United States Office of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R04-92/121
June 1992
f/EPA Superfund
Record of Decision
Woodbury Chemical
(Princeton Plant), FL
-------
NOTICE
The appendices listed in the index that are not found in this document have been removed at the request of
the issuing agency. They contain material which supplement but adds no further applicable information to
the content of the document All supplemental material is, however, contained in the administrative record
for this site.
-------
50272-1 01
REPORT DOCUMENTATION 1'. REPORT NO.
PAGE EPA/ROD/R04-92/121
I 2.
3. Reciplenrs Accession No.
4. Title end Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Woodbury Chemical (Princeton Plant), FL
First Remedial Action - Final
5. Report Date
06/25/92
6.
7. Aulhor(s)
8. Per10rmlng Organization Rept No.
9. Per10rmlng Orgainlzation Name and Address
10. ProJectIT askIWork Unit No.
11. Conlract(C) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(G)
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
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 Notes
PB93-964012
16. Abstract (Urnl!: 200 words)
The 5-acre Woodbury Chemical (Princeton Plant) site is a pesticide and fertilizer
formulation and storage facility located approximately one-half mile southwest of
Princeton, Dade County, Florida. Land use in the area is predominantly agricultural,
with two residences located just north and west of the site. The estimated
20,000 people who reside in Princeton use the underlying sole-source Biscayne aquifer as
their drinking water supply. From 1927 to 1959. the site was used as a tomato and
potato packing house. From 1959 to the present, the site has been used for formulating
technical-grade materials to produce pesticides and fertilizers. As a result of a tank
leak or spill in the late 1970's, EPA conducted numerous investigations that revealed
toxaphene contamination in soil. In 1990, a removal action was conducted at the site,
which resulted in the excavation of contaminated soil. Soil contaminated with greater
than 100 mg/kg of toxaphene was sent off site to the GSX facility in Pinewood, South
Carolina, and soil contaminated with less than 100 mg/kg was sent to the South Dade
County landfill. The previous removal action has eliminated the principal threat at the
(See Attached Page)
17. Doeurnent Analysis a. nesc:rlptors
Record of Decision - Woodbury
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: None
Key Contaminants: None
Chemical (Princeton Plant), FL
b. identifiers/Open-Ended T arms
..,
..
c. COSA TI Reid/Group
18. Availability Statement
19. Security Class (This Report)
None
20. Security Class (thIs Page)
Non~
21. No. of Pages
70
I
22. Price
See ANSl-Z39.18
s.... Instructions on Rel/erae
Ot'IIONAL K)HM 27214-' r)
(Formerly NTls.3S)
Department of Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R04-92/121
Woodbury Chemical (Princeton Plant), FL
First Remedial Action - Final
Abstract (Continued)
site and no additional action is necessary to protect human health or the environment.
Therefore, there are no contaminants of concern affecting this site.
The selected remedial action for this site is no further action, with quarterly ground
water monitoring. The estimated total cost for this remedial action is $22,500, which
includes an O&M cost of $10,000 for 1 year.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS:
Not applicable.
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE
RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Woodbury Chemical Site
Princeton, Florida
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
the Woodbury Chemical Site in Princeton, Florida. The final site
remedy was chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) 42
U.S.C. section 9601 et.seq., and to the extent practicable, the
National Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part 300. This decision
is based on the administrative record file for this site. .
The State of Florida concurs on the selected remedy.
DESCRIPTION OF THE REMEDY
This remedy is the final action. for the site. In the absence of
any significant source of contamination remalnirig'in the soil at
the site, the No Further Action alternative was selected as the
preferred alternative to address the soil. Due to a lack of
significant ground water contamination, the No Action alternative
was chosen for ground water at the site. However, the ground water
will be monitored quarterly for one year to verify that no site-
related release of contaminants is occurring. If the results of
the moni toring show that there is no unacceptable risk from
exposure to site-related contaminants in the ground water, then the
site will be considered for deletion from the National Priorities
List (NPL). However, should monitoring indicate that the site
poses a threat to human heal th or the environment, EPA, in
consul tation wi th the State of Florida, will reconsider the
protectiveness of the RNo ActionR alternative and the feasibility
of groundwater remediation will be re-evaluated.
DECLARATION
Based on the results of the Remedial Investigation and Risk
Assessment conducted at the Woodbury Chemical Site, EPA has
determined that no further remedial action is necessary to ensure
protection' of human health and the environment. The removal action
that took place at the site in January 1990 eliminated the need to
conduct additional remedial action. The selected remedy is
protecti ve of human health and the environment. Because this
remedy will not result in hazardous substances remaining on-site
above health-based levels, the five-year review will not apply to
-------
this action. EPA has determined that no further remedial action
is necessary at this site. Therefore, the site now qualifies for
inclusion in the "sites awaiting deletion" subcategory of the
C nst UC~io~tion category of the National priori~;;l~;;~
r C. idwell, Regional Administrator Da,e I
-------
: "",' ",
." "::";":.."
,",/ ".
Record of Decision
Su.aary of Re8edial Alternative Selection
, .~:/ ~ ,',"':"', ," .
u.S.
Woodbury Cbeaical Site
Princeton, Florida
, ' . ", '~'~"':'
" :,.,;, '. "'~", '
. ": ; '. :... ..:,.~ ' ,'-" ":.. : "
,':'. .' ,~;,::'.::
prepared by:
Environmental Protection
Region IV
Atlanta, Georgia
',,:.",'.', .. ":,"",.,
Agency
.,: ,.:" '~ ' "., .
".", ":', ,'"
,.1',:-"',;': "",".,
-------
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Si te Location and Description. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
site His to ry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Communi ty Relations History. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
Scope and Role of Response Action...........................7
Summary of Site Characteristics.............................7
5.1 Site Drainage......................................... 7
5.2 Surface Water Features..... . .... . ..... ............ . . ...9
5. 3 Geology and Hydrogeology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
5.4 Results of the Remedial Investigation............... ..11
SU1II1I1ary of Site Risks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
6.1 Contaminants of Concern. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
6.2 Exposure Assessment................................. .13
6.3 Toxicity Assessment.................................. 24
6.4 Risk Characterization................................24
6.5 Discussion of Uncertainty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31
6.6 Ecological Assessment................................36
Description of "No Further Action" Alternative........... ..36
Documeritati~n of sfgn'ifica:ntchange's.~ .-. . . .-. . .~. . . '-'.'. ..: . . .~ 37 ,."
LIST OF FIGURES
site Location
Figure 1-1
Ma p. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Figure 1-2
Detailed Site
Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
Figure 1-3
Sump and
Discharge Location........................5
Figure 5-1
Paved/Pre paved Areas...............................8
Figure 5-2
C 1 0 2 Cana 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
-i-
-------
Table 6-1
Table 6-2
Table 6-3
Table 6-4
Table 6-5
Table 6-6
Table 6-7
Table 6-8
\;'::. ':"::'. :.:';:", " . '.;, ,,"'. ~;..<. . "..'
Table 6-9
Table 6-10
Table 6-11
Table 6-12
Table 6-13
Table 6-14
Table 6-15
Table 6-16
Table 6-17
LIST OF TABLES
Current and Future Exposure Pathways..............14
Exposure Point Concentrations for
Current Ground Water Exposure...................15
Exposure Point Concentrations for
Future Ground Water Exposure....................16
Exposure Point Concentrations for
Future Soil Exposure............................16
Exposure Assumptions for
Oral Exposure to Ground Water~..................17
Exposure Assumptions for
Dermal Exposure to Ground Water..~..............17
Exposure Assumptions for .
Oral Exposure to Surface Soil...................18
Exposure Assumptions for
Dermal Exposure to Surface Soil.................18
. :.,"','" "'!,,' ..~. ',\"::; " ::..".~: "'''''1'':,~,,,,,,,:;.',,,,:: "',:'-~'" ..:.~..?,':.-.:. "',".,':.",:,':',': ,,:"'''''',',' ", ':':"::'.:.
Chroriic . Da'ily Intake for Oral ExpOsure ' . 0 0 . 0'-" '.' ".. -'" '.'-J
to Ground Water - CUrrent Scenario.~............19
Chronic Daily Intake for Oral Exposure
to Ground Water - Future Scenario...............20
Chronic Daily Intake for Dermal Exposure
to Ground Water - Future Scenario...............21
Chronic Daily Intake for Oral Exposure
to Surface Soil - Future Scenario...............22
Chronic Daily Intake for Dermal Exposure
to Surface Soil - Future Scenario...............23
Carcinogenic Toxicity Values..............~.......25'
Noncarcinogenic Toxicity Values...................26
Carcinoqenic Risk from Exposure to
Ground Water - Current Scenario.................28
Carcinoqenic Risk from Exposure to
Ground Water - Future Residential Scenario. .'. . . .28
-ii-
-------
Table
6-18
Table
6-19
Table
6-20
Table
6-21
Table 6-22
Table 6-23
Table 6-24
Table 6-25
Table 6-26
Table 6-27
Table 7-1
LIST OF TABLES (CONT.)
Carcinogenic Risk from Exposure to
Surface Soil - Future Residential Scenario......29
carcinogenic Risk from Exposure to
Ground Water - Future Industrial Scenario.......29
carcinogenic Risk from Exposure to
Surface Soil - Future Industrial Scenario.......30
Noncarcinogenic Hazard from Oral Exposure
to Ground Water - CUrrent Scenario..............32
Noncarcinogenic Hazard from Exposure to
Ground Water - Future Residential Scenario......32
Noncarcinogenic Hazard to an Infant from
Ingestion of Ground Water Nitrate........~......33
Noncarcinogenic Hazard from Exposure to
Surface Soil - Future Residential Scenario......33
Noncarcinogenic Hazard from Exposure to
Ground Water - Future Industrial Scenario.......34
,".", .
. ~ '. .".. . ~ .~. .
,~ '.',- ',. ~
Noncarcinogenic Hazard from Exposure to
Surface Soil - Future Industrial Scenario.......34
Summary of site Risks............................. 35
Estimated Monitoring Costs........................38
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A - Remedial Investigation Sampling Data and Locations
Appendix B - Responsiveness Summary
Appendix c- state Concurrence Letter
-iii-
-------
.DECISION SUMMARY FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
WOODBURY CHEMICAL SITE
PRINCETON, FLORIDA
1.OSITE LOCATION & DESCRIPTION
The Woodbury Chemical Site is a currently operating facility which
occupies five acres along the west side of U.S. Route 1 (Dixie
Highway) in southeast Dade County, approximately one-half mile
southwest of Princeton, Florida (Figure 1-1). The street address
is 13690 S.W. 248th Street (Coconut Palm Drive).
Woodbury Chemical is situated on low, flat terrain surrounded
primarily by agricultural land and is sparsely. populated.
Princeton, Florida has an estimated population of 20,000. The
Homestead Air Force Base is located 2.5 miles to the south. The
area east of the site contains subdivisions, trailer parks,
businesses, and Homestead Air Force Base housing facilities.
Five miles east of the site is Biscayne Bay, and the Everglades are
located approximately 15 miles to the west. An .estimated 2350 feet
northeast of the site is a state-owned and operated canal
identified as Canal C-102, which flows east toward and connects
with Biscayne Bay. Directly underlying the site is the Biscayne
Aquifer, which supplies all potable water for Dade County and has
;. :.,'. ..;..: bE!4;'n..,d~.~,.j,~8t~~.d:~'~~'f1:"~~~.~:~~.()"fc;~:::..~~;:~~~.:.-":<: :.:: :" :'." .:.i.::..... ...:J':-.. :::'.i;.":' ~: ",:~'<"'~ "''''-:-.::~':'.':-:
The site is bordered to the north by S.W. 248th Street and to the
east by Route I, with two retail businesses northeast of the site
at the intersection of these two roads. One is Greenstein Trucking
and the other is C.A. Chambers Properties, with a vacant building
is situated between them. North of 248th Street is a tomato field
with a horticulture nursery west of that. An abandoned railroad
spur is located between the site and Route 1. To the west is a
farm field owned by the Woodbury Chemical Company and west of that
is an avocado grove. To the south of the site is Glade & Grove
Supply, a tractor and farm equipment supply and repair business and
FMC Agricultural Division Warehouse, a pre-packaged farm supplies
distributer (Figure 1-2).
Five buildings utilized by the company are located on the property.
In addition, a residence which is occupied by a company employee:
is situated' at the north end of the site. Another residence just
west of the site also houses a company employee. The office
building was initially used as a warehouse in 1924 in the produce
operation. The warehouse was formerly the tomato and potato
packing ~~4.canning plant and is currently used for stocking bags
of clay and other bulk solids. The formulation building houses the
fertilizer formulation plant. Before it was built in 1977, this
area was occupied by Woodbury's pesticide formulation operation.
The shop is employed as a vehicle maintenance and repair area and
-1-
-------
.... ',- ,-
".
.... -
,,=,
,u.au~~~:~_U"~~ .
&/z.. ~.
1\,,1
r~;I
. '
"-
"
.. .... -. ... - ..
. .
..,
~ -- ~--.~~_i=r: =:=;: ~:= ~;;;:.
,: \ --. ~r~ .I'! <
~ : -~~..' .(:_s:nn.i~~,
\ ~. .~ c '
--..., \ J"! ~ :.
- , ..
, ..'
" ~.;
. .
. SII...,I:" ~ :
_-r:""l.,:I.
~~
, .
, .
II --:', _I'
.. ...
,_, ~. I I I
-lz. ~ 11 ~~: =~:
". l..
r.o::z:=-. .",.:;..J
, 'H'~~'~
~.......... ,.....&: s.:::&:1
I., ' .: :~I: ~:
- . '-1
. "
..
I 80,
.-: . .
-,.
I ,
... ,
,~
'.-' :::...-.;.... : .:--'~ 8
. . : :
.
,
-
/'
,
/
. .
I'
...t
...
,
l.,) .. .". ~
'-'II;'" "'
~..i;-.":. .'00\,
~~" ~.'<>r':
,
. 26 1.:', .;'. ...
.:II'W:I....S8"'S... \
\..'
\ ."
\.
"..'
.
.
.
.
. .
. ':.'
~ j; ,-..
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
"
:t .
.~..~ '.-
~
-".. ",'~ :"'" - . I,
f.
I
"t.':' ~""'.~"~'"
"
!
~
'.
.... .
.0
. .
~ -
:,,~"'~
"~"" ...
.':
'. :;:->i" '.. :
" ,
~.
,.
.i:
.' ... .
.
,
'-
. "
. ."
...-............~...n. ..
"
.
"
"
.
.,
.
.
~
"
.- .:-<1'
....'
-
......,
...,. ,." ~
.' .
.11
": =1 ..........y';'o8.".....
-., . ~_......" ~r-:
..-
.";;;PI 1- ~
. .1.
'"-'-
I I
-.
--
- '"
,
.-
.. -
I
. ,.
'.
.",...'"
SITE
FIGURE 1-1
BASE "All 13 A--PO'ATION OF THE USGS 7.5 "lNt,;'j~ CUACAANGioE GOULOS. FLORIDA. 19~ ~.
SITE LOCATION MAP
WOODBURY CHeMICAL COftt~~NY
PRINCETON, Fl.0?11DA
-.-"
. '
-2-
-------
I
I
I
~ ,.J~
t "'r :
. 't" "
.,. ).,1 \. . '
~n;..:, -~' ")
JiI# "" II ",.
--
"""6/0
~,.
'.,
t '
\
'.",rl II
~ ,
I"".. 12
. ,
, .
~ 'I
~..
~, I
\ ,-....
,
(
I .
I,
UJ ..
I '.
)'
I
(r
,~
"
.
..~\
~ .
~ ,I.e."" -" II "I~""''' II". "f~ ;II ..a -... ~
,I ,.,.,...,.' "'. I' '\ It' -. # ~'- II -~
-",; "'- I , " . I
-.' 'I : /) =.:.~
-
. .
WOODBURY CHEMICAL
PRINCETON, FLORIDA
. 1992
FIGURt 1 - 2
SITE LAYOUT MAP
8JEPA
. .
LEGEND
SCALE
200 0 100 200
~ ....J I I
( IN F[ET )
. "
.' ;'.
...
:.
-------
previously served as the mixing building. It was one of the
original buildings used by previous occupants in the .canning
business. The sales office, known as S&M Farm Supply, was built
between 1975 and 1977 and houses a retail store and warehouse for
finished products.
The site is fenced and the majority of it is paved. Surface runoff
at the site flows to a sump drain, located between the formulation
building and the vehicle maintenance shop. It leads to an
underground concrete holding tank with a 1200-gallon capacity,
which is occasionally pumped out through a hose leading into the
adjacent farm field (Figure 1-3). The northern area of the site
contains several French drains which allow runoff to percolate
directly into the ground.
2.0 SITE HISTORY
Since 1959, Woodbury Chemical has been actively engaged in the
formulation of technical-grade materials to produce pesticides and
fertilizers. Operations were initiated in Goulds, Florida, three
miles northeast of Princeton, and were relocated to Princeton in
1975. The current location had previously been used as a tomato
and potato packing house and a labor camp for migrant farm ~orkers.
Railroad access to the site was present until 1988 when the rails
and cross ties were removed and the railroad bed was scraped level.
The o.verburden tr.omthe J:;ailroad, bed was used to fill the ditches
that existed between the site:cuidtl1.e: tracks~.While' the-:railroad
tracks were present, bulk product was delivered to the site via
rail cars. These bulk products included potassium chloride,
nitrogen, and methyl bromide.
During the late 1970's (exact time-frame uncertain) an above-ground
tank leaked or spilled the pesticide toxaphene onto the ground just
south of the formulation building (Figure 1-2). In January 1979,
Dade County Environmental Resources Management (DERM) inspector Bob
Donoghue filed a formal in-house complaint against S&M Farm supply,
Inc. charging them with causing excessive levels of nitrates in the
drinking water wells located upgradient, downgradient, and within
the site. A February 20, 1980 EPA Hazardous Waste Site
Identification and Preliminary Assessment Report recommended the
Woodbury Chemical site for a site Inspection. Another Preliminary
Assessment was prepared by the Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation (FDER) in August 1984. EPA performed a site screening
investigation in July 1985 and based on the results, tasked NUS to
resample the site in January 1986. NUS submitted a preliminary
Hazardous Ranking System (HRS) scoring summary to EPA in February
1986 and a submitted a final HRS package in January 1987. The
Woodbury- Chemical Site was proposed for the National Priori ties
List (NPL) in June 1988 and was placed on the final list in August
1990. A Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) Search Report,
completed in March 1990, indicated the only PRPs for the site to
-4-
-------
~~. J- .: -',
, .
? l"',, ,I'
~ .---- - ~
..,.
......
i I
\
./..;,\
A ,
.1""'...
, .
, 1
~ Ii
\,'
*1
I
t
,
I (
VI .
I "
..
"
)'
!, ~ .
J
..
.'
,<
:;'" t/ 0-
. .
"8 ,... mwn ;'.
p
'-m8
DISCHIAREA
(I.. :' J ~
:: ::
}tl' ~.i-
. ...'
". ."
) ,'4:" --" t.".~" " '1-.
'_.-"",._-..""" -"....... ,,' """'", ,: ,t
..~, ~ II " /)
WOODBURY CHEMICAL
PRINCETON, FLORIDA
1992
~EPA-
I!I"~ II~'" ",.
II
"'.. # ~
.. (.)=t~
---
SUMP
FIGURE 1-3
ANDQ.ISCHARGE
. ./
SCALE
200 0
~_....J
( IN rEEf )
LOCATION
. -
. .
. .
.
i
100
,
200
1
-------
be those individuals and company names associated with the current
operation at the site.
In January 1990, under the direction of EPA and DERM, Woodbury
Chemical conducted a removal of toxaphene-contaminated soil in the
area of the previously-mentioned spill. The removal was conducted
in two phases.. In Phase I, all soil containing toxaphene in
concentrations greater than 100 parts per million (ppm) were
excavated and shipped to the GSX facility in Pinewood, South
Carolina. Phase II consisted of excavating soil containing
toxaphene in concentrations less than 100 ppm and transporting it
to the South Dade County Landfill. Confirmatory sampling ensured
that the remaining soils, when subjected to the EPA Extraction
Procedure (EP Tox) test, produced an extract that contained 0.005
mg/l or less toxaphene.
In March 1990, a Special Notice Letter was issued to the Woodbury
Chemical Company to give the PRP the opportunity to conduct the
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility study (RI/FS) at the site.
The PRP's response did not constitute a gOod-faith offer, and
consequently, EPA decided to perform the RI/FS as an in-house
project,. In January and June 1991, EPA Region IV Environmental
Services Division (ESD) personnel collected soil, sediment,
subsurface soil and ground water samples as part of Phases I and
II of the RI.
3. O.~O~ITYRELATIQNS H~~T.9~X.
"::,.". .'." ."; '.-"'
. ~" , ,
The woodbury Chemical Site is located in Princeton, Florida in
unincorporated Dade County. The area is primarily agricultural
with several more densely populated small towns located nearby.
Goulds, Florida is approximately 2 miles northeast of the site,
Naranja, Florida is 2.5 miles southwest, and the Homestead Air
Force Base is 2.5 miles to the south.
Communi ty interviews were conducted by EPA in August 1990 to
determine public interest in the Woodbury Chemical site. The
conclusion drawn from these interviews is that the local community
has little or no concern regarding the site. It appears that,
since the area is heavily agricultural and the population is so
familiar with pesticide use, the threat of pesticide contamination
is not a serious concern. EPA held an Availability Session at the
Homestead Public Library on september 27, 1990 to provide
information and answer questions on the RI to be conducted at the
woodbury Chemical Site. The only attendee was the DERM project
manager assigned to the site.
The RI, Risk Assessment, and Proposed Plan for the woodbury
Chemical -Site were released to the public on March 31, 1992. These
documents were made available in both the administrative record and
an information repository maintained at the EPA Records Center in
Region IV and at the South Dade Regional Library in Cutler Ridge,
-6-
-------
Florida. The notice of availability for these two documents was
published in the Miami Herald on March 24, 1992. A public comment
period was held from March 31, 1992 through April 30, 1992. In
addition, a public meeting was held on April 7, 1992. At the
public meeting, which was attended by only two people (the PRP and
his attorney),. representatives from EPA answered questions about
the findings of the RI and Risk Assessment and EPA's Proposed Plan
for the site. A response to the comments received during this
period is included in the Responsiveness Summary, which is part of
this Record of Decision. This decision document presents the
selected remedial action for the Woodbury Chemical Site, in
Princeton, Florida, chosen in accordance with CERCLA, as amended
by SARA and, to the extent practicable, the Nationa! Contingency
Plan. The decision for this site is based on the administrative
record. 'These community relations activities fulfill the statutory
requirements for public participation contained in'CERCLA section
113(k)(2)(B)(i-v).
4.0SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION
This ROD addresses the final response action for the Woodbury
Chemical Site, addressing both soil and ground.water. Because the
baseline risk assessment indicates that the previous removal action
eliminated the principal threat at the site, EPA proposes "No
Further Action" for the soil at the site. Ground water analysis
and results of the risk assessment suggest that "No Action with
"'.,'..'.'.' ".Mon-i:to+.'~"
-------
...,.
i~
-
.I"""'" "r
:;", c/ 0
LU~. ,.
," "'t
:" ,f
.,. ~" \ ,.
7~ ----- --
-...
( I
\
'.;,\
, \
"'''..
, ,
, ,
~ /1,
),
<.' I
I
I
\
\
,_rwu
I
00
I
(
.
'.
..
'.
"
.
i
~t
,'-
.1
~\
'l .
~ "..c..~"""'~"~1,,,,,,'''''''''''1''''~~~
.' .,,"----,,' '-', ,"\ .: I .. G'-- .. ~
-.." .. I \ , I 'IUfIP\Y 00. ,...
~-' ,/ ,I /) ~n.NW.
~
WOODBURY CHEMICAL
PRINCETON, FLORIDA
. 1992
FIGURE 5-1
PAVED/PREPAVED AREAS
LLCO«J
~ - PA\C) ""T£JIW.
[z::2] - Pflf:PAYED 1oI.IoTUIW.
~EPA
SCALE
200 0
~
100
I
200
I
( IN r[U )
-------
crushed gravel and sand mixed with a sealer. The pre-paved area
is used to store farm equipment and portable storage tanks. The
northern portion of the site has been graded such that the paved
area facilitates the diversion of rainwater toward several French
drains. The southern portion of the site surrounding the
fertilizer pl~nt and formulation building drain toward a large
concrete sump, located between the two buildings. The sump is used
to collect spillage resulting from the loading of trucks and tanks
in the fertilizer and formulation area. The contents of the sump,
which has a 1,200 gallon capacity) are then pumped onto the farm
field to the west of the site. All permanent bulk storage tanks,
including fuel tanks, are located in diked areas.
5.2
SURFACE WATER FEATURES
Five miles east of the site is Biscayne Bay, and the Everglades is
located approximately 15 miles to the west. An estimated 2350 feet
northeast of the site is a state-owned and operated canal
identified as Canal C-102, which. flows east toward and connects
with Biscayne Bay (Figure 5-2)" It is very unlikely that surface
water runoff from the site would reach this canal', since the
roadways surrounding the site are at higher elevations than the
site itself. Furthermore, there are no man-made conveyances to
provide for movement of water from one side of the road to the
,other.
:"":,.,.,.5..3.:.",,....:.GEOLOGY.,AND HYQROGEOLOGY~_....,..,."..:.,.~ ":,',,,'. . ',,". . ..' . .
'. '. ',",,'.: ,.' .: :' ':', ,.:.': ,",' ~"""":"'" ~"".':-". ;':'", ..'," ,.,,"':.'~.";"" ~"".-'.::~ ..:~,.","'~.::::" ':''''''''''''.'~~'''':::..:,::.:...''''
. ..
Directly underlying the site is the Biscayne' 'AqUifer, which
supplies all potable water for Dade County and has been designated
as a sole-source aquifer. Geologically, the ,Biscayne Aquifer is
composed of soils of Holocene age and limestone, sandstone, and
sand ranging in age from Pleistocene through late Miocene. In the
site vicinity, it is primarily limestone and extends to a depth of
approximately 80 feet below sea level. Solution cavities occupy
a significant volume of the limestone in the Biscayne Aquifer,
causing it, to have high horizontal and vertical permeabilities.
The lower part of the oolitic limestone is also cavity riddled and
is identified by the presence of bryozoans. A hard cavernous
limestone underlies the bryozoan layer. Because of the extremely
high permeability of this limestone, all large capacity wells are
completed in this part of the aquifer, generally 40 to 100 feet
below land surface. Transmissi vi ty of the Biscayne Aquifer ranges'
from 5.4 X'10. ft2/day where the aquifer is mostly sand to greater
than 1.6 X 10. ft2/day in the limestone-rich areas. Regional flow
of ground water is to the southeast: however, the direction of flow
may be influenced by drainage canals or well fields. Flow
direction in the site area appears to be influenced by the C-102
Canal, as tt ranges in direction from east to northeast.
-9-
-------
I
I
::>
I
WOODBURY CHEMICAL
PRINCETON, FLORIDA
1992
~EPA
I
. . . .
.... {i]
WC-031-P
. . .
. .
. .
. .
.
.
. .
. .
. . .
.. .
CiJWC-OJO-PW
FIGURE 5-2:
c-l02 CANAL
~ - SCHOOL' RESIDENTIAL UNITS
UNITS. ug/I iii SAMPLE LOCA nON
APPROXIMA TE SCALE
1000 0 ~ 1000
5_~ I I
( IN fUT )
1 In~h - 1000 ft.
-------
5.4
RESULTS OF THE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
The purpose of the Remedial Investigation (RI) was to gather and
analyze sufficient data to characterize the site in order to
perform the Baseline Risk Assessment, which determined the site's
impact on huma~ health and the environment. Both the RI and Risk
Assessment are used to determine whether remedial action is
necessary at the site:;- .
The RI sampling at the Woodbury Chemical site was conducted in two
phases. Phase I was conducted in January 1991 and included the
collection of fifteen surface soil, fourteen subsurface soil, and
eighteen ground water samples. These samples were analyzed for
volatile and extractable organics, pesticides, PCBs, metals,
cyanide,. and nitrate/nitrite as nitrogen. In addition, selected
surface and subsurface soils were analyzed for total organic carbon
(TOe) . .
Phase II was conducted in June 1991 as a result of the findings of
Phase I. During Phase II, some of the sample locations from Phase
I. were resampled to verify the findings. other .sample locations
were added to determine the lateral extent of contamination fo~d
during Phase I. Eight surface soil samples were collected from the
farm field to the west and analyzed for pesticides to find the
horizontal extent of contamination detected on the western portion
of the site. Three surface soil samples were collected east of the
..,.:. ...:r~i,:J.ro_a,~.: .r~gQ~-p.t7.W~.Y;, .:~9..., .~~~~,~,;,t~,. :~o,r:, ,'-~~~~~, ~ ,~~" ..~~~.~,~;,!l~, .~~, ,
eXtent ofarsen1c:contam1.nat10n.:.' Three mon1tor.1ng .wel'l locat10ns'
were resampled, and three new ones were installed. along the.
railroad right-of-way. Six private wells were sampled, most of
them east of u.S. Route 1 to determine if arsenic detected in the
ground water along the railroad was migrating to the east. All
ground water samples were analyzed for pesticides, metals, and
nitrates.
"'.:".';. . -',
Sampling locations and results from both phases of the RI can be
found in Appendix A. Pesticides were detected in the surface soil
mainly in the northern and western portions of the site as well as
in the adjacent farm field. Pesticides in subsurface soils were
localized in the southwestern corner of the site. In ground water,
pesticides were detected mainly offsite to the south and east.
Arsenic was detected offsi te only in the surface and subsurface'
soil and ground water along the abandoned railroad right-of-way
east of the site, including areas that are not adjacent to the
site.
Chromium was detected in soil onsite and in soil and ground water
along the'railroad right-of-way. It was found in the background
sample as well. The source of this chromium is unknown.
-11-
-------
Ni trates were detected in every ground water sample collected
~uring.both phases of the RI, ~ncluding background. A few samples,
1nclud1ng two located on s1te, contained nitrates above the
drinking water standard.
A topographic survey of the Woodbury Chemical site was conducted
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The resulting topographic map
with a one-foot contour interval indicated that the site is very
flat with drainage in the southern portion of the site (formulation
and truck loading area) flowing toward an onsite sump. The
northern part of the site is drained by French drains. The roads
surrounding the site are at higher elevations than the site and
serve as dikes to surface water runoff.
An analysis of current and historical aerial photography of the
site was conducted by the EPA Environmental Photographic
Interpretation Center (EPIC). Photographs from 1952 through 1990
were included in the study. They confirm that the site was paved
in 1975 when the Woodbury Chemical took over the site. Accord~~g
to the photos, the site boundary was expanded to include a portion
of the adjacent farm field some time between 1979 and 1985.
6.0
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
A Baseline Risk Assessment was conducted by EPA as part of the RI
to estimate the health or environmental problems that could result
if . theW90dbury Chemic.al site. were. not. remediated. . It is
incorporated" as Chaptei;"6 "in 'the:RI RE!poI't,; '. A "BaseTine Risx'
Assessment represents an evaluation of the "No Action" alternative,
in that it identifies the risk present if no remedial action is
taken. The assessment considers environmental media and exposure
pathways that could result in unacceptable levels of exposure now
or in the foreseeable future. Data collected and analyzed during
the RI provided the basis for the risk evaluation. The risk
assessment process can be divided into four components:
contaminant identification, exposure assessment, toxicity
assessment., and risk characterization.
6.1
CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
The objective of contaminant identification is to screen the
information that is available on hazardous substances present at
the site and to identify contaminants of concern in order to focus
subsequent efforts in the risk assessment process. contaminants
of concern are selected based upon their toxicological properties,
concentrations and frequency of occurrence at the site. During the
Risk Assessment for the Woodbury Chemical site, the following
chemicals were identified as contaminants of potential concern in
the ground water: aldrin, chlordane, DDD, DDT, dieldrin,
heptachlor epoxide, chromium, arsenic, and ni tra tes. Al though
arsenic and nitrates were detected in control samples, they were
retained as contaminants of concern because concentrations in some
-12-
-------
wells approached or exceeded 'the drinking water standards.
contaminants of potential concern in the soil were identified as
chlordane, ODD, ODE, DOT, dieldrin, and toxaphene.
Exposure point concentrations for the contaminants of concern were
based on the reasonable maximum exposure (RME) or the maximum
detected concentration, whichever was less.
6.2
EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
An exposure assessment was conducted to estimate the magnitude of
exposure to the contaminants of concern at the site and the
pathways through which these exposures could occur. Exposure of
workers to ground water was considered a possibility under the
current scenario because onsite drinking water is obtained from
private'wells. However, there is currently no complete exposure
pathway to the soil onsite because the site is paved. Estimating
future potential risk at the site involved selecting the reasonably
possible land use that resulted in the greatest level of risk,
which in this case is the residential exposure scenario. This
conservative approach is used so it is fairly certain that the
actual risk will not exceed the risk associated with this scenario.
Exposure of adults and infants to ground water'as well as exposure
of children to soil were assumed in the future residential
scenario. It was assumed that the pavement would be removed if the
site became residential. CUrrent and future exposure pathways are
, ' l,~~:1::e,~ "i~ ,~able 6-1.
., "'~'--::""'-'''''''..'''. " '>',',"':.':" ,"""'.:',:". ':':~":':"""':::"~'~",~;"":I:'.'..::":'''',~:'',,:.. :"":"'~"'.'. :.:...~...i...::'....~", . :""'::.:':': ';:", ~.:":".."",,::,,,,":"::'-.,:.
'After exposure pathways were deveioPed, the concentratJ.ons ~t the'
exposure points were calculated. These exposure point
concentrations were based on the reasonable maximum exposure (RKE)
scenario - that is, the 95% upper confidence limit on the mean of
the natural logarithm (In) transformed data. The data are
transformed because the data are assumed to be lognormal. In some.
cases, the RME concentration exceeded the'maximum concentration
detected, so the latter was used instead. Exposure point
concentrations for soil and ground water at the Woodbury Chemical
site are listed in Tables 6-2 through 6-4.
Once exposure point concentrations were develoPed, the chemical
intake at each exposure point was calculated. Assumptions made in
quantifying chemical intake are listed in Tables 6-5 and 6-6 for
oral and dermal ground water exposure and in Tables 6-7 and 6-8 for,
oral and dermal soil exposure. These assumptions, along with the
exposure point concentrations, are plugged into equations to give
the Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) for each exposure pathway. The
CDI's calculated in the Woodbury Chemical Risk Assessment are
listed in Tables 6-9 throuqh 6-13.
. "~, . ',". ',,')) 0";' .
-13-
-------
TABLE 6-1
EXPOSURE PATHWAY ANALYSIS
.
Pathway complete
Exposure pathway for for current &/or Comment
Site Media of Concern future scenarioa?
Ground water- current- yes water consumption by worker,
Ingestion future- yes resident
Ground water- current- no assume showering by resident
Dermal Contact future- yes
Ground water- current- no only. one volatile compound
Inhalation of future- no which does not contribute
volatilized compounds significantly via this pathway
Surface Soil- current- no currently, site is paved;
Ingestion future- yes future child resident asswned
to play on exposed soil
Surface Soil- current- no currently, site is paved;
Dermal Contact future- yes future child resident asswned
to play on exposed soil
'. . Surface Soi.i- - cur.rent-. no ,. :...... S-ite.. ~urrentl'y,_pa.ve.d" so
Inhalation of future- no particulate emissions pathway
airborne chemicals not complete; contribution in
future scenario would to be
minimal
¤t scenar10 assumes a worker wlth a local grouud-water well at the workplace.
Future scenar10 assumes a res1dent fam11y wlth a local ground-water well.
-14-
-------
TABLE 6-2
GROUND WATER EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS -
CURRENT LAND USE SCENARIO (mg/l)
. Worker @ Business
Contaminant Onsite Worker8 across U.S. lb
Arsenic 3.7E-3c 5.0E-3c
Chromium 5. OE- 3c 1. 2E- 3c
Aldrin 2.SE-5c 3.1E-5
Chlordane 9.5E-4 5.1E-5
DDT 2.8E-5c 2.0E-4c
DDD 2.5E-5C 3.8E-5
Dieldrin 2.5E-5c 6.4E-4
Heptachlor epoxide 2. 5E- 5c 2.4E-5
8Values are based on samples ~aken from priva~e onsi~e wells.
- OValues are based on samples ~aken from the private well WC-041-PW.
cThe chemical was no~ detected in the specific well. The value lis~ed represents one half ~he sample
quanti~a~ion limi~.
.' "''''.':''\'''''.:. " . '"
-:',: ,.:"
.. ".::'" ..' t. ,::: '..:~
. . . ',"'" .''''. . ,'.~ ".' . .
. .
. ",.,
;"'..-.1.:. "', .. .' ,- ", ~. .
'. , .. ',' .
,'. ""
. ..:' ",' ." ~:.~"
.. .
":'" I:. '.:'" :;.::
. " ",: """ . .' . . ',' :. ~ ...":.'. ;"',
-15-
-------
TABLE 6-3
GROUND WATER EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS -
FUTURE LAND USE SCENARIOS
Ground water exposure point
Contaminant concentration - future land use
scenario (mg/l)
Arsenic 9.OE-2b
Chromium 3.8E-28
Aldrin 2. 7E-58
Chlordane 9.5E-4b
DDT 5 . 7E - 58
DDD 3.8E-5b
Dieldrin 1.1£-48
Heptachlor epoxide 6. OE - sa
Nitrates 2. 3E+P
~.Y81ue lS the stat1stlcal upper confldence llm1t on the mean of the in transformed data.
due lS .th~muJ.l\1um de_~ected co~c.entution. .
TABLE 6-4
SURFACE SOIL EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS -
FUTURE LAND USE SCENARIOS
Contaminant Soil Exposure Point Concentration
(mg/kg)a
Chlordane 1. lE - 1
DDT 1. 03E-l
DDE 1.31£-1
DDD 3.3E-2
Dieldrin 3.4[- 2
Toxaphene 2.66E+0
aYalue 15 the stat1st1cal upper confldence llID1t on the mean of the in tr8nsformed data
-16-
-------
TABLE 6-5
EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS FOR ORAL EXPOSURE TO GROUND WATERa
Industrialj Residential Residential
Parameter. Commercial Land Land Use - Land Use-
, . Useb Adul tb InfantC
Ingestion Rate 1 Ljday 2 Ljday 0.64 Ljday
Exposure Frequency 250 daysjyr 350 daysjyr 350 daysjyr
Exposure Duration 25 yrs 30 yrs 1 yr
Body Weight 70 kg 70 kg 4 kg
Averaging Time 25,550 days 25,550 days 25,550 days
. Carcinogens
Averaging Time 9,125 days 10,950 days 365 days
- Noncarcinogens
afor relevant equatign, see figure 6-1,
sources for va1ues: (USEPA, 1991a); c(USEPA IRIS- Nitrate)
TABLE 6-6
...', !..~ .: ':-:.: '" .
, ,
" ,.,":' E~{'P6SuRf' AS'SUMPTI0N's:"F6R' "D-Efu:t:"WbSURE ,'To:o"GROtJiID' \JATEP::
, FUTURE RESIDENTIAL SCENARIO
. \.;... '.: .
'~"', .. .'. '.:,' ',"
. .' ""1'. ..:- ~ -.
I Parameter I Value Used for Resident I
Skin Surface Area 18, l50a cm2
Dermal Permeability Constant Chemical-specific (see Table 6-7a)
Exposure Time 0.2 hrs/dayb
Exposure Frequency 350 days/yrC
Exposure Duration 30 yrsC
Body Weight 70 kgC
Averaging Time - Carcinogens 25,550 daysC
Averaging Time - Noncarcinogens 10,950 daysC
For relevant equation, see figure 6-1,
asource: (USEPA, 1990)
blength of daily shower (USEPA Region 4 professional judgement)
csource: (USEPA, ~991a)
-17-
-------
TABLE 6 - 7
ASSUMPTIONS FOR ORAL EXPOSURE TO SURFACE SOILa
-
. Value Usee for Value Used for
Parameter Adult Worker Resident Child
Ingestion Rate 50 mg/day 200 mg/day
Fraction Ingested from 1.0 1.0
contaminated source
Exposure Frequency 250 days/yr 350 -days/yr
Exposure Duration 25 yrs 6 yrs
Body Weight 70 kg 15 kg
Averaging Time - Carcinogenic 25,550 days 25,550 days
Averaging Time - Noncarcinogenic 9,125 days 2,190 days
aFor relevant equation. see figure 6-2
sourCe for values: (USEPA. 1991a)
TABLE 6-8
AS~tJMPTIONS. FOR .DE~~EXPOS1JI{~ TO SURF~CE.S.PILa
'"r.. -.:
Value Used for Value used for
Parameter Adult Worker Resident Child
Surface area (exposed skin) 1980 cm2 (b) 1950 cm2 (b)
Adherence factor 1.0 mg/crn2 (c) 1. 0 mg/cm2 (c)
Absorption Fraction O. Old 0.01 d
Exposure Frequency 250 days/yre 350 days/yr.
Exposure Duration 25 yrse 6 yrs.
Body Weight 70 kge 15 kg.
Averaging Time - Carcinogenic 25,550 days 25,550 days
Averaging Time - Noncarcinogenic 9,125 days 2,190 days
aFor relevant equation.
bsource: (USEPA. 1990).
~source: (USEPA. 1992).
source: USEPA Reglon 4
esource: (USEPA.. 1991a).
see figure 6-2.
value for organlc chemlcals (lncludes sOll-chemlcal matrlx effect).
-18-
-------
TABLE 6-9
CHRONIC DAILY INTAKE FOR ORAL EXPOSURE TO~~ROUND WATER - CURRENT LAND USE SCENARIOS
. .'
, (WoodbUr.'y)
Opsite Worker Offs lte Worker
Contaminant .,
Carcinogenic Noncarclnogen Carcinogenic Noncarcinogen
COla COla ' . COP COla .
"
Arsenic 1.29E-5 3. 6i£-5 1.75E-5 4.89E-5
Chromium N/A 4.89£-5 'N/A 1. 17E- 5
..
Aldrin 8.74E-8 2.45t-7 1. OBE- 7 3.03E-7
"
Chlordane 3.32E-6 9.30E-6 1. 78E- 7 4.99E-7
DOT B.74E~B 2.45:~-7 6.99E-7 l.96E-6
ODD 8.74E-8 N/A 1. 33E- 7 N/A
Dieldrin 8.74E-8 2 .45'~- 7 2.24E-6 6.26E-6
Heptachlor 8.74E-8 2 . 45:~- 7 8.39E-8 2.35E-7
epoxide "
SCDI- Chronic Daily Inlake (mg/ka-d)
.'
MIA - Nol Appliceble - Chromium is not clessiCied aa a carcinoaen by the oral route oC exposure;
No oral RCD has been.verlC.ed for ODD..
. .. . .
,.
.',
. .
. ,
-19-
'- .
..
-------
TABLE 6-10
CHRONIC DAILY INTAKE FOR ORAL EXPOSURE TO GROUND WATER - FUTURE LAND USE SCENARIOS
Oral Ground Water CDr for Oral Ground Water cor for a
Future Worker Future Resident
Contaminant (mg/kg-d) , (mg/kg-d)
'.
Carcinogenic Noncarcinogeriic Carcinogenic Noncarcinogenic
Arsenic 3.l5E-4 8.81E-4 ) 1.06E-3 2 .ill E - 3
Chromium N/A 3.72E-4 N/A 1 . 04 E - 3
Aldrin 9.44E-B 2.64E-7 3.22E-7 7.51E-7
Chlordane 3.32E-6 9.3E-6 1.12E-5 2.60E-5
DDT 1. 99E- 7 5.581 ' 6.69E-7 1.56E-6
DDD 1. 33E- 7 N/A 4.46E-7 N/A
Dieldrin 3.84E-7 1.08E-6 . 1. 8SE- 6 4.3BE-h
Heptachlor i.l0E-7 5.87E-7 7.05E-7 1.64E-6
epoxide
N/A - Not Applicable - Chromium is not classified as a carcinogen by the ~ral route of exposure;
No oral RfD has been verified for DDD
-20-
-------
TABLE 6 - 11
CHRONIC DAILY INTAKE FOR DERMAL EXPOSURE TO GROUND WATER -
FUTURE RESIDENTIAL LAND USE SCENARIO
Dermal Ground Water CD I for a future resident
(mg/kg-d)
Contaminant Carcinogenic Noncarcinogenic
Arsenic 1. 92E- 6 4.48E-6
Chromium N/A 3.78E-6
Aldrin 9.34E-l0 2.18E-9
Chlordane 1.05E.6 ' 2.46E-6
DDT 5.22E-7 1.22E-6
DDD 2.27E-7 N/A
Dieldrin 5.46E-8 1.27E-7
Heptachlor 1.41E-8 3.28E-8
epoxide
N/A - Not Applicable - Chromium is not classified as a carcinosen by this route of exposure;
No. RfD has been verified. for DDD. ..
':" "",' '. : . ~ ..:';. -..: . .'.'" ..:- " :... ". '~""'" '.. ,,'- ". "..... " :. "~'> . . :'.:::'~'" ..;: ~.. ~ . . 1'''. .. ."-: .: ~ : ~ ',:', '...~:. . " .', . '<.... <", , ':': '," ..: ". ", ':."" : "./ / .
. \'. \...;- ~ . -::,.:: t ~
',\ ,', " 0',-':""..
- 21-
-------
TABLE 6-12
CHRONIC DAILY INTAKE (CDI) FOR ORAL EXPOSURE,TO SURFACE SOIL - FUTURE LAND USE SCENARIOS
Adult Worker CDr for Orar Child resident cor for Ora 1
Exposure to Soil Exposure to 50 il
Contaminant (mg/kg-d) -- (mg/kg-d)
Carcinogenic Noncarcinogenic Carcinogenic Noncarc inoger1lc
Chlordane 1.92E-8 5,38E-8: 1.21E-l 1.41E-6
DOT 1. 80E- 8 5.04E-B 1. DE- 1 1.32E-6
DOE 2,29E-8 N/A 1.44E-7 N/A
DDD 5.77E-9 N/A 3.62E-8 N/A
Dieldrin S.94E-9 1,66E-8 3,13E-8 4.35E-7
..'
Toxaphene 4.65E-l N/A 2.92E-6 N/A
NfA - Not applicable since no Reference D08e8 h8ve been verified for DDE.~DDD. Toxaphene.
~22-
-------
:,
':'
TABLE 6-13
CHRONIC DAILY INTAKE (CDI) FOR DERMAL EXPOSURE TO SURFACE SOIL - FUTURE LAND USE SCENARIOS
,
Adul~ Worker CD! for Ora~' Child resident CD! for Oral
Exposure to Soil : Exposure to Soil
Contaminant (mg/kg-d) ~ 0(. (mg/kg-d)
"
Carcinogenic Noncarcino~enic Carcinogenic Noncarcinogenic
Chlordane 7.61E-9 2.13E-&, 1.18E-8 1.37E-7
" ,
DOT 7.13E-9 2. 00E-8' 1.10E-8 1. 28E'- 7
DOE 9.06E-9 N/(';: 1. 40E-8 N/A
ODD 2.28E-9 N/A ' 3.59E-9 N/A
!:
Dieldrin 2.35E-9 6. 59E-,9 3.63E-9 4.24E-8
'.'
Toxaphene 1. 84E- 7 N/A : 2.84E-7
" N/A
, /
NfA - Not Applicable since no Reference Dosea have been verified for DDEi~DDD. Toxaphene.
, "
,
;
. ..~
',' ~
,',
,.",
, ;
, ,'23-
'.
-------
6.3
TOXICITY ASSESSMENT
The purpose of a toxicity assessment is to weigh available evidence
regarding the potential of the contaminants of concern to cause
adverse effects in exposed individuals and to provide an estimate
of the relationship between the extent of exposure and the
likelihood of adverse effects. The toxicity assessment is based
on toxicity values which have been derived from quantitative dose-
response information. Toxici ty values for cancer are known as
slope factors (SFs) and those determined for noncarcinogenic
effects are referred to as reference doses (RfDs).
Slope factors (SFs), which are also known as cancer potency factors
(CPFs), have been developed by EPA's Carcinogenic Assessment Group
for estimating excess lifetime cancer risks associated with
exposure to potentially carcinogenic chemicals. SFs, which are
expressed in units of (mg/kg-day)-1, are multiplied by the estimated
intake of a potential carcinogen, in mgjkg-day, to provide an
upper-bound estimate of the excess lifetime cancer risk associated
wi th exposure at that intake level. The term "upper-bound"
reflects the conservative estimate of the risks calculated from the
SF. Use of this approach makes underestimation of the actual
cancer risk highly unlikely. SFs are derived from the results of
human epidemiological studies or chronic animal bioassays to which
animal-to-human extrapolation and uncertainty factors have been
applied. SFs for the contaminants of concern at Woodbury Chemical
are liste.d in ~a1?~~6:14. ,- " ,,' ,,'.,' , -~ ",' -
" -
Reference doses (RfDs) have been developed by EPA for indicating
the potential for adverse health effects from exposure to chemicals
eXhibiting noncarcinogenic effects. RfDs, which are expressed in
units of mg/kg-day, are estimates of lifetime daily exposure levels
for humans, including sensitive individuals. Estimated intakes of
chemicals from environmental media (e.g. the amount of a chemical
ingested from contaminated drinking water) can be compared to the
RfD. RfDs are derived from human epidemiological studies or animal
studies to which uncertainty factors have been applied (e.g. to
account for the use of animal data to predict effects on humans).
These uncertainty factors help ensure that the RfDs will not
underestimate the potential for adverse noncarcinogenic effects to
occur. RfDs for the contaminants of concern at Woodbury Chemical
are found in Table 6-15.
6.4
RISK CHARACTERIZATION
In this final step of the risk assessment, the results of the
exposure and toxicity assessments are combined to provide numerical
estimates of the carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks for the
site. Excess lifetime cancer risks are determined by multiplying
the intake level with the slope factor. These risks are
probabilities that are generally expressed in scientific notation
(e.g. lxlO~ or lE-6). An excess lifetime cancer risk of lxlO~
-24-
-------
"
TABtE 6-14
CARCINOGENIC TOXICITY VALUES
"
..~ .
. .
, '.
C1assif~cationa/ Oa1 SF Fraction Oral Dose Adjusted SF
( (mgikg - d) -1) :
Contaminant tumor site Absorbed [ (mg/kg - d) -1 )
Arsenic A/skin l/lSE+O O.9Sb r. 8 E+O
Aldrin B2/liver ~ .::7E+1 O.65c 2.6E+l
Chlordane B2/liver 1 :)E+O O.8b l.6E+O
DDT B2/liver 3).~E-1 O.8b 4.2E-l
DDE B2/1iver J::4E - 1 O. gb 4.2E-l
DDD B2/liver ? .~4 E - 1 O.8b 3.0E-l
Dieldrin B2/liver . i:.:6E+ 1 0 . 6 Sbc 2.5E+l
.,',
',. .
Heptachlor epoxide B2/liver 9~iE+O O.7b 1.3E+l
Toxaphene B2/1iver L..1E+O O.7b 1.6E+O
. .
SF- Slope Factor for orally administered dose- obtained from EPA Intesrat~d Riak Information System (IRIS) or Health Effects Assessment Tables (HEAST)
oral ADS- fraction of orally adminlatered chemical that ia absorbed ':'.
adjusted SF- slope factor for the absorbed dose- (adj SF - Oral SF/oral'kpS); used to calculate dermal risk.
~Carcinosenic clasaif1cat.1on: A" Human Carcinogen (adequate human data>:"('B2 .. Probable Human Carcinosen (inadequate human data, adequate animel data).
source: chemical-specific ATSDR ToxicoloSical Prof He (ATSDR). .'
csource: (USEPA/ECAO, 1991) . 'c. .
. "
. .
.'
. '.'
.,
.'
",1
':~25 -
..
-------
TABLE 6- 15
NONCARCINOGENIC TOXICITY VALUES
I
N
0'
I
Contaminant Target Organ/, Oral RED Fraction Oral Dose AdJ us ted RfD
System (mg/kg-d) Absorbed
Arsenic skin 3.0E-4 0.958 2.8E-4 '
Chromium (C r +6 ) liver 5.0E-3 0.118 5.5E-4
Aldrin liver 3.0E-5 ; 0.6Sb 2.0E-5
Chlordane liver 6.0E-5 '. 0.88 4.8E-5
DDT liver 5.0E-4 ,. o.sa 4.0E-4
Dieldrin liver 5.0E-5 O. 658b 3.2E-5
Heptachlor liver 1. 3E- 5 0.78 9.lE-6
epoxide
Nitrate- blood 1. 6E+0 N/A N/A
nitrogen
RfD- Reference Dose for orally administered dose; obtained from EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)
or lIealth Effects Assessment Tables (HEAST) .
oral ABS- fraction of orally administered chemical that is absorbed
adjusted RfD- Reference Dose for the absorbed dose (us~d to calculate dermal hazard). (adJ RfD - oral RfD x oral
ABS)
N/A- Not Applicable: EPA has determined that dermal exposure to nitrates is illsignificant compared to oral
exposure to infants. (USEPA/ECAO, 1991)
8source:
chemical-specific ATSDR Toxicological Profile (ATSDR).
bsource:
(USEPA/ECAO. 1991)
-------
indicates t.hat, as a plausible upper bound, an individual has a one
in one million chance of developing cancer, over a 70-year
lifetime, as a result of site-related exposure to a carcinogen.
The NCP states that sites. should be remediated to chemical
concentrations that correspond to an upper-bound lifetime cancer
risk to an individual not exceeding 10-6 to 10-. excess lifetime
risk. Carcino~enic risk levels that exceed this range indicate the
need for performing remedial a~tion at a site.
Carcinogenic risk levels for each exposure scenario at the Woodbury
Chemical site are listed in Tables 6-16 through 6-20. Current
carcinogenic risks from exposure to ground water were calculated
separately for workers onsite and those at hydrologically
downgradient businesses. Risk for the onsite worker is 3.07E-S and
is 6.95E-S for the worker at the downqradient business. Both of
these risk values are within the risk range determ.ined to be
protective by EPA (10E-4 to 10E-6). Soil was not considered to be
a current exposure pathway because the site is paved.
Future potential risk from exposure to contaminants at the site was
c.alculated, based on the assumption that the site .area would become
residential in the future. Carcinogenic risk from future
residential exposure to ground water at the site was calculated to
be 5.93E-S, and future risk from residential exposure to soil would
be 4.63E-6. These risks are within EPA's acceptable risk range.
. ,.Carcinogenic.. risk .fr.om expqsure to arsenic was calculated
.. ......" sepa:fiH:eiy.~'cause'.' iifsen'fc' "da\iti.~':Ii""'d'!fter'~lit~tffl'J~f: 'cilhcer":.thfin> " ;"':,:'." ".
the other carcinogens. section 6.S of this document discusses why
EPA allows higher risk from arsenic than from other contaminants. '
Furthermore, arsenic was found in the soil and ground water
offsite, along the railroad right-of-way. The highest
concentration was detected in an area that is not adjacent to the
si te. Information obtained by EPA indicates that the railroad
sprayed arsenic-based herbicides along the right-of-way in the
past. Risk from exposure to arsenic in qround water is 1.8SE-3,
which is above the acceptable risk range. However, arsenic does
not appear'to be site-related and may extend over a long stretch
of the railroad right-of-way. Therefore, the arsenic contamination
is beyond the scope of this investigation. The railroad right-of- .
way has been referred to EPA's Site Assessment Section for further
consideration.
To characte~ize potential noncarcinogenic effects" estimated intake
levels are compared with toxicity values. Potential concern for
noncarcinogenic effects of a single contaminant in a single medium
is expressed as the Hazard Quotient (HQ) (or the ratio of the
estimated intake derived from the contaminant concentration in a
given medium to the contaminant's reference dose). A HQ exceeding
unity (1.0) indicates a potential for site-related noncarcinogenic
health effects. By adding the HQs for all contaminants within a
medium or across all media to which a given population may be
-27-
-------
TABLE 6- 16
CARCINOGENIC RISK FROM ORAL EXPOSURE TO GROUND WATER - CURRENT LAND USE SCENARIOS
Carcinogenic Risk
Worker @ Business
Contaminant Onsite (Woodbury) Worker across U.S. 1
Aldrin 1. 49E- 6 1.84E-6
Chlordane 4.32E-6 2.32E-7
DDT 2.97E-8 2.38E-7
DDD 2.l0E-8 3.19E-8
Dieldrin 1.40E-6 3.58E-5
Heptachor epoxide 7.95E-7 7.63E-7
TOTAL
Hepatocarcinogenic 8.06E-6 3.89E-5
RISK
I Risk from Arsenic I 2.26E-5 I 3.06E-5 I
TABLE 6-17
. 'CARCINOGENIC RISK FROM 'EXPOSURE .TOGROUND ,WATER
FUTURE RESIDENTIAL LAND USE SCENARIO
..
. r-. .
Total Ground
Contaminant Oral Route Risk Dermal Route Risk Water Risk
Aldrin 5.47E-6 2.43E-8 5.49E-6
Chlordane 1. 45E- 5 1.68E-6 1. 62E- 5
DDT 2.28E-7 2.l9E-7 4.47E-7
DDD 1. 07E- 7 6.8E-8 1.75E-7
Dieldrin 3.01E-5 1.36E-6 3.l4E-5
Heptachlor 6.41E-6 1.83E-7 6.59E-6
epoxide
TOTAL
Hepatocarcinogenic 5.68E-5 3.54E-6 6.03E-5
Risk
I Risk from Arsenic I 1.85E-3 I 3.45E-6 I 1.85E-) I
-28-
-------
TABLE 6 - 18
CARCINOGENIC RISK FROM EXPOSURE TO SURFACE SOIL BY RESIDENT CHILD -
FUTURE LAND USE SCENARIO
.
Total Surface
Contaminant Oraf Route Risk Dermal Route Risk Soil Risk
Chlordane 1.57E-7 1. 88E- 8 1. 76E- 7
DDT 3.84E-8 4.62E-9 4.30E-8
DDE 4.88E-8 5.88E-9 5.47E-8
DDD 8.68E-9 1. 06E-9 9.74E-9
Dieldrin 5.96E-7 9.08E-8' 6.87E-7
Toxaphene 3.21E-6 4.55E-7 3.66E-6
I TOTAL RISK I 4.06E-6 I 5.76E-7 I 4.63E-6 I
TABLE 6-19
;..',':' ",', "':.
CARCINOGENIC RISK FROM ORAL EXPOSURE TO GROUND WATER -
" ::..';':" "".::'"..; ,,:.::, ','.FUroRE :lNPU$TRI~b'l~ND' 'USE'"SqENA.R:LO"':~"" "," ':,," ':,:;,:,
'. : .' ., .."~ ':.' ..' :' ~ ~. '.0:0;' ': :,' '::'" .
. ,..
Risk to Future Worker from
Contaminant Ground-Water Consumption
Aldrin 1. 60E - 6
Chlordane 4.32E-6
DDT 6.77E-8
DDD 3.l9E-8
Dieldrin 6.15E-6
Heptachlor epoxide 1.91E-6
TOTAL
Hepatocarcinogenic 1.41E-5
Risk
,I ,Risk from Arsenic I 5.5E-4 I
-29-
-------
TABLE 6-20
CARCINOGENIC RISK ?ROM EXPOSURE TO SURFACE SOIL BY ADULT WORKER -
FUTURE ~~D USE SCENARIO
.
Total Surface
Conr:aminan'C Oral Route Risk Dermal Route Risk Soil Risk
Chlordane 2.50E-8 1.22E-8 3. 72E-8
DDT 6.l2E-9 2.99E-9 9.11E-9
DDE 7.78E-9 3.81E-9 - 1.16E-8
DDD 1.38E-9 6.85E-10 2.07E-9
Dieldrin 9.51£-8 5.88E-8 1.54E-7
Toxaphene 5.11E-7 2.94E-7 8.06E-7
I TOTAL RISK I 6.47£-7 I 3.73E-7 I 1.02E-6 I
-30-
-------
reasonably ..exposed, the Hazard Index (HI) can be generated. The
HI provides a useful reference point for gauging the potential
significance of multiple contaminant exposures within a single
medium or across media. .
Noncarcinogenic risks for the exposure scenarios at the Woodbury
Chemical site are listed in Tables 6-21 through 6-26. Calculation
of the non-carcinogenic risk from current worker exposure to ground
water at the site resulted in a Hazard Index (HI) of 0.32. Future
potential residential exposure calculations yielded a HI of 0.94,
not including the contribution from arsenic. These are both below
1.0 which is the level which indicates a potential for site-related
non-carcinogenic health effects. The HQ for exposure to arsenic
in ground water is 8.2 and will be dealt with separately, as stated
above. The HI for future exposure to non-carcinogens. in the soil
is 0.039.
Nitrates (non-carcinogenic) and were detected in every ground water
sample collected during the Woodbury Chemical RI. Their presence
is most likely due to the heavy use of fertilizers in the area and
is not due to activities at the site. A separate HQ was calculated
for nitrates in the ground water because they cause adverse effects
in infants at significantly lower doses than in adults. Therefore,
exposure assumptions different from those for adults were used in
the calculation. The HQ for future exposure of infants to ground
water at the site is 2.21. Because the presence of nitrates in the
.: .....::. ..grQW1d.;w~ter:.i$.:.an..~x~~~wide.,..c~n~j,.t~on:I.. J;PA pa~. report~danalytical .
resut ts' for riitratef;;'.'obbiiried: durlng':~the""WoOdbury:. Cht!jDicai' RI'::..t'(f';"',,\" .:., ;.:. '"
state and local officials.. '. .. .
Table 6-27 summarizes the risks calculated for the Woodbury
Chemical site. The results of the RI and Baseline Risk Assessment
indicate that the 1990 removal of toxaphene-contaminated soils at
the Woodbury Chemical site has reduced the risk from exposure to
site-related contaminants to levels which are protective of human
health and the environment.
6.5
DISCUSSION OF UNCERTAINTY
omission of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) from the risk
assessment could result in some underestimation of the risk. The
PAH concentrations found along the railroad right-of-way adjacent
to the Woodbury Chemical site were similar to those found along the'
railroad away from the site, indicating that these compounds are
not attributable to the site.
The only chemical which exceeds the acceptable carcinogenic risk
levels i,5 ., arsenic in ground water. It was retained as a
contaminant of concern in the risk assessment because the detected
levels exceed the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) established under
the Safe Drinking Water Act. However, arsenic was not included
when calculating the overall site risk for the following reasons.
-31-
-------
TABLE 6- 21
NONCARCINOGENIC HAZARD FROM ORAL EXPOSURE TO GROUND YATER -
CURRENT lAND USE SCENARIOS
Contaminant Onsite (Yoodbury) Worker @ Business
Worker across U.S. 1
Chromium (Cr+6) 9.78E-3 2.35E-3
Aldrin 8.15E-3 1.01E-2
Chlordane 1.55E-1 8.32E-3
DDT 4.89E-4 3.91E-3
Dieldrin 4.89E-3 1. 25E-1
Heptachlor 1. 88E-2 1. 81£-2
epoxide
Hepatotoxic
HAZARD 1.97E-1 1. 68E-1
Hazard from
Arsenic 1. 21E-1 1. 63E-1
Noncarcinogenic Hazard
TA!U;6-22
0-
"
NONCARCINOGENIC HAZARD FROM RESIDENTIAL EXPOSURE TO GROUND WATER -
FUTURE LAND USE SCENARIO
Contaminant Oral route Dermal route Total Ground
~azard hazard water Hazard
Chromium (Cr+6) 2.08E-1 6.87E-3 2.15E-1
Aldrin 2.50E-2 1. 09E-4 2.51E-2
Chlordane 4.34E-1 5.12E-2 4.85E-1
--
DDT 3.12E-3 3.05E-3 6.17E-3
. .
Dieldrin 8.77E-2 3.98E-3 9.16E-2
Heptachlor 1. 26E-1 3.61E-3 1. 30E-1
epoxide
TOTAL
Hepatotoxic Hazard 8.84E-1 6.88E-2 9.53E-1
Arsenic Hazard 8.22E+0 1. 60E- 2 8. 24E+0
-32-
-------
. .' '.
. . .': . .' .' :.~. ~.::... ...,. :.
. . , .
TABLE 6-23
NONCARCINOGENIC HAZARD TO AN INFANT FROM
INGESTION OF GROUND WATER NITRATE
Contaminant Hazard Index for Infant Oral
exposure
Nitrate-nitrogen 2.21E+0
TABLE 6 - 24
NONCARCINOGENIC HAZARD FROM EXPOSURE TO SURFACE SOIL BY RESIDENT CHILD -
. FUTURE LAND USE SCENARIO
Contaminant
Oral Route Hazard
Dermal Route
Hazard
Total Surface
Soil Hazard
... :: Chl~i;darte.... :-. ~.:- .::.~....: 2'::34E.;;2.. .~.. '-' '..' .-:';>':"... .;2.;86£.~3': .:.. . ":.. :,~...' :." :'Z: :'6jE~~~':':"':' ~..:.. ;
..,'..:..-:.
DDT
2.63E-3
8.69E-3
2.95E-3
1. 00E-2
3.21E-4
1. 32E- 3
Dieldrin
TOTAL HI
3.48E-2
3.93E-2
4.50E-3
-33-
-------
TABLE 6 - 25
NONCARCINOGENIC HAZARD FROM EXPOSURE TO GROUND WATER -
FUTURE INDUSTRIAL LAND USE SCENARIO
Risk to Future Worker from
Contaminant Ground-Water Consumption
Chromium (Cr+6) 7.44E-2
Aldrin 8.8lE-3
Chlordane 1. 55E-l
DDT 1.12E- 3
Dieldrin 2.lSE-2"
Heptachlor epoxide 4.S2E-2
I TOTAL I I
Hepatotoxic 3.06E-l
Hazard
I Arsenic Hazard I 2. 94E+O I
"'.-.
", "
, . ",
. ". ..".- .
TABLE 6-26
NONCARCINOGENIC HAZARD FROM EXPOSURE TO SURFACE SOIL BY ADULT WORKER -
FUTURE LAND USE SCENARIO
Total Surface
Contaminant Oral Route Hazard Dermal Route Hazard Soil Hazard
Chlordane 8.97E-4 4.44E-4 1. 34E- 3
DDT 1. OlE-4 4.99E-S 1.S1E-4
Dieldrin 3.33E-4 2.06E-4 5.39E-4
TOTAL HI :'.33E.3 7.00E-4 2.03E-3
-34-
-------
.
TABLE 6-27
SUMMARY OPRIS~S
..
Scenario Total Cancer Risk TotaJ Hazard Index Arsenic Risk Arsenic Hazard
(Liver) (Li v~r)
Current Ot;fsite Worker 3.9B-5 0..~7 3.1B-5 0.16
Future On~ite Worker 1.5Br5 0;.31 5.5B-4 2.9
..
Groundwater Use by 6.0B-5 0.:95 1.8B-3 8.2
Future Resident f ...". .
Soil Contact by Future 4.6B-6 0.:'04 Arsenic not of concern
Resident .., as a soil contaminant
. .
. .~.
,.
Hazard Index for ingestion of nitrates in groundwate~ by resident infant
2.21
"....
"".":.
-','
. ..
. .\
;.
.
,"....
. .',
"(
...
. .
.~
-35-
..,
,.
:'./'.
-------
Since arsenic was not detected onsite and the highest level was
detected in a control well, it appears that the presence of arsenic
in the ground water is not a result of site activities.
Furthermore, the carcinogenic effect on which the slope factor is
based is a nonfatal form of skin cancer, whereas the other
contaminants are of primary concern as liver carcinogens.
Some chemicals evaluated in assessment of the carcinogenic risk
have not been assigned RfDs by which to calculate their
noncarcinogenic effects. Therefore, the HI for the site may be
underestimated. However, it is believed that a contaminant
concentration that falls within EPA's cancer risk range will be
protective against systemic toxic effects as well.
Use of the RME in calculating exposure point concentrations helps
to assure that the true average for the site is not greater that
the value used. Therefore, it is possible that the actual exposure
point concentration is overestimated to some degree.
6.6
ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
A qualitative ecological assessment was performed for the Woodbury
Chemical site due to the developed nature of the site and the
surrounding area. The terrestrial non-human receptors associated
with the site are expected to be those commonly associated with
industrial/commercial/agricultural developed areas. The site is
'fenced and-paved, .. thereby'.limitingexposure. .to. wildlife.
The C-102 Canal is the closest water body to the site. There has
been one report of an occurrence of a manatee, an endangered
species, in this stretch of the canal. The presence of the
manatees is considered an infrequent incidence. There is no known
or apparent current surface or ground water pathway to the canal
due to the lack of a ground water contaminant plume. The
possibility of an historical ground water pathway cannot be
eliminated, however, due to the high ground water migration rates.
Current ground water contaminant levels would not be expected to
impact the C-102 Canal. Wells between the site and the canal have
very low or nondetectable contaminant levels.
The ecological risks associated with this site appear to be minimal
and at an acceptable level requiring no further action unless the
planned ground water monitoring would demonstrate a future threat
to the C-102 Canal.
7.0
DESCRIPTION OF THE "NO FURTHER ACTION" SELECTED ALTERNATIVE
EPA has determined, based on the results of the RI and Risk
Assessment, that no further action is needed for the soil at the
Woodbury Chemical 5i te. The removal of toxaphene-contaminated soil
which was performed at the site in January 1990 sufficiently
-36-
-------
reduced the risk from exposure to site-related contaminants in the
soil to within EPA's protective range.
I '
I
RI and Risk Assessment results also indicated that no action is
necessary for the ground water at the Woodbury Chemical Site.
However, because the future potential risk from exposure to the
ground water at the site is close to the level at which EPA may
consider taking action, the ground water at and around the site
will be monitored quarterly for one year to confirm that the few
samples collected during the RI which contained contaminants above
drinking water standards are not indicative of a release of
contaminants from the Woodbury Chemical Site. It is anticipated
that at least two (2) permanent wells will have to be installed in
areas where temporary wells were placed during the RI and an
additional permanent monitoring well immediately downgradient of
, soil sample WC-011-SS. Quarterly monitoring will include all
existing and newly installed EPAmonitoring wells as well as a down
gradient private well. The samples shall, be analyzed for
pesticides/PCBs. Based upon EPA's Cost of Remedial Action (CORA)
model, the estimated cost of the monitoring is $22,500 (Table 7-1).
If'monitoring indicates a potential threat to human health o~ the
environment, EPA, in consultation with the State of Florida, will
reconsider the protectiveness of this alternative and the need for
protective measures or site remediation. '
8~0 DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES
','. "",:-:"..~...., ,~';..,":I";-':':""'::":"';"':"',:'I',:'.....,:-., ',",',"," :':'.:., ",:""', .:,':,' ","',' "".,:,,".'-,':,',~'....., ',""""',", ',' .~" ',""",":"':!',' ',..j."":,,, :....'') ''''.:, ",' . ...\.,.\", ~ ..
. ':' . " .. ;;,' ...~ " .'. "''''.., .~.'::."
, The selected reiilE~dy as' presentedln 'this decision docmnenthas'no'
difference, significant or otherwise, from the proposed plan.
-37-
-------
T riB LE 7 - 1 :
Estimated Monitoring Costs
CORA GROUNDWATER MONITORING COST MODULE
SITE NAME:
OF'EF:A8LE UN IT:
SCENAF: I 0:
F:UN 8'(:
WOOD8UR'Y CI-!~M leAL
ENTIRE SITE ESTIMATED
GROUNDWATER MONITORING
D 1 CIne 5,: ,:,t t F'HONE
INPUTS
F'ar' amet er
-----------------------------------
'J cd u e
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - --- - - - - --
T,:,t a 1
----------------------------
-_._---
------------------
Compc,ner.t
NOTES:
\. 5()] I
START:
U~TE FY 1'3'32
NUMBER:: 4()4 -347 - 264::
F:ESUL TS
.;...
CAPITAL COST
o ~~ M COSTS
15
'. D.
D
85
M
5
4
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
Ground water mor.ltorlng associated with no
lr.stallatl,:,n ,:,f--';:: ne'N wells and m,:.nlt.:,ring
Number of wells to lr.stall
Average well depth ,it)
Pro t:,te.:t.10r1, ,du.r lng s.et'up. c~(
drill rIg ~ installatIon
of above-grade pIpIng
F'r,:,te,:t l.:,n aur In';J dr lillng
Average temp (degrees F)
C ':' r. f 1 den .: e 1 e '/ e 1
Number of wells to monItor
M,:.r'lt':trlng fr'equen,:y
MonitorIng requirements:
24 F'l ",sma M,?tal s
F'est /F'CB
':::C --GN
(3C -At: i d
HSLOF:13
')OA 13C 1M3
A.: 1 d 13C/MS
B/N 13C/MS
-38-
- ..:. :
. ~ -.,-'
action respc.nse.
at.:. tal,:. f 5 f ':' r
-----------
12,000
1 (, . (100
. 'V.-", .
Includes
pes t 1 ': 1 d >.? 5
-------
1 '. ,:.: .....': .' :.:-,:' .-:.~. ,'.'" ~'.' . '~"'~. ...' '.;', '. '.' '
APPENDIX A
..~:" .-,: '.'REMEDili,~t~IGAiJ;tlcm "SAMPL1:HG '~:'"
DATA AMD LOCATIONS
, .~.' ... . : ,/
.'. ': : ~o ":" :": :' . ". '.:'.: ..:.:'~'; :'.. '. :'., of .
-------
I
I
~~~.I
CON""" '2
. WC-ORG-50
(WC-OJO-SO)
~,.
JII",,,,,,,,,r
:-u.""..,) .' ",
. .
, 0__- -----! L'\. ...
l l
------
Jj~
u.~-
. . .
'M;-Olo-- SS
:;", t/ 0
-..,
( \
\
~..;r\
. \
I>
Wt-009- nc I>
I>
n
,''''..
: ,
. '
;'/1 .
Q I
t
\
,- m.o
(
.
"
"
"
)'
I> I>
I>WC-orf-SSC
I> I>
I>
WOODBURY CHEMICAL
PRINCETON, FLORIDA
1992
SURFACE (SEDIMENT) SOIL SAMPLES
o - 2 INCHES 8LS
PHASE I
UJ;Uf;)
Ik.S - II£tOW lAHO SURf">'c{
. - SURf"..c£ SOIL CIWI ~ lOCATIONS (5.s)
!> - SURf 1£( so.. COo/POS/T[ Wof'U (sse)
. - S(()II.f(HT CIWI SAI#\L (SO)
SCALE
&EPA
200
L...
o
-~
( IN f(n )
tOO
I
200
I
-------
...
".'.:
. WC-120-SS
",,~,,;'i~I"
. ,.
~",:J ) .' ",
, .
, --.., ~ t/\ ,..
[;l
..
t7('
a. 8. ,... '!"If'
~,.
WC-fOl-SS
...
.. II . . '.
WC-r02-SS WC-f03-55
.. ,-.... ..
-...
( ,
\
~r\
A ,
."'
, .
~ }
\/1
~I
I
t
\
(
II
"
"
'.
)'
I
Q,
: :
\
.~ ",A.~'" -.. .... '" '~"'...' " " ,..,.-.,,!»".... '
, ,""-,.-,' -'-, ,'. ,. ~-flI8-SS WC"-TO ~'_.~
-.. ',./ \ I' I '=:.::..-
/) WC- -55 8OI()OIS(
WC-f04-S$
..
WC-f05-5S
..
..
L(CO/O
.. OOMPOS/T[ SOIL SAAIPU LOCATIONS
. GRAB SOIL SNoIPIL 5
WOODBURY CHEMICAL
PRINCETON. FLORIDA
1992
CqMPOSITE/GRAB
SOIL .SAMPLE LOCATIONS
. PHASE II
~EPA
. .
700
~
SCALE
o
~
( IN fEET )
100
I
200
I
.
i:
. .
-------
prS;ICI~E/PCB COMPOUNDS
4.~'-DDD (P.P'-DDD)
4.4'-DDE (P,P'-DDE)
4.4'-DDT (P,P'-DD!)
ALPHA -CHLORDAN! /2
CIS-NONACHLOR /2
GIJot1A - CHLORDAN! /2
OXYCHLORDANE /2
TRANS-NO!IACHLOR /2
Total Chlordane
DIELDRIN
rNDOSULF/JI I (ALPHA)
rNDOSULF/JI II (Br!A)
ENDOS U1.F ~_.. SU1.F AT!
HEP'!ACRLOF.
!n:P'!ACRl..OR EPOXID!
I.ORSBAN(DURSBAN )
TOXAPHENE
PESTICIDE/PCB COMPOUNDS
4.4'-DDD (P,P'-DDD)
4.4'-DD£ (P,P'-DD!)
..4'-DDT (P,P'-DD!)
ALPHA -CHLORDAN! /2
CIS-NONACHLOR /2
GIJot1A -CHLORDAN! 12
TRANS-HONACHLOR 12
Iotal Chlordane
DIEl.DRIN
£NOOSU1.FA!I SULFATE
DlDRIIi '!CETONE ,"
GAMMA-BSC (LINDANE)
I.ORSBAN (DURSaAN )
TOXAPHENE
PESTICIDE/PCB COMPOUNDS
4.4'-DD£ (P.P'-DD£)
4,4'-DDT (P.P'oDDT)
ALPHA-CBLORDA!lE /2
GAI-t1A -CELORDANE /2
TRANS-NONACHLOR 12
Ie tal Chlordane
DIELDRIII
ENDRTN I:I:!OIlE
TOXAPHENE
C.p-DDn
Footnete:
PHASE I
WCXJDBURY c:HD!ICAL SITE
PRINCE'!CN. DADE COUNTY, FI.ORIDA
SURFACE SOIL-PESTICIDES/PCB DATA SUMMARY
JANlJARY, 1991
CONTROL 11
~BGSS ~DOISSC ~005SSC ~009SSC ICOIOSS ICOllSS
I"S/ks I"slks I"SIk & 1"&/kS I"I/kS I"S/k&
2BOJC 32J 18J 14J 18JN
240JC 39JC 16J 6.9J 120
140J 34'; 18J 62J 37
III. itA NA NA e.6J 71
itA HI. III. NA 27
!IA III. itA NA 10J 110
NA NA III. iiI. 4.7J
!IA NA itA NA 7.1JN 69H
25.7 281. 7
33J 210
~OFFSSC ~D06SS
IOSlkS IOSIk,
16J
III.
HI.
III.
iiI.
HI.
itA
NA
HI.
NA
!IA
59
68
13J
11000
1700J
i.eJ
6.3J
1500J
39
23
1400J
CONTROl. 12
~OBGSD
WC014SD W:064SD 1oCA03SD w:!07SD WCD02SD
Dup-014
"A/XS I"s/ka IOl/ka IOl/kl I"S/k,
10411 33H 24N 310N
9.8J 8.6J 5.6J 1o.3J III.
4.5J NA
iol 38 14J 11J III.
1411 llJN 4,2JN 7, IJN N...
64.e 57.6 23.8 26.9
9. IJ
20J 13J
.~-- "-- ";.. ,-, ' .13J
32 27 12J 5.5J
1300J
PRASE II
WOODBURY CHIMICAL SIT!
FARM FIELD-PESTICIDE/PCB DATA SUMMARY
AUGUST, 1991
Fll-SSC Fl2-SSC F13-SSC F 14 -sse F54-SSe Fl5-SSC Fl6-SSG Fl7 -SSG n8 -SSG
DUP-fl.
IOa/ka ~S/ks ~a/kl "S/kl ..a/ka ..a/ks ..a/ka IOa/k& IOa/les
5.6J 4.9J 17J 18JN 39JN 180J 10 10J
40J 7.4J 31J hJ 120J 110J 320J
HA HI. NA II... III. !IA 13 15 11
III. HI. IIA NA NA III. 1311 1511 1011
HI. !IA HA HI. II... III. lioN pH 8111
40 5 29.2
2.5JN 20JN
11J 7.6J 8 8:
.900 710 1600 4600 1000 .40 1900
12J
~013SD
"A/kS
23N
17
89N
9.2J
8.3J
13J
1511
4T"!
"S/k&
20J
16JC
27J
NA
NA
III.
lilt
-"- -
5.1J
III.
II
J
/2
C
- Net Analynd
- Presumt~ve .v~dence of presence of materlal
- £st~mat.d value
- Hater~.l was analyzed fer but not detected
- Censt1tuents 0: metabol~tes of techn~cal chlordane
- eenf~rmed GC/HS
- B~&hll&ht lnd~cates centamlnants of cencern
-------
PHASE: I
WX)DSURY CBDilCAL SIn
PRINCETON. DADE: COUNTY. FLORIDA
SURFACE: SOILSIHETALS DATA StnflARy
JANUARY. 1991
CONTROL 11
W:::BGSS W:::001SSC W:::005SSC W:::009SSC W:::010SS W:::O llSS W:::OFFSSC W:::D06SS
INORGANIC ELEMENTS IllS lit a IllS /11: a IllS /11: a IIIS/lta IIIS/lta IIISlka IllS Ika IllS/ita
ALUMINUM 3000 4300 7600 13000 5200 10000 10000 4300
BARIUM 18 18 19 10 15 14
CALCIUM 300000 230000 230000 140000 280000 220000 200000 230000
CBRCtiI UM 13 30 43 24 39
COPPER 17 21 13 20 42
IRON 2000 3700 6300 12000 4000 8800 .7700 3200
!.tAD 46 " 82
I1AGH!:S IUM 860 1100 1000 1000 910 1300 2200 1100
HAllGANESE 45 75 180 210 56 170 1000 62
HE:RCtJR Y 0.09 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.12 0.55 0.11 0.11
POTASSIUM 7200
STRONTIUM 2800 1500 1700 980 2800 1400 1500 1200
fITAlfIUM 41 84 130 190 100 150 200 92
VANADIUM 14 15 25 15 18 11
YTTRIUM 15 13
ZINC 100 110 50 31 ;2 93 19
PHASE I
WX)DBURY CHEMICAL SITE
SURFACE SOILS/METAlS DATA StnflARY
JANUARY. 1;;1
CONnOL 12
W:::OBGSD W:::O 13SC W:::014SD W:::064SD w:::A03SC W:::B07SD W:::C02SD
(W:::020SD> Dup-014
INORGANIC ELEMENTS IllS Iks IIIS/lts IIIS/k& 1IIS/1t& IllS Ik& IIIS/lts IIIS/lts
ALUMINUM 5200 9800 5200 7400 1800 2500 2500
ARSENIC 150 76 85
BARI UM 51 19 22 23 10 15
CALCIUM 170000 210000 220000 200000 200000 240000 260000
CBR01IUM 26 29 26 35 11 12
COPPER 55 22 55 68 18
mON 17000 7800 5200 6700 7000 6200 2300
'. ,,,: .' ~. '. ~,'., " ': ,:-1.EAD, ::':," ':..: " . ::- .~" ,':::'::,~, .,',:" ~;~O ," .(. " 5~.., ',:., :.,.~~go"'" 200 " ,140" 140 ':~J'ie',
, HAGRESIUM . 1000',' ;-. '1100:,',;~ ,""u:oo.. ~,:'" ""u:oo':.::": '.. . t,:, :'.,'" ~ ' " ~'.'
HAIIGA!lE:SE "180 ' ' 230' 190 '220" ','62' ,,' '88' 36 "
MERCURY 0.24 0.13 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.12 0.09
SIRONTIUM 1300 1600 1200 1100 1400 2000 2200
TITANIUM 150 150 96 120 55 65 100
V ANAD I UM 15 15 11 12
ZINC 170 77 180 220 40 79 16
PHASE II
WX)CBURY CHEMICAL SITE
SURFACE SOILIHETALS DATA SIn'tiARY
JUNE. 1991
W:::120SS W:::123SS W:::125SS
INORGANIC ELEMENTS IIIS/lts IllS lit a IllS 111:&
ALUMI NUl'! 3400 21000 6500
ARSENIC 54
BARIUM 25 35 16
CALCIUM 240000 140000 140000
C1RCI1IUM 14 55 17
COPPER 24 22 16
IRON 7900 18000 5400
LEAD 95 3'0 270
HAGH!:SIUH 2200 3600 1000
HAIIGA!lE:SE 84 250 180
MERCURY 0.15 0.20
NICKEL 8.6 14 6.9
SOCIUM 330
STRONTIUM 1500 680 950
TIN 8.0
TITANIUM 110 320 96
V ANAD I tIM 9.8 36 8.2
YTTRIUM 4.5 22 5.9
ZINC -," 78 260 78
Footnote:
- Material analyzed {or but not detected
- Hi&hlisht indicates contaminant of concern
-------
PHASE I
oo:JDBURY CHDlICAl. SIn:
PRINCETON. DADE COUNTY. FLORIDA
SURFACE SOIL-EXTRACTABLE ORGANICS DATA SUMMARY
JAHtIARY. 1991
CONTROL '1
\,CBGSS \,COO lSSC \,C005SSC \'cOO~SSC W:::010SS 1oC011SS \,COFFSSC 1CD06SS
EXTRACTABLE ORGANIC CCI11'Ql1NDS I'l/kS I'l/kl I'S/kl I'SIkI I'S/kl I'l/kS l'&ikS I'S/k&
BENZOcB ANDIOR KJFLUORANTHENE 160J
FLUORAHTHENE 200J
PYRENE 180J
PHINAH!BR£NE CARBOXr~:C ACID. OCr~~YDRODIM!T3YL
(METHYLETHYL )M!THYL ESU..". 200JN
HDWfEDIOIC ACID. DIOCTYL ESTER 3000JN
PRCHETON 400JH
TETRAHETHYLPHENAHTHIU:NE 200JH 200JN
eotrI'ROL '2
\oCOBGSD \oO:)13SD \0C014SD WCQ64SD WCA03SD WC!07SD wcn02SD
(1oC020SDJ DUP-014
EXTRACTABLE ORGA!lIC CCI11'QI1NDS ~I\I ~lkl 1'11\1 1'11\1 I'llkl ..,1\, "SIkS
(!IPHENYLJDlCARBONITRILE 10000JN 2000JN
(!UTYADIYNIDIYLJ8IS8ENZENE 10000JN
ACDlAPHTHYLtN! 11000J 1700J
A!lTHRACENE CARBONITRILE 9000JN 700JN
AHTHRACDIE 5300J
AHTHRA.CEIIEIJ ION! 2000JN 2000JN
BEHZANTHRACDiOHE 40000JN 5000JN 8000JH 7000JH "OOJN
BEHZO-A-PYRE!fE 57000 130J 6700 SSOOJ 11000J 15000J 560J
8D1ZO(A)ANTHRACEN! 5-000 4S00J 3800J 9700J 12000J 1500J
B£!fZOC8 AlID/OR Ie JFLUORANTHEHE 20000 280J 17000 11000J 26000 33000 1300,1
BDlZO(GHI)PtRYUNE 33000 120J 5000J "OOJ 7600J 9900J 5"OJ
BDI ZOCBRYSENI 10000JN 3000JN 2000JN 3000JN
BEHZOrWORANTHrNE (NOT B OR 10 200000JN 200JN 20000JN 9000JN 20000JN "OOOOJII 2000JN
BENZOFl.UORENI 30000JN 2000JN
8EH ZONAPBTBOFURAN 10000JN
BENZONAPHTBOTHIOPHrNE 30000JN 2000JH ISOOOJN
BEHZOTRI PHIIm.!Nt 5000JN 3000JN
8 IIW'HTHAUNI 6000JN
CERYSEHE 58000 150J 1700 6500J 12000J 16000J 740J
CYCLOPEH! APHDIAHTHIU:NE ~OOOJN 800JN
DI8EHZOCA,B)A!lTHRACEHE 2500J 1600J
DIBEHzc:x:DYSEHE 4000JN
D IMrnm.P!WIAHTBUn '70,'OOJN "---. -- '. --
FLUORANTHEN! 73000 260J 12000 13000J 16000 Z1000J 1000J
INDENO (1.2.3-CDJ PYRENE 36000 5200J 4500J 7600J 8600J "60..1
METHYLBtNZANTHRACENE 30000JN 2000JH 3000JN eOOOJN 200JN
MITHYLFLUORANTKEHE SOOOOJN 900JN 10000JN 4000JN -OOJN
MITHYLPHENANTHIU:NE 20000JN
NAPBTHACENEDIONE 2000JN 3000JN
PENTACEN! SOOOJN
PHENANTHRENE 11000J IoSOOJ 3900J 11000J
PHENYLNAPH!HAl.ENt 8000JN
PYREHE 85000 220J 10000 11000J 20000 26000J 1100':
TETRAHYDROPYRENE 10000JN
PHASE II
JUNE. 1991
W:::F01SS WCr02SS wcr03SS wcro 10 SS w:::F0 SSS w:::F55SS WCF06SS WCF07SS WCr08SS
DUP-OS
EX"!RAC'I AB LE ORGAN I C Ca-fi'OUND S 1'&1\1 1'&/kS ..&lkl jI,&lk& jl,11k& 1'&/k& 1'&1k& "l/kl I'l/ita
10 -NlrROANILIN! 160J
8EH ZO (A) AHTBRACEHE 59J
BEliWCB AlID/OR !OFLUOIWfTRENI 49J 130J 210J 170J 180J 1300J 200J
BENW(GBIJPERYLEHE 63J 65J 42J
8EHZO-A-PYRENE 48J 82J 14J 8leJ 520J 61J
CBRYStm: 7IoJ 9"J 81J 9"~ 600J 63J
FLUORAH'IBEN! 106J 72J 75J 170J 150J lS0J 8110J 89~
INDENO (1.2.3-CDJ PY1U:NI 73J 63J 43J
PKENAN!HR!NE 67J 76J 87J
PYREN! 40J 47J 95J 120J llOJ 170J 8eOJ 130J
2 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS 800J 2000J
3 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS 20000J
6 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS 10000J
ETHINYLBENtOFURAH 200JN
BIXADtCANOIC ACID SOOJN
ISCtiER OF ODD 200JN 2000.n;
ISCtiER OF ODE 400JN 2000JN
MtTBYL(MtT~~ETBYL)PBINAH!HRrNE 200JN 200JH 300JN 300JN
OCT AHYDROD IMET~~ (!1t!HYLE!E!YL) PHENANTHRENE
CARBOLIC ACID, !1t!HYLESTER 200JN
PLTROLEUM PRODUCT N N PI
PHYTOL 300JN
TRICHLOROBENZENAMIN! 200JN
Foot-note.: J - Est~lIIated Value N - Pr8sumt1ve .v~dence of presence of mat.er.a1
-------
SURFACE
PRASE I
\lX)DBURY CHEMICAL SITE
PRINCETON. DADE CO.. FLORIDA
SOIL-PURGEABLE ORGANICS DAtA SUMMARY
JANUARY. 1991
PURGEABU ORGANIC CQo!POUNDS
TOLUENE
CONTROL 11
weBGSS
"SIkS
we001SSC weoo,ssc we009SSC we010SS
"S/kS ..alkS "SIkS "S/kS
6.5J
"SOILS" CON'IINUtD
\lX)DBURY CHEMICAL SITE
SEDIHENT-PURGEABU ORGANICS DAtA StJIot1ARY
JANUARY. 1991
weo llSS
"s/kS
9.7J
weOTFSSC WCD06SS
"Slks "SIkS
CONTROL '2
WCOBGSD WC013SD WC014SD WC0610SD WCA03SD WCB07SD WCD02SD
-------
. I..c -IIG- S SA
k:oomn ,.
. WC-O)'()-~
C~ IRQ (1
-.:,.
:' l
t:
,
:;'" t/ 0
'-,!m:J ,-",
L-L-J "
't t,'\. ,.
~ U'u - ~
~ "'II' "'/ ~I II f
-..,
~ \
t
(";r\
~ \
'1
r
II
,'.
, .
. ,
\ .
\/1
,- nnJI
i
-----
WOODBURY CHEMICAL
PRINCETON, FLORIDA
1992
SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLE LOCATIONS
1 2 ~ 1 8 INCHES BLS
. PHASE I
Il.WI!l
illS - erLOW LAN{) 9...fIrACt:
. - SAJ,jPll S
SCALE
~EPA
200 0
~--'
100
1
200
J
( IN f[[ T )
-------
:-u.~.1 j ..' ",
. ,
,. l,,'\ /.'
~.. ---,,----..:.c.:.
,.~""'I'.T........" :
-c"
-...
( ,
t
~..;,t
A \
,',
. ,
~ 1
\/1
~I
I
I
\
(
~
"
"
"
}'
I
I
. je-0II0-S88
l: l
..'
..
..
tI ",;, " "t"
P"
, '
\
,- NUl
~)
"
.'
"
H
'l
,I ,'e.. .',.""::..". -.. ....,...~ ~#.. ..,Ao.)
I -.....' -... ,. \ l.
-..... --.', ,I I /)
WOODBURY CHEMICAL
PRINCETON. FLORIDA
1992
~EPA-
n
-- "
u/ ~)=~
-
:.1,
VADOSE. ZONE SAMPLES
4~! 8 FEET' BLS
". PHASE1
200
~
.:.
"
,.'
."
. :C:O~;'~5
J""'j/0
i
WiUID
IlLS - mow lNID SUIIF ACt
. - YAIX)S[ IOH[ SAUPU lOCA lION
SCALE
o
~
( IN rEEf )
100
I
700
I
-------
PES!ICIDE/PCB COMPOUNDS
,."-DD! (P.P'-DDE)
'."-DD! (P.P'-DDT)
ALPHA-CHLORDANE /2
ALPHA-CHlORDEN! /2
BETA CBLORDENE /2
CIS-NONACHLOR /2
GNtiA -CBl.ORDANE /2
GNtiA -CHLORDEN! /2
OXYCHLORDAN! (OC'l'ACBLOREPOXIDE)
11WIS -lIOflACBl.OR /2
'total CHLORDAn
BEP'tACBLOR
BEP'tACRLOR El'OXIDE
PESTICIDE/PCB COMPOUNDS
ALPHA -C!!LORDANr
GAI't1A -CHLORDANE
11WIS-IIOIIACHLOR
Total CHLORDAN!
/2
/2
/2
". ;,,',
Footnote:
HA
H
J
/2
C
PHASE .r
WOODBURY CHEMICAl SITE
PRIHC!1'OH. DADE COUNTY. FLORIDA
SUBSURFACE-PESrICIDES/PCE DATA SUMMARY
JANUARY. 1991
CONTROL 11
~BGSBA ~DD1SBA ~D7SBA WCD20SBA w::A03SBA
!'&Ik& !'&Ik& !'&Ik& !'& Ikl !'Ilkl
35
2' ..7J
HI. 210C HI. HA NA
NA 2.C NA IIA riA
NA 3"JC II... III. riA
III. 50C riA riA rI...
III. 370C HI. III. IIA
HI. 4gc HA III. III.
III. 5.4JC HA HI. liA
PIA ~ PIA NA NA
12
5511
/2
WOODBURY CHEMICAl SITE
VADOSE ZOIiE-PESTICIDES/PCB DATA SUMMARY
JAlfUARY. 1991
CONTROL #1
wcOBGSBB WCD01SBB WC07SBB
!'a/ka
tI...
HA
IIA
- lIot Ana1yted
- Pre.umtlve eVldence of presence of materlal
- Estlmated value
- Materlal was analyted for but not detected
- Constltuents or metabolltes of technlcal chlordane
- Cor.!lrmed GC/MS
- Hl&hl1aht lndlcate. contamlnanta of concern
CONTROL .2
we020SBB WCA03SBB
!'a/ka
4.5J
8.7J
'.5JN
"f'T':1T1 IN
!'I/ka
flA
IIA
IIA
!'11k&
flA
PIA
IIA
"11k&
HA
PIA
PIA
I
-------
PHASE I
WOODBURY CHEMICAL SITE
PRINCETON, DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
SUBSURFACE SOIL-METALS DATA SUl+lARY
JANUARY, 1991
Cont.rol #1 Cont.rol '2
ICBGSBA IC001SBA IC07SBA IC020SBA WCA03SBA WCDOZS!A WCD06S!A
INORGANIC ELEMENTS IDS/Ita IDS/Ita IDS /It a IDS/ltl IDS /It, l1li /Ita 111& /k I
ALUM I HtIM 1500 4600 1900 3900 2400 7300 2400
ARSENIC 81 100
BARIUM 18
CALCIUM 290000 310000 300000 290000 320000 260000 330000
CBRCt\IUH 11
COPPER 11 15
IRON 810 3600 1400 5400 2100 5000 1300
HAGNESIIJH 770 1100 890 1300 1100 1000 1100
MANGANESE 19 85 26 64 32 92 19
MERCURY 0.07 0.18 0.08 0.11 0.06 0.25 0.05
STRONTIIJH 3100 2100 2700 2200 2800 1900' 2400
tITAlfIUM 32 98 ' 67 100 72 140 69
V ANAD I UM 11
ZINC 37 24 16
.o';"'."j .
" . . ",: ~..", ",::,
WOODBURY CHEMICAL SITE
VADOSE ZONE-METALS DATA SUMMARY
JAlfUARY, 1991
CONTROL '1 Control '2
ICOBCSBB IC001SBB IC07SBB IC020S!! WCA03SB! ICDOZSBB weD06SBB
IDS/Ita IDS/It I IDS/Ita ai&/ltl IIII/It& IIII/Ita ma/ka
630 600 290 610 550
350000 350000 350000 340000 350000
320 260 69 530 350
760 980 940 1000 920
11 12 12 l'
0.06 ,0.06 0~07
,..,~,~qo., ''', ~":~,~O,~:::,::,,:, ::~'O"":'.:". "U,00., .:..' :',~~:O '.;.". ~~~.~.
290
280000
78
610
490
300000
270
740
INORGANIC ELEMENTS
ALUMI HtIM
CALCIUM
IRON
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE:
MERCURY
. ::. . : . SIROtnI~,.....' .
. TITANIUM' ..
-. - ","'."
.-
0.06
" 3100 '
. '.',:u.!""',,'
. ,".
Foot.nete:
- Mat.erial was analyzed for but. not. det.ect.ed
- Hiahliaht indicat.es cont.aminant.s o! concern
-------
PE.A.S E I
~DBURY CHEMICAL SITE
PRINCETON. DADE COUNTY. FLORIDA
SUBSURFACE SOIL-EXTRACTABLE ORGANICS DATA S lH1AR Y
JANUARY. 1991
CO!'!TRO:' 11 COlfTROl IZ
1oC1IGSBA 1oC001SBA IoCBO 7SBA 1oC020SBA IoCAOJSIIA WCD02SBA w::D06SIlA
EXTRA.:1 ABU: OR.GAN I C CCtiPOUNDS 1'& /k & ,../1t& ,., /k & ,.. /k, ,.. /k & ,.. /k & i'& lit &
(BI~-JDICARBONITRlU: 300JN 1000.1M
2 UNIDENTIFIED COHPOUNDS 4000J
AcrNAPBIHY1.D!!: 300.1 1100J 250J
ANTBR.ACEIfE 'OOJ
ANTERACEIfECARBON:7R::.E 400JN
BENlANIBR.ACENO~L 90CJ!'! 10000J!'! 800J!'!
BEN ZO- A - PYRDf!: 1500 41100 1300J 150.1
BENZO(AJAN1HRAC£N! 1300 6300 1200J 160.1
BENZO(B AND lOR K)FLUORANIHENE 3200 10000 2300 370.1
BD!ZO (Gal) PD.Yl..DI! 1000J 4800 1000J
BDlZOC'ERrSDit 400JN 300JII
!D! ZOFLUORANTBD!! C NOT B OR 10 4000JN 40000JII 4000JN 200JII
BD!ZOFLUORDIt 300JN 200JN
BD! ZO!IAPH!BOF'UIWI 1000JII
BD!ZOHAPH1BorBI OPBDl! 'OOJN 2000JN 600JII
BD! W1RIPH!NY1.E:NE 200JN 200JN
B I MAPBTBAl.ENE 900JN 200JN
CARBAZOLE 400JN
CHRYS!IIT 1500 5600 l'OOJ 230J
CYCLOPENIAPHENANIHRENE ZOOJN 2000J/I 20CJ/I
CYClOPEN1APYREIfE ZOOOJN
DIBENZOCA.BJANTHRACENE 1600
DIBENZOIBIOPHENE 200JN
D IHITHYlPB!/lA1IT!!R!NE (' - I SCf'1ERS J 2000JN
nUORANTBDlAHIIIT c Z - I SCJHERS ) 2000JN
FLUORANTHEIIT 150.1 2100 7600 2000 .00.1
FLUORDIONE ZOOJI/
INDEI/G (1.2.3-CD) PYRENE 1100J "200 1000J
METBOXYPHINANTHRENE ZOOJ!'!
METHYlBEN lANIERACENE C 5 - I SCJHERS) 7 DC':!'! 10000JN 900JN
METHYlFLUORANTHLNE 1000JN ZOOOOJII 1000JN
METHYlPHENANTHREIIT ( 3 - I SCf'!D
-------
WOODBURY CHEMICAL SITE
PRINCETON. DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
SUBSURFACE SOIL-PURGEABLE ORGANICS DATA SUMMARY
JANUARY, 1991
PURGEABLE: ORGANIC CCJo!POIJNt)S
TOLUENE
WCBGSBA
01/09/91
,.,Ik,
WC001SBA WC07SBA
01/09/91 01/11/91
WC020SBA WCA03SBA WCD02SBA WCD06SBA
01/14/91 01/10/91 01/1~/91 01/1~/9~
,.,Ik,
"Ilk,
"11k,
9.SJ
"Ilk,
'" Ik,
,.,/i:,
Foot.not...:
J
- Est.i~t..d value
- Mat.er1a1'was analyzed tor but. not. det.ect.ed
,.! ,,'; .' "::' ..":'.
",:~. -:"-,'.
, ' ,
: . '.: . .: . ': .' . ~ '.: .. ". . ''':''.", ::' -", :.~ :.: ~", ":.' .:.'
. ." " .'
", -.' '. . ;.'" ".' .-;.
, '. . .
",,:""," ".,",
'. ,.'
,':,:1." .'
.'.\'""': ':."',-.;..:..:.'
. '.', ," ::::: :.. .." ''''. I . . .
:..'.. "'."":..:".:"
. ,
. ...
-------
. 1«-110-"" (I)
i::riiffloQ. '1
LU~~J .-",
:" "
,. ",I \.,'
~. -='-
, ..,.."., ;
l l
J"~ ~~ ~~ ""
.,:,.
n
~...
t \
\
~"';r\
A \
.-\.
I ,
~ :
\/1
QI
t
\
(
.
~ ~
'.
)'
,--.
. WC-01O-S'>A
CON '''Ol n (p)
:~,., t/ ("'"
i
WOODBURY CHEMICAL
PRINCETON, FLORIDA
. 1992
MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS
14 -,20 FEETBLS
PHASE I
WXHD
illS - onow LAND ~rAcr
. - ..~t1(J!1HO II{U SA.WPU 5
rw - n:WPOR All Y IOUl. 5 AWPU S
W.. - Pt:RWA><[NT IoIOHtToo.NO IOUl.
(8) - 8A1l£D
(P) - P{RISI~nC P\M'
~EPA
SCALE
200 0
~....r-1
200
j
100
,
( IN r[[ T )
-------
~" j ,,' -',
.' ,
.,. l,'''\. ,,'
~ ---" ~
[; l
,. ''''' Il'Nn ':
. '.
"1'
J~""" ,,~,
.'
-t,.
-..
q
~";r\
A .
,'"
. .
; :
\ll
~I
I
t
\
(
"
"
..
'.
)'
,- rIIU
C,
:1
~,
'l
.~ ~,~:...., #".....# ,.. .... '1-.!'" - -..
, ,'''.... " "...... .' '\. I' r .. ....
-"...' .....' "'...' \ " .
-...' ,~: /)
WOODBURY CHEMICAL
PRINCETON, FLORIDA
1992
~EPA '
MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS
5 ~:':.1 2 FEET BLS
:.:.~. PHASE II
Ii
, '
()=~
~
. '
;;'.
,~
,
.. .
. -
.;. ~.
. wc- 120-IW (P)
J""'~0.
i
200
h
J.LIitItQ
o - POIlWlun _nOlI W£ll
. - TUlPOfWfY wo..t.
(P) - PUWP
(8) - 8AlDI
SCALE
o
-'
( IN r(n )
200
~
100
I
-------
PKASE I
~D8URY CHtJ1ICM. SITE
PRINCETON, DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
MONITORING WELL~~ESTICIOES/PCBS DATA SUMMARY
'JANUARY, 1991
CONTROL 11 COIttROL 12
WC8GMr1 WCOOI~ WC020~ WCAOJTW WCe07!frl WCB~ I~ WCDEVBLK WCD02!frl
OfFSITE ONSlTE OFfSlTE OFFSlTE OFfSlTE DUPLICAT QII/QC OFFSlTE
NW. S.W. I"',E. SE. EAST EAST
PESTICIDEIPCB COMPOUNDS ,JAil "All 1'1111 1'11/1 1'1111 1111/1 1'11/1 ,,1\11
ALPHA-CHLORDANE /2 NA NA NA
CIiLORDEIiE /2 NA Nil NA. 0.021
GNflA-C/lLOROAHE /2 Nil Nil Nil
GNflA-CHLORDENE 12 NA NA NA 0.30 0.32 0.26 0,95
total Chlordana 0.30 0.32 0.26 0.95 0.021
DIELDRIN O. 0071J .' 0.076 0 063 0.032" 1.0
ENOOSULfAN SULFlltE - - 0.017J 0 014J 0.012J
ENORIN 0.044
ENDRIN KEtONE 0.0069J 0.11
HEPtACHLOR EPOXIDE 0.27N
PKASE II
~D8URY CHD1ICAL SITE
.' JUNE, 1991
WCIOITW WC120~ ~)2JTW WC124TW WC125TW WCe07","
ONSITE OFFSITE OFFSITE OFFSITE OFFS I TE OHSITE
SOUTH N.E. EAsT SOUTH S.E. EAST
PESTICIDE/PC8 COMPOUNDS "All ,,1\11 ,,1\/1 I'A/l I'AIl I'A/I
.. , .. . - ODD (1',1"-000) .01\3JN
.. . .. . -ODE (P, P' - DOE) .17N
".'" -DOT (P, P' . DOT) -. .111
ALDRIN .>. .01U .0061J
DIELDRIN .030JN .017J
ENOOSULFAH II (BETA) .046JN
ENOOSULFIIN SULFATE .013J
EHDRIN .034J
HEPTACHLOR EPOXIOE 1.5
Footnole:
NA
N
J
- Nol AnalY2ed
Presumtlve evidence of pre.ence of malerlal
- Esllmaled value
- Malerlal was an.IYled for bul not delected
- Constltuants or metabolite. oC technical chlordane
- Confirmed GC/MS
- Hi8hljshL indJcates contaminants 01 concern
/2
C
WCD06TW WCDO~I WCDO~2
ONSITE NCII T H SOUTH
CENTRAL N.E. S E.
1'1\/1 1'11/1 I'A/I
t1A Nil 0.41
Nil Nil 0.022
Nil Nil I. II
111\ Nil
-r.m
0.0098J llC
o IIIN
-------
. . PHASE I
I«X)DBURY CHEHICAL SITE
PRINCETO!«.;' DADE COUNTY. FLORIDA
MONITORING WELLS-METALS DATA SUMMARY
/ANUARY. 1991
CONTROL '2
WC001TW WC020TW WCA03TW WCB07HW
ONS1TE OtrSITE OFFSITE OFFSITE
S.W. ~,t. S.E. EAST
CONTROL '1
WC 8Gt101
OFFSITE
N.W.
.'.
INORGANIC ELEMENTS IlIA I 1 mall mail mall IlIA II msll
CAlCIUM 230 320 1ili 8300 1400 1300
IRON 0.46 O. 1 ~ 0 :i)6~ 10 3.6 3.2
MAGNESIUM 4.9 6.0 1'.:1 21 6.6 6.2
POTASSIUM 6.7 110 13
SODIUM 14 1 ~ 5,0 14 1~
I'Sll I'all 'I~:' 1 I'sll I'sll IIs/l
ALUMINUM 510 290 190 20000 ~600 ~100
ARSENIC 150
BARIUM 13 24
CHRCJ1IUH 15 . . 5~ 56
COPPER
MANGANESE 17 - - 86 81
NICKEL
STRONTIUM 2800 4800 1800 120000 20000 18000
TITANIUM 29 36 14:.' 1300 200 180
ZINC
. .
:
PHASE II
I«X)DBURY CHEHICAL SITE
;( JUNE, 1991
WCI0ITW WC120TW wC123TW WC124TW WC125TW WCB07HW
ONSITE OFFSITE OfFS I1E OFrSITE OFFSITE OFFSI1E
SOUTH NE E~ST SOUTH SE EAST
INORGANIC ELEMENTS mall mall m~/l IlIA I 1 111&/1 mall
CALCIUH 340 140 ISO 1100 150 330
IRON 0.12 0.062 0';11 22 0.57
MAGNESIUM 8.6 1.1 '1,4 4.7 2.2 3.6
POTASSIUM 85 .2.8 ~. 5 13
SODIUM 31 3.8 . 4';'7 3.9 7.8 10
,Is/l liS II ,;~I 1 IIs/l I'sll I'sll
...
ALUHI HUH 300 170 :~!O 32000 160 880
ARSENIC 90 90
BARIUM 17 - ,,'. 120 13
CHRC»tIUH 94
COPPER 510
LEAD '. 390
MANGANESE 16 900 15
STRONTIUH 7200 1800 2000 13000 2200 ~600
T JTAN lUt1. 12 '.f0 460 14 39
ZINC .. 1400
Foot.notea: .',
- Hat.erial ..aa analyzed for but. not. d..t.eet.ed
...
"
..
WC857HW WCDEVBLK WCD02HW
DUPL1CAT QA/QC OFFS1TE
EAST
IlIA I 1
93
3.2
15
10
I'Sll
950
12
160
mall
100
0.89
2.6
16
9.6
I'sll
1200
17
60
44
41
1100
J5
16
WCD06TW WCDO~1 WCD01MK2
ONSlTE NORTH SOUTH
CENTRAl N.E. : s.r.
IlIA 11 mall IlIA 11
200 6000 200
0.12 9.5 0.69
4.3 15 2.1
19 24
12 25 3.8
I's/l I'sll "s/l
270 28000 1700
51
32
270 23
2900 86000 1400
24 810 35
-------
. PHASE I
I«)()DBURY CHEMICAL SIrE
PRIHCETotIi. DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
TEMPORARY WELL-EXTkACTABLE ORGANICS DATA
JANUARY, 1991
S Ut-t1AR Y
CONTROL II CONtROL 12
10«: BCHo/ Io«:OOITW WC020TW WCA03TW 10«:807,.., 1o«::8~7"" WCDEVBLK Io«:D02f'1W Io«:D06TW Io«::D0n-t41 Io«:DOtMr/2
Off SITE OHSITE ortSITE OFFSITE OrrSITE DUPLICAT QA/QC OFF SITE OHSITE IKfITH SOUTH
N.W. S.W N.E. SE. EAST EAST CEHTRAL N.E. S. E.
EXTRACTABLE ORGANIC COMPOUHDS 1'8,11 1'8/1 1'&/1 1'8/1 1'8/1 1'8/1 1'11/1 1'11/1 1'11/1 1'11/1 1'8/1
.
(DIMETHYLETHYL)(METHYLTHIO)TRIAZINOHE IJH
(TETRAH£THYL8UTYL)PHENOL IJH
I-UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUND 2DJ
ATRAZINE -. 2JH \JH IJH 1JN
BRCH\CIL 2JH
BUTYLATE 1JN IJH IJH 20JH
DODECANOIC ACID - - ,. 1JH
HEXADECANOIC ACID 3JH -.1" 4JH
HYDROXYCHLORDEHE 2JH
HETETILACHLOR 4JH 2JH 2JH 7JN
METRIBUlIN 10JH
OCTANOIC ACID 1JH
PROHETON 2JH 10JH IJH UN 3JN
- PHASE II
I«)()DBURY CHEMICAL SITE
.. JUNE, 1991
WC101TW
OHSITE
S.E.
1o«:120TW
OrrSITE
N.E.
WCt23TW
OF1SlTE
EAST
WC124TW
OFFSlTE
SOUTH
WCIBTW
OFrSlTE
S. E.
Io«::BO 7141
OFFSITE
EAST
EXTRACTABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
(HETHYLPROPYL)DINITROPHENOL
4 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS
PR~TON
1'11/1
1111/1
1'11/1
1'11/1
1'11/1
1'11/1
300JN
600J
80JH
...,~.
Footnotell:
J
II
- Elllimaled value
- Pre~umpllve evidence oC pre~ence oC malerla1
Material waa analy.ad [or but not detected
-------
I
I
. . . ,.'
8' . .
; Wc-OJI-P
.' . .
. .
. .. ".
. ~.: ,
'.
. " .:', ."',
. .
.. . .:~: .
. .
. . ." t
. " .:
:.
'. .
. . '.,
. .'
!iI WC-OJO-PW
~.
.'i.
: : ~~
WOODBURY CHEMICAL
PRINCETON, FLORIDA
1992
. .
~ - SCHOOL' RESIDENTIAL UNITS
. UNITS - uq/I Ii) SAMPLE LOCATION
APPROXIMA TE SCALE
o !lOG 1000
...J I I
( IN n:ET )
1 Inch - 1000 ft.
~'.PRIVA TE WELLS
~EPA
- "'..
",'"
"..'"
. .'
1000
L...
-------
PRIVATE ~ELLjPESTICIDES/PCBS
~OODBURY CHEMICAL SITE
PRINCETON. DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
AUGUST 1991
~C041P\J
OOl-G1J 002-G1J
PESTICIDE/PCB COMPOL~DS
;;gjl
(P,P'-DDD)
(P,P'-DDE)
(P, P' -DDT)
.42U
.20U
.BlU
.32U
.10U
.20U
.20U
.SOU
.2SU
.47U
.S4U
.40U
.S3U
.10U
.29U
.2SU
l.lU
".'2,. St!.
2.SU
2.SU
2.SU
2.SU
2.SU
2.SU
20U
4,4' -DDD
4.4' -DDE
4 ,4' - DDT
ALDRIN
ALPHA-BHC
BETA-BHC
DELTA-BHC
DIELDRIN
ENDOSULFAN I (ALPHA)
ENDOSULFAN II (BETA)
ENDOSULFAN .SULFATE
ENDRIN
ENDRIN KETONE
GAMMA-BHC (LINDANE)
HEPTACHLOR
HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE
METHOXYCHLOR
'PCB~ 1{)16'(AROCLOR '1016 )"
PCB-1221 (AROCLOR 1221)
PCB-1232 (AROCLOR 1232)
PCB-1242 (AROCLOR 1242)
PCB-1248 (AROCLOR 1248)
PCB-1254 (AROCLOR 1254)
PCB-1260 (AROCLOR 1260)
TOXAPHENE
,. "..
...............*...***..................*.....**................
...FOO!NOTES...
~g/l
.20U
.10U
.3SU
.14U
.10U
.10U
.10U
.3SU
.l3U
.28U
.30U
.20U
.29U
.10U
.10U
.DU
.50U
'~L2U
1. 2U
1.2U
1.2U
1. 2U
1.2U
1. 2U
IOU
J
U
- ESTIMATED VALU!
- MATERIAL WAS ~~YZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED. THI NUMBER IS !HE MINIMUM QUANTITATION LIMIT
-------
. .
. .. PHASE I
WOODBURY CHEMICAL SITE
PR I NCETON. '. DADE COI/NTY. !'LOR IDA
PRIVATE WELL-PESTICIDE/PCB DATA SUMMARY
~~UARY. 1991
. . ~.
WCOOIPW WC003PW WC003PW 1«:0211'W
DUP-pOl
,,8/1 "8/1: "1111 "11/1
NA NA NA NA
1«:022PW . ~02JPW
~OJOPW
"11/1
1«:03 1 PW
1«:032PW : 1o«:033PW
PESTICIDEipcB COMPOUNDS
"11/1
NA
,,11/1
NA
,,11/1
1'11/1
NA
1'11/1
0.016J
NA
NA .
GN+tA-CHLORDENE
/2
.'
'.: PHASE II
WOODBjJRY CHEMICAL SITE
.. ~.JUNE. 1991
1o«:04~fw
/A8/~.
1«:041PW
1'11/1
1«:043PW
/A1I1l
WCOUPW 1«:0 4S PW I«:Ol,6PW I«:S46PW
DUP-046
/All/I "11/1 /A8/1 /All/I
.012J
PESTICIDE/PCB COMPOUNDS
1,,4'-000 (P,P'.OOO)
ALDRIN'
GN+tA-CHLORDAHE /2
DIELDRIN
ENORIN
ENORIN KETONE
HEPTACHLOR EPOXIOE
: '.
-- '
.038J
.031J
.062J
.70
.OS2J
.1SJ
.021,J
--
. .
',' :~.~.
...
Footnote:
- Kot Analyu.d
Estlmeted ve1ue
- Haterla1 was analyzed {or but not delected
Constituent or metabolite. o{ technical chlordane
. Hlllhllllht Indicate. contaminant. of concern
N"
J
/2
. '.
..
..
.J
.' ".
': ~
'.'
-------
PHASE I
WOOQBURY CHEMICAL SITE
PRINCETOtf.. DADE COUNTY, fLORIDA
PRIVATE WELLS-METALS OATA SI~Y
,JANUARY, 1991
CONTROL
~OOIPW ~002PW ~003PW ~021PW ~022PW ~023PW 1ooC030PW ~031PW 1«:032PW ~O))PW
N.E DUP.,OO I EAST N E NE ONSITE S.E. S.E. EAST S E
INORGANIC ELEMINTS m~/I m!ln m!lll m~1l IT\I\Il m~1l IT\I\ 11 IT\I\Il IIIIIl ~!I
CALCIUM 120 120. 110 100 120 110 110 110 120 120
IRON 0 054
MAGNESIUM 4 0 4 . I. 3 9 3 5 4 2 3. 7 3 6 3 5 4 3 ) 6
POTASSIUM 7 2 7. 5 1) 6.6 1.0 ,. 5 4.4 4.6 6.9 6 e
SODIUM 14 15 . 12 II 14 12 II 12 30 II
I'~/I "!l/i 1'!lIl 1'!lIl 1'1111 1'11/1 1'11/1 1'11/1 "11/1 "/1/1
BARIUM 11 11 12 11 11 12 10 13 J)
BORON NA NA NA NA NA NA NA HA NA HA
COPPER 21
STRONTIUM 1100 1200 1100 1100 1200 1200 1100 1100 1100 1100
TITANIUM 15 15 , 14 12 15 14 14 \4 1 S 14
ZINC 21 23 110 10 210 )20 70
. PIIASE I I
WOODBURY CHEMICAL SITE
JUNE, 1991
, .
1«:0411'W IooC ~~ 21'W I«: 0 43 PW ~ouPW 1«:045PW kC046PW
INORGANIC ELEMINTS mll/l mall mall mAil ~/l l1li/1
CALCIUM 120 110 120 110 100 110
IRON 0.014 0.019
MAGNESIUM 4.0 4,1).. 3.4 2.8 3.J 4. 1
POT ASS I UM 50 12 .. 4.2 5.2 8.2 6.4
SODIUM 12 14' 11 11 11 13
,.~/I 1'1/1 I'~/l 1'~/l I'S/I 118/1
ALUM I HUM 80 74 85 120 81 76
BARIUt1 14 14 5 S 10 11.
COPPER 3 8 is. 2.7 15 4.7
MANGANESE 25 3.~:
STRONTIUM 1300 lZO~ 1200 1300 1100 1100
TITANIUM 11
ZINC 4 . 1 290 16 68 89 71
Foot.not...:
HA - Hot. .nd yud
- Mat..rlal "88 analyzad lor but. nol d@lacl@rl
K:S46PW
DUP 046
ITI8 / 1
110
0.023
4.3
7.0
14
118/1
92
12
4.2
1100
77
-------
PURGEABlE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
I,I,I-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,2,J-TRICHlOROPROPANE
BROMODI CHlOROHETHANE
BROMOFORM
CIlLOROFORM
DI8ROMOCHLOROHETHANE
PURGEA8lE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
1,I,I-TRICHlOROETHANE
1,I-DIClIlOROETHENE(I.I-DICHlOROETHYlENE)
1,2, J-TRICHlOROPROPANE .
CHLOROFORM
TRICHlOROETHENE(TRICHLOROETHYlENE)
ISOPROPANOL
Footnotes:
J
N
- Estlmaled value
Presumplive evidence of presence of material
- Haterlal was analyzed for but not detected
.,
.'
. .: PHASE I
WOODBURY CHEMICAL SITE
PRINCETON, ':DADE COUNTY, flORIDA
PRIVATE WEll-PURGEABLE ORGANIC DATA SUMMARY
J~UARY, .1991
CONTROL 'I
weoo 1 PW
8ROYlS I
N.W.
I'a/l
we002PW
BROYlS 2
DUP-OOI
I'a/l
-.
weOQ.JPW
G~TT
S.~:'
I'a/1
- - '"
-.... ..;
. .' ~
we021PW WC022PW WC02JPW
NAZARENE Is tGRACE PRIVATE
N.E. N.E. ONS ITE
I'a/l I'a/l I'a/l
2.4J
0.92J
WCOJOPW WCOJIPW wconpw WCOJJPW
HILLER flOYD'S IstNATL HANSEN
S.E. S.E. EAST S.E. '
I'a/l I'a/l I'a/l I'a/l
9.0
2.7J
1.8
10
WOODIiURY CHEMICAL SITE
MONITORING WEll-PUftGEA8lE ORGANIC DATA SUMMARY
~~UARY, 1991
'.
CONTROL 'I
weBGfoIof
CONTROL
N.W.
I'a/l
weOOITW
ONSITE
S.W.
I'a/l
. .\.
CONTItOL '2
WC020TW WCAOJTW
ONSt1E OFFSITE
N.E;' S.E.
I'1I.~:. .
...
: "(
. ..
,
1'11/1
WCB07... WCB57... WCDEVBlK WCDO~ weD06TW WCDOy...,1 weDO y...,2
OFFSITE DUPlICAT QAlOC OFFSITE ONSITE NORTH SOUTB
EAST S.E. CENTRAL N.E. S.E.
1'11/1 I'a/l 1'11/1 I'a/l 1'11/1 I'a/l IIa/l
O.67J
O.5IJ
O.80J
.50J
O.5JJ 0.64J
8JN
..
',.
-------
. PHASE I
I«JOOBtlRY CHEMICAL SITE
PRINCETON"DADE COUNTY, rLORIDA
PRIVATE WELLS-NITRATE/NITRITE DATA SUMMARY
JAIIUARY. 1991
GENERAL INORGANIC PARAMETERS
NITRATE-NITRITE NITROGEN
CONTROL OUP-O I
WCOO II'W WC0021'W WC0031'W WC0211'W WC022PW WC023fW
BROYLS 1 BROYLS 2 GARRETT NAZARENE lslGRACE PRIVATE
N W. N \oj S.t. N.E. N.E. ONSITE
msll mI!l I mI!l{ IlIA I I IlIA I I IlIA I I
6.5 6.6 8.7 6.9 7.5 8. 7
.PHASE II
Io«)ODBURY CHEMICAL SITE
PRIVATE WELLS-NITRATE/NITRITE DATA SUl+tARY
. JUNE, 1991
GENERAL INORGANIC PARAMETERS
WCO~II'W WC042PW WCO~3fW WCO~4fW WC045fW
RED SNAP PRIN PLA MA1'HIS SHELL ST RED LAND
mill I mil 11 lllAil 111&/1 mall
.69 1.5 .52 .49 .62
.66
WC046PW
COOPERS
IlIA II
NITRATE-NITRITE NITROGEN
WC030fW WC03IPW wconrw WCOHfW
MILLER FLOYD' S IslNATL HAIIS!!N
S E. S.E. EAST S.E.
mAil mall mI!l 1 111811
6.8 5.8 1\ 11
WC546PW
DUP-046
111&11
.83
PHASE I
\ooOOOBuRY CHEMICAL S IfE
MONITORING WELL-NJTRATE/NITRITE DATA SUMMARY
. J,tJIUARY, 1991
CONTROL 'I CONTlloL '2
WCBCHoI 1o«:00lTW WCG20TW Io«:A03TW Io«:B07tfr1 1o«:857t+1 Io«:DEVIILK Io«:D071+1 WCD06TW WCDOTtfrlI WCDOTtfrl2
OHSITE ONS I TE OfrSITE OrFSITE OHSITE DUP-B07 QA/QC OrrSITE ONS ITE NORTH SOUTH
N.W. 5.101. N.~. S.E. EAST "AST CENTRAL N.E. S.E.
i
msll ms/l mall IlIA I 1 mall mall ma/I mall mal I mall II1II/1
~.9 120 0.)9 9.0 8.4 8.6 9.2 NA 27 4.8 5. 1
GENERAL INORGANIC PARAMETERS
NITRATE-NITRITE NITROGEN
. PHASE I I
Io«)ODBURY CHEMICAL SITE
MONITORING WELL-"ITRATE/NITRITE DATA SUMMARY
"JUNE. 1991
GENERAL INORGANIC PARAMETERS
WCIOITW 1o«:120l1'l ~ 12 311'1 ~12411'1 ~12511'1 WCB011'1W
ONS IT E orrs ITE orrSITE OrrSITE OrrSITE OrfSITE
SOllTlI NE EAST SOUTH SE EAST
msll mI!ll IlIA II ..II Il\AII IlIA II
1.2 71 1.5 1. I .78 1.1
NITRATE-NITRITE NITROGEN
-------
APPENDIX C
STATE.. C~CURREliCE LE~~. .,'.
-------
)-
In~,
'C.t4"'~...
o/~~
$-"~.j>1;.
~ ~ ~
: ~', - '". ~ ''''', ~
Q,.'..,. ....- _." 0
~ ' ';. ,",- ,'~
.II. ~~
"Irf OF FlO~~
Florida Department o[ Environmental Regulation'
Twin To-wers (;~fice Bldg. 2600 Blair StOne Road. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2
Lawron Chiles, Governor
Grol M. Browner, Secrerary
October 2, 1992
!J ,CO:f2!JQ[J[j'
{J J '- J i 'j -1fj
1/ - , -~ (' 7SS~ /-
I .~ !,
'. ~-: L_'-:J L 01, iJ--- Id!!J I
--.J j ~ : r-r-U)' .
~p "'----' U - 1
,., - ;':-
"~G[
.; Tl..~..:~.; ~,\,! \,
o i..A
Mr. Greer Tidwell
Regional Administrator
U.S. EPA, Region IV
345 Courtland street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Dear Mr. Tidwell:
The Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER)
concurs with the EPA's proposed remedial alternative for the
Woodbury Chemical Superfund site in Princeton, Florida.
The selected "no action with monitoring" alternative as
outlined in the June 1992 Record of Decision provides for one year
of quarterly sampling of existing monitoring wells, a private
off-site well and three additional monitoring wells. We
understand that the EPA will insure that groundwater filters
continue to be installed in the off-site private well. At the end
of the monitoring period, the EPA and the DER will confirm the
appropriateness of the "no action" alternative prior to site
delisting. No state cost share is necessary.
We look forward to the deletion of the site from the National
Priorities List.
~il1-CerelY23 '
"'j:jfbJlw . /1i~
WI M. Brow r
Secretary
CMB:khh
R"9"'~) Pat-
I"WfIIfIItJ -"*' ~ ...... IrtitJ
------- |