United States.
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R04-90/072
March 1990
&EPA
Superfund
Record of Decision
Kassouf-Kimerling Battery
Disposal, FL
-------
0272.101
REPORT DOCUMENT A TION 11. REPORT NO. 12.
PAGE EPA/ROD/R04-90/072
3. Recipient'a Accession No.
4. Tille and Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Kassouf-Kimerling Battery Disposal, FL
Second Remedial Action - Final
7. Aulhor(a)
5. Report Date
03/30/90
.
6.
8. Performing Organization Rapt. No.
II. . Perfonnlng Orgalnlzatlon Name and Address
10. ProjecVTasklWork Unit No.
11. Conltact(C) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(G)
12. ~orIng Organization Name and Addreas
U.S. Environmental Protection
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type 01 Report & Period Covered
Agency
800/000
14.
15. Supplementary Notea
.
16. Ab8tract (Umlt: 200 worda)
The Kassouf-Kimerling Battery Disposal site, formerly known as the Timber Lake Battery
Disposal site and the 58th Street Landfill, is in Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida
within a 100-year floodplain area. The site consists of a 42,000 square foot landfill
area with an estimated landfill volume of 11,350 cubic yards. The site is bordered by
small lakes and marshes to the north, east, and west. Surface water flows from the
west marsh to the east marsh by way of a canal which cuts through the site, connects
the marsh areas, and eventually discharges into the Palm River. In 1978, empty
battery casings were deposited in previously excavated onsite areas, and contributed
to the release of metals into the landfill. Storm water running eastward off of the
landfill drained into the wetlands, and the dense wetland vegetation has contributed
to the retention of heavy metal contamination. The first Operable Unit (OU1) Record
of Decision (ROD) addressed remediation of landfill wastes and contaminated underlying
50il. This ROD addresses contamination of wetlands adjacent to the landfill. The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the sediment and surface water are metals
including arsenic, chromium, and lead.
(See Attached Page)
17. Document Anaiyaia L Deacrlptora
Record of Decision - Kassouf-Kimerling Battery Disposal, FL
Second Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: sediment, sw
Key Contaminants: metals (arsenic, chromium, lead)
b. Idenlilier8lOpen-Ended Terms
Co COSA TI FieIdIGroup
18. Availability Statement
19. Security Class (This Report)
None
21. No. 01 Pagea
56
I
20. Security Class (This Page)
Nt"In~
22. Price
(See ANSl-Z3i.18)
See Instruclions on Revel'tle
272 (4.77)
(Formerly NTIS-35)
Department 01 Commerce
-------
1-
EPA/ROD/R04-90/072
Kassouf-Kimerling Battery Disposal, FL
Second Remedial Action - Final
Abstract (Continued)
The selected remedial action for the site includes dredging 15,000 cubic yards of
contaminated sediment in the canal that lies within 150 feet of the landfill, and marsh
area sediment within 20 feet of the landfill to a depth of 2 feet; solidifying and
stabilizing the sediment and disposing of the treated sediment onsite along with the
treated landfill wastes from OUl; covering the area with soil; implementing engineering
controls on the canal to flood the wetlands year round; wetlands mitigation; and ground
water monitori~g. A waiver will be invoked for surface water because of the negative
impact that further remediation would have on sediment in the wetlands area and the
potential for mobilization of lead beyond the site areas. The estimated present worth
cost for this remedial action is $511,700, which includes a total O&M cost of $99,500.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Marsh sediment within 20 feet of the landfill and
sediment in the canal within 150 feet of the landfill will be remediated to achieve
"Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria (FAWQC) and include lead 40 mg/kg. A waiver of
the FAWQC will be imposed on marsh sediment greater than 20 feet away from the landfill
and sediment in the canal greater than 150 feet away from the landfill.
-------
Record of Decision
Second Operab1e Unit
Dec1aration
SITE RAKB AKD LOCATIOR
Kassouf-Kimerling Battery Site
Tam~a, HillsboJ:;ough County, Florida
S~ATBMBR~ OF BASBS ARD PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for the
Kassouf-Kimerling Battery Site, in Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, which
was chosen in accordance. with CERCLA, as amended by SARA, and, to the extent
practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan (NCP). This decision. is based on the administrative record file for
this site.
The State of Florida concurs with the selected remedy.
ASSESSMBN~ OF ~HB SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this site, if not
addressed by implementing the response action selected in this Record of
Decision (ROD), may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to
public health, welfare, or the environment.
DBSCRIPTION OP THB RBKBDY
This operable unit is the final action of two operable units for the site.
The first operable unit will address the source of the contamination by
excavating, stabilizing and solidifying the landfill wastes and contaminated
underlying soils. The second operable unit addresses the contaminated marsh
sediments adjacent to the landfill. The marsh was determined to be a
principal threat at the site because of the potential threat of direct
contact with the sediments and the impact on surface water. Both operable
units will be implemented at the same time.
The major components of the selected remedy for the second operable unit
(adjacent marsh) include:
Excavation and treatment by solidification, of contaminated marsh
sediments within 20 feet of the landfill and to a depth of two feet
below the sediment surface.
Excavation and treatment by solidification, of contaminated marsh
sediments in the canal east of the site extending 150 feet from the
landfill and to a depth of two feet below the sediment surface.
The remainder of the marsh sediments (sediments greater than 20 feet
away from the landfill and sediments greater than 150 feet in the
canal) would be left in place without treatment.
-------
-2-
The canal which currently allows the marsh to
to allow the marsh to remain flooded year
wetland's hydroperiod from a semi-permanently
to a permanently flooded marsh system.
drain will be designed
round, changing the
flooded marsh system
Disposal of the treated sediments on-site with the treated landfill
wastes.
.Mitigation to compensate for the wetlands that have been adversely
impacted by the site by enlarging the existing wetlands.
A waiver of the Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC) is
required for the surface water. The waiver is justified by the
potential negative environmental impact that could be created by
trying to remediate the remainder of the marsh sediments which
involves complete destruction of the wetland and potential
mobilization of lead beyond the site area (CERCLA 121(d)(4)(B».
DB CLARA'.rXOR
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment,
complies with Federal and State requirements that are legally applicable
-------
2.0
3.0
4.0
TABLB 01' CiOR'l'BRTS.
. ........... ............
.....1
1.0
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
....1
Location,
and Description
. .... ....... .... .........
Site Rame,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . '. . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Site History and Enforcement Activities
Highlights of Community participation for the Second Operable
Unit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
......
....................
........8
5.0
Scope and Role of Operable Unit
......8
Summary of Site Characterizations
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.0
...............
...........
Geoloqy' ........................
......8
.......
...........
Wetlands Classification ........ .......
Surf ace Water.............................
Ground Water..............................
Marsh Sediments...........................
Wetland Impact Study......................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
.........
.......10
.......15
. . . . . . . . . . . .15
.......
.........26
Summary of Site Risks for the Wetlands ..........................27
7.1 Identification of the Contaminants of Concern .............27
7.2
7.3
Description of Alternative ......................
8.1 Alterna~ive 1 - No Action .................
8.2 Alternative 2 - Low Permeability Cover ....
8.3 Alternative 3 - Solidification ............
8.4 Modified Alternative 3 - Solidification ...
8.5 Alternative 4 - Off-Site Disposal.........
7.0
7.4
8.0
Exposure Assessment Summary ...............................27
Summary of the Toxicity Assessment of the Contaminants of
Concern. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Risk Conclusions
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
............
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
...........
.....31
.....32
...........
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35
9.0
Summary of Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
Remedy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Statutory Determinations ........................................40
11.1 Protective of Human Health and the Environment ............40
11.2 Attainment of the Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
R8quirement. (ARAR)
CO.t Bffectiveness ........................................42
Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative
Treatment Technology or Resource Recovery Technologies
to the Maximum Extent Practicable .........................42
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element ...........43
10.0
11.0
11.3
11.4
11.5
Selected
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
-------
L:IST OP P:IGtJRBS
Figure 2.1 - Geographic Location Map
................................. .2
Figure 2.2 - Location of the Kassouf-K~erling 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 6.1 - Generalized Geologic Column
............................. .9
Figure 6.2 - Surface Water Data for Lead - Jan. 1987 .................12
Figure 6.3 - Surface Water Data for Lead - Karch 1989
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Figure 6.4 - Sediment Quality Analytical Data - Sept.
1986 .......... .17
Figure 6.5 - Sediment Quality Analytical Data - Jan. 1987 ............18
Figure 6.6 - Sediment Quality Analytical Data (Canal) - Kay 1988 .....20
Figure 6.7 - Sediment Quality Analytical Data - Karch 1989 ...........23
Figure 6.8 - Subsurface Sediment Locations - June 1989 ..-............ .25
-------
LIft 0., 'PaRT.2.Q
ble 6.1 - Water Quality Analytical Data - Jan. 1987 .................11 .
Table 6.2 - Surface Water Data Summary - March 1989 ..................13
Table 6.3 - Sediment Quality Analytical Data - Sept. 86 & Jan. 87 ....16
Table 6.4 - Sediment Quality Analytical Data (Canal) - May 1988 ......19
Table ~.5 - Sediment Quality Analytical Data - March 1989
............21
Table 6.6 - Subsurface Sediment Quality Analytical Data - June 1989 ..24
Table 7.2 - Exposure Scenarios Wetland Area
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28
Table 9.1 - Glossary Of Evaluation Criteria
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36
LIft 0., APPBIIDICBS
Appendix.A - Responsiveness summary
Appendix B - State'~ Concurrence Memorandum
-------
Record of 'Decision
second Operable tint
'1'be Decision ~
Ka88OUf-~liDq Battery Site
Tampa, Bi.llsborouqh county, Plorida
. U.8.
Pr8p8red by.
8IwuOI88Gt&l Prot8Cti.oD AgeDcy
ReqiOD IV
Atlanta, Georgia
-------
RBCORD OF DBCISI08
Second Op~rable Unit
~he Decision Suaaary
Jtassouf-Jtiaerling Battery Site
~aapa, Bill.borough county, Florida
1.0
:1:ntroduction
The Kassouf-Kimerling Battery Site was proposed for inclusion on the
National Priorities List (NPL) in October 1981. The site has been the
subject of a Remedial Investigation (RI) and Feasibility Study (FS)
performed by the responsible parties, Kessrs. Kassouf and Kimerling and
Gulf Coast Lead Company, Inc. 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 finalized on Kay 8, 1987. The PS, which develops and.
examines alternatives for remediation of the site, was finalized on August
26, 1988. Although the RI identified general areas of contamination, it
was ~ of sufficient scope to thoroughly define the extent of
contamination in the sediments and surface water of the adjacent
wetlands. Therefore, additional field investigations ~ere conducted o~
Kay 31, 1989 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
characterize the marsh. A Post- Feasibility Study was prepared by E P A as
an addendum to the Final FS submitted by the responsible parties. The
Post- FS which presents possible remedial alternatives for t he mar s h
adjacent to the landfill, was finalized on August 22, 1989. On September
6, 1989 EPA and the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER)
presented the alternatives in the Post-FS in a public meeting conducted
near the site. After the meeting, EPA and FDER agreed that a Wetland
Impact Study (a study to further define the ecological impact on the
marsh) should be conducted before selecting an alternative for the marsh.
The Wetland Impact Study was completed in late January 1990 and was issued
to the public on February 12, 1990.
2.0
Site lfalDe, Location, and Description
The Kassouf-Kimerling Battery site is located in Tampa, Hillsborou gh
County, Florida (Figure 2.1). It is located just north on Columbus Drive
and on the e..t .ide of 58th Street (Figure 2.2). This site was once
known a. Timber Lake Battery Disposal and a180 as the 58th Street Landfill
Site. The .ite consists of a 60 foot by 700 foot area in which empty
battery C&8inq. were deposited. A marsh is located to the east of the
site and 8eparates the site from the Peninsular Fisheries Company (Figure
2.3). A canal was cut through the landfill in the late 1970's which
connects a marsh located west of 58th Street to the marsh located just
east of the site.
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.
-1-
-------
FIGURE 2.1
I SITE LOCATION \
HILLSBOROUGH
COUNTY
Geographic Location Map
-------
FIGURE 2.2
SiiP^p^x p\ I;::- <
ig^&S i**l^>^*'*» **%••?•".'•>--. ,. 2
W^-rf&m-3-Ts?~L /^
Location of the Kassouf-Kimerling Battery Site
-3-
-------
~
FIGUI1E 2.3
@
,.. . APPROX. 800'
A€'rial Photograph Of Site And Sl.lTOlI\ding Area
-4-
-------
The site is located just outside of the Tampa City limits in the
.outhwe.tern corner of the Eas~ Lake/orient Park neighb?rhood
designation. The population of Billsborough County has increased in
recent year., while the population of the City of Tampa and East
Lake/Orient Park has decreased slightly. The decreased po.pulation can be
attributed to the increasing age of the residents and the increased
industrial/commercial development in this part of Billsborough County.
Th~ land use. of this area is changing from residential to
indust:-rial/commercial. Approximately 32 percent of the land is
undeveloped and occupied by smaU 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
institution al/resid ential, and commercial/ indu str ial develop ment.
Commercial/industrial development occupies the area mainly southeast and
southwest of the site. .
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. Water 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 site). A ~erm 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 S8th 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.
3.0
Site History and Bnforceaent &ctiyitie.
According to documentation by the Hillsborough 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 wa. excavated for its peat content.
The initial evalaation of the .ite was conducted by several agencies, and
a Mitre Model evaluation was conducted by Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation (PDER) in 1981. The site appeared on the
original NPL published in the Federal Register in 1982.
Initial water quality studies were performed by both FDER and the
Hillsborough County Health Department. In 1981, the owners of the site,
Messrs. Kassouf and Kimerling, contracted with Geraghty & Miller, Inc.
(G & M), to submit the draft report" Assessment of Ground Water and Surface
Water Conditions at the Kassouf-Kimerling Property".
-5-
-------
FIGURE 2.4
, ,\1 T-VOW •"'i -I - HB «* ••» W /'•«-»«^»«M«««,T. i ^^_ •
.
^ jJ^T7-"'i.•"'•!• ''•;J*^rs-;i:".:J"" "" i'"1 '•
^\ ' :>-%-.I-•nr/K.'tV.r.-: -> ^ I r -j
^iL^wiSr"'''":;r"i;:>ii j:
iOOC
ADAPTED FROM: USGS. 165'.
Surface Water Flow Path From The Marsh
-6-
-------
In September 1984, Gulf Coast Lead and Messrs. Kassouf and Kimerling (the
"pot8nt~y responsible parties" or "PRPs") agreed to work together to
perform the investigations necessary' to evaluAte the site. EPA .sent.a
notice letter, dated October 5, 1984, to Gulf Coast Lead Company,
offic~y notifying the Company of its potential liability with regard to
the Kas.ouf-Kimerling Site. On July 12, 1985, MesserB. Kassouf and
Kimerling, Gulf Coast Lead, and FDER entered into a Consent Order which
required the PRPs 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 PRPs submitted a draft RI report to FDER in May 1987; the draft FS was
submitted in July 1987. FDER reviewed the draft RI and FS reports and
submitted comments to the PRPs which required the PRPs to revise and
resubmit the drafts. On June 7, 1988, the PRPs submitted the revised P'S
to FDER. On August 4, 1988, EPA sent general notice letters to the PRPs
describing the negotiation process for the Remedial Design and the
Remedial Action. On March 13, 1990, EPA sent a third General Notice
letter to the PRPs notifying them of EPA's preferred remedy for the marsh
and inviting them to submit an offer to perform the RD/RA for both
operable units.
4.0
llighlights of Co_u~y participation for the Second Operable Unit:
The Post-FS and EPA's initial Proposed Plan for the marsh was released to
the public in August 1989. These two documents were made available to the
public in both the administrative record and in the information repository
maintained at the EPA Docket Room in Region IV and at the Tampa -
Hillsborough County Public Library. The notice of availability of these
two documents was published in the Tampa Tribune on August 28, 1989. A
public comment period was held from August 23, 1989 through September 27,
1989. In addition, a public meeting was held on September 6, 1989. At
this meeting, representatives from EPA and the Florida Department of
Environmental Regulations (FDER) answered questions about the site and the
proposed remedy for the marsh.
After the meeting, EPA and FDER agreed that a Wetland Impact Study (a
study to further define the ecological impact on the marsh) should be
conducted before selecting an alternative for the marsh. EPA's Wetland
Impact Study was completed in late January 1990 and a copy was placed in
the public information repository on February 9, 1990. A Modified
Proposed Plan which revised the remedy EPA had proposed in its initial
Proposed Plan, was placed in the public information repository on February
9, 1990. 'lh. public comment period on the Modified Proposed Plan was held
from February 12 - March 14, 1990. On February 21, 1990, a public meeting
was held to pre~ent the alternatives for the marsh. EPA's and FDER's
response to the comments received during the public meeting and written
comments received during the comment period is included in the
Responsiveness Summary (which is attached to and made a part of this
Record of Decision).
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for the
second operable unit (the wetlands) for the Kassouf-Kimerling Site, in
Tampa, Florida, chosen in accordance with CERCLA, as amended by SARA and,
to the extent practicable, the National Contingency Plan. The decision
for this site is based on the administrative record.
-7-
-------
1-
5.0
Scope and Role of Operable Unit
As with many Superfund sites, the problems at the Kassouf-Kimerling Site
are complex. As a result, the work has been divided into smaller units or
phases, referred to as "operable units". The operable units (OUs) at this
site are:
OU 0 ne:
Addresses contaminatio,", of the landfill wastes.
au Two: Addresses contamination of the marsh adjacent to the
landfill.
EPA previously selected a cleanup remedy for OU One (the landfill) in
EPA's Record of Decision, dated March 31, 1989. OU One will address the
source of the contamination by excavating, stabilizing and solidifying the
landfill wastes and contaminated underlying soils. The solidified
material will be landfilled back into the current disposal area. The
function of OU One is to immobilize the contamination in the landfill and
thereby reduce the risks associated with exposure to contaminated on-site
soils, groundwater, and wastes in the landfill. Implementation of OU One
has been postponed until a remedy for OU Two has been selected.
The second OU addresses the contaminated marsh sediments. The cleanup
objectives for the second OU are to prevent current or future exposure to
the contaminated sediments through treatment and/or containment, and to.
reduce the migration of contaminants.
6.0
Su.mary of Site Characteri.zations
The Kassouf-Kimerling Battery Site consists of a landfill area adjacent to
a marsh. Soil, sediment, ground water and surface water samples were
collect~d in and around the site. Although the Remedial Investigation
(RI) identified general areas of contamination, it was ~ of sufficient
scope to thoroughly define the extent of contamination in the sediments
and surface water of the adjacent wetlands. Therefore, additional Field
Investigation studies were conducted by EPA to characterize the
contamination in the marsh. The field investigation studies are included
in the Post- FS document, and were used to identify potential remedial
alternatives. The field investigations for the marsh included the
following: -
Wetland 8 Clas sification
Surface Water Sampling
Sediment Sampling
Subsurface Sediment Sampling
In addition to the field investigations a Wetland Impact Study was
conducted to provide the biological and chemical information (see Section
6.6) necessary to evaluate the ecological hazards associated with the
wetland contaminants.
6.1 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
-8-
-------
HOLOCENE and
PLEISTOCENE
MIOCENE
CLIGOCENE
EOCENE
HAWTHORN
FORMA TICH
TAMPA
LIMESTONE
SUWANNE~
LIMESTONE
OCALA
LIMESTONE
A V 0 N PARK
FORMA nON
. FIGURE 6.1
Sand
Sand and c!av
C:av ~
C~erl. limestone.
~~~s~nd clay
Sandy
IImutone
Yellow- wnlte 10
liQnt brown, soft
10 liard limestone ;>1
Yellow -qroy
10 liQnl :lrown
soft limestON
SoH, chalky,
c:rlam 10 brawn
limntone ..ilh
beds of hare!,
dart bro"",,,
c1olomill
.'
. -...- ",".."'.', :-1:-.",",: '''"'0'' SEA
-.,0,.' ,0" .",. ..1"" .0. '.-: . .
. -.0,' " -0 '.'. . .0.'. ..',0'
. '. -""00'"
'0 ""
'-0 .
. . . .-..,.-~. .'.
-------
is represented in a generalized geologic column of the Tampa Bypass Canal
area shown in Figure 6.1. The subsurface deposits consists of
unconsolidated 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 protection to the Floridan aquifer water supplies from the
hazard.ou s con stituent s fou n d on site.
6.2
Wetlands Classification
The landfill was deposited in and is surrounded by an extensive wetland
system. The road bordering. then west side of the landfill (58th Street)
giving access to the site was constructed through this wetland system.
Surface water flows from the wetland system on the west side of the
landfill through a canal under 58th street and through the landfill into
the wetland on the east side of the landfill. Stormwater runs eastward.
off the landfill and into the wetland system. The landfill has
contaminated both surface water and sediments in the wetland to the east
of the landfill. Approximately four acres of wetland sediments are
contaminated to varying degrees with lead.
The contaminated east wetland is a depressional, isolated,
semi-permanently flooded primrose willow scrub-shrub swamp located in an
urban setting. The dominant wetland vegetation is primrose willow with an
understory of water hyacinth, smartweed, buttonbush, and cattail. The
wetland surface is flooded with rainwater and local upland stormwater
runoff normally 80 percent of the year or more.
The east wetland effectively stores floodwaters and sediments from
surrounding areas (including the landfill) due to the depresssional nature
of the system and the constriction of the highwater outflow. The wetland
serves as a catchment basin trapping, holding, and accumulating
contaminated sediments. The dense wetland vegetation contributes to this
effect of retaining sediments and associated contaminants. The wetland
area is an important wildliŁe habitat within the urban setting due to the
irregular shape of the wetland, the extensive perimeter, the dense
vegetation, and the long hydroperiod which prov.ides shelter and feeding
areas for birds, .mall mammals, reptiles, and invertebrates.
6.3
Surface Water
In January 1981, ERM South collected surface water samples from the
marsh. The analytical data collected during this investigation are
summarized in Table 6.1 and the total lead concentrations for each
location are displayed on Figure 6.2.
In March 1989, EPA collected surface water samples from the marsh. The
analytical data collected during the Karch 1989 field investigation are
summarized in Table 6.2 and the lead concentrations for each location are
displayed on Figure 6.3. Lead was not detected in the upgradient canal
sample, KK-1W, or the background sample, KK-18W. Lead was detected in
-10-
-------
. .
TABLE 0.:
KASSOUf-KI"ERLIN6'SUPERfUHD SiTE
WATER QUALITY ANALYTICAL DATA
JANUARY 1'387
LOCATION:
58th STREET - TA"PA, fL
SA"PLES COLLECTED BY:
SA"PLES ANALYZED BY:
ERI!-SOUTH
DELTA EN6INEERIN6
SURfACE WATER SA"PLE
DESIGNATION:
STANDARD
SWI
SW2
SW3
SII4
SW5
S.,6
SW7
SW8
SII9 51/10
SIH 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PARA"ETER, UNIT
-----------------------
TOTAL CAD"IUI!, 19/1 0.0008 0.002 0.002 0.003 BOL 0.004 0.017 0.002 BOL BOL BOL BOL
DISSOLYED CAD"IU", 1;/1 BDL BDL BOL BDL BOL BDL BDL BOl BDL BOL BOL
TOTAL LEAD, 19/1 0.03 0.235 0.449 1.7 0.017 I.Bl 22.4 0.017 0.101 0.029 0.054 0.022
DISSOLYED LEAD, 19/1 0.017 BOl 0.01 BOL 0.016 0.186 0.01 0.017 0.022 BOL 0.01
TOTAL DISSOlVED SDLIDS,I;/1 406 221 196 166 186 208 174 174 179 171 166
CONDUCTIVITY, UIOhi/cl 500 220 220 210 184 208 210 210 201 177 226
pH, pH uni tl 6.0 7.7 7.45 7.75 7.6 7 7.2 7.65 7.5 6.9 7.6 6.6
SULfATE, 1;/1 47.1 44.8 38 34.5 46.3 34.1 ' 32.3 28.9 29.3 28.2 30.9
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COI!IEJlTS:
BDL :: BELOW DETECTION LI"ITS
DETECTION LI"IT ~OR CAO"IUN : 0.002 1;/1
DETECTI0- Ll"lT fOR LEAD: 0.01 19/1
-11-
-------
FIGURE 6.2-
SURFACE W~TER DATA FOR lEAD
KASSOUF-KIMERLING
T AMPA,FLORIDA
JAN,1987
.SW-8 101ppb
58TH STRE:7
-
{ .....----------~
'-, DISPOSAL SITE
'........
---
I\~
.p
- 0
\ \
DISPOSAL SITe
J_-
~'" -\
. I:",,:.
/ -/,
d'
----~
8n
ut.
..-;
~
Vv:
~
~~
?-
(--
/
8'
<.f'I~
-
~
......------
. - "U'
~
~
~.--
,
-;..
V
?~
.0.0
~
~
00.
~
~
( '-
~
-0
~
~
I eSW-9 29ppb
1 000000 oooOOOOO~FISHPONCS
; 00 0 OPENINSULARFiSHERIES 0 ~
~
~
0"
eSW-10 54ccb
LEGEND
ppb- parts per billion of lead
-12-
-------
8A~i(GROUND
KK-18
.
SOL
N
100 FEET
~EPA
FIGURE 6.3
fvIA;:(CH 1989 SURF.A.CE WA,T;:'R "L::A.J"
KASSOUF & KIMC:R~!NG 8A TT::R Y
DISPOSAL SiT~
. ..~ I'
v''':;, -
I I il;- KK-9 8 ! K";'7 -
. I K!<-~5
_~~8__-1___----
j ! i , /1 ~' KK-7 i Ki<-~5
I: I! , . i .
i :.'! Ii! f ! I e
I :i I '~ I I I I
I ! p',S. C6~'... i: I
; i, tiiEA, -:- - - - - - -, - - - - - - - .I
. iJ 111'111 "';6 ; K';'4 ///~.
! I If! I ( 28() I \
MARS~ I
----_:..J_-----
I
I
I
I
I
I
I --'30C--,------
1/ (18Ce). I
KK-4.
. I
:- s- =:'.-:3
Ki<-S
.
KK -1.3
.
eCL
-
I%)
Ii')
I
/
i
I
.: Ki<;::
I E6
I
-------,-----
KK-2 I KK-iO
. .
.36 II 228
I
K;'(-,3
.
48
\
\ \
~ ~f~~~~:~:~~:::G LOCAnc:R\~\ :- ",,-
. SEJIMENT & WATER SAMPL!NG L.:;C;' ~::'.
( ) OUPL!CA TE SAMPL::
6'"'1 A"." v-~:"\ :-"'- =' ,- N""~ ~=-=--=-
1.../- I""'.,-IL._~. IL,;~ \.0.1"-11 "-wI' "'"'- -- --.
-14-
-------
TABLE 6.2
SURF ACE WATER DATA SUMMARY
KASSOUF & KIMERLING
T AMP A, F~ORIDA
MARCH 1989
u-'" KIC . 2" KI( - J" 1(1(.411 U-4W U - 611 kIC . 811 kl(-1011 U-1111 1(1(-1211 u.n" 1(1(,1511 U-1811 BLANk
OJ/11o/89 OJ/14/89 03/11,/89 Ojl11,/89 Oj/l1,/89 01/11,/89 01111,/89 OJ/lS/89 01/15/89 01/15/89 01/15189 01/15/89 0]/15189 0]/16/89
IIiOAGAIIIC ElEHENTS UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/l UG/l UG/L UG/l UG/l UG/l UG/l UG/l UG/l UG/l UG/l
ARSENIC II, 15 NA
BARIUM 1.10. 160 65 HI.
CHR<»4IUM 30 H 12 III.
COPPER B HI.'
I NiCkEl 31,' HI.
..... LEAD 36 48 noo 1800 280 8 220 66 680 8 NA
w AHT I HONY 28 17 NA
I
VANADIUM 61 NA
ZINC 25 32 420 520 52 23 110 9J 170 n II, HI.
MERCURY 0.90J ,. 70J .61J 0.10J 0.10J HI.
ALUM I HUM 5600 1500 1000 190 noo II"
MANGANESE 15 70 36 21,0 210 96 11, 8J 120 150 6 1,6 8 HI.
CALCIUM 11000 12000 16000 81000 100000 1,6000 29000 1,1,000 I,}OOO 58000 J6000 36000 BOOO NA
"AGNESIUH 2200 2200 2600 4100 5400 3100 31,00 1000 3100 J600 2600 J500 2200 NA
IRON 9500 12000 1600 2600 1100 1000 HI.
SODIUM 10000 10000 10000 12000 12000 11 000 21000 12000 11000 11 000 11000 20000 9200 NA
POIASSIUH 3100 5400 8400 HOO 7400 9100 1,200 4100 6700 1,900 7100 6200 2800 NA
GENERAL IHORGANIC PARAMEtERS "lOll "lOll "li/l "OIL Hell Hell "ell M6/l MGll MGll HG/l "G/l HG/l HG/L
SUlf IDES .01, .18" .10 2.6 . 19 .09 .12 .18 .59 1.1, .05 0.1
PHYSICAL PARAHETERS MG/l HGll HG/l HGll HGIL HGIL HGll HG/L HG/l HG/l HGIL HG/L HGIL HG/l
IIAROHESS(AS CACO}) 81 92 91" 51,0 150 120 84 00 120 200 98 100 81
.................................
oOfOOIHOIESo..
J . ESTIHATED VALUE
-------
~ABLE 6.3
KASSOUF-KI"ERLIN6 SUPERFUND SITE
SEDI"ENT QUALITY ANALYTICAL DATA
SEP TEPIBER 1 i86
LOCATION:
58th STREET - TA"PA, FL
SA"PLES COLLECTED. BY:
SA"PLES ANALYZED BY:
ERII-SOUTH
DELTA ENGINEERING
SEDI"ENT SAIIPLE
DESIGNATION:
SW2
SWI
SII3
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.-.----------.------
SII12
PARA"ETER, UNIT
-----------------------
ARSENIC, .g/kg
CAD"IU", .g/kg
LEAD, '9/t;
pH, pH units
11 9.42 0.908
0.699 2.24 2.61
2813 2246 1979
6.2 7.2 5.7
SW4
9.S 12.9
1. 92 1. 63
17741 462
6.1 6.45
5WS
SII6
SW7
SW8
SW9
5WI0
23.2
0.33
2314
7.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO"IIŁNTS:
SDL == BELOW DETECTION LINITS
DETECTION LINIT rOR ARSENIC: 0.002 I9fk;
DETECTION LINIT rOR CADRIUR : 0.002 Ig/tg
DETECTION LINIT FOR LEAD .= 0.01 I9fkg
HAr := NOT ANALYZED rOR
DATE 5A"PLES COLLECTED:
JANUARY 1987
SEDIIIENT SNIPLE
DESIGNATION:
5112
SIll
SID
-------------------------------------------------------------.--------------.----.-..--.---------------------
51112
PARANETER, UNIT
-----------------------
CADNIU", .glkg
LEAD, 19ft;
pH, pH units
III .451 10l
475 62.4 6.14
7.58 5.05 5.5
----------------
SIM
BOl
323
6.5
5.99 13.7 7.21 10.2
24.1 0.557 0.262 BDL
2292 6274 27.7 14.9
6.7 7.2 6.6 7.35
5'"
5116
SW7
BDL 3.04 .712 80l
74.2 3,142 2050 176
5.42 6.72 7.8 7.95
Sill
SOl
21.3
8.02
9.IS
BDL
S.77
7.55
SIrJ
S"10
. 704
710
7.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO""Ł115:
SDL :: BElOIl DETECTIDI lIRITS .
DETECTIDILIRIT rl1l CADRIIJI . 0.002 I9ftg
DETECTION LI"IT rOR LEAD. 0.01 19/kg
-16-
.458
61.3
7.7
-------
nine of the samples collected in the marsh at concentrations ranging from.
8 ppb in Sample KK-SW to 1,SOO ppb in Sample KK-4WD.
The rout.. 1:Iy which the landfill impacts the wetland appear to be through
surface water transport, and groundwater flow. Water flows off and
through the landfill in a easterly direction thus providing a .pathway for
metal transport into the wetland. Remediation of the landfill as provided
for in Operable Unit one will remove this source of additional
contamination. .
6.4 Ground Water
G & M installed eiqht shallow aquifer monitoring wells on site in 1981 and
1982. In 1986 and 1987, ERM South, Inc. installed three offsite shallow
aquifer wells, one Floridan aquifer well and several shallow piezometers.
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. No site impacts were found in the off-site surficial or Floridan
aquifer wells or in down gradient private wells.
6.5
II arsh Sediments
In September 1986, ERM South collected sediment samples from the marsh.
The analytical data. collected during this investigation are summarized in
the top half of Table 6.3 and the lead concentrations for each location
are displayed on Figure 6.4 The concentrations of lead for this field
investigation ranged from 8.77 ppm to 17,741 ppm.
In January 1987, ERM South resampled the marsh. The analytical data
collected during this investiqation are summarized in the bottom half of
Table 6.3 and the lead concentrations for each location are displayed on
Fiqure 6.5. The concentrations of lead for this investigation ranged from
6.14 ppm to 3,142ppm.
In May 1988, ERM South collected sediment samples from the canal in the
marsh. The analytical data is summarized in Table 6.4 and the lead
concentrations for each- location in the .canal are displayed on Figure
6.6.
The lead concentration in the canal are highest next to the landfill and
decrease with distance away from the landf~ The concentrations of lead
in the canal ranged from 23 ppm to 3,350 ppm next to the landfilL
In March 1989, EPA collected sediment samples from the marsh. The
analytical data collected during this investigation are summarized in
Table 6.5 and the lead concentrations are displayed for each location of
Figure 6.7. The concentrations of lead ranged from 9.5 ppm in the
upgradient canal sample, KK-1S, to 4,000 ppm in sample KK-7S within the
marsh. The background sample, KK-18S, contained 12 ppm of lead.
-15-
-------
FIt1URE 6.4
SEDIMENT QUALITY ANALYTICAL OAT A FOR LEAD
KASSDUF-KIMERLING
TAMPA, FLORIDA
SEPT.1986
.SW-8 27.7ppm
58TH STRE:T
10\",,., .
.~
~
\ ~
8'
U'~
~
176'
~
~'?;
---- ::::::-=w
. '"'tJ"I
~
~
-,-
J-
DISP:~::--/~J J.f~
8 /
U'~ / '-;
~ '
, ~ .
'~7. I
~ I
~";
-
-
{ -----,-----
\...
-,
......
'""",,-
-
DISPOSAL SITE
;>
.~
~
%
I .SW-9 14.Bppm
.SW-1Q 8.7ippm
000000 OOOOOOOOO~FISHPONDS
00 0 OPENINSULAR FISHERIESO O~
LEGEND
ppm = parts per million of lead
-1.7-
-------
Il ~-
FIGURE 6.5
SEDIMENT QUALITY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR LEAD
KASSOUF-KIMERLING
TAMPA. FLORIDA
JAN.1987
.SW-8 176ppm
58TH STREET
-- . ---
( ---------- .Svv:r2'05Qppm---- ).;-..
'- DISPOSAL SITE DISPOSAL SITE /' ~~).
" /
'....... --- ~-- ~
~ . "<.5' ~ ..-- . ;:r----~ ':
.. U'81 U' ~ U'Jv / "
lIS' Iz.. '6' ~ \J' tv'v \; (i' ? :i
UJ ? . ~ '
UJ/ -.\ ~~ ~ '7. I
~ ~ =0.0 ;oh' ~ I
:o.c ~ ~? "; .
~ ~ )
/
)
I 05W-9 21.3ppm
.SW-10 61.3ppm
oooog8 BgP~ggRQ~,E~ISHPONDS
LEGEND
ppm ~ parts per million of lead
-18-
-------
iABlE 5.4
KASSCUF-KI"ERlIN6 SUPERFUND SITE
SEDI"ENT QUALITY ANALYTiCAL DATA
'CANAl' "AY 1988
LOCATiON:
58th STREET - TA"PA, rL
SA"PLES COLLECTED BY:
~HORN70N lABORATORIES, INC.
SA"PLE LOCATIONS:
SI
52
53
S4
S5
56
57
58
S~
s~o
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PARA"ETER, UNIT
--------------------
ARSENIC CAS) Ig/kg :.9 6.8 8.7 4.7 3.6 4.4 5.4 6.5 ..7 :'.3
CAD"IU" CCD) Ig/kg <0.2 O.~ 0.8 0.5 1.0 2.1 2.6 3.3 3.4 3.5
LEAD (Pb) Ig/kg 23 293 241 177 527 1190 1700 3350 3190 3380
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.--------------------------------
- .
-19-
-------
FIGURE 6.6
SEDIMENT QUALITY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR LEAD.
KASSOUF-KIMERLING
T AMPA,FLORIDA
MAY 1988
------:;';;"~---1
1""\ <::-r<::.:.' <::'T= ~
" j"""I .....i"'--. .L.,......I '-. «
....... ' ,
...... ....,
"".
"'- .
-
/ ,. $-1G 3 "~I"\
,.........,......ccrn
- -- ----- -
--~---._--- )
DIS-CS . L c:'-= r\
r-' 1"\ --11- /;
--- .
- .~- ----~ "
I
J
I
)
/
I
i
I
I
\
)
\
\
~
r--: ~
r\J N :> -c
c:...; r.:; ",. ;-::
5:2"S. ?
:c ":;.
... -; ..,
00 OOOOOOOO~C''''PC~S
o 0 0 0 P8\lNS.U\R R~PJES 00 [p"" .
L=GE~'~:
cpm. :. pa~s per million Of lead
-20-
-------
TABLE 6.5
SEDIMENT DATA SUMMARY
KASSOUF & KIMERLING
T AMP A, FLORIDA
MARCH 1989
n. 's n.2S n-]s KK-I,S KK'IoSO KIC - 5S KK-6S KK - 7S n-8S KI(-9S
01/'4/89 03/'4/89 03/14/89 03/14/89 01/110189 03/110/89 03/110189 03/110/89 03/110/89 03/110/89
INORGANIC ELEMENtS MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/ICG MG/KG MG/KG HG/KG MG/KG HG/KG HG/KG
BARIUM 107 108 101 110 110 51 57 12
CHROHIUM 11J 11J BJ 22J
COPPER 102 51
LEAD 9.5 10100 1070 170 1010 700 780 '000 '00 210
I VANADIUM 15 13
N 4.8 170 1100 16 12 12 100 1100 110 31
.- ZINC
I AlUMINUH 1500 1700 1700 1800 1100 890 1100 1100 1500 1600
MANGANESE 2.6 11 12 11 16 " 66 16
CALCIUM 1700J 26000J 19000J 24000J 20000J 20000J 27000J 2100J 19000J 6200J
MAGNESIUM 1000 1100 1000 860 810 1200 1200 1000 210
IRON 1600 4900 2800 ]100 2200 2000 1100 3500 2900 1200
SOOIUH 11,0 920 610, 910 910
POI ASSIUH 120 110 ]'0 600 1100 1,8
GENERAL ORGANIC PARAME1ERS MGIKG MGIKG MGIKG MGIKG MGIKG Mli/KG Mli/KG MGIKG MGIKG MGIKG
101Al ORGANIC CAR80M 5200 410,000 480,000 1060,000 460,000 190,000 1080,000 1,10,000 450,000 1,9,000"
[[[
".footNOTES."
A - AVERAGE VALUE
NA - NOI ANAL YlED
J - ESIIMAIED VALUE
- MAIERIAL WAS ANALYZED fOR BUI NOI DEIECIED
II - MAIERIAl WAS ANALUED fUA Bill NOI DEJECJED. litE NUMBEA IS litE MINIMUH QIlANJI"'JlON lIMII
R . QUAI IIY CONIAOl INDICAJES iliA I IIATA ARE UIIIJSABIE, COHPOtJNO HAY OM MAY NOI liE PRESENI
-------
TABLE 6.5 (Continued)
SEDIMENT DATA SUMMARY
KASSOUF & KIMERLING
T AMP A, FLORIDA
MARCH 1989
KIC -105 KIC-11S KIC-12S KIC-l1S KIC -11,5 KIC -155 KIC -165 KIC -115 KIC -185 KIC -18SD
OJ/14/89 OJ/15/89 OJ/15/89 OJ/15/89 OJ/15/89 OJI15/89 OJ/15/89 01,/11/89 0]/15/89 OJ/15/89
INORGANIC ELEMENTS MG/ICG MG/ICG MG/ICG MG/ICG MG/ICG MG/ICG MG/ICG MG/ICG MG/ICG "&/IC&
BARIUM 56 J9. 51, JJ 52 J1 1,1 58 23 J3
C"R()fIIUM nOJ 11J 12J
COPPER 1,9 1,4
NICKEl 2.8
I LEAD 340 380 320 1,60 380 220 780 600 12 17J
N
N VANAOIUM
I ZINC 2JO 110 150 190 220 no 190 190 7.1, 7.6
ALUMINUM 4200 1S00 1900 930 1100 2000 2200 2/000 4100 5100
MANfoANESE 50 1,2 52 1,6 19 3 2.7
CALCIUM 30000J 21,000 28000J 23000 29000J nOOOJ 27000J 25000J 1800J 2600J
MAGNESIUM 1300 800 noo 080 1000 760 1200 1500 370 1,00
IROII 3800 3JOO 2700 2000 3200 1,000 JJOO 4700 1200 1400
SOO !UM 920 760 570 850 noo 72
POIASSIUM 1,00 270 SOO 290 310 220 220
GENERAL ORGANIC PARAMETERS MG/ICG MG/ICG MG/ICG MG/ICG. MG/ICG MG/ICG MG/ICG MG/ICG MG/ICG MG/ICG
10TAL ORGANIC CARBON 1,1,0,000 1,50,000 1,80,000 1,00,000 1,70,000 520,000 1,20,000 360,000 5900 12,000
[[[
".fOOTNons."
NA - NO I ANAl UEO
J - ESTIMATED VALUE
. - . MAIERIAL WAS ANALYZED fOR BUT NOT DETECTED
U . MAIERIAL WAS ANALYZED fOR BUI NOT DEJECIED. THE NUMBER IS THE MINIHUM QUANJI IAJlON LIMIT
R . QUAlity COttIROL INDICAtES filA' DATA t,;..: UNUSABLE, COttPCAJND MAY OR MAY NOt BE PRESEN'
-------
MARCH
3ACKGROUND
KK-18
.
12
N
100 FE::T
~EPA
. FiGURE 6.7
1989 SEDIMENT SAM?LE:S "L~;J"
KASSOUF & .K!MERLlN~ gPo.rT::::::Y
DISPOSAL S::-=:
...
w..:
w..:
a:
...
V')
a:
aJ
'"
9.5
t./:-: /,,( -:
--I -
t.CO
.
KK-8
F;S- =:'.:S
6 -.,-
t
-------
TABLE 6.6
L::AD ANA!.Y:IC~ DA7A St.~Y
KASSOUF AN'!) KL~L~G S!TE
TA..'!P A . FLORIDA
Sample Number
A
Lead Conceneraeion (mg/kg)
Depeh Inee~ral .
C D
B
E
--------~---------------------------------------------------------------.
lC< - 3 330 130 38
K:< - 7 730 56 6.1
K:<-lZ 360 20 4.1 ~S
K:{ - 17 18 6.1 NS
NS
Ma~e~ial was analy~ed fe~ buc nee deeac:ed
A sample was noe cellec:ed f=om chis depch
"A" in the sample number indicates a sample collection depth
of 0 to 1 foot celow land surface (BLS)
"B" indicates 1 to 2 feet BLS
"C" indicates 2 to 3 feet BLS
"D" indicates 3 to 4 feet BLS
"E" indicates 4 to 5 feet BLS
NOTE:
The approach used in thi8 investiqation was to collect
samples from on. foot intervals throuqh the peat layer then
collect one .ample into the sand underneath the peat.
Cons~tly, five .ample. were collected from locations
KK-3 &ad KK-7 and four samples were collected from locations
KK-12 &ad KK-17. The peat layer at location KA-17 was less
than 0- foot thick. However samples were collected to a
depth of four feet.
-24-
-------
FIGURE 6.8
K ASS 0 U F (~x: KIM E R LI ~\J G BAT T c:.. R Y
DISPOSAL SITE
,
I
I
I
;- ------~--------
, I
-------
In June 1989, EPA collected subsurface sediment samples from four (4)
location. in the marsh. The analytical data is summarized in Table 6.6
and the .amp18 locations are shown on Figure 6.8. The 0 to 1 foot. Below
Land surtace (8LS) contained lead concentrations ranging from 18 ppm to
730 ppm. The 1 to 2 feet BLS contained less lead than the 0 to 1 foot BLS
interval; the concentrations ranged from 6.1 ppm to 130 ppm. Three of the
2 to 3 feet 8LS samples contained lead; the concentrations ranged from 4.1
ppm to 38 ppm. All of the sample collected below 3 feet BLS contained no
detactable con~entrations of lead.
6.6 Wetland I.pact Study
In September of 1989, The Ecological Support Branch of EPA Region IV,
conducted a Wetland Impact Study on the Kassouf-Kimerling Site. The
overall goal of the study was to provide the biological and chemical
information necessary to evaluate. the ecologicaL hazards associated with
the wetland contaminants. Field, laboratory, and modeling exercises that
were undertaken were designed to provide information on:
1.) The existing health of the wetland community as measured by
biosurvey techniques.
2. )
The toxicity of wetland surface waters to aquatic organisms.
3.) The toxicity of sediment samples and sediment eluates to.
terrestrial and aquatic organisms, respectively, under diverse
environmental conditions, relative to the metal concentrations in the
samples.
4.) The fate of the metals in the system as predicted by a
geochemical speciation model.
5.) The existing level of metal bioaccumulation by indigenous plants
and animals.
The study reported that virtually all the stations sampled demonstrated
some degree of toxicity associated with the surface water. Of the metals
assessed in the study, lead was the only metal clearly exceeding ambient
water qu ality criteria.
The study went on to 8tate that a level of 40 mq/kg of lead in the marsh
sediment. wa. an appropriate clean-up objective to assure compliance with
the Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC). The report concluded
that trying to achieve the 40 mg/kg in the marsh sediments might result in
the mobUization of lead, ultimately having a negative environmental
impact on tbe'marsh.
Finally, the study recommended changing the wetland's hydroperiod from a
semi-permanently flooded marsh system to a permanently flooded marsh
system. Under flooded conditions the wetland sediments become anaerobic
with the overlying water column often featuring a substandard level of
dissolved oxygen. The sulfur bacteria in the sediments reduce sulfate tc
sulfide which reacts with most heavy metals to form a metallic sulfide.
Under anaerobic or reduced conditions in the sediments, the metals are
sequestered.
-26-
-------
7.0
Su..ary of SJ.te KJ.ake for the Wetlands:
Both human and environmental risks were evaluated for the wetlands area
adjacent to the Kassouf-Kimerling site. Due to the sensitivity - of the
ecoloqical community to the contaminants of concern in the wetlands, the
environmental impacts override the human health risks for the marsh area.
The risk evaluation for the wetlands is based on the Wetlands Impact Study
conducted for the adjacent wetland.
7.1
Identifioation of the Conta.inante of Concern:
Surface water analyses indicate that several metals were present above
background levels. Violations of the Federal Ambient Water Qu ality
Criteria for aquatic life and its users occurred for lead, cadmium,
copper, zinc and aluminum. Data from the marsh area indicates that the
high lead concentration in this area make it the contaminant which will
determine the extent of the remediation in the wetlands.
Analysis of the marsh sediments also showed several metals were present in
the sediments above background levels. Lead was clearly the most
concentrated contaminate in the sediments with values ranging from 17,741.
ppm next to the landfill to 8.77 ppm on the east side of the marsh.
Spatial variability of lead levels was also indicated by the sediment
samples. In the sediment profile, lead levels decreased below one foot in
depth and had undetectable concentrations below three feet in depth.
7.2
Bzpoeure Aseeaament Summary
The exposure assessment for the marsh is divided into two possible
exposu re path way s, human and en v iron ment ale
Human Exposure Pathways in the Marsh:
The exposure pathways for humans in the marsh are presented in Table 7.1.
Potenti&liy exposed populations are adults and children residing in or
frequenting the area. Potential exposure pathways to contaminated media
are summarized below:
Surface water
o Dermal exposure during casual or accidental contact
Sediment.
o Dermal contact with sediments
o Ingestion of sediments
Pathways Eliminated From Further Consideration:
The pathways which were not considered to be complete exposure pathways
are summarized below:
Ground water -(shallow aquifer)
o Concentrations of indicator chemicals were below EPA MCLs and
Florida Chapter 17-22 ground water standards
-27-
-------
TABLE 7. 1 -
EXPOSURE SCE~ARIOS
WETLAND AREA
MEDIUM
TRANSPORT
MECHANISM
EXPOSURE
POINT
ROUTE
. EXPLA.'lATION
Ground Water
(shallow)
Ground Water
( Floridan)
Surface Water
Sediments
Surface Soils
None
None
None
Volatil-
ization
None
Volatil-
ization
None
Nearest
Receptor
(hypothetical
we 11 )
Nearest
Receptor
Marsh
Nearest
Receptor
Ons1te
Nearest
Receptor
Nearest
Receptor
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Ingestion
Dermal
Bioaccumulation
Inhalation
Dermal
Ingestion
Inhalation
Inhalation
Dermal
Ingestion
-28-
Meets EPA MCLs & FLDER S~a~da[ds;
addressed.
Meets EPA MCLs & FLDER Sta~dards;
addressed.
Not feasible exposure scenario; ~~
addressed.
Recreational activities; address~
refer to Aquatic Life Toxicology
section of the Risk Ass~ss~ent.
Inorganics are not volatil~; n~~
addressed.
Possible Scenario; addressed.
Possible scenario children 2-6;
addressed.
Inorganics are not volatile; not
addressed.
No samples; not addressed.
-------
Ground water (Floridan aquifer)
o Concentrations of indicator chemicals were below EPA MCLs and
Plorida Chapter 17-22 ground water standards
Surface water
o No known ingestion
o No i~halation exposure since the
inorganic, hence, nonvolatile
indicator chemicals were
Sediments (discharge from marsh)
o No inhalation exposure via volatilization, since the
indicator chemicals were inorganic and hence nonvolatile
o No inhalation expolr\.1res due to the fugitive du st emission s
since these are not anticipated conditions of the marsh area.
Assumptions Made:
Human ingestion of fish was not considered appropriate for this marsh
because it does not support game fish. The only fish population consist
of small minnows in the canal.
Since the marsh normally has less than one foot of water and is densely
vegetated, swimming was not considered appropriate. However, humans
wading in the marsh could possibly occur.
Environmental E'xposure Pathways in the Marsh:
Aquatic biota may be exposed via contaminated surface water and
sediments. The Wetlands Impact Study indicates that there is a tendency
for fish to bioaccumulate the metals. Higher organisms in the food chain
may be exposed through ingestion of aquatic organisms and/or plants which
have been exposed to the marsh contamination.
7.3 Su_ary of the Aquatic Tozicity Assessment of the Contaminants of
Concern
1.) Based on the existing toxicological d~ta, levels of heavy metal
accumulation (Cd, Cr and Pb) in the flora and fauna of the site pose a
potential long-term risk to resident consumers of the site wetland.
Aquatic plant concentrations of lead present the greatest risk to
wildlife.
2.) The bi:osurvey of the marsh indicates that the community of
benthic macroinvertebrates associated with the canal and surrounding
wetland area are severely restricted in diversity.
3.) Virtually all stations studied during the wetlands impact study
showed some degree of toxicity associated with surface water. The
most pronounced effects were exhibited nearest the landfill. Both
acute and chronic effects were observed near the landfill.
-29-
-------
4.) Bioaccumulation varies greatly depending on numerous factors, bu~
chiefly appears to depend on the species affected. Fish represent a
mobile population which can migrate from other locations. Pla:1.ts lack.
this mobility and hence represent site effects. Aquatic plants in the
marsh showed bioaccumulation of metals.
5.). Impacts to fresh water plant s inc lu d e growth red u ction and
mortality.
7.4
Risk Concl\1'sions:
Based on the Wetlands Impact Study the marsh contaminants are having a
negative impact on the ecology of the marsh (see Section 7.3 Toxicity
Assessment). The study concludes that a level of 40 mg/kg of lead in the
marsh sediments would be an appropriate clean-up objective to assure
compliance with the Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria (A W Q C).
However, the repor= further concludes that trying to achieve the 40 mg /kg
in the marsh sediments might result in the mobilization 0: lead,
ultimately having a greater negative environmental impact on the marsh.
The routes by which the Kassouf-Kimerling site impacts the wetland is
through surface water transport, and groundwater flow. Water flows off
and through the landfill, in an easterly direction thus providing a
pathway for metal transport into the wetland. Remediation of the landfill
site will reduce the levels of lead in the surface water to an
insignificant amount.
Finally, the Wetland Impact Study recommended changing the wetland's
hydroperiod fro~ a semi-permanently flooded marsh system to a permanently
flooded marsh system. Under flooded conditions the wetland sediments
become anaerobic with the overlying water column often featuring a
sub standard level of dissolved oxygen.. Th e su lfu r bacteria in th e
sediments reduce sulfate to sulfide which reacts with most heavy metals to
form a metallic sulfide. Anaerobic or reduced conditions in the sediments
will cause the metals to be sequestered and will reduce the potential for
migration of metals.
8.0
Description of A1ternatives
Alternative 1 - No Action
Alternative 2 - Low Permeability Cover
Alternative 3 - Solidification
M odif ied Altern ative 3 - S olidif ication
Alternative 4 - Off-Site Disposal
8.1
A1ternative .1 - Ho Action
The Superfund Program requires that the "no-action" alternative be
considered at every site. Under the "no-action" alternative, EPA 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 marsh sediments
and exposure to surface water by ingestion. This alternative exceeds the
target risk range and does not attain ARARs.
-30-
-------
The no action alternative implies leaving the site in its present
condition without disturbing contaminated sediments. Associated with t.he
no action alternative would be continued monitoring of the marsh
sediment., .urface water and groundwater quality at the site.
Also included in this alternative is the installation of a fence around
the perimeter of the wetlands. Warning signs would be posted on the fence
and land use restrictions would be imposed on the site to prevent
additional areas of contamination.
Solidification was the solicited remedy for the
landfill portion) of the Kassouf-Kimerling site.
Clean Water Act would require mitigation for the
landfill area.
first operable unit (the
Section 404(b)(1) of the
destroyed wetlands in the
A public health assessment would be performed every five years to evaluate
potential changes in risk associated with no action and monitoring would
continue for 30 years.
The estimated present worth cost of this alternative is $232,900 which-
includes $157,600 for operation and maintenance.
8.2
Alternative 2 - Lov Permeability Cover
Construction of a low permeability (clay) cover would involve the
placement of clay and topsoil over areas of contaminated marsh sediments
that exceed the established soil cleanup goals. Due to the absence of
"clean" clay fill on-site, approximately 16,000 cubic yards of clay would
be hauled to the site and placed over the area of sediment contamination.
Approximately two feet of this low hydraulic conductivity material would
be placed, compacted, and then covered with a one-foot layer of vegetative
fill. Again, due to the absence of acceptable topsoil material on-site,
approximately 8,000 cubic yards of this material would be hauled to the
site.
Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act requires that practicable steps
must be taken to minimize adverse impacts to wetlands caused by filling in
wetlands. To achieve no net loss of wetlands, and to minimize the adverse
effects of filling at the site, mitigation is required which involves
replacing wetlands lost at the site by creating or restoring a wetland
area. A site specific mitigation plan for the selected alternative will
be developed in accordance with the EPA regional mitigation guidelines.
Drainage diver. ion ditches would be constructed around the capped area to
promote runoff of surface water and away from t:he capped area. Land use
restriction. would be imposed on the site to prevent additional areas of
contamination.
Monitoring of groundwater quality of the site would be performed quarterly
for a period of four years and semi-annually for 26 years thereafter. A
public health assessment would be conducted by EPA five years after
implementation of the remedial action to evaluate potential changes in
risk associated with the. site.
The total present worth cost for this alternative is es~imated to be
$679,600 which includes $157,600 for operation and maintenance.
-31-
-------
8.3
A~t.rDati.e 3 - Solidifi.catioD/Stabi~izatioD
Solidification/Stabilization of contaminated marsh sediment 'would
initially involve the excavation of approximately 16,000 cubic yards of
contaminated .ediments. For comparison purposes, it was assumed that
sed~ent8 down to two feet below ground surface would require treatment.
Given the relative immobility of lead, it is unlikely that significant
levels of contaminants have migrated greater than .one foot below ground
surface. HoweveJ;, the presence of heavy earth moving equipment could
cause mixing of the marsh sediments forcing contaminants to depths of two
feet. Also, the void formed as the vegetation is removed from the root.
zone could allow the contaminants to move deeper. Sampling will be
performed during remediation to confirm actual lateral and vertical
extention of sediment contamination.
Mixing of the sediments with stabilizing agents would be performed on- site
and above-grade. The mixed material would be placed with the landfill
solidified material. Precaution would be taken to minimize the
destruction of the wetlands by containing the solidified materials in one
area. A 12-inch thick layer of topsoil would be placed over the.
solidified mass and vegetated with grass. Due to the lack of acceptable
topsoil on-site, approximately 8,000 cubic yards of material would be
hauled to the site.
Federal Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, .requires federal.
agencies in carrying out their responsibilities to take action to minimize
the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and
enhance there natural and beneficial values of wetlands. Section
404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act also requires that practicable steps must
be taken to minimize adverse impacts to wetlands caused by filling. One
type of minimization is compensatory mitigation to achieve no net loss of
wetlands, and to minimize the adverse effects of filling at the site,
which involves replacing wetlands lost at the site by creating or
restoring a new wetland area. A site specific mitigation plan for the
selected alternative will be developed in accordance with the EPA regional
mitigation guidelines.
Monitoring of groundwater quality of the site would be performed quarterly
for a period of four years. The surface water standards mav not be
init~y met but would achieve these standards over a short period of
t~e due to the excavation and solidification of the marsh sediments and
the landfill material. A public health assessment would be conducted by
EPA five year. after remedial action implementation. Following this
assessment. monitoring activities would be terminated, provided that the
pub~ health a..e..ment does not identify a need for further remedial
action or monitoring.
Treatability or bench scale studies would be necessary during Remedial
Desiqn to determine which solidification agents are most effective for the
Kassouf-Kimerling site. For costing purposes, Portland cement was
assumed.
The total present worth cost for this alternati~e is estimated to be
$1,745,470 which includes $59,950 for operation and maintenance.
-32-
-------
8.4
Hodified Alternative 3 - Solidification
Based on the Wetland Impact Study a modification of Alternative 3 was'
developed. As previously stated in Section 6.6, the Wetland Impact Study
, concluded that 40 mg/kg of lead in the marsh sediments was an appropriate
clean-up objective to assure compliance with the Federal 'Ambient Water
Qualit,y Criteria (AWQC). The AWQC is an allowable surface water
concentration of lead that will protect aquatic life from chronic lead
toxicity. For the Kassouf-Kimerling site the AWQC concentration was
calculate:d to be 4.6 ug/l for lead in the surface water. However, the
Wetland Impact Study reported that trying to achieve the 40 mg/kg in the
marsh sediments might result in the mobilization of lead, and ultimately
have a negative environmental impact on the marsh. As stated in the
alternative 3, mobilization of lead could be cau sed by the use of heavy
earth moving equipment mixing the marsh sediments and forcing the
contaminants deeper into the peat sediments. Similarly, the void formed
as the vegetation is removed from the root zone could allow the
contaminants to move deeper. The earth moving equipment could suspend
lead particulates that are bond to the marsh sediments, into the water
column thus allowing lead to migrate from the marsh. Therefore a less
radical approach would be protective of human health and the environment
by not potentially mobilizing the metals in the marsh to a greater extent.
The modified alternative 3 would remove the marsh sediment within 20 feet
of the battery landfill to a depth of two feet below the sediment
surface. The sediments along the edge of the landfill contain high
concentrations of lead which have migrated from the landfill portion of
the site. In addition, the sediments would be removed from the canal east
of the site extending' 150 feet from the battery landfill and' to a depth of
two feet below the sediment surface. The canal sediments also contain
high concentrations of metals that have been transported a greater
distance due to the flow in the canal. Approximately 1,500 cubic yards of
contaminated sediments will be excavated from the marsh. The excavated
sediments will be treated u sing a solidification and stabilization
technology and placed with the solidified landfill material. The
remainder of the marsh sediments (sediments greater than 20 feet away from
the landfill and sediments in the canal greater than 150 feet away from
the landfill) would be left in place. The canal which currently allows
the marsh to drain will be designed to Lilow the marsh to. remain flooded
year round. The Wetland Impact Study concluded that if the marsh was
permanently flooded, instead of its current semi-permanently flooded
condition, the hazardous metals in the sediments would remain undet
anaerobic conditions and would be chemically bound and sequestered in the
sediments.
There is a possibility that by leaving contaminated sediments in the marsh
exceeding the clean-up goal of 40 mg/kg for lead, that the Federal Ambient
Water Quality Criteria (AWQC) in surface water may be exceeded. In ordet
to select this alternative a waiver of the Federal Ambient Water Quality
Criteria (AWQC) is required. The waiver is justified by the potential
negative environmental impact that could be created by trying to remediate
the remainder of the marsh sediments which involves complete destruction
of the wetland and potential mobilization of lead beyond the site area
(CERCLA 121(d)(4)(B».
-33-
-------
This modified alternative does not require a waiver of Florida
Administrative Code Chapter 17-3, Maxi1num Concentration Limits (MCLs) for
the groundw.ter or surface water. The routes by which the landfill
impact. the wetland is through surface water transport, and groundwater
flow. Water flows off and through the landfill in an easterly direction
thus providing a pathway for metal transport into the wetland.
Remediation of the landfill site would lead to insignificant metal
loadings to the wetlands.
. .
Monitoring of groundwater and surface water at the site would be performed
quarterly for a period of four years. It is possible that the Florida.
Administrative Code Chapter 17-3 Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) for
Class III surface water bodies may not be initially met. However, these
standards will be achieved over a short period of time because the source
of contamination (the landfill) will no longer exist. A public health
assessment would be conducted by EPA five years after remedial action
implementation. Following this assessment, monitoring activities would be
terminated, provided that the public health assessment does not identify a
need for further remedial action or monitoring.
Federal Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, requires federal
agencies in carrying out their responsibilities to take action to minimize
the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and
enhance there natural and beneficial values of wetlands. Section
404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act also requires that practi~able steps must
be taken to minimize adverse impacts to wetlands from fill. In the case.
of this alternative, the contaminated sediments remaining in the marsh
will continue to impair the biological productivity and diversity of the
wetland ecosystem. .To minimize the effects of this impact, mitigation is
required to create new areas of wetlands that will replace the functions
lost in the on-site wetland. A site specific mitigation plan will be
developed as part of the Remedial Design and in accordance with the EPA
regional mitigation guidelines.
Treatability or bench scale studies will be necessary during Remedial
Design to determine which solidification agents are most effective for the
Kassouf-Kimerling site. For costing purposes, it was assumed that
Portland cement would be used.
The total present worth coat for this alternative is estimated to. be
$511,700 which includes $99,950 for operation and maintenance.
8.5
Alt.~D.ti.e 4 - Off-Site Disposal
Off-site di8po.al would involve the excavation
cubic yards of contaminated marsh sediments down
surface. Actual extent and depth of contaminated
would be determined during remediation.
of approximately 16,000
to two feet below ground
sediment to be excavated
Excavated wastes would be stockpiled in a staging area that would serve as
a place for loading and decontamination. Wastes should not require
stockpiling for more than two or three days; thus, no special pads or
drainage devices would be required.
The wastes would be manifested by a licensed hazardous waste hauler and
transported to an approved RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste landfill.
-34-
-------
Once excavation activities have been c.ompleted, the excavated area would
be backfillec:! with clean material hauled in from an off- site location and
the ground 8urface restored to its original contour.
Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act requires that practicable steps
must be taken to minimize adverse impacts to wetlands. To achieve no net
108s of wetlands, and to minimize the adverse effects of dredging and
filling at the .site, mitigation is required which involves replacing
wetlands lost at the site by creating a new wetland area. A site specific
mitigation plan will be developed in accordance with the EPA regional
mitigation guidelines.
Monitoring of groundwater quality of the site would be performed quarterly
for a period of four years. The surface water standards mav not be
initially met but would achieve these standards would be achieved over a
short period of time due to the excavation of the marsh sediments. A
public health assessment would be conducted by EPA five years after
remedial action implementation. Following this assessment, monitoring
activities would be terminated, provided that the public health
assessment does not identify a need for further remedial action or.
monitoring.
This alternative would comply with Federal and State ARARs but would
ig nore S AR A's p reference for treatment. T ran sportation of all
contaminated soil would be in accordance with appropriate Federal and
State regulations. The disposal facility would be in compliance with all
ARARs.
The total present worth cost for this alternative is estimated to be
$4,737,280 which includes $59,950 for operation and maintenance.
9.0
Summary of Coaparative Analysis of Alternatives
This section provide the basis for determining which alternative provides
the "best balance" of trade-offs with respect to the evaluation
criterion. A glossary of the evaluation criteria is offered in Table 9.1.
Overall Protection
All of the alternatives, with the exception of the "no action"
alternative, would provide protection of human health and the environment
by eliminating, reducing, or controlling risk through treatment,
engineerinq control., or institutional controle. The Modified Alternative
3 offers reduc~ion of risk by treating the highly contaminated marsh
sediments while not introducing new environmental risks by attempting to
remediate the entire wetland. As stated earlier, by permanently flooding
the marsh, the hazardous metals in the marsh would remain chemically bound
in the sediments.
Because the "no action" alternative offers no reduction in risk to human
health and the environment, it is not considered further in this analysis
as an option for this site.
-35-
-------
TABLB 9.1
GLOSSARY OF BVALUATION CRITBRIA
overall prat;ect:iDn of HUlDan Health aDd BnvironlDent - addresses whether
or not a remedy provides adequate protection and describes how risks
posed through each pathway are eliminated, reduced, or controlled through
treatment engineering controls or institutional controls.
ComDliance w~h ARARs - addresses whether or not a remedy will meet all
of the applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements of other
Federal and State environmental statutes and/or provide grounds for
invoking a waiver.
LonQ-Term Bffectiveness and per.anence - refers to the magnitude of
residual risk and the ab~y of a remedy to maintain reliable protection
of human health and the environment over time once cleanup goals hav~
been met.
Reducti.on of Tazicitv. lIobilitv. or Voluae 'fhrouQh Treatment - is the
anticipated performance of the treatment technologies that may be
employed in a remedy.
Short-Term Bffect.ivenes. - refers to the speed with which the remedy
achieves protection, as well as the remedy's potential to create adverse
impacts on human health and the environment that may result during the
construction and implementation period.
IaDlementab~ - is the technical and administrative feasibility of a
remedy, including the availability of materials and services needed to
implement the chosen solution
~ - includes capital and operation and maintenance costs.
St~ AcceutaDce - indicates whether the State concurs with, opposes,
or has no comment on the Proposed Plan.
Commu.Dii:v Acc8DI:aDce - the Re.ponsiveness
the Record of Deci.ion reviews the public
Propo..d Plan public meeting.
Summary in the appendix of
comments received from the
-36-
-------
C018Dliance with ARARs
The MocU.fi8d Alternative 3 requires a waiver of the Pederal Ambient" Watar
Quality Criteria due to the potential negative environmental impact that
could be cr.ateeS by trying to remedlate the entire marsh to the clean-up
goal (40 mg/kg for lead). The other alternatives did" not take into
consideration the mobw.ty of lead during remediation (the Wetland Impact
Study was completed after the Post-FS). Off-site disposal involves
compliance with ildditional ARARa associated with the transportation of
hazardous materials.
Lana-Term Bffectiveness and Permanence
Solidification provides the greatest degree of long-term elimination of
risk posed by contaminants at the Kassouf-Kimerling site because the
contaminants are permanently bound in a cement matrix. The low
permeability cover alternative would also provide long-term protection to
public health and the environment; however there is a very slight chance
that flood events might occur which could compromise the integrity of the
cap. The cap's effectiveness would be evalu ated throu g h long -term.
monitoring. Off-site disposal merely transfers the risk to another
location but would offer some protection by proper disposal in a permitted
hazardous waste facility.
Reduct.i.on of Tozicitv. .obilitv. or Voluae of the Contaainants 'l'hrouah
Treataent
The Modified Alternative 3, solidification, would provide a significant
reduction of toxicity through treatment of the highly contaminated
sediments. This alternative would also provide protection to the
environment by not potentially mobilizing the metals to a greater
extent. Solidif ication wou ld provide a signif icant red uction of
contaminant mobility by binding the contaminants into a cement matrix.
Alternatives 2 (low permeability cover) and 4 (off-site disposal) do not
provide for a reduction of toxicity or volume of the contaminants but
would reduce their mobility.
Short-Term Bffectivenes.
All of the alternative8 would immediately break the soil ingestion
exposure pathway with the exception of the modified alternative 3, which
would allow 80me sediments that exceed the clean-up goal to remain in
place. Kin~mal risk is associated with remedy construction for each
alternative, however, 801idification and off- site disposal would require
additional precautionary measures to ensure the safety of workers.
Off-site DUp08a! adds a slight risk to the general public due to hauling
activities. Given the relative immobility of site contaminants and the
media that they are contained in (soil), this risk would be minimal in the
event of an accident during transportation.
~
Off- site disposal is estimated to be the most expen sive remed iat ion
alternative at $4,737,280. The cost for the Modified Alternative 3 is
-37-
-------
substantially less than the cost for alternative 3, and may provide a
greater protection to the environment 'by not potentially mobili.ziflg the
lead in the mar.h. The total present worth of the modified alternative 3
is $511,700 as compared to alternative 3, which is $1,745,470.
state Acc.atance
The State of Florida as represented by the Plorida Department of
Envj,.ronmental ReC)ulation concurs that the modified alternative 3 is the
preferred alternative for remediating the wetland at the Kassouf-Kimerling
Site.
Community Acceatance
Based on comments made by citizens at the public meeting held on Feb ru ary
21, 1990, and those received-during "the-pu"blic" comment period, the
community believes the selected remedy will effectively protect human
health and the environment.
10.0
Selected Reaedy
Based upon consideration of the requirements of CERCLA, the detailed
analysis of the alternatives, and public comments, EPA has determined that
Modified Alternative 3 Solidification, Stabilization, and On-site
Disposal, is the most appropriate remedy for the second operable unit (the-
wetlands) at the Kassouf-Kimerling site in Tampa, Florida. The MocUfied
Alternative 3 will remove the marsh sediment within 20 feet of the
landfill to a depth of two feet below the sediment surface. The sediments
along the edge of the landfill contain high concentrations of lead which
have migrated from the landfill portion of the site. In addition, the
sediments will be removed from the canal east of the site extending 150
feet from the battery landfill and to a depth of two feet below the
sediment surface. The canal sediments also contain high concentrations of
metals that have been transported a greater distance due to the flow in
the canal. Approximately 1,500 cubic yards of contaminated sediments will
be excavated from the marsh. The excavated sediments will be treated
using a solidification and stabilization technology and placed with the
solidified landfill material.
The remainder of the marsh sediments (sediments greater than 20 feet away
from the landfill and .ediments in the canal greater than 150 feet away
from the landfill) will be left in place. The Wetland Impact Study
concluded that trying to achieve the clean-up goal (40 mg/kg of lead) in
the mar.h .ediments might result in the mobilization of lead, ultimately
having a negative environmental impact on the marsh. Mobilization of lead
could be cau.ed by the us. of heavy earth moving equipment mixing the
marsh sediments and forcing the contaminants deeper into the peat
sediments. Similarly, the void formed as the vegetation is removed from
the root zone could allow the contaminants to move deeper. The earth
moving equipment could suspend lead particulates that are bond to the
marsh sediments, into the water column thus allowing lead to migrate
off-site.
The canal which currently allows the marsh to drain will be designed to
allow the marsh to remain flooded year round, changing"the wetland's
-38-
-------
hydroperiod from a semi-permanently flooded marsh system to a permanently
flooded marsh system. Under flooded conditions the wetland sediments
become anaerobic with the overlying water column often featu ring .a
substandard level of dissolved oxygen. The sulfur bacteria in the
sediments reduce sulfate to sulfide which reacts with most heavy metals to
form a metaUic sulfide. Under anaerobic or reduced conditions in the
sediments, the me!l:a1.s are sequestered. The wetland serves as a catchment
basin trapping, holding, and accumulating contaminated sediments. The
dense wetland vegetation contributes to t.his effect of retaining sediments
and associated contaminants.
There is a possibility that by leaving contaminated sediments in the marsh
exceeding the clean-up goal of 40 mg/kg for lead, that the Federal Ambient
Water Quality Criteria (A W Q C) in su rf ace water may be ex ceeded.
Therefore, this afternative requires a waiver of the Federal Ambient Water
Quality Criteria (AWQC). The waiver is justified by the potential
negative environlllental impact that could be created by trying to remediate
the remainder of the marsh sediments which involves complete destruction
of the wetland and potential mobilization of lead beyond the site area
(CERCLA 121(d)(4)(B».
This modified alternative does not require a waiver of Florida
Administrative Cocie Chapter 17-3, Maximum Concentration Limits (MCLs) for
the groundwater or surface water. The routes by which the landfill
impacts the wetland is through surface water transport, .and groundwater
flow. Water flows off and through the landfill in an easterly direction
thus providing a pathway for metal transport into the wetland.
Remediation of the landfill site would lead to insignificant metal
loadings to the wetlands.
Monitoring of groundwater and surface water at the site will be performed
quarterly for a period of four yea.rs. The Florida Administrative Code
Chapter 17-3 Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) for Class III surface water
bodies mav not be initially met. However, these standards will be
achieved over a short period of time because the source of contamination
(the landfill) will no longer exist. A public health assessment will be
conducted by EPA five years after remedial action implementation.
Following this assessment, monitoring activities will be terminated,
provided that the public health assessment does not identify a need for
further remedial action or monitoring.
Federal Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, requires federal
agencies in carrying out their responsibilities to take action to minimize
the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and
enhance there natural and beneficial values of wetlands. Section
404(b)(1) of the CJ.ean Water Act also requires that practicable steps must
be taken to minimize adverse impacts to wetlands from fill. In the case
of this alternative, the contaminated sediments remaining in the marsh
will continue to impair the biological productivity and diversity of the
wetland ecosystem. '1'0 minimize the effects of this impact, mitigation for
the entire wetland (approximately four acres) is required. Creation of a
new area of wetlands will compensate for the functions lost or eff ected in
the on-site wetland. A site specific mitigation plan will be .developed in
accordance with the EPA regional mitigation guidelines.
-39-
-------
I" -
Treatability or bench scale studies will be conducted during Remedial
De.ign to d8termine which Boliciification agents are most effective for the
Ka..ouf-Jtimerling site. For costing purposes, Portland cement was
assumed.
The total present worth cost for this alternative is estim ated to be
$511,700 which incl~des $99,950 for operation and maintenance.
11.0"
Statutor~ Determinations
Under its legal authorities, EPA's primary responsibility at Superfund'
sites is to undertake remedial actions that achieve adequate protection of
human health and the environment. In addition, Section 121 of CERCLA
establishes several other statutory requirements and preferences. These
specify that, when complete, the selected remedial action for this site
must comply with applicable or relevant and appropriate environmental
Standards established under Federal and State environmental laws unless a
statutory waiver is ju stified. T he selected remed y also mu st be
cost-effective and utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent
practicable. Finally, the statute includes a preference for remedies that
employ treatment that permanently and significantly reduce the volume,
toxicity, or mobility of hazardous wastes as their principal element. The
following sections discuss how the selected remedy meets these statutory
requ irement s.
11.1
Protective of Bu.an Bealth and the Bnviron.ent
The selected remedy' protects human health and the environment through
solidification of the gross contaminated marsh sediments along the edge of
the landfill and sediments in the canal. By solidifying the highly
contaminated sediments, the risk of exposure through direct contact will
be reduced.
The routes by which the landfill impacts the wetland is through surface
water transport and groundwater flow. Water flows off and through the
landfill in an easterly direction thus providing a pathway for metal
transport into the wetland. Remediation of the landfill site will lead to
insignificant metal loadings to the wetlands.
Also, by changing the wetland's hydroperiod from a semi-permanently
flooded marsh system to a permanently flooded marsh system, the conditions
in the w8tland sediments become anaerobic. The sulfur bacteria in the
sediments reduce sulfate to sulfide which reacts with most heavy metals to
form a m8t~c sulfide. Under anaerobic or reduced conditions in the
sediments, the metals in the remainder of the marsh (sediments not treated
by solidification) are chemically bound and sequestered in the sediments
and would no longer po Be a threat to human health or the environment.
11.2 Attain.ent of the Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARAR)
The selected remedy requires a waiver of the Federal Ambient Water Quality
Criteria because a portion of the marsh sediments will be left in place
that exceed a recommended clean-up goal of 40 mg/kg of lead. The waiver
-40-
-------
i.8 ju8tified by the potential negative environmental impact that could be
created by trying to remediate the remainder of the marsh sediments
(.ediment. greater than 20 feet away 'from the landfill and sediments in
the canal qr8ater than 150 feet from the landfill) (CERCLA 121(d)(4)(B».
The selected remedy will meet or exceed the following ARARs, as discussed
below.
R..ource Con.er.ation and R.co.erv Act
1.).40 C.P.R. Part 264 Subpart X - Miscellaneous Treatment Unit
2.) 40 C.P.R. Part 261 Land Ban - The RCRA land disposal restrictions
("LDR") (40 CPR 268) promulgated in the 1984 as WA amendments require
that RCRA hazardous wastes be treated to BDAT (Best Demonstrated
Available Technologies) Standards prior to placement into the land.
EPA is promulgating treatment standards for RCRA wastes in a phased
approach, with the last treatment standard to be promulgated in May
1990.
The on-site wastes are characterized as RCRA wastes for lead, arsenic,.
and cadmium because they exhibit EP Toxicity as defined 40 CPR 261.
EPA intends to promulgate BDAT 8tandards for RCRA characteristic
wastes by May 8, 1990.
Excavation and treatment in a separate unit is considered to be
placement under RCRA LDR. Therefore, LDR will be an applicable/or
relevant and appropriate requirement upon promulgation of the
standards. Ho~ever, the treatment process will immobilize the metals
to the extent that the waste will no longer be classified as a
hazardous waste as defined by RCRA.
3.) 40 C.P.R. Part 264 Subpart G - Cl08ure and Postcloure
Clean Water Act/Safe DrinkinG Water Act
1.) EPA's determination of appropriate ground water cleanup criteria
involved an evaluation of contaminant concentrations relative to
available health-based 8tandards. Such limits, including Maximum
Concentration Levels (MCLs) and Maximum Concentration Limit Goals
(MCLGs), and Section 304 of the Clean W.ater Act (CWA) used as
pre.cribed in Section 121(d)(2)(b)(i) of CERCLA, as defined by the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (40 CPR Part 141 and 142) and the Clean
Water Act, re.pectively, will be met at this 8ite.
2.) S8c:tion 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act - EPA has adopted the
goal of the National Wetlands Policy Forum to achieve no overall net
loss of the nation's wetlands. Section 404(b)(l) of the Clean Water
Act requires that practicable steps must be taken to minimize adverse
impacts to wetlands. To achieve no net 10s8 of wetlands at the site,
mitigation is required which involves replacing wetlands lost at the
site by creating a new wetland area. A site specific mitigation plan
for the selected alternative will be developed in accordance with the
regional' mitigation guidelines.
-41-
-------
P1or~da Ad.~n~strat~ve Code Chavter 17-3
The Plorida Admin~rative Code Chapter 17-3, Maximum Contaminant
Level. (IICL) for Class III surface water bodies, mav not be initially
met. Bowever, these standards will be achieved over a short period of
time becau8e the source of contamination (the landfill). will no longer
exist.
P1oodvla~n Re~ulat~ons
Remedial action requirements for landfills address corrective measures
to ensure compliance with regulations regarding landfills located on a
100-year floodplain.
Endanoered Svec~es Act
The selected remedy 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, Fish 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.
P~sh and WUdl~fe Coordination Act
Requires adequate protection of fish and wildlife if any stream or
other body of water is modified. Additionally, actions in wetlands
are required to.avoid adverse effects, minimize potential harm, and
restore and preserve natural and beneficial values.
.at~onal B~stor~ca1 Pre8ervat~on Act
Requires that action be taken to preserve or recover historical or
archaeological data which might be destroyed as a result of site
activities. There is no information to indicate that the
Kassouf-Kimerling .ite contains any historic or archaeological
significance.
11.3
Cost-.ffect~.ene..
The .elected remedy is cost-effective because it has been determined to
provide overaU effectiveness proportional to its costs, the .net present
worth v&1u8 being $511,700. The estimated costs of the selected remedy
are le.. ~8D five time. the coats associated witn on-site capping of the
contaminated mar~h sediments, and the selected remedy assures a higher
degree of certainty that the remedy will be effective in the long-term due
to the reduction of the toxicity and mobility of the wastes achieved
through solidification of a portion of the contaminated sediments.
11.4 UtiJ.izat~on of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treat.ent
Technology or Resource Recovery Technologies to the lIaximua Extent
Practicable
EPA has determined that the selected remedy represents the maximum extent
to which permanent solutions and treatment technologies should be utilized
-42-
-------
for the final operable unit, at the Kassouf-Jtimerling site. Of tho8e
alternatives that are protective of human health and the environment and
comply wJJ:h ARARs, EPA has determined that thi8 selected remedy provide.
the beat balance of trade-offs in terms of long-term effectivenes8 an'd
permanence, r8cSuction in toxicity, mobility, or volume achieved through
treatment, .hort-term effectivene8s, implement ability, cost, a180
con.idering the statutory preference for treatment as a principal
element. Solidification and 8tabilization of the contaminated marsh
sediments repre8ents a permanent solution (through treatment) which will
effectively reduce and/or eliminate mobility of hazardous wastes and
hazardous subetance8 into the environment. The remainder of the marsh
(sediments in the marsh not treated by eolidification) will be chemically
bound and sequeetered in the sediments and would no longer pose a
significant threat to human health or the environment.
11.5
Preference for Tr.at.ent &s a principal Sle.ent
Heavy metal contamination in the marsh 8ediments is the principal threat
at the site. Solidification and stabilization ie a treatment proce88
which has been demonstrated to effectively reduce the mobility of heavy
metals in the environment. Therefore, the statutory preference for.
remedies that employ treatment a8 . principal element is 8ati8fied.
-43-
-------
APPENDIX A
Responsiveness Summary
Itas sou f - Kimerling B attery- Site
Tampa, Hillsborough county, Florida
-------
RESPONSIVE~ESS SUMMARY
The Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER) and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established a public
comment period from February 12, 1990 through March 14, 1990 for
interested parties to comment on FDER's and EPA's Proposed Remedial
Action Plan (PRAP) for the second operable unit (the marsh) on the
Kassouf-Kimerling Battery site. The comment period followed a public
meeting on February 21, 1990 conducted by FDER and EPA held at the
Oak Park Community Center in Tampa, Florida. The meeting presented
the results of the studies undertaken on the marsh and the preferred
remedial alternative.
A responsiveness summary is required by Superfund policy to provide
summary of citizen comments and concerns about the site, as raised
during the public comment period, and the responses to those
concerns. All comments summarized in this document have been
factored into the final decision of the preferred alternative for
cleanup of the Kassouf-Kimerling Battery site.
a
This responsiveness summary for the Kassouf-Kimerling Battery site is
divided into the following sections.
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Overview This section discusses the recommended
alternative for remedial action and the public reaction
to this alternative.
Backaround on Community Involvement and Concerns This
section provides a brief history of community interest
and concerns regarding the Kassouf-Kimerling Battery
site.
Summary of Maior Questions and Comments Received Durina
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.
Remainina Concerns This section discusses community
concerns that EPA should be aware of in design and
implementation of the second operable unit (the marsh).
-------
-2-
I.
Overview
. This operable unit is the final action of two operable units for the
site. The first operable unit will address the source of the
contamination by excavating, stabilizing and solidifying the landfill
wastes and contaminated underlying soils. The second operable unit
addresses the contaminated marsh sediments adjacent to the landfill.
The marsh was determined to be a principal threat at the site because
of the potential ~hreat of direct contact with the sediments and the
impact on surface water. Both operable units will be implemented at
the same time.
The major components of the recommended alternative for the second
operable unit (adjacent marsh) include:
Excavation and treatment by solidification, of contaminated
marsh sediments within 20 feet of the landfill and to a
depth of two feet below the sediment surface.
Excavation and treatment by solidification, of contaminated
marsh sediments in the canal east of the site extending 150
feet from the landfill and to a depth of two feet below the
sediment surface.
The remainder of the marsh sediments (sediments greater than
20 feet away from the landfill and sediments greater than
150 feet in the canal) would be left in place without
treatment.
The canal which currently allows the marsh to drain will be
designed to allow the marsh to remain flooded year round,
changing the wetland's hydroperiod from a semi-permanently
flooded marsh system to a permanently flooded marsh system.
Disposal of the treated sediments on-site with the treated
landfill wastes.
Mitigation to compensate for the wetlands that have been
adversely impacted by the site by enlarging the existing
wetlands.
A waiver of the Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
(AWQC) is required for the surface water. The waiver is
justified by the potential negative environmental impact
that could be created by trying to remediate the remainder
of the marsh sediments which involves complete destruction
of the wetland and potential mobilization of lead beyond the
site area (CERCLA 121(d)(4)(B».
The community, in general, favors the selection of the recommended
alternative.
-------
-3-
II.
Backaround OD Communitv Invo1v€ment and Concern.
The Tampa community has been aware of the contamination problem at
the Kassouf-KLmerling 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 Hillsb~rough County Courthouse.
FDER and EPA conducted the second public meeting on March 8, 1989 for
. the first operable unit (the landfill). 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. The Record of Decision for the landfill portion of the
site was signed on March 31, 1989.
A third public meeting was held on September 6, 1989 for the second.
operable unit (the marsh) At this meeting, representatives from EPA
and the Florida Department of Environmental Regulations (FDER)
answered questions about the site and the proposed remedy for the
marsh.
After the meeting, EPA and FDER agreed that a Wetland Impact Study (a
study to further define the ecological impact on the marsh) should be
conducted before selecting an alternative for the marsh. EPA's
Wetland Impact Study. was completed in late January 1990 and a copy
was placed in the public information repository on February 9, 1990.
A Modified Proposed Plan which revised the remedy EPA had proposed in
its initial Proposed Plan, was placed in the public information
repository on February 9, 1990. The public comment period on the
Modified Proposed Plan was held from February 12 - March 14, 1990.
On February 21, 1990, a public meeting was held to present the
alternatives for the marsh. At this meeting, no concerns were voiced
by the public. However, after the meeting a local newspaper wrote an
article criticizing the fact that the state and the federal agencies
wanted a waiver of the Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC)
for the surface water in the marsh. The waiver is justified by the
potential negative environmental impact that could be created by
trying to remediate the remainder of the marsh sediments which
involves complete destruction of the wetland and potential
mobilization of lead beyond the site area.
III. Summary of Maior Ouestions and Comments Received Durina the
. Public Comment Period and FDER's or EPA's Responses.
1.} The responsible parties commented that the entire marsh
should not be mitigated and that the marsh was not adversely
impacted.
-------
, --
-4-
EPA Resconse: Based on the Wetland Impact Study, EPA and the
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER) agreed .that
the contaminated sediments remaining in the marsh will continue
to impair the biological productivity and diversity .of the
wetlands ecosystem. To minimize the effects of this impact,
mitigation is required to create new areas of wetlands that will
replace the functions lost in the on-site wetland.
2.). One commenter inquired about the waiver of the Federal
Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC) for the surface water in
the marsh.
EPA Resconse: A Wetland Impact Study was conducted by EPA to
consider the risk to the ecology of the marsh (plants, fish,
birds, ect.). The report concluded that trying to cleanup all of
the marsh sediments may result in the mobilization of lead, which
would ultimately have a greater negative environmental impact on
the marsh. Mobilization of lead could be caused by the use of
heavy earth moving equipment mixing the marsh sediments and
forcing the contaminants deeper into the peat sediments.
Similarly, the void formed as the vegetation is removed from the
root zone could allow the contaminants to move deeper. The earth
moving equipment could suspend lead particulates that are bond to
the marsh sediments, into the water column thus _allowing lead to
migrate from the marsh. Therefore, the EPA and FDER recommend
that only very high concentrations of lead along the edge of the
landfill and the sediments in the canal be treated. Although
this remedy calls for a wavier of the Federal Ambient Water
Quality Criteria for surface water, it would meet all human
health standards for surface water.
IV
Remainina Concerns
The community's concerns surrounding the Kassouf-Kimerling Battery
site will be addressed in the following areas: 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 the local repository 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 will be
made aware of any principal design changes made during project
design. At any t~e 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.
Community relations activities will remain an active aspect of the
Remedial Design/Remedial Action phase of this project.
-------
APPENDIX B
State's
Concurrence M~morandum
Kassouf-Kimerling Battery Site
Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida
-------
~-~
~-,....~"
~ . ofl..\
...~~'X\~\
,~ ' - )\~\
:: /",) '~-
.~'8i" -~,::;
... . ~"., """
o "
\
\ .r ./~ .-
"!~C 0' f\ot~. ,,'
...__e'
'\
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
Twin lhwer::; Office Bldg. . 2600 Blair- Stone Road. T2llaha.5:-ee. Florida, 32;7>9')-2400
I~(I~ Ataninc'7.. (;u\"~rn()r
Inll' ''''''~('htnl:'llt1. $c~'~lary
John Sh\'~l'\:r, .".~.j't:.n: :-'..c~ct:ln
April '2, 1990
Mr. G r e e r T; d we 11 ,
U.S. Environmental
345 Courtland St.,
Atlanta, C2A 30365
o ear Mr. T i d we 11 :
Regional Administrator
Protection Agency
NE
The Florida Department of Environmental Regulation agrees with -
the selected Remedial Alternative for Operable Unit 2 of the
Kassouf-Kimerling Battery Site in Tampa.
Marsh sediment within 20 feet of the landfill and in th'e first
'50 feet of the marsh channel wn, be excavated and treated by'
solidification and fixation. The treated material will be
d ; s po sed 0 n sit e a , 0 n 9 wit h t r.e ate d 1 and f ; 11 mat e ria 1 san d soil s
from ,Operable Unit 1. This operable unit will cost an estimated
$'511,000 and will be 'funded by the responsible parties.
We look forward to the successful implementation of this project.
S; ce el,y,
Wt1~0
Oal e Twa/tf~ann
Secretary
DT:lc
------- |