United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROO/R04-89/044
December 1888
&EPA
Superfund
Record of Decision
Kassouf-Kimerling Battery, FL
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/R04-89/044
X H»dp)»nf AcMMlon No.
4. THtoandSubM*
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Kassouf-Kimerling Battery Disposal,
First Remedial Action"
5. Report D*U
3/31/89
FL
7. Authors)
«. Pwfoiming Orgwlirton R«p«. Mo.
ia
11. Con(ncl(C) or G/v«
-------
Record of Decision
Declaration
Lte Name and Location:
issouf-Kimerling Battery Site
unpa, Hillsborough County, Florida
:atement of Bases and Purpose:
lis decision document presents the selected remedial action for the
issouf-Kimerling Battery Site, in Tampa, Hillsborough County,
.orida, developed in accordance with CERCLA, as amended by SARA,
id, to the extent practicable, the National Contingency Plan.
iless remedial action is taken pursuant to this ROD, there may be
imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare or
the environment. The following documents form the basis for
selection of the remedial action:
- Remedial Investigation Report, Kassouf-Kimerling Battery Site
- Feasibility Study, Kassouf-Kimerling Battery Site
- Risk Assessment, Kassouf-Kimerling Battery Site
- Summary of Remedial Alternative Selection
- Responsiveness Summary
,:..!- Staff Recommendations and Reviews ."-.''"
The State of Florida concurs with the selected remedy.
Description of the Remedy
The remedy selected by EPA will be conducted in two separate operable
units. The first operable unit addresses the source of the
contamination by excavating, treating and containing the landfill
wastes and contaminated underlying soils. The function of this first
operable unit is to reduce the risks associated with exposure to
contaminated on-site soils and wastes in the landfill. The second
operable unit involves continued study and remediation of all or a
portion of the sediments and surface water in the adjacent wetlands.
The major components of the selected remedy for the first operable
unit include:
Landfill
- Excavation of contaminated soil and battery fragments.
- Treatment of contaminated soils and battery fragments
by solidification / chemical fixation.
Disposal on-site
-------
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment, attains Federal and State requirements that are
applicable or relevant and appropriate, to the remedial action, and
is cost-effective. This remedy satisfies the statutory preference
for remedies that employ treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility or
volume as a principal element and utilizes permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable
for this site.
Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining
on-site, a review will be conducted within five years after
commencement of remedial action to ensure that the remedy continues
to provide adequate protection of human health and the environment.
MAR 3 2 jggg
Date Gneer C. Tidwell
. ..Regional Administrator
-------
Record of Decision
Summary of Remedial Alternative Selection
Kassouf-Kimerling Battery Site
Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida
Prepared by:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
Atlanta, Georgia
-------
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction 1
1.1 Scope and Role of Operable Unit 1
2.0 Site Name, Location, and Description . 1
3.0 Site History and Enforcement Activities 7
4.0 Community Relations 7
*. '"
5.0 Summary of Site Characterizations 8
5.1 Air Investigation 8
5.2 Geophysical 8
5.3 Geology 9
5.4 Soils 9
5.5 Ground Water......' ..... 9
6.0 Summary of Site Risks... .. 14
6.1 Identification of the Contaminants of Concern (Indicator
Chemicals) 14
6.2 Exposure Assessment Summary 15
6.3 Summary of the Toxicity Assessment of the Contaminants of
Concern 19
6.4 Risk Characterization Summary. 19
.... . 6.4.1 Potential or Actual Carcinogenic Risk and
Noncarcinogenic Risks.. 19
6.4.2 Environmental Risks 20
7.0 Description of Alternative 20
7.1 Alternative 1 - No Action......... 20
7.2 Alternative 2 - Offsite Treatment or Disposal 20
7'. 3 Alternative 3 - Resource Recovery 23
7.4 Alternative 4 - Vegetated Soil Cap/Erosion Control 25
7.5 Alternative 5 - Impermeable Soil Cap/Slurry Wall 25
7.6 Alternative 6 - Resource recovery with ground water
treatment 25
7.7 Alternative 7 - Chemical fixation with ground water
treatment. 25
8.0 Summary of Comparative Analysis of Alternatives 25
"9.0 Selected Remedy 30
.10.0 Statutory Determinations 30
10.1 Protective of Human Health and the Environment 30
10.2 Attainment of the Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARAR) 30
10.3 Cost Effectiveness 35
10.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative
Treatment Technology or Resource Recovery Technologies to
the Maximum Extent Practicable 35
10.5 Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element 35
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1- Geographic Location Map 2
Figure 2.2 - Location of the Kassouf- Kimerling Battery Site ...3
Figure 2.3 -Aerial Photograph of Site and Surrounding Area ....4
Figure 2.4 - Surface Water Flow Path From The Marsh 6
Figure 5.1- Geologic Cross Section 10
Figure 5.2 - Generalized Geologic Column 11
Figure 5.3 - Boring and Test Pit Locations 12
Figure 5.4 - Location of Monitoring Hells 13
Figure 7.1 - Cross Section - Alternative 2 .21
Figure 7.2- Plan View - Alternative 2 22
Figure 7.3 - Resource Recovery Process Flow Diagram
Alternative 3 24
.'-'. ' ..<....'"..-*.,; - . ' - " ' " '
Figure 7.4- Plan View - Alternative 4 26
Figure 7.5'- Cross Section - Alternative 4 27
Figure 7.6 - Plan View - Alternative 5 28
Figure 7.7 - Cross Section - Alternative 5 29
-------
T.TgP Q
Table 6.1 - Eiq.i.iButt» Scenarios Qn-Site Area 16
Table 6.2 - BqJOHum Scenarios Off-Site Area 18
Table 8.1 - Alternative Suanary .. .31-33
Table 10.2 - Proposed ARAR's 36
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A - Site Data
Appendix B - Responsiveness Suomary
Appendix C - State Concurrence Memorandum
-------
STATS ENFORCEMENT
' "-'"-: : :Rec'ord' of Decision'
Summary of. Remedial,Alternative Selection
: ;. . Kassoyf-Kinierling 'Battery Site
Tampa, Billsborough.County, Florida
1.0 Introduction
.The Kassouf-Kimerling Battery Site was proposed for inclusioi
National Priorities List (NFL) in October 1981. The Kassouf-
«ite has been the subject of a Remedial Investigation (RZ) ai
Study (FS) performed by the responsible parties, Messrs. Kassouf and
Kimerling and Gulf Coast Lead Company,, under an Administrative Order by
Consent with the State of Florida dated July 12, 1985. The RI report,
which examines air, sediment, .soil, surface water and ground water .
contamination at the site was completed on May S, 1987. The FS, which
develops and examines alternatives for remediation of the site, was issued
in draft form to the public on August 26, 1988.
1.1 Scope and Role of Operable Unt . > '.-.'
The remedial investigation (RI)- identified general areas of contamination
but. was not of sufficient scope to thoroughly define the extent of the
contamination into adjacent wetlands areas. . The FS identified the
landfill area aa the .principal threat posed by the site. Data gaps in the
wetlands area are significant enough that a remedy for the wetlands area
cannot be selected without additional study. As a result, EPA has decided
to implement cleanup of the site in two operable units. The first
operable unit, which is addressed in this Record of Decision (ROD), will
eliminate the potential; for direct exposure to the landfill and stop the
spread of ; contamination. ;..:..,;-.'.. v < V'^'-'I- V'H-S'".;-;;;-'-T^';^":S ^-:V '^'.^"^: ':. '" '
This ROD has been prepared to summarize the remedial alternative selection
process and to present the selected remedial alternative for the first
operable unit.' "-.'''';..'' :-- .'-_-.'.''. ' ' ''
2.0 Site .Naos>, Location, and Description
The Kassouf-Kioerling Battery site is located in Tampa, Hillsborough
County, Florida (Figure 2.1). It is located just north on Columbus Drive
and on the east side of 58th Street (Figure 2.2). This site was once
known as Timber Lake Battery Disposal and also as the 58th Street Landfill
.Site. The site consists of a 60 foot by 700 foot area in which empty
battery casings were deposited. A marsh is located to the east of the
site and separates the site from the Peninsular Fisheries Company (Figure .
2.3). A canal was cut through the landfill in the late 1970 'a which
connects a marsh located west of 58th Street to the marsh located just
east of the site.
-------
SIT! LOCATION
MH.LM01I011CN
V" COUNTY
FIGURE 2.1
Geographic Location Map
-2-
-------
^^^^T. -^^jH-ji ^-VA _ \ Li**SWBnL.1PLI3l« / i
Vat.
y^gTiHs (j
TAMP A, FIX
U7M.5««TT7 1/7J
9UMMWGU UOOnOH
FIGURE 2.2
Location of the Kaasouf-Kimerling Battery Site
-3-
-------
1" - APPROX. «00*
FIGURE 2.3
Aerial Photograph of Site and Surrounding Area
-------
1000
1981
FIGURE 2.4
Surface Water Plow Path From The Marsh
-5-
-------
The landfill material consists of rubber and plastic fragments of
lead-acid battery casings covered by a thin layer of sand. The depth of
fill material/ has been estimated to vary from 6.0 to 12.0 feet (average
of 7.0 feet), with an estimated total volume fill of 11,350 cubic yards.
The site is located just outside of the Tampa City limits in the
southwestern corner of the Bast Lake/Orient Park neighborhood
designation. The population of Hillsborough County has increased in
recent years, while the population of the City of Tampa and Bast
Lake/Orient Park has decreased slightly.. The decreased population can be
attributed to the increasing age of the residents and the increased
industrial/commercial development in this part of Hillsborough County.
The 'land use of this area is changing from residential to
industrial/commercial. Approximately 32 percent of the land is
undeveloped and occupied by small lakes and marshes. The area north of
the site is characterized by poorly drained land composed of lakes and
marshes. South of the site,.the land is characterized as low density
institutional/residential, and commercial/industrial development.
Commercial/industrial development occupies the area mainly southeast and
southwest of the site.
There are two principal natural resources in Hillsborough County,
excluding ground water: agriculture and mineral resources. Agriculture
is currently the most important natural resource, in the county. Major
crops include strawberries, citrus, and lettuce. Phosphate rock is the
most valuable mineral resource, followed by limestone and peat. Dairy and
beef production are important non-mineral activities.
Natural resource development and exploitation in lands surrounding the
site are limited.. . Sand,.peat and clay borrow pits.were the only active
natural! resources surrounding the site at this time.
The site is bounded to the east and west by marshes. Surface water flows
in the marshes from west to east through a culvert beneath 58th street and
a canal cut through the landfill. Hater is discharged from the eastern
marsh through a series of drainage ditches. leading to the Palm River as
shown in Figure 2.4. The.Flood'Insurance Rate Map for this area indicates
that the site is designated a Flood Zone C, an area of minimal flooding.
Surface drainage from .the surrounding area flows into a lake located
approximately 1,000 feet north of the site. The lake is a flooded borrow
pit excavated .during the construction of Interstate 4 (located Northwest
of the lake). A berm separates the lake from .the marshy area to the
south. During periods of excess runoff, water overflows the berm and
flows in a southeast direction into the marshy areas east of the site and
58th Street.
A small lake exists on the west side of 58th Street, approximately 200
feet from the site. A canal was dug connecting this lake to the west end
of the culvert beneath 58th Street to promote drainage and then was
extended from the east end of the culvert, through the landfill materials,
to intersect the marsh east of the site.
-6-
-------
3.0 Site History and Enforcement Activities
According to documentation by the Hillaborough County Environmental
Protection Commission, the Kassouf-Kimerling site was filled in early
September, 1978. Battery cases and dirt were placed at the site to fill
a void that remained after the area was excavated for its peat content.
The initial evaluation of the site was conducted by several agencies, and
a Mitre Model evaluation was conducted by Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation (FDBR) in 1981. The site appeared on the
original NFL published in the Federal Register in 1982.
Initial water quality studies were performed by both FDER and the Health
Department. In 1981, the owners of the site, Messrs. Kassouf and
Kimerling, contracted Geraghty 6 Miller, Inc. (G&M), to submit the draft
report "Assessment of Ground Water and Surface Hater Conditions at the
Kassouf-Kimerling Property".
In September 1984 an agreement was reached between Gulf Coast Lead and
Messrs. Kassouf and Kimerling ("potentially responsible parties" or
"PRPs") to work together to perform the investigations necessary to
evaluate the site. EPA sent a letter, dated October 5, 1984, to Gulf
Coast Lead Company, officially notifying the Company of its potential
liability with regard to the Kassouf-Kimerling Site. On July 12, 1985 a
consent order was signed between Messers. Kassouf and Kimerling, Gulf
Coast Lead, and FDBR to perform the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility
Study (RI/FS). Environmental Resource Management - South (ERM) was
contracted by the PRPs to conduct both the RI and the FS.
The RI report was submitted to FDBR in May 1987 and the draft FS was
submitted on July 27, 1987. After receiving all comments submitted by
FDER, the PRPs revised the draft FS and submitted the revision to FDBR on
June 7, 1988. On August 4, 1988, EPA sent general notice letters to the
PRPs describing the negotiation process for the Remedial Design and the
Remedial Action.
4.0 Community Relations . -.-. . . . ,
A public meeting was held on September 26, 1985 to present the work plan
to the public before the RI/FS was initiated. The meeting was conducted
by the PRP's at the board room of .the Hillsborough County Board of County
Commissioners in the Hillsborough County Courthouse.
The RI/FS wa» placed in the repository and was available to the public
August 26, 1988. The proposed plan and a public notice was sent out on
February 28, 1989. A public meeting was held on March 8, 1989, to present
the findings of the RI and BPA's preferred remedial alternatives. A
responsiveness summary has been prepared to summarize community concerns
and to provide a response. A transcript of the public meeting is
available for review in the repository.
-7-
-------
5.0 Summary of Sit* Characterizations
The Kassouf-Kimerling Battery Site consists of a landfill area adjacent to
a marsh. Soil, sediment, ground water and surface water samples were
collected in and around the site. Although the Remedial Investigation
(RI) identified general areas of contamination, it was not of sufficient
scope to thoroughly define the extent of contamination in the sediments
and surface water of the adjacent wetlands. Therefore, sediments and
surface water in the adjacent wetlands will be studied by BPA in a second
operable unit. Based upon the analytical results of BPA's study of the
wetlands, BPA will select a remedy to address the wetlands contamination.
The remedy for the wetlands will be set forth in a separate Record of
Decision and will be conducted as a second operable unit at the site.
This first operable unit will focus on site characterization of the
soured/landfill.
Field investigations for the site included!
- On-site air investigation . . .
- Preliminary ground and surface water elevation monitoring
- Geophysical investigation
- On-site borings
- Excavation of test pits
- Soil sampling
- Drilling of off-site borings - describing lithology and hydrology of
. ., deposits beneath the site :" ' : : '''''
.-.Collection of undisturbed shelby tube samples for permeability
determinations
- Installation of both on- and off-site ground water monitoring wells in
the .surficial and Ploridan aquifers
. - Water quality sampling of the surface and ground water in the
;> immediate vicinityof the site . '
- In-situ aquifer testing
- Potable well sampling in surrounding neighborhoods
- Collection of sediment samples in marsh deposits east of the facility
5.1 Air Investigation
... ........ ......,.:.-..;.....'.'.-'-..::.''..;.''./' ':>;:.- .V. ' f-/',:'i' :! '".';' '\'C: v ; .'.'''"' '
Air monitoring samples were collected and analyzed for lead during
excavation of the test pits and during the initial drilling of wells. It
was expected that the lead concentration in the.air would be the highest
at this time. The air monitoring, results showed levels of airborne lead
to be below the OSHA action level of 30 micrograms of lead per cubic meter
of air. Slabs) tha lead concentration were not above the action level at
any time during the field activities, .property line monitoring was not
considered during the selection of a remedial action alternative. Air
monitoring will be conducted to determine if there will be any potential
air exposure problem associated with implementation of the selected
alternative.
5.2 Geophysical
Geophysical investigations were performed to identify and to delineate the
the extent of contamination and to define the clay confining layer beneath
-8-
-------
the sit*. Three types of geophysical surveys were conducted at the site.
These included an electromagnetic (KM) and two direct current (DC)
resistivity surveys, vertical electrical soundings (VBH) and horizontal
electrical profiles (HBP).
The electromagnetic surveys confirmed the absence of any contaminant
plumes emanating from the site. The DC resistivity surveys conducted
assisted in identifying the nature and extent of contamination, including
extent of on-aite deposits, depth of fill, and the continuity of the
confining layers beneath the site. Based on the data, the fill has been
estimated to be between 6 and 12 feet deep and the confining clay layer is
continuous, and existing at a depth of approximately 10 to 15 feet below
land surface, and varying in thickness between 5 and 7 feet. The clay
layer is followed by a mixture of sand and clay extending to the limestone
of the Upper Floridan aquifer beginning at a depth of about 40 feet
(Figure 5.1). . .
5.3 Geology
The geology of the site was found to be representative and typical of the
types of deposits identified for this area of Florida. The site lithology
is represented in a generalized geologic column of the Tampa Bypass Canal
area shown in Figure 5.2. The subsurface deposits consists of
unconsolldated sands, silty-sands, and peat at and near the surface
separated from limestone below by a.low hydraulic conductivity clay layer
. interbedded with clayey, limey sands. Constant head hydraulic
conductivity tests of the confining layer indicate that the hydraulic
conductivity of this deposit is low and relatively impermeable to ground
water flow. The low conductivity deposits and abundance of clay, both in
the confining layer and in the upper portions of the Floridan Aquifer
provide additional protection to the Floridan aquifer water supplies from
the hazardous constituents found on site.
5.4 Soils
On-site sampling began in 1982 by G&M. Soil borings were taken at 11
locations and were analyzed for EP toxic metals/ total metals and cation
exchange capacity (CBC) (Appendix A). In 1984 G£M dug two test pits for
Gulf Coast Lead Company to characterize the composition of and to
determine the depth of the fill material. In 1985 BUM performed an
additional three soil borings and dug three additional test pits. These
were analyzed for full TCL, VOC, base/neutral extractables, acid
extractablas, pesticides, PCS'a and BP Toxic metals. The results of these
analyses are exhibited in Appendix A. The locations- of the soil borings
and test pita are shown:in Figure 5.3.
Results of the soil analyses indicate that the constituents of concern in
the landfill are mainly heavy metals (lead, cadmium and arsenic). The
fine-grained, clayey soil texture and particle-size distribution, apparent
ligh bulk densities, generally high soil pH, and high calcium content in
:he limestone deposits and clays are all factors which influence the
ittenuation of the migration of the heavy metals in the soils.
-9-
-------
GEOLOGIC CRO88 SECTION
o
i
in
COH*
O
a
SAND WITH
OHOANJCS
f £/*«£«:
till
It III I > » I
TO
COARSE SAND
CLAYEV SAND
HI
, f J SANIIY CiAY
8ANOY LIMESTONE
I 7 « CLAY WITH
SHELL FRAGMENTS
LIMESTONE
-------
HOLOCENE and
PLEISTOCENE
MIOCENE
8ond
HAWTHORN
FORMATION
OLIGOCENE
Ln«TnF Hflht brown,toft P
LIMESTONE to har »fn«
Soft, eholky,
ertam to brown
AVON PARK Hm««tOM with
FORMATION »«di of hard,
dork brown
dolomite
3-SEA LEVEL
50O MAJOR
PRODUCING
ZONES
s
-11-
-------
to
too
N>
I
til
O
h
H-
P»
fl>
U
ft
r<
O
o
»
rt
H-
O
B 1
MIT
8T 6
B 10
jp 3
«»TH 8THEETP A
B 6
B 12
B 13
32
B08 Geraghty & Miller soil boring locations
E 3 '."
o EfiM soil boring locations
8T 0
4> Off site deep boring
TP 3 ERM test pit locations
-------
I
H*
u>
ff
b
0
*
ct
O
(II
I
Hi
8
i
CO
s
H-
i
'iM »!!
^OOtpQOOQOODOOOO
. ULJ U U'|"w|t*'WMMMM uUu
«*-
t*
ArMMIMUfl HiraWMI MTVUH t«H» AM *!
MOWtMWM VIL1 LOAAflOM
A PHIMMIM 4.MATMM
₯*»» «AMM L*«ATMMI
O
«
MIT
-------
5.5 Ground .Water
G&M installed 8 shallow aquifer monitoring wella on site in 1981 and 1982.
In 1986 and 1987, BRM South, Inc. installed three offsite shallow aquifer
wells, one florldan aquifer well and several shallow piezometers. Well
.locations are shown in Figure 5.4. Monitoring of both the surficial and
Floridan aquifers during the course of the investigation indicated that
there is little or no potential for movement of ground water from the
surficial aquifer system to the Floridan aquifer system. The lack of a
downward flow component in the surficial aquifer, coupled with the
generally low hydraulic conductivities and high clay content of the
confining layers beneath the surficial aquifer, effectively prevents
migration of heavy metals downward into the Floridan aquifer.
Ground Water quality data is given in Appendix A. Primary drinking water
standards were exceeded for lead, cadmium and arsenic. No site impacts
were found in the off-site surficial or Floridan aquifer wells or in
downgradient private wells. .
6.0 Summary of Site Risks
6.1 Identification of the Contaminants of Concern (Indicator Chemicals)
Indicator chemicals are selected on a Site specific basis. The compounds
'selected were those compounds which are the most toxic, mobile, and
persistent chemicals at the site, as well as those present in the largest
amounts.
Assumptions Made: . .
."' 1:'.'-./: To facilitate the selection of appropriate indicator chemicals and to
accommodate the considerable physical, chemical and" hydrogeological
differences between the landfill proper area and the surrounding marsh
area, two operable units were selected for indicator chemical
selection and risk calculations.. These two areas were designated: 1)
the On-site Area (landfill proper including, the. narrow area of
,; ; sediments along.the eastern boundary of the landfill) and 2) the
' Off-site Area (remaining areas of both marshes, on and off the
property boundaries) as presented in the FS.
2. !: Only SP Toxic metals data were available for on-site concentrations of
metals in surface soils (0-2' soil horizon). These data were used for
the Indicator chemical selection process. However, subsurface soil
. - concentrations (although possibly higher in concentration than the
actual surface soil samples) were used as surface-soil concentrations
for the calculations. This was considered a reasonable worst-case
approach for estimating on-site risk at this site.
3. All laboratory analyses reported as below detection limits (BDL) were
incorporated into the data base at the detection limit (not zero).
Thus all minimum values and calculated averages result in a still more
conservative indicator process, as well as a more conservative
estimate of dose and risk.
-14-
-------
4. Data collected by previous investigators have been included in the
Risk Assessment. Statistical (Mann Whitney U-Test) comparisons of the
earlier data with the data gathered by ERM indicated that the two data
sets are from the same population distribution and subsequently were
included in the data base for the selection of the indicator
. . chemicals. . "".' ' -' '.'- .
The indicator chemicals of concern that were selected for the on-site area
include two noncarcinogena, lead and cadmium, and one carcinogen,
arsenic. . These three chemicals were also selected for the off-site
indicator chemicals.
6.2 Exposure Assessment Summary
On-site Exposure Pathways
The exposure scenarios for the on-site area are presented in Table 6.1.
Possible pathways of exposure to contaminated media are summarized below.
Potentially exposed populations include children and adults residing in
the area or frequenting the site.
Ground water
At present there are no users of shallow groundwater within the
on-site or off-site areas. However, to characterize potential risks,
a hypothetical well was assumed to be located at the eastern landfill
boundary. Possible exposure pathways via this well ares
0 Ingestion
. ° Dermal contact from showering in contaminated water
" .' ' Surface water '....
° Dermal exposure during casual or accidental exposure
Surface soil and sediments
: ; . ° Dermal'contact with sediments
° Dermal contact with surface soils
0 Ingestion of sediments . , .
; ° ingestion of surface soil
Jn-aite Pathways Eliminated Prom Further Consideration.
Exposure' via.'certain pathways were not considered for quantification of
lite related'risks. These pathways are listed below along with the
easons that they were eliminated.
Surface water
° Mo known ingestion
0 No bioaccumulation data available
° No inhalation exposures, since the indicator chemicals were
inorganic and hence nonvolatile
-15-
-------
TABLE 6.1
EXPOSURE SCENARIOS
.ONSITE AREA
MEDIUM
Ground water
(shallow)
" ' V ' '.
'. ' POTENTIAL
TRANSPORT EXPOSURE
MECHANISM POINT
None Hypothetical
Well Boundary
..-,- . (Household Use)
POTENTIAL
EXPOSURE
ROUTES
Ingestion
Dermal
Inhalation
:' .
. EXPLANATION
No current users of the
shallow aquifer address
via hypothetical supply
well.
Inorganics are not
volatile; not addressed.
ROUTES
ADDRESSE
Ingestio
Dermal
contact
Discharge
to Surface
Water
Marsh
Surface Water None
Marsh
Sediments
V.-Vblatil-
ization
None
Volatil-
ization
Onsite, Offsite
Receptor
Onsite
Nearest
Receptor
Ingestion
Dermal
Bioaccumulation
Ingestion
Dermal
Bioaccumulation
inhalation ".-
Dermal :
'Ingestion
Inhalation
Surface Soils None
Volatil-
ization/
Fugitive
dust
Onsite
Nearest
Receptor
Dermal
Ingestion
Inhalation
No data available; not
"addressed.
See surface water below.
See Aquatic Life
Toxicology section of
the Risk Assessment.
Not feasible exposure Dermal
scenario. contact
Scenario: Recreational
activities by adults and
children; addressed.
See Aquatic Life
Toxicology section of
the Risk Assessment.
Indicator chemicals are
inorganics and not
volatile; not addressed.
Adults & children; Dermal
addressed. contact
Children 2-6; addressed. Ingestioi
Indicator chemicals are
.inorganic and not
volatile; not
addressed. Fugitive
dust, emissions not
anticipated; not
addressed.
Adults & children; Dermal
addressed. contact
Children 1-6; addressed. Ingestio:
Indicator chemicals are
inorganic and not
volatile; no fugitive
dust anticipated due to
cover conditions and
soil characteristics.
-16-
-------
Surface soil* and sediment
° Ho Inhalation exposure via volatilization/ since the
indicator chemicals are nonvolatile
0 Ho inhalation exposure due to fugitive dust emissions thought
probable due to cover conditions and soil characteristics
Off-site Exposure Pathways
The off-site exposure pathways are presented in table 6.2. Potentially
exposed populations are adults and children residing in or frequenting the
area. Potential exposure pathways to contaminated off-site media are
summarized below:
Surface water
° Dermal exposure during casual or accidental contact
Sediments
° Dermal contact with sediments
0 Ingestion with sediments
Off-site Pathways Bliminated From Further Consideration
The off-site pathways which were not considered to be complete exposure
pathways are summarized below:
Ground water (shallow aquifer)
, .° Concentrations of indicator chemicals were below SPA MCLs and
Florida Chapter 17-22 ground water standards
.*
Ground water (Floridan aquifer)
... ° Concentrations of indicator chemicals were below XPA MCLs and
... . ... Florida Chapter 17-22 ground water standards
Surface water
. ° Ho known ingestion
° Ho bioaccumulation data available
° Bo inhalation exposure since the indicator chemicals were
,,; inorganic,, hence, .nonvolatile ..'.. :'.
Sediment* (discharge) from marsh)
0 No inhalation exposure via volatilization, since the
indicator chemicals were inorganic and hence nonvolatile
° No inhalation exposures due to the fugitive dust emissions
since these are not anticipated conditions of the marsh area.
Surface soils
0 No sampling of surface soils; area east of the site is a
marsh
-17-
-------
TABLE 6.2
EXPOSURE SCENARIOS
OFFSITE AREA .
.-"' ' . -'
MEDIUM
Ground Water
(shallow)
Ground Water
(Floridan)
.TRANSPORT
MECHANISM
None
None
EXPOSURE
POINT
Nearest
Receptor
(hypothetical
well)
Nearest
Receptor
.- .. -"
'.,- " ' '
ROUTE
Ingest Ion
V Inhalation
Dermal
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
EXPLANATION
Meets EPA MCLs
addressed.
Meets EPA MCLs
addressed.
»
& FLDER Standards; n
& FLDER Standards; n
Surface Water None
Sediments
Volatil
ization
.None
Volatil
. . -. .. . . ization
Surface Soils None '.
Marsh
Nearest
Receptor
Onsite.
Nearest
Receptor
Nearest'
Receptor
Ingestion
Dermal
Bioaccumulatlon
Inhalation
Dermal
Ingestion
Inhalation
Inhalation
Dermal
Ingestion
Not feasible exposure scenario; not
addressed.
Recreational activities; addressed
No data available; not addressed,
refer to .Aquatic Life Toxicology
section of the Risk Assessment.
Inorganics are not volatile;
addressed.
Possible Scenario; addressed.
Possible scenario children 2-6;
.addressed.
Inorganics are not volatile; not
addressed.
No samples; not addressed.
-18-
-------
6.3 Summary of the Aquatic Toxicity Assessment of the Contaminants of
Concern
All three of the indicator chemicals (arsenic, cadmium, and lead) have
been shown to have toxic effects on freshwater fauna, including both
invertebrates and vertebrates (fish). These can include disturbances to
reproduction,- growth abnormalities and/or death. The toxicity of each of
the indicator chemicals varies greatly with its dosage, chemical species,
independent physico-chemical factors, and the species exposed.
Bioaccumulation .varies greatly depending on numerous factors, but chiefly
appears to depend on the species affected. Impacts to freshwater plants
include growth reduction and mortality. It is. possible that the present
levels of arsenic, cadmium and lead in the marsh (No Action Alternative)
may impact both aquatic flora and fauna.
When considered along with the available surface water and interstitial
water data, it is clear that sediments are the principal mode of transport
of contaminants from the landfill through the marsh. Dissolution of the
contaminants into marsh waters does not appear to be occurring. This is
significant, in that, dissolved contaminants generally yield greater toxic
impacts than those associated with sediments. Also evident is the fact.
that the marsh is acting to trap these sediment-borne contaminants. These
observations suggest that there is little likelihood of any significant
contaminated sediment transport beyond the confines of the marsh. Over
much of the year, when surface water movement is minimal, surface runoff
apparently is insufficient to result in extensive transport of sediments.
6.4 Risk Characterization
6.4.1 Potential or Actual Carcinogenic and Non-Carcinogenic Risk
The on-site carcinogenic risks due to arsenic in the No Action Alternative
and each of the proposed remedial alternatives are not acceptable in view
of the range of risks considered acceptable by BPA.
While the agency has noted concerns with the PRP - conducted risk
assessment, their estimation of the no action alternative risk level is
approximately. 1 X 10 . There are several reasons why the potential
risk levels calculated in the PS are an upper bound estimate of the actual
risk levels after the implementation.of the selected remedial
alternative. The sit* related carcinogenic risks can be mainly attributed
to ingestion of arsenic contaminated groundwater. First, the agency has
lowered the potency factor for arsenic from 15 mg/kg 1 day ~* to 1.8
mg/kg 1. day :"T. This will-lower., the calculated risk levels by
approximately one order of magnitude. In addition, the potential for
human ingestion of contaminated groundwater is low for the following
reasons t
1.) The surficial groundwater discharges to the marsh
east of the site and sampling indicates that it is greatly
attenuated prior to discharge.
2.) The Floridan aquifer, used for drinking water in the
project area, is isolated from the surficial aquifer by a
relatively impervious clay layer.
-19-
-------
6.4.2 Environmental Risks
Risks to the environment have not been quantified, as have the risks to
the public health. Based upon information from SPA documents, however, it
appears that the environment.might be negatively impacted under the Ho
Action alternative. .The remedial actions proposed for Alternatives 2-7,
however, will result in an elimination of potential risks to the
environment since marsh sediments, contaminated with lead, will be
removed.
7.0 Description of Alternatives . ,
Alternative 1 - No Action
Alternative 2 - Off-site Treatment or Disposal
Alternative 3 - Resource Recovery
Alternative 4 - Vegetated Soil Cap/Brosion Control
Alternative 5 - Impermeable Soil Cap/Slurry Wall
Alternative 6 - Resource recovery with ground water treatment.
Alternative 7 - Chemical fixation with ground water treatment.
7.1 Alternative 1 - No Action
The Superfund Program requires that the "no-action" alternative be
considered at every site. Under the "no-action" alternative, BPA
would take no further action at the site to control the source of
contamination. The "no-action" alternative serves as a baseline with
which other alternatives can be compared. Potential health risks
would remain associated with current exposure by ingestion to surface
.. . soil and exposure to surface water by ingestion. This alternative
exceeds the target risk range for and dose not.attain ARARs.
.7.2 Alternative 2 - Off-site Treatment or Disposal
Wastes would handled by excavation with off-site disposal
(landfilling).of landfill materials, and impacted marsh sediments;
also included is the off-site disposal of contaminated surface and
ground water removed with the excavated waste and surface sediments.
(Figures 7.1 and 7.2)
The volume of contaminated soil and landfill material to be removed is
estimated to be as high as 11,350 cubic yards (yd ) - assuming
excavation of all contaminated wastes in the landfill that exceeds
ARAR's tp-estimated average depth of 7 feet. Total waste in saturated
.;; zone is estimated to be 8,100: yd3. . Total waste in unsaturated cone
is estimated to be 3,250 yd3.
An estimated 5,560 yd3 of cement kiln dust would be added to the
waste material from the saturated zone to remove free water prior to
transport and disposal at a permitted Treatment, Storage and Disposal
Facility (TSDF). An additional 1,130 yd3 of marsh sediments would
also be excavated and mixed with 330 yd3 of cement kiln dust for
off-site disposal. Total volume of waste for off-site disposal is
estimated to be 18,370 yd3.
-20-
-------
-80*
EAST
I
KJ
5?
o i
O '
-
MARSH
IMPACTED
'SURFACE SEDIMENTS
EXI8TINQ WASTE MATERIAL
1-1.8'
-------
70O*
FISH PONDS
LANDFK.L
APPROX. AREA OF IMPACTED
SURFACE SEGMENTS
LIMITS OF MARSH
DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE
FIGURE 7.2
Plan View - Alternative 2
(Environmental Resources Manage
mt)
-22-
-------
Excavation would be performed using bulldozers, back hoes, clam
shells, and front end loaders. Excavated materials would be placed in
roll-off dumpsters for pick-up directly into 20 yd3 trucks.
Transportation of excavated materials to an appropriate disposal
facility was evaluated using rail and/or truck transport.
7.3 Alternative 3 - Resource Recovery
This alternative will reduces the mobility, toxicity and volume of
waste by excavation of landfill material with resource recovery of
plastics and metals, replacement of non-recoverable materials into the
landfill and backfilling to grade to promote drainage of atormwater.
Soils, plastics, metals, and glass would be mechanically separated
on-site using screens or trommels. Plastic battery casings would then
be separated from heavier materials in a floatation cell. Resource
recovery would be performed on-site, metals would be extracted from
contaminated wastes/soil and the extracted waste/ soils backfilled. The
metals would then be removed from the extraction fluid by
electrochemical, techniques (Figure 7.3).
Excavated wastes and soils would be first screened to separate the
material into coarse and fine fractions. The coarse fraction would be
processed in a hanmermill for size reduction and would be recombined
with the fines in an extraction reactor. Follow extraction at a pa of
. 11 to 13 with a 10 percent solution of ethylenediaminetetracetic acid
(EDTA), a lead to EDTA ratio of 2:1 and a liquid ratio of 7:3, the
solids would be dewatered and sold if a market exists. The heavy
fraction from the floatation cell would be washed with the liquid
fraction passing into a waatewater treatment system for removal of
: ;. suspended solids and the solid fraction being returned to the
. .landfill. . .
Volumes
. .'',''"
Landfill materials excavate/process 11,350 yd3 13,620 tons
..- .plastic, .recovered ';< :--'/.: :';. -.--"V- '.-'''. \-"~' *'"'';''. "" ' -'' .580 tons
Lead recovered ' 15-25 tons
Sediments disposed off -site 1,130 yd3 1,356 tons
Marsh sediments, would not be recovered because high organic content will
cause material handling problems.
Based on the calculated average lead content from on-site borings of
1,838 mg/kg and assuming a 60% extraction efficiency, average lead
content was calculated by excluding the 3 lead analysis from BUM test
pita (33,000, 81,000, and 40,000 mg/kg) if these values were used, the
average calculated lead content would be 15,336 mg/kg. It was assumed
that these three samples were only representative of a very shallow
subsample.
-23-
-------
90X NoOH
I
ro
»d
13,620 T M
CONTAMINATED CLA1
ySSStWH/
HOMG WITH
MUL VURATWB
SCREEN '. .
/ 10%
SOIL I GRADED
MATERIALS
' ''v '
POWDERED
OTA
l
'*.-
EOT
MAKEI
TAN
.'' '
CDTApH Ifi
HAMMERHIU-
3
SPRAY,
RINSE 1 :
V-BOTTOM
L- - HOPPERS/ «
MIXERS
MULTVLE
HYMASICVI
i$
LIQUID//
SOLID '
COARSE MATERIAL
RECYCLED AND/OR
FRESH WATER
SOUDS 1
10 _
LANS/XL
» =' ' WASTEWATER
<'.- . '
~T :
V FLOTATION: PLASTICS
UU. ' - i.
':."
" EDTA SOLUTION
!. --, ..
RECYCLED
FRESH
RETURN
1 . _ UQOTD ELECTRD-
^ CtNTRIFUa mAvm Mg^-«
1-3X Pb . REACTOR
AND/OR,
WATER
WASH/
MIX
, ^WAtirWATfB
WA
If
C
1 DISPOSAL
'
* RECYCLE TO
CXTRACTIOH RINSI
. J mw ruiimiuN
DEVATERINC
"*" SCREEN . .
|3«0 TONS :
PLASTICS FOR
RECOVERY
WASTE PDC03 :
FOR DISPOSAL
*~ 19-23 TONS .
9X NftCOS
L/ASM/ FINE SODIUM
^ ; HATERML CJ..OKATE
1RECVCU
FRESH \
WASTEWATER
Na£C03
3 AMD/OR
k/ATER
KKDVOCED LEAP
. I3-C3 TONS
-------
700*
VEGETATED SOI
COVER
FISH PONDS
DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE
KEY ;. .
VEGETATED SOIL COVER
RIPRAP EMBANKMENT CONTROL
EXTENT OF MARSH
FIGURE 7.4
Plan View - Alternative 4
(Environmental Resources Management)
-25-
-------
EAST
M
-eo'
12" COMPACTED ft SODDED
SOIL COVER
EXCAVATED MARSH
SURFACE SEDIMENTS
68TH
STREET
RIP-RAP (3:1 SLOPE)
EXISTING FILL MATERIAL
SURFACE
WATER
MARSH LEVEL
CONFINING UNIT
DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE
-------
-700'
FISH PONDS
SLURRY WALL
AROUND LANOFIL
"7"7| LOW PERMEABILITY CAP
EXTENT OF MARSH
FIGURE 7.6
Plan View - Alternative 5
(Environmental Resources Hanag
nt)
-27-
-------
78'-
17'
20'
^
LOW PERMEABILITY CAP
EXISTING FILL MATERIAL
CONFINING UNIT
\
\
\
\
\
SLURRY WALL
DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE
FIGURE 7.7
Croaa Section - Alternative 5
(Environmental Resources Management)
-28-
-------
7.4 Alternative 4 - Vegetated Soil Cap/Brosion Control
This alternative, which reduces threat but does not achieve ARAR's,
consist* of excavation of surface sediment from the marsh and
placement on the landfill. A top soil cap would be installed on the
landfill and then planted with grass to provide erosion control.
Embankment protection/' rip rap, would be installs around the north and
east sides of the landfill to provide embankment stability, to prevent
contact between landfill materials and surface water and to prevent
erosion (Figures 7.4 and 7.5).
7.5 Alternative 5 - Impermeable Soil Cap/Slurry Wall
This alternative isolates the landfill and would remediate
contaminated sediments from the marsh on the east side of the
landfill. Surface sediments from the marsh would be excavated and
placed in the landfill. A slurry wall would be installed around the
landfill and will be keyed into the clay confining unit beneath the
site. A low permeability cap would be placed over the landfill and
keyed into the slurry wall (Figures 7.6 and 7.7).
7.6 Alternative 6 - Resource recovery with ground water treatment.
Excavation of 11,350 yd3 of landfill materials and 1,130 yd3 of
impacted surface sediments from the marsh. Resource recovery of
. plastics and metals from landfill materials. Off-site disposal of
marsh sediments. Placement of decontaminated materials into
landfill. Grading to promote drainage. Pumping via extraction well*
and treatment of ground and surface waters with hydroxide
precipitation and filtration until applicable Chapter 17-3, Florida
Administrative Code water quality standards (i.e., MCL) are achieved.
7.7 Alternative 7 - Chemical fixation with ground water treatment.
Excavation of landfill materials and impacted surface sediments from
the marsh. Chemical fixation of landfill materials. Off-site
disposal of impacted sediments and excess wastes from chemical
.;. ..fixation.... Placement of fixed materials .into landfill. Grading to
' ".*' promote draining. ' Pumping via extraction wells and treatment of
ground and surface waters with precipitation and filtration until
applicable Chapter 17-3 Florida Administrative Code water quality
' standards (i.e, MCL) are achieved. ........
8.0 Summary of Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
Alternative 7 is the most cost-effective alternative that effectively
provides protection to public health and the environment and attains all
ARARs. Alternative 1 and 4 do not attain ARARs. Mo reduction in toxicity
mobility, or volume would occur. The Feasibility Study concludes that the
most cost effective remedy would be Alternative 4, constructing a
vegetated and stabilized soil cover. However, Alternative 4 will not
provide permanent protection to public health and the environment.
Alternative 2 is less cost-effective and presents more risks, due to the
need to transport the waste. Alternative 5 does not prevent the long-term
-29-
-------
threat to thm ground water. Alternative 2 and 6 are less cost-effective
rithout providing a greater level of protection to public health or the
environment. A comparison of the seven alternatives. described in the FS
ure shewn in Table 8.1
3.0 Selected Remedy
This first operable unit addresses the source of the contamination by
containing the landfill wastes and contaminated underlying soils. The
elected remedy is excavation, treatment by solidification / chemical
fixation and disposal on-site. This includes excavation of fill material,
as determined by the presence of battery fragments, plus any underlying
soils exceeding EP toxicity criteria for RCRA hazardous waste. Excavated
fill material and soil will be treated to meet at a minimum RCRA criteria
and disposed on the landfill area. Specific protocols for treatment will
be determined by bench-scale testing during the remedial design. This is
a Modified Alternative 7 as outlined in Section VII of this document.
This remedy will only address the landfill wastes, the marsh will be
addressed in operable unit two. . . .
10.0 Statutory Requirements ... .....
The U.S. EPA and FDBR believe that this remedy will satisfy the the
statutory requirements of providing protection of human health and the
environment, attaining applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
of other environmental statutes, will be cost-effective, and will utilize
permanent-solutions.and alternative treatment technologies or resource
recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable. Sections 10.1
thur 10.5 below, are the statutory requirements for this site.
10.1 Protective of Human Health and the Environment ...
The selected remedy of chemical fixation of the landfill is protective of
human health and the environment by eliminating the source and the direct
threat through dermal contact with surface soils.
The source of-contamination will be excavated and then fixed and returned
bo,.the landfill., A ;significant portion of. the contaminated ground water
*ill be removed during the excavation process. For a short period of time
following excavation, concentrations of contaminants may exceed ARAR's but
this concentration will .decrease after time due to the absence of the
source. ...;. ' -;''- ' .'' '.''' " . '..'....,. -
10.2 Attainment of the Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARAR)
Remedial actions performed under CERCLA must comply with all applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs). All alternatives
considered for the Kaasouf-Kimerling site were evaluated on the basis of
the degree to which they complied with these requirements. The
recommended alternative was found to meet or exceed the following ARARs,
as disused below.
-30-
-------
ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY
ALTERNATIVE I ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 ALTERNATIVE 4
NO ACTION OFFB1TE RESOURCE VE6ETATED SOIL
TREATMENT AND RECOVERY TO CAP / EROSION
DISPOSAL AVERASE DEPTH OF CONTROL
7 FEET
ALTERNATIVE 9
IHPERHEABLE SOIL
CAP / SLURRY
ALTERNATIVE 6
RESOURCE
RECOVERY TO
AVERA6E DEPTH OF
7 FTj TREATMENT
OF 6ROUND AND
SURFACE UATERS
TO WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS
ALTERNATIVE 7
CHEMICAL.
FIXATION TO
AVERA6E DEPTH OF
7 FT| TREATMENT
OF 680UM AND
SURFACE MATERS
TO ACX8ROUND
Reliability MOM
High . ': .
- peck.'- "
potential;
liability
Low
- pilot (turfy
required,
untested
technology
federate
- cap has a
Hatted Ufa
Moderate
- cap ha* a
Halt ad Ufa
Low
-pilot atudlaa
required
Hodarata
- frequently
uaed for alta
reaadtation
lapleoant ability
Technical
Feasibility
High
- no ra
action
Hal
Moderate
- easily
intergrated
technologies
High
- long
perforeance
record
Hodarata
- physical - easily
conditions of Integrated
alt* aay Inhibit technologies
construction
Hodarata
- easily
integrated
technologia
- narrow, alta
Bakes excavation
difficult
- pilot study
required
- narrow site
aakes excavation
difficult
- narrow site
aakes excavation
difficult
- pilot study
required
- narrow site
aakes excavation
difficult
- bench tests
required
- narrow site
aakes excavation
difficult
-------
;. ALTERNATIVE 2 .ALTERNATIVE 3 ALTERNATIVE 4 ALTERNATIVE S ALTERNATIVE 6,!'-. ALTERNATIVE 7
Availability High .'. Moderate '",; Moderate High - Moderate Moderate .''.' /Moderate"'''
- No technology' -.-potentially .- limited .number -local ''.- -limited -limited number ''- limited -'number
required limited off site of mobile . .. availability of availability of of mobile ,'. of mobile*
..disposal. treatment materials and . materials and .treatment .treatment
capacity ., systems ' ' services .'' services-'' -.' .-systems' ' ' /.systsms'-.
; .'.->: ." contstr.uet . ;:. . .. . . / .. " ...-'.-. .'.'.:;' ' *':.
''. '"' ;/ llkeiy:uslng : : V '. '-, -.- '. '. ' ' .:, . .'-.' ' ''
'.'''.' "'-Z: :' available-.. . '';:; -.'.-'.'' '' -:':. ' ''- :' : . /.'.:' '.'.
'.""' ./'' ' equipment ..':.'.. ..';'' . . ''-;. " '."'. ' '?!'<; .-."
'' '?.; '.:". .'."-' ..' !'. ' " ' '.'. ..' ''. ;'.-;..
Effectiveness '- ' '-..-. '-. ' ''/" . .- . ' '.:. . '' -.' / . .-' ..;.-
, Protectiveness Low . ' \ Moderate;' '< Moderate High High High High v.
to - disturbance of ''- exposure -exposure - elleinates -eliminates > expoaure . .-exposure
N> contaminated limited to limited to identified : identified limited to limited to.
1 materials is ' -short-term .T short-term exposure ; .exposure'-; ' short-term -.'.short-term.
minlmiied -inhalation and inhalation and pathways and pathways.: . r Inhalation and .>^lnlM'*t4<>n and
' 'dermal contact dermal* contact transport .' dermal-exposure -dermal contact
during' . ' -mechanisms . '.:;' . ' .. ' ' ."during-. .-"'during "'.
and excavation. . '. ' :-. ' ' . excavation :' excavation-'
transportation ",. ' " '.-' . -:' '. '\- . ''' ' - ':'-x' ' '
Poaaible ARARs Time to achieve High .'- Moderate Low: Moderate High . ,High
ARARs not - feasible - removal of - Cover reduces .- design .- design. . - design .-
estimated designs meet source material exposure and satisfies .satisfies . . satlafles. .
possible ARARs will enhance controls erosion health-based applicable ARARs "applicable ARARs
remediation of ARARs offsite . : : ,'
":' ' ground'and ." providing no ':. ' ''...'; ' '. :
surface water drinking wells
': quality . ' installed onstte ,.'" :. .
-------
ALTERNATIVE 1 . ..ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 ALTERNATIVE 4 ALTERNATIVE 3 ALTERNATIVE 6 ' ALTERNATIVE 7
Co
Reduction in NTV None None /-.-
",-- 'except': Media
''are transferred
. off site /
. . ' ' .-.;.
''.>.
.'.. . l . * '
'. ' .'>£ '-
* -'.-
. ".' '. -"'
" . ". .:-.
: '''''.":
:''' f. '
-.' * '* »'
. * ''''
Estimated UMMS . ":' '.>
construction N/A . 3-6 Months
to achieve ARARs N/A not estimated
-.: .
r . "
High;.: .
- reduction In
oblllty and
toxicity of
landfill
Materials and
surface. ' . '
sedlMnts
*
- reduction In
toxicity .of
surface and
ground water
- reduces voluM
of contaninated
aterlals .
. '
. : 1 year
not estlMated
but believed to
be on order of
Itoderate
-ellMlnates
transport of
sedieents to the
Marsh. ' . ./
-r potential for
.generation of '
teachate rcMalns
. "»
. - does not
reduce voluM of
contaainated
aterials
Y
2-3 Months :
not. esti Mated .
'but-, longer than.'
Alternative 3
Noderate . '.' .'
- reduction In
ability of
landfill
aterials,
ground water- and
surface .. .
sedieants
-potential
reduction In
toxicity through
natural
attenuatloni
onslte lapacts
rwialn
4-3 Months
onslte ground.
water | would not
be achieved .
High "'
';'-. reduttlon In
ability and, "
.toxicity of
landfill
Materials and
surface
sediMsnts '. .'
'.-'- reduces.
toxicity and
'-.VOlUMM Of ' '
lepacted ground
and surface
'-".-
- /.
1,'year : ._
. 1 T;3 years
."High >. ' '':
V~ reducti,ojn in ."
- Mobility and
...toxicity of :
landfill. ;
Material^ and
-0 surface '-.'
sediMsnts
*,' . « '
/ - reduces. ''
; toxicity. jnd '
' ;-voluMe of'-"
J;!iepacted ground
.''" ' '
... , . '.
."'" ' ' ^.
' '' ' ' ' i ' '
. .1
' - .- -- ' - '
'''" 6 Months
.._:' 1 -'^'-yeVM-s
:
decades
Costs
239,104
7,177,129
4,M6,429
491,172
1,301,727
3,361,920
4,671,343
-------
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
-1.) ..40 C.?>H;- .p*rt \264^Subpsajrt. Xr-\Mlsce:il-aneoua .Treatment Unit.'
2.) 40 C.7.R. Part 261 Land Ban - The RCRA land disposal
r«strict.JLon«,(-LDR^) (4OOIP 268) promulgated i» the 1984 HSWA
..aiiendment;*'require, that RCRA hazardous wastes "be treated to BOAT
(Beat Demonstrate Available Technologies) Standards prior to
placement into the land. BPA is promulgating treatment standards
.for.RCRA wastes in a phased approach, with the last treatment
standard"to be promulgated''in May 1990.
..... . .-. The bn-site wastes are characterized as RCRA wastes for lead,
arsenic, and cadmium because they exhibit.BP Toxicity as defined
. . 40 CTR 261. BPA intends to promulgate BOAT standards for RCRA
.. .. characteristic waste by May 8> 1990. ./ ''." .. /.", ' -. .
. . Excavation and treatment in a separate unit' is considered to be
placement under RCRA LOR. Therefore, LOR will be an
applicable/or relevant and appropriate..requirement, upon . .
:; . ... V . promulgation of the standards. However, the treatment process
will immobilize the metals to the extent that, the waste will no
. ° longer be. hazardous waste as defined by RCRA.
, . ' 3.). .40 C.y.R. Part 264 Subpart tG,-. Closure and Postcloure
Glean Water Act/Safe Drinking Water Act
BPA'a determination of appropriate ground water cleanup criteria involved
. an evaluation of contaminant concentrations relative to available
health-based standards. Such limits, including Maximvun Concentration
' Limits (MCLs) 'and Maximum Concentration Limit Goals (MCLGa), and federal
Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AHQC), Section 304 of the Clean Hater Act
(CWA) used as prescribed in Section 121(d)(2)(b)(i) of C2RCLA, as defined
by the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (40 CTR Part 141 and 142) and the
Clean Water Act> respectively, will be met at this site.
Remedial action requirements for the landfills address corrective measures
.to ensure compliance with regulations regarding .landfills located on a
ipb-year flobdpiain.
Endangered Species Act
The recommended remedial alternative is protective of species listed as
endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Requirements
of the Interagency Section 7 Consultation Process, 50 CFR Part 402, will
be met. The Department of Interior, Pish and Wildlife Service, will be
consulted during remedial design to assure that endangered or threatened
species are not adversely impacted by implementation of this remedy.
-34-
-------
d. 1/Identified /this.-proposed ARARs-. f or. the site.' The ground, water
.standards would -not b« initially, met .but would achieve 'these1 standards
over a short period of time due to the excavation and fixation of the
landfill materials.. . . ... ... .....:....... ,-,
10.3 ''cost 'Effectiveness .. '.'''.'. '''"'.' _''
EPA's selected remedy (modified Alternative 7). affords a higher degree of
. over all., -protect iveness in hot only protecting the public" against direct
exposure to surface soils'but also in removing the .threat of future
contamination of' the adjacent wet lands '". The present estimated cost of
.EPA's.selected'remedy ranges from $2.5 million to $3.5 million dollars.
This remedy employs a.proven technology which can be implemented year
round and has been proven to be.a permanent .solution for this type of
contamination. The selected remedy affords-overall effectiveness
proportional to its costs such that the remedy represents a reasonable
value for the money. When the relationship between cost and overall
effectiveness of the selected remedy is viewed in light of the
relationship between.cost and overall effectiveness afforded by the other
alternatives, the selected remedy appears to be cost-effective.
10.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
Technology or Resource Recovery .Technologies to the u**
-------
APPLICABLE STANDARDS
RELEVANT STANDARDS
FLORIDA WATER QUALITY STANDARDS .NATIONAL °.
GROUND UATII '
INDICATOR CLASS Oil
PARAMETER HO/L ' '.
Arsenic 0.05
Cadatua) 0.01 V..
Lead 0.05,'
SURFACE WATER ' OSHA AIR QUALITY . .
CLASS III : PELSiti STANDARD .
. . HO/I .' . UO/H ..UO/H
''''. '.-. '' ''.' ' '
... ''. NS(b) . 200.'.-. NS(b)
'.' '.o.oooaX- : 200 '_ . ', Ns(b)
:'.. ^O0l*^) ;; : __'y ; .' . ..
.-.;, "O.OJ '.;'!. '.. 50 . ;'\ 1.5
- '. .' '.' .' t'O day)
'. ':»" '. ^ '.'..
'. .'': BACKGROUND
':>; . ' '
.SOILS SEDIMENTS
MO/KG .. HO/KO
VALUES .
SURFACE
WATER .
HO/L
GROUND
WATER
HO/L
< . ; . SOLUBLE
0.8 7.21
<0. 1 ' 0.262
'.> :V
.5 27.7-
v. . 176
0.002
0.002(d)
0.024 (e)
« 0.002
< 0.00 2
-. 't
<0. 01
' '.' ',' '''" ''
' ' . ._ k . . I
...'APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
* ' " *" * ' .'. '*
^ . For alf three Indloator
; ' pareBetar*. the fb-llAulng
._ '' «re eppi-oprlatet .'
1; Cleanup etendarda for .'-.
''' . aolla ahould conalder
': EP 'TO* let tf oohcentre- .'
' tlona end potential far.-
)) P«r»t««lbl« (xpoaur* U«lt or ACO1H TWA . ' '
(b) No standard .;' . . ,.''' .. ' '
(c) 0.0008 tor w«t«r« with h«rdn«>* ! then 150 mg/i (C«CO,); «bov« thl« 0.0012 1. th« «t*nd»rd
(d) Av«r«g« of two pl«« with detection U«lt« of 0.002 8/1
() Avereg* of two plea . . . . ',
under envlron^ntel
cond'ltlone whlcb->lght
ceui* dleeolve'd,-ground
wet'er concentretton* to.
exceed MCL«. '''
Cleanup itenderde for
eedlvente eUou)d con-
cone'lder EP. To'niclty
velu*>. env.lro'n*entel
level* in elalier eur-
fece. weter ed4»ent«.
potentlel for' plent end
enlael uptetae-eod po-
tential for eittreln-
ent in eurfaoe. water*
end iaffelte Migration.
-------
APPENDIX A
SITE DATA
, Kassouf-Kimerling:Battery Site
ampa, Hillsborough County, Florida
-------
SC*L u/i
pRaaECT no.s . i ui-oi :'V,-' .-, ';'.. . '' . '.-
LUCAUCill 38 TH STREET,; TAMPA, FLORIDA . ;.'
SAHM.E3 COLLECTED BYl ' 6ERA>1HTY 't MILLER ' .'' ' \ '
DATE SAMPLES COLLECTEDi :. 12/82 V . ..' " ,: \v
SA;ipi££ AHAI.Y:ED BYI . NUS CORPORATION (PROCEDURE^ EP TOXICITY EXTF/vcTiont:.,
SOIL SAI-tPI.E \- .; :.. I. ':;. Bi .-"-'; -B2 . . V . . E2
: ' ' ' : 4r7.3>T '" ..:V 4-r6 FT -. V ' 4-4FT'"-'--'
. . ':':-' '..' . AU6ER SAMPLE .. AUOeft SAnPLE
02 B*3 . b7 ' . :'-B8 B*
*T8 FT «i,-2 FT . 2-4 FT . 0"-7 FT 3-.4 FT .
'.; ' '. :. '. :, . ';'. AUOER; SAHFI.E
PARAMETER, UNIT .'
LEACKADLE ANTIMONY; MO/L
LEACH&BLE ARSENIC. MO/L
LEACHABLE LEAD. MO/L
LEACIinBLE I INC, HO/L
FHYSICAL LEAD FRAOMENTS, X
BDL
BOL
23
O. IB
.0.3
O.3
0.022
83.3
. 0.27
13.23
O.2
6.026
I03/
NAF
.0.2
O.OI9
23
: 0.2
. *&t.
,O. uu3 .
.o.:s .
0.2
O.uOS
l«. I.'
. 0.42
'. BOL
O.O>I
.-' 1.96
-.'.0.27
BDL
.O
00
10
_ CO
H O
» H-
o
COMMENTS l ''.
NAF -- NOT AIIALVIED. FOH '
BDL " BELOri DETECTION LIMITS
* * * ' I
LEACHA8LE ANTIMONY.' MO/L
LEACHAbLE A86ENIC, MQ/L
SOIL SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULT8 '
DETECT 1014 LIMIT
.: o.i :
O.OOI
PROJECT NO.t
LOCATION!
SAMPLES COLLECTED tftt
DATE SAMPLES COLLECTED)
SAMPLES MMLVIEO »!-
SOIL SAMPLE
DESlONATIONl
134-01 .;. . .. . .-.. . -
38 TH STReET, TAMPA, FLORIDA .' >
'' ,.'' * ' \
BERA8HTV li MILLER ' . . ,
12/82 ' '::' . '. :". ' : . f-
NU8 CORPORATION (PROCEDURE* EP TOXICITY EXTRACTION)
4-* FT >
AUQEA MMPLC
4-* FT
AUOCR AMTLB.
BIP .. BIO .',811 Bll : Bll '' ' Bll
O-2 FT .«-4 FT S-4 Ff 3-4:FT ' : 4-B FT ' . .'. 4-8.FT
AUGER SAHPLE .. AUCCft SAMPLE AUGER SAMPLE ' ; AUGER SAM
PARAMETER, UNIT
LEACHAbLE ANTIMONY, Mfl/L
LEACHABLE ARSENIC. Mfl/L
LEACHAbLE LEAD, Mfl/L
LEACHABLE I INC. MO/L
PHYSICAL LEAD FRA8MENT8, X
BDL
O.OOI
13.7
0.17
4
O.2 .
:. o.ooi. : .
IB. 7 .
0.17
NAF .'.
O.I .
O.O04
34. B
0.23
.4.3
BOL
0.002
2O
0.16
O
'. .o.a- ;. . .
. . 0.007 .
. 43.4
0.24
4
o.i
O.OO4
23. »
0.24 V
NAF
' . .'.'0.3
. :O.O62 ' '
.118
o. s
. -.-..22.73 .
0/4.
O.OJT
13.9
0..2I
NAF
COMMENTS I
BDL - DELOM DETECTION LIMITS
LEriCHMBLB ANIIHONV, MO/L
LEACHAM.I ARSENIC. MO/L
NAF - NOT ANALYSED FOR
DETECTION LIMIT
'O.I
O.OOI
-------
SOIL SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
-'.I
^ »-*
;| °°
i jnM
;3 ft) co
:1 h o
PJ H.'-*
i (Q MO
ET 0
i rf tp 3
; »< o rt
'), ' h K
':-.' B> (-» 3
y Si c
[vj , . *f jr
!'i P o.
s* S-< >«ir
i srg
V ' M * -
: r^
; gi
"';! |*
':.'.' 01
;y!
PROJECT NO. i ' ..'134-01 ' : ;/ .<' . . }:'- . - . \ ;. -V ,' .; . -J ': . .; ''. ' ';'. /
LOCATION! : 38 TH STREET, TAMPA, FLORIDA . ..' . .. " ' '. '",' ", .''" " ' ' .' '/'V ' '.'"" " ''.
SAI1FLE3 COLLECTED BVl .. .OEMAOHTV It MILLER ' ,. ..' ' ' "'." '' . ''-...' ' -...v'. . ' . . ': '-: '; ' '.'
DATE SAMPLES COLLECTED. '.VJ2/B2 . t:'. '' .-..'.' ;. . ' -. .'.''. '.-''''... -..'/r- '':'
SAnfl.ES ANALYZED B.Vi ..rUS CORPORATION (PROCEDURE! ACID DIGEST iONI . / .;..'' '<. '. ..
SOIL 9AI1PLE . ''.'.'
DESIGNATION! '.. ;;. ' '
______i___.
PARAMETER, UNIT ' .'"''.-'
CATION EXCHANGE CAP, MEO/IO-
AKSENIC. KG/KG '
ANTIMONV, MG/I.-Q "
LEAD, MO/KG '.' '"
ZINC, MO/KG . v'. '
»«
COMMENTS! '-.''. '
BDL " BELOM DETECTION LIMITS, .
' :' . " '
ARSENIC, HO/KG
ANTIMONV, .MO/K8
LEAD, HO/KB :.'-. ..
: . %'' Bl B.2 ',
. 10.3^12 8- 10 Ft"
" 'P-T ' ''.
' :' ,. , .; ; '
'".' 2.48 2.OI
. .;-'.:.' -0.3 ' 0.9
*' 10 10
. . :. 670 I9OO
:.;' ;' 3 ».
. ..-.,- «. ~ __,___.
.':'_' .' .
'".''
MTCCTION LIMIT .'
' ' ','.'. . o. i
' '' 10 '.
'-':' .3 ; .
"83 .
B-IO FT
.
»«^^'«^ *-_*»'
3.37
. t.t
. '. IO
2179
".' '
V-T «
""
B4 v -. B7 .''.*». ' .W .,-B8''- ':. B» ' -'""BIO '' Bl.l
4-4 FT 4-8.FT. ...4-8 FT : I0rl2 FT 2O722.FT -IOTI2 FT.' 0^|O FT I2J|* FT 22-
-» - -^i- --- ' _ -^ ,mmm'*.m*. '. ''.!.--'' --------I-- - _li«' ?__ ______''" ' __ _
. ^-, ."r- r _. *- r- --:r^--r. - ^ .r? . .- ~
4.88 4.48 42:8 I.O« '.34. -t. 33.1." ' 2.21 2.23
BDL O.6.' O.2 -DL 2.4 0.9 ' ' BDL '' BOL
. *O BOL' 120, IO . SO';-'1 . SO '' ' 10 ' ."' BOL
BOL 1714. ait? . - 47 ' : .- 33 ' 4O9» ".'.:: 2O6 -1' 141
:.3 ' . 4..-..' 42 . ; 2 . ..' .«'.. 8' 'vf 4 2
r-- - ----- -r~T - ' - - -.--- --»- -~-- -.,. ._.
_. .' ' ' " '''."' ," . ' 7 *" "
'./"- ". ' . ' ' ' 'f. ', . .*'_ ',*.'-, '
'':.-. '".;. : ' \- '' ' - ' '. '.''' / ;
Mt
"*4 Ff
.
_.._.
'7'1 '
.41. 4
.'. 3
. 10
44
is
-------
3V..
4V.
5V.
SV.
-,7V.
'>'
iov.
uv.
12V.
13V.
14V;
1SV.
UV.
iav;
19V.
20V.
av.
24V.
25V..
26V.
27V.
28V.
29V.
'30V.
31V.
32V.
VOLATILE ON6AJIICS
OCOMNCTHAME
VIim.Ot.MlOE
CHLOROETHANE
8ROMOMETHANE
ACROLE1M
ACRTLONITRILC
METHTLW
TRICHLQROFLUOROMETHAKE.
l.UJtCHLQROETHANE
TRANS-I.Z
CHLOROFORM
.l.Z-OlCHLOROrntANE
1.1.1-TRICHLOBOETHANE
CARBON TETRACHLOR10E
BROHOOICHLOROMCTHANE
UZ-OICXLOROPROPANE ' '
TttANS-1.3-OtCW.ORQPfWPENE .
TRICHLOROETHVLENE
CIS-1,3-OlCHLQRCPROPENE
1.1.2-TOCHLOWETOANE .
OIBRQNOCHLOROMETMANE
BROMOFORM
1.1.2.2-TETIUCXLOM£THTU«
1.1.2,2-TCTMCMLOnETMANE
TOLUENE
CHLOR08ENZE1E
'Z-CHLOROETHYL VIKTL ETHER
DETECTION
LIMIT
(US/KG 1
..; io '
.10: '
10
10
100
100
10
10
10
to
10
10
10
10
10-
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
: 10
10
B 1 5( Ott-OHOieDm. JETHEH^ .
PISTICIDU/PCH
'u»;
ZP
".3P .
4P.
SP.
SP.
TP.
ap.
9P.
ibp.
IIP.
ISP!
14P.
ISP,
UP;'
17P.
L8P.
19P.
!OP.
UP.
'&.
3P.
V.
SP.
. .
"ALQRIN- '" '';" ''-'
ALPHA-8HC. ' ; '.
>'KTA-8HC '
SAMMA-BHC - '
OELTA-8HC ' '
CHLOROANE .(TECHNICAL) '
4,4'-OOT
4.4'-OOE
4,4'^OD . . -. -.
OIELDR1N
. . ALPHArENOOSULFAH ,:.
EKQOSULFAN SULFATE
EXORU
EXORIN AUKXTOK
. HEPTAOU* : '' :"
. KPTAOL01 CPOX10E.
PCS-1Z4X .'' ' .
PCS-123*
pu-im
PCS-USt
PC8-12« . .
PC8-12W
PCS-101S
TOXAPHEXE
OETECTIQN
LIMIT
(U6A6)
''.' 2.0-' ' .
. 2,0 . !
2.0
-2'.0
2.0
10
2.0
2.0
- 2.0
2.0
.. ...a-fl;,:^.
: 2.0"
2.0
2.0
' 2.0.
. . '2.0. . .
* 20'' - '
20
20
20
20-- -
20-
20
20
!*.: PHEW.
ZA.- 2-OiLOROPHE.IOL-
1A. Z^ITROPHEMU
SA. 2.4-OtCfljnOPHEML .
_ M. PiCHUWO-H-CSESOt.
,- -7A.. ' t.», j-TSlCJa-OROPMEJCU
' 8*.' 2,*-OtmTHOPHE«OL
10A. 4.j-OI.1tTRO-0-CllESOI.
IU. PC.1TACW.OROPHEML
OETECTIOI1
. LWtT
.. .(U6VXG1-
"""sob"' ,
500
500
500
500
500 .
500
5000
500
5000
500
UHR&MIICS PRIORITY'POLLUTANTS
LEACHATE'HETALS '
' OCTECTION UXIT
(W/L)
1.
2.
3.
4J
s.
s.
?
*
AJUEMIC, TOTAL
BAIIUM, TOTAL
CAOMIUH, TOTAL
CHROMIUM. TOTAL
LEAD. TOTAL
NEftCURY, TOTAL
ZUMIUM. TOTAL
nUCR, TOTAL
.. 0.050
1.0
0.010
0.050
0.050
0.00020
0.010
0.050 '
pRioam POLLUTANTS
TOTAL METALS
DETECTION LIMIT
(U6/6J
1. MTIMONT. TOTAL 0^50
2. AtSBItC, TOTAL 0.50
3. BOTLUUM, TOTAL. . 0^0
4; CAOmifl. TOTAL 0.10
Si OMNIUM, TOTAL 0.50
«. oma, TOTAL 1.0
7. LtAO, TOTAL 0.50
-.8*. moan, TOTAL 0.0020
9. IIOC., TOTAL 1.0
10.. SBLEHnJM, TOTAL 0.10
11. SUVEX, TOTAL 0.50
12. THALLIUM, TOTAL 0.50
13. ZINC. TOTAL 0.20
(Continued)
1986 On-Site Boring & Test Pit Analysis
Environmental Resources Management
-------
BASE-NEUTRAL EXTRACTA8LES
DETECTION
LIMIT...-.
-
' ' IB.' N-iNiTROsboiMETHYLAMINE ' ' " 2000
28. SIS (2-CHLOROETHYL) ETHER 2000
.38. . l,3rOI.CHLORj08ENZENE -> ;, .,..-- '.. .">":<. . :.>200p -
'':. 4B/; ;^l>i4^0ICJiCORbBe>rZENE: > .v-V ' : "':V' ' '2000
"58V 1,2-OICHLOR08ENZENE 2000
68. .BIS (2-CHLOROISOPROPYL) ETHER 2000
78. HEXACHLORpETHANE. , . . . 2000
' 88.-.--N-MitROSOOI-N-PRdPYLAHlNE ' 2000
. 98. NITROBENZENE -. , -- - ' ' ' - 2000 .
108. .-I5.0PHORONE.' - - -.- .-*..- '.''..-'v ;: , : 200a
VilS. ^ 8IS{2-CHLOROEtHOXYJ METHANE 2000
128. 1,,2,4-TMCHLOROBENZENE ' 2000
138. . NAPHTHALENE. .-...- -....; .2000-
148. HEXACHLOR08UTAOIENE ' 2000
158, HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTAOIENE . 2000
168 . 2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE 200p
178. DIMETHYLPHTHALATE . '= . , 2000
188.. ACENAPHTHYLENE . ~ ' : ' " 2000
19ff. 2,6-0 INITROTOLUENE 2000
208. ACENAPHTHENE .' 2000
218. 2,4-OINITROTOLUENE 2000
228, pIETHYLPHTHALATE -..:... ,.W-> : ' ''' -^^ "- 2000' '
i?38 '-. '" FLUORENE . - 2000
248. 4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER 2000
258. OIPHENYLAMINE (N-NITROSO) 2000
268. 1,2-OIPHENYLHYDRAZINE (AZOBENZENE) '. 2000
278.. 4-BROMOPHENYL PHENYL .ETHER /.-""' . .2000 .
28B.: :HEXACHLOR08ENZENE. . . : ; .;.-..- ;:'^: '':.. ',' '2000
298 ^ ' PHENANTHRENE 2000"
308. ANTHRACENE . 2000
318. DI-N-8UTYLPHTHALATE 2000
328. FLUORANTHENE . .,.,... :2000
J38. BENZIOINE " ' 2.000.. ...
148.. PYRENE - . ^,-^^::J..v^::;,:.^H.^v?*s '""
158 *' BUTYLS ENZYLPHTHALATE
68. 8EN
2000
LATE
8ENZO(A)ANTHRACENE . . 2000
7B. . 3,3 ' -OICHLOROBENZIDINE '< .2000
8Bi . CHRYSENE - . : ; -: -.:..' ,- ' .::- 2000
98; BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL).PHTHALATE 2000
38. DI-N-OCTYLPHTHALATE 2000
L8 . BENZO( B) aUORANTHENE . " 2000
!8. BENZOlK)aUORANTHENE 2000
18. 8ENZO(A)PYRENE 2000
8. INDENO(1,2,3-C,D)PYRENE 5000
8. OIBENZO(A.,H)ANTHRACENE 5000
B. BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE 5000
-------
' - ' . ..''' '
* /* * " - .
»»»Km ' ' o-tn CMF» o-ir| 117*3 n-u B-tt o-u o-*t
OBUBaWU IIOB1 : . ' >.« 1.1 '-M, *.»-10 10-11 U-14 14-1* U-II-
. ' " -^ '
WLMIUI OBBOC fnarmn ''., MX n, '.BX .IDC MA MA MA MA
4M1 . . O-tt .. -,
AMI ' UO ' ' . .
a-u ' B*4 o-43 B-M a-ti n-u u-«4 n-u o-«4
*-ll U-14 14-1* 14-U U-10 U>}1 . U-41 1VU 1*-U
X. MA M/A MA M/A MB. . MA MA MA
100 BX. UO .
MA
M/A
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
M/A
MA
MA
MA
MA . :
MA
MA
MA
MA
M/A
M/A
MA
MA
M/A'
n.
X.
M,
..'MA
MA
"A
MA .
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
''< 1.100
,.1.100
' ,'; t.ioa
. '1,000
' «.*»
.4,000
.',1.100
l.UB
44,000
: **'
X.
u.
1.000
1.100
n
1.100
n.
n.
MM,
11,000
J.300
M9L '.-
X. '.
MDf-.
1.400'
«ou ..
M. . '
m. '
n.
»
M.OOO . . .
*.
n.
a.
.Ma,
c.
m.
MQL
n.
in.
X
to.
m*.
MA
MA
M/A
M/A
MA
M/A
MA
MA
MA
MA
M/A
MA
MA
M/A
M/A '
MA
N/A
MA
M/A
MA
M/A
M/A .
' M/A
M/A
M/A
M/A
MA
M/A
MA
MA
MA
M/A
MA
MA
M/A
M/A
MA
M/A
M/A
MA
M/A
H/A
M/A
MA
MA
M/A.
M/A
M/A
M/A
M/A
M/A
M/A
MA
MA
MA
M/A
M/A
M/A
M/A
M/A
M/A
M/A
MA.
MA
M/A
H/A
N/A
M/A
MA
M/A
N/A
M/A
M/A
M/A
MA
MA
M/A
MA
M/A
M/A
M/A
M/A
M/A
M/A
M/A
MA
M/A
M/A
MA
MA
. MA
MA
MA
MCA
' MA
MA
MA
MA'
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
A
M/A
M/A
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
M/A
M/A
MA
MA.
MA
M/A
x, n. u. .on
.014
MX. .on
* .'
M '
* '
,11O .
M»
J
71
'*
WO i
Jl
1.1
jp.
I.
M
X,
jao
u
X.
no
uo
u
1.1
40
BOQO
.on
10
ggt
Ob
X,
«,
11
a.
tie
uo
E,
.1
1.1
T?
.«
MBj
t,
X,
U
" "*
.It
' MX,
'/'M, '
' !.
''t
.'.- MBt
MOL
. »-l
.n
m*.
BX.
M9L
DL
DL
X.
.11
X.
MA
M/A
MA
M/A
MA
MA
M/A
MA
N/A
MA
MA
' MA
M/A
BX. . '
.01
Ok .
MA
MA '
MA :
M/A
MA
HA
MA
MA '
MA
MA
MA
MA
M/A
M.
.090
X.
.MA
M/A
MA
MA
MA
M/A
M/A
MA
MA
H/A
HA
M/A
M/A
X .
n. '
.40
.0011
n.
MA
M/A
M/A
M/A
MA
M/A
M/A
M/A
N/A
MA
MA
M/A
M/A
MQL
1.1
MO.
1.1
1.1
X.
n
.M
l.t
'V
.11
«!«
MO.
MM.
X
MIL
' MX
1
MA
M/A
M/A
MA
HA
MA
MA
. MA
MA
.MA
MA
MA
MA
n.
.u
M/A
M/A
M/A
MA.
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA '
MA
' MA
N/A
M/A
.11
M
MA
MA
MA
M/A
MA
M/A
MA
MA
M/A
MA
MA
M/A
H/A
BX,
.010
n,
HA
M/A
MA
MA
M/A
MA
MA
M/A
M/A
MA
MA
M/A
M/A
«-
n
a,
1.1
MDL
a.
.M
X
110
X.
GB.
MOL
BX.
M.
' «.
...
BL '
M/A .
H/A
M/A
MA
MA
MA
M/A
H/A
MA
M/A
M/A
M/A
M/A
.010
l.»
MX
«/A
M/A
M/A
M/A
M/A
M/A
M/A
M/A
MA
MA
M/A
M/A
M/A
.010
fUA
MH
.40
.0311
X
BX.
M/A
MA
M/A
MA
M/A
M/A
M/A
M/A
M/A
M/A
MA
N/A
MA
MA-MOT
-------
MA1CR DUALITY ANALYTICAL DATA
PPOJGCr NO.I 136>l
LOCATIONi SB TM STREET, TAMPA, FLORIDA
COLLECTED 0YI OERAOHfY « MILLER
UAIE artfvn.es CIXLECTEDI 9/is/ai
SAMPLES AMALYZCD BYl ULC
MONITOBIN8 «U. STANDARD IS 23 33 ID
Ml
UNIT
.DISSOLVED COFFER. «J/1 I ' POL 80L BOL OOL
orSSOLVED LEAD, «q/l O.OS BOL O.O3 BOL BOL
ursroi.vF.n ZINC. -9/1 o.os o.oa 0.04 o.os
pit. pi' vitlKs >- 4.3 7.3 7.1 *.* S. 7
L-lWOUCTtVITY, u«o*i»/c» 280 38O 420 270
IOTA!. DISSOLVED SOLIDS,ag/t SOO »* 244 244 432 ZOO
R.onioA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE CHAPTER 17-22 PUBLIC DRINKING WATCH
sucnwrARY STANDARD FOR COPTER
' HOY DC GREATER IF NO OTHER MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVEL IS EXCEEDED
>- . GnEATGR THAN OR EQUAL TO
IT). PEUOW DETECTION LIMITS
DETECTION LIMIT
CnPFOT?, mq/l 0.01 - 0.02
LEf\0, «g/l 0.01 - O.OS
. . ZINC, mg/l '..'. .:..'- O.O1
Water Quality Analytical Data
Geraghty & Miller
1981
-------
MATCH QUALITY ANALYTICAL DATA
PROJECT NO.j
LOCATIONi £ TH STREET. TAMPA. PLORI8A
SAMPLES COLLECTED art 6CXAGHTY It
OATS SAMPLES COLLfCTOi 11/3/12
ANALYZED iVi NPS LABORATORY
MONITORING WCLL STANDARD 10 19 23
DESIONATIONi . -
pA*A«erER. UNIT . , . ...-.- ' '
TOTAC ARSENIC. «9/I
DISSOLVED aP3£NIC, «J/1
TOTAL CAOMIun. .i>q/l
OISSOUVEO CAontun. -/!
DISSOLVED CSfPER, «q/l
TOTAL IRON, aiq/l
DISSOLVED IRON, aq/1
TOTAL LEAD, .w)/t
DISSOLVED LEAD. " 6.3
soo *
"10
BDL
SOL
BDL
aoL
0.02
aoL
6. 1
2.*
0.0*
0.003
0.1
o.:
0.0*
0.11
3.1
270
1*3
93
;.» .
0.003
0.003
90L
IDL
0.01
O.O1
1.3
I. I
0.012
O.003
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.1
*.
zzo
l*>
2;
*> M
* «>
SDL
O.OO3
SOL
BDL
0.02
90L
9.2
4. a
2.7
0.00*
O. 1
BDL
0.0*
0. IS
*
21O
173
1O2 »
S.3
COmENTSi
STANDARD FLORIDA aCMIMISTRATIVE CODE CHAPTER 17-2T PUBLIC DRINKING WATER STAND
SECONDARY STANDARD FOR COPPER AMD IRON
I1AY BE SREATS* IP NO OTHER MAXlnun CONTAMINANT LEVEL IS EXCEEDED
,. mm GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO
NAF MOT ANALYZED POR - . ' '
BDL BELOW DETECTION LIMITS
DETECTION LIHIT
TOTAL ARSENIC. ~)/l O.OO1 - 0.033
TOTAL CAOniun, «Q/I o.oos - o.oi
TOTAL COP*E«. «q/l 0.01 - O.O2
TOTAL IRON, nq/l O.01 - <>.O2
TOTAL LEAD, «<»/i o.oi - 0.03
' TOTAL ANTIMONY, «KJ/1 O.I
TOTAL iif-c. .»q/r . . . o.oi '..'.
".: TOTAL'.SU3PSHDEO SOLIOS.aq/l' ' 1
3ULPATE. «5/l . . 'I .'-
Water Quality Analytical Data
Geraghty & Miller
1982
-------
MATE* QUALITY ANALYTICAL DATA
PROJECT NO..I ' tr*-.n ' '.''.' '. .. .
-LOCATION! ' ' 58 TH STREET, TAMPA, FLORIDA
SAMPLES COLLECTED BYi '' SSRAGMTY * MILLSR
DATE SAMPLES COLLECTEDi t=/^/92
SAMPLES AMALVXEO 9Y: *PS LABORATORY
MCNlTORINa UCLL '. STANDARD .'.' 2B '. ; S3.. '. ' -SO 51 ' 48
OSSIBNATIONi .' ' ' . .-..'. : . ~ .-. -.-.
PARAMETER. UNIT
TOTAL ARSENIC. «4/i
DISSOLVED AASENtC. «9/l
TOTAL CAOniuH, .W)/1 .
bissoLvco CAonzun. »)/i
TOTAL COPPER. .«j/i
otssoLvea COPPER. *q/.i
TOTAL IRON, « *.s
500
..' .
:ro
0.114
o.o«* ,
.0.02
0.01
BOL
BOL
21
SO .
4. ft
1.48
BOL
BOL
. o.r/
0.2*
*.:
641
«»a
:oa---
9O
O.OO4
0. OO4 '
BOL
BOL
BOL
aoL
4.»
4.4
0.44
O.O1
BOL
BOL
0.07
0.07
4
CZC
iar
240
' 7
0.005
0.002
0.01
BOL
BOL
9DL
12
4.7
0.14
0.009
BOL
BOL
0.0*
.0.0*
4.4
zaz
n*
.." 6-0
5.4
o.oo*
0.00«
BOL
BOL
BOL
BOL
2.3
2.4
0.07
0.011
OL
BOL
0.02
0.02
4.5
*:«
294
a
:4
o.o*
o. o»
0.01
O.O1
BOL
BOL
9.S
9.4
S.97
1.28
BOL
SOL
0.2
0.2
4
587
444
14
190
0,OS3
o.ovr
0.01
0.01
BOL
BOL
4.9
4. a
2.31
1.09
BOL
BOL
0.0*
0.0*
4.4
853
450
20
2ZO
COrtrSNTSi
STANDARD FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE cqoe CHARTS* i7-= PUBLIC ORINKINO vurrgR STANDARDS
SECONDARY STANDARO ?0ft COPPER AND IRON
.. MAY BE SREATS* IF NO OTHER MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVEL IS EXCSSSEO
" '-'" >-" (WEATHfi THAN OR 60UAL TO
NAP NOT ANALYZES ."» ' . ' '.
BOL ~ BSLOW OETECTICfl LIMITS
" DETECTION . .
-..-.-' -.-'. - . ...twrr. . .- . . / .-.
., :,TDT3«, CACH«H; n^/1 .0.01.'. . '. . ., '. - - . '. ' / . .. '
:'.y-i:-'''^"-'i_'^- . ';- '';''-' ' ' -"''' '-'' ' ' '' '"' .' ' .
'' 'TOTAL COPPEP. .-ng/1' ' -0.01-.- . . ;.'. ' ' '
TOTAL A^ffI>CNY. .tig/I 0.01
Water Quality Analytical Data
Geraghty & Miller
1982
-------
WATER QUALITY ANALYTICAL DATA
-OJECT NO. t
CAMPLES COLLECTED BYi
DATE SAMPLES COL'.ECTSOi
SAMPLES ANALYZED 8Yi
MONITORING WELL
DESIGNATION!
134-01
S» TH STREXT, TAMPA, FLORIDA
GERAGHTY h MILLER
NFS LABORATORY
STANDARD ID 13
PARAMETER, UNIT
TOTAL ARSENIC, «g/l
DISSOLVED ARSENIC. «q/i
TOTAL CADMIUM, *g/l
DISSOLVED CACillUn, aq/I
TOTAL COPPER, « 4.S
500 «
220
0.004
0.00*
0.003
SDL
BDL
BOL
3.2
3.3
0.003
BM.
DC
DL
O.03
0.03
a.»
273
202
IO
iOL
0.13
0. 13
BOL
BOL
BOL
BOL
0.61
0.41
0.01
0.01
O.I
BOL
0.03
0.03
4.3
242
210
a
17
20
:s
30
JS
49
0. 13
0. l^
O.Ol
0.01
DDL
BCL
23
:a
2.6
2
0.2
0.2
0.27
0.27
6. 1
337
438
14
79
O.OOI
O.OO1
8DL
BDL
BOL
BOL
S.2
3.2
0.19
0.19.
BOL
BOL
0.03
0.03
6
217
100
a
7
OL
BOL
0.01
BOL
BOL
BOL
8.4
4.9
O.OOI
OL
0.2
BOL
O.03
0.03
4.6
289
214
16
BOL
0.007
O.OO7
0.01
BOL
BCL
BOL
0.28
0.28
0.028
0.028
0.3
0.2
0.04
0.04
4.»
454
474
4
110
0.034
0.034
0.01
0.01
0.01
BOL
B.l
7.7
3.8
2.9
0.3
0.2
0. 13
0.12
4
392
448
2
ISO
0.043
0.041
0.01
BOL
BCL
BOL
7.3
4.4
1.4
0.93
0.2
O.I
0.04
0.04
4.3
622
498
2
180
COMMENTSI
STANDARD " FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE COOK CHAPTER 17-22 PUBLIC DRJNK1HO WATER STANDARDS
' -V SECONDARY STANDARD FOR COPPER AND IRON
MAY BE GREATER IF NO OTHER MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVEL IS EXCEEDED
>. .. GREATER THAN Oft EOUAL TO
MAP .. MOT ANALYZED FCR
"BELOW DETECTION LIMITS
TOTAL ARSENIC, aq/1
TOTAL CADMIUM, nq/1
TOTAL COPPER, <*<}/l
TOTAt.lPON, «9/l .
TOTAL LEAD, «q/l . .
-TOTAL AUTIMOMY, «fl/l
TOTAL ZINC, imq/1
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS,*?/!
SULFATE, .aq/l
DETECTION LIMIT
0.001 - 0.003
O.OO3 - O.Ot
0.01 - 0.02
O.Ol - b.02
0.01 - O.OS
.0. I '
O.Ol
I
1
Water Quality Analytical Data
Geraghty & Miller
1983
-------
MATSn DUALITY ANALYTICAL DATA
FP.OJECT mi. :
LOCATION.) ... ..- . '. '
3AHPt.es COLLECTED 6V:
DATE SAJ1FL2-5 CCLL£CTE9l
SAMPLS3 ^NiiLVZEu SV:
:a TH STRErr, TAMPA, FLOFIPA-
GEF.AGHTY I nlLLER '
t/lo/84
NFS LABORATORY
MONITOR IMG WELL
DESIGNATION)' .
STANOAAO
10
IS,
3D,
:s
30
39
43
ss
PARAMETER, UNIT
0.03
-o.oi
0.3 '
TOTAL ARSENIC,
DISSOLVED ARSENIC, a*/I
TOTAL CADMIUM, «g/i.'
DISSOLVED CADMIUM', mq/'i
TOTAL COPPER. «q/J
DISSOLVED COFFER, .«ij/l
TOTAL IRON,' ag/r -
DISSOLVED IRON. «q/l
TOTAL LEAD, og/1
DISSOLVED LEAD, «q/l
TOTAL ANTIMONY, flwj/1
DISSOLVED ANTIMONY, mq/l
TOTAL ZINC. «q/l
DISSOLVED ZIMC, mq/l
pH, pH unit*
CONDUCTIVITY, umot\*/cm
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS,mq/l SOO
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS, »q/l
SULPATE, «g/l . . . 29O
0.09
>- 4.9
BOL
BOL
BOL.
BOL
BOL
BOL
3.1
2.8
0.07
BOL
BOL
BDL
0.01
BOL
4.4
242
198
4
' ' * ^'"
>.OOS
>.OOS
>.OOS
BOL
BCL
BOL
1.2
1. 1 '
BOL
BOL
BOL
BOL
0.01
BOL
4.9
244
164
2
11
0.02
0.009
o.-r-os
BOL
BDL
BOL
17
0.08
2.8
BOL
0.2S
O.23
0.04
0.07
4.4
293
232
10
14
BOL
BOL
BOL
BCL
BOL
BOL
1O
9.2
BOL
BOL
BOL
SOU
0.01
BOL
4.4
141
14O
2
9
BOL
BOL
BOL
BOL
BOL
BOL
9.4
0.14
BOL
BOL
. BOL
BOL
O.02
BOL
7
301
lrf2
22
BOL
BOL
BOL
BOL
BDL
BOL
BOL
1.9
1.4
BOL
BOL
O.O03
O.O03
0.01
BOL
4.*
3S1
234
2
24
O.OO3
BCL
0.01
BCL
BOL
BOL
6.6
0.18
1.9
0.2
0.09
0.08
0.11
0.1
4.2
332 -
274
17
84
O.OI3
0.009
0.003
BOL
BCL
BOL
0. 18
0.07
1
0.72
0.063
0.04S
0.01
BOL
7.4
404
290
3
83
COMMENTS) . .
STANDARD FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE CHAPTER 17-22 PUBLIC DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
SECONDARY STANDARD FOR CQFPEn AND IRON
MAY BE GREATER IP UO OTHER MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVEL IS EXCEEDED
- . >». "GREATER THAN. OR EQUAL TO1 -. . .v" -... .
NOT ANALYZED FOR . .
NAP
BOL «
BELOW DETECTION LIMITS
TOTAL ARSENIC, «g/I
TOTAL CADMIUM, mq/l
'.TOTAL COPPER, «q/l
. TOT.;I_ if.au, ^q/t
' 'TOTAL L£Ap,-,i«q/l ' '
TOTAL..ANTIMONY., «g/l .. .
TOTAL ZINC, mq/l " ~
. TOTAL.SUSPENDED SOLIDS,mq/l
SULFATE, lag/1
DETECTION LIMIT
0.001 - 0.003
0.003 - 0.01
0.01 - O.O2
0.01 - 0.02
'o.or - o.os ..
Oil ,V '
' "'0.01 .
.1 .-..'"
1
Water Quality Analytical Data
Geraghty & Miller
1984
-------
MATES OUAL1TY ANALYTICAL DATA
PROJECT NO. lji-OI
LOCATION: . 28 TH STREET. TAMPA. FLORIDA
.SAMPLES COLLECTED BY: GULF COAST LEAD '
DATE SAMPLES COLLECTED! l/IA/84
SAMPLES AMALVZEu 6Y: UPS LABORATORY
MONITORING WELL STANDARD 10 IS ' ' CO ~S 'D -3 43 -a
DESIGNATION . . .' ; . ... , . . .'
PARAMETER. UNIT
TOTAL L£AO, «(J/l
pM, pH unit*
CONDUCTIVITY. u»ar\»/e»
SULfATE, auj/1
0.09
>- 4.3
230
0.04
4.2
r»o .
BOL
0.02
6.8
rto
10
2.3
4.2
310
12
0.04
4.4
370
7
BOL
4.9
310
BOL
IOL
4.4
37O
19
1.7
5.?
3 SO
74
0.93
4.8
43O
88
COMT*NT3l .
STAWOAfiO rLORIOA AOntNISTMATIVK COOC CHAPTER 17-22 PUBLIC OKIMCINO MArU STAMOAMOf
SECONDARY STANOAfiO fOH COPPER AND IRON
MAY Bfi QRCATER If NO OTHER MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LCVCL 18 CXCEsOCO
> « GREATER THAN OM EQUAL TO * "
NAP ~ NOT ANALYZED FOR . ...
BDL » BELOW DETECTION LIMIT! * :
OCTICTION LIMIT
TOTAL LEAD, «fl/l 0.01 - 0.03
SULFATI,
Water Quality Analytical Data
Gulf Coast Lead
1984
-------
QUALITY ANALYTICAL DATA'
PSCJECT NO.:
LOCATION:
SAMPLES COLLECTEDBY:
:DATS SArPl_£S COLLSCTSDi
SAMPLES ANALYZED BY:
MOWITORIMP WELL
DESIGNATION* . ' . .
136-H
58 TH STREET, TAMPA, FLORIDA
ERM-SOUTH \ '-.
»/S«-S»/0*.
DELTA ENGINEERING
STANDARD KK9
KKFLl RINSE MATES
PARAMETER, UNIT
TOTAL ARSSIIC, m?/ 1
DISSOLVED ARSENIC, iaq/l .
TOTAL CAOMlun, atq/l
DISSOLVED CAUMIUM, mg/l
TOTAL L5AD, mg/1
DISSOLVED LEAD, «q/l
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS, mg/I
CONDUCTIVITY, u«oM»/c«
pH, pH units
SULFATE, «g/l . ;
O.OS
0.01
O.05
50O »
>- 6.3
'- ..:2SO'
BDL
BOL
BOL
BOL
O.O1
0.012
186
185
3.6
16.3
0.001
BOL
0.002
O.002
0.01
0.01
783
49O
10.2.
1.32
NAF
SOL
NAF
BDL
NAF
BOL
NAF
NAF
NAF
NAF
COMMENTS* .
STANDAHD « FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE CHAPTER 17-22 PUBLIC DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
MAY BE GREATER IF NO OTHER MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVEL IS EXCEEDED
>. _ SREATERTHAN OR EQUAL TO ' '
BDL -«*-' BELaw DETECTION LIMITS ' ' .
DETECTION LIMIT FOR ARSENIC O.OO2 «9/l
DETECTION LIMIT FOR CADMIUM - O.OO2 atg/l
DETECTION LIMIT FOR LEAD 0.01 «g/I
DETECTION LIMIT FOR SULFATE - 1 «g/l. ,. :
NAP -- NOT ANALYZED FOR . .-/.' '' .' . '. % '' ' ' . .' '
Water Quality Analytical Data
ERM-South
1986
-------
MATER QUALITY ANALYTICAL DATA ' . . . - . '
PROJECT NO. s 154-01
LOCATIONl 38 TH STREET, TAMPA. FLORIDA
SAMPLES COLLECTO rvt ERH-SCUTH .
DATE SAMPLES COLLECTED! »/9* " .- :
'SAMPLES ANALYZED BY t . COMPUCHeJI ' . .- '.'
MONITORING WELL STANDARD 48 29
OESlSNATIONi
PARAMETER. UNIT '.-.' . .'
BASE-NEUTRAL EXTRACTABLSS
DI-N-eUTYLPHTHALATE. U3/L 801. SOU BOL
INORGANICS PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
TOTAL. ANTIHONV. W3/L - O.2 0.28 SOL
TOTAL ARSENIC. 1G/L 0.03 0.16 BDL 8DL
TOTAL CHROMIUM, nG/L 0.03 SDL BDL BDL
TOTAL COPPER. nQ/L 1 SOL BDL BDL
TOTAL LEAD. MG/L 0.03 4.3 3.3 .BDL
TOTAL HEKCURY, no/L 0.002 SDL BDL BDL
TOTAL THALLIUM. MO/L 0.07 SOL BDL
TOTAL ZINC. MO/L ' ' O.09 BDL BOL
VOLATILE ORSANICS
nSTHVLENE CHLORIDE. US/L 12 BOL 7J
COMfl£NTS»
STANDARD FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE CHAPTER 17-2= PUBLIC DRINKING '^ATER STANDARDS
SECONDARY STANDARD FOR COPPER
J "- ESTIMATED CONCENTRATION. VALUE IS BETWEEN THE DETECTION LinIT AND ONE-HALF THAT LIMIT.
NAP NOT ANALYZED FOR -
BDL BELOW DETECTION LIMITS . . . . .
; . '. -:'-.; . ' -- -' ., " DETECTION LIMIT' " '
DI-N-3UTYLPHTHALATE, U6/L . tO
TOTAL ANTIHONY, MO/L ': 0.03 - O.2O
TOTAL ARSENIC. MO/L O.OS
TOTAL CHROmUH, M6/L O.OS
TOTAL COPPER. MQ/L O.I
TOTAL LEAD. MO/L o.os
. '..;-. TOTAL .MERCURY, HO/L ' - ' :O.OOO2 . .
TOTAL THALLIUM. M6/L . . '' O.OS . .
.-...- ,.'.. TCTAL ZINC.. MO/L '' . ' . .0.02 . -'..'.
MSTMYLENE CHLORIDE. 'UG/L ' 1O
Water Quality Analytical Data
ERM-South
1986
-------
PROECTKL: |34-«I
UXATCft SBTHSmEer.TAMPK.aOWM
STMOMO . 19 a JS «S tt tO NO 9 » 01
GESGNAnOc ' '
TOTAI AASEMC. irqt i.os an so. an. wo. to. an. «n an. a.m an.
asacxveo«ASttc.««t an. an. an. an. an. an. an an, an. an.
TOTAL CAOMUM. m* uM an. an. an. «J«J t.m an. an .a i.«n an.
ooao.vcocAOMUH.iv9i an. an. .an «-« an. an. an *»» an. an
1.05 i.gi «. iv» . «.n i.s }.o ' a.ou ca/i us i.ss» an c
a.fi an. «.«i «.2> i.« an. an . tut en an <
TOTALOBSOLVg TO-fTimfl 100 * 1«1 M til 2M Z4S XI.S !« ' til 211 121
ooNoucnvirr.MTWIIOH too ... .itt ' ZM ai« ' in IM t«a tv« IM M
OH.pHvml >-fJ I It SO lit 1.1 t» f.U U «J» S !
SULFATC. K«l 2M '.IS 1.31 $.74 MS * LM '.n 12 IL1 M.I
HO ait3 OW1CATE CF «
Water Quality Analytical Data
ERM-South
1986
-------
tin guM.]TV MMLTTICML
OJICT «. I IJ*-OI
rrncrr. r*>»*. n.o"io«
COLLfCTtO »V| Om-MUTM
cou-IC7iDi ' i/*-»/rr
MOMITOJIII4 «*U. STMOMO I* 2* 3» « » 10 10 J» arrOOl «X» XK7
aMIWMTIOHl
VWMKTfM. IMIT
'TOT*. CMHII*. -»/i o.oi id." ra. o.ooa 0.004 HU «. nu t«. «. «. «-
Bma.v«n e-oniwi. ^/i tot. we «. o..ooa «. »«. »i * "-
TOT«. LI«0, ^/l 0.09 0.01* O.OS» O.OS* 2. IS l-l« . O.OI» I . J3 «». O.OZ3
0.530LV.C. Ut-0. ^/! 0.01 0.01* O.OI 0.193 l.l* O.OI* I . .£ M O.OI7
IOT.C OlSlOLVtB IOklOS.^/1 900 l«« IO9 IT4 Jt« »»« IW l»S IJ» "" O*
CO-OUCTIVIfr. v-w./c. 1ST 110 JOO J7S J*0 IJ» 3OO 2«O 3OO 130
» 4.3 . S.» 3.W ».J 3.*S »' » ' ' « r .. J ft1?
z» !»- « ».« ia« it* «. !>» '«' l9-4 '*
TANOMO 10MIM MniNKTIMriV* COM O«»TU« 17-23 HJW.IC HtlMCIM M*Tt» «T*
* MY M gKi/triH ir NO an** mtitiun COWTAHKONT LCVIL, in t»«im»
>. « ONUITIII TWIN OK fOUM. TO ' .
nroo\ M.INO OUP^IOTC OF 20
IM. MUIM MTKTIOM
OCTKCTION LIMIT f<3* CAOniltl - O.OO3 »/
'OITICTIOM LIMIT *OM LCAO - 0.01 «/!
OCTfCTION LIMIT rc« M^«T( I */!
NrtfER OUM.1TV AMALYTICM. DATA ICONTIMUEOI
rr«iuEi:T MO.I ITA-OI
Ltit:nriOMi 30 TH STRJTET, TA/1PA, FLORIDA
BYJ . ERM-SOUTH
DrtTE SAMPLES CtX.LECr60i l/6--»/B7 .
Al4At,VZEO OYi . DELTA CNOIN«er>IMO ... . ' ;. - ..
weuu . STANPAAO KKB KXFLI IOCXBI RWI
'
P/iOiN IETEf», UNIT
ror»ii. i.-nitHiim, «i/i o.oi DM. BOL
DI'-SSCLVED C/.DMtUM, Mj/1 OOL IDL BOL
TUIOI- LEAD, niq/1 0.03 00L O.OI3
, Din?30LV6I) J; E/»O,.,H»/1.. ._.. ;, . /.,.^v :,..;.,'., BO|,-:{. O.OI- ^ :
ruini. oifjsixveo SOLID8.-9/1 soo 123' a? NAT
cimutn.-Tivi rv. UMon«/e« 103 39*
pll. pll untta >- 6.3 3.1 8.1
wq/1 . . 230 4.42 4.72
« rLOntOA.AUritNISTRATIve C006 aiAPTEH 17-22 PUBLIC DTHNKIMO M^TOt
> HAV M BMCArER If NU CTOCR MAXIrUrl CONTAniNAMT LEVO. IB KXCSKDCO
> snaifcn TMAN an EQUAL TO
OW. DELUH OeTECTtCiH LIMITS
DETECTION LIMIT FOR CAUMIUH O.OO2 «q/l
DCIECTION LIMIT Km LEAO O.OI -
-------
APPENDIX B
Responsiveness Summary
Kassouf-Kimerling Battery Site
unpa, Hillsborough County, Florida
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
The Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER) and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established a public
, comment period from Marph-8, 1989 through March 29, 1989 for
interested parties to comment on FDER's and EPA's Proposed Remedial
Action Plan (PRAP) for the first operable unit of the
Kassouf-Kimerling Battery site. .. .
FDER and EPA held a public meeting on March 8, 1989 at the Oak Park
Community Center in Tampa, Florida. The meeting presented the
results of the studies undertaken and the preferred remedial
alternative for the Kassouf-Kimerling Battery site.
A responsiveness summary is required by Superfund policy for the
purpose of providing EPA and the public with a summary of citizen
comments and concerns about the site, as raised during the public
comment period, and EPA's responses to those concerns. All of the
comments summarized in thi's document have been factored into EPA's
final decision of the preferred alternative for cleanup of the
Kassouf-Kimerling Battery site.
This responsiveness summary for the Kassouf-Kimerling Battery site is
.divided into .the .following sections.
I. Overview This section discusses EPA's recommended
alternative .for remedial action- and the public reaction
to this alternative. .'..'
II. Background on Community Involvement and Concerns This
section provides a brief history of community interrest
and concerns regarding.the Kassouf-Kimerling Battery
site. . ... . . ..-
III. Summary of Major Questions and Comments Received During
. the' Public.Comment Period and FDER's.or 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 EPA should be aware of as it prepares to
design and implement the first operable unit, and plans
the necessary steps to address the second operable unit
for the Kassouf-Kimerling Battery site.
-------
I. Overview . .
/'.--'Prior-to and at the time of the RI/FS public meeting on March 8,
1989, EPA presented its preferred remedial alternative to the
public. The recommended alternative is an operable unit Record
of Decision (ROD), which addresses the source of the contamination
- by containing the landfill wastes and contaminated underlaying
soils. The major components of the recommended alternative for
.the landfill includes:
:.-" ' - Excavation of contaminated soil and battery fragments.
-"-... '- Treatment'of 'contaminated soils and"battery fragments by
solidification / chemical fixation.
-.Disposal on^site. - . ..''.-,. - ' '
. . The community, in general, favors the selection of the
recommended alternative.
II.. Background on Community Involvement and Concern.
The Tampa community has been aware of the contamination problem
at the Kassouf-Kimerling Battery, site for .several years. The
first public meeting, was .held on September 26, 1985 to present,
to the public, the work plan for the Remedial Investigation (RI)
and the Feasibility Study (FS). The meeting was conducted by the
PRP's at the board room of the Hillsborough County Board of
Commissioners in the Hillsborough County Courthouse.
FDER and EPA conducted the second- public meeting ' on March 8,
. '19 8 9 > -The purpose of this meeting was to explain the results of
. the site .studies, 'to present the recommendations of FDER and EPA
for site cleanup and to accept questions and comments from the
public on any aspect of the site or its cleanup. At this
meeting, .the key issues and concerns identified were:
;/..-''..'. :>''* "F-irtaricial concerns;- ' Property owners were concerned with the
. 'negative impacts that a Superfund site has on land value.
. ''"' / Time; -The -.'public' was concerned, with- the amount of time that
"-* ' .''; - it- will' take to"cleanup the site.
III. Summary of Manor Questions and Comments Received During the
Public Comment Period and FDER's or EPA's Responses.
1.) One citizen commented that FDER would not clearly state that
his property was not contaminated.
EPA Response; EPA will not certify that there is no
contamination on your property from the site, either in the soils
or the ground water. FDER has stated that it has no information
indicating that contaminated fill material was disposed on your
property, and that FDER does not know of any threats to your
property, from the site. EPA is unable to expand on the
statements made by FDER.
-2-
-------
2.) One commenter inquired about the cost of the remedy and if
it was based on the cleanup level or just removing the actual
crushed battery casings - '..''
FDER Response; The cost estimate for fixation and stabilization
is between 2.3 million dollars and 3.4 million dollars. This
cost estimate was made to included the fill material and the
underlying contaminated sediments.
3.) One commenter inquired if a risk assessment was conducted.
FDER Response; There was a risk assessment conducted. The risk
assessment was found very difficult to apply to this situation.
4.) Two commenters inquired if the fixation/stabilization
process has been used before on similar types of contamination.
FDER Response; Yes, fixation is a treatment process which has
been demonstrated to work on other Superfund sites with heavy
metal contamination..
5.) One commenter inquired if the contaminated sediments in the
marsh canal will be fixed with the landfill.
FDER Response; That is a possibility for the second operable
unit. But, for now we do not know what the remedy for the marsh
.will. be. '-.-. ' '
6.) One commenter inquired if the EP Toxicity test or the TCLP
test .would be used, to determine the cleanup levels.
FDER Response; " Maybe at some point there'will.be some discussion
of TCLP versus EP Toxicity, but.for now the EP Toxicity is the
best know procedure.
7.) One commenter inquired as to when the cleanup will start.
.EPA Response;:'. We'would'.:';! ike-"to begin sometime in' September or
October of this year.
8.); The contractor retained by the PRP's.to conduct the RI/FS
and--the legal' council retained by the PRP's, commented that the
vegetated soil cap should be the remedy selected for the site.
FDBR Response; The vegetated soil cap alternative will not
provide a permanent protection to public health and the
environment and it will not attain ARAR's.
-3-
-------
IV Remaining Concerns
..The..community:'a concerns'surrounding the kassouf-Kimerling Battery
site should be addressed in the following areas: community relations
for the second operable unit, community relations support throughout
the Remedial Design/Remedial Action, and incorporation of .
comments/suggestions in the Remedial Design. . .. '
Community relations should consist of making available final
documents (i.e. Remedial Design Work Plan, Remedial Design Reports,
ect.) in a timely manner to both local repositories and issuance of
fact sheets to those on the mailing list to provide the community
with project progress and a schedule of events. The. community should
be made aware that the design of the selected remedy will incorporate
design criteria to ensure long-term integrity of the remedy. At any
time during the remedial design or remedial action, if new
information is revealed that could affect the implementation of the
remedy, or,, if the remedy fails to achieve the necessary design
criteria, the Record of Decision may be revised to incorporate new
technology that will attain the necessary performance criteria.
Coummunity relations activities should remain an active aspect of the
Remedial Design/Remedial Action phase of this project.
-4-
-------
APPENDIX C
State Concurrence Memorandum
Kassouf-Kimerling Battery Site
Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida
-------
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
Tcvin Towers Office Bldg.
Boh Mi.-tni*/, Governor
2600 Blair Scone Road
Dale Touchtn-.jm. iecresa/y
TaJLthassee, Florida 32399-2400
John Shearer, Assisunt Secretary
March 29, 1989
Mr. Greer T1dwell, Regional Af.ministrator
U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Region IY
345 Court!and St., NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Dear Mr. Tldwell: . .
The Florida Department of Environmental Regulation agrees with the selected
Remedial Alternative for rhe Kassouf-Klmerllng Battery site 1n Tampa.
Landfill materials along with' any underlying soil exceeding Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Extraction Procedure Tox1c1ty criteria
for hazardous waste will be treated by solidification and chemical fixation
id disposed on-s1te. Contamination 1n the adjacent marsh will be addressed
.s- a second phase of the Record of Decision subject to State concurrence.
"The estimate for .the' cost 'of remedial action is from $2,300,000.00 to
$3,500,000.00; As the participation of the responsible parties has not beer
determined at this time, the department agrees to provide ten percent of the
federal cost for remedial action up to $350,000.00. State funding in excess
of this amount v/111 require further approval by. the Department.
,We'1bokv''f'bniard'-^ project.
rely,
Dale Twachtmann
Secretary
OT:lc
------- |