
I
OOl (O.OO!- mc~L<;)
12~
J
70
1,90(1
]
O()] (OOO! - ml'lab)
<;
)
7(1
:w;
25,550
IE-Ot)
(Nonca rcinnge n)

(C.'-
-------
TABLE 3-10
POTENTIAL FUTURE OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE:
INHALATION OF AIRBORNE (VAPOR PHASE) CHEMICALS
INHALATION INTAKE FACTORS
Anodyne Inc. Site
North Miami Beach, Florida
INHALA110N INTAKE
(IRRIGATION)

Where: C
IR
ET
EF
ED
CF
OW
=
C . I R . [1' . EF . ED . CF
BW. AT
=
Concentration in Groundwater, mgIL
Inhalation Rate, mJ/hr
Exposure Time, hours/cby
Exposure Frequency, cbyslyr
Exposure Duration. years
Conversion Factor, LImJ
Body weight. kg
Averaging Time, d;\ys
=
AT
Exposure
\';Iri:lbk
Inhalation of Volatiles (Irri!!ation Scenario)

011- Site Workers
II~
ET
El'
ED
er:-
0\\'
AT
AT
O.8~
I
250
(Noncarcinogen - Adult)
(Carcinogen)
25
0.005
70
9,125
25,550
PATIIWA Y-SPECIFIC INTAKES:
Inhalation of Volatiles from Irri~ation (Potcntial Future):
Occupational Adult (Noncncinogens) = C (mgIL) .
4.1E-OS L/kg-day
Occupational Adult (Carcinogens)
= C (mgIL) .
1.5E-05 L/kg-cby

-------
r-
TABLE 3-tl
CURRENT AND FU11JRE OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES
INGESnON OF SOIl~<;
INGESnCm INTAKE FALiORS
Anodyne loc. Site
North Miami Beach, Florida
Exposure
Varia hie
---~-----
INGESllOr-.; It'-.'TAKE
v..'h cr e
C
IR
EF
ED
BW
AT
CF
IR.
EI
ED
BW
AT
AT
CF
(Nonca rcio0i'e nl
(Grclnogen)
-~----
PAllIWAY-SPECIFlC INTAKES
ID~estion of Soil:
Future:
Construction Worker (Noncarclnogens)
Construction Worker (Carcinogens)
Current and Future:
-~--_._---
Utility Worker (Nonc.arcinogens)
Utility Worker (CArcinogens)
~._-_._------~-
H~U---I
C. I R . EF . ED . CF
BW . AT
Concentration in Media of Concern, mg!kg
Ingestion Rate, mrJday
Exposure Frequency, davslve.ar
Exposure Duration, years
Hody Weight, kg
Averaging Time, lbvs
Conversion Factor, II. -O/j kgirnr
-"._- ---------
-_.---0rcstlon_ot Sol! .
Construction \\'(1[kcl LJlilII\ \\'orkt'f
50
12~
~()

~
I
70
~6~
25 ,~50
IE-OtJ
7()

v)~
2sYi{)

] I:-Oc)
-- --~-- -------- -- --~-- -
= C (mglkg). 2.45E-07/day
= C (mglkg) . 3.49E-09/day
= C (mglkg) . 9.78E-09/lby
= C (mg/kg). 1.40E-]0 ldav

-------
TABLE 3-7
CURRENT AND FU11JRE RESIDENTIAL EXPOSURE:
INGESTION OF CHEMICALS IN DRINKING WATER
INGESTION INTAKE FACTORS
Anodyne Inc. Site
North Miami Beach, Florida
INGESTION INTAKE .
==
C . I R . EF . ED
BW. AT
==
Concentration in Media of Concern, mg./L
Ingestion Rate. Lld3y
Exposure Frequency, days/year
Exposure Duration, years
Body Weight, kg
Averaging Time, days
Where:
C
IR
EF
ED
nw
AT
==
==
==
==
,
I Exposure
Vari:lhk
I .
Ingestion of Drinking Water 
.--.-----
m
EF
ED (Adult)
ED (Child)
BW (Adult)
BW (Child)
AT (Noncarc. - Adult)
AT (Nonc..HC. - Child)
AT (Carcinogen)
2
350
30
6
70
15
10,950
2,190
25,550
--
PAll-lWA Y-SPECIFIC INTAKES:
ID~estioD of DrinkiD~ Water (Current & Future):
Residential Adult (Nonc.arcinogens) == C (mgIL). 2.7E-02 L/kg-day
Residential Adult (Carcinogens)
== C (mgIL). 1.2E-02 L/kg-day
= C (mgIL). 13E-Ol L/kg-day
Residential Child (Noncarcinogeos)

-------
TABLE 3-8
POTEN'IlAL FUTURE RESrDEN'nAL EXPOSURE:
INHALATION OF AIRBORNE (VAPOR PHA5E) CHEMICALS FROM W A'ITI~
INHALATION INTAKE FACTORS
Anodyne Ine. Sile
North Miami Beach, Florida
~------
INHALA110N INTAKE
(SHOWER SCENARIO)
\"here:
C
OF
EF
ED
AT
- ------.- -----~_.-
!'XP(hUIl'
\',III:Jhk
---- --- ----
1)1
II
1'.1)
LI)
Al
.-\'I
Al
(Adult)
(Child)
(!\U!h.;tTL'lnugl'l1 - AJult)
(!\onc;lrcinog<.:n - Child)
(CarcInogen)
-~--
PATIIW A Y -SPECIFIC INTAKES:
C' DF . EF . ED
AT
Concentration l!1 Media of Concern, mt:fl
Inhalation Dose Factor (see teXl), UJ.:g-dav
Exposure Frequency', d:!vs\T
Exposure Duration, years
Averaging Time, days
--------------~-
Shower Scen:ni\)
----. ----------
JZcslJenll:tI
------ -------
004 J
l<;O
lO
()
JO,9S0
2,190
2\))0
--~-------~_._-- ----
Inl1<1l;}l1(~l!..o( VolatjJesl£9m Shower (Current an.,:LljJturet
l~esidenti3l Adult (Nonc.arcinogens) = C (mg/L)' 3.9E-02 Llkg-day
Residential Adult (Carcinogens)
Residential Child (1" ---arcinogens)
= C (mg/L) .
1.7E-02 L/kg-day
= C (mg/L) .
3.9E-02 L/kg-day

-------
TABLE 3-9
CURRENT AND FUTURE RESIDENTIAL EXPOSURE:
DERMAL CONTACf WITI-I CHEMICALS IN WATER
DERMAL DOSE FACTORS
Anodyne Inc. Site
North Miami Beach, Florida
DERMAL INTAKE (SHOWER) =
C . SA . PC . ET . EF . ED . Cr-
BW' AT
C =
SA 
PC =
ET 
EF =
ED =
BW =
AT =
CF =
Concentration in Media of Concern, mg/L
Surface AIea of Exposed Skin, cm1
Dermal Permeability Constant, cm/hr
Exposure Time, hr/
-------
APPENDIX E
'l'OXICITY VALUES FOR CHEMICALS OF CONCERN
77

-------
TABLE 4-3
TOXICITY VALUES FOR CIIEMICALS OF CONCERN
Anodyne Inc. Site
North Miami Beach, Florida
         -----    -- ----. - 
..._-- ----  .._. Noncarcir)~)g~r:!~C:rj~eri;~___._----- -- .--.-  Carcinogenic C~i!cri.;~.. -.--... . 
   Inhalation   Oral  Inhalalion  Oral  Inhalation  Oral  \\\. ighl of
   n. r:C (chronic)  Hr:D (chronic)  HFC (suhchronic) RFD (suhduonic) Slope r:aclor  Slope Faclor Evidence
~onsliluenls  (rnwK~-day)  (mJ.!)1q~-Jay)  ( III g.~1i=_~hy.L- (lIIwKg-Jay)  (mJ!/k~-Jay)-1  (I~~~=-~..!~l= -' 
/OLATILE OI~GANICS:              
 ,               
 1.2 - OichloroelhL'nc (Iolal) NO (h) 2.0[-02 (:I) ND (b) 2.0[-01 (b) NA  NA  
 Acetone  NO (h) 1.0[-01 (a) ND (b) 1.0E+00 (h) NA  NA  () (a)
 Carbon Disulfide  2.9E-m (c,h) I.OE -0 I (a) 2.9[-0.' (c,b) I.OE-OI (h) NA  NA  
 Ml'lh\'lcnl' Chloridl' 8.61:-0 J (l',h) 6.0[-02 (:I) 8.6[-01 (c,b) 6.01:-02 (11) 1.6[-03 (c,:I) 7.51:-03 (a) H2
 Tc 1 rachloll )(:1 henc NO (h) \.OE-02 (a) ND (h) 1.01:-01 (h) \.8E-m (c,b) 5.112-02 (11) H2
 Toluene  5.71:-01 (c,h) 2.0E-01 (a) 5.71:-01 (c,h) 2.0E+OO (11) NA  N/\  I) (;1)
 Trichloroclhcne  NA   NA  N/\  NA  1.712-02 (h) 1.1 [-02 (h) 112
 Vinyl Chloride  NA   NA  NA  NA  2.9[-01 (c,b) 1.9E +00 (b) A
 Xylcncs  8.61:-02 (c,h) 2.01:+00 (b) 8.61:-02 (c,b) 4.01:+00 (b) NA  NA  () (a)
,1:1\\1 - VOLATILES:              
-- .              
 4,4- OOD  NA (11) NA (h) NA (b) NA (b) NA (b) 2.4E-01 (h) 132
 4,4- QOT  NO (b) 5.0E-04 (a) NO (b) 5.0E-04 (b) 3.4E-Ol (a) 3.4E-Ol (a) H2
 Anlhracene  NO (b) :WE-OI (a) ND (b) 3.0E+00 (b) NA  NA  () (a)
. Be nzo(a)a nlhrace nl' NA   NA  NA  NA  NA (b) NO (h) B2
 Be nzo( a )pyrl' ne  NA   NA  NA  NA  6.1E+00 (b )( e) 5.8E+00 (b)( c) H2
. Benzo(b )fluoranthc ne NA   NA  NA  NA  NO (b) ND (b) 132
 Be nzo(g, h,i)pe rylcne NA   fA  NA  NA  NA  NA  0 (a)
. Bcnzo(k)fluorant hene NA   NA  NA  NA  NO (b) NO (b) B2
 Bis(2-elhylhcxyl) phthalate NO (b) 2.0E-02 (a) ND (b) 2.0[-02 (b) NO (b) IAE-02 (a) 132
       -----
(continued)               

-------
--------- ----
----------
( In<;lilucnl,
---~- --
1t',1 [- VOLAIILLS L':cun!inucl1J:
. Cli ryscnc
. Uihcnl.lJ(;I,h);lnlhl :Iccnc
I )icldrin
I)iclhyl plilll.rI.11L'
I :ndrin
I:ndrin Kclnnc
1:lulJrafllhc/)c
(j;lrnm:\ BlIC (Lind,lnc)
Gamm:1 Chlurcbnc
Ilcptachlor Epoxide
. InJeno( 1,2,3 - cJ)!)\\cne
PCB - 12~.j
I'CI3-126O
Phenanthrene
Pyre ne
\\ct;\ls (Totalj:
Aluminum
Antimony
Antimony
[3:1rium

L'Ontinued)
TABLE 4-3
TOXICI'IY VALUES FOI{ CHEMICALS OF CONCERN
Anodyne Inc. Sill'
North Miami Beach, FloriJa
-----_.-~-- -~--
N(~Qcarcinngcnic C~ill'r~~
Inh:1btion Oral
[{FC (chronic) RFD (chronic)
~r11.!i'1~L~~J<:' -~')
NA
NA
ND
ND
ND
NA
ND
NO
ND
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ND
NA
NO
NA
J .OE-04
(a,b)
(h)
N;\
N;\
~()[: - 0.'
t)o 1::- 0 I
301,: - 04
N.\
40E-02
30[-()..\
6.0[-0'1
NA
N.\
N/\
NA
NA
(11)
(h)
(b)
(11)
(h)
(b)
(11)
,\U I> (J 2
(b)
NA
40E-04
3J1F-0..\
7.0E-02
u--- -- ---_._~-- H----
----------- --
-"---,..-
Carc~~nic Cril0'i;1
InhaL\liufl Or;1I Inhabtion
IZI'C (sul1dw)nic) IZFD (subchrunic) Slope Factor
___~2-1i; bg,~~,'YL___- Ung/1 ():;
i'U)E+(JO
,~OE-I)..\
NA
4.01:-01
'I ()I:-O'l
Ij()E-O'
NA
N,\
N:\
NA
NA
'I ()E-I)l
(h)
(11)
(11)
(11)
(h)
(11)
(11)
(11)
NA
(a,b) 4.0[-04 (b)
10[-0.\ (0)
__(!1L- _~.OE-O~ --~L-
(h)
(11)
(h)
(11)
(11)
(h)
(\1)
ND
ND
161:+01
NA
NA
NA
NA
ND
IJ E +00
9.11:+00
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.0E+01
NA
(a,b)
(0)
Or :rI
Siupe (.';Ic{ur
Jr.11.!i'1-II!
N,\
N.\
N/\
N;\
1 'I F + O()
IW+O()

-------
TAOLE 4-3
TOXICITY VALUES FOR CHEMICALS OF CONCERN
- Anodyne Inc. Site
North Miami Ueach, Florida
Noncarcino~enic Criteria
---
Carcino~enic Criteria
Constituents
Inhalation
RFC (chronic)
(mJ0<~-day)
Inhalation
Slo~e Factor
(m~~-day)-I
Oral
Slope Factor
(mJ0<~- daYl::.!___---
Weight tlr
J:vidcm:e
Oral
RFD (chronic)
(m~~-day)
Inhalation Oral
RFC (subchrunic) RFD (subchronic)
~~-d;~y) (m~g-day)
~etals (Total) (conlinued):
 NO (b) 5.0E-03 (a) ND (b) 5.0E-OJ (b) 8.4E+00 (c,a) 4.3E+00
 NO (b) 1.0E-03 Food; (a) NO (b) NO  63E+00 (c,a) NO
 NA  NA  NA  NA  NA  NA
 5.7E-07 (b) I.OE+OO (a,b) 5.7£-06 (b) 1.0E+Ol (b) NA (a,b) NA
 NA  NA  NA  NA  NA  NA
 NO (b) 3.7E-Ol (d) NO (b) 3.7E-Ol (d) NA  NA
 NA  NA  NA  NA  NA  NA
 NA  NA  NA  NA  NA  NA
 I.lE-04 (c,a) I.OE-Ol (a) 1.1 E -04 (c,b) I.OE-Ol (b) NA  NA
 8.6E-05 (c,b) 3.0E-04 (b) 8.6£-05 (c,b) 3.0E-04 (b) NA  NA
 NO (b) 2.0E-02 (b) NO (b) 2.0E-02 (b) 8.4E-Ol Dust; (a) NO
 NA  5.0E-03 (a) NA  NA  NA  NA
 NA  NA  NA  NA  NA  NA
 ND (b) 7.0E-03 (b) NO (b) 7.0E-03 (b) NA  NA
 ND (b) 2.0E-Ol (b) NO (b) 2.0E-Ol (b) NA  NA
NO = Not Determined           
NA = Not Applic.lble           
(a) - Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Database. U.S.EPA Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office. 1991.  
(b) - Health Effects Assessment Sumary Tables (HEAST). U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development. Annual FY -1991. 
(c) - Converted value, from IRIS or HEAST.         
(d) - Value Cdlculated from current drinking water standard U mg/1 (as given in IlEAST).     
(e) - These values are also used for carcinogenic PAHs for which health-based criteria are not available. These compounds are identified with'.
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium (III)
Coba It
Copper
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
.._-_.--
... - ._~--_.
(a) 1\2
(b) HI
(a,b) 
 [) (3)
 D (a)
 o (a)
(b) A
J) (a)

-------
APPENDIX F
BPA HEHORANDUH
CHEXICAL OXIDATION EVALUATION AND
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
78

-------
,'It 0 S ,~,
.~ , ~
~ ' . - .
: I. ~ '1
!~~
\. -.,.'"
'",. .'t.'"

-------
<-----
chloride - 150 ug/l and a flow rate of 2000 gallons per minute.
Effluent concentrations were to be at or below MCLs for these
contaminants.
On January 5, 1993, the vendor provided EPA with a letter
indicating that the chemical parame\.-e:!:"s and remediation goals
indicated above were well within the treatment capability of
chemical oxidation with UV light. The vendor also provided a
preliminary estimate of the capital costs and annual operation and
maintenance costs. These cost were then used to develop an overall
estimate for the remediation of the deep portion for the aquifer.
This approach is the same as the one outlined in the FS and ROD for
air stripping. It includes recovery of the contaminated
groundwater via wells, treatment, and disposal via injection wells.
A preliminary estimate of cost for was develop using same the
estimate of costs for groundwater recovery and disposal as
estimated for air stripping and the preliminary estimate provided
by the vendor for chemical oxidation treatment. The cost of
treatment is based on initial purchase of the equipment with a
long-term technical service agreement with the vendor. Moreover,
some overhead and contingency estimates were reduced from that of
the air stripping estimate since the vendor would provide and
maintain, and certify the effectiveness of the treatment unit.
An estimate of cost for remediation of VOC contaminated portion of
the aquifer is provided in Attachment A. It should be noted,
however, that these costs may be subject to change pending the
results of a treatability study of chemical oxidation.

-------
A IT ACHMENT A
 ESTIMATE OF COST        
GROUNDWATER RECOVERY, CHEMICAL OXIDATION TREATMENT   
AND GROUNDWATER INJECI10N      
 Anodyne, Inc. Site        
 North Miami Beach, Florida       
DESCRIPTION  QUANTITY  UNIT  UNIT COST  EST.COST  
Recovery Wells  4  EA  SI5,OOO  S6O,OOO  
Recovery Well Pum~ and Controls  4  EA  S5.5oo  S22,000  
Piping from Wells to Feed Tank  1500  LF  S40  $60,000  
Feed Tank  I  EA  S30,OOO  S30,OOO  
Chemical Ox.idation & UV Treatment Unit  I  EA  S408,OOO  S408,OOO  
Plant Piping, Controls, and Instrumentation  I  EA  SIIO,OOO  SIIO,OOO  
Discharge Piping to Injection Wells  800  LF  S40  $32,000  
Monitoring Well Installation  3  EA  S7.5oo  S22,5oo  
Overhead & Construction Management  15  %    SI11,675  
Contractor Profit  10  %    S74,45O  
Engineering Designs & Specifications  10  %    S74,450  
Engineering & Regulatory Interface  15  %    SI11,675  
Contingency  15 : % I  ! SI11,675  
I      
I To'" C'Pi'" Co,.   S 1.228,425    I 
I        
Process Equipment O&M  I  LS  SI90,OOO  SI90,OOO  
Treatment System O&M and Performance Monitoring 1  LS  S24O,ooo  S24O,OOO  
Operator/Mechanic  3  EA  S40,OOO  SI20,OOO  
Parts & Supplies  1  LS  S 10,000  SIO,ooo  
Electric Utility  4,950,000  KWH  S0.10  $495,000  
Injection Wells  2  EA  S25,ooo  S50.000  
Contingency  20 I % I  ! $221.000  
I      
I Subtotal O.tM Costs (1 Year)        $1,326,000 I
Total O&M Cost (15.372 Discount Factor)        $20,383.272  
Sampling .t Analysis Rep0rt/5-yr Evaluation  1  LS  S28.5oo  $28.500  
5-Yr Evaluation Cost (0.784 Discount Factor)        S22,344  
10-Yr Evaluation Cost (0.614 Discount Factor)        $17,499  
15-Yr Evaluation Cost (0.481 Discount Factor)        $13,709  
2O-Yr Evaluation Cost (0.377 Discount Factor)        $10,745  
25-Yr Evaluation Cost (0.295 Discount Factor)        S8,408  
I Present Value of O&M Cost        $20,484,476  I
I Total Present Worth Cost        $21,712,901  I

-------