United States Office of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R04-93/153
September 1993
&EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Beulah Landfill, FL
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/R04-93/153
3. Recipient's Accession No.
Title and SubtHIa
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Beulah Landfill, FL
First Remedial Action - Final
5. Report Date
09/16/93
7. Authors)
8. Performing Organization Rept. No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
10 Prelect Taskwork Unit No.
11. Contraet(C)orGrant(G)No.
(C)
(G)
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.w.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type of Report & Period Covered
800/800
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
PB94-964046
16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)
The 102-acre Beulah Landfill site is an inactive landfill located in Pensacola,
Escambia County, Florida. Land use in the area is predominantly undeveloped, with some
adjacent woodlands. The site is divided into the northern-half and the southern-half
by Coffee Creek. The northern half of the site contains a closed, inactive landfill,
which accepted solid waste during its operation. Prior to 1965, the southern half was
a borrow pit for sand. From 1966 until its closure in 1984, the site operated as a
sanitary landfill. In 1968, seepage and wastewater treatment sludge were deposited in
a 10-acre area in the southwest corner of the site. In 1976, the first sludge holding
pond was filled in with construction and demolition debris and solid waste, and then
covered with a minimum of 12 inches of onsite soil. In 1977, the eastern-most 20-acre
sludge pit was constructed in a diked area onsite, where approximately 20,000 gallons
per day of liquid waste was deposited on previous fill of solid waste. The solid waste
absorbed much of the liquid, creating a semi-solid, spongy surface that is still
present. The former ponds currently are covered with grass and shrubs, and a soil
cover never was placed on the sludge when disposal operations ceased. This ROD
addresses a first and final action for all onsite media. Studies conducted as part of
the RI, along with the Baseline Risk Assessment and the comparison of exposure
(See Attached Page)
17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors
Record of Decision - Beulah Landfill, FL
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Medium: None
Key Contaminants: None
b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
c. COSATI Field/Group
18. Availability Statement
IB. Security Class (This Report)
None
20. Security Class (This Page)
None
21. No. of Pages
92
22. Price
(See ANSI-Z39.18)
See Instructions on Reverse
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-35)
Department of Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R04-93/153
Beulah Landfill, FL
First Remedial Action - Final
Abstract (Continued)
concentrations to chemical-specific standards, indicate that the site does not pose any
risk to- human health or the environment; therefore, there are no contaminants of concern
affecting this site.
The selected remedial action for this site is no action, with ground water monitoring.
Based on risk assessment results, there currently is no risk to human health or the
environment at the site. EPA understands that the State will close the site in accordance
with State code. There are no present worth or O&M costs associated with this no action
remedy.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS:
Not applicable.
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
BEOLAH LANDFILL SITE
PENSACOLA, ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA
Prepared by:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
Atlanta, Georgia
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 SITE LOCATION 1
3.0 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION 1
4.0 OPERATION HISTORY 1
5.0 ENFORCEMENT HISTORY 4
6.0 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION HIGHLIGHTS 5
7.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF RECORD OF DECISION 5
8.0 PHYSICAL CHARACTERIZATION 6
8.1 Geology 6
8.2 Surface Water Flow 6
8.3 Groundwater Aquifer 7
9.0 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION 8
9.1 First Sampling Round 8
9.2, Second Sampling Round 11
9.3 Sampling Results 11
10.0 BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT 12
10.1 Site Risk Summary 12
10.1.1 Contaminants of Concern 13
10.2 Human Health Risk Evaluation 13
10.2.1 Human Health Exposure Assessment 14
10.2.2 Human Health Toxicity Assessment 14
10.2.3 Human Health Risk Characterization 15
10.3 Environmental Exposure (Ecological) Evaluation 16
10.3.1 Environmental Exposure Assessment 16
10.3.2 Environmental Toxicity Assessment 17
10.3.3 Environmental Risk Characterization 18
11.0 APPLICABLE, RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS 21
12.0 SELECTED REMEDY 21
13.0 DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES 21
-------
300'39bd iI8i e fr0f 63:tM B6, S DON
RECORD OF DECISION
Declaration
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Beulah Landfill Site
Escambia County
Pensacola, Florida
STATEMKBT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This Record of Decision (ROD) presents the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) selected Remedial Action (RA) for the
Beulah Landfill s^te. This final ROD was developed in accordance
with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986, 42 U.S.C. 9601
et aeq.. and to the extent practicable/ the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) (Section
105 of CERCLA), 40 CFR, Part 300. This ROD is based on the
Beulah Landfill Site Administrative Record.
The State of Florida/ as represented by the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDBP), has been the support agency
during the Remedial Investigation for the Site. In accordance
with 40 CPR 300.430/ as the support agency, FDEP has provided
input during this process and although a formal letter of
concurrence has not yet been received, concurrence is expected.
BOD EXPLANATION
A Remedial Investigation was performed by Potentially Responsible
Parties (PRPs) under an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC).
The EPA used information obtained in the RI to develop a Baseline
Risk Assessment. The Baseline Risk Assessment evaluated the risk
associated with a current trespasser scenario. For this
scenario, an acceptable risk level of 10~* exists. Outside of
the Baseline Risk Assessment/ a single groundwater contaminant/
Pentachlorophenol (PCP), exists in one of the on-site wells (MW-
6) above the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL). The contaminant
appears to be isolated to the immediate area surrounding uw-6.
DESCRIPTION OF ****** ggr.it(ypgn PKiiiigi>y
The Baseline Risk Assessment and the comparison of exposure
concentrations to chemical-specific standards indicates that
there is no unacceptable risk to human health or the environment
at the*Site. Therefore, no action is necessary to ensure the
protection of human health or the environment. However, the
groundwater will be monitored to ensure that this no action
20fl 90S'ON 0016 £09 £0i «- 'Hid 1ST WtfcBOHd !N3W3bNbW 31SW1 8£:fJ C6/S0/TI
-------
E6, S
remains protective of human health or the environment.
The EPA understands that the Site will be closed by the State of
Florida in accordance with the Florida Administrative Code:
Chapter 17-701, Solid Haste Management Facilities.
STATNT
The EPA has determined that no action is necessary to ensure the
protection of human health or the environment. The five year
review will apply to this action because groundwater monitoring
will be performed. The EPA has determined that, with the
exception of groundwater monitoring, its response at this Site is
complete. Therefore, the Site now qualifies for inclusion on the
Construction Completion List.
DATE Patrick M. Tobin
Acting Regional Administrator
03fl 90S'ON 0016 £09 £0i «• "iTU 1ST Hba-CMd IhOWEWNbU BISON 6£:frt E6/S0/TI
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
BEDLAH LANDFILL SITE
PENSACOLA, ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Record of Decision (ROD) presents the selected remedial
alternative for the Beulah Landfill Site. This ROD was chosen in
accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended by
the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986
and to the extent practicable, the National Contingency Plan
(NCP). This ROD is based on the Beulah Landfill Site
Administrative Record.
2.0 SITE LOCATION
The Site is about 10 miles northwest of Pensacola (Figure 1).
Access to the Site is north on Jamesville Road from Mobile
Highway (U.S. Highway 90) at a point about 5 miles southeast of
its intersection with Nine Mile Road (U.S. Highway 90A). The
Site is divided into a north side and a south side by Coffee
Creek
(Figure 2). Coffee Creek drains to Eleven Mile Creek, which
drains to,Perdido Bay.
3.0 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
Topographically, the Site is located on the W1/2NW1/4 and a
portion of the E1/2NW1/4 of Section 15, T.1S., R31W., Tallahassee
Base Line in southern Escambia County, Florida.
The Site is approximately 101.9 acres in size. The Site is
relatively flat with steeper slopes next to the creeks. Site
elevations range from about 65 feet National Geodetic Vertical
Datum (NGVD) to about 25 feet NGVD. The area surrounding the
Site is heavily wooded and relatively undeveloped. The Site is
heavily vegetated with a thick understory of shrubs and a rapidly
developing canopy.
4.0 OPERATION HISTORY
The Site was operated as a landfill between the years of 1966 to
1984. The Site is made up of two sections (northern-half and
southern-half).
-------
FIGURES
Figure 1 - Site Location Map 2
Figure 2 - Site Map 3
Figure 3 - Groundwater Gradient Map 9
Figure 4 - Remedial Investigation Sample Location Map 10
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Record of Decision Responsiveness Summary
Appendix B: Remedial Investigation Analytical Data
Summary Tables
Appendix C: Risk Assessment Tables
-------
FIGURE 1
SITE LOCATION MAP
BEULAH LANDFILL SITE
LOCATION MAP
SOUTHERN ESCAMSA
\\ COUOTY. FLORDA
.> BEULAH
' LANDFILL
-------
FIGURE 2
GENERAL SAMPLE LOCATIONS
BEULAH LANDFILL SITE
ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FL.
-------
(Northern-Half)
The northern half of the Site is a closed landfill. During its
operation, only solid wastes were accepted. Depths of the wastes
range from 4 to 10 feet in the northwest section, increasing to
25 to 30 feet in the northeast section. The wastes are covered
with 4 to 6 inches of native soil.
(Southern-Half)
The southern half of the Site was a borrow pit for sand prior to
1965. Solid wastes were initially deposited in the southwest
corner of the borrow pit to depths of 15 to 20 feet. The
disposal cells moved to the east as the landfill matured, and
increased in depth to about 35 feet. Coffee Creek was gradually
moved north to its present position along the Gulf
Power/Telephone Line easement. In 1968, the first domestic
septage and wastewater treatment sludges were deposited in a 10-
acre excavated and bermed area at the southwest corner of the
Site. Initial deposition rates were about 5,000 gallons per day
(gpd). The first sludge holding pond was filled in 1976 with
construction and demolition debris, and solid waste, and then
covered with a minimum of 12 inches of on-site soil. The
eastern-most 20-acre sludge pit was constructed in November, 1977
in a diked area on the Site. Liquid wastes were deposited in the
diked area on a previous fill of solid wastes. The solid wastes .
absorbed much of the liquid, creating a semi-solid spongy surface
that persists to the present. All sludge disposal ceased in
June, 1984. The final deposition rates were about 20,000 gpd.
The former ponds are currently covered with grass and shrubs. No
soil cover was placed on the sludges after disposal ceased.
5.0 ENFORCEMENT HISTORY
In 1982, a Site Investigation was performed by Ecology and
Environment, Inc. In 1985, the EPA performed a Preliminary
Assessment of the Site. In 1988, the Site was proposed for the
National Priortiies List (NPL). In 1990, the NPL proposal was
finalized.
In 1990, the EPA performed a search for Potentially Responsible
Parties (PRPs). Following a review of the PRP search list, on
March 30, 1991, pursuant to Section 107(a) of the CERCLA, 42
U.S.C. S 9607(a) as amended, the EPA sent 104(e) General Notice
(information request) letters to the PRPs. Following a review of
the information supplied, on May 20, 1991, pursuant to Section
122(e) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. S 9622(e), the EPA sent Special
Notice letters to a number of the PRPs.
On May 20, 1991, the EPA entered into negotiations with the PRP
group to perform a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
(RI/FS). On September 16, 1991, the EPA signed a RI/FS
-------
Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) with the PRP group.
6.0 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION HIGHLIGHTS
In accordance with CERCLA Sections 113 (k)(2)(B)(i-v) and 117
requirements, a Community Relations Plan (CRP) for the site was
developed by the EPA. The CRP outlines citizen involvement and
the community's concern.
On April 21, 1992, the EPA conducted a RI kick-off meeting in
Pensacola, Florida. At the meeting, the public was informed of
scheduled RI activities and of EPA's general involvement with the
site. Response from the community was very positive.
On August 5, 1993, the EPA published a notice in the newspaper
(Pensacola News Journal) notifying the public of the EPA's
upcoming Proposed Plan Public Meeting, the availability of the AR
and the 30 day public comment period (August 7, 1993 to September
7, 1993). In addition, the EPA mailed a Proposed Plan Fact Sheet
to those citizens on the CRP mailing list.
On August 7, 1993, the RI and Risk Assessment documents along
with the Proposed Plan were made available to the public.
Locally, the documents are available at the information
repository at the George Stone Vocational School Media Center
(2400 Longleaf Drive, Pensacola, Florida). Regionally, the
documents are available at the EPA Region IV Records Center (345
Courtland Street, Atlanta, Georgia).
On August 17, 1993, a Public Meeting was held at the George Stone
Vocational School to discuss the RI, Risk Assessment and the
Proposed Plan. At this meeting, representatives from the EPA and
the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) were
present to answer questions and address community concerns.
Responses to comments received during the public comment period
were incorporated into a Responsiveness Summary (Appendix A).
7.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF RECORD OF DECISION
The RI characterizes the extent and magnitude of contamination at
the Site. The Baseline Risk Assessment utilizes data found in
the RI to. identify present or future risks to the public health
and the environment. The Proposed Plan informs the public of the
EPA's preferred Remedial Action (RA) alternative prior to the
ROD. The ROD summarizes the RI and Baseline Risk Assessment
documents and identifies the selected RA alternative along with
addressing comments which were received during the public comment
period.
The RI and Baseline Risk Assessment documents were finalized
-------
under both State and Federal review. This ROD is considered to
be the first and final action for the Site.
8.0 PHYSICAL CHARACTERIZATION
The Site is physically characterized by its geology, surface
water flow and groundwater aquifer. As part of the
characterization/ regional and site-specific information are
provided.
8.1 Geology
(Regional)
The Pensacola area is underlain by sands, silts, clays, and
limestones of Mesozoic to Cenozoic age. The area lies on the
north flank of the Gulf Coast Sedimentary Basin and the east
flank of the Mississippi Embayment. This results in a regional
soutwestward dip and gulf-ward thickening of most formations down
to the basal Cretaceous deposits.
In central Escambia County, Pleistocene terrace deposits and the
Citronelle Formation extend from land surface to 300-400 feet
below the surface. Underlying the Citronelle Formation are
Miocene coarse elastics. Underlying the Miocene elastics is the
Pensacola Clay. Underlying the Pensacola Clay is the Chickasaway
Limestone. Underlying the Chickasaway Limestone is the Bicatunna
Clay Member of the Byran Formation. Underlying the Byran
Formation is the Ocala Limestone. Underlying the Ocala Limestone
is the Lisbon Equivalent. Underlying the Lisbon Equivalent is
the Tallahatta Formation and the Hatchetigbee Formation.
(Site-Specific)
The dominant lithology of the Site is quartz sand (Citronelle
Formation) overlain by Pleistocene terrace deposits. A stiff,
red clay and white variegated kaolinitic clay exists at 10 to 14
feet below land surface. Clayey sands exist at 100 to 120 feet
below land surface.
8.2 Surface Water Flow
(Regional)
The Pensacola area lies on the Gulf of Mexico Coastal Plain, an
area with abundant natural precipitation. Surface water
drainages are numerous and upland areas that are more than 0.5
miles from surface streams are uncommon. In the Florida
Panhandle, virtually all surface water flow is south towards the
Gulf of Mexico.
The master drainage for the Site is Eleven Mile Creek, which
-------
drains directly into Perdido Bay. Perdido Bay is a saltwater
bay, connected to the Gulf of Mexico by Perdido Pass.
Eleven Mile Creek, above the Site, drains an area of
approximately 23 square miles. The headwaters of Eleven Mile
Creek are about 5.5 miles north of the Site, just west of the
town of Cantonment.
Coffee Creek, which bisects the Site and is a tributary to Eleven
Mile Creek, drains an area of about 5 square miles. Coffee Creek
follows a general southeasterly drainage course from its
headwaters, which are located approximately 3 miles northwest of
the site. The lowermost reach of Coffee Creek was diverted to
its present location by the landfill operators during the active
period of operations.
(Site-Specific)
In Eleven Mile Creek, a classic sand channel morphology of
channel and slip-off slope was noted. Coffee Creek lacks the
discharge needed to establish this streambed morphology and has a
relatively flat bottom of uniform depth. In both streams, bottom
sediments are comprised of medium to fine quartz sand with traces
of muscovite mica. Localized deposits of fine gravel were noted
and moderate amounts of woody debris occur in each stream.
All groundwater elevations in the shallow wells at the Site are
higher than the corresponding surface water elevations in the
adjacent streams. This indicates that groundwater west of Eleven
Mile Creek in the site area is discharging to the creek.
8.3 Groundwater Aquifer
(Regional)
Regional geological formations are grouped into six hydrogeologic
units (aquifers and confining beds) based on lithology and
permeability. In the northern half of Escambia County, fresh
groundwater is found in both the Sand-and-Gravel Aquifer and the
Upper Floridan Aquifer. However, in southern Escambia County the
principal supply of fresh groundwater is in the Sand-and-Gravel
Aquifer. In southern Escambia County the Floridan aquifer is
saline.
The Sand-and-Gravel Aquifer is composed of three principal zones,
the surficial zone, the low permeability zone and the main
producing zone. The surficial zone is generally under water
table (unconfined) conditions and is primarily composed of fine
silt, sand and clay. The low permeability zone is predominantly
clay and silt. Water in the main producing zone is nearly always
-------
under confined or semi-confined conditions consisting mostly of
quartz grains.
(Site-Specific)
In the northern-half of the Site, groundwater enters the Site
from the west, flows easterly and southerly beneath the former
landfill cells and discharges to Eleven Mile Creek and Coffee
Creek. The horizontal gradient through most of the Site is low
(0.0044 foot/foot) (Figure 3).
In the southern-half of the Site, groundwater enters the Site
along the southwest margin, flows eastward and northward and
discharges into Eleven Mile Creek and Coffee Creek. The
horizontal gradient is lower than that of the northern-half
(0.0035 foot/foot) (Figure 3).
9.0 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
A Work Plan was developed for the Site using the EPA guidance:
Conducting Remedial Investigations/Feasibility Studies for CERCLA
Municipal Landfill Sites (EPA/540/P-91/001: February, 1991). In
accordance with the guidance, the RI was "streamlined". In
streamlining the RI, the primary focus of the RI was to
characterize the Site by identifying "hot spots" and collecting
the necessary information to be used in the EPA's Baseline Risk
Assessment. The Work Plan included a Sampling and Analysis Plan
and Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Plan.
The PRP's contractor (Engineering Science, Inc.) performed the RI
with "oversight" of field operations by the EPA's contractor
(Bechtel Environmental, Inc.).
The RI samples were taken from various media across the Site at a
number of locations (Figure 4). In accordance with the Work
Plan, RI sampling was performed (first sampling round). The Work
Plan was "addended" afterwards to allow for additional sampling
(second sampling round).
9.1 First Sampling Round
The first sampling round included sampling of the following
media: surface soil/sludge (dried) in the southern "uncapped"
portion of the Site (SB-1 through SB-28), sediment from both
Coffee Creek and Eleven-Mile Creek (SD-1 through SD-8), surface
water from both Coffee Creek and Eleven-Mile Creek (SW-1 through
SW-8), groundwater from on-site perimeter monitor wells (BM-1
through BMW-7 and MW-2 through MW-6) and air from temporary
locations south (Stations 1 and 2 (QA/QC)) and north (Stations 3
through 5) of the Site.
All media sampled were analyzed for Target Compound List/Target
8
-------
FIGURE 3
FLUX RATE FOR GROUNDWATER
BEUL4H LANDFILL SITE
ESCAMBIA COUNTY. FL.
k-S.Ms.T.l.t. <,.j,.w I)
y*"»°°~«f //
Approunate Scale
-------
FIGURE
GENERAL SAMPLE LOCATIONS
BEULAH LANDFILL SITE
ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FL.
0
LEGEND
Uoniuving W.B
Sufeca w«l.ffS«*m.™
Ai> Monilonoo Suton
8«o-worti Sutions
T«mponiy W«l Point
SunMyura Turning Povu
Surv«yora MonunMdt
Aopro«rn«l« Sell*
-------
Analyte List (TCL/TAL) including Pesticides and Polychlorinated
Byphenyls (PCBs).
9.2 Second Sampling Round
The second sampling round included "re-sampling" of the following
media: surface soil/sludge (SB-3, SB-5, SB-17, SB-18, SB-22 and
SB-27), sediment (SD-1, SD-3, SD-6, SD-7 and SD-8), surface water
(SW-1, SW-3, SW-6, SW-7 and SW-8) and groundwater (BMW-1, BMW-2,
BMW-3, BMW-5, BMW-6, BMW-7, MW-3i, MW-5 and MW-6). In addition,
new temporary wells (TW-1/ TW-2 and TW-3) were installed and
sampled south of MW-6. The temporary wells were installed to
determine whether contaminants found in MW-6 were migrating off-
site.
The surface soil/sludges were re-sampled for Pesticides and PCBs
because the laboratory holding times for these were exceeded in
nearly all of samples in the first sampling round. Rather than
re-sampling every first sampling round location, a limited number
of locations were chosen. The surface soil/sludge location (SB-
27) was also re-sampled for the full TCL/TAL analytes and
Polychlorinated Dibenzodioxins and Dibenzofurans (PCDD/PCDF),
calculated in Total Equivalency Quotient (TEQ) values. Sediment-
and surface water were also re-sampled for Pesticides and PCBs
because the laboratory holding times for these were exceeded in
the first sampling round. In addition, sediment and surface
water were re-sampled for cyanide.
The groundwater was re-sampled for Pesticides and PCBs, as well
because the holding times for these were exceeded in the first
sampling round. The groundwater location (BMW-5) was re-sampled
for lead. The groundwater location (MW-6) was re-sampled, and
the temporary well locations were sampled for the first time for
Pesticides, PCBs and the TCL.
9.3 Sampling Results
A range of organic and inorganic contaminants were found in all
media sampled (Appendix B). The RI groundwater data reflects
both filtered and un-filtered inorganics data. However, in
accordance with the EPA Region IV policy, only the un-filtered
data was used in the development of the Baseline Risk Assessment.
Contaminants found in groundwater above Maximum Contaminant
Levels (MCLs) are as follows:
Beryllium
Beryllium occurs in three of the on-site wells (MW-3d, BMW-3 and
MW-6) at "un-filtered" concentrations of 1.1 ppb, 1.6 ppb and
1.2-1.8 ppb, respectively. It occurs at levels slightly higher
than the Federal Proposed MCL (1 ppb). It should be noted that
11
-------
these are J "estimated" levels which may not represent "actual"
conditions at the Site. Since the levels are so close to the
Federal Proposed MCL, Beryllium is not considered to be a
contaminant of concern.
Pentachlorophenol (PGP)
Pentachlorophenol (PCP) occurs in one of the on-site wells (MW-6)
at concentrations of 120-130 ppb. It occurs at levels much
higher than the Federal MCL (1 ppb) therefore, PCP is considered
to be a contaminant of concern.
10.0 BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT
The Baseline Risk Assessment provides the basis for taking action
and indicates the exposure pathways that need to be addressed by
the RA. It serves as the baseline, indicating what risks could
exist if no action was taken at the site. This section of the
ROD summarizes the results of the Baseline Risk Assessment
conducted for the Site. The components of the Baseline Risk
Assessment include a Summary of Site Risk (Contaminants of
Concern, and Fate and Transport Analysis), Human Health and
Environmental Risk (Exposure Assessment, Toxicity Assessment and.
Risk Characterization).
The EPA's contractor (Roy F. Weston) developed the Baseline Risk .
Assessment using information obtained in the RI.
10.1 Site Risk Summary
The assessment of risk posed by the Site was evaluated in a site-
specific Baseline Risk Assessment dated July 1993 (USEPA Contract
Number 68-W9-0057). This assessment examined the concentration,
properties, and environmental fate and transport of the
contaminants associated with various media at the Site as well as
the populations and environments potentially at risk. The risks
associated with the Site were calculated based on current and
future exposure scenarios. The numerical carcinogenic (cancer)
risk values are theoretical quantifications of the excess
lifetime carcinogenic risk, that is, the increased probability of
contracting cancer as a result of exposure to Site wastes,
compared to the probability if no exposure occurred. For
example, a 10~6 excess carcinogenic risk represents an exposure
that could result in one extra cancer case per million people
exposed. The 10~6 risk level is considered the goal for
remediation at Superfund Sites [40 CFR 300.430 (e)(2)(i)(A) (2)].
Though there are no known currently complete exposure pathways, a
trespasser scenario was developed to be protective. The
resulting current scenario's carcinogenic risk equalled 4.5 x 10"
6 while the total non-carcinogenic HI equalled 0.36. There were
no residents in the immediate vicinity of the Site (i.e.,
12
-------
hydrologically downgradient). Therefore, the regional risk
managers have determined that the trespasser scenario is the most
likely future use for the Site.
10.1.1 Contaminants of Concern
In choosing the contaminants of concern for groundwater,
consideration is given to factors such as, "any available site
background data, disposal history (and records, if available),
types of remedial actions being considered, on-site and off-site
chemical analysis data and site characterization data necessary
for exposure assessment" (Chapter 3, "Superfund Public Health
Evaluation Manual" EPA/540/1-86/060, OSWER Directive 9285.4-1,
December 1989 and "Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund"
EPA/540/1-89/002).
The list of contaminants of concern for all media is included
(Appendix C: Table 1). Other contaminants were discounted as
contaminants of concern for various reasons (i.e., concentrations
of contaminants that are similar to area/regional background
concentration and thus were not considered site-related,
concentrations that are of low prevalence/occurrence, or
concentrations that were laboratory analysis related).
The surface soils were found to be contaminated with low levels
of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi-VOCs, metals, and
Pesticides. Surface water and sediments were contaminated with
VOCs, semi-VOCs, and metals. Groundwater was contaminated with
VOCs, semi-VOCs, and metals. Air samples indicated that air
contamination was confined to semi-VOCs and metals.
The contaminants.localized to the respective environment media
were somewhat inconsistent from media to media. Few contaminants
were found to be associated with all media of concern. Cross
media contaminants include Arsenic, Barium, Manganese, Zinc, and
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate. A comparison of surface soil
contaminants to sediment/surface water data indicated that
migration via overland flow into the tributary system adjacent to
the Site area had already occurred. Similarly, air contamination
reflected surface soil metal contaminants. Contrarily,
groundwater contamination did not agree with surface soil
contamination which was understandable since the sub-surface
landfill contaminants are the most probable source of groundwater
contamination.
10.2 Human Health Risk Evaluation
The risk to human health is determined through the development of
exposure and toxicity assessments and the characterization of
risk.
13
-------
10.2.1 Human Health Exposure Assessment
An exposure assessment is an estimation of the magnitude,
frequency, duration, and routes of exposure to humans. Exposure
contaminants at the Site were assessed in the Baseline Risk
Assessment. To this end, exposure was divided into current and
future scenarios. The current and future exposure routes
consisted solely of a trespasser scenario. Conservative exposure
assumptions were developed by the EPA in conducting the
assessment.
The current and future soil exposure routes were based on a youth
7-12 years of age. The assumptions included 100 mg/day ingestion
rate, exposure frequency of 52 days/year, 6 years exposure
duration, a body weight of 27 kg, 3580 cmVday surface area,
adherence factor of 0.6 mg/cm2, and absorption factors of 0.01
and 0.001 for organics and inorganics respectively. Similar
values were used for surface water and sediment exposure
including 100 mg/day ingestion rate, 0.05 1/hr, 2.6 hours/day,
and chemical specific Kp's.
10.2.2 Human Health Toxicity Assessment
Reference doses (RfDs) have been developed by the EPA for
indicating the potential for adverse health effects from exposure
to chemicals exhibiting non-carcinogenic effects. RfDs, which
are expressed in units of mg/kg-day, are estimates of lifetime
daily exposure levels for humans, including sensitive
individuals. Estimated intakes of chemicals from environmental
media (e.g., the amount of a chemical ingested from contaminated
drinking water) can be compared to the RfD. The RfDs are derived
from human epidemiological studies or animal studies to which
uncertainty factors have been applied (e.g., to account for the
use of animal data to predict effects on humans). These
uncertainty factors help to ensure that the RfDs will not
underestimate the potential for adverse non-carcinogenic effects
to occur.
The RfDs for the contaminants of concern are included (Appendix
C: Table 2).
Cancer Potency Factors (CPFs) have been developed by the EPA's
Carcinogenic Assessment Group for estimating excess lifetime
cancer risks associated with exposure to potentially carcinogenic
chemicals. CPFs, which are expressed in units of (mg/kg-day)'1,
are multiplied by the estimated intake of a potential carcinogen
in mg/kg-day, to provide an upper-bound estimate of the excess •
lifetime cancer risk associated with exposure at the intake
level. The term "upper-bound" reflects the conservative estimate
of the risks calculated from the CPFs. Use of this approach
makes under-estimation of the actual cancer risks highly
unlikely. Cancer potency factors are derived from the results of
14
-------
human epidemiological studies or chronic animal bioassays to
which animal-to-animal extrapolation and uncertainty factors have
been applied.
The CPFs for the Site's contaminants of concern are included
(Appendix C: Table 2).
Although the residential scenario was not applied as a plausible
future Site use, the Uptake Biokinetic Model was applied to the
Site's lead concentrations to determine the possibility of
adverse health effects due to lead exposure. The results
indicated that lead contamination levels would not lead to
significant predictable blood lead levels in children.
10.2.3 Human Health Risk Characterization
Potential human exposure to site-related contaminants were
evaluated via the current and future exposure pathways.
Potential exposure was estimated using the conservative
assumptions of Site development and exposures in the absence of
further remedial measures.
Excess lifetime cancer risks are determined by multiplying the
intake level by the cancer potency factor. These risks are
probabilities that are generally expressed in scientific notation
(e.g., 1 x 10"6 or IE"6). An excess lifetime cancer risk of 1 x
10~6 indicates that as a plausible upper bound, an individual has
a one in one million chance of developing cancer as a result of
Site-related exposure to a carcinogen over a 70 year lifetime
under the specific exposure conditions at a Site. The EPA
considers individual excess cancer risks in the range of 10~4 to
10'6 as protective; however, the 10"6 risk level is generally used
as the point of departure for setting clean-up levels at
Superfund Sites. Potential concern for non-carcinogenic effects
of a single contaminant in a single medium is expressed as the
Hazard Quotient (HQ) (or the ratio of the estimated intake
derived from the contaminant concentration in a given medium to
the contaminant's reference dose). By adding the HQs for all
contaminants within a medium or across all media to which a given
population may reasonably be exposed, the HI can be generated.
The HI provides a useful reference point for gauging the
potential significance of multiple contaminant exposures within a
single medium or across media.
The cancer risks based on current and future exposure to Site
contaminants are included (Appendix C: Table 3). The total risk
based on trespasser exposure is 4.5 x 10~6 which is within the
EPA's acceptable risk range of 10"* to 10"6. The largest portion
of the risk was based on surficial exposure to Arochlor 1254 (7.4
x 10"7) and outdoor air inhalation 1.3 x 10"6 (Appendix C: Table
4).
15
-------
The HI, based on the current and future scenario totaled 0.36,
which is less than unity (1) (Appendix C: Table 5).
Actual or threatened releases of hazarous substances from this
Site do not present an imminent- and substantial endangerment to
public health or welfare.
10.3 Environmental (Ecological) Risk Evaluation
The risk to the environment is determined through the assessment
of potential adverse effects to ecosystems and populations
resulting from site-related contamination using qualitative
methods.
10.3.1 Environmental Exposure Assessment
The exposure assessment identifies species present in the area of
risk, based upon the available habitats. The pathways of likely
exposure are delineated and those contributing the most potential
risk are chosen for inclusion into the Baseline Risk Assessment.
The potential magnitude and frequency of exposure to the
contaminants of concern can then be calculated for the selected
species and pathways using qualitative and/or quantitative
methods.
The objectives of the exposure assessment include the
identification of habitats, significant pathways/exposure routes,
and threatened or endangered species; selection of target species
representing exposed organisms (populations and/or communities);
and estimation of exposure doses.
The Site encompasses an estimated 102 acres, consisting of a
mixed forest and grassland intersected by a series of dirt roads.
The Site is divided by Coffee Creek. This creek flows eastward
into Eleven Mile Creek, which in turn flows south along the
eastern boundary of the Site and eventually empties into Perdido
Bay. The main pathways or media of ecological concern are
surface soil, surface water, and sediments. For terrestrial
biota, the main exposure routes of concern are ingestion of
contaminated soils and vegetation by animals and uptake of soil
contaminants through plant roots. For aquatic biota, the
exposure routes of concern are direct contact with contaminated
surface water and sediments and ingestion of aquatic or benthic
plants and animals.
Based on available literature, a number of endangered, threatened
or otherwise sensitive wildlife species may inhabit portions of
the Site. However, none of these species were selected for use
in the Baseline Risk Assessment because exposure to these species
is expected to be minimal. The target species were divided into
two main categories: terrestrial and aquatic. A quantitative
method was used to estimate exposure doses for the eastern
16
-------
cottontail (mammal) and the chipping sparrow (bird), representing
terrestrial animals; a qualitative exposure assessment was used
for the terrestrial plant communities. Qualitative exposure
assessments were also used for aquatic biota living in the water
column (aquatic community) and those living in or on the bottom
sediments (benthic community) (Appendix C: Tables 6 and 7).
Elevated levels of contaminants were found in the surface water
and sediments in a swale area located in the southeastern portion
of the northern half of the Site. The swale area was not
considered to be an aquatic habitat in the Baseline Risk
Assessment since it periodically contains water from rainfall.
10.3.2 Environmental Toxicity Assessment
The toxicity assessment characterizes the toxicity of the
contaminants of concern. Toxicity values expressed in terms of a
dose are used in the assessment of specific receptor species. In
the case of community assessments, established state or federal
criteria or other media-specific guidelines are used for direct
comparison with measured media-specific contaminant
concentrations. In the assessment of terrestrial plants,
phytotoxicity data expressed in terms of a soil concentration are
compared with site-specific soil concentrations.
Due to the differences in physiology, toxicity data was not
extrapolated between organisms from different phylogenetic
classes. Preferentially, toxicity values that represented the
highest No Observable Effect Level (NOEL) or the Lowest
Observable, Effect Level (LOEL) were selected. Data for chronic
toxicity were preferentially (in relation to population effects)
used, when available, rather than acute or subchronic values
since these are reflective of the most sensitive endpoints and
effects. Carcinogenic endpoints were not considered in the
assessment of toxicity endpoints.
For most contaminants, several data bases and literature sources
were reviewed to obtain the most accurate toxicity value. These
studies provide exposure and response data associated with a
variety of toxicity endpoints. Specific toxic effects are
broadly grouped and listed preferentially (in relation to
population effects) as follows: overt effects (organism
reproductivety), probable effects (decreased survivability due to
alteration in bio-chemical functions of organs) and potential
effects (alteration of the organism not readily associated with
decreased survivability or longevity).
The Baseline Risk Assessment\discusses the application of safety
factors (in extrapolating toxicity data from animals other than
the target species or from different toxicity endpoints) and the
Critical Toxicity Values (CTVs) for the terrestrial species
(Appendix C: Tables 8, 9 and 10).
17
-------
The toxicity of contaminants of concern to aquatic life was
assessed by comparing surface water concentrations (average and
95 % upper confidence limit) from Coffee Creek and Eleven Mile
Creek to Florida Surface Water Quality Standards and Federal
Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC) (both acute and chronic)
(Appendix C: Table 11).
Although no sediment specific quality criteria are currently
available, the toxicity of contaminants of potential concern
identified in Coffee Creek and Eleven Mile Creek to benthic and
epibenthic life was primarily assessed by comparison to the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) sediment
effects and Ontario Ministry of Environment, Water Resources
Branch sediment quality values (Appendix C: Table 12).
There is currently no EPA guidance for quantitatively evaluating
potential adverse effects to plants growing in contaminated
soils. Potential phytotoxicity was addressed qualitatively by
comparing soil contaminant concentrations with toxicity values
from the literature (Appendix C: Table 13).
The Federal AWQC was established to provide protection of 95 % of
all aquatic organisms including plants. Therefore, potential
toxicity to aquatic plants is evaluated in the comparison of
surface water contaminant concentrations to AWQCs (Appendix C:
Table 14).
10.3.3 Environmental Risk Characterization
Risk characterization involves the integration of exposure doses
and toxicity information into a quantitative estimation of non-
carcinogenic risks. Receptor-specific quantitative risk
estimates for the eastern cottontail and the chipping sparrow
were calculated for each~exposure scenario. Quantitative risk
estimates were also calculated for aquatic and benthic
communities in Coffee Creek and Eleven Mile Creek. Potential
effects to terrestrial plant communities were assessed
qualitatively. Risks were calculated individually for each
constituent and exposure route.
The quotient method was used to quantitatively assess potential
ecological impacts. The quotient method compares exposure doses
or concentrations with CTVs to yield a HQ. If the HQ exceeds 1,
it indicates that the species of concern may be at risk to an
adverse effect from that constituent through that exposure route.
Because CTVs incorporate a number of safety factors, if a CTV is
exceeded (the HQ exceeds 1), it does not necessarily indicate
that an adverse effect will occur.
A cumulative Hazard Index (HI) is calculated by summing HQs
across chemicals and/or exposure routes. If the cumulative HI is
greater than 1, the total exposure routes may potentially pose a
18
-------
risk for adverse effects to the species of concern. However, as
with the HQ, a cumulative HI of greater than 1 does not
necessarily indicate that an adverse effect will occur.
During the assessment of surface waters, HQs were not added. The
AWQCs give consideration to all the routes of exposure to aquatic
species therefore, different exposure pathways do not need to be
added to obtain a total HI. Calculation of a cummulative HI is
not appropriate since AWQCs are applicable to only one chemical.
A reasonably conservative strategy was used in the development of
the various components of the Baseline Risk Assessment. For
example, the lowest reasonable toxicity values were selected when
reviewing ecological databases. This approach decreased the
likelihood that potential risks will be under-estimated.
Risk estimates for each terrestrial animal receptor (eastern
cottontail and chipping sparrow) were calculated based on a "No
Action" remedial alternative (Appendix C: Table 15). Exposure
for both receptors comes from ingestion of surface soils and
vegetation. Potential risks come from metals, Pesticides and
Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs). For the eastern cottontail,
Iron contributed 83 % of the cummulative HI. Aluminum, Aroclor .
1254, Iron and PCP collectively contributed 95 % of the
cummulative risk. For the chipping sparrow, Dieldrin contributed
69 % of the cummulative HI. Alpha Chlordane, Beta Chlordane,
Dieldrin, PCP and Zinc collectively contributed 95 % of the
cummulative risk.
These risk estimates must be viewed from the perspective of the
Site as a whole. Based upon the low frequency of detection in
surface soil samples, the organic contaminants resulting in the
greatest risks to the eastern cottontail and the chipping sparrow
were present only in limited areas of the Site. Thus, exposure
of terrestrial animals to toxic levels of these contaminants
would be limited. The inorganic surface soil contaminants were
more widespread. Inorganic contaminants were of a greater
concern for the eastern cottontail than for the chipping sparrow,
since ingestion of soils was the primary exposure route for the
eastern cottontail. The ingestion rate used in calculating
exposure doses may have over-estimated exposure, since it was
based upon data for a rabbit species that lives in a different
type of habitat. Also, the background soil concentration for
iron (which accounted for the majority of the risk) was the same
order of magnitude as the mean surface soil concentration. Thus,
the risk for exposure to iron in background soils might be
similar to the risk for exposure to iron in on-site soils, with
the possible exception of localized areas containing the highest
iron concentrations. Finally, the conservative nature of the
CTVs used in determining risk may over-estimate the risk to
populations. Although contaminants at CTV levels might adversely
affect some individuals in a population, the population as a
19
-------
whole might be expected to survive and reproduce.
The bio-assessment provided the primary source of data regarding
the assessment of potential impacts and/or risks to the aquatic
communities of Coffee Creek and Eleven Mile Creek. The potential
risk to aquatic and benthic organisms was also quantitatively
assessed by comparing ambient water quality criteria and sediment
quality standards with media-specific concentrations.
Potential risk to aquatic receptors were assessed by comparing
media-specific concentrations with surface water quality
standards or criteria and sediment quality or effects values. In
cases where state specific criteria were absent, AWQC were used.
For the aquatic communities associated with Coffee Creek and
Eleven Mile Creek, Cyanide was the only contaminant of concern
that had a HQ greater than 1 (Appendix C: Table 11). Cyanide in
Eleven Mile Creek was the only contaminant. The average and
acute HI 95 % UCL concentrations of Cyanide both exceeded the
chronic FSWQS of 5.2 ug/1 (His of 9.95 and 30.8, respectively).
These cyanide concentrations also exceeded the acute AWQS of 22.0
ug/1 (His of 2.35 and 7.27, respectively). Cyanide was not
detected in Coffee Creek.
For the sediment community associated with Coffee Creek and
Eleven Mile Creek, sediment concentrations were compared to NOAA
sediment effect values (NOAA ER-L and ER-M) and the Ontario
sediment quality values (Appendix C: Table 12). No HI exceeded 1
in either mean or UCL concentrations.
For the terrestrial plant community, Alpha-Chlordane, Arsenic,
Copper, Dieldrin, Di-N-butylphthalate, Gamma-Chlordane, Lead and
Zinc are contaminants of concern. These contaminants exceeded
the lowest LOEL concentrations in the Phytotox database.
Phytotoxicity information was not available for a number of
chemicals of concern; therefore, a complete evaluation could not
be made. In addition, phytotoxicity is frequently species-
specific and is influenced by many physical and chemical
parameters. For example, much of the plant toxicity data used in
this risk assessment was based upon studies using agricultural
plants, so its applicability to the Site plants is uncertain. As
mentioned for terrestrial animals, the organic surface soil
contaminants were present at elevated levels only in limited
areas, so the areas of possible toxic effects would be limited.
Although inorganic surface soil contaminants are more widespread,
the available toxicity information indicates that their toxic
effects would apparently be limited to some decrease in plant
growth or yield.
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this
Site do not present an imminent and substantial endangerment to
the environment.
20
-------
11.0 APPLICABLE, RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS (ARARs)
The Baseline Risk Assessment and the comparison of exposure
concentrations to chemical-specific standards indicates that
there is no unacceptable risk to human health or the environment
at the Site.
CERCLA Section 121 clean-up standards for selection of a
Superfund remedy., including the requirement to meet Applicable,
Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs), are not triggered
at this Site. However, the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (FDEP) has promulgated state closure requirements for
municipal and industrial landfills.
12.0 SELECTED REMEDY
The Baseline Risk Assessment and the comparison of exposure
concentrations to chemical-specific standards indicates that
there is no unacceptable risk to human health or the environment
at the Site. Therefore, no action is necessary to ensure
protection of human health or the environment. However, the
groundwater will be monitored to ensure that this no action
remains protective of human health or the environment.
The EPA understands that the Site will be closed by the State of
Florida in accordance with the Florida Administrative Code:
Chapter 17-701, Solid Waste Management Facilities.
13.0 DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES
^
The selected RA alternative as presented in this ROD has no
difference, significance or otherwise, from the Proposed Plan.
21
-------
APPENDIX A
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established a
Record of Decision (ROD) public comment period from August 7, 1993
through September 7, 1993 for interested parties to comment on
EPA's Proposed Plan for Remedial Action (RA) at the Beulah Landfill
Site (Site). The comment period included a public meeting
conducted by the EPA on August 17, 1993 at the George Stone
Vocational School in Pensacola, Florida. At the public meeting,
the EPA presented the results of the Remedial Investigation (RI)
and Risk Assessment along with the Proposed Plan (No Action).
A responsiveness summary is required by Section 117 of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Liability and Compensation
Act (CERCLA) 42 U.S.C.9601 et seq. and Section 300.430(f)(3)(F) of
the National Contingency Plan to provide a summary of citizens
comments and concerns about the Beulah Landfill Site and the EPA's
Proposed Plan, as raised during the public comment period and the
EPA's responses to those concerns. All comments summarized in this
document have been factored into the final decision concerning the
Proposed Plan for RA at the Site.
This responsiveness summary for the Site is divided into the
following sections:
I. Overview: this section discusses the Proposed Plan for the
Site ,and the public reaction to this alternative.
II. Background on Community Involvement and Concerns: this section
discusses a-brief history of community interest and concerns
regarding the Site.
III. Summary of Major Questions and Comments Received During the
Public Comment Period and the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection's (FDEP's) or the EPA's Responses:
this section presents both oral and written comments submitted
during the public comment period and provides the responses to
these comments.
IV. Remaining Concerns: this section discusses community concerns
that the EPA should be aware of in the design and
implementation of the Proposed Plan for RA at the Site.
I. Overview
The Proposed Plan for RA at the Site was presented to the public in
a Fact Sheet released on August 5, 1993 and at a public meeting
held on August 17, 1993.
The No Action with groundwater monitoring remedy proposed by the
EPA, and selected in the ROD, is considered to be protective of
human health or the environment.
-------
Major components of the ROD are as follows:
- no action is necessary to ensure protection of human health or
the environment
- the groundwater will be monitored to ensure that this no
action remains protective of human health or the environment
- the EPA understands that the State of Florida will close the
Site in accordance with the Florida Administrative Code:
Chapter 17-701, Solid Waste Management Facilities
II. Background on Community Involvement and Concerns
The Beulah community has lived around the landfill for years and
has been aware of the EPA's efforts to characterize the extent of
contamination at the Site.
The EPA Remedial Project Manager and Community Relations
Coordinator interviewed members of the community and held a "RI
kick-off" meeting prior to beginning the RI. At the meeting, the
overall goals of the RI were explained along with basis for the
Sampling and Analysis Plan. In addition, the EPA distributed a "RI
kick-off" Fact Sheet containing information related to the Site
prior to the meeting.
Since that time, the EPA has completed the RI and the Baseline Risk
Assessment for the Site. The EPA distributed a "Proposed Plan"
Fact Sheet containing information on the RI and the Baseline Risk
Assessment along with the Proposed Plan for RA at the Site. The
Fact Sheet also announced the public meeting date. At the public
meeting, information related to the RI and the Baseline Risk
Assessment were presented and questions from the public were
answered.
The "key issues and concerns" identified in the public meeting and
written comments received by the EPA during the public comment
period are presented in Section III.
III. Summary of Major Questions and Comments Received During the
Public Comment Period and FDEP's or EPA's Responses
Comment: Mr. Jack Kelly, who attended the Public Meeting and later
called the EPA Region IV office during the public comment
period, asked about the groundwater flow direction in the
southernmost portion of the southern half of the Site. He
stated that the true groundwater flow direction is more
southeastward than what the RI shows because of the former
location of Coffee Creek. The RI shows an eastward flow
direction.
Answer: It should be noted that early in the "development" of the
landfill, Coffee Creek was re-routed to coincide with the
telephone utility easement running between the northern
-------
and southern half of the Site. Coffee Creek "originally"
traversed the southern half of the Site in a northwest to
southeast direction. The original flow direction may have
been modified "slightly" by the re-routing of the creek
but the groundwater flow directions that exist today are
based on the groundwater measurements from on-site wells.
The groundwater monitoring well MW-6, located in the
southeast corner of the Site contains Pentachlorophenol
(PCP) above Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs). This
Record of Decision (ROD) calls for the monitoring of
groundwater to ensure that PCP does not migrate off-site.
PCP was not found in any of the temporary well samples
(TW-1, TW-2 and TW-3) located south of MW-6. If the
groundwater flow direction was in a more southeastward
direction than that shown in the RI, the temporary well
samples would have been in a better position to detect
contamination than that of an easterward flow direction.
Comment: Mr. Kelly also asked, in a phone conversation, if the
future growth potential of the land northwest of the Site
was taken into account in the development of the Baseline
Risk Assessment. Mr. Kelly noted that he has plans to -
develop land northwest of the Site (Quadrants 8,9 and 16)
as an industrial park with a reservoir.
Answer: The EPA performed a Baseline Risk Assessment for the
Site based on information obtained from the Remedial
Investigation (RI). In the assessment, a current
tresspasser and future land use scenario was evaluated.
These scenarios primarily focus on the Site itself and the
land immediately adjacent to the Site. Future land
development of areas surrounding the Site are generally
not an active part of the assessment. The current
tresspasser scenario is the most likely scenario at the
Site and was used in the development of the ROD.
Comment: Mr. and Mrs. Welton & Ester Johnson wrote a letter to the
EPA Region IV office to express their concerns as citizens
living on Perdido Bay. The Johnsons note that Superfund
Sites such as this should not be excavated and mounded
above ground creating conditions where contaminants could
be blown around or washed away. Their suggestion for this
Site is place a fence around it and restrict its usage for
anything.
Answer: This ROD calls for no action with monitoring of the
groundwater. The EPA understands that the State of
Florida will close the Site in accordance with the Florida
Administrative Code: Chapter 17-701, Solid Waste
Management Facilities. This Code provides the Florida
Department .of Environmental Protection (FDEP) with the
enforcement authority to implement corrective measures.
The FDEP will have to determine whether a fence is
-------
necessary as part of its Closure Plan.
IV. Remaining Concerns
The EPA is not aware of any remaining concerns associated with the
selected remedy.
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY TABLES
-------
TABLE 1
ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY FOR
BACKGROUND SOILS
BEULAH LANDFILL SITE
Escambia County, Florida
NOTE: Constituents not listed were non-detect in all samples.
Sample Location
Volatile Organic Compounds (ug/kg)
Bromodichloromethane
Chloroform
Semivolatile Organic Compounds (ug/kg)
Pesticides and PCB (ug/kg)
Inorganics (mg/kg)
Aluminum
Anenic
Barium
Beryllium
Calcium
CbfDinium
Cobali
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
SB-273S1
3J
23
ND
NA
5480 J
ND
7.8 J
0.25 J
50.3 J
49.4 J
ND
1.5 J
17500 J
4.5 J
73.9 J
40.2 J
0.09 J
ND
89.7 U
ND
21.7 U
41.4 J
2.3 U
SB-27.SS2
6 U
6U
ND
NA
6230 J
ND
12.6 J
0.23 U
57 J
8.8 J
ND
2.1J
4850 J
4.7 J
182 J
.5.7 J
0.1 J
ND
116 J
ND
76 J
13.5 J
3.8 J
SB-27
NA
NA
NA
ND
NA
ND
NA
NA
NA
NA
ND
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ND
NA
ND
NA
NA
NA
uses
REPORT
NA
NA
NA
NA
<2%
<3 ppm
<200 ppm
<1 ppm
<0.35%
<30 ppm
<3 ppm
<15 ppm
<1.5%
<10ppm
<0.2%
<200ppm
<5.1 ppm
<7ppm
<1.6%
<0.15ppm
<0.3%
<30 ppm
<28 ppm
NOTES:
SS1. SS2 • Duplicate ample*.
U - Undetected; quantity shown is the detection limit.
J. Estimated quantity.
NA-Not analyzed
ND - None detected.
-------
TABLE 2
ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY FOR SOILS
BEULAII LANDFILL SITE
Escambia County, Florida
NOTE: Constituents not listed were non-detect in all samples.
Sample Location
Volatile Organic Compounds (pg/kg)
Acetone
Bromodichtoromelhane
Carbon Disulfide
Chlorobenzene
Chlorofonn
Ethylbenzene
Tetrachloroethene
I.I.I -Trichloroethane
Xylene (total)
Semlvolatlle Organic Compounds (pg/kg)
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g.h.i)perylene
BenzoOOfluoranlhene
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Butylbenzylphthalate
Chrytene
Di-n-butylphth title
Di-n-octylphlhalate
Dibenz(aji)anthracene
Dibenzofuran
Dielhylphthalate
Fluoranthene
SB-1
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
150 J
140 J
260 J
170 J
92 J
1100 J
BDL
240 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
180 J
SB-2
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
0.6 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
94 J
70 J
120 J
69 J
53 J
2400 J
170 .1
110 J
5400 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
120 J
SB-J.
97 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
44 J
BDL
110 J
260.)
180 J
270,1
140 J
120 J
400J
40.1
250 J
BDL
BDL
35 J
BDL
BDL
540 J
SB-4
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
0.3 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
0.9 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
18.)
22.1
32.1
7J
420 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
18 J
SB-S
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
38 J
120 J
140J
180 J
120.1
65 J
1900 J
250 J
130 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL1
BDL
190 J
SB-5(RE)
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Sfi-6
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
0.4 J
BDL
BDL
0.4 J
BDL
BDL
290 J
BDL
360 J
300 J
1100 J
540 J
270 j
190 J
BDL
410 J
BDL
48 J
120 J
37 J
BDL
720 J
««»>
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
0.3 J
BDL
23
0.8 J
BDL
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
SB-7
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
25 J
20 J
66 J
60 J
70 J
14 J
390 J
71 J
53 J
BDL
10 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
23 J
sn-8
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
4 J
1 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
9J
26 J
31 J
45 J
44 J
9J
600 J
32 J
65 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
43 J
-------
TABLE 2 • Continued
ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY FOR SOILS
BEULAH LANDFILL SITE
Escambia County, Florida
NOTE: Constituents not listed were non-detect in all samples.
Sample Location
Fluorene
lndeno( 1 _2J-cd)py rrne
2- Melhy (naphthalene
Naphthalene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanfhrene
Pyrene
Pesticides and PCB (pg/kg)
Aldrin
alpha-Chlordane
gamma- Chlordane
Dieldnn
4.4'-DDE
4.4'-DDD
Aroclor-1254
Dioxin/ruran TEQ
Inorganics (mg/kg)
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
SB-1
BDL
150 J
BDL
BDL
3600 J
BDL
200 J
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11700
4J
8J
126
0.4 J
5.8
2160
195
BDL
233
59300
SB-2
BDL
62 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
96 J
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
16600
4.6 J
13 J
202
BDL
12.4
3390
81.7
BDL
226
51500
sn:3
54.1
130 J
BDL
BDL
660J
400.1
400 J
BDL
6.9 J
6.7 J
9.1J
BDL
5.3 J
BDL
NA
11100
BDL
5.9 J
33.4 J
BDL
0.85 J
791 .1
38.7
BDL
119
23200
SB-4 1
BDl.
18 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
14 J
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10600
BDL
8.2 J
43.1 J
0.33 J
0.59 J
5630
20.3
BDL
27.9
13200
iiigjSll-fJI*::
BDL
71 J
BDL
BDL
780 J
140.1
150 J
BDL
30 J
31
23 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
NA
12200
4.6 J
7.6 J
162
0.31 J
4.1
1870
105
BDL
226
28100
!iiSBj£(RE)::;jjii
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
BDL
38 J
32 J
23 J
74 J
BDL
BDL
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
iiiiiiijSB^iiiiiiiiijiji
44 J
430 J
BDL
34 J
8200 J
260 J
730 J
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8660
BDL
2.7 J
37.3 J
BDL
0.3 J
5780
38.9
BDL
26.4
10400
Sl)-6(k£)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
;; SB-7
BDL
50 J
BDL
BDL
2000 J
15 J
47 J
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
14200
BDL
7.5 J
155
BDL
3.1
1340
39.4
BDL
135
16800
SIJ-8
BDL
26 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
27 J
40 J
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10400
BDL
NA
37.5 J
BDL
0.57 J
1380
49.7
BDL
35.8
33100
-------
Notes:
TABLE 2-Continued
ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY FOR SOILS
BEULAH LANDFILL SITE
Escambia County, Florida
NOTE: Constituents not listed were non-detect in all samples.
Sample Location
Lead
Magntiram
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium .
Zinc
Cyanide
SB-1
359
244
197
0.54
139
116
BDL
5.2
BDL
26.9
1080
OJ5
J
J
J
J
J
J
SD-2
235 J
231 J
361
0.91 J
29.2
105 J
BDL
7.7
BDL
18.1
773 J
1J J
SB-3
55.1 J
161 J
64.4
0.58 J
29.4
152 j
BDL
1.2 J
BDL
19.7
341 J
0.33 J
SB-4
35.2 J
730 J
81
0.18 J
6.1J
285 J
BDL
BDL
89.4 J
26.5
85.3 J
BDL
SB-5
1X2 J
223 J
105
1 J
39.3
307 J
I.I J
10.1
BDL
28.1
570 J
2.1 J
SB-S(RE)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
SB-4>
36.4 J
453 J
153
0.37 J
13.6
306 J
BDL
BDL
74 J
14.6
68.2 J
1.4 J
WMW
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
SB-7
130 J
179 J
26.9
1.4 J
14.8
251 J
0.96 J
2.9
BDL
26.3
289 J
0.61 J
sn-8
36.3 J
107 J
70.5
0.29 J
78.9
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
26.8
261 J
0.53 J
Shaded areas indicate duplicate extraction
or analysis of the same sample.
SSI. SS2 - Duplicate samples.
RE - Reextracted.
BDL • Below detection limit
NA - Not analyzed
1 - Estimated quantity.
2ND • Second Held effort.
-------
TABLE 2-Con(inued
ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY FOR SOILS
BEULAH LANDFILL SITE
Escambia County, Florida
NOTE: Constituents not listed were non-detect in all samples.
Sample Location
Volatile Organic Compounds (pg/kg)
Acetone
ni.-jitji-lij liljiniumllum
DIUIIIOtllCniOiviiieilUIIC
Carbon Diialfide
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Ethylbenzene
Tetrachloroethene
I.I.I -Trichloroethane
Xylene (total)
Semlvolaf lie Organic Compounds (pg/kg)
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)|iyiene
Benzo(b)noofanthem
Bena>(gji.i)perylene
Benzoflc)floonmtben«
bii(2-elhylhexyl)pnthalafe
Buryrbenzylphthalate
Chrysene
Di-n-butylphlhalale
Di-n-octyrphthaiata
Diben7.(*Ji)anthncene
Dibenzofuran
Diethylphthalate
Fluoranthene
SB-9 jjjj.
BDL
nni
OULf
BDL
5J
0.7 J
0.8 J
1 J
0.6 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
8J
24 J
26 J
31.1
24J
9J
970 J
BDL
32 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
34 J
IfiBjilfcJMlijjlijiiji
BDL
nni
DULr
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
23 J
80 J
65.1
110.1
69 J
33 J
210 J
30 J
88 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
130 J
iSllfitKSiSJi:!!;
BDL
nni
IJIsLf
BDL
BDL
0.4 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
H J
33 J
32.1
64J
39 J
18 J
190.1
49 J
54 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
49 J
sn-n
610 J
D|l|
nivL.
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
79 J
220.J
200.1
no j
99 J
230 J
100.1
680 J
BDL
200 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
100 J
50-12
34 J
nnt
PI/L,
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
30 J
BDL
84 J
230 J
180 J
260 J
130 J
65 J
67 J
BDL
230 J
BDL
BDL
35 J
1 BDL
BDL
400 J
SB-13
BDL
nm
nULi
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
19 J
BDL
BDL
68 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
SB-14
24
nnt
BUI.
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
13 J
50 J
37 J
110 J
51 J
22 J
18 J
10 J
BDL
BDL
100 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
SB-IS
120
Dm
HUL
0.7 J
0.9 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
24J
22 J
33 J
46J
92 J
25 J
3900 J
27 J
49 J
BDL
9J
65 J
30 J
BDL
59 J
sn-i6
BDL
Dm
alJL,
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
15 J
34 J
91 J
160 J
160 J
240 J
40 J
310 J
53 J
120 J
BDL
6J
BDL
BDL
BDL
110 J
-------
TABLE 2-Continued
ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY FOR SOILS
BEULAH LANDFILL SITE
Escambia County, Florida
NOTE: Conslitucnls not listed were non-dctecl in all samples.
Sample Location
Ruorene
lndeno(l,2J-cd)pyrene
2-Melhylnaphlhalene
Naphthalene
Penlachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Pyrene • .
Pesticides and PCB (pg/kg)
Aldrin
alpha-Chlordane
gamma- Chlordane
Dieldrin
4.4--DDE
4.4--DDD
Aroclor-1254
Dioxin/furan TCQ
Inorganics (mg/kg)
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Coh.ll
Copper
Iron
SB-9 j:
BDL
16 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
29 J
34 J
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
13300
2.8 J
6.7 J
27.4 J
BDL
BDL
645 J
26.4
BDL
23.9
24800
WWm
BDL
44 J
BDL
BDL
640 J
79 J
110 J
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9470
BDL
3.2 J
57.3
BDL
0.53 J
1650
22.5
BDL
50.3
15300
®*wm
BDL
34 J
BDL
BDL
260.)
23 J
47 J
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8320
BDL
NA
56.9
BDL
0.43 J
957 J
20.8
BDL
49.4
12900
sn-ii
BDL
BDL
170 J
BDL
1100 J
220 J
210 J
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10200
BDL
7.4 J
68.2
0.35 J
1.8
3870
69.4 J
BDL
78.9 J
8530
SB-12
26 J
110 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
340 J
390 J
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6140
BDL
NA
12 J
BDL
0.49 J
937 J
12.7 J
' BDL
10.3 J
8800
SB-1J
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6920 J
BDL
2.3
14.3 J
BDL
BDL
573 J
12.7 J
BDL
2.7 J
9960 J
SB-14
BDL
93 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
15800 J
2.7 J
2.8
17.9 J
BDL
BDL
255 J
16 J
BDL
5J
15600 J
SB-IS
47 J
81 J
260 J
44 J
2200 J
100 J
58 J
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7970 J
BDL
2.4
39.6 J
BDL
0.93 J
645 J
32.9 J
BDL
51.9 J
10100 J
SB- 16
BDL
130 J
BDL
BDL
270 J
29 J
260 J
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9500 J
4.6 J
3.8
98.3
0.28 J
1.8
10400
134 J
BDL
103 J
21400 J
-------
TABLE 2-Con(inued
ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY FOR SOILS
BEULAH LANDFILL SITE
Escambia County, Florida
NOTE: Constituents not listed were non-detect in all samples.
Sample Location
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
SB-9
121
134
22.7
0.3
1.6
193
BDL
0.72
BDL
30.7
75.9
BDL
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
mwwm
41.8 J
217 J
253
0.54 J
13
135 J
BDL
1.5 J
BDL
17.9
194 J
BDL
m*tm
33.6 J
171 J
231
0.14 J
8.1
123 J
BDL
1.1 J
BDL
15.8
119 J
0.3 J
sn-n
73.9
513
37.7
0.32
22
152
0.78
2.3
73.1
18.3
157
3.6
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
sn-i2
17 J
156 J
30.6
0.03 J
2.3 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
21.8
25.2 J
BDL
SB-13
5.2 J
127 J
12.7 J
0.05 J
1.7 J
103 J
NA
BDL
BDL
19.6 J
4.5 J
NA
SB-14
6 J
197 J
15.5 J
0.05 J
5.1 J
453 J
NA
1 J
52.9 J
26.5 J
22.5 J
NA
SB- 15
56.5 J
99.4 J
61 J
0.7 J
6.4 J
BDL
NA
BDL
98.1 J
14.6 J
75.7 J
NA
sn-16
271 J
702 J
104 J
1.6 J
50.6
228 J
NA
1.2 J
168 J
23.6 J
313 J
NA
Notes':
Shaded areaj indicate duplicate extraction
or analysis of (he same sample.
SSI. SS2 - Duplicate samples.
RE - Reextracted.
BDL - Below detection limit
NA - Not analyzed
) - Estimated quantity.
2ND - Second field effort.
-------
TABLE 2-Continued
ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY FOR SOILS
BEULAH LANDFILL SITE
Escambia County, Florida
NOTE: Constituents not listed were non-detect in all samples.
Sample Location
Volatile Organic Compounds (ng/kg)
Acetone
Brofnodichloromethane
Carbon Diiulfide
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Elhylbenzene
Telrachloroethene
I.l.l-Trichloroethme
Xylene (total)
Semlvolatlle Organic Compounds (pg/kg)
Acenaphlhene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthncene
Benzo(a)pyiene
Benzo(b)(1uoranthene
Benro(g.h.i)perylene
Benzo(k)fltioranthene
biiU-ethylhexyDphthalite
Butylhenzytphthalate
Chrysene
Di-n-butylphthalate
Di-n-octylphlhalale
Dibenz(aji)anthracene
Dibenzofuran
Dieihylphthalate
Fluoranlhene
SB-17 i:
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
120 J
45 J
600 J
690 J
580 J
880 J
550 J
280 J
1600 J
46J
680 J
BDL
19 J
190 J
70 J
15 J
1600 J
i|;$fi>l7RE'i;;;
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
- NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
iiSfcttpii;;;:
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
. NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
sn-is
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
30 J
BDL
5J
18J
33.1
34 J
44 J
11.1
140 J
18.1
23.1
BDL
5J
23 J
BDL
BDL
29 J
SB-19 ;i;i
100
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
2 J
BDL
6
30 J
BDL
7.1
32 J
27 J
38 J
32 J
15 J
38 J
18 J
33 J
BDL
BDL
18J
BDL '
BDL
72 J
SB40SS1 S
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
42 J
8J
92 J
220.1
180 J
260 J
140 J
100 J
140 J
35 J
240.1
210 J
5J
40.1
25 J
45 J
570 J
B.20SS2
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
47 J
BDL
96 J
270 J
260 J
360 J
200 J
110 J
89 J
BDL
300 J
BDL
BDL
65 J
16 J
BDL
670 J
SD-21
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
..BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
55 J
BDL
110 J
210 J
180 J
260 J
120 J
76 J
1800 J
BDL
220 J
BDL
BDL
31 J
21 J
BDL
510 J
SB-22 iji
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
12 J
33.1
33 J
51.1
35 J
13 J
110 J
28 J
40 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
83 J
;;i::SBKZi;iiiiji
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
TABLE 2-Continued
ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY FOR SOILS
BEULAH LANDFILL SITE
Escambia County, Florida
NOTE: Constituents not listed were non-detect in all samples.
Sample Location
Fluorene
lndeno( 1 .2 J-cd)pyrene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrenc
Pyrene
Pesticides and PCB (pg/kg)
Aldrin
•tpha-Chlordane
gamma-Chlordane
Dieldrin
4.4--DDE
4.4--DDD
Arodor-1254
Dioxin/fann TEQ
Inorganics (mg/kg)
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Banum
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
SB-17
200 J
440 J
110 J
60 J
160 J
1300 J
1100 J
230 J
BDL
BDL
650 J
140 J
57J
2300 J
NA
14600 J
BDL
BDL
87.4
BOL
1.9
4000
37.4 J
BDL
94.1J
41200 J
SB-17RE
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
1400 J
NA
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
SM7DL
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
2200 J
NA
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
SIMS
26 J
34 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
9 J
22 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
NA
10200 J
BDL
2.7
36.6 J
0.43 J
BDL
12000
19.5 J
BDL :
13.9 J
7020 J
SD-19 ;
26 J
30 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
49 J
56 J
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4780 J
BDL
BDL
9.6 J
BDL
BDL
325 J
12.1 J
BDL
3.8 J
7490 J
30 J
110 J
BDL
31 J
BDL
530 J
420 J
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
24300 J
2.7 J
BDL
12.6 J
BDL
0.28 J
807 J
63.9 J
BDL
190 J
20900 J
33 J
170 J
BDL
21J
BDL
490 J
500 J
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
30400 J
BDL
3.4
6.9 J
0.25 J
BDL
393 J
29.4 J
BDL
37.1 J
22300 J
SB-21
45 J
100 J
BDL
19 J
BDL
460 J
380 J
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
34100 J
BDL
BDL
14 J
0.3 J
BDL
678 J
52.2 J
BDL
86.5
24300 J
SR-22 ;;
BDL
25 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
39 J
60 J
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2800 J
NA
8190 J
BDL
3
83.9
BDL
BDL
15X0
20.4 J
BDL
6.6
20400 J
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
1500 J
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
Notes:
TABLE . 2-Continued
ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY FOR SOILS
BEULAH LANDFILL SITE
Escambia County, Florida
NOTE: Constituents not listed were non-dctect in all samples.
Sample Location
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
SB-17
229
453
273
0.68
21.5
132
NA
1.7
68.4
19.7
902
NA
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
m?«m
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
SB-18
20.5 .1
2010
89.6 J
0.11 J
32.4
BDL
NA
BDL
392 J
19.6 J
48.9 J
NA
SB-19 jij
12.4 J
86.8 J
13.6 J
0.06 J
1.4 J
BDL
NA
BDL
BDL
17.5 J
11.2 J
NA
mwm
12.7 J
97.1 J
36.1 J
0.07 J
23.5
BDL
NA
BDL
BDL
46.5 J
126 J
NA
*!»St!!!!!
27 J
76.9 J
34.9 J
0.08 J
1.7 J
BDL
NA
BDL
BDL
52.4 J
48.6 J
NA
sn-2i
12.7 J
151 J
37.8 J
0.08 J
14.7
BDL
NA
BDL
BDL
53.8 J
77.7 J
NA
SH-22 •;!;
15.8 J
271 J
32.6 J
0.1 J
BDL
282 J
NA
BDL
51.1 J
34.7 J
65.8 J
NA
&**m
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Shaded areas indicate duplicate extraction
or analysis of the same sample.
SSI. SS2 - Duplicate samples.
RE - Reextracted.
BDL • Below detection limit
NA - Not analyzed
J - Citimated quantity.
2ND-Second Held effort.
-------
TABLE 2-Continued
ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY FOR SOILS
BEULAH LANDFILL SITE
< Escambia County, Florida
NOTE: Constituents not listed were non-delect in all samples.
Sample Location ;SB$
Volatile Organic Compounds (pg/kg)
Acetone
Broinooichlorornetnane
Carbon Dinilfide
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Elhylbeniene
Tetnchloroethene
I.I.I -Trichloroethane
Xylene (total)
Semlrolatlle Organic Compounds (pg/kg)
Acenaphlhene
Acenaphlhylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anfhracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Bena>(g.h.t)perylene
Benzo(k)fliioranthene
bis(2-elhylhexyl)phlhalate
Bntylbenzylphthalate
Chiysene
Di-n-butylphlhalate
Di-n-octylphthalate
Dibenz(a.h)an!hracene
Dibenzofuran
Diethylphthalate
Fluoranthene
JpL|iiijiiiH:ISB-i
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
22IHJPRE ;
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
wwm
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
SH-24
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
21 .1
71 J
78 J
96 J
100.1
44 J
81 J
BDL
77 J
BDL
BDL
55.1
BDL
BDL
150 J
SB-25
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
130 J
170.1
910 .1
740 J
1100 J
430 J
280 J
220 J
BDL
920.1
180 J
13 J
200.1
BDL
BDL
1200 J
sn-26
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
35 J
100 J
110 J
150.1
84 J
41 J
33 J
BDL
120 J
280 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
240 J
SB-28
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8400 J
260 J
13000 J
4500 J
800 J
1500 J
290 J
610 J
350 J
BDL
3600 J
BDL
16 J
100 J
7600 J
BDL
21000 J
SB-28
2ND
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
8100
5300
BDL
2400
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
4600
BDL
BDL
BDL
2700
BDL
27000
-------
TABLE 2-Continued
ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY FOR SOILS
BEULAH LANDFILL SITE
Escambia County, Florida
NOTE: Constituents not listed were non-detect in all samples.
Sample Location
Fluorene
lndeno( 1 ,23-cd)pyrene
2-Methylnaphthatene
Naphthalene
Penlachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Pesticides and PCB (pg/kg)
Aldrm
alpha-Chlordane
gamma- Chlordane
Dieldrin
4.4--DDE
4.4'-DDD
Aroclor-1254
Dionin/foran TEQ
Inorganics (mg/kg)
Aluminutn
Antimony
Anenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
;Sii^iii^iiiii$042IWPRE;ii;|!SB4iDtJ!f|:H;
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
2200 J
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
BDL
BDL .
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
1100 J
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
1700 J
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
SB-24
BDL
85 J
BDL
BDL
180 J
85.1
120 J
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
14200 J
BDL
4.2
34.4 J
BDL
0.36 J
3300
17.9 J
DDL
14.4
17600 J
SB-25
39 J
420 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
420 J
920 J
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7610 J
BDL
BDL
15.6 J
BDL
BDL
1400
11.2 J
BDL
4.7 J
7590 J
SB-26
BDL
73 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
160 J
180 J
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6560 J
BDL
BDL
12 J
BDL
BDL
3170
7.4 J
BDL
5.8
3910 J
SB-28
13000 J
290 J
450 J
480 J
210 J
19000 J
3400 J
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4330 J
BDL
BDL
30.4 J
BDL
0.57 J
1690
9.5 J
BDL
9.7
8860 J
sn-28
2ND
6500
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
18000
13000
46
BDL
3.1
BDL
BDL
4.3
BDL
0.244
3320 J
BDL
0.71
12.8 J
BDL
BDL
454 J
4.1 J
0.77
3.5 J
3130 J
-------
Notes:
TABLE 2-Continued
ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY FOR SOILS
BEULAH LANDFILL SITE
*Escambia County, Florida
NOTE: Constituents not listed were non-detect in all samples.
Sample Location
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
iSB'^iDiiijiiiiiiiiis
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
B^iDUPRf
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
i;;SB-221)fJP::;;
NA
NA
NA
' NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
SII-24
53.6 J
482 J
78 J
O.I J
3.5.1
147 J
NA
BDL
60.9 .1
24.5 J
153 J
NA
SB-25
20.6 J
229 J
37.5 J
0.11 J
9.1
BDL
NA
BDL
BDL
15.1 J
41.4 J
NA
SB-26
33.9 J
351 J
47.3 J
0.09 J
BDL
BDL
NA
BDL
50.7 J
10.3 J
21.4 J
NA
SB-28
147 J
129 J
73.7 J
0.29 J
3.4 J
BDL
NA
BDL
46.5 J
7.4 J
156 J
NA
SB-28
2ND
9.1 J
67.6 J
14.4 J
BDL J
2.2
BDL J
BDL
BDL
25.7 J
5.1 J
19.6 J
BDL
Shaded areas indicate duplicate extraction
or analysis of the same sample.
SSI. SS2 • Duplicate sample*.
RE • Reextracted.
BDL - Below detection limit
NA • Not analyzed
) • Estimated quantity.
2ND - Second field effort.
-------
TABLE <-3
ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY FOR
BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER
BEULAH LANDFILL SITE
Escambia County, Florida
NOTE: Constituents not listed were non-detect in background samples.
Sample Location
Volatile Organic Compounds (ug/L)
Acetone
Carbon Duutfide
Chlorobenzeoe
Elhyl benzene
Tetrachloroethene
Xylene (total)
Semivolatile Organic Compounds (ug/L)
Acenaphtheoe
bi j(2-ethy IhexyOphlhalaie
Dibenzofuran
1 ,4-Dicblo'mbeozene
Diethylphthalate
Fluorene
2-Methylnaphthalene
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
Phenanthrene
Pesticides and PCB (ug/L)
Total (Unfiltered) Inorganics (ug/L)
Aluminum
Banum
Calcium
Quoniiuffl
Iron
1*14
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
BMVV-4
10 UJ
0.2 J
3J
0.2 J
5 U
0.8 J
1 J
U
0.4 J
2J
10 UJ
0.9 J
2J
2J
U
NA
1430 J
300
130000
4.4 U
38200
10.7 J
17500
158
20300
33200 J
3.3 U
BMW-5
2J
5 U
0.5 J
0.2 J
0.9 J
0.6 J
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
2 J
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
NA
26000 J
72.1J
3870 U
35.3
39400
130, 12J*
1760 U
97.5
1950 J
3850 J
42.2 J
MW-4
14 J
5U
5 U
5 U
5 U
5 U
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
BDL
20200 J
73.9 J
5090 U
33.7 J
20600 J
12
1340 U
153
2410 J
2680 J
33.1J
AVG
9J
3 J
3J
2J
4 J
2J
7 J
7J
7 J
7J
7 J
7J
7J
7 J
7J
NA
15900 J
149 J
46300
24J
32700 J
41J
6900
136
8200 J
13200 J
26J
-------
TABLE 3-CONTINUED
ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY FOR
BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER
BEULAH LANDFILL SITE
Escambia County, Florida
NOTE: Constituents not listed were non-detect in background samples.
Sample Location
Dissolved (Filtered) Inorganics (ug/L)
Barium
Calcium
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Sodium
BMW-4
284
125000
34800
2.1 J
16900
151
20600
31600 J
BMW-5
13.4 U
3570 U
1630
12 VI
1080 U
76.3
644 J
3960 J
MW-4
15.9 U
4500 U
69.6 U
2.4 UJ
863 U
22.9
674 J
2540 J
AVG
104
44400
12200
4 J
6300
83
7300 J
12700 J
NOTES:
NA • Not analyied.
V • Undetected; quantity shown is the detection limit.
J - Estimated quantity'.
UJ - Undetected; quantity shown is an estimated
detection limit.
BDL - Below detection limit.
• - Results of first and second field effort
-------
TABLE 4
ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY FOR
GROUNDWATER
BEULAH LANDFILL SITE
Escambia County, Florida
NOTE: Constituents not listed were non-detect in all samples.
Sample Location
Volatile Organic Compounds (ng/L)
Acetone
Benzene
Carbon Diiulfide
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Elhylbenzene
Slyrene
Tetrtchloroethene
Toluene
1.1,1 -Trichloroertime
Xylene (told)
Semivolatile Organic Compounds (pg/L)
Aceniphthene
Acenanhthylene
Anthracene
bis(2-ethylhexyl)t*thtlite
2-chloroniphdulene
Di-n-butylphlhiltte
Dibenzoniran
1 ,4-Dichlofobenzene
Diethylphthilate
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Ftuormthene
Fluorene
Isophorone
2-Methyliuphlhitene
2-Methylphenol
BMW-1
10 UJ
0.6 J
BDL
2J
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
0.4 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BMVV-2
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
0.2 J
0.6 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BMW-3
BDL
BDL
BDL
0.3 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BMVV-6
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
0.3 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
'BDL
BDL
BDL
BMW-7.WI
BDL
0.6 J
BDL
5
0.2 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
1 J
BDL
BDL
0.6 J
BDL
BDL
0.4 J
1 J
0.4 J
BDL
BDL
0.7 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
BMW-7.W2
BDL
BDL
0.5 J
SJ
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
0.9 J
BDL
BDL
0.6 J
BDL
BDL
0.4 J
2J
0.3 J
BDL
BDL
0.7 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
MW-3D
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
0.4 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
2J
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
MW-31
BDL
3J
BDL
0.5 J
BDL
2J
BDL
BDL
0.4 J
BDL
1 J
0.4 J
BDL
BDL
0.4 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
0.5 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
-------
TABLE 4 -Continued
ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY FOR
GROUNDWATER
BEULAH LANDFILL SITE
Escambia County, Florida
NOTE: Constituents not listed were non-deled in all samples.
Sample Location
4-Methylphenol
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
Naphthalene
Pentftchloiopheiiol
Phenanlhtene
Phenol
Pyrcne
2.4.5-Tridilorophenol
BMW-1
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BMW-2
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BMW-3
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BMYV-6 ijjjjji
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
U
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
U
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
1! MW-3D
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
MW-3I
BDL
BDL
U
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
Pesticides and PCB (pg/L)
Methoxychlor
Total (Unfiltercd) Inorganics (pg/L)
Aluminum
Anenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
0.21 J
1400 J
BDL
39.9 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
1110
BDL
BDL
BDL
0.23 J
677 J
19200 J
BDL
3650 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
3690
5.7 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
1160 J
3890 J
6.9 J
89400 J
BDL
274
1.6 J
BDL
27700
89.7
5.2 J
BDL
25600
7.4 J
12500
71.9
BDL
36700
51800 J
92.1
472 J
BDL
BDL
RDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
771
BDL
BDL
67.3
BDL
BDL
2490 J
BDL
2590 J
17.8
104 J
BDL
BDL
56500 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
54200
BDL
13700
210
BDL
32300
45400 J
5.6 J
2130 J
19.4 J
102 J
BDL
BDL
56500 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
54500
BDL
13800
212
BDL
32200
46000 J
3.9 J
28800 J
BDL
74.6 J
I.I J
2.4 J
BDL
25.2 J
BDL
47.8
9920 J
9.4 J
BDL
67.3
BDL
2670 J
2240 J
28 J
562 J
BDL
112 J
BDL
BDL
18300 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
1540 J
BDL
14200
479
BDL
1370 J
35100 J
BDL
-------
TABLE 4 - Continued
ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY FOR
GROUNDWATER
BEULAH LANDFILL SITE
Escambia County, Florida
NOTE: Constituents not listed were non-delect in all samples.
Sample Location
Zinc
Dissolved (Filtered) Inorganics (pg/L)
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Calcium
Cnfoniititn
Cobalt
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Potassium
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
BMW-1
BDL
BDL
BDL
28.1 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
680 J
16000 J
BDL
BDL
BMW-2
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
44.3 J
3.2 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
2850 J
BDL
BDL
BMW-3
BDL
571
BDL
49.5 J
14200
BDL
BDL
2650
3.8 J
5200 J
30.1
0.12 J
17100
26600 J
BDL
BDL
BMW-6
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
74.2
BDL
959 J
2140 J
BDL
BDL
||jEJlV1W-7tWl
BDL
BDL
23.9 J
99.4 J
55500 J
BDL
BDL
51800
BDL
13700
208
BDL
33500
46600 J
BDL
BDL
BMW.?,W2
BDL
BDL
45 J
108 J
56500 J
BDL
BDL
52700
BDL
14000
212
BDL
33900
47300 J
BDL
BDL
MW-3D
1300
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
40.3
BDL
BDL
BDL
5J
BDL
MW-31
BDL
BDL
BDL
127J
15700 J
BDL
3.8 J
BDL
BDL
13400
523
BDL
1280 J
41700 J
BDL
BDL
Notei:
SSI, SS2 • Duplicate samples.
Shaded areas indicate duplicate extraction or
analyiii of the tame sample.
NA • Not analyzed.
U - Undetected; quantity ihown is the detection
J • Estimated quantity.
U) - Undetected - quantity shown it an estimated
detection limit.
BDL • Below detection limit.
-------
TABLE 4 - Continued
ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY FOR
GROUNDWATER
BEULAH LANDFILL SITE
Escambia Qounty, Florida
NOTE: Constituents not listed were non-detect in all samples.
Sample Location
Volatile Organic Compounds (pg/L)
Acetone
Benzene
Carbon Diralfide
Chlorobenzene
Chlorofom
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
Tetrschloroethene
Toluene
I.l.l-Trichloroethane
Xylene (total)
Semivolatile Organic Compounds (pg/L)
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
bit(2-e(hythe*yl)pn«halne
2-chlonmaphlhalene
Di-n-botylphthalate
Dibenzofaran
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
Diethylphthalate
2.4-Dimethylphenol
Fluoranthene
Fluorcne
fjophorone
2- Methy (naphthalene
2-Methylphenol
MW-5 jjjjjjjiy
32 J
0.3 J
BDL '
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
0.3 J
BDL
0.9 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
0.9 J
BDL
0.4 J
BDL
3 J
0.3.1
BDL
5
BDL
7
180 J
6.1
19 J
0.6J
12 J
BDL
130 J
BDL
0.6J
35J
7J
120 J
2 J
220.1
7J
I!!!!!
BDL
0.9 J
BDL
0.4 J
BDL
3.1
0.4.1
BDL
6
BDL
8
170 J
6.1
18 J
0.6.1
11 J
BDL
130 J
BDL
0.5.1
33 J
6 J
120 J
2.1
230 J
7 J
TW-1
2500 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
1 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
TW-2
1600 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL .
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
1
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
TW-3
26 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL J
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
-------
TABLE 4 -- Continued
ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY FOR
GROUNDWATER
BEULAH LANDFILL SITE
Escambia County, Florida
NOTE: Constituents not listed were non-dctcct in all samples.
Sample Location
4-Methylphenol
N-Nitrosodiphenylamme
Naphthalene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanlhrene
Phenol
Pyrcne
2.4,5-TricWorophenol
MW-5 M
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL J
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
iyV'6Wi
9 J
BDL
610.1
130J
110 J
0.8J
3.1
2J
MW-6W2
9 J
BDL
640 J
120 J
110 J
0.6 J
2 J
2J
TW-1
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
TW-2
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
TW-3
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
Pesticides and PCB (pg/L)
Methoxyditor
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
Total (Unfiltered) Inorganics (pg/L)
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cob.lt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
• Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
13600 J
BDL
43.3 J
BDL
BDL
13000 J
30 J
BDL
BDL
4410 J
BDL
BDL
43.1
BDL
4360 J
4380 J
13.2 J
96900 J
BDL
200 J
1.8 J
BDL
14600
89.8
6.2 J
BDL
41200
9.3 J
7550
412
0.13 J
4580 J
15100 J
137
57000 J
BDL
139 J
1.2 J
BDL
14000
54.4
BDL
BDL
27900
8.4 J
6640
391
BDL
2810 j
15100 J
81.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
TABLE 4 ~ Continued
ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY FOR
GROUNDWATER
BEULAH LANDFILL SITE
Escambia County, Florida
NOTE: Constituents not listed were non-detect in all samples.
Sample Location
Zinc
Dissolved (Filtered) Inorganics (ng/L)
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Calcium
Uiroiiiiujii
Cobalt
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Potassium
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
MVV-5 i
BDL
14600 J
BDL
45.5 J
12600 J
27.4
BDL
4560
10.9 J
BDL
43
BDL
4580
4460 J
BDL
13.3 J
•lillill
BDL
BDL
BDL
39.4 J
12200
BDL
BDL
8800
1.9 J
4760 J
350
BDL
688 J
14000 J
BDL
BDL
11111111
BDL
BDL
BDL
43 J
13600
BDL
BDL
8730
2.5 J
5040
346
BDL
729 J
14000 J
BDL
BDL
ii TW-I
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
TW-2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
TWO
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Notes:
SSI. SS2 - Duplicate tamplei.
Shaded areas indicate duplicate extraction or
analysis of the same sample.
NA - Not analyzed.
U - Undetected; quantity shown is die detection
) - Estimated quantity.
U) - Undetected ~ quantity shown is an estimated
detection limit.
BDL - Below detection limit.
-------
TABLE *
ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY
FOR UPSTREAM SURFACE WATERS
BEULAH LANDFILL SITE
Escambia County, Florida
NOTE: Constituents not listed were below detection limits in til tnmplrt
Sample Location
Volatile Organic Compounds (ttg/L)
ACMOM
Brnam*
Orboo DnalTida
CUanlm
Semrrolatlle Organic Compounds (ug/L)
te(2-«hyIbayl)pbib
M«(Miam
ktepaw
kfamay
fDOHhOB
(odium
V«»dimii
SW-6
•pstrtam
QereamDc
Creek
BOL
BOL
BOL
BOL
(L5 j
BOL
0.9 J
BOL
587
BDL
95.4 J
26000 J
BOL
BDL
400 J
3400 J
153
BOL
20400
318000
5J
BOL
18 J, BDL
BDL
104 J
28000J
25*J
3670 J
162
BDL
23200
353000
BDL
SW4
•pstrcan
Coffee
Creek
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
344
BDL
174 J
3550 J
BDL
BDL
1180 J
USOJ
U.4J
BDL
858J
2800J
BDL
BDL
BDL, BDL
290
18.7 J
3720 J
962 J
1270 J
12.4 J
0.19 J
C72J
3060 J
BDL
NOTES:
SSI, SSI - Dupliau uapta.
ytlf*f^ mM IDdtCftlA dUpllGBM MOMtlOD Of
aulyiB ef DM uto« umpl*.
U - UidciMMd; quality IBOWB • IB* dKtclioa
J .Brfmaud quality.
Ul • Uadtucud: quality •bewa • «a wiimaud
NA-
MOiooliOUL
BDL • B*)ow dflMico taBi.
• • Mulu from lu «Ml tod T«U •ffoit
-------
TABLE 9
ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY FOR SURFACE WATERS
BEULAH LANDFILL SITE
Escambia County, Florida
NOTE: Constituents not listed were below detection limits in all samples.
Sample Location SW-1.W2
(swale)
Volatile Organic Compounds (pg/L)
Acetone
Benzene
Caibon Dinilfide
Chloroform
Tetrachlofoetheiio
Semivolatile Organic Compounds (pg/L)
bis(2-«thylhexyl)phhalate
2.4.6-Trichlorophenol
Pesticides and PCB (pg/L)
Total (Unfiltered) Inorganics (pg/L)
Alufntnufti
Antimony
Barium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Iron
Magneihtm
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
DDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
NA
611
BDL
39.5 J
33300 J
BDL
BDL
1410 J
6440
32.8
10.4 J
7060
8600
BDL
BDL
Cyanide • NA.BDL
SW-2
(swale)
BDL
0.2 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
NA
NA
NA
14700
18 J
134 J
98400 J
32.7 J
4.8 J
24500 J
14900
541
I1.6J
22000
39000
19 J
122
NA
SW-3
BDL
BDL
BDL
0.2 J
0.5 J
0.3 J
0.9 J
BDL
694
BDL
87.3 J
22700 J
BDL
BDL
613 J
3480 J
144
BDL
14700
244000
4.2 J
BDL
13J, BDL
jSty^ssiiiliii
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
0.6 J
0.3 J
0.9 J
NA
440
BDL
91.2 .1
23600 J
4.4 J
BDL
574 J
3460 J
148
BDL
15500
259000
4.2 J
BDL
, 15 J
PWfl.SSJIiii;
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
0.6 J
BDL
1 J
NA
559
BDL
90.3 J
23000 J
BDL
BDL
518 J
3330 J
151
BDL
15200
263000
3.3 J
BDL
16 J
!!{ SW-5
BDL
BDL
0.4 J
0.2 J
0.6 J
BDL
BDL
NA
591
BDL
97 J J
26500 J
4.7 J
BDL
480 J
3490 J
156
8.4 J
2060
322000
5J J
BDL
19 J
SW-7
9J
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
17.5 J
5080 J
BDL
BDL
1730 J
1530 J
19
BDL
1620 J
3860 J
BDL
BDL
BDL. BDL
-------
TABLE 9 -- Continued
ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY FOR SURFACE WATERS
BEULAII LANDFILL SITE
Escambia County, Florida
NOTE: Constituents not listed were below detection limits in all samples.
Sample Location
SW-I.W2
(swale)
SW-2
(swale)
SW-3
gii^lljjjijiijj
:;;SVy-4|SSf|ii;ii
I SW-5
SVV-7
Dissolved (Filtered) Inorganics (pg/L)
Aluminum
Banum
Calcium
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercuiy
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
BDL
40.6 .1
35800 .1
913 J
6910
30.7
BDL
7950
9180
BDL
BDL
75.1
85600 J
151 J
15300
322
BDL
24500
43700
BDL
BDL
97 J
25000 J
423 J
3780 J
159
ni)L
16700
282000
BDL
BOL
103 J
26600 J
366 J
3920 J
164
BDL
18000
298000
BDL
BDL
101 J
25800 J
332 J
3790 J
161
BDL
17800
293000
3.6 J
BDL
105 J
28800 J
284 J
3820 J
163
0.27 J
22800
354000
BDL
BDL
19.5 J
4790 J
998 J
1480 J
16.4 J
BDL
1350 J
3840 J
BDL
NOTES:
SSI. SS2 - Duplicate samples.
Shaded areas indicate duplicate extraction or
analysis of the same sample.
U - Undetected; quantity shown is the
detection limit
) - Estimated quantity.
V) • Undetected; quantity shown is «
estimated detection limit
NA • Not analyzed.
BDL - Below detection limit
* - results from 1st and 2nd field effort
-------
TABLE 11
ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY FOR
UPSTREAM SEDIMENTS
BEULAH LANDFILL SITE
Escambia County, Florida
NOTE: Constituents not listed were below detection limits for both samples.
Sample Location SD-6 SD-8
Volatile Organic Compounds (ug/kg)
Acetone 10 J BDL
Chlorobeozene BDL BDL
Semivolatile Organic Compounds (ug/kg)
Benzo(gJxi)p=rylene 14 J 13 J
bis(2-ethylbexyl)phlbalue 29 J 14 J
Indeno(l,2.3-cd)pyrene 13 J 12 J
Pesticides and PCS (ug/kg)
HepUchJor epoxide BDL 15 J
Inorganics (mg/kg)
Aluminum
Birium
Cadmium
' Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Vanadium
Zinc
562
1.8 J
BDL
24.1 J
L3J
0.39 J
291
0.91
12 J
1JJ
0.93 J
2.6 J
1260
1.9 J
0.26 J
42.2 J
2.1J
0.79 J
1150
1.4
18.3 J
1.5 J
2.3 J
2.4 J
NOTES:
BDL - Below detection limit.
J • Estimated Quantity.
-------
TABLE 12
ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY FOR
SEDIMENT
BEULAH LANDFILL SITE
Escambia County, Florida
NOTE: Constituents not listed were below detection limits In alt samples.
Sample Location SIM SD-2 SD-3 SIM.SSI JSIM,SS2 SD-S SU-7
(swale) (swale)
Volatile Organic Compounds (pg/kg)
Acetone BDL BDL 64 81 BDL BDL 3 J
Chlorobenrene BDL 1 J BDL BDL BDL BDL 0.7 J
Semivolatile Organic Compounds (pg/kg)
Benzo(»)«nlhrmcene
Benzo(b)flaonmtliene
Ben»(g.h.i)perylene
BenroOOfloormnlhene
bii(2-elhylhexyl)pht>wlite
Chiyiene
Dibenz(»Ji)«nthr»cene
FiuonfitlieiM
lndeno( I ,2,3-cd)pyKne
. Pyrene
Pesticides and PCB (pg/kg)
Hepuchforepoxide NA NA BDL NA NA NA BDL
Inorganics (mg/kg)
AnmiinnfTi
Antimony
Anenie
Barium
BDL
BDL
41 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
34 J
BDL
43 J
BDL
31.1
25 J
74.1
9.1
220 J
17 J
84J
34 J
BDL
32 J
BDL
BDL
20 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL .
BDL
BDL
BDL
12 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
12 J
BDL
6120
NA
1.8 J
29.4 J
14900
NA
4.8.1
60.9 J
667
NA
BDL
4.3 J
392
NA
BDL
, 2.6 J
586
NA
BDL
3J
486
NA
BDL
1.2 J
1460
2.3 J
2.2 J
2.2 J
-------
TABLE 12-CONTINUED
ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY FOR
SEDIMENT
BEULAH LANDFILL SITE
Escambia County, Florida
Sample Location
Cadmium
Calcium
Cnronmun
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potaiitam
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
NOTES:
BDL - Bdow detection limit
1 - Estimated quantity.
Shaded area! indicate duplicate extraction o
SD-1
BDL
2100
15.6 J
11. 1
8930
11.1
212 J
43.9 J
0.09
7.3 J
329 J
BDL
BDL
15.2 J
111 J
r anaryiii of the lame sarn
SD-2
BDL
10800
68.9 J
26.4
17300
37.4
641 J
71
0.2 J
5.6 J
773 J
3.3 J
169 J
31.2
221 J
pie.
SD-3 j
BDL
31.8 J
1.2 J
0.94 J
712
9.8
10.4 J
2.5
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
1.1 J
3.1 J
iiiisii
BDL
42.6 J
1.1 J
0.26 J
324
3.6
7.7 J
1.9
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
65 J
0.59 J
2.2 J
•ill
BDL
46 J
U
0.41 J
400
0.55 J
13.9 J
2
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
0.86 J
2.7 J
SD-5
BDL
BDL
1J J
0.31J
232
2.2
7.8 J
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
0.78 J
2.5 J
SD-7
BDL
41.7 J
80.8 J
0.5 J
3930
1.4
23 J
4.2
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
2.5 J
2.4 J
SSI. SS2- Duplkate lampfe*.
RE-Reextracted.
NA-Not analyzed.
-------
APPENDIX C
RISK ASSESSMENT TABLES
-------
(letilah Landfill Site
Contaminants of Concern
Croundtrater
INORGANICS
Aluminum
A/llimonv
Arsenic
Binum
Beryllium
Cjdmjuin
Chrorrjum
Coblll
Copper
Iron
Lead
Mineucse
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Vuiadium
Zinc
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Surface
Wj«r
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Sedimeul
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Surface
Suil
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Air
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
VOLATIU OROANICS
Aceione
Benzene
X
X
X
Chlcroiorm X X X
Metnylcnc Chlonde
Styrene
Tclracnloroelheoe
X
X
X
X
PESnClDES/PCBi
Aldr.n
Alpha Chlordane
GanLTU Chlorcune
Dielcnn
•i.J'-DDElP.P'-DDEl
J.J'-DDD(P.P'.OOD)
Arocior-i:S4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SE.MI-VOLATUJE ORGAjs'lCS
AcenishOiene
Benux a iwithracene
Benzol b 111 uoruuhene
Bcnz0pbthaUie
ButylbeuylphlhalAte
Chrysene
Dib«nio(a.h)«nthnceM
DibouoAiran
Di-a-teilylphlbiUte
1 .4-DichlorebenzeM
RuoreiK
lode»o(I.J.3-cd)pyrtn
-------
i aoie
Cancer Slope Factors (CSFs)
(mg/kg-day)'
Chemical
Oral
Reference
Inhalation
Reference
Dermal
Organics
Aldrin
Arochlor-l254rPCB)
Benzene
Benzol a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzofb and/or kjfluoranihene
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthnlate
Chlordane
Chloroform
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a.h)anthracene
4.4'-DDE(P.P'-DDE)
4.4'-DDD (P.P'-DDD)
1 .4-Dichlorobcn7.enc
Dieldrin
Indenoi 1 .2.3-cd)pyrene
Isophorone
Methylene Chloride
N-Nitrosdiphenylamine
Pentachlorophenol
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
2.4,6-Trichlorophenol
I.7E-H
7.7E + 0
2.9E-2
7.3E+0
7.3E+0
7.3E + 0
I.4E-2
I.3E+0
6.IE-3
7.3E + 0
7.3E+0
3.4E-I
2.4E-I
2.4E-2
I.6E-H
7.3E + 0
9.5E-4
7.5E-3
4.9E-3
I.2E-I
NTV
5.2E-2
1 . 1 E-2
IRJS. 1993
IRIS. 1993
IRIS. 1993
BaP
EPA. 1992c
BaP
IRJS. 1993
IRJS. 1993
IRJS. 1993
BaP
BaP
IRIS, 1993
IRIS. 1993
HEAST. 1992
HEAST. 1992
BaP
IRJS. 1993
IRJS, 1993
IRJS, 1993
IRJS. 1993
--
IRJS, 1993
IRJS. 1993
I.72E+I
NTV
2.92E-2
NTV
NTV
NTV
NTV
I.3E + 0
3.05E-2
NTV
NTV
NTV
NTV
NTV
I.6E-H-"
NC
NTV
1.65E-3:
NTV
NTV
NTV
2.03E-3
I.09E-2
IRIS. IP93
--
IRIS. I9
-------
Table 3
Lifetime Cancer Risk-Current and Future Scenarios
Reasonable Maximum Exposure Concentrations
Exposure Medium
Groundwater
Surface Soil
Outdoor Air Inhalation
Surface Water
Sediment
Total
Current/Future Trespasser
NE
2.7E-6
1.3E-6
1.7E-8
4.8E-7
4.5E-6
NE - Not Evaluated
Table 4
Substances of Concern (Reasonable Maximum Concentration)
That Contribute to Carcinogenic Risk
Exceeding One in One Million (10~6)
Exposure Medium
Outdoor Air Inhalation
Surface Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Sediment
Current /Future Trespasser
Arsenic 1.3E-6
Arsenic (6.9E-7)
Aldrin (2.5E-7)
Dieldrin (6.7E-7)
Arochlor-1254 (7.4E-7)
Total 2.3E-6
NE
NC
NC
NE - Not Evaluated
NC - No Concern, did not exceed 1E-6 risk
-------
Table 5
Total Hazard Index - Current and Future Trespasser Scenario
Reasonable ya^™™ Exposure Concentration
Exposure Medium
Groundwater
Surface Water
Sediment
Outdoor Air Inhalation
Surface Soil
Total
Current /Future Trespasser
NE
0.25
0.033
0.02
0.061
0.36
NE - Not Evaluated
-------
Table 6
Model and.Assumptions tor Calculating Estimated
Daily Contaminant Intake by the Eastern Cottontail
(Sylvilagus floridanus)
Through Ingestion of Vegetation (shoots) and Soils
Beulah Landfill, Escambia Co., FL.
Estimated Daily Contaminant Intake (mg/kg-day dry weight) Via:
Plant Material Ingestion (mg/kg-day dry weight) = CV*V1R*FI
BW
Incidental Soil Ingestion (mg/kg-day dry weight) = CS*S1R*F1
BW
Where:
CV = Concentration of contaminant in vegetation (mg/kg dry weight). Listed in Appendix I.
CS = Concentration of contaminant in soil (mg/kg). Listed in Appendix I.
VIR = Estimated mean daily Vegetation Ingestion Rate (kg/day dry weight). Assumed to be
0.108 kg/day based upon literature averages for the black-tailed jackrabbit. (Arnold 1943:
Arnold and Reynolds 1943: Arthur and Gates 1988: Nagy et al. 1976).
SIR = Estimated mean daily Soil Ingestion Rate (kg/day). Assumed to be 0.006 kg/day based
upon the equation given in Arthur and Gates (1988).
Fl = Fraction ingestion from source: 1.0. This value is dependent upon the home range size
of the cottontail. It is conservatively assumed that the swamp rabbit's home range is
smaller than the dredge spoils. Therefore, it is exposed to contaminants of concern
100% of the time.
BW = Average body weight of an adult cottontail rabbit (kg). Assumed to be similar o that of
the Swamp Rabbit: 2.23 kg (Palmer et al. 1991).
-------
Table 7
Model and Assumptions for Calculating Estimated
Daily Contaminant Intake by the Chipping Sparrow
(Spizella passerina)
Through Ingestion of Seeds and Soils,
Beulah Landfill, Escambia Co., FL.
Estimated Daily Contaminant Intake (mg/kg-day dry weight) Via:
Seed Ingestion (mg/kg-day dry weight) = C|*FIR*FI
BW
Incidental Soil Ingestion (mg/kg-day dry weight) = CS*SIR*F1
BW
Where:
CI = Concentration of contaminants in seeds (mg/kg dry weight). Listed in Appendix I.
CS = Concentration of contaminants in soil (mg/kg). Listed in Appendix I.
FIR = Estimated mean daily Food (seed) Ingestion Rate (kg/day dry weight). Assumed to be 0.00486
kg/d based on literature averages (Pulliam 1985.).
SIR = Estimated mean daily Soil Ingestion Rate (kg/day). Assumed to be 1 % of daily intake (0.0000486
kg/d).
FI = Fraction ingestion from source: 1.0. This value is dependent upon the home range size of the
sparrow. It is conservatively assumed that the sparrow's home range is smaller than the dredge
spoils. Therefore, it is exposed to contaminants of concern 100% of the time.
BW = Average body weight of an adult sparrow (kg). Assumed to be 0.012 kg (Clench and Leberman
1978).
-------
Table 8
Approach Used to Derive Critical Toxicity Values
for Terrestrial Wildlife,
Beulah Landfill, Escambia Co., FL.
Available Toxicity Endpoints
Acute lethality (LD^/Acute LOEL
Acute toxicity threshold
Chronic LOEL
Within phylogenetic class
(different species but same class)
Target Endpoints
Acute toxicity threshold
Chronic NOEL
Chronic NOEL
Target species toxicity
Divide By
(Safety Factors)
5
100
5
5
As an example, in developing a CTV for a rabbit when the only datum available is an LD50 for a rat. the following
steps would be taken:
Ral LDy, for contaminant X = 50 mg/kg
1. Acute lethality --> Acute toxicity (SO mp/ke) = 10 mg/kg
threshold 5
2. Acute toxicity --> Chronic NOEL (10 me/kg) = 0.1 mg/kg
threshold 100
3. Within phylogenetic class
sensitivity — > Target species CTV (I me/kel = 0.02 mg/kg
5
-------
Table 9
Summary of Critical Toricity Values (CTVs) for the Eastern Cottontail
via the Ingest ion Pathway,
Bculah Landfill, Escamfoia Co., FL.
Contaminant
Volatile Organic*
Acetone
Oilorobenzene
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
TcirachloroetUene
Species
Rat
Rat
Rabbit
Rat
Rat
End point
Chronic NOEL
Oiromc NOEL
Chronic LOF.L
Cliromc NOF.L
Clironic NOEL
Duration
•Mldavs
10? w«ks
iitn INdavs
- years
Nl<
Effect
Measured
Kidnev Effects
Survival
l?etmoxicitv
1 Icpatotoxiciiy
llepaiotoxicuy
Dose
(mg/kg-BW)
I.UOE-MI2
S.5.7E+-OI
2.0HC-O2
5 OOE-l-IHI
MOF-Mll
CTV j 1
(nig/kg- HW)i Reference ;
lilOh-Mil . iKIS \'H1
1. "IC-m : IISOFf I'fi: I
; 2nr. -HI K! i.Cs \'ni
i nor.-"" IKIS i-«:
: ^iie.-Hi !ieMation
Wdavs
4davs
ft months
( iestattnn
Developmental
Hepatotoxicity
Hepaio/Gastro/Renal
Aplastic Anemia
2.U(>E-t-ol
^ ME-iil : KTECS I'fil •
! ' :
I.OOE-MJ3
1.50E+02
l.20E-t-02
:.UOE-IO ; IKIS 1-^2 :
.VOOE-OI : (2-507 . ;
4.SOEi-<>0 I: -507
'
i ••
,
Teraiogenictty i.SOE+tll 5.DOE-t-00 i t-.-OJ
^h weeks Renal
1 year
13 weeks
Idose
62dayj
Idose
13 weeks
Lethality
Liver Weight/Kidneys
Lethality
Fetotoxicity
lethality
Kidnev Weighl/Hemato
I.S9E-M)2 .VISE-^OI ! IRIS 1W2 :
:
| '
l.25E-t-02
1.2SE+02
1.63E+03
300E+00
7.00E+02
7.50E+01
I '.
t .
2.SOE-M>I
2.SOE-M)!
(..52E-01
6.00E-OI
2.80E-01
1.50E+OI
IKISIVC '
IRIS IW2
RTECS 1992
IRIS IW
E-46S
IRIS 1992
-------
Table 9 (Continued)
Summary of Critical Toricity Values (CTVs) for the Eastern Cottontail
via the Ingestion Pathway,
Beulah Landfill, Escambia Co., FL.
Contaminant
Pcslicides/PCBs
Aldrin
ArOclor-1254
.ilpha-Chlordane
sj.imma-Clilordnne
Dieldnn
4.4'-DOE
4.4'-DOD
Inorganics
Aluminum
Anlimonv
.Arsenic
Barium
CTiromium (V|>
C.idmium
Copper
CVnnide
Iron
Uad
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercurv
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Species
NOA
R.H
Rat
Kal
Rabbit
Rai
Mouse
NDA
NDA
Mouse
Ral
Rat
Mouse
Rat
NDA
Mouse
Rat
NDA
Rnt
Mouse
Rat
Rat
NDA
Mouse
F.od point
Chronic NOEL
CTiromc NOEL
Chronic NOEL
Chronic LOEL
Chronic LOEL
Chronic NOEL
Chronic NOEL
Chronic NOEL
Chronic NOEL
Chronic LOEL
''Chronic NOEL
LDSO
C.Tironic NOEL
Chronic LOEL
Chronic NOEL
Chronic LOEL
Chronic NOEL
Chronic NOEL
Duration
i
i
14 weeks
NR
NR
NR
T.< weeks
7S weeks
NR
i.K weeks
2 vear
ft months
2Xdavs
Idose
NR
NR
7 weeks
11 weeks
5 generations
V months
Effect
Measured
Systemic
I lepatotoxicily
1 Icpatotoxicity
Convulsions
Lethality
Resp/Oasiro/Hcmato/ Renal
Reproductive
Histo/Cardio/Body Weight
Survival/Body Weight
Developmental
Hepatotoxicity
Lethality
Reproductive
Reproductive
Immunology
Reproductive
Reproductive
Anemia
Doae
(tog/kg- BW)
I.25E+00
x.OOE-01
l.SOE-KK)
X.nOE+iJO
UOE-cOl
4.:.9E*02
7.00E-OI
I.40E+02
2.40E+IH)
1. WE 1-0(1
7.90E-MJO
,1.06E-t-02
7.00E-OI
1.7SE+02
4.21E-01
S.OOE-t-01
2.50E-02
1.03E+OI
CTV :
(mg/kg-BW)l
i
:.50E-«I i
:.(H)E-oi i
4.00E-01 !
I.':E+OII
-i.SOE-'JI
•(.<«»£ fOI
1.4DE-01
:..SOE-*-OI
4XOE-HI
rooE-u:
l.dllE-t-OU
I.:OE-OI
I.40E-OI
7.00E+00
S.40E-02
2.00E-I-00
5.00E-03
3.26E-HW
Reference I
I
l--5»h !
^i^ler P«o i
^i^ler I'A'O i
IISDB l'«l i
I;-|2
T.-I2
1
j
E-17 '
IRISlw: . :
F.-IV \
L-5US :
Al'SDR IV«i !
i
r.-.w ;
i-;-5ov :
ATSDR l'W2
E-10
E-5.3
IRIS 1992
t-15
NDA - No Data Available
-------
Table 10
Summary of Critical Toxicity Values (CTVs) for the Chipping Sparrow via the digestion Pathway,
Beulah Landfill, Escambia Co., PL.
Contaminant
Volatile Orgaoics
Acetone
C.'lilorobcnzene
C'lilorolorm
Meihvtene chloride
Tetrachloroeihene
I.l.l-Trichtoreihane
Xvlene
Scaivolatilc Organic*
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzofa janthracene
Benzou ipyrene
Benzo(b)duoi
Pntton and Dieier I'J/Oi
Ration and Dieter 1 •/»'*!
Ration and Dieier 1V7'
-------
Table 10 (Continued)
Summary of Critical Toricity Values (CTVs) for the Chipping Sparrow via the Ingestion Pathway,
Bculah Landfill, Escambia Co., FL.
Cooumioaol
Peslicides/PCBs
Aldrin
/Vector- 1254
alpha— C'hlnrdane
gnmma — llilord.ine
Dieldrin
4.4--DDE
4.4'-Dt)D
/oorgtaka
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium (VI)
Copper
Cvanide
Iron
Lend
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercurv
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Species
NDA
Robwhite
Japanese (Juail
Japanese (Juail
House Sparrow
Hobwhiie
Rinz— necked Phe.isnnt
NDA
NDA
' California (Juail
NDA
Mallard •
Chicken
Turkev
NDA
Turkev
American Kestrel
Chicken
Turkev
Japanese Ouail
Japanese Ouail
Mallard
NDA
Turkev
Eodpotnl
LDSO
Acute NOEL
Acute NOEL
LDSO
LDSO
LDSO
LDSO
Chronic NOEL
Acute NOEL
Acute NOEL
Chronic NOEL
Chronic NOEL
Chronic NOEL
Acute NOEL
Chronic NOEL
Acute NOEL
Chronic NOEL
Acute NOEL
Duration
1 dose
Idose
1 dose
1 dose
5 day
1 dose
Idose
12 weeks
32 days
21davs
12 weeks
ft months
•luceks
21 tlavs
Ivear
5dav»
3 months
21davs
Effect
Measured
Lethality
Survival
Survival
Lethality
Lethality
Lethality
Lethality
Kidney Degeneration
Survival/Growth
Lethaliiv/Growth
(imwth
Reproducuve/Surviva
Advene Effects
Lelhalitv/Crrowih
Lethality
Oven Toricirv
Teratogenic
LethalitvAjfowth
Uose
(rag/kg-BW)
S.T7E+01
:.67E+OI
2.07E+01
4.78E+OI
9.69E+01
3.86E-t-U2
4.76E-t-01
I.TOE-t-00
5.00E+OU
7.10E+OI
:.'«E+01
5.10E+00
4.80E+02
4.28E+02
2.00E-01
7.13E+(E
5.00E-01
2.10E-t-02
crv
(mg/kg-BW)
3.SOE -02
5..V)E-()2
5..VJE-02
MWE-02
.VS8E-02
I.54E-01
I.WE -02
.V40E-OI
I.OOE-02
I.42E-OI
5.'«Ei-i"t
I.02E+OU
v.ftOE-t-OI
8.56E-01
4.00E-03
I.43E-I-00
I.OOE-01
4.20E-01
I
i
Reference
i
i
I
E-223 i
P.isler ivm
l;isler |V(cl
itSDB l'«2
E-214
Hudson etui. I'W?
Hudson ei.il. l<«?
:
E-515
E-520 :
E-5IV
F.-lnT
E-510
E-303 j
E-519
E-214
E-214
Eister 198?
E-519
NDA - No Data Available
-------
Table 11
Comparison of Surface Water Concentrations at Coffee Creek
with Florida State Water Quality Standards or Federal Water Quality Standards,
Beulah Landfill, Escambia Co.. FL.
Contaminant
Ofgaaics
Acetone
Surface Water
Concentrations
in Beulah Landfill
(«g/L)
Average
9.00E+00
Maximum
9.()OE+
-------
Table H (Continued)
Comparison of Surface Water Concentrations at Elcvcnmile Creek
with Florida State Water Quality Standards or Federal Water Quality Standards,
Bculah Landfill, Escambia Co., PL.
Contaminant
Organics
Bis(2-ehtylhexyl)phthalate
Carbon Disulfide
Chloroform
Tetrachloroethene
2,4j5-Trfchloropheno!
Inorganics
Chromium(lll)
Chromium(VI)
Cyanide
Nickel
Surface Water
Concentrations
at Beula
(UJ
Average
3.00E-01
4.00E-01
2.00E-OI
5.75E-OI
9.33E-OI
4.55E+00
4.55E-KM)
5.18E+U1
8.40E+00
h Landfill
/L)
Maiimum
3.00E-OI
4.00E-OI
2.(M)E-OI
6.(KIE-()I
1.UUE+UO
4.70E+00
4.70E+00
I.60E + 02
8.41 IE + IX)
Florida
Chronic
Freshwater
AWQC
Cone.
fujj/L)
NCA
NCA
NCA
8.85E+00 •
6.50E+00 8
ERR c
I.10E+01
5.20E+00
ERR
Florida
Acute
Freshwater
AWQC
Cone.
(ttKfL)
NCA
NCA
NCA
NCA
NCA
ERR b
1.6UE+01 d
2.20E+OI d
ERR b
Florida Chronic
Freshwater AWQC
Hazard Indices1*
Average (Maximum
NE
NE
NE
6.51 IE -02
1.44E-01
ERR
4.I4E-01
9.95E-HK)
ERR
NE
NE
NE
6.78E-02
1.54E-OI
ERR
4.27E-01
3.08E + OI
ERR
Florida Acute
Freshwater AWQC
Hazard Indices1*
Average (Maximum
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
ERR
2.84E-OI
2.35E+00
ERR
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
ERR
2.94E-OI
7.27E-KM)
ERR
NCA - No cr iteria ava ila ble
NE-Noi evaluated due to lack of criteria
"Based on Florida Stale annual average How comliiinns
bBased on a water hardness equation from (he Fcdciul Water Quality Standards lor acute exposure
°Baseil on a water hardness equation frt>m ihe Florida Water Quality Standards lor chronic exposure
dWherc there was no available Criteria, Federal Water Quality Standards were utili/ed.
-------
Table
Comparison of Sediment Concentrations at Coffee Creek
with NOAA Biological Effect Levels or Ontario Sediment Quality Guidlincs,
Beulah Land fill, EscarabiaCo., FL.
Contaminant
Organic*
Acetone
Chlorobcnzene
PAH's
ldeno( 1 ,2,3 -cd )pyrene
Inorganics
Antimony
Arsenic
Chromium
Iron
Manganese
Sediment
Concentrations
at Beulah Landfill
(ug/kg)
Average
3.00E-HH)
7.00E-01
1.20E+OI
2.30E-KX)
2.20E+00
8.08E+01
3.93E+03
4.20E-KJO
Maxim urn4
3.00E+00
7.00E-01
I.20E+01
2.30E+00
2.20E+00
8.08E+01
3.93E+03
4.20E+00
NOAA
Biological
Effect
Levels,
ER-Lse
(ug/kg)
NCA
NCA
4.00E+03 a
2.00E+03
3.3UE+04
8.00E+04
NCA
NCA
NOAA
Biological
Effect
Levels,
ER-Mse
("g/kg)
NCA
NCA
3.50E+04 "
2.50E+04
8.50E+04
1.45E+05
NCA
NCA
Ontario
Sediment
Quality Guidlines
Lowest Effect
Level
("g/kg) '
NCA
NCA
1
-
„
•
-
-
2.00E+07
4.60E+05
Ontario
Sediment
Quality Guidlines
Severe Effect
Level
(ug/kg)
NCA
NCA
-
-
-
-
-U)OE+07
I.WE+06
NOAA
ER-L Hazard Indices'1
or Ontario sediment
Guidelines
Average
NE
NE
3.00E-03
I.I5E-03
6.67E-05
I.OIE-03
I.97E-04C
9.I3E-M6C
Maximum
NE
NE
3.(M)E-03
I.I5E-03
6.67E-05
1.01E-03
1.97E-04'
9.l3E-Ohc
NOAA
ER-M Hazard Indices'*
or Ontario sediment
Guidelines
Average
NE
NE
3.43E-04
9. 21 IE -1)5
2.59E-05
.S.57E-04
9.83E-051'
3.82E-061'
Maximum
NE
NE
3.-I3E-IM
9.20E-O.S
2.59E-05
5.57E-04
9.83E-05 '
3.82E-061
NCA - No criteria available
NE - Not evaluated due to lack of data or applicable criteria
'Sediment standards are based on a loutl PAH value
b Sediment concentrations were compared vviih NOAA ER - Ls ;uid l£R - Ms or Ontario lowest effects
cSedimenl Concentrations were compared with Ontario sediment guidlines where NOAA ER - L's and
'Sediment values are bused on estuarian studies
levels and severe cHeels levels.
ER-M's were unavailable
-------
Table
Comparison of Sediment Concentrations al L-lcvcnmile Creek
with NOAA Biological lifted Levels or Ontario Sediment Quality Guidlincs,
Beulub Landfill, Hscambia Co., I;L.
Contamioaot
Orgaaics
Acetone
Bis(2-ethylhexyljphthalute
PAH's
Bcnzo(GIII)pcrylcnc
Inorganics
Barium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Sediment
Concentrations
in Beulab Landfill
(u£
Average
7.25 E+ 01
I.20E-I-OI
2.001- + 01
2.78E+00
4.80E-01
4.170+02
4.04E+00
Ag)
Maximum4
«.IOE+OI
I.20E+OI
2.001- + 01
4..10I- + 00
9.40E-01
7.12E + 02
9.80E + 00
NOAA
Biological
Bffect
Levels,
ER-Lsc
(ugAg)
NCA
NCA
4.00E+ 03 J
NCA
7.00E+04
NCA
3.50E+04
NOAA
Biological
liffect
Levels,
CR- Msc
("gAg)
NCA
NCA
3.50H + 04 •'
NCA
3.90E+05
NCA
I.I ()!•:+ 05
Ontario
Sediment
Quality (iuidelines
Lowest liffect
Level
("gAg)
NCA
NCA
-
NCA
.
2. 001-;+ 07
-
Ontario
Sediment
Quality Guidelines.
Severe liffect
Level
("gAg)
NCA
NCA
-
NCA
-
4.(H)|-;+U7
-
NOAA
HU-L Hazard Indices'1
or Ontario sediment
Guidelines
Average
NI-:
NI-:
5.001 -.-03
NI-:
(>.«<»!• -Oh
2. 09I-- 05 '
i.i5i-:-(M
Maximum
NI-:
NI-:
5.00l-:-03
NI;
1.341- -05
3. 561-:- 0.5 '•
2.80li-()4
NOAA
I-R-M Hazard Indices'1
or Ontario sediment
Guidelines
Average
NI-
NI-:
5.7II-.-04
NI:
1.231-.- Oh
1.041:- 05 '
V()7I:-05
Maximum
NI-:
Nl:
5.7ll-:-04
NI-:
2.4II:-0(.
i.7«i-:- 05 •
S.'JII:-05
N("A - No criteria available
NI-: - Not evaluated due to lack of data or applicable criteria
"Sediment standards are based on a total PAH value
b Sediment concentrations were compared with NOAA l-K-l.s and |{K- Ms or Ontario lowest effects levels and MCVCTC effects lewis.
cSediment Concentrations were compared with Ontario sediment guidlines where NOAA l-K-l.'sand l-K-M's were unavailable
^Sediment values arc based on cstuarian studies
-------
Table
Summary of Toxicity Screening Data for Plant life
As A Function of Soil Concentration,
Beulah Landfill, Escambia Co., FL.
Contaminant
Volatile Organics
Acetone
Bis(2-ehtylhexyl)phlhalate
Butylbenzylphthalate
Chloroform
Dibenzofuran
Diethylphlhalate
Di-N-butylphthalate
Species
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
corn
Toxic
Soil Cone.
(ing/kg dry wt)
2.00 l£ + 02
Mean Soil
Cone, at
Beulah L.
(mg/kg)
I.I 1 E + 03
UCL Soil Cone.
at Beulah L.
(nig/kg)
8.20 L + 03
Effects
No lifted
Ref.
I;PA
19851
-------
Table &4 (Continued)
Summary of Toxicity Screening Data for Plantlife
As A Function of Soil Concentration,
Beulah Landfill, Escambiu Co., FL.
Contaminant
Di-N-butylphthalate
Di-N-butylphthalate
Di-N-octylphthalate
Methylene Chloride
2-Melhylnaphthalene
Penlachlorophenol
Species
com
corn
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
Toxic
Soil Cone.
(mg/kg dry wt)
2.00 E+03
2.00 E+04
Mean Soil
Cone, at
Beulah L.
(mg/kg)
1.11 E + 03
1.11 E-f-03
UCL Soil Cone.
at Beulah L.
(mg/kg)
8.20 E + 03
8.20 E + 03
•
Effects
17% reduction in
height; 25%
reduction in
chlorosis
45% reduction in
height; 72%
reduction in
chlorosis
Ref.
EPA
I985J
EPA
19851
-------
Table I $ (Continued)
Summary of Toxicily Screening Data Tor Planllife
As A Function of Soil Concentration,
Beulah Landfill, Escambia Co., FL.
Contaminant
Tetrachloro-ethene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Semivolatile Organics -
PAHs
Acenaphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benz[a]anthra-cene
Benzo[a]pyrene
Benzo[b] fluoranthene
Species
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
Toxic
Soil Cone.
(nig/kg dry wt)
Mean Soil
Cone, at
Beulah L.
(mg/kg) j
•
UCL Soil Cone.
at Beulah L.
(mg/kg)
•
Effects
Ref.
-------
Table 14 (Continued)
Summary of Toxicity Screening Data for Plantlife
As A Function of Soil Concentration,
Beulah Landfill, Escambia Co., FL.
Contaminant
Benzo[g,h,i] perylene
Benzo[k] fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenzo[a,h] pyrene
Fluoranthene
Flourene
lndeno[l,2,3-CD] pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenaiilhrene
Pyrene
Species
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
Toxic
Soil Cone.
(mg/kg dry wt)
Mean Soil
Cone, at
Beulah L.
(mg/kg)
UCL Soil Cone.
at Beulah L.
(mg/kg)
•
Effects
Kef.
-------
Table 14 (Continued)
Summary of Toxicity Screening Data for Plantlife
As A Function of Soil Concentration,
Bculah Landfill, Escambia Co., FL.
Contaminant
Semivolatile Organics -
Others
Polychtorinated Biphenyls
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Species
Soybean
Soybean
Corn
Fescue
Toxic
Soil Cone.
(mg/kg dry \vt)
l.OOE+01
1.00 E + 02
1.00 E + 02
1.00 E + 03
Mean Soil
Cone, at
Beulah L.
(mg/kg)
1.45 E+00
1.45 E+00 .
1.45 E + 00
1.45 E + 00
UCL Soil Cone.
at Beulah L.
(mg/kg)
1.50 E+00
1.50 E+00
1.50 E + 00
1.50 E + 00
Effects
10% Decrease in
Growth
27% Decrease in
Growth
Significant
Decrease in
Growth
16% Decrease in
Growth
Ref.
EPA
I985J
EPA
I985J
EPA
I985cl
EPA
I985d
-------
Table 14 (Continued)
Summary of Toxicity Screening Data Cor I'laiitlife
As A Function of Soil Concentration,
Beulah Landfill, Escambia Co., FL.
Contaminant
Pesticides/PCBs
Aldrin
Chlordane
Chlordane
Chlordane
Species
No Data
Black valentine
bean
Black valentine
bean
Black valentine
bean
Toxic
Soil Cone.
(nig/kg dry \vt)
1.25 E + OI
5.00 E + OI
1.00 E + 02
Mean Soil
Cone, at
Beulah L.
(mg/kg)
2.05 E + OI-
1.91 E + OI"
2.05 E + OI'
1.91 E + OI'1
2.05 E+OI'
1.91 E + OI-'1
UCL Soil Cone.
at Uculah L.
(nig/kg)
3.40 E + OI'
3.15 E + OIS
3.40 E + OI'
3.15 E + OI"
3.40 E+OI-
•3.15 l-: + ()l"
Effects
19% reduction in
root wt.; 1 \%
reduction in top
wt.
30% reduction in
root wt.; 14%
reduction in top
wt.
19% reduction in
root wt.; 12%
reduction in lop
wt.
Ref.
EPA
I985h
EPA
I985H
EPA
I985h
-------
Table 14 (Continued)
Summary or Toxicity Screening Da I a Cur I'lantlil'e
As A Function of Soil Concentration,
Beulah Landfill, Eseambia Co., FL.
Contaminant
Dieldrin
ODD
DDE
Inorganics
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic (arsenite)
Arsenic (arsenite)
Species
Corn
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
Corn
Corn
Toxic
Soil Cone.
(mg/kg dry wt)
1. 15 E+00
I.(HJ £ + 02
I.(X) I-+OI
Mean Soil
Cone, at
Beulah L.
(ing/kg)
2.27 E+02
5.20 11 + 00
5.20 l-: + 00
UCL Soil Cone.
at Beulah L.
(mg/kg)
6.50 B + 02
I.JO I: + 01
I..H) i:+oi
Effects
No Effect
55% Growth
Reduction
97% Growth
kcclucliui)
Ref.
Phytotox
1992
I:PA
|985a
I:PA
l')85a
-------
Table 14 (Continued)
Summary of Toxicily Screening Data for I'lanllife
As A Function of Soil Concentration,
Beulah Landfill, Escambia Co., FL.
Contaminant
Arsenic (arsenate)
Arsenic (arsenate)
Arsenic (arsenate)
Barium
Cadmium (chloride)
f
Cadmium (chloride)
Species
Cotton/
Soybean
Bermuda Grass
Bermuda Grass
No Data
Broccoli,
Cauliflower,
Carrots
Spinach,
Radish, Peas,
Oals
Toxic
Soil Cone.
(mg/kg dry wt)
8.00 E+00
1.00 E+OI
4.50 E+OI
4.00 E+OI
4.00 E + OI
Mean Soil
Cone, at
Beulah L.
(mg/kg)
5.20 E+00
5.20 E + 00
5.20 E+00
2.13 E + 00
2.13 E + 00
UCL Soil Cone.
at Beulah L.
(mg/kg)
1.30 E + 01
1.30 E + OI
1.30 E+OI
1.24 E + OI
1.24 E+OI
Effects
Significant Yield
Reduction
No effect
75% Growth
Reduction
No Effects
Significant
Decrease in Yield
Ref.
EPA
I985a
EPA
I985a
EPA
I985a
EPA
I985c
EPA
I98.V
-------
Table 14, (Continued)
Summary of Toxicity Screening Data for Plantlife
As A Function of Soil Concentration,
Beulah Landfill, Escambia Co., FL.
Contaminant
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper (sulfate)
Copper (sulfate)
Cyanide
Iron
Lead (carbonate)
Species
Lettuce
No Data
Wheat
Wheat
No Data
No Data
Lettuce
Toxic
Soil Cone.
(nig/kg dry wt)
5.00 E+00
1.00 E+02
2.00 E+02
1.00 E + 03
Mean Soil
Cone, at
Beulah L.
(mg/kg)
2.13 E+00
6.64 E+01
6.64 E + 01
7.89 E + 01
UCL Soil Cone.
at Ueulah L.
(mg/kg)
1.24 E + 01
2.33 E + 02
2.33 E + 02
3.59 I: + 02
Effects
No Effects
4% Decrease in
Yield
9% Decrease in
Yield
17% Decrease in
Yield
Ref.
EPA
I985c
EPA
I985g
EPA
I985g
EPA
I985e
-------
Table IA (Continued)
Summary of Toxicity Screening Data for Plantlife
As A Function of Soil Concentration,
Beulah Landfill, Escambia Co., FL.
Contaminant
Lead (chloride, carbonate,
nitrate)
Lead (chloride)
Lead (chloride)
Lead (chloride)
Lead (chloride)
Lead (oxide)
Species
Oa((tops &
roots)
Alphalfa
Brome-
grass
Oat (roots)
Wheat (roots)
Wheat (roots)
Toxic
Soil Cone.
(nig/kg dry wt)
1.00 E + 03
1.00 E+02
I.OOE + 02
1.00 E + 02
5.00 E+02
I.OOE + OJ '
Mean Soil
Cone, at
Beulah L.
(ing/ kg)
7.89 E + OI
7.89E + OI
7.89 E + OI
7. 89 E + OI
7.89 E + OI
7.89 E + OI
UCL Soil Cone.
at Beulah L.
(mg/kg)
3.59 E+02
3.59 E + 02
3.59 E + 02
3.59 E + 02
3.59 E+02
3.59 L + 02
Effects
No Effects
25% Decrease in
Yield
No Effects
No Effects
14.8% Decrease in
Root Bioinass
No Effects
Ref.
EPA
I985e
EPA
I985e
EPA
I985e
EPA
I985e
EPA
1 985e
EPA
I985c
-------
Table 14 (Continued)
Summary of Toxicity Screening Data lor I'lanllif'e
As A Function of Soil Concentration,
Beulah Landfill, Escambia Co., FL.
Contaminant
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury (chloride)
Mercury (chloride)
Nickel
Selenium
Silver.
Zinc
Species
No Data
No data
Bermuda Grass
Bermuda Grass
No Data
No Data
No Data
Corn Rye
Toxic
Soil Cone.
(ing/kg dry wt)
8.00 E+00
5.00 E + OI
2.71 E + 03
Mean Soil
Cone, at
Beulah L.
(ing/kg)
4.00 E-01
4.00 E-OI
2.18 E + 02
UCL Soil Cone.
at Beulah L.
(nig/kg)
1.60 E + 00
1.60 E + 00
1.08 E + 03
Effects
Reduced Growth
Toxic
50% Decrease in
Yield
Kef.
EPA
1985C
EPA
I985f
EPA
I985h
-------
Table 14 .• (Continued)
Summary or Toxicily Screening Data Tor I'lantlife
As A Function of Soil Concentration,
Beulah Landfill, Escanibia Co., FL.
Contaminant
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc (sulfate)
Zinc (sulfate)
'Surface soil concentration for A
bSurface soil concentration for G
Species
Com, Rye
Swiss Chard
Com
Com
Toxic
Soil Cone.
(mg/kg dry wt)
1.36 E+03
1.59 E+02
2.40 E+02
6.00 E + 02
Mean Soil
Cone, at
Beulah L.
(mg/kg)
2.18 E+02
2.18 E + 02
2.18 E + 02
2.18 E + 02
UCL Soil Cone.
at Beulah L.
(nig/kg)
1.08 E+03
1.08 E + 03
1.08 E + 03
1.08 E + 03
Effects
No Effects
No Effects
5% Decrease in
Yield
No Effects
Ref.
EPA
1985h
EPA
I985h
E.PA
I985h
EPA
I985h
pha Chlordane/2
imma Chlordane/2
Babich, H., Bewley, R.J.F., and Slotzky, G. 1983. Application of the "Ecological Dose" Concept to the Impact of Heavy Metals on Some Microbe-mediated
Ecologic Processes in Soil." Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 12, 421-426. 1983.
-------
Table 15
Summary of the Average Ha/.ard Quotients
Greater Than One fur the Northern Cottontail,
Beulah Landfill, Escambia Co., PL.
Contaminant
Methylcne chloride
Benzo(a)an(hracene
2-Mcthylnaphthalcnc
Penlachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Aroclor-1254
Alpha chlordane
Beta chlordane
Dicldrin
Aluminum
Iron
Lead
Zinc
Soil Ingestion
Hazard Quotient (HQ)
4.70E-02
1.57E+00
7.43E-01
8.07E+OU
2.28E+00
1.56E+01
2.76E-01
1.28E-01
3.59E-01
3.16E+01
4.38E+02
1.52E+00
1.80E-01
Percent
Contribution
To Total HQ
1%
71%
25%
53%
35%
95%
11%.
11%
13%
93%
93%
55%:
4%
Shoot Ingestion
Ha/.ard Quotient (HQ)
5.82E + DD
6.43E-01
2.2IE + 00
7.24E + OU
4.2UE + 00
8.00E-01
2.32E + 00
1.08E + 00
2.38E + 00
2.28E + 00
3.15E + 01
1.23E-f()0
4.86E + 00
Percent
Contribution
To Total HQ
99%
29%
75%
47%
65%
5%.
89%
89';;
87%
7%.
7%
45%
96%.
Cumulative Hazard
Index
Total
Hazard lndexJHI|
5.87E + t)l)
2.21E + UU
2.95E + 00
1.53E + OI
6.48E + 00
1.64E + 01
2.60E + 00
I.2IE + 00
2.74E + 00
3.39E + III
4.7()E-f()2
2.75E + 00
5.04E + 00
5.67E + 02
Percent
Contribution
to Cumulative HI
r;
0%
i%
3%
1%
3%
0%
(J%
(}'-/,
6%
83%
0%
1%
-------
Table 15 (Continued)
Summary of Average Ha/ard Quotients
Greater Than One for the Chipping Sparrow,
Bcutah Landfill, Escambia Co., I7L.
Contaminant
Pcnlachlorophenol
Aroclor-1254
Alpha chlordanc
Beta chlordane
Dieldrin
4,4'- ODD
4,4'- DDE
Arsenic
Chrom ium
Copper
Iron
Manganese
Mercury
Zinc
Soil Ingestion
Hazard Quotient (HQ)
4.79E+01
4.02E+00
2.37E+00
2.21E+00
4.84E+01
8.20E-01
1.12E+01
1.11E+00
1.80E+01
1.89E+00
1.34E+01
4.14E-OI
4.05E-01
2.10E+UO
Percent
Contribution
To Total HQ
17%
78%.
2"/<
2%
3%
17%
93%
63%
69%
4%
91%.
17%
5%.
1%
Shoot Ingestion
Hazard Quotient (HQ)
2.39E + 02
1.I5E+00
I.11E + 02
1.03E+02
1.78E+03
3.89E+00
8.30E-01
6.50E-U1
8.11E+00
4.73E+01
I.34E+00
2.07E+00
8. JOE + 00
1.89E + 02
Percent
Contribution
To Total HQ
83%
22%
98%
98%
97%
83%
7%
37%.
31%,
96%
9%.
83%
95%
99%.
Total
Ha/ard Index (HI)
2.87E + U2 '
5.17E-KH)
I.I3E + 02
I.05E + 02
I.83E + 03
4.7IE + 00
I.20E + 01
1.76E + OD
2.61E+01
4.92E+01
1.47E + OI
2.48E + 00
8.5IE + 00
I.9IE + 02
Percent
Contribution
to Cumulative HI
1 1 %
0%
4%
4%
69%
0%
0%
0%
1%
2%
1%
0%
0%
7%
Cumulative Hazard
Index 2.65E + 03
-------
Table {5 (Continued)
Summary of Average Hazard Quotients
Greater Than One for the Chipping Sparrow,
Bculah Landfill, Escambia Co., FL.
Contaminant
Pcntachlorophcnoi
Aroclor-1254
Alpha chlordane
Beta chlordane
Dieldrin
4,4'- ODD
4,4'- DDE
Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Manganese
Mercury
Zinc
Soil Ingestion
Hazard Quotient (HQ)
4.79E+01
4.02E+00
2.37E+00
2.21E-fOO
4.84E+01
8.20E-01
1.12E+01
1.11E+00
1.80E+01
1.89E+00
1.34E+01
4.I4E-01
4.05E-01
2.10E-fUO
Percent
Contribution
To Total HQ
17%
78%.
2"/,
2%
3%
17%
93%
63%.
69%.
4%
91%
17%
5%.
1%
Shoot Ingestion
Hazard Quotient (HQ)
2.39E+02
1.I5E+00
I.11E + 02
1.03E+02
I.78E+03
3.89E+00
8.30E-01
6.50E-01
8.llE-(-()0
4.73E+01
1.34E+00
2.07E+00
8. IDE + 00
1.89E + 02
•
Percent
Contribution
To Total HQ
8.v/;
22%
98%
98%.
97%
83%
7%
37%
31%.
96%
9%.
S3%
95%
99%.
Total
Hazard Index (HI)
2.87E-H12 '
5.17E+00
1.I3E + 02
I.05E+02
I.83E + 03
4.71E + 00
1.20E + 01
I.76E + 00
2.61E + OI
4.92E+OI
1.47E + OI
2.48E + 00
8.5IE + 00
I.9IE + 02
Percent
Contribution
to Cumulative HI
1 1 '/;
0%
4%
4%
69%
0%
0%
0%
\"/<
2'/,
1%
()"/,
0%
7%
Cumulative Hazard
Index 2.65E + 03 1
------- |