United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROCVR04-fl6/008
MarctM986
EPA Superfund
Enforcement Decision Document:
Pepper's Steel, FL
-------
L .
~fllll~'OIilT NO.
~PA/ROD/R04-86/008
.. TIT"'. AND SU.TITL.
;:;~UPERFtJND ENFORCEMENT DECISION DOCUMENT'
:,:,'epper's Steel, FL
TECHNICAL REPORT CAT A
'.-(Ptnz~ fWld Ifltl1fJerlOttr Ott Ih~ Tf"WW "'Ion t:o"',,'~v
\::"12. 13., jl"".iT'S "'<:<:ISSIO... ...0.
5. 1IIII"0lilT DATI
,\. -
Map..." 12. 1986
e. "IIII-OIIIM'N~ O"GAN'Z. T/DN <:00.
;:'!.\:~:"'''"\ '11)~"':''f''''';;:J '(~:.S-::J '1:' ~r".",:,,::
" ,
,,,.
...
7. AuTHOIII.S)
..'
8. "I""O""'I"'G OIilGANIZATION- ".I"O"T NO
. .. : 1 ~;'.. ~'~.~~:_... ..'''',' .". .
. . . "':~'" .~.; : ":";'''~:~;!'':'''.->f-''''~~.. f;r_~'?I. :.
: .,.~. .-(t... ~:;. ',;.,,;; ......d~::.: ~!.::,. ~~'~~."'r!'.-,,
. ..':~.:
"...',
..,
".
'.' ~ '.. .'.., ',';::.1 '.
..
.:' , . " . "01';')' .' ;'-
.1:. -'",:',"", ;.1' ~':''''7:1'',:#''' ...~'
-
'.
,'. .
"
e. "11II-OIilMINQ OIilGANIZATION NAMI AND AOO".SS
I~r '. ..;.I;.r .,~"." :~, .~;'\.~ !
y ~'.J.~~,~~..r' :".J q n..!~i J.,' ~'y. ''''L.t,', .;,>j~~{b~t-..~.).: )~'. ::',
10. ""OGIilAMIi"'I"'.~T ,~C?-,:...~,~ "~':;.-:![~.", .C
.". ' ~,i~ ;,':!-':;;':o':! :1~" .tt'~~i:.,.~~~,:f4:':""~7::'~'
". (;0 AN Ng.
'!~~,,')I- :,~'i ,I ;"~i~"~~:~~':~,: :~i!,' ,'"
-., ' .'. .. " ,..a:::.' ""-"'1" ,
~~
"~:
"71:
,"
,.
.. '.
U.S. Environmental Protection
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
"
',.r. '
13. TV"!! 0- IIII~O'-T AND 1".f"OaCOVIIII.O
,', p';"", 1 "ROD -
1.. SI"ONSO'-ING AGINCY <:001
',":;"',
.::~~.~.;'
12. S~ONSO"''''Q AGINCV NAMI AND AOOIII,SS
Agency
"
, ,
....,.,':. f'
.'
,:,,'" i - .~... . "," . ':::''''.. ... .7'1:;' ~,;.11
-: 800/00. ~,,::~,,:,.', i: ""i.
'.
t5. SUI"~LIMINTAlilY NOTIS
. '''''~;..
, "
., ~, . - ... " .
. .:;. J ,. "
....'::. : .:~! ..
, .
~ .. =).,' ..;~ : ~ foil. : .:.
. ~ '.,..~ :.:.
"
, ,
. ". f, ~.
,"
I' '. ,\...
, .
w . ". .
." ~,./~ ~.~~".~ .~ .~~.J.:~.~:-:-.~~.~::~o:... .~.t r
te. A8ST"ACT
...... -~. ''1.'' ",'" .,.. "".' . '.. ..
The Pepper's Steel and Alloys site occupies 30 acres known as,.,Tracts 'U,"4S/and:"46."
in the TOwn of Medley, Florida. Medley is located in northern Dade cOunty,'. ...' "h.
approximately 10 miles northwest of Miami and 13 miles inland from the Atlantic "Ocean.:i ,
Additionally, the Pepperls Steel site is located in the .unsewered industrial area8 and
near three other Superfund sites referenced in the Biscayne Aquifer ROD- " '~..';, : :'~'., ,~;-
Since the mid:-1960s the Pepper's Steel site has been the location of several ,..-
')usinesses, many of which are still operating onsite. Operations have -tnciuded the :'. ,~r
, ,aanufacture of battedes, pre-cast concrete products and fiberglass boa~s, as ,w~ll as
the repair and service of trucks, and. heavy equipment. Also, sandblasting and painting
services, a concrete batching plant and an automobile scrap operation have been or are
located on the site. Various trash and waste products from these activities" ;ncluding
parts of rusted machinery, vehicles, aircraft, oil tanks, transformers, underground
storage tanks and batteries have been deposited at the site. The contaminants tha~'bave
been i~entified within the soil, sediments, and ground water in and around the, site,
include PCBs, organic compounds and heavy metals such as: lea~, arsenic, cadmium,
chromium, copper, maganese, mercury, 'zinc, and antimony. " ,,'"
The selected remedial action for this site includes: collection and off site disposal
of all free oil according to TSCA regulations1 excavation of soils exce&ding 1 ppm PCB,
(See, Attached Sheet) ,,-- . "0 ',: ,,' '...,.:; '-"
17.
..
OI'C:'U~TOIilS
K'V WO"OS AND DOCUMINT ANAL YIII ' ,._" 'r ':
b.IOINTIIIIE"S/OI"IN INOIO TI"MS c. <:OSA.TI Field/Group
Record of Decision
Pepper's Steel, FL (EnD) .
Contaminated Media: soil, sediments, gw
Key contaminants: PCBs, organics, heavy
metals, arsenic, chromium
\
...
'"
..
,s. OIITAIIUTION STATEMINT
1t. SICulillTY CLASS ITlluR,po,,,
None
20, SECUIilITY <:LASS IT/li, "'''1
None
21. NO. Oil I'AQII
38
22. ""ICI
I'" ,- 2220.1 (R.... .-n)
""C\I'Ol.l' COITION I' O.'O~CTC
. , J :>."1 t8; ~
. .. - .., f. " ~
& - :. ;~. ~-a.. '\ .A~ .t:. ..d';::'";."
. '. -".
-------
1.
r INSTRUCTIONS
"I~"T NUMe."
InMr! 'h~ L"" reporl number u It appran on Itle conr of 1M publh:allon.
LlAVIIlLAN8C
(
2.
, 1-' "10" INTI ~ca"OtIt NUMeI..
t ~ rOlIlM by r.h;ft re,on r'I:I,.III.
'- 4.. --TlT\.1 AND SU8Tt11.E. - -:--:-- '. -- - - .-- - -- - -_. '-' '.. p - --.-- - ,
: Tille snowd IndlCal, .:~Iy .nd bncfly Ih. subl«l .:ov.:~ IJf 111.: r\',on. -'I'd II.: 1l1'1,I;.Iy..1l I'rollll"\'"II)'. s,'! ",h!II~, ,I' u",'\I, In 'm;,h..'r
Iypt 01 otMrwIM subordlnalt It 10 main lUte. Wtl.:n a rt'pott ~ I'I'~reci III mon- l!\;all "fto.' .,,jun~, r\'I"';.I1 Ih.., I'I'Utury IU~, .01" h>l:UtW
number anct UId&&de subtitle ror 1h8.peaIk ud~.
t-.,.:- ~:~ ::~':~;.~~~:n::~:: mo:-Ind ~~~~I=~IC I~ h;,l::-:U:"~h:"~I~;I~-;:'~;~~I:; (.~,;~~,~'~~;~~~;'~; :/-,~~~,
;-- .pprONl. .'~ofpn,.,.ntM. ftC.I-.--:",- -
,.:1
'1.
",,'O"..NG O"GAHIZAT1ONCOO~
Lea.. bUnA.
r _7.'7;AUTNOIIt8J--~--:::;: t-';-~~:'7~.J:,',::--". ----.-.- "---'--- -;'J~,'. ~ -;.-~~~7"".;-;::-~...'-. ,--: ~_.~.~:
: '. - Gno. namet., In ..-\JnYt'IIIIOru! order (Joh" R. D«. J, Robt." Doc', de/ LI'I ;,Iulhur. ;,IlIiluliun .1'.1 ,hlr..." lrum rh... I"rfurml'" ,'IJaIl'"
- zaUOft.' ..:...
~ 1.
~ - .'
.' .
.1 .:
~ ~ .tI
..
""'OMIING O"GANIZATION "I~"T NUM8."
IftIIrt if pttfonnlnr orplUUuon WIshes 10 usa", Ihl~ number.
.,
-
, -
..
""'O....NG O"GANIZATI~ NAM. ANO Aoo".". .
Give name. .treel. en)'. JUt.. and ZIP cocSc, llSI no more Ih.n IWO level. 01 ;,In u'a:';,Inu,lIlU,ullun:.r.hy.
.~~.-~ ~....". . ..
. . .. ~
, 10. 'ROO""'" IUMINT NU...I..
L.__UM 1M propm,!.l.rnt'!,l.number ~~d''-\oIIhll:h Ih~- r~port \011;1' pr...p;ar~d. _Suborllm;,ll~ .nu,,!bo.'~ "''') 0-: mduJ,'J III 1";,Ir.'!!.!I".:~'~._- - .
, .. J. ..; ~.
I
11. CONTMCT/G"ANT NUM8I"
Ituert conenet or IRnt number under which report w., prepared. ..
j:: ,,- ,
.:. ~,~ ,
.. ~..
12. SPONIO"ING AG.NCV N.....I AND ADD"..
Indude ZIP code.
11 TV,. 0' ".~"T AND ""100 COVI".O
Incbcal8 UUauft I1tW. tt'".. and If apptltable. cUI" co..tttd.
..,
~..
-------
(
EPA/ROD/R04-86/008
Pepper's Steel, FL
--.
16.
ABSTRACT (continued)
r:
1,000 ppm lead, and 5 ppm arsenic: solidification/stabilization of these
soils with a cement-type mixture and placement onsite: institutional
controls to ensure future land uses compatible with the remedy: and ground
water monitoring to ensure the effectiveness of the reme~y. Total capital
cost for the selected remedial alternative is estimated to be $5,212,000
with O&M.costs approximately $42;500 per year. -
"
- -
-------
Enforcement Decision ~nt
(- Remedial Alternative Selection (~:,
Site
-
~;~:,'~
~..:-'~~~~.'~:'.~P.epPer.i ~ ~ Steel :a~ Ali~ ,'.In~...; ~.~~~~;./. "";'~:'.: .;;.: ~~ :=.~;~;
.. .. ,- ." Medley', - Dade CoUnty, Florlda "., . ':.- .. .'
. ~.. -. .. ,..,
. .
. ,.
. ,
Documents Reviewed
I am basirg. rrry ,d.ecision primarily on...the following' docUnents. and '.< ~i'~:'.:;t~':~,i',-,_}
recmareooations describing. the analYsis of the oost and, effectiveness.of '.,....:'"
the remedial alternatives for the. Pepper's Steel ,and Alloys site. .~~,'.: ~:':', ,~.','~
.:>,":~ " "". ,"".'<.:_-:- _:--~.~.:~'+ ::.. :,:':. .~~-~: - ,', .~.. ',.~~;~ ':;:~~ ~~,j
- Pepper'!: -'Steel aix:!' AlloYs' :Rernediar.JnVestigatiext.;.~lunes '.r: '~I.r~~,"i.., :'J
. :':":':" ~H2"f ~i11, :N6VEl'1b@~;~98S:.,_-' :..:~. '~:~;'~~~~~;~."" -.~.:. /~~:' : :'. ::;".;:',~-:'.:"::?':~'/ .-:..'
:: :;:.:':" .::..~'~ ":.'.:::
.-- .'""-- -..--
,'
-------
(
--2-
(
The solidification/stabilization agent has unde~ne a development and
testing program and a mixture exhibitinisatisfacto~:perfocnance has
been detemined.~- - - --""-~" ~ - -
J:£CtARATIa.lS
:..' I ~ ..", '. ...: ,~":.'
~._-_._------- --.--.-
~ .. -.... - ~. .':". ,...1.. -, ~ ..". ... - -..;'" . - :- - t - ,. - --....: .. -~
Consistent wi. th the - Canprehei1sive Enviromental ~ Pesponse ~- Canpensation, ",.- ~-'-
arrl Liability Act of" 1980 (CERCIA) ~ arrf" the National Contirgency Plan - - -' - - - :
(40 CFR Part 300), I have determined that the remedy described above
for the Pepper's Steel and Alloys Site is a cost~ffective remedy that
provides"adequate protection of public health,;~lfare and the environment.
- '!he State of Florida has been consulted aro aarees with the renedy. - In
addition, the action will require monitorino and institutional controls
on ~uture land use to ensure the continued effectiveness of the remedy.
These activities will be considered rart of the approved action. Verbal
settlerrents have been reached~bet...een EPA ard the responsible parties
based on the selected ranedy. -- - - - -, - _':'B-~'::". ~~- .:.."~.r
I have also determined that the action being taken is a cost-effective
alternative when carpared to the other rsnedial ~tions revie'Med. ~:--
. ." . ,..... -- ~ - ... - ..." -.. -. - ~ . ~ - - . - . -
In addition, the off-site transport aro treaement or destruction of the
PCB contaminated oils is more cost effective than on-site remedies
considered .
MAR 12 1986
~£~
Date
Jack. E. Ravan
Regional Administrator
Attact"ments:
SUr.1nary of ~edial Alternative Selection
Ccmnunity lelatia'ls Responsiveness Sutmary
-------
"
.
,
c
(-
" ,
...,-. --"... .... -....... ~-'.'-'-'--'Pe~rts St~l'and AIroys~-Inc:--'-"- _.,--' ,. .,,-,,-- ,',
SUrmary of Remedial Alternative selection
. :',,,; i .' r&~--- ',a~,
I . ~~ .; ,,,,,,~:>.'--,,,. c..I-:--.
. . ," .'\ .....-.-.. '.';'
srre IJX:A'1'ICN AND DESCRIP'I'IOO -' "'",,':,
. - . . ~~~. . ""'''''''-0
. . . ~....,. ~.: .~ . ,"" ........ ._-,
,~ " '!he~'Pepper,ls, Steel and' Alloys site--occupies; 3a"acres known as Tracts '.. ~
. .;' 44, 45 and 46: in the town of ~ley!,.,:F1orida. Medley is located in nQrthem
i~' tBde County, approx'imatelv 10 miles:" northWeSt of Mi'ami;-'and ,13,miles \, ,:!. . .
inland frcm-'the'Atlantic Ocean..' the sit~ls located at:--approximate ~
:: coordinates- 2S!52.5.~, north latituja and a'a,: 21.2' west-1:ongituje, and is ~
I > bordered'by N.~.'cSouth Piver Driv~on th~~rtheast corner, N~W., l09th" "4
",' -Street ,to the south,-bY the'Hiami'Canal"to.the east, and a railroad track '.
" ' to the west. See Figure l, illustrating the site location map. Mditionally,
the Pepper's SteeL site is located in,the -unsewered industrial area- and
near three other 9.Jperfund sites referenced in.the Biscayne:'Aa\Jifer'. '
9.Jperfund ,Stl.rly. Figure 2 shows the location of the site,~~:' relation
, to the Northwest, Medley ('permanently abandoned due to contaminatiori), : j'
~ia'tti" Springs and Preston Well Fields. Figure 2 alsO', shows the location: ~
.;: of ~e site i~ ,:elation t~ resid~!!tia! areas~-..:.=,-- ' :-. ~ f
-" . ~ . . Ii
Since' the mid-1960's :the"Pepper's Steel',!;ite has been the location of ~
several businesses, many of which are still op!ratiBJ on site. ". .---
q,E!rations have inchded the manufacture of batteries, pre-east concrete
products and fiberglass boats, as well as the repair and service of
trucks and heavy equipnent. Also, sandblasting ard painting services, a
concrete batching plant and an autanobile scrap operation have been or
are located on the site. varicus trash and 'waste ,products fran these
activities, inclujing parts of rusted machinery, vehicles, aircraft, oil
tanks, transfomers, undeIground storage tanks and batteries have been
deposited at the site~ '
, ,
The site is relatively flat 'am consists of layers of rubbish and mixed
fill placed above naturally occurring organic loam ard peat, which in turn
lie above sand and limestone for:mations. Figures 3 and 4 respectively,
illustrate the site topography and underlying geologic conditions.
GroundW'ater is at a depth of about five to six feet below the ground
"surface. !he ground water at the site is part of the Biscayne Jiquifer
which underlies all of southeast Florida. '!his is a sole source aquifer
ard it supplies all of Dade County's water via both municipal well fields
~ and private ..118. '!he site area has municipal water, but private wells.
,: ',still exist and may be used for potable service.
SrrE HIS"IORY
'!he 30 acre site referred to as the Pepper's Steel and Alloys site in
reality consists of three 10 acre tracts. Q\e of these tracts was owned
by Mr. Norton Bloan and was the site of the Pepper's Steel' Alloys
operation. All three tracts are believed to have received waste fran
Pepper's Steel ard Alloys.
. .
... . t. ..... "po ," '", ~ .:... :..-........;
"';'.....---........-, ----........ -.......- ...--..:. _.--.......-...-..~.......... .. '_h'~.....r.:.'" _.~.; .~..-*i: ..
.' ----~ ... .!~~.,:". ............ --Ji,,~ "'..1.. .: 7:;.. 0.1-. :.~'~.. ~:.
~ .. . ~':\ : =; ~\ ..~ " ':".. ..-;..~ :.~. :;!' :..t~ ~:;,' ..~ ...~ ::;:. :':~
~. .' ......~,. .Jr ...' .. .~. ...' ",I "..' "'.'
;: 'j: .~;
". ,'" ,"
'.'. " . -
04 -~, '-'.': " . ..,'" '
- '., -. ,t:.. ,. .,\" "...J-. .
"-
..
~, ."
~. '~"
"
\
-------
"'U
m
"'U
"'U
m
~:u
III ..
0(1)
:;;(1)
~-I
em
~m
Or-
~88
o
~>
r-
r-
o
-<
en
"
~
(:
o
,...
en
-
-f
m
r-
o
028
>'"
-I~
0=
z
3:
>
,.
.,. ..
. !.
.
1:'
..... .
:., ~
,
I
. ,...
~-. -
.~.-
Hi;ak.;tle . ioInle'""
,
, -
'.
'. "...
;.
...,..
oJI''''
,
.-
. . q"...,
. "",
."
..
j=~
, ~., . .' \.
----J'l
. ,
I :
".......
.. t"o,
... I
I
.
J
R(fEMNCf::
Y.5 .... ..... '0P0GIIAfttIC
HIAL[Att GUAGaANGU, IH.
".5 I8N, __S,1C81OMAPHIC
ON - LOCKA GUAGIIANGl.(, II'IS
-
4Ia
. M.... 1_.
, .
\ ,
~
.,.
\.
~ '
..... ...--... ~-..!~_.
. .'.
..;
,-,
<0 "~\
NOT TO sCALE'; f' " n
I( -: 0
~..
"I .
"...,... '.a.r...
I~,."SI
ii
1 A((,
..,
<>"
jj
\
( .
'I
t
..,
t .
. ~
L
'!
'. ,
i
. ,.
3-1
. ., \ ,j...,...
t '-}. ::Jo, ... .
STATE, CF FLORIDA
.~. 4 ' .
. j, I. -
'\ .
,
I
,
It., I ..
.
I
'. ;
.
r')
-------
~
......
C)'
c
;0
,....
N
()
a i~
~ :_'~
'--"-
'. ,
---~--- -
---
-..--.
, '
\:',",~ - ,.... -,.,. " r, . '~ ~
'" ; ',r.;,~~ :'1\':t", ",I .. ,'I, .' I, ''', '
~.=-... .'., J . . . . . ;. ".., . . . . ~ , ":--. j .
t ~,r; .;';~' ~. :''<,'' -.,' I-'~-:- i
". ".. ,JI...":[t.. "If- -, " ' , N '
- Jr-:'F ~.. .. -. .. '0" .' ; .' .
, '" !J'p"'..':" " 'L 'c. ,,, , . ,., I .,
'W. I~, .r-, ~I" '~- " I ,
.. .'.'.., .... - -Z"1 '. ~: . .- -
-: 1 ,,' ,., , I .., . .. 'W I ' I
. -' t.,. . ... . . t.
. ~\ ~::.>: ~ : f:.'; ~;:~" ~:I.. L£ '£ MJ
,.:s~~~'~''''''~:f: ':;.1~>""1:~~:'" ;.~,~',.:',':Y 'i~ ~Uf~ !),:
ARE AS . q... . ~ ' . " '.. ,", , ..' r :.. "", ,
,,1 ~ -':',::r:-.,'-;";'" .~I':"':~~T'7"':- ~
, , ::'-,{ ,,-(:. ,.. ,7 ,,:>:~~ ,:',' f'~'~~~'~' ~~,
f' ., i'., , ,I'" J '. - ,', .. ' . " , .', ., I'" I '
.. ,---1 Mr.n~,~v ,....,',', .. "....""Lit'Atf 1.:-::', ','
IIEU.'IUD; ::'1' : ';! i .~ ~'I':I' "!' ::: I",' .-[' : ,'..l(, 'i""
:-,._.--~:tl' .,.1.... ."'-'-"::j--:::--:!' :,':: ,~" ,i', ',,: .
'I"" ,:"'''''''''':''','',;' '.'",''''' " " ":-.. ,:': {" ::'1.':''':'' ',,: .:,'I,f~',"~ ,'"
.. I.. I "'. '.. '.,.. ." .
:. ! '! i I !' I' ~-- ,'" ";':8'-:"'- '.::-:,:1
. ..' I ..: :.. : :"" ..~.r:. "'0""'.:<') 0' It : " ;. '". .' I
:,' '~ " "II "'~'i~~ t".l ':I::J""~~ri~.,;~t.=:;",; },~':I' "::7' ~!' "
, " '. .' ..~ . . I
I ., --- "/ ,_,. '~. , 'f'" ," " ' -. :~. ' ',., , i
'. . I . '. . r/';...!.: :.~. I ,. '" " .- I .
" .... ~ ' FJ::rTY - ':, ,~E~~Y - ,~' '...j,',' ',',: i-J: ; i: '0:; ~ it. ':~STm. '; >i
:':," , , ' \;;..' l .~;EL,L., f,'ELD ';"", ....", ,SlTE,_".",' , :", , "'" ' ,~ELIL, ,f,~,E..LD" .!
, " I ' .f" ,.. ~. \ ti ,..- ;' I I J
" "''';~'=-II'~-'-'''_.'' 'I ,'- : "I"/"'~:' :',.-.Il&" I~; ;'~l~: .,' n ';',: ,,::~:,~ ,"j
w '. 1"- .. I I .."~ t
' i " .. -', r",', ,'. I' .. '-, , ,~ ...' ",' ., ~., ".' " I .' , ,
;, '. r; 'I " ,L""7~''':''''':':::1, ':.,', 1 '" I.'~ :~:';' ..:;, ~=-a:a !~ ",~:,' ',' '; I
: . ",.... l' i '"" '1, ~"'",, - '" ',' '1.. ":', """,r.~ ":"',-, ':~,' X
,;.." ",', : ",' :'.,,'-::: .,:' :'~r7 n/,,~:" <:'\1 \,\, ),'
, ;" 'I i' ';'~. '. ;!. ' .. ...,' ;" ~',', ''',,:..'..-'.'1/' " " ". ;
\' ~;I . I '.. ':~~~'/r ,': ' /\ j" "~'J: t l, ',: ' ,',1. ,'~~. I
,--' ,,~; iii' ~-'-' -'''',' ,,_: :~~ ._--,_..~ ll'-~=~~~~"'/~ \ I"i''','':' ,:~ Ii; " "~: I ' ,1":'" I'
'. ~._.,.. -lL~._.-~-~.~:~=:::'i' ..::_~_. - '_:~' ~',.. .'ri~'._L ' . ~.. ." :-'»:;.:::.;-;' ,: I ,
fl ,i.' 1: : i : I ':.' " .., " t :..l~ :~ ,...:.~j..~ .,'-'::' "":: ::C. ,1.._,:_,.,-
,'-1 I ';'-:~!;' qq.!., "':~~~-':'''(\--:'-:-1'.I:t :.';:"j";, ";:~,!!..:'"f::"1
., '.'.~ . . t .., . '.' {>:<.:., "...r :", .:". '~~ ~ ::;;~~I~~l".':~r;'" ,:-:
.- '. . ..~.. '---'.~-.... . .,.. "'-T ;110""" .....~..
".....~.;.~~ ,.' ,'. "'''':-,~',;''';' --~' ",:~ ~..J,~ :'."'" . :.." <,: :0' '.'t":;~~~~:I'i:::;~ ",,~~:~I::~';Ji':"I(': ,~."
. .. . )" ',": :.-=::~:~. ',....., "', '" t. :.'.: , ~ ~:,,.!'.I,f"'" ~:-::f': "',;,',, "', ,,l~. I
' " ..... .' ."......, .,.' t.."..~,... -. ", ." -', .t.. . .
. . . . . , .. ..
.0 . . o. .
-_.
; (J) ,
-
~~
i5:!!
~~
~-t ----
z~.. '-'
fI10
:.- ~~ -,--- .,
-. ~ ,..,-.1._,--,' :
ifi:u I .
'" ' .
(J)r
=t~
ja.: :.
- I
- ----'~--"._---"----_.'---';
I'
~ '
.- , .'
"
~-:'
; ,
"
-------
4;,J>
,
~.
(
i : . ~
..
/.:
. "
) .J
.
'.
1
.
"
:1
. .....-.
&
.~
~
.~
.......
, ..
.; .1J.. .
. 1.. i.1.
!;~ ~-.
E-~iiI
r:j 1i
i!E 12 ~
~OQ
;-.~~
~~~
J2..~
I~~
p"5
?
'1
-
o
...
~
n
a
~
""'"
en
-i \)
1'1
-t
o
"'U
o
Q
:u
..
"'U
:J:
-<
.." i
,
.
.
~
~ .. Str..,
a
!
~
I
I09'h
Nor 'h.."
-------
,..
.....
~
c:
:;0
~
~
n
o
~
UND
SURFAi(4
(~.. '
. ~.. . ..It. .~.
~; j;" hI :,; ,)
'. ",.j~ ~,..'; . .
,I .", --
~ i tJ,,""tt~.. J "
l'MEST i. :".] ~i~ ~:
f.) ," -
j . . .~ .
.U i,~ l~
" :J ;', r:
NOR1}f
AD-IO
SOUTH
c-2B
! I
,',
E-6
C-16 "
..........
..........
..........
""0.......
".t...... ,.
"'.0........
.............
.............
"""""'", ..
"""""""" '"
................ '"...
""0""""" .. "'"
................. ......
................. "'.
............ '" "" . "'" '...
................ . ""'" ..e...............,
,',','.'.',','.',',',',',',',',",", .','.',',', .'.'.',','.'.'.'.'.-.','.'.0.'.-.'.',
:;{{If,:~},:~m~~,~~,~~,~r,u:,~:,(:::,:, '".., :,::-:~.:~,~~~~,~~,~:,': :{:})}}}}}t ' ,
..................
!iiii1tll!iilli!:i!!ii:l:i:i!!';r::!~::;:!i!:,',i::i::,,,:':!:
"'<:::Q?Ef,),,:i,:j,!i,':,';~iV,:: : ; SAMPlE ., ~~tr}~?t:
~ """'" "
"., ..' ......... '.
"<,' i.; ;:::;;::::::::::::'}:
~;) ::;:;:::;:;:::::;:::;:;
""'.'" '"
""'."" ...
"""'" ,..
"""'.' ..
......... '..
......... ...
......... "
.......... ..
.'.','.'.'.'.'...', ,'.'
.'.'.'.'.~"..'.'.', ,'.'
"""'" ',.
'.'.'...'.".'.'.'.' '.'.
'."."', '"
........, "
"'."'" "
......... '.
'::~1t:: ::::
OJ
,.,
., .A''''
.",~ ~""""
~'1""". .
,~.,.,...'"~:~--~,,
.. '~-' .;.,-:--; \;.t...
.., '- .. ',.'! ,. -....'
t.',.,"" ,.';. ~,-". - ....
"'.. !_~ -, ,::--0.;'.., " ,- .~. .
':..' ,,:.: .";.'" ~'~, .. -.: .' ~ ',.
,:~~,~:';."..:.. ....'~... ~':~{.-.:.
h'.' .:: ,;,I:' ,I ,-," ~ ~\,-'.,
,:'I;..,"J.:~~,,,:- .,,-. '.-,
..
HOR
10 ,
, SCALE: ~~~~
11210: I'
);":)i:rJ:/:L" '.
'.', ",.: '.'
.: ";'"'''' .
~'.: (~
I '-
'"i
, W".
"
" ~.
I: '
"
r ~: :.
, I
t -: .."~i.
",t_:,; ~~,
..
.,. .
LEGEND
, ~
ffj)ff]
l 1
'I ;.
t': :,
SAND-fiNE '
Tq MEDIUM ',> ,
,"',::": J SILTY SAND
"I ';-
,., ....',
, "
, ~('t
;. '~
Q
"..
o
cnb
~Q
-in
°0
Z;u
o
en
en
,I
fill MATERIAL!,
, I
/, . ~
, '
SAND- fiNE !'
~.:~:{~ PEAT
ClAYE~, fiNE
SAND
~ ,: f
' '~,
: ,[.... ~./"; .-:1
"
. j ..;
L J ,:: :., '.
NOTE
SfE fiG,
]
fOR "'OCAT'O~
C ,
,
8
'.
~" "i
, .
I, ~
,', '
'I. ,
d~
"
17"; ~",~, ,",
i:4 l~ .~
tt; l" ..~ :.iJ - .
t,l ':1 ,I,;
6 :'~'. - .: ! , .";
,,'
;.. t" .
,:, :;
5
.i .
" ,.i
. . i ,
" ,
i! ~
:: .;,',
I. I... f;
'4 ~~t.'iN'iiET '
'.. REfERENCED n
'~ME~N ~A,8.£VEI
to., ~ '," I .
.1';. , . ,:.,
,)
ii,
"
2''/ i;: i~ ;~
'~J ..~'
:t' '1. ~ : ~.:
. .~'~~. .: ,:' ~ .;.
, -
" I
/~ .J-I~ ;.
,,'
, ,
" I
",
",
"
, .
"
"
, ,
I' k,..
;:. :i "
.' U'
I~
. .
0, :\1 I
:{
, ,
..
'"
'," .
;\.. '
,) ,
i ?
" ip "j .
..
i.,
,~ {:~
',:~ "
oJ .:"
"
.i '.I
1 t. '1. ~
, ~: ;:~
i'
;'~ t ~
~j :'~
'J
~,
"
~' £..~
, ,
" r'
~ :.;
, ,
'.
I'
-------
- -
The regulatory actions- at the Pe~r's Steel and Alloys, Inc. site have
included responses by both the Dade County I:epartment of Enviromental
Resources Managsnent (~) an::! the EPA. '!he first action that EPA was
aware of was a citation issued to Pepper's Steel- and Alloys, Inc.. in
1978 an:! subsequent sanplirq and evaluation by !:£PM and E:c:!ward E.. Clarke,
Ergineers-Scientists r Inc.. of nearby wells-- Subsequently, test pit
explorations by DERM in 1982 documented the presence of oil oontainirq
teB in the shallc:.w subsurface materials.. 'Ihis firoirYJ precipitated' a :
site exploration perfoaned by NUS-for the EPA--and inmediat~ removal" ~
EPA in 1983. '!he site was added to EPA's 9.lperfurd National- Priorities ~ -
tist. in September 1983.' - -- ,-- ------- -~ . '~T'-''-':''~-----''-
" ' - ,_. - :-- 1
~ ; ~ ::. i . '~'SI!'E' srA'IUS :~t
c,
(
The col'ltaninants that have been identified within the soil, sedizTents and
qroundwater in a~ around the site inclurle J:CBs, organic conpounds and
beavy meta1s such as: lead, arsenic, cadr.1iLlTtr chrO'!til.l!t, ,copper, mal'Qanese,
mercury, dnc arrl antiMony. Of these contaminants found at the site,
the Endangerment Assessment conducted for the Pepper's Steel Site identified
PCBs, lead am arsenic as beil'Q present in soils at the site in
concentrations high enough'to pose a significant threat to public health,
welfare or the environnent. Figure 5 outl ines the approximate locations
of these contarTdnants at the site.
Level of Contaminants
PCBs
-,
, -
It is estimated that approximately 48,000 cubic yards of PCB contadnated
soils with concentrations greater than 1 ppn exist on site, of which
about 2 percent or approximately 1,000 cubic yards exceed 50 ppn of
teBs. Soils exceeding 50 ppn of teBs are located in the sane general
area where fr.ee oils have been found. No PCBs were detected on the Mi~i
Canal sediments.
Lead
Concentrations of lead as hiqh as 98,000 ppn (9.8') were found in the soils.
Soil and Material ~ineers estimate that about 21,500 C\bic yards of.
- soil are contaminated with lead at concentrations exceeding 1000 ppn, and
approximately 117,000 cubic yards of soils are contaminated with at least
50 ppn of leed.
~ ~
-------
>
'11
-0
:u
o
"1J~
ml:
"1J~
;Xiii
c:D
m I~ 0
o VI -
,.. ,,. -t
mVI m
..( -I O::D
-m m
...mr-~
~rm-
:II. >-
e Z
»-:. C
r'1l
rm
00
-
:xl
-
m
(J)
......
«a
c:
:0
1'1
n
t
-H
,~
,0<11---- I' ,,~,
~u~.[:ff, c/a.~. ~ :j,t~~'~:".~
G -\( ',' '~,~ ~:' ",": '''',~ "1-: :
f:"J .,'i:'~'~' ,l",6 :
l" . ~. I '''0 ' ,
. "" I" ~"
, ,,;, ' , '''''',A-'
t I ,. "-
)0 I -.,. ./<:.:-i(1 /r :. .~\. '. ,,' " : : 1.1>
Q-,' 0 ,s ~J~:-=> ~1' D ::'; ,,~ '
I ~\ ..,'
J r--' ~\\ ,,:1 -~~ :,
'o~(~INOU' /" ~/~
......u.~::"- ' ..- LiJ
j\ RUCKINO JIM WOOD; .
- ' .
l . EXPeRT ,.' Q
4 '
. '
, " ., . "
11. ' : , ' ,;',
o
o 10
~ 0 200
~
SCALE" fEU
--- PCB. >1 P~
+ - ARSENIC >11: P'
_, _v PM
-lE
-0 AD ~1000 PPM
. PROJECT
CONCEN1~!'f18TS fOR '
" EO PCB.
. REMOVAL
LEGEND
I
,-
o
, '
"
;, 'j :'~ "',: O:,~
.:, - .,
, r~ ,; ~
I ,;':: ,.'
. : i "
;-', .. ;,(t . ~
.;. :" ' ' 0'''''''-'''''
~. I MEDlEY c' ' '
, ' , - , ' ' OHCRET(
:JI,r. '0
. ~r ~;): ! ,~'
,',
.
b-.-.,
.\ J .' \
. ...'~ ",,- - .,' ,
109'" "
: ' ' , SIRn'
.!) ,
. :. ~. ,"
, .
:~~
.: ~ ',: .:~
-------
(
Arsenic
The vollDe of arsenic contaninated soil exceeding 5 [)pn is estimateri at
about 9,000 cubic: yards, of which about 80 percent range fran 5 to 10 PJ:Jn
and the remainin;r 20 percent ranging frcm 10 to 50 ppn-. Only a small
fraction of arsenic contaminated soils (42 cy) is estimated to exceed 50
Ppt!. EP Toxicity results show no detectable arsenic in the leachate.
-.
Tables 1-1 and 1-2, s\ltl'l\arize the max1m\.l1\ concentrations of selected
canrounds in soil and sediments and i~ the groundwater~
- -.-...
& J,. ~ ~,.'...--...
-------
_....... " . ...--
..' '.0
.)
. -, W' .
(-
(-
',.
. .
. .";; T AS!.. E' 1-1
Sur""'ARY OF MAXlfo1UM CONCENTRATIONS OF
." .' SELECTED COMP~UNDS IN SOIL AND SEDIMENTS
' .. - ~ -. ".. ~ . ...--., - ..
. '~-:.."'-' ---:. _.._~., :~. -~_..-:~.._. w' ":;-:.:':~~.:-
" i:' ~
.' ...... .-.',.~
..... '. of 0 .,
~ :.L .
"".- ._-,,,, ._--- --.... -. -
Compound
Fi 11
Put
Media", , .
Sand/Clay. on
Se~iment
PCBs
Pesticides
Volatile Organics
67
2.8
3.0
760 1.4'
1 NO
14.3 1
0" 1
...J .
-7398 1157 J
685 Q 195
35.6 6.SJ
17.9 6.8
.3.2 0.8
2700
NA ..
NA
Extra:ta~le ~r;anics
Lead
6'.
.....
10 . .' ..
90610 J
1491 J
76. f
216.6
14.9
NA
Antimony
Arseni c
Ch romi um
Cadmi um
NA
NA
NA
NA
.. ,~.,-- 0 _0-
. .~.--.. ~ ..-
NO
N~
. NA
, .
....
'60
NO
ND
26
NO
Source:
Notes:
..
Soil & Material Engineers - EPA Contraci Labs Data
J . Estimated value
Q '. Data QA is questionable
NA . Not Available
NO . Not Detected
~ll are total concentrations, in parts per million (ppm)
~
,', .
\
-------
(~
"-
TABLE 1-2
SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM CCNCENT~AT:ONS Q~
SELECTED COMPOUNDS IN THE G~OUND ~ATER
. ...
OnS1 U .e I J s Qtts1te "1115
Concentrlt1on, NO. 0 f Conc:entrlt1on, No. of
Compound ppb Sampl es PCb Samcles
PCB NO 3S NO 6
Pesti ci des NO 3S --- NO 6
..- .
Volatile Organics 4.0 J 22 2.0 J 5
EJlt"actabl e Organ;cs 90.0 J 12 NA 0
Lead 31 15 8
Antimony ND 35 NO 6
Arsen;c 4.5 35 10.0 6
Cromium 18.0 35 7.7 6
Cadmium 6.4 35 6.4 6
Barium 72.0 35 39.0 6
Source:
No te s :
Soil & Mater;al Engineers
J . estimated values
ppD. parts per billion
NA . Not Available
NO . Not Detected
- EPA Contract Labs Data
-------
.
(~
Known or Suspected Pisks of Contaminants
('
"
. ~.-:-. ~ !'-
-,3 .'".
, ~,
." .' ,. .
-:"'~. ~~..:-
- "
P. ....... ..
." -,
.."0' ..
'0'.' '..
.-
Peas ~ -, ~,.~.._., '''.: "~~ .-i- ':-t..:-~i.:: :~~:""'!;1 :~:7h:". "':'
'-,.. , ..,,_t.., ,.J:""::::I=.~~.-.!.,.' ''','",,,!,'.','':, ,".'.-.-'.=,'.":', ',':,' '.~ .". ,"': "'~:~,,':,',"~.' .,.'" . I' ... 'r
- . ., -- -:. - ,",' .. -~ - - -, '- . .. ... ..; " ... ..~ -: . ~~..~ :' ..::=E ~ .s. ~ ~~ . "~....:.'': ~ ~.....;.: s;... '.
Polychlor~naterl binhenyls (PI:':SS) may,. cause sev~ral adve.rse. heal th effects
in hU'\ans. .~'Ihese effects inclt..de:':tunor- formation, chloracne (lonq-rastim
aM ~isf~uring skin diseases),. ch~es.in' fElYlale' reproduction,;capacity', ~
skin lesions",blirdness, hearin:;z. loss,~,"liver patholcxrV' and/or:-:functi6ri' ~'::'
changes~. jaumice,. abdO!linal pain, uterine- ulcers, still births' and::, : ~ ' ':,i~:,'
miscarriages, s~llin;J of joints, waxy secretion of the eyelid ,glands, .
general lethargy, joint pain, weakness and vaniti~, abriocnal menstrual,~:~:'
cycles ani -...eiqht loss. '. ' . . " :~..,.~ ;,;;,:. "~";;....~. ':b'-" . . ' . ,
~>:'~~-:-;n",~ !': ~,.~ ,;"".... i'c:iry-::: ~ >.t: j.',:~j ~.:(,: -; ':;:, -:';~o-lti:"~,~''E';.'15J1'~..:.-::;
E.PA Ambient Water OJality Criteria for carcinogenicity protection:of ',- "
h'lJrTBn heal th' fran.inqestion ,of. water is 0.0079 Pro at the 10-6,. risk ''- ':: ", ,',
level. ' 'Concentrations that have a risk level of 10-6 are estimated to' '.
result in an increase of one, cancer death per 1,000,000 people who experience
Pet:' exoosure o"er a 1 ifetime. ". ~..!;-- '::,- -~~':
"~ ." ~~:~~~.~.;~
. .
- . .;:: ':~.. .,'
," . .>.... .:-::;.
.~
Lead
':'.: '... ~
-.. . ~
TheJ major adverse"..healt1'l effects caused by lead are toxicity .to. the ';' :'~-::.:,
hemal' ~ystens"(bl00d formation), neurolooical effects, renal dysfunction';.. .
and lead has been found to be teratOQenic to animals. 'the EPA Interim --,.-
Primary Drink1rg Water Stardard am ~bient W!ter ()Jality Criteria for' .'
lead are both SO pcb. The Centers for Disease Control (CIX:) currently..-
defines lead toxicity in a child as a blood level> 300 pcm and an
eri thryoc:vte Drotoport!hyrin (EP) > 500 Dan, however, cr:c is presently. . : ," :,',
revisira its criteria for lead toxicity to blocx: lead levels> 25(\ p~
and an..F.:P ~,350 ppn.. ", .~::'..."" ~:' .'. :', .:~ ':',...::,.:';: 'C, -:: ~:; ~.~ .,"of';
,"'" .n ..~.'
'. '
." ".
.' ;-". - ::. ::
, ..
Arsenic
..;, "'. -, ,""
. '.
Arsenic has been found to cause the folla-iirg adverse heal th effects:
lUn;7 cancer, heoatic angiosarcana and dermal cancer in hunans. In..'
aodition, arsenic has been found to be fetotoxic, emhryotoxic and teratogenic
in several animal studies. O'\ronic eX1X)Sure to arsenic affects the, '" '.
nervoos system and can cause detmal lesions, and cardiovascular; disease.
. ..,"
'!he Carcinoge~ 'As~s_nt' Groop (CA(;) of the EPA"det~Cnlned' the unit ris~':
. for lifetime exposure to arsenic to be 0.405 ppn.' ,'this is equivalent.. :,":
to a concentration ,of 0.0025 pp, in drinking water- for a cancer risk.
of 1 in 1,000,000. For'eXDOsure via the <:onSUnJ"tion of fish, the- eQUivalent
concentration 15 0.0022.pp,. Since arsenic is often naturally occurrirg
at levels higher than this, the Inte~im Primary Ik'inking Water Standard
for arsenic is 50 pp,. '
Pathways of ~iaration
\
Introduction
Accordin:r to the endan:rerment asses~nt ard based on c:c:it'It)arisons between
estimated contarninant concentrations at points of exposure for various
potent ial receotors and aR)l icable standards, the Pepper' s Steel and
. Alloys site may present a substantial emaroecnent to huran health,
-------
C'
(
welfare, or the envirorment. Both underground and surface waters in the
stu:!y area are vulnerable to contamination. Contaminants in the soils,
may percolate thraJgh the ground and ~versely impact the Biscayne AQuifer.
Figure 6 illustrates the proxiInity of the site to the Miami Canal, which
is also vulnerable. - .~C& contaminants..enter the canal they may attach- to
bot tan.. sediments,.. seep into the grounjWTater,. or enter the ocean where- "
they can. disperse into the marine environnent.'l11e canal also Provides a
significant. aoount.:O~_recharge for municipal welt fields down .st:eaft~,of ':
th .t - - .. . '< -~.. .' -.. .. ."'-.~' ""2-.;¥1"~
e Sl e.'J',-?fj":l..'J'J.~.1ie. \;~';,}, -' '."J~~,"'<'" ''''', ''>'''~-''-' ,.'~~.... J~if't,-,~~ ~-,
~ ':.:::~" ': f.~~,.:~ 1 'C'~~ 0 ,u:.c '~~. :':' - ..;', .~ 2',,~:i! ~:~ f~ ~-
- '~,r:""": ,-" .-
PCBs have been found to birrl to livinq organisms, soil particles and: , :
oroanic material.. FeBs bioaccUTlulate and bianaqnify within fish -and <",
certain other marine life. ' FeB molecules are absorbed preferentially,.'-
traoperl readily by sedilNnts with hiQh surface area to volune- ratios and
are absorbed more strol'"Qly !')v sediments rich in organics than by inorganic
sP.d ir.1ents. "'.:, :...c :: . ,
I
i'
I
I
Lead
Lead sorption plays a daninant role in lead mobility. 'l11e amount 'Of lead -
. . . . . - .- .4
absorbed by organlCS,. lnorganlc SOllds arrl other substances deperos on ~ :J!
the physical characteristics of the environnent (i.e. pH, organic content,
soil type, etc.). cnce lead is absorbed by the soil, it is stroN;;ly
taken up by plants. " .
'-~~
- -. -
. _.
Arsenic
, L -. -
.j
i .~. -
Metallic arsenic is mobile in the environnent under certain conditions..'-'s
'!he substance is sorpted by sediment, metabolized by organisns and readily
cycled through the environnent. . .
, ,
Conclusions
'l11e expJsure pathways exhibiting the greatest potential endangement that
are quantifiable are air particulate transport of lead contanination
to ~rkers onaite and offsite to neighboriN;; residents,. qroundwater
transport of lead and PCBs to private wells in the imnediate vicinity of
the site, and lead intake due to ingestion fran direct contact with local
soils. Soil and air quality may also be adversely impacted by FCB c:ontaninants
because the PCB molecule is taken up by sediments which can SUbsequently
be transported by wind currents when the soil particles are dry.
. .' --8 "*-
. - -.--
d - _.:,)..
-------
PEPPER' STEE"
SITE Pl""
D
--
,_!~~-
"W1
-.
~
c:
:0
, fr'l
;..
0\
",
'(:,'
.,'
'.{ ,
"
SOURC E :
NUS 198'1
,
~~: <;.~jk (
I, ,'", ,..;t.:,j' '~,
. . #'. ~ .' ~~1itt/~ .:.: 'z'
...".
, "
~{. ". :)8
., I~.:
;..-; i....J .
'.!" ..
:: ' .~, . .
~". 1.
:': ; ",!, ";
'i: :<~ :.; . , ;':. '
Jot' ;u i
\' . ..b :1. 0;'
.~).", ,'. t
. ,.,'
,~~
0' ",
:': ~' "~ ",;:
".1 I .:
..' i) ,
.i' tOO" I'
. I;.' .J . .
,
. ~.
I
.; '0
f.. oJ ~.. ,: "
1 or: J' ,-.
" ,0' "~~ "
~; ~, .
..
,"
, ,
, ' .
:'! '".
, "
~. I J
.~. ;.
, '
'. ~ 't ~~. :' . .:
: ..' .
'J
~,
.j..;'
.." .
,,'
;,
..
-------
(
Local flora and fauna may also be adversely affected by soil concentrations
on site. In addition, contributions to lead concentrations in sedbnents
of the Miani Canal due to runoff frcm the Pepoer's Steel site are expected
to be la~ and are likeiy to represent significant eroaOJeanent to \
benthic organisms. ~noff fran Pe~r~s Steel durirq storm events may
also cause lead and tCB concentrations in Micrni Canal water to exceed
applicable standards intermittently.
"'", '.
. '..:, '-, "
. '-,....- .". ..
"
" ,
,
"
" "
. .
.
.
-------
i
.. .-.,.","-,-
C'::'
c
ENFO~EMENT ANALYSIS
.. :..... '''''''' :. ..:" ~
.,;!"; - . : '_.~' -. ..:' .
'- 't :-. '.' .
. 0
In the 'sllTlrl!r of 1983 the Aaency performed an imnediate removal at the
site., It was necessary to go into federal court to 9ain. site access.,.. :,"
Since that time the court has held', eeriodic status ~ calls to.l(eep informed
of site progress. ,,' .. ,', '-""1'-'~-""'~'-.~"""'''''''''_':'' : ,:"':,,:,,~
:-,::~:,:!':°i?i~ ,:,-;'.'. o:-:~'-' ~:.S-:~ ~I'::~~q:~.i~,'~':;;~.~,--E~,:::""~-,",:> ;~.-,,':~'-,':+r ~':;~~); ~~~1;:':'~:~'" . , ",:.
After: th&:o i.nmediate-:removal_:~the- ~ency began'. a RI/FS~-::"early' 1~84.;,:' .:-:'f'.t;.'~;~'. .,. :~"'.~~~*?~'
'!he PRPts 'proposed a 'conceptua.r'~remedY,to, the h.;}ency,r;n.idWay.:,'(O:t~.84) through:L".;",:;,
the RI/FS. '!he--concept'involved a new application of:.JJxistinq: technology- use " ,
of SOlidification/fixation,fo~..bo~ o~~;t;s,,~ ~t~s-:Nl1h~.,~e~-:,,;,~~: ,', 0"." '.','
, encoura;ied' PRP"deveIo~rit.rof'-thfs conc:ept"in'paralleI ~wittt fbscanpletion -"'.~
. of the RIfFS. :"o'lheir developnent-"work lagged sanewhat behind the Agency's
FS canpletion date. However, the PRP proposed remedy was sufficiently
developed to, be included in the" FS along with other 'potential remedies
for public CaTlT1e"lt. ~.A final.' decision on the',rE!mf!dy was ,delayed 'pending
. ef~orts by the'FRP~s'to provide sufficient substance to thei~~concect.
Their work continued throUgh 'the 'fall of 1985.,.,j:'Also' aboUt 'midway into
tbe RIfFS the Agency filed a cost r~ery aC,ti~nfor the ~ed,iate,
..removal cOsts'. ':']he- Court 'stayed this'action ~uritii the FS "~s-'cC:mplete.
The court has now set Novenber lO~ 1986 as the trial date 'for. this cost
recovery. '!he next status call is scheduled for May 1986:-'''''''':'''''';'
Since the D!cem.ber 6, 1985, s,tatus call the Aqenc:Y";~nd' the-',PRP"~' ~v~ " ...
held six neetings to discuss techltical aspects of the site,~' caments on' "
the FS and, variOUS', remedies. ''lhese meetings usually,lasted~ a full', day , ~
and were attended' by twenty or so h.;}ency and PRP, technical, Personnel ancl"
their respective consultants.":.;:, , , ','.. ',' ", .,_. :.. "
-... - " ~.; ~. ":~~;.; 1;:, .1 '-.J" ,-.- . .
,:... .,.'.c!, ,'..,' " ; ;,..,~ ..;0. '. ~''':-*~, .~'. :;'~" -, ' .,:. , ; . ,; '" -,'::':.,,;, , ,
'!he resul ts of these meetings - &long with other referenced docunents. -
formed the basis for'the detailed evaluation of alternatives and the, ':
selection ()f the '1'fU) proposed renedy' as a cost effective remedy adequate"
to protect public health, welfare am the environnent.'..In ~ition, ,
these meeti~s have substantially detemined: ' , "
. .. '. .
A.: ""..#
"
'"
, .:-: ;-.
, - the areas of the site to be inclu:Jed in 'the 'rEmedy. ..' -"-"",
, ',';' t.~e actual design details of the fixing agent ~nd its perforii1ance ,
, characteristics ", ,':'". ~" ~:. '.. '" ',~',,, ~ "-.-, .;. ':\';"
.-. the post r8D8dial'monitorirYJ pl~ .., ::'::~!,,~; ',~'- ~~. ;;;:":,:..~." :.
, ,..:, ;,--'i"';,:;i.:: ";- ':'::..':! ";':, ,'- , . ..-..'. ,_.,~ ,- "C' , ,
~ile the Jl88tirrJ surmarfes go' into greater detail as' to 'the' extensive'.. "
nature of the issues di8CUSSed, appended to this docunent is a section' :
that highlights 8aII8 of these issues. '!he region believes that Asoiution
of as many issue. as possible is a necessity where new technology is
involved. In this instance, the decision was made to conduct the tests'
needed to simulate final remedy perfocnance prior to acceptance of the
remedy. '!his was a conscious effort to reduce the possibility of accepting
a new appl ication of technology that might fail to perfom a:!equately. , '
,
, ~
I'
-------
(
r
ALTF:RNATIVESEVAWAnoo
-
- - -.-.- -
- .-.....~.~ .~ ~ ~.:~. #-. ""':':. ~ .. .c..
- '~.'-" -.. ~'~J--t'" :
" -
-.. .. ~...,"'!"~,"! ,?-"'J -
Public Health and Envi~ntal Objectives
,-
-'"
- -
I
I
I
I
i .
- . . - ~. .:::.: ~ 2 ~ ~
Site soecific cleanup objectives at th. Pepper's Steel site are based on
public health and envirormentaL concerns. and are consistentwith--Section.
300.68' (e)(2) of the National Oil and 'HaZardous 9.Jbstances Contingency'--:-
,. .' !?lan, (N:P), EPA guidance, and, s~~te and local regulations. "~~ -, -:r,-.;~ ._~~.,
'-'. .,' - - ..',:" , ~ " ~-" ;;cr-.' ''7,''\.''~ :--:-:. . ~r':ll,~<: ::
Based on the regulatory guidarice:'and the. level ,of contanination. found:,..~
"'cat the PePper's Steel Site,' the,:followi~ . cleanup objectives were ,selected:
. . . . . '.. . . . .~'.t;:"t.
-. " Removal: and/or treatment 'of leachable heavy metals and meta!loids
. to prevent contanination of wells and the Biscayne Aquifer which
is the sole source of. potable water supply for about three million
. ... : people ,in, tJ1e Sout~easter:n Florida ,area. , .: :r,.,.' , ..'.1 ~: ....-:
.- ' .: ~':.-. . - ~ ~ - ~, ',: '., :"., :'" ~"=': :'-., ' - . : J
o Removal of all FCB contaminated soil to the lowest level below SO
'pp-n practicably attainable through the use of nonnal cleanup J.~
: methoos. . . . - ,; , ~ .' , . " ,'.-. . .
:.:*-:..A , :
The principal environnental and public health concern regarding the
existing contanination level at the Pepper's Steel site is pollutant
migration into the Biscayne Aauifer and into private wells. Because of '
the fr~ile nature of the aauifer am the luge nunber of people who depenc
on it, the 1Qency has been particularly careful in its evaluation and
selection of a remedy for this site. Any selected remedial alternative
must demonstrate, via leachability studies and long-ter.m monitoring, that
levels of contaninants released into drinking water sources are below the
acceptable leachate concentration limits. Limits were developed in the
endangerment assessnent and were based on either EM knbient Water OJality
Criteria or Primary £kinking W!ter Stardards, as available.
Acceptable leachate concentrations were derived by considering potential
exposure via hypothetical wells located in the Unmediate vicinity of the
site. . In su::h a scenario, infiltrating rainwater over a broad area of
the site is assumed to generate leachate that percolates vertically to
the groundwater and creates a oontaninant pltmt that is carried along
with with g~t.r flow. '!he plune is then intercep~ed near the site'
. boumary by a private wlI. 'Ihe well will draw water fran the contaminated
pllJne. '!hus, acceptable leachate concentrations . for the Pepper's Steel
site should be equal to applicable drinkinq water stardards, or similar
criteria, with CIOn8ideration for dilution.
-------
~
~ - . . . . . - . -
, .
. . ~ ~ .. '.. "
(-.
. . "'..-.1.
(,
Based on the acceptable leachate. concentrations, modeling of groundwater'
flew, regu!.atory requirements aoo the extent of cont~ination fourxi at
the site, the en:!~etment'_assessment detennined that three contaminants
were fouoo in sufficient concentrations to require action - pcb, lead,
and arsenic. ... '
. .
'"
.---. .. -. The'foi"ioWirg-cleanup levels-wereselected' for' these contaminants in 'order--
.'
to achieve acceptable leachate concentratioos: :-\:::''''Y;?:-:?h :i.-..."}t"',sW " ,:::.i.}:'
. . '~!Jf~~-i~i.~~r-'.," : ,". ":'''''4:::-_~. :""~'....'" ",,::~.},."f'
o Store, analyze, treat, 'and dispose' of all PCB contadnated' - , ,,'. ,,'
.-, --,' '-..-- 'free oils 'encOuntered durii'g-' the"site excavat-ion. '~--~._,--_..._._--.-, '..;
o ~e,~c.:~~~~~~~~~~~i~~~ or treat SOilscontainirlt/~~:D~r.:;.)-- -;.):,;.~,:~;,~'::
" :.-,_::- following'. levels of contcrnination: . -: ,:-::.""','1 .~ - .<'::.::. 'J
" "PCBs ~ 1 t)pn ("APoroximately' 48,000 c.y.)
. ,
.,~ "~ Lead >'.. 1,000. PP'!.(Approximate1y 21,500 c.y. of which substantial
,~''''.,,~';:':': ,~;'..: .;7? :-::'~ , ~JlJl:amounts are carmonly contaminated with PCBs)
.": ;
: ~ ,";: ~ .~ .:';: .-:; ::':
..: Arsenic> 5 ppu. (Approximately 9,000 c.y. are caTmOnly contaninated,
. - ,:, ;.,:y." Wi th. lea(1).' i:"?
.;.
... : .' '.': :.
,.,", _.- .
., I""
, .
.. '
AL'IDNA'I'IVES CONSIDERED
. .... 4. . ..;"';J ~ - . - .. - :..... .-- -~ ~ .. .':
Based on the extent of contamination docunented' in the Remedial
Investigation, a list of feasible technologies, 's\JtIMrized in . '.- .~,. 0-:.
Table 4, was developed for the general response actions identified .--
." 01. -..
. " ..'
~- ,. :_,
as:
. .. ". ~.. .~
.'.":.'.-' ; "I", ::.
.-- ~ '"..:.~
o 'I'SD of free oils found during site excavation
o '!SD of soils contaminated with PCBs an:! heavy metals
'!he list of possible technologies was screened to eliminate options that
would not provide adequate protection to the environnent, public health,
aoo public welfare, or would cost sub!jStantially more- than the other
technologies without providing significantly greater benefits. '!he
remaining technologies were evaluated in greater detail to identify a
preferred technology that: (1) provided similar enviromental or public
health benefits with a lower cost, or (2) was nl)re reliable, with the
, sane or only sl ightly higher oost. '!he preferred technologies were
then caabined to £Om the followfng nine remedial action alternatives:
,
["
I
[
-------
('
TABLE 4
~e:AAL REMEDIAL 'm:HOOLCX:;IES
PEPPER'S STEEL AND AU.O'iS
. -, - ~.- :',-;..:".: MEDtEY_FtDRIrY\
. ...~. -
. '.
.
... ..~.. ~:-~
"
, . ':c':,';'",-,Ot,
.. ,,-. ,"a""
. - .-.--
- ~ ~-.
:: - -:.~ .:.t 1'.."" ~_.'.'
- -; ~.T
General Iesponse
Action
..v: ~ -. f~::~ U~~~ .'~"', ~~:: : '-'. ~
- ,) :",i~-:~ ::;';L ,
Technologies
..
- ..,
r.'./:."~,- -~ ~.,~ . ~.:
.. "..A .-"'" -.. ...... -
,. (- ~
<'j""" -, "!.,..-- ..
..,
\.a~ing and encapsulation
-.": -' ~:."" ..,:..:.. "1: : : '. .:~! .. ,
Contairment
Canplete rerroval
;" - Soils ard floatirq oils fourrl during excavation
Partial rer.'lOval
Soils arrl floating oils round during excavation
Onsite treatmer.t
Partial incineration, extraction, solidification,
~ -:-.. chemical fixation, and t:i1ysical treatment
Offsite treatJnent
Partial incineration, biological, chemical, and
physical treatment
In-situ treatment
,Soil flushing and neutralization
Temporary storage facilities for water and eils
Storage
Onsite disposal
Offsite disposal
L1ndfill
Landfill
-------
.
..c
(
o Alternative 1: Solidifi~tion of all soils contaminated with
.' .,. teBs anc1.,heavy, metals. -. - ..--.. -....----.-----. -.. ""----""-' w ".
o 'Altirnative 2: Solidification of PCB contaminated soils and
': staolllzatlon of soils containinQ heavy metals. .
'. , '. . .. . . . ..:,:.. . F':;"'.' =; .~. .
': . . .. --
.
....._~~. -''''
..
. , ~,':"Alternative 3: ,SolirUfication. of PC! contaminated"soils., and '-,.",.- -_.._."..;..',".' ,
encapsulation of soils containina heavy metals.. ' , '~.
,", . """ ,!F' ":"-".'- ..; ~, ., ~,', ..c' ;..,,"':; ..,. -"..'""',, -'" . F.~ . .",~ ,,'.., '.,- ,.
.~.:;~ -:2;:...c'" - . r.-' ,
o Alternative 4: Offsite disposal of soils exceeding 50 PJ:In' PCBs ,
:, and solidiflcation/stabilization of soils con~ining heavy metals ~ ..
and teBs., ", ,
""ill "'....... 2 -'..'''~ "''''--~'-.'' _"'_._'.""',.".'.'-,..~j~ ,;.,:
~1..1,:o J ' .:~ ,'- '
o
. :' ::~.,~ .:.'! .
, )
, '
Alternative 5: Extraction of PCB contaminated soils exceeding .
1 ppn of pea's and solidification of soils containiDJ ,". ,'.'.. ..
heavy metals.
,.
"
o Alternative ~: Extraction of ~a contaminaterl soils, with or
.. excea'1lnq 50 rpn of FCRs and J1.='rtic'll contairrnent (by' surface" ..'"'' ,
caming) of areas cvp. 1 pPm.. . .
... .~ . '.' '. . . :. ': ~.~: ':- -: ~: ':~."l 7: .
o Alternative 7: Onsite incineration of tea contaninated soils ..
exceedil"l9 50 nr.m and solidification of soils' containin;t heavY" -. .
metals and teBs betwee~ land 50 prm.
," .
, "
o Al ternati ve 8: Incineration of teB contaminatec1 soils at' the
Dade County incinerator with onsite stabilization and disp:)Sal' of '
incinerated soils, plus stabilization of soils which are not ' .:
incinerated, but contain heavy metals.
..- ...-... . -". .... .
o Alten,ative-'9:" Extraction-of PCB contmninated ~ils eXceeding 50
ppn of PCBs and solidification of soils containing heavy netals
and less 'than 50 PQl1 PCBs. ; ,
~ -_.. -.-..
EValuation Of Remedial Action Alternatives
I
:. I
I
The five criteria that have been identified in the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances' CQ,tin;;ency Plan (OCP) for the evaluation of remedial
action alternatives are: technical feasibility, pUblic health effects, ,
envirormental iq:)acts, institutional CX)ncerns, and CX)st. '!hese criteria
. provide a lcgical framework for the evaluation and analysis of the remedial .
action alternatives. '!he adverse and beneficial impacts of each alternative '
in teDnS of the criteria Were analyzed and docunented. Table ~ illustrates
the cost estimates of these alternatives.
\
I"
Based on ,the five criteria identified in the OCP, six of the reNdial
alternatives were eliminated. Table 7 lists these rejected alternatives
and the reason (s) for their elilttination.
-------
--
(
TAStE 6
(-
COST ESTIMATES Of' R~ED!AL .A.C J.ON ALTERNATIVES
.' .
?
,... '-'.--
, - - Capital Annual Present
:; ~:: . Cost Cost \t«:>rth
$1000 SlOOO CDst
," (i' "
-. - ., -
5,355 258 5,613
. c-:-:..~ ., .
5,212 ~ 258 5,470*
. .-,~
,,' ~.- ,.
1~
5,616 404 6,020
:: 6,236 - 258 6,494
Remedial Alternative
1 Solidification
2 Solidification/Stabilization"
3 Solidification/Containment
4 Partial Off-site Hauling,
Stabilization and
Solidification
5 Extraction/Solidification -
8
Incineration/Stabilization
7,147 -, 90 7,237
3,383 404 3,787
6,152 258 6,410
8,842 90 8,932
6,747 258 7,005
6 Extraction/Containment
7 Incineration/Solidification
9 Partial Extractiorv
Sol id if ication
* !he PRPs hav~ estimated the cost of this alternative at 2.6 million dollars.
Their estUnate differs fram same of the items specified in the EPA est~te:
- ~st cleanup lTOnitorirq wells not incllded
- Smaller surcharge for level C and level D operation
- PRPs estimate higher production rates
- etc.
-------
: -~':'.; ..'. ~ .
(-
Table 7
('
.' .
p--- . _.._- ..-~
-."'" ~-._.. ~~.., -..
.._~--. '-'~"-'- -_.,-
Reasons for the Elimination of Six Pemedial Action Alternatives
"
~-::;.; =:t -..~.:
, ,.
, ""'.,-
'.., ;
-' '... t.. . ,
Alternative' 7'~':; ;:' -' ~~.:,o':~~:~~
':; :<) :,: '-11 -, : :-: ~,.::; "!~,~ ~.; :~~.
, ..
, , ',~.,' - .. 'C',' RSason' e:Hminated,
..
~. -.:. ":: ~ ::'.: . ;~.. ~.
. ~ . . '.' "'. .. .... ..' .~
,..., "
1.
.. .,' .~. "'"'" . ~~: .... ~ . ,:' ... . - ".. .,":'", "'. '.. .. - .... -. .
sO!idifica't'ion": ~<:~:::,:'" ",., i- '~~q,b' f,;n:,01 ::;,' ':,--:StabUization/Solidification
, .'"O}:;,: ':.. J''!-';'!(:~';,<;:'':'''''',:~ct'~.:'' .:,'~6'::~t; ::~'''~'''prOVides better waste :'fsolation
"":-0j ,-'-:,',;, -, '~'~'...' >",,"""~""«:"~'rl:"., ";0"1: '. 11 .....,
'., ,,'''', .': ",: ';"" "';-'; -"--"'''''.--' .'" --,' '-:--- ,-or-- S1m ar,costs.....,)-, ,.
'~!.i.:\''; :"". ~"":.'S~_:."J~":' '\f:-..':'':.:.~~~-9fr.:. ,,:?,::'-,r~<.'''~ :.":: :"~ -;"'~:~".!:.:"i'.;--:.:;~~J:,;.':,-
Solidification' arc" ~! ~'.:"'~i:i.~;~ 7~,~SQ~i5 ,7"'~ Solidificationj:iS""less effective
; "Encapsulation: ',:'": ~,'" .,.~~:~~::~,~.~' ~,~ ;, "'~~'~ than stabilization' for 'metals. ' ,
, !,',": .. ',::::: ,J".'. ':"Y' ::! >.?"~~{:':::::'':: "._",,":'Contairment is less ef.fective
. .' . '.-'-~~~ -'~": :~.'':'''.~l "':'..~~ '.. ,,';,.:'than' either- solidif'ication or
" ' ',. , ' stabilization. ::' ,~~.' ',.'
04,t.
..
3.
. :'... :1:',":.:
~"" . ..
.::; -. - _. ~'..." -:C .~:~. "'::!::.:.. ..:. -.::~
. .!../ . "., ,
, '" ':,.' "..J(';,- ,,-~.
'; ~:: - ,.:::~ :-,
." '.~.. '''...,
. '.' .
:... '"' :,-.~:~~.
More costly than other alternatives
~':':wfth;l'\lnimal-redUctioh-'in risk. Added'
risks in transportation. Additional
," ,:- resOurce 'uti! izat'ion 1n- transportation.
. . :.;. ~.'J -.I<~"':'~; ~ ~ '~::--" ";~:: l~"'J
4. Offs i te Nspo.c;al ,
.' ... ' -".' '" ""'. ,'" " -. r - '
.,' ann Sol1dlflcatlon/StablllZatlon . '. --..
. 1'-
" -
.f: t,~ y:~':...
.".~ ,...."" '~l: :: "".
. : :~.: - ~ :.') :" : . r
'-
, "
Extraction' still: experhnental technology.
.~' Ran:;e of costs 'very' uncertain.
5.
Extraction' and
Solidifi-cation ",'
.,
. ..::~ ~.: ';'., :..: '.
.-
"", :.
. -.'.,-.
, ,.
. . . .
. . ~ .' .
6. ", Extraction' and ,~', ,
contail'11'lent . " ,''", :'-':;-:;, ;:"-,
'Extraction stilr exper~ntal technology.
., " Contail'11'len~ is less, effective
than solidification or stabilization.
',:: . . '.''''-'
. - . '...
, ,-
...-:'..' -.
- . ..- . - .,... ~.
'-~ -. ". ,.". .
9.
Extraction and ,,'
Solidification
. ... 1..
... ..
-: "::' Extraction is still' experimental technolo
, ,'Solidification is, less' effective than
",' stabilization. ..' , ",,':,
..... ." ..'.
. ".. '
, ..
.. . "..
. '. . - .
. . ,.-- ." .'
.. . ~, .
. '. - ,
" ,
. -...,-
- '.'.
'.' "'-' ... '.
-
"
.... ..."
.. . .-
"..' ....
.... .,":'
.:_. - ,'; .-.. t
... "':.,
"
, '
\
.' . .
-------
(-
Detailed Analysis of Final Alternatives
~-
,
1)
~A:tion
__.'_~4__._--_- --
-- ------- -
- --.--- .-------
---.-- - _.---- ---
The no-action alternative does nothing to mitigate the potential for
substantial public eXp:)Sure to the contaninants on site. - !he modified
~ no-action alternative would provide groundwater monitorinq only-. -----
This alternative- does. nothinq to mitigate the exposure pathways of.
.. contact~ inqestion and inhalation. Groundwater m:M!I1W!nt rates'
in the Biscayne ,lquifer are such that adeouate warning of contaminant
rrovement might not be possible. The Agency realizes that typical
~,'..: c'; ; groundwater movement i~ the Biscayne Aquifer is a few feet per day. .~
- "- We- also- recognize that localized conditions can result in much faster
. or slower movement.. Sane data gathered to date sU}gest that current
groundwa ter movement is slow in the imned iate site area. In our
judgement it is inappropriate to rely on a localized condition ot
unknown stability oiven the population dependant on this aauifer.
... . .' -". ,- ". . .
-;2) ~ Incineration/Soli~ification (alt. 17) and Incineration/Stabilization (alt. fa)
. ,_.. +
. ~ ~ -
. ""',~'. ...
. ~ 4' ..
Incineration is a proven and effective method for destruction
of FeB contaninated Soils. The elimination of Fees fran the envi~-':
if feasible, would be the best action to take. Because incineration
has the potential to accamplish this, it is deserving of a thorough
analysis of its potential use. 'the incineration alternatives for the
PSA site, ~ver, are canplicated by the fact that lead concentrations
exceeding 90,000 ppn are present in the PCB contaninated soil.
-
Incineration will introduce two potential problems. First is the
. volatilization of metals contained in the soils. O'\ce the materials
are volatilized, they will condense on the smaller particles in the
gas strean (particles less than 2 microns in diameter). 'the
incine~ators that are presently available for incinerating organic
materials are rot equipped with air pollution control equipnent that
is effective for controlling small particle emissions. Thus, if
incineration is selected tor the PSA site, technolcgy will have to
be developed to control small particle emissions fran these incinerators.
'Ihe S8ility of the metals in the soils currently proposed for
solidification.
-------
i
Regarding currC- . experience 'on the fate cf the('.tals during the
. ... inci~ration process, .2-16% ,0£ the metals ,;an be expected to be
discnarged. £ran the. incinerator ;in the stack gas (followirg either a
scrubber or bag hciiSer~", tependfrg 'upon the 'properties of the metals,
. varYing fractionS ~of the -metals:::remainirY;1 wilr end. up in the incinerated
-. ." soi~ or in the materia! -~llectSd in the "scrubber ,or bag house.
. -:.Withcut the test:burn us!-ng so!! fran .the PSA site, it is difficult to
",predict ,the fractior:t of:metals..that wil~.be discharged fran the
.'. stack .or .~n,the incInerated :Sou arid.. air poUutioii: control equipnent
..~.; ",.~.~~~~,,\~ ~'~f. .;~'f~';~,::~~.~~.,;...;61'~~~~; ;;,:~~.~\'~.i:2, ;:~'-~~,~'~;:.,,~::,
.'I~'_'''''~''f''-...o:>~'~' -::-"( ..' ..~,.._,.. '..:~".--:,.:"~r_. .~~. "." '.~.:." .. -. . ~ ."'.'
If'-incineration were selected as'a MIIady-,' atest"Purn ~uld be .
required,. air pollution control technology '-IOUlcrhave to be developed
to control fine- particle emissions fran. the incinerator, ,and the air
:- po~lution co~~~l, equipnenton'an existing lncine~ator u~rajed..
... -... . . -.' -,".. - ..' '. ,.
. .,'. . w- ". .... -~..... . ",'" .- " .... -. .. '. 'Y" . '''r' .. - . . .
Reqaroirg'cUrrent experlence on the inclrieration of materials containina
metals, ItCst fixed base "incinerators liJor,it the metals content '0£ .
,.. materials they will accept and' EPA has had no excerience incinerating
. '.', materials' c~taining significant levels. of metal~. in . ~eir mob~ile .
, . -. ::::. j':;" . . incinerator :..~..::..,~",:, .:~~- ,~;~ : : ' ~ ~ .~{~;' " " .'~ ~".,'~' ::: -: . ;:";-. -::-,,:: :: ;~';
Chenical Waste Management ~ Chi~~o;":iL-''::'' lead limit' of 100
:,ppn~, . . ,': . ,","-. , " , ."'" ',-" - ",.." -~
" . -;., t,
. ..... . ...", ... ~ . . . . .' ..
~':., Roll~ns ntvirorme~tal 7,Deerpark, 'IX lead limi~ 'of 500 ppn
Lead concentrations at the site range up to 98,000 ppon.
incinerated "Ould ex~ 1,000 ppn.
, .,..'I1\e estint.ated cost c:ould raRJe fran S6.4 -.10.2 million for incineration
:' (2400 cu yd)/solidificatien and fran S8.9 -' 13.2 million for ,incineration
. ( 20, 000 cu 'yard) /s.tab U iza tion. . '
All soils potentially
, ,
... .
3) . Solidificati~n/StabUiZatiOn (alt.I2)
Cement-oased and pozzolanic (materials used in cement because when
mixed with lime it hardens underwater) materials have been used for
stabilization of chemically hazardous and radioactive wastes. '!he
solidification! stabilization alternative at the Pepper's Steel'
Alloys, Inc. sitewculd" involve chElldcally' fixing. (stabilizing)
, soils ca1taminated with heavy metals. 'SoUs,..with PCB concentrations
exceedi~ 1 PPD would be solidified. .
\
-------
Fixation can be an acceptable alternative for addressing the Pepper's
Steel ard Alloys, Inc. sit'e. Fixation controls the movElTent of
.. "constituents in soils by solidifying the soil particles and by
~-~:. stabilizing the conStituents in'the soil; 'Stabilization chemically
birds constituents within the soi1 reducing dissolution and diffusion
rates. Sol idification reduces the movement of waste thro~h the
, soil mass thereby reducirg advective transport frem the soir and
. 'decreasing the ex~ed surface area and diffusion potential. . :
Th~hoot this docunent fixation, stabilization and solidification
are all used to refer to !:he particular process/~ture Proposed
for this site..:, ',.' -,.~-", :':.'~:. ',-- '.. - ".
. , . .. _. -'. 1. :.. ~ . -""': ,'':
. -... or- - ~ n...... . -<, .. -- '. '... ~ - ~ . .
' A concern with the fixation alternative' is 'the- long-term integrity
'Cweatheringresistance) of the fixed mass.' It must be detennined
whether or not the near-surface groundwater or infiltrating rainwater
will attack the fixed mass. This problem has been investigated and a
soil fixatior'\ blend c1eveloP"'8nt and tp.stirx;:J nrogram has achieved the
goal of the fixation/stabil ization \oIOrk plan. A formula to fix the
metals and PCBs in place at Medley, Florida, has been identified.
site peat and fill fixed wi t.~ this blend passed the engineering perfonnance
criteria and leaching criteria.
- t'~.. . -'. .' . 4 : -:...
In summary, testing has shown that the solidified/stabilized mass
will meet the cleanup objectives chosen for the site. The estimated
cost of this alternative ranges from S5.5 - 7.0 million CEPA estimate).
CCMMUNI'I'Y REtATIa.s
Several progress meeti~s - open to the public - were held in county
offices duri~ the RI/FS. TV and newspaper interviews were granted and a
publ ic meeting and publ ic carment period on the FS were held in tade
County ::m October 9, 1985. Ccr!rtents received on the FS were responded to
in surmary foan in the attached responsiveness Slltlnary.
C~IS'InCY wrni cmiER ENVI~ENrAL IAWS
'the alternatives were evaluated against applicable or relevant and
aW:t'qciate federal public health and environnental requirements as
requir8:2 by the National Contingency Plan (40 CFR 300). Table 8
s\J!'InUizes the results of this evaluation. As Table 8 shows,
alternatives 1,2,3,4,5,7,8, and 9 could be made to canply with these
requ irenents .
-------
.
TABLE P
S~Y OF FOI'Q..'Tt~L INSTITTJ1'!ONArc-:-~IPD1ENI'5
(. . OF ALTERNATIVES.,
" - PEPPER'S STEEL AND AIJ..J:JYS
. MEnLEY, FLDRII:;A
. -
-
... ~ .' .~:: " :.!". '.:~' ,. .~ ,", ".~.:-~~'~
"._, """'0'''_.... -.......-...... _._-...~._,....-....-
I
I
I..
. . .
,''''.. .
~ '. . ~.- "
Insti tutional Cri teria " .
--.
" 1
,. ",'. A'r t e 'r- n-'a 't i v e':;' ,:-'
, 2 3", 4 . 5 6 7 8 9 No Act 10n
:'$i: " -:- ':~' ,~c '" -;:'-- 'S:: .:'~'; -''',::,,:'~'', .:.;. ::'. .-'; ~~,~ .-,: ~,:'-':'-!"''-j:,i~'':''-- ',.-:..',;,..'
..,.~ ~. ~ ~. . '.. :. .~. .' ...... . 0' .. . ....,:, :-:.~..r ~:"""! ;:: ;~:'" ~....:": :::."~~" .~. ~.:. -l" ( -. ..~: - -.~"" ':; ."""\
".
, '
Clean Air Act "
-. ,
n
, .
, -ro-'"
Pretreatment Standards for
,Discharge into ~~1
C
. . - -..
'. " .
PeR Reauirernent for Disposal ,". "..-'C ., C' . -- r:
(40 CFF Sub-part D. 761.60."~ten' '-' '",'
. !'. ~~. . . . '-'. . .
D.O. 1'. Hazardous Materials
'n:'ansport Rules
. - .
D
, '
Recanmended Maximum
Concentration Limits (~CL) ,
C C
- --
C C'
, Federal Wate1: OJality
;ri teria "" .
_.r:, .. ~'.~' '.
" '
. . ~. '"," . " . -~ .
.' ,
E?A RCRA D!sign Q.1idelines .
C -;~,' C
Permittinq Guidance
C'
Guide to ~isposal of
Chemically Stabilized and
Solidified Waste
C
NPDES GJidance
C
C
Pretreatment Guidance
- n
D ':-::: D '". 0 " D' C . . C
D.
..
,--
C
C." C'
'C
C
C
C 'C
-', .
, ~
" -
, .
..... -
'-'c ~" C --,,', , C ,', r:
C' "C
.. ..... '. ,
-' " -.~
-. '
. ,
.. ,,:,', .~', ~ ~ .~...
0'
D '." C' ~~ C '" C : D' C --'C
., ,
.. .. ".
C
N 'c' C
C
C
C
.. ".. .'
--
-- ,
'\ .. ,., .
C .' C, .. C
C', c., C
C
" ~ .. ~'.",:",:" .',
~. . -
'. .:,...',
'C : . C'" C ': C' : C " C- ' , ' C
..
. ", ..
,.. -
..
C C C
C C C
C
c
C . C
C
C
C
C
C
D
C
C
C'
C'
C
C
C
C
C
"..... .
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
LEGEND: C - CanDlianc:e / N - Non-CanpJ iance / D - Not Relevant/Applicable
Alternative 1 ~ Solidification
Alternative 2 - Solidification and Stabilization
Alternative 3 - Solidification and Containment
Alternative 4 - Partial Offsite HandliD;J, Stabilization and
Alternative 5 - EXtraction and Solidification '
Alternative 6 - Extraction and ,Containment
Alternative 7 - Incineration and SOlidification
\lternative 8 - Incineration and Stabilization
, J.ternative 9 - Partial EXtraction and Solirlification
'"
Solidification
N
'.
D
D
C
D
N
N
N
N
D
D
D
,
-------
(
~
(
." RECC.f1MENDED AL'InNATIVE
" Of the ten alternatives evaluated for this site, six were eliroinated in"
the evaluation process (see Table 7). The four remainin;d alternatives
- [no-action, partial incineration (alt.:" '6 , 7) and solidification/stabilization
(alt. t2)J were subjected to a detailed evaluation to select a cost effective remedy
providin;d adequate protection to public-- health, welfare and the envirorment.
. . .
1)
" "
The no-action alternative was not rejected previously because of
Agency requirsnents to evaluate it beyond the scieeni~ stage.
The no-action alternative was rejected because it did nothirq to
mitigate the potential for substantial public exposure to the
contaninants on site. It met none of the cleanup objectives.
Similarly the modified no-action (monitorin;d only) option was
rejected. W1ile it might provide an early warnirQ of cont.:rninant
release from the site via the aroundwater, travel t~s in the
Biscayne Anuifer are such that the t~ to reach a sensitive receptor
could be much less t~an any reasonable monitoring interval.
In addition it does nothirq to ~itigate the other exposure pathways -
contact, irqestion and inhalation. For these reasons, no-action
and no-action (modified) were rejected.
-
2)
Incineration (.6 , '7) of either 2,400 or 20,000 cubic yards of contaninated
soils with solidification/stabilization of the remainder has serious
technical, enviromental and cost disadvantages. 'Iechnology 1IIOuld have
to be developed to incinerate the material safely. The evaluation.
of this alternative conclujed that 2-16' of the lead might be expected
to escape into the atmosphere above highly populated areas. Schedules
were examined for existi~ and planned incinerators and at least
three years were estimated to implsnent these remedies. The costs of
these alternatives are higher than solidification/stabilization and
the uncertainty of these costs is much greater.
3)
The recarrnended alternative Ct2) for the Pepper's Steel and Alloys,
Inc. site includes:
o Collection of all free oil and TSD offsite accordirq to
TSCA regulations.
.
Excavatiat of soils exceedi~ 1 ppn PCB, 1,000 .ppn lead and 5 ppn
" araenlc. "
. Solidification/stabilization of these soils with a cement-type
mixture an:! placement on si te.
o
Institutional cootrols to insure future land uses canpatible with
the remedy.
-------
.
.........,.
, . ~ -". .'.'
.....oJ...._.
o Monitorirg ~~ the effectiv,eness of this remeoh
( {..:.
The solidificat.~n/stabilization alternative 3ttain~ all applicable
or relevant and approPriat~ ~ederal public health and environmental
reauirements.. It also . meets all, of the cleanup goals established -'
for this site. .,!:"':-.~.: _:.:~_:: .:::'_:::::~.....,,". .,'~rl:"".' ,',6 ,'~ ,,). :':
Solidification of PCB, contaminated Soils modifieS:th~'soil,. rende.ring.:: .
the- conti!lninant less soluble- and/or decreases the effective surface
area to minimize the leachinq of contaminants.. Soils eontainirg
heavy metals '-OUld be chemicaUy:.fixed (stabilized) rather ,than solidified.
. . : ~.;:'
. ~~~: ~...--::'.1 ~t ::.~:: ~"--; J,.'":';1;:.:.t;~ '"'. .,~. ,
. ", .{~ ::.
In the chemical stabilization process' the heavy metaJ.s.,~d be either
made insoluble.or detoxified throuatt. the addition, of chemicals. A hiah
level of risk reduction is attainable-- because exposure pathways via sUrface
ard oroondwater are virtually eliminated. 1Jblatil izat ion. is.'also reduced
or eiirtinated. Pelative toth~ no-action alternatiwp stabilization of
heavy metals coupled with solidification of. PCBs areatly reduces risks of
ex[:Osure to contCl'llinant:s at the site. ' An evaluation by the'laencv Qf
recent, work bv the PRPs to desian and test a solidif.ication/fixation
s..,stem for this site has conclujed that this reMedy has a hiqh probability
of achieo.Tlng the cleanuo qoals., established. . :.:' ..,:: ~.~ .: -,' ..'; .
. . '
-
'h ...
. OPERATION AND MAIN'I'E~E (0 & M) '. .,".'y '
. ;~
. ':.'
.t ~. "J ... .~
~~...::-:;;:. ~.:....: <:...:"'.~~" :~:.:">;-.'\r""'£ 1,.-:~C'.~~..-.-.~!.
...
. The pro;ected 0 , M activities required to ensure the effectiveness of the
solidification/stabilization remedy consist of aroundwater monitoring.
Project 0.' Mcosts are estimated at 542,500 annually for post remedial
monitorinq. .
SCHEOOLE
~e PRPs have indicated their desire to be9in design of this rsnedy upon
its approval by the AQency. 'they would expect to begin actual remedi"l
construction act ivi ties in early sU'l'lner. 'the total. time estimated by the
PRPs fran selection of the renedy to 5i te work canpletion is 47 weeks.
. '.'
FtmJRE. ACTIcms
. ...
. ..
~ 4 . .
Followirg this decision docwent the Agency will work to neqotiate a consent
decree with the PRPs for implerrentation of the remedy. '!his decree will.
be suanitted to the CD.art for approval. Many of the technical detail~ to
be inclu:1ed have been GQl~ to in principle:; ::. -;;., ..
. '
. .
.. ~ . - ," . .-
- method to detemine area to be addressed
- design paraneters af'ld perfozmance of fixative agent
- post-~~I~Y monitoring
- institutional controls needed
. .
\
After canpletion of the rsnedy the only continuirg need will be monitoring
to verify that the renedy is performing as designed.
-------
MPJOR ISSUES
(
/
The following is a hiqhlight of ~ of the issues addressed in several
technical meetings bet<,.een EPA and Potentially respons ible parties (PRPs)
prior to an kJenc::y decision on the remedy.
Is~ue: will the renedy (solidification/fiXation) be effective?
:~ .3
. .
- ,,:".,1.'
,".j .', ".
."'" - - J.
A... Conduct bench scale tests; , :. .:. :, =. '
1. Are the tests representative of the "real '-Orld"?
2. ~at specific tests?
a. leaching (COlUM, E:P 'Ibxicity, ....)
b.. structural strenath r what is it?, is-it adequate?
c. is it hazardous by requ].atory definition? ' "
""'! 3. 'Did intentional spikirg of sanpleswith waste alter- their
!')erfonnance in the various tests?
, - -
.
~.
~hanism for release of wastes to environment after the remedy
is in place..
1. M~ss transnort throua~ the solidified ~ss
2. Diffusion fram the solidified ~ss
3. Acid Rain
4. Incanpatible land uses with acid or solvent discharges
5. Accidents; massive spill of acids, solvents, etc.
6. Flcodi~ during wet hurricane, etc., resultirq in over land flow
-Long teem stability - millenia
1. Excmline existing oerfomance of ancient qrouts (6K-8K years)
2. Compatibility with South Florida environment: is environment
destructive to the remedy.
C.
D. Othe~
1. Are contaminants introduced by fixine; o!Qent?
2. Surface sealing reactions - calciun hydroxide/carbonate
may-seal the surface of the solidified mass retarding
diffusion of contcmlinants fram the solidified mass
3. Fracture of solidified mass - will this result in
contaminant release
Issue:
Are liners/cover needed? W::>uld they be benef icial or harmful'?
A. bUd liner create a bathtub effect generating "hot leachate"
B. To be useful a liner should have penneability eauivalent to
wastefom
~ term liner integrity - will it last as lorg as waste form?
Constructability - can we place a liner underwater?
Ruffering capacity of cover - will cover protect the solidified
mass from spills/acid rain?
C.
D.
F..
-------
..
Issue:
Issue :
~
. .."....\0-.:
c:
Cleanup goals. (~~ea ~f site to be fixed
A. Pationale for cleanup goals
B. Contour line bet'-ieen "clean" & "dirty", ,-" , : '
1. W1ich contaminants are of real conCern because of concentration
or- toxicity?" . :," ...,... -,5.,' " ,. . .. " ,.. '-', ,n , ' , ,-
": ",2. , [k) we have confidence, in.: sufficiency' of data -' kri~i~
, ,;; 3., [k) we have confidence in, 'accuracy" of contour between.
"1 "--' "d. rt fI' k ~ . ' ,
" ',c ean ,CUI\.-', 1 Y_.-~ r1.ql~ :,-:;_. ,,:,.,..,.:; "",;' ': ' .
. . ~," . .: '''',' . . . . . , ."
Detailed Evaluation of, Alternatives::,Are' all ,alternatives, proposed
realist~~? , . " ,...~ ",~! ~' '-~:~"" ' ,,: ," ", :,'; :. ' ... "-, , '
-';, -.~ . ':'~:-:'j-" ;'::'.~' ..<:.:.1' ~i.[ ~~i::'.:.,"':";. ,'.~' "~:': ..." \..~: .~~
A. Incineration :. ",:~.: :' ',;.-; ,-", ~,:..", :.-'~ -: '
,l.!~ InabilitV'.9f,: current. incinerators to adequately ~ntrol
. metal emissions, ': ',', '..," " ",'
2.. ,Availability of inCinerators - are' current units, tied' up
3. 1't:Ire difficult to manal;]e, project nore ccmplex '
4. More costly ' , '
, , s. ",Substantially more ,time required ',' ""': ~ .
,,6. Generates additional waste to ~ handlec1 '
" ''- 7., :: Addres~.s, only o~ site contam~nant.. .. .:;.;- .' ," - .
8. El ir.tinates contamina~t fran: the envir.",;:::6 :.--;: ;-;~ -:~:...:.;.'~~ :~':':.~'"
B.Off-sfte cofisposal'" ",', ',"~', ,,-,-. .. '.,,- '
1. Merely storage in saneone else's back, yard
2. Transportation risks to dispOSal site
3. More costly than sane alternatives
,.:: ,,,,'=- ':-
'..- .. .- ..-
.,
C. Solidification/fixation
-issues addressed previously
Issue: Variation between PRP , Acency cost estitltates
Issue:
A. Rate of work different for Agency and PRP est imates
B. Add-a\for IBvel C VS. teve1 D, laency and PRP used
different rates
C. Aqency' percentage add-a'1S for indirects - not included in PRP
est imates
D. Agency contin;enc:ies not inc:luded in PRP estimates
Difficulties during Remedy ConstnJCtion
-
A.
B.
POtential to release contaminants during excavation
~latiles released fran soils creatirg air probltm or requiring
higher level of '«)rker protection
Debris, rubble, scrap iron' concrete. W1at to do with it?
Will it damage site equipment?
Free oils encountered. How to capture? How to disp:Jse?
Contaminant released fran fixative while curirg? Can we test.
this in advance?
,
C.
D.
E.
-------
Issue:
F.
5i te drainaae after the remedy ir'1 place. will the large
Unpervious! ~a creat~ flooding? will it enr-~ce release of
contaminants fram the solidified mass?
FOst REmedial ~nitorirg
A.
B.
Can moni torirg actually ind icate remedy perfonnance?
Effect of .clean- area contributions. Are we- not monitoril'Q the
remedy but rather the concentrations below the cleanup criteria?
Physical site constraints. Are buildinQs in the way of a
proper well location?
Realistic/reliable detection limits. 'Are- desired levels helow
that reliably achieveable? .
Action levels - if above these levels the remedy has failed.
~ndwater flow direction
1. F.xtremely transrdssive area results in. 9rTIa11 gradients
2. ~ll grarlient very rlifficult to measure
3. CanaJ inflL:ences - does oroundwater move to and fraTI the
canal eas ily?
4. Tirlal influences - are there any?
5. Well field influences fron oroosil"Q directions - [):)es the
Northwest wellfield influence the site groundwater. roes the
the Maimi 5prirqs wellfield (in the opposite direction)'?
Can we monitor th~h disturbed areas?
Does the rapid dilution in the aquifer exaggerate distance
effects and I'\ake accurate detection of contaminant release
fron the site difficult or impossible'?
c.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
ORBAN:CDM:DKt4:DOC':O:2113j86
-------
(~
c
Publ ic Meet ing 9.Jrrmary
. :.. --
... '''' -',
Pepper's Steel Site, "" '-',.: - ;!~; . ~ ',~ " ;';
Medley,' Florida '
Cktober 9, 1985 7:00 "!", 8:30 p.m....~-:-:,:::~,::,: ,:".' ;', .
, , .
~6N. ',;,: ;:~~~:,:~~ i ;:I~,:n,:': ''':':~~'~-~-~~~'l~'~~,:~ ."~:~?_,~~:~~:;(,~--~"~~-h~~~;-\,,,~v~~>~(','~:~~.:~~
-.- ~~. ..: '."'-~_.-. ," ""':--'--';'" .":'... ':.-~.".... ""'.'''.:''
This is a SI.mlMI'V of the public meetina held to discuss -the results "of . '''.''
the Feasibility Stooy (FS) on the Pe~r's Steel site '1" Medley~ Florida..
The meeting was held in the ~dlev Town Hall and lasted fran 7:00 p.m~ to '
8:30 p.m. Approximately 20-25 people attended, inclooi~ menbers of the
' rnerlia and representatives f~ Florida repartment of Environmental ReqU!ation,
~e County, ,I:epartment of Enviromental Resources Hanaqernent (IERH)" u.s. EPA
Of~ice of C.enerrtl C':oonsel, and ~e potentially respOnsible parties ('PRPs).
. . . ' " . . .
..: ..' -- ", ", . f -. ,-.: 4 . .: " ...- .".. ..... . . -
Also present at, themeetinq, were Richard JohnSOn~ 'Rf1ot II. pegional Manc198r:
' Mike HenderSon; U.S.' EPA Reqion IV SUperfund Carrnunity Pelations Coordinator:
t1jai Sinah, a representative fran CH2M .Hill (an EPA contractor that perfotmed
sane original' ~rk on the site): and Sara WatSOn, REM II. CCJt'lmJnitv' .. ';
Relations Specialist. ,'" ," " ,', ~ ' " '.,'..
. '. ". . - ,.
f.PA 1'ea-n I.eader Jim Orban openerl the meetl~ by describirg the &lJ"'erfur1d
progr~ and the history of this particular site. He then explained the .
status ot the site and the alternatives beirg prooosed by EPA. ' 'Ihe Ro. II'
Site Mana;Jer,. Elio Arniella, continued by presentirg the results of the
ranedial investigation (RI).'. Orban finished the Program by 'explaini",;;,: '
the renedial alternatives am invitirg the.citimns to send_~.~- '-:~,,,
him any carments. . 'the aoo ience asked questions thro~hout the presentation.
Their questions and ans'4rs are paraphrased, surmarized and categorized
hy relevant tooics below. Identity ot the questioner, 'where known,. is indicated.
. '. . . ".
QUESTIONS AND AN5WERS
1. Co.PARlSOOS BE"IWml PEPPER'S STEEL AND OIHER AREAS
. ...' ,,'~. .
PRP Representative: Hew does the remedial activity at the Papper's Steel'
slte c:xmpare to activity at the fIo!iami ~ site? M1ere were all the PCBS..
fra!1 the Mia! ~ site taken? N\at was the amount of PCBs at that' ...
site? .Hew much material vas removed? Operators at one landfill in ,
Alabama were 8CIII8 of the contaminants were taken ~uld' not release ..,
info~tion on their landfill.
\
EM Official: .
'the Metropolitan ~e Transit Authority and rEM have information on '
that site available to the public. Actions are now beirg designed
and planned to minimize the impact of that site on the ground water.
'Ihe total anount of contaminated material remOved fran the site was .
~,500 cubic yards.
-------
PRP Pef'resentative: r-' will the town of ~'edley not allow any water
sources to crain into ...1e Miami Canal, when all "'round' dley e\!E"rvthim
drains into the Canal?
EF!\ Official:
-
~~ nefer to the town of Medley on this question.
2.
DIFFERENT TECHNOLOGIES/COMPANIES
~r:e~~;;v~~~s~~~; ~~~s~~;~n ~~~edCO:i~:~~i~~io~~r~n~~:..
aporoaches to c10 on-site cleanup of iCBS in_Region VI? - ~ -,
. ".'.'
EPA Official:
't.. '-
-;
,
..
i. --:..-
. -
- .
.. At . .... .
EPA has nC't looked at this particular CQ"\panv. Can they handle -the
clean-ur of heavy ~tals? Bear in mind that EPA is looking for -
lona-tem, craven technolooies. Furhterrnore, that technolooy can
only address !')art of the problen at this site. The cost of the work
to clean uo the additional contaminants has to be added onto any
costf. igure associated ~ith the, technola;;y you are describing.
~ . - - . . -
EPA has examined these alternatives to a degree that is not evide~t .
in the short tUne period available to present these firdinas. ~ did'
e"aluate this particular technoloay before and decided it did not
warrant further investiaation.
- . ,.
CDM ~~esentative:
Furthecnore, microbiolooical techniaues often cannot be used near a
public drinking water aquifer, as is the case at Pepper's Steel. -
Deioo so could have serious technical and public health ramifications.
Also microbiological techniques are difficult to use when the contaMinants
involve more than one metal: there the results are often hard to predict.
3.
roTEN!'IALLY RESFONSIBtE PARrY ACTIVITIES
Unidentified Speaker: Rave the PRPs done any studies at the site and how
do their results and cost estimates c~re to EPA' 51
£FA Of f ic ial :
Yes, the PRPs have conducted studies at the site to evaluate site conditions
and to develop a p::>tential rEmedy for the site. '!he differences bebeen.
the stU"1ies \IIOUld be apparent upon review of them. In addition, the PRPs
have ccr.mented on our '-Ork and identified differences. We have considered
their ccrrments and responded to those CO'II!Ients.
-------
...
(-.
('
4.
SUPEFFUND PROCESS
PRP Representative: '-:'Ihe 'Miami Battery Manufacturing Canoany' gives money
to Superfund-. How', is the money' used"?""" ',..:, :,-, c '. -L .,,; ~',: ":" . ".-~
EPA Official:
"'.. . ...
,r
-. . .. ~
'Ihe tax on' canpanies.<;JCI!s into a fund, used for sites._~e~~:"PRPs ,,:'.'~:.:
can be identified.
. " ".
PRP Representative:
&1t saneone must own theses sites.' "
.~. .
...... 01."
._.. - ..
", ,.;,
~''''~ ~ .-'.. ";. .,~_.: '..,
"
-- "-.'
.
. . ............,
. ,
''i
EPAOfficial: ';,:.':'''!":-; ::;'.., ,";. .:'''",''::.'' ""':~: c,,.
, ,
';.. .. .
.. . .."
. '
. " . -. - ~
", :..... ..:
. ',.", ~ : :': . :--
Yes, , but' there, are cases where the owner has, a yearl v . inca'te of 4, noo
'and the, clean-tlo will cost $5 million. II'\ such a case, there is no
viable PRP.
PRP Representative: Miami Battery has oassed i'nsf'W!ctions for.. twenty years '; ~
and been told constantly that we could have a battery manufc!tcturirx; _:' : ..
operation here. 'the wells near us were approved for rlrinking w;:ster. Why
is EPA tellino us n~ that our nractices are not safe and 'the wells ,are' : .
corltat\inatP.d? -
.. ......
. ' .
.~-:. .
'u" .
EPA Official:'
"".
EPA nOi knows that many activities that were leoal in the past should
not be allowed to continue today: because the krowledge of environnental
problems is constantly expandin;r, FPA does not seek criminal sanctions'
for activities that were legal at the time they were COnduct,ed.,' ..
Unidentified Sceaker:
Will there be Tl\eetings the next two W!dnesday niqhts?
" .' .
EM Official:
.
. '\,'
, ,
....' . .
, .'
No. This is the only public meeting for this site.
5.. iblychlorinated Biphenyls (leSs)
PPP Representative: Ntat is the total anount of PCBs ~t the site?
. . ~ '. '. h ..... "" ~
F.~ Official and CDM ~presentative:
~ est~ate that 48,000 cubic yards contain PCBs in excess of 1 PPm.
\
Unidentified S~aker: N!re the R:Bs at the site buried there or did they
leak into the slte fram another location?
EPA Official:
As all~ed in the canplaint filed by the United States in this action, there
'-ere releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, inclu:Un<;J PCBs,
into the envirorrnent at the Pepper's Steel facil ity.
-------
PRP R~resentative: (
the FCBs move raoi soil?
EPA Official:
That depends on how they aot into the soil ard how concentrated they
are.. This issue is addressed in the- erdarqeurent asseSSl'l1!!nt., ,:- :.',
6.
Rf.MF:DIAt ACTION
Unidentified Speaker: .When will EPA start the final clean-up?
EPA Official:
~ ': 0... . .
We are currently conductil"k;7 the public COTment period on- the remedial --
alternatives. After the cc:mnent pet"iod ends, we will canpile the.. '0.' .
Resronsiveness S\n!Iary. Since the :pppg have eXT"ressed interest in doil'¥:l
the cJeanuT", we will also start discussiof'ls with thEM, which will probab1v
take a few ~nths. After those neaotiations are settled, the cleanup can
heqin.
PRP Rer'\resentative: How .10rr:J will the imoermeable layer described in one
_. - -. --
of the alternatives last?y
EPA Official:
It is a double layer. Most liner manufacturers talk in terms of at least
thirty years. It is not the recommended solution for Fepoer's Steel
bPcause of the possibility
that it could crack and allow the contaminants to escape.
PRP Representative:
EPA Of f ic ia1
fb~ is the extraction of the soil done?
- .../
It could he done in several wavs. One
oil less sticky and easier to remove.
any full-scale operation that has been
to clean up PCBs.
is to use steam to make the
fk)wever, we do not know of
successful in using extraction
Unidentified Speaker:
mean only lead?
Does the tem .heavy metals.
used in the FS retX)rt
.
EPA Official and CCM Re~sentative:
In this case heavy metals mainly refers to lead, arsenic, and antiIrony since
they are the most prevalent. '!here are five other rnetals--mercury, chranil.rn,
cachilrn, copper, and zinc-that exist in lower quantities so they are
less of a concern.
-------
..
Rf'..5FONSIVENESS SUMMARY
" -" ~
. .
Cara!ents 'reCeived'-duri~ the' public cmrrent "peribd,'ar~ groUped ui'd~r"'.. ..., .
issue headi~ for'reSl;)Onse~,:" r:_~ ." ".: ".,"~;:;" ."'-':.:'; '7.:' ':,~~",:,.-::,.:'",
. ',~. ", :... ~-lJ ...,'. *-- ."~'" ~...~.. .;';: -";".... . ",
ISSUE: Draft FS la~uage verY qenerafwith minimaLeonsideration of.:, -.~.' ":,
. ;:specificsite cOnditions' "',. ,_:.~ =.'~.... ,.,',,~:,~ ...-" ','; '-.'"
. .. ; .. "'. ._*. ... .-' . . ""-. ",
. . .:
. : '.. .':", '. , -
. . . -
.."
. - _. .
, .
R£~SE: Much of a feasibility study does appear liq~~ other'
feasibility study because they are similarly orQanized and often evaluate
similar remedies. A sianificant difference is apparent when one realizes
that site specific situations form the basis for the evaluation of potential
remedies. t~ may WP.1l be evaluatina a remedy identical to one evaluatP.O
at another site but the cost, scope, feasibility, const~~ability, etc.
of that r9'1e<1v are evaluated nased on this specific site. Other sections
of the feas ibili ty study, such as the endarqeD!lent assesStlf"nt, are more
obviously site specific. '
ISSUE:
Cost est~ates in draft Feasibility Study (FS) are unrealistically
high.
t, .
RESPoNSE: Cost is only one factor used to evaluate an alternative.
The Poency"uses a unifODT! criteria for J:'repari~ remeny cost
estimateS-Remedial Action Costi~ Procedures Manual-that att8l"lDts to
develop a canplete and accurate cost estimate for all alternatives. '!his
manual is based on both standard cost estirnati~ f')rinciples and Agency
SJperfund experience. In this manner the Jlgency feels that: alternatives
will be costed uniformly across the country and the cost estimates will
reflect actual experience at superfund sites . ,
In the case o~ the solidification/fixation alternative the ccmmentor's
estimate was S2.901. ~en Jlgency ard ccmnentor's estimates were c~red
on an equal bas~s, the results were similar.
ISSUE:
rraft FS does not adeauately address the environmental risks
associated with several of the alternatives.
I
l~
RESR>NSE: 'Ibe PS did note the risks and the 1qency is well aware of
them. Severallll88t1~s were held between the Agency and the ccmnentors
wherein these risks were discussed 1n detail an::! qUantified as well as
DOssible. '!he reader is referred to the final FS and the meeti~ slmnaries
for more detail on these risks.
ISSUE :
'!he draft FS proposes unrealistically low performance criteria
for remedies. '
\
RESPONSE: After nunerous discussions between EPA and the PRPs we have agreed
that the renedy can meet the perfocnance criteria. '!he remedy should be
adeauate to meet drinki~ water standards or the 1:1,000,000 cancer risk
levels. In developinq standards the Jlgency has concluded that the stan::!ards
chosen are necessary to protect public health, welfare and the environnent.
-------
Ca1MENI' :
(
End~erment Assessment is not specific enoU91\ or detailed enoUJh.
(,
The endangeDment assessment (E/A) presents toxicity and fate anc transport
infotr.1ation aboJt contc5tri.nants specific to the site. Much of this data
is contaminant specific and would be s~ilar regardless of the site where
the cont3ninant is found. However, when the E/A takes'this riata and
evaluates the characteristics of the cont3ninants in relation to site
corrlitions, factors affectirq mi9ration, pathways to potential receptors,
etc., then the E/A is site specific.
------- |