United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R04-92/124
September 1992
Superfund
Record of Decision:
Wilson Concepts of Florida,
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.
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/R04-92/124
3. Recipient's Accession No.
4. Title and Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Wilson Concepts of Florida, FL
First Remedial Action - Final
5. Report Date
09/22/92
7. Authors)
S. Performing Organization Rept No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
11. Contract(C)orGrant(Q)No.
(C)
(G)
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type of Report & Period Covered
800/000
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
PB93-964011
16. Abstract (Limit 200 words)
The 2-acre Wilson Concepts of Florida site operated as a manufacturing and
metal-finishing facility in Pompano Beach, Broward County, Florida. Land use in the
area is predominantly industrial. The site overlies the Biscayne Aquifer, a sole-source
aquifer that supplies all potable water for Broward County. From 1974 to 1987, Wilson
Concepts of Florida, Inc., used the site to manufacture jet aircraft engine parts,
metal-working machinery, and for associated operations, such as precision machining,
drilling and milling of metal parts, vibratory deburring, degreasing, steam cleaning,
and spray coating of parts. Chemicals used at the site included a variety of hydraulic
and lubricating oils, metal protection agents, water coolants, methylene chloride,
methyl ethyl ketone, and chemical cleaners. As a result of several inspections from
1976 through 1989, the Broward County Environmental Quality Control Board (BCEQCB)
identified poor waste handling practices, including discharge of industrial wastes onto
the ground. This ROD addresses onsite soil and ground water. EPA investigations have
shown that the soil and ground water contamination associated with the site is no longer
(See Attached Page)
17. Document Analysis a Descriptors
Record of Decision - Wilson Concepts of Florida, FL
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: None
Key Contaminants: None
b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
c. COSATI Field/Group
18. Availability Statement
19. Security Class (This Report)
None
20. Security Class (This Page)
None
21. No. of Pages
48
22. Price
(See ANSI-Z39.18)
See Instructions on Reverse
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-35)
Department of Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R04-92/124
Wilson Concepts of Florida, FL
First Remedial Action - Final
Abstract (Continued)
considered a health threat under current or likely land use conditions. Therefore, there
are no contaminants of concern affecting this site.
The selected remedial action for this site includes no further action with ground water
monitoring at and around the site for 1 year. The estimated total cost for the ground
water monitoring is $48,000, which includes an O&M cost of $36,000 for 1 year.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Not applicable.
-------
Record of Decision
Summary of Remedial Alt.ernat.ive Selection
Wilson Concepts of Florida, Inc. Site
Pompano Beach, Florida
Prepared by:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
Atlanta, Georgia
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE
RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Wilson Concepts of Florida, Inc. Site
Pompano Beach, Florida
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
the Wilson Concepts of Florida, Inc. Site (the "Site") in Pompano
Beach, Florida. The final Site remedy was chosen in accordance
with the Comprehensive Environmental 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 sea., and to the extent practicable, the National
Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part 300. This decision is based on
the administrative record file for the Site.
The State of Florida, as represented by the Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation (FDER), has been the support agency during
the Remedial Investigation process for the Wilson Concepts of
Florida, Inc. Site. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.430, as the
support agency FDER has provided input during this process. Based
on comments received by FDER, it is expected that concurrence will
be forthcoming; however, a formal letter of concurrence has not yet
been received.
DESCRIPTION OF THE REMEDY
This remedy is the final action for the Site. In the absence of
any significant source of contamination in the soil at the Site,
the No 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 monitoring 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
health or the environment, EPA, in consultation with the State of
Florida, will reconsider the protectiveness of the "No Action"
alternative and the feasibility of ground water remediation will be
re-evaluated.
-------
DECLARATION
Based on the results of the Remedial Investigation and Risk
Assessment conducted at the Site, EPA has determined that no
remedial action is necessary to ensure protection 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 requirement will not apply to this action.
Therefore, the Site now qualifies for inclusion in the "sites
awaiting deletion" subcategory of the Construction Completion
category of the National Priorities List.
reer C.I Tidwell, Regional Administrator
Datfe
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. 0 Site Location and Description 1
2 . 0 Site History and Enforcement Activities 1
3 .0 Highlights of Community Participation 5
4 . 0 Scope and Role of Response Action 6
5 . 0 Summary of Site Characteristics 6
5 .1 Site Drainage 6
5 .2 Surface Water Features 6
5 . 3 Geology and Hydrogeology 8
5 . 4 Results of the Remedial Investigation 12
6 . 0 Summary of Site Risks 14
6 .1 Contaminant Identification 14
6 .2 Exposure Assessment 15
6 . 3 Toxicity Assessment 20
6 .4 Risk Characterization 20
6 .5 Discussion of Uncertainty 25
6 . 6 Ecological Assessment 26
7 .0 Description of "No Further Action" Alternative 27
8 .0 Documentation of Significant Changes 27
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1 Site Location Map 2
Figure 1-2 Detailed Site Map 3
Figure 5-1 Physiographic Features of Broward County 7
Figure 5-2 Locations of Canals and Geologic X-Sections 9
Figure 5-3 Geologic Cross-Section B-B' 10
-i-
-------
Table 5-1
Table 6-1
Table 6-2
Table 6-3
Table 6-4
Table 6-5
Table 6-6
Table 7-1
LIST OF TABLES
Geologic Formations 11
Exposure Factors 16
•
Oral Exposure Doses for Soil -
Worker and Trespasser Scenarios 17
Oral Exposure Doses for Inhalation of Particulates -
Worker and Trespasser Scenarios 18
Oral Exposure Doses for Ground Water -
Residential Scenario 19
RfDs and Slope Factors 21
Carcinogenic and None arc inogenic Risks 24
Estimated Monitoring Costs 28
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A - Remedial Investigation Sampling Data and Locations
Appendix B - Responsiveness Summary
-11-
-------
DECISION SUMMARY FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
WILSON CONCEPTS OF FLORIDA, INC. SITE
POMAPANO BEACH, FLORIDA
1.0 SITE LOCATION & DESCRIPTION
Wilson Concepts of Florida, Inc. formerly operated as a
manufacturing and metal-finishing facility at 1408 SW Eighth
Street, Pompano Beach, Florida (Figure 1-1). The Wilson Concepts
of Florida, Inc. Site (the "Site") occupies approximately two acres
in an industrialized section of Broward County in the municipality
of Pompano Beach. The property is currently bordered on the north
by SW Eighth Street, on the east by a fiberglass production
facility, on the south by an industrial access road, and on the
west by the Chemform National Priorities List (NPL) Site (Figure 1-
2). Carter and Crawley Precision Metals, Inc. ("Carter and
Crawley"), a metal working facility, currently operates at the
Site.
The Site is located in a highly industrialized area less than one
half mile west of Interstate 95. The closest residential zoning
lies just east of 1-95. The Site is located within the city limits
of Pompano Beach, which has a population of 72,400 (U.S.D.C.,
1990) . The city is divided into park services districts. The area
surrounding the Site and the Site itself are not located within one
of these districts, most likely due to the industrial nature of the
area. The closest district, which is west of the Site, has a
projected 1993 population of 2800.
An estimated 3000 feet south of the Site is the Pompano-Cypress
Creek Canal, operated by the South Florida Water Management
District which flows east toward and connects with Biscayne Bay.
Directly underlying the Site is the Biscayne Aquifer, which
s;_ ;plies all potable water for Broward County and has been
designated as a sole-source aquifer.
The Site is fenced and the majority of it is occupied by a large
building which houses Carter and Crawley. The rest is covered by
asphalt parking areas with grass-covered berms. A concrete pad
occupies the southwest corner of the Site. Surface runoff at the
Site flows to french drains in the parking lot. Some of these
drains appear to be connected to a storm sewer system. A gravel
drainfield which is bermed and covered by grass is located in the
south-central portion of the Site.
2.0 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
In 1967, John Nolan purchased the subject property and leased it to
Southeast Tool and Die from 1967 to 1974. In July 1974, Wilson
Concepts of Florida, Inc. ("Wilson Concepts") was formed after the
purchase of Southeast Tool and Die by Claude Wilson of Wilson
-1-
-------
-N-
1000 0 1000 2000
SCALE IN FEET
SOURCE: USGS Fort Laudwdato North. Florida
7.5 MlnuiB Quadrangle
COM FPC ARCS IV
SITE LOCATION MAP
WILSON CONCEPTS
POMPANO BEACH. FLORIDA
FIGURE NO
1-1
-2-
-------
!/• JbO
300 27!> 2SO 22i 200 I7b 150
11 .....
[ID
100 7!> 50
I I I
-•• 5.-' w am s r H t c T
«ox ioc>non
RGHOUNO TANM*;
[ .v.r. ;-.•.-;-. '
HOAO
Hgurt 1-2
Site Layaul Map
Wilson Concept*
PunipMno BcMch, Horida
SIOMH DH«INS/C«ICM HASINS
H— HNC£
-------
Concepts of Dayton, Ohio. Wilson Concepts of Florida, Inc.
manufactured jet aircraft engine parts and metal-working machinery
and served as a contractor in the defense and aerospace industries.
Associated operations at the facility included precision machining,
drilling and milling of metal parts, vibratory deburring,
degreasing, steam cleaning, and spray coating of parts. A variety
of chemicals were used, including organic solvents, chlorinated
solvents, petroleum products, paints, cyanides, acids, and bases.
From approximately 1974 to 1980, Wilson Concepts leased the
property from John Nolan. In 1980, Wilson Concepts purchased the
property and operated at the Site until April 1986, when Vengrowth
Holdings, Inc. acquired the stock of Wilson Concepts of Florida,
Inc. via a leveraged buyout financed by Centrust Savings Bank. In
late 1987, Wilson Concepts filed for Chapter 7 reorganization.
During the early part of 1988, Centrust Savings acquired title to
the property. Subsequently, Centrist's assets have been acquired
by the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC). Since 1988, the
property has been leased to Carter and Crawley, a metal machinery
operation.
Raw materials usage at the Site over the last 10 years has been
documented on two occasions. In the early 1980's, possibly as
early as 1981, Wilson Concepts submitted a hazardous materials
inventory list to the Broward County Environmental Quality Control
Board (BCEQCB). The chemicals used at the Site included a variety
of hydraulic and lubricating oils, metal protection agents, water
coolants, methylene chloride, methyl ethyl ketone, and chemical
cleaners (possibly corrosives).
In 1987, Centrust contracted with Hazards, Inc. to conduct a site
inventory of chemicals and wastes found at the Wilson Concepts
facility following acquisition of the property from Vengrowth
Holdings, Inc. This inventory revealed products such as nitric,
phosphoric, and hydrofluoric acids, alkali cleaners, sodium
hydroxide, chromatic acid, lubricating oils, honing oils, mineral
spirits, methyl ethyl ketone, 1,1,1-trichlorothane, kerosene,
coolants, petroleum distillates, and detergents. Based on an
inspection in late 1989 at the Carter and Crawley operation
conducted by Wilson Concepts' consultant, chemicals currently used
at the Site include 1,1,1-trichloroethane, machine oils, coolants,
degreasers, corrosion inhibitor, carburetor cleaner, toluene,
acids, and alkalis.
From 1976 through 1989, several inspections were conducted by
BCEQCB which documented poor waste handling practices, including
discharge of industrial wastes onto the ground. In August 1985,
EPA conducted a Preliminary Assessment (PA) of the Site and in July
1986 requested its contractor, NUS, to perform a Sampling
Investigation (SI). The results of this sampling caused the Site
to be proposed for the NPL in July 1988. In March 1989, the Wilson
-4-
-------
Concepts of Florida, Inc. Site was formally included on the NPL.
A Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) Search Report was completed
in April 1989.
On December 1, 1988, EPA issued Special Notice Letters to the PRPs
identified in-the PRP Search. On October 19, 1989 two of the PRPs,
Wilson Concepts and Centrust Savings, entered into an
Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) to conduct the Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) at the Site. Environmental
Resources Management South, Inc. (ERM), contractor for the
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) from late 1989 to June 1991,
conducted Phase I of the RI. Because of continued schedule delays,
EPA notified the PRPs on July 23, 1991 that they were in violation
of the AOC and that EPA would take over the project and complete
the RI/FS.
3.0 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The Site is located in the industrial section of Pompano Beach,
Florida. The closest residentially zoned area is east of 1-95,
about 1/2 mile east of the Site.
Community interviews were conducted by EPA in February 1990 to
determine public interest in the Site. The conclusion drawn from
these interviews is that there is minimal interest in the Site,
probably due to the transient nature of the local population and
the industrial setting around the Site. EPA held an Availability
Session at the Pompano Beach Multipurpose Center on December 4,
1990 to provide information and answer questions on the RI to be
conducted at the Site. Seven people attended. Attendees of the
session indicated an interest in learning more about the Site and
asked numerous questions about the Superfund process.
The RI, Risk Assessment, and Proposed Plan for the Site were
released to the public on July 22, 1992. These documents were made
available in both the administrative record and an information
repository maintained at the EPA Records Center in Region IV,
Atlanta, Georgia and at the Broward County Main Library in Fort
Lauderdale, Florida. The notice of availability for these
documents was published in the Ft. Lauderdale Sun Sentinel on July
20, 1992. A public comment period was held from July 22, 1992
through August 21, 1992. In addition, a public meeting was held on
July 28, 1992. At the public meeting, which was attended by eleven
people, representatives from EPA answered questions about the
findings of the RI and Risk Assessment and presented 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 Wilson Concepts of Florida, Inc.
Site, in Pompano Beach, Florida, chosen in accordance with CERCLA,
as amended by SARA and, to the extent practicable, the National
Contingency Plan. The decision for the Site is based on the
-5-
-------
administrative record. These community relations activities
fulfill the statutory requirements for public participation
contained in CERCLA section 113(k)(2)(B)(i-v).
4.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION
This ROD addresses the final response action for the Wilson
Concepts of Florida, Inc. Site, addressing both soil and ground
water. The baseline risk assessment indicates that no principal
threat exists at the Site. The selected alternative will be
protective of human health and the environment and is consistent
with the NCP (40 CFR 300.430(e)).
5.0 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
5.1 SITE DRAINAGE
The Site lies on the Atlantic Coastal Ridge, which is up to five
miles in width and forms the highest ground in the county. The
relief of the Site is flat and most of it is covered by concrete,
asphalt, and the building footprint. However, some grassy areas
exist on the east, southeast, and northeast portions of the Site.
The asphalt and concrete are primarily drained by a catch
basin/storm drain system. The general locations of the storm
drains/catch basins are numbered in Figure 1-2. Drain Number 1
appeared to have a PVC pipe running in the direction of the
drainfield (toward the south). Drains 2 and 3 did not appear to
have any pipes or conduits from them. A survey map dated April 17,
1986 indicated that a storm sewer pipe ran from drain 4 through
drain 5 and into the storm sewer system under SW 8th Street. A PVC
pipe coming from the direction of the sump in the loading area and
two metal pipes of unknown origin were observed to enter Drain 7.
Flooding on the Site has been observed after rain events. The east
parking lot, north loading dock, and back alley on the south side
of the Carter and Crawley building may stand under approximately
four to six inches of water during a rain event.
Some drainage from the southwest corner of the Site to SW 12th
Street has been observed, and additional surface water overflow in
the northern portion of the Site generally flows into SW 8th Street
and then into the storm sewer system.
5.2 SURFACE WATER FEATURES
The Atlantic Coastal Ridge is a natural barrier to drainage from
the interior, except where breached by shallow sloughs or rivers.
Pompano Beach and its surrounding vicinity are part of the Atlantic
Coastal Ridge. The ridge is mantled by white quartz sand, thickest
at the crest and thinning to less than five feet in the backswamp
area, where it is underlain by a thin, permeable limestone layer.
West of the Atlantic Coastal Ridge, as shown on Figure 5-1 / are the
Sandy Flatlands, which are lower in elevation and prior to
-------
FIGURE 5-1
PHYSIOGRAPHIC FEATURES OF 8ROWARD COUNTY
PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT
WILSON CONCEPTS
POMPANO BEACH. BROWARO COUNTY, FLORIDA
PALM BEACH COUNTY
OAOE COUNTY
0
10 MILES
I
10 KILOMETERS
EXPLANATION
MANGROVE AND COASTAL GLADES
K/////3 ATLANTIC COASTAL RIDGE
SANDY FLATLANOS
EVERGLADES
BIG CYPRESS SWAMP
SOURCE PARKER tt 4L.195S. PLATE 12
-------
development were poorly drained. Farther west are the Everglades,
which cover most of Broward County. The Everglades are slightly
lower than the Sandy Flatlands and, when natural conditions
prevailed, were seasonally inundated. Drainage was slow and
generally to the south, channeled behind the higher coastal area.
The crest of ttie Atlantic Coast ridge is approximately two miles
inland and parallels the coast. West of the divide or crest of the
ridge, the land surface descends rapidly to the backswamp area,
which is approximately one-half mile west of the divide. The
backswamp area slopes gently to the west five miles to the
Everglades and consists of swampy sloughs and low intraswamp
ridges.
Historically, the backswamp area remained wet for long periods,
being poorly drained by sloughs toward the west and by underground
flow toward the ocean. Subsequently, development for agriculture
led to construction of a series of canals, ditches, dams and
pumping stations to control water levels. Presently, the backswamp
area is irrigated and drained by secondary canals that connect with
either the Hillsboro Canal to the north or the Pompano-Cypress
Creek Canal to the south. These canals (Figure 5-2) drain water
from the Pompano Beach area and are part of the South Florida Water
Management District's (SFWMD's) network of canals. The flow of the
Pompano-Cypress Creek Canal is controlled by a spillway structure
and a gated dam two miles farther upstream. During periods of
heavy rainfall, these structures are adjusted to prevent local
flooding; however, during most of the year, they are operated to
hold high stages in the canal.
The west slope of the ridge area drains to the backswamp area; the
east slope of the ridge drains to the Intracoastal Waterway. With
increasing urbanization, this area now drains to the Intracoastal
Waterway through storm sewers and a massive system of finger canals
east of U.S. Highway 1.
5.3 GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY
Figure 5-2 shows the location of geologic cross section B-B' in
relation to the Site. Geologic cross section B-B' (Figure 5-3)
illustrates the subsurface geology and lateral variability of
individual geologic formations (Table 5-1) in and around the Site.
The uppermost geologic unit is the Pamlico Sand, a late-Pleistocene
terrace deposit of marine origin, consisting of mostly white to tan
or black, fine to coarse quartz sand, with varying amounts of iron
oxide. The Pamlico is approximately 45 to 50 feet thick in the
study area and may contain thin (less than five feet) limestone
interbeds of the Anastasia Formation.
Underlying the Pamlico is the main portion of the Anastasia
Formation. The formation consists of a heterogeneous mixture of
very fine to very coarse quartz sand, finely ground and broken
-8-
-------
RGURE 5-2
LOCATION OF TEST WELLS AND GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTIONS
WILSON CONCEPTS
POMPANO BEACH, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
W223CT
XT IS
SOURCE. CAUSAURAS. 1985
-9-
-------
G-2314
FORMAIION BOUNDARY
Fill
\i
-------
TABLE 5-1
GEOLOGIC FORMATIONS
WILSON CONCEPTS, POMPANO BEACH, FLORIDA
Geologic
Age
(Epoch)
Pleistocene
flee Age)
Lithologic
Formation Characteristics
Ptmlico Sand Quartz und. white to black
or red Mantles part of
Miami and Anastssia
formations. Occun in und
dunes and in old beach
ndgei.
Hydrogeologic Thickness
Characteristics (feet)
Poor to moderate water 0 - 60
bearer yieidi low quintine«
of water to und - point
welli
Age
Years
100.000
Miami Limestone
Anaitasia
White to yellowish
Maative to stratified and
cross-bedded, oolitic and
bryozoan faciea.
Coquina, sand, calcareoui
sandstone and ihell marl
Probably competed of
deposits equivalent in age to
marine memben of Fort
Thompson and Miami
limestone.
Genenlly perforated with 0-40 100.000
venical solution holei. Fair
to good aquifer
Fair to good aquifer 0 - 120 100,000 -t
Key Largo
Limestone
Pleistocene
ace Age)
Pliocene
Miocene
Fort Thompson
Limestone
Caloou-
hatcnee Marl
Coralline reef rock, hard
and cavernous. Interfingen
with bryozoan facies of
Miami limestone and
probably with Fort
Thompaon
Alternating marine and
freshwater marls.
limestones, and sandstones.
Sandy marl. clay, silt,sand
and shell beds.
Cream, white and greenish-
gray clayey marl, tilt and
shelly sands and sand marl.
locally hardened to
limestone.
Excellent aquifer.
0- 200-
lOO.OOOi
Main component of
Biscayne Aquifer in eastern
pan of Dad* and Broward
Counties. Northern
extension much less
permeable.
Poor to fair aquifer.
The upper part, where
permeability ia high, forms
the basal pan of the
Biscayne Aquifer. The
lower and major part of the
formation is of low
permeability.
I - ISO
Upper Part
0- 25
0- 100
2,000.000^
6.000.000
Source: Hoffmeister. 1974
-II-
-------
shells and redeposited calcium carbonate either in the form of
calcite crystals or as cryptocrystalline cementing materials.
Color of the formation ranges from white to gray or tan. Causaras
(1985) shows the Anastasia to be approximately 100 feet thick in
the Pompano Beach area. Causaras (1985) also reports a thin (20
feet thick) lens of Key Largo Limestone in the Pompano area. This
formation has not previously been reported in the area and may be
a questionable identification. Where more typically developed
(i.e., in coastal Oade and Monroe counties), the Key Largo is
highly permeable, hard, cavernous coralline reefal limestone.
Underlying the Anastasia is the Tamiami Formation, which is
approximately 220 feet thick in the vicinity of the Site, according
to Causaras (1985). As currently defined, the Tamiami includes all
the upper Miocene material in southern Florida (Parker, 1951). As
such, it is a heterogeneous unit ranging in composition from pure
quartz sand to nearly pure limestone, which is generally white to
grey in color. According to Tarver (1964), the percentage of
carbonate material in the sediments generally increases with depth.
The lower permeability sediments near the top of the Tamiami have
traditionally been taken as marking the base of the Biscayne
Aquifer (Parker, 1951, 1955).
Directly underlying the Site is the Biscayne Aquifer, which
supplies all potable water for Broward County and has been
designated as a sole-source aquifer. Regionally, the ground water
table is high, from 1.62 to 6.24 feet above mean sea level (USGS,
1988) and typically 6 to 8 feet below ground surface, which is
characteristic of South Florida. However, the water table would be
low with respect to the surrounding areas, such as the Sandy
Flatlands, Everglades, and backswamp areas referred to earlier.
Site-specific information obtained by NUS during the 1986 study
indicates that ground water is approximately four feet below grade
at the Site, while the results of Phase I of the RI during 1990 and
Phase II of the RI during 1991 indicate that the ground water is
approximately 3.0 to 3.5 feet below grade.
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 human health and the environment. Both the RI and Risk
Assessment are used to determine whether remedial action is
necessary at the Site.
Activities conducted during the RI included a soil-gas survey,
surface and subsurface soil sampling, ground water sampling, and
air sampling. Results of the soil-gas survey, both total organic
vapor concentrations and methane-corrected vapor concentrations,
indicated potential areas of contamination in the northeast corner
at 1.5-2.0 feet below land surface (BLS) and 3.5-4.0 feet BLS, and
-12-
-------
in the south-central portion of the Site at 1.5-2.0 feet BLS and
3.5-4.0 feet BLS. Areas of contamination were also indicated at
3.5-4.0 feet BLS throughout the southern portion of the Site and
south of SW 12th Avenue.
In comparison, organic compounds were detected in five subsurface
soil samples from 3.5-4.0 feet BLS, two subsurface soil samples
from 1.5-2.0 feet BLS, and five surface soil samples. These
detections showed only minimal correlation with the results of the
soil-gas survey. Certain samples in areas which the soil-gas
survey indicated potential organic contamination, showed no
contamination in subsequent sampling. Other samples outside the
area of potential contamination defined in the soil-gas survey
showed low levels of organic compounds.
Of the five subsurface soil samples from 3.5-4.0 feet BLS in which
organic compounds were detected, four were collected during Phase
I of the RI for Target Compound List (TCL) and Target Analyte List
(TAL) analyses. Acetone was detected in these four samples.
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate was detected in two of these four
subsurface soil samples. In three of these four samples, the
remaining organic compounds were detected at low estimated
concentrations (< 6 |ig/kg) . Similarly, the fifth subsurface soil
sample, collected in the northeast corner of the Site during Phase
II of the RI, only contained two organic compounds at low estimated
concentrations (< 15 ng/kg). However, one of the Phase I
subsurface soil samples, located in the drainfield, exhibited
organic contamination at concentrations ranging from 500 to 13,000
yg/kg for five compounds.
Three of the five surface soil samples were located along the
southern property boundary and exhibited parts per million of
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate. Two of these were located in the area
of the drainfield. In the two remaining surface soil samples in
which organic contamination was detected, low estimated
concentrations (< 6 ng/kg) of toluene were detected. One of these
samples was located in the northwest corner of the Site, in the
vicinity of an underground septic tank; the other was located in
the north central portion of the Site. This detection is
consistent with the detection of low concentrations (< 22 jig/kg) of
organic compounds in sample 175W,50S(1.5-2.0'), collected during
Phase I in the same vicinity. Toluene was also detected at a depth
of 1.5-2.0' at low concentrations (< 6 ng/kg) on the south side of
the Site. Inorganic constituents were detected in all soil samples
at varying concentrations. The majority of the inorganic
constituents detected were generally within the range expected in
this area. The exceptions were strontium, calcium, chromium,
mercury, vanadium, and zinc.
The direction of ground water flow is generally east to southeast.
The ground water flow velocity was estimated as approximately 22
feet per year (0.06 feet per day). During Phase I ground water
-13-
-------
sampling, organic constituents were detected in three wells (WCS-1,
WCS-2, and WCD-14). During Phase II, organic compounds were
detected in two wells, WCS-1 and MW-6. During Phase I of the Rl,
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) were exceeded for
trichloroethylene in two wells and for bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
in one well. These analytes were not detected in samples from the
same wells during Phase II of the RI. MCLs for all constituents
detected in ground water are contained in Appendix A, Tables A-4
and A-5. Inorganic constituents were detected in all wells at
varying concentrations. Inorganic constituents of concern for the
ground water included arsenic, chromium, manganese, molybdenum,
nickel, strontium, titanium, and yttrium.
A total of nine air samples were collected and analyzed for seven
constituents. Chloroethane, toluene, and trichloroethylene were
detected in these samples at concentrations ranging from 0.7 to 5.2
parts per billion volume (ppbv).
Sample locations and results from the Wilson Concepts RI are
included in Appendix A.
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 the Site were not remediated. Results are contained in the
Final Baseline Risk Assessment Report, dated June 17, 1992. A
Baseline Risk 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 CONTAMINANT IDENTIFICATION
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 (COCs) in order to
focus subsequent efforts in the risk assessment process. COCs are
selected based upon their toxicological properties, concentrations
and frequency of occurrence at the Site. During the Risk
Assessment for the Site, the following chemicals were identified as
contaminants of concern in the ground water: acetone, 1,1-
dichloroethane, Chloroethane, 1,4-dichlorbenzene, arsenic, barium,
magnesium, manganese, molybdenum, and zinc. Contaminants of
concern in the surface soil were identified as toluene, bis(2-
ethyIhexl)phthalate, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, copper,
magnesium/ manganese/ mercury, nickel, molybdenum, vanadium, and
-14-
-------
zinc. COCs in the subsurface soil are as follows: methyl ethyl
ketone, acetone, methylene chloride, chloromethane,
chlorodibromomethane, toluene, tetrachlorethylene, xylene,
ethylbenzene, styrene, di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, arsenic, barium,
chromium, copper, lead, magnesium, manganese, mercury, nickel,
vanadium, and zinc.
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. Inhalation of
particulates and ingestion of soil by workers were considered
potentially complete exposure pathways under both the current and
future use scenarios. Currently, the Site is located in an
industrial area, which is expected to remain industrial according
to the City of Pompano Beach Future Land Use Plan for 1998.
Therefore, the future land use scenarios involve worker and
trespasser exposure. However, risk from residential exposure to
ground water was also calculated. Three pathways in addition to
those described above were considered under the future industrial
scenario: worker ingestion of drinking water from wells that may
be drilled into the surficial aquifer and ingestion of soil or
inhalation of particulates by potential trespassers at the Site.
Future residential exposure was assumed to include ingestion of
ground water.
After exposure pathways were developed, the concentrations at the
exposure points were calculated. These exposure point
concentrations were based on the reasonable maximum exposure (RME)
scenario - that is, the highest exposure that is reasonably
expected to occur at a Site. The RME is calculated by taking 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 lognonnal. Exposure point concentrations for the
inhalation of particulates pathway were developed through air
modeling conducted by the EPA Air Programs Branch. Maximum
concentrations of contaminants in surface soil rather than the RME
values were used in the air modeling.
Once exposure point concentrations were developed, the chemical
intake at each exposure point was calculated. These assumptions,
along with the exposure point concentrations, are used in equations
to develop the Chronic Daily Intake (GDI) for each exposure
pathway. Exposure assumptions used in developing the GDIs are
listed in Table 6-1. Exposure point concentrations and GDIs for
each exposure scenario are listed in Tables 6-2 through 6-4.
-15-
-------
TAIII.K 6-1
t'.xptMiirv Factors'
Wilson tlowrpts
I'limpiiiMi flvarh, Honda
land Use
Commercial/
Industrial
Oimmerrial/
Industrial
Trespasser
( > 6 years of age )
Residential
Potential
Kxposure Route
Ingeslion of
I'oiable Water
Ingeslinn of
Soil and Oust
Inhalation of
Oinlaminants
Ingcslion of
Soil and Dust
Inhalation of
Contaminants
Ingestion of
Potable Water
Daily
Intake Rate
1 liter
50 mg
20 cu.m/workday
100 ing
5 cu.m/evenl
2 liters
Kxpnsure
Krequmcy
250 days/year
250 days/year
250 days/year
350 days/year
i
350 days/year
350 days/yr
F.xposure
Ihiratiun
25 years
25 years
25 years
24 years
24 years
30 years
Body Weight '
70kg
70kg
70kg
70kg
70kg
70 kg
' Source: Human Health {'valuation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: "Standard Default lixposurc Parlors," OSWIIRDirective 9286.5-03.
-16-
-------
TABLE 6-2: Oral Exposure Doses for Soil - Worker and Trespasser Scenarios
CONTAMINANT OF CONCERN
WORKER SCENARIO
EXPOSURE POINT CARCINOGENIC NONCARCINOGENIC
CONCENTRATION GDI GDI
(mg/kg) (mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/day)
TRESPASSER SCENARIO
CARCINOGENIC NONCARCINOGENIC
GDI • GDI
(mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/day)
BARIUM
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM VI
COPPER
DI ( 2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
LEAD
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE
MERCURY
MOLYBDENUM
NICKEL
TOLUENE
VANADIUM
ZINC
6.
0.
49.
15.
7.
15.
570.
37.
0.
1.
13.
61
82
03
40
55
26
00
31
52
40
86
5.60E-03
7.
380.
20
40
1.
1.
8.
2.
1.
2.
9.
6.
9.
2.
2.
9.
1.
6.
15E-06
43E-07
57E-06
69E-06
32E-06
67E-06
96E-05
52E-06
09E-08
45E-07
42E-06
78E-10
26E-06
65E-05
3
4
2
7
3
7
2
1
2
6
6
2
3
1
.23E-06
.01E-07
.40E-05
.53E-06
.69E-06
.47E-06
.79E-04
.83E-05
.54E-07
.85E-07
.78E-06
.74E-09
.352E-0*
.86E-04
3
3
2
7
3
7
2
1
2
6
6
2
3
1
. 10E-06
.85E-07
.30E-05
.23E-06
.55E-06
.17E-06
.68E-04
.75E-05
.44E-07
.58E-07
.51E-06
.63E-09
.38E-06
.79E-04
9
1
6
2
1
2
7
5
7
1
1
7
9
5
.05E-06
.12E-06
.72E-05
.11E-05
.03E-05
.09E-05
.81E-04
.11E-05
.12E-07
.92E-06
.90E-05
.67E-09
.86E-06
.21E-04
-17-
-------
TABLE 6-3: Oral Exposure Doses for Inhalation of Particulates -
Worker and Trespasser Scenarios
WORKER SCENARIO
TRESPASSER SCENARIO
CONTAMINANT OF CONCERN
EXPOSURE POINT CARCINOGENIC NONCARCINOGENIC CARCINOGENIC NONCARCINOGENIC
CONCENTRATION GDI CD! GDI • GDI
(ug/m3) (mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/day)
BARIUM
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM VI
COPPER
DI ( 2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
LEAD
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE
MERCURY
MOLYBDENUM
NICKEL
VANADIUM
ZINC
4.80E-06
l.OOE-08
2.30E-06
1.30E-05
l.OOE-07
2.50E-08
2.60E-04
9.00E-05
2.60E-07
7.00E-07
3.00E-07
3.60E-06
l.OOE-03
3.35E-10
6.99E-13
1.61E-10
9.09E-10
6.99E-12
1.75E-12
1.82E-08
6.29E-09
1.82E-11
4.89E-11
2.10E-11
2.52E-10
6.99E-08
9.39E-10
1.96E-12
4.50E-10
2.54E-09
1.96E-11
4.89E-12
5.09E-08
1.76E-08
5.09E-11
1.37E-10
5.87E-11
7.05E-10
1.96E-07
1.13E-10
2.35E-13
5.40E-11
3.05E-10
2.35E-12
5.87E-13
6.11E-09
2.11E-09
6.11E-12
1.64E-11
7.05E-12
8.45E-11
2.35E-08
3.29E-10
6.85E-13
1.58E-10
8.90E-10
6.85E-12
1.71E-12
1.78E-08
6.16E-09
1.78E-11
4.79E-11
2.05E-11
2.47E-10
6.85E-08
-18-
-------
TABLE 6-4: Oral Exposure Doses for Ground Water - Residential Scenario
CONTAMINANT OF CONCERN
EXPOSURE POINT CARCINOGENIC NONCARCINOGENIC
CONCENTRATION GDI GDI
(ug/1) (mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/day)
ACETONE
CHLOROETHANE
1, 1-DICHLOROETHANE
1 , 4-DICHLOROBENZENE
ARSENIC
BARIUM
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE
MOLYBDENUM
ZINC
18.00
46.00
12.00
2.20
12.00
22.71
2956.46
53.12
20.00
11.00
2.
5.
1.
2.
1.
2.
3.
6.
2.
1.
11E-04
40E-04
41E-04
58E-05
41E-04
67E-04
47E-02
24E-04
35E-04
29E-04
4.93E-04
1.26E-03
3.29E-04
6.03E-05
3.29E-04
6.22E-04
8. 10E-02
1.46E-03
5.48E-04
3.01E-04
-19-
-------
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. Toxicity 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 mg/kg-day, to provide an
upper-bound estimate of the excess lifetime cancer risk associated
with 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 the Site are
listed in Table 6-5.
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 the Site are found
in Table 6-5.
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. IxlO"6 or 1E-6). An excess lifetime cancer risk of IxlO"6
-20-
-------
TABLE 6-5
El* A Toxicity Values for Contaminants of Concern in
Surface Soil and Groundwater
Wilson Concepts
Pompano Beach, Florida
W.O.E.
I'aramcter Class
Arsenic A
Harium
Cadmium Bl
Chromium VI A
Copper D
Lead B2
Magnesium
Manganese D
Mercury D
Molybdenum
Nickel
Vanadium
7inc 1)
RfUo RfDi Slope Factor
(mg/kg/d) (mg/kg/d) l/(mg/ke/dl
Oral Inhalation
3.0E
5.0E
5.0E
5.0E
3.7E
-
-
l.OE
3.0E
4.0E
2.0E
7.0E
20E
-4 - 1-.7-J 5.0E + 1*
- 2 1.4E - 4*
-4 - - 6.1E +0*
- 3 5.7E - r - 4.1E + T
.2*
.
-
- 1 1.1E-4
-4* 8.6E-5*
-3*
-2 - - 8.4E - 1*
-3*
. r
-21-
-------
TABLE 6-5
(Continued)
EPA Toxiciiy Values Tor Contaminants of Concern in
Surface Soil and Ground water
Wilson Concepts, Pompano Beach, Florida
Parameter
W.O.E
Class
RfDo
(mg/kg/d)
RIDi
(mg/kg/d)
Slope Factor
I/(mg/kg/d)
Oral Inhalation
Acetone D
Di(2-ethylhexyl) B2
phthalate
Chloroethane
1,1-Dichloro- C
ethane
1,4-Dichloro- C
benzene
Toluene D
NOTES: W.O.E. Class
A
HI
B2
C
D
E
RfDo
RfDi
Slope Factor
l.OE - 1
2.0E - 2
1.4E-2
l.OE - 1*
2.0E - 1
2.9E + 0
1.4E - T
2E- 1*
5.7E - 1*
2.4E - 2*
Weight of evidence for human carcinogenicity.
Known human carcingoen.
Probable human carcinogen, limited human data.
Probable human carcinogen, inadequate or no human data.
Possible human carcinogen.
Not classifiable as human carcinogen.
Evidence that not carcinogenic in humans.
Reference dose oral (daily dose not associated with toxicity).
Reference dose inhalation (daily dose not associated with toxicity). RfDi = RfC divided
by 70 kg x 20 m3 /day
Slope factor of the carcinogenic dose-response function.
Value derived from Health Effects Summary Table (HEAST). January 10, 1992.
All other values derived from EPA's IRIS database, January 10, 1992.
Not established.
-22-
-------
indicates that, as a plausible upper bound, an individual has a one
in c-3 million additional chance of developing cancer, over a 70-
year lifetime, as a result of site-related exposure to a
carc_r.ogen. The NCP states that sites should be remediated to
chein_cal concentrations that correspond to an upper-bound lifetime
cancer risk to an individual not exceeding 10"6 to 10"* excess
lifetime risk." Carcinogenic risk levels that exceed this range
indicate the need for performing remedial action at a site.
Carcinogenic risk levels for each exposure scenario at the Site are
listed in Tables 6-6. Carcinogenic risk for the onsite worker from
accidental ingestion of soil is 1.8E-8 and from inhalation of
particulates is 6.6E-9. Both of these risk values are well below
the risk level determined to be protective by EPA (10E-4).
Future potential risk from exposure to contaminants at the Site was
calculated, based on the assumption that the Site area would remain
industrial in the future. Carcinogenic risk from future worker
exposure to ground water at the Site was calculated to be 1.8E-7.
Future risk from trespasser ingestion of soil would be 5.OE-8,
whereas trespasser inhalation of particulates yields a risk of
2.2E-9. These risks are well below the protective level.
Future risk was also calculated for ground water based upon a
residential scenario. Future potential risk from residential
exposure to ground water was determined to be 6.2E-07. This risk
value does not include the risk due to arsenic, as explained in
Section 6.5 of this document.
To characterize 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
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 Site are
listed in Table 6-6. Calculation of the current non-carcinogenic
risk from worker ingestion of soil at the Site resulted in a Hazard
Index (HI) of 9.5E-4, while worker inhalation of particulates
resulted in a HI of 8.2E-3. Future potential exposure for workers
through ingestion of ground water yielded a HI of 4.5E-1.
Ingestion of soil and inhalation of particulates by a potential
trespasser would result in Hi's of 2.3E-2 and 3.3E-4 respectively.
-23-
-------
TABLE 6-6
Summary of Risks
Wilson Concepts
Pompano Beach, Florida
Pathway
Cancer Risk
HI
Current Use Scenario
Inhalation of Particulates 6.6E - 9
Ingestion of Soil (Adult) 1.8E - 8
Future Use Scenario
Ingestion of Drinking Water 6 . 2 E- 7
(Residential)
Ingestion of Soil 5.0E - 8
(trespasser)
Inhalation of Particulates 22E • 9
(trespasser)
9.5E-4
82E-3
2.0E-1
23E-2
33E-4
HI
Cancer risk
Sum of hazard quotients. Assumes same target
organ affected.
Probability of getting cancer from specified
exposure.
-24-
-------
These risk values are all below 1.0 which is the level which
indicates a potential for site-related non-carcinogenic health
effects.
Noncarcinogenic risk was also calculated under a future residential
scenario. The HI for residential exposure to ground water was 0.2,
excluding the risk due to arsenic, as explained in Section 6.5 of
this document. This risk value is below the protective level of
1.0.
The results of the RI and Baseline Risk Assessment indicate that
natural attenuation of contaminant levels at the Site has reduced
the risk from exposure to site-related contaminants to levels which
are protective of human health and the environment. Contaminant
concentrations detected during the RI were lower than those in the
Sampling Investigation data, which were used to rank the Site.
Site contaminants appear to have undergone natural attenuation, in
which natural processes such as evaporation, dispersion, and
chemical reaction reduced the concentrations of chemicals in the
soil and ground water.
6.5 DISCUSSION OF UNCERTAINTY
A key assumption used in the Baseline Risk Assessment was that the
concentrations specified for various environmental media represent
the true concentrations to which people will be exposed during the
period of exposure. Actual concentrations will likely vary over
time (as removal mechanisms such as wind, mechanical disturbances,
biodegradation, and leaching take place) and space (contaminants
are not uniformly distributed over the Site).
Another key assumption used in this evaluation is that the land use
will remain industrial/commercial indefinitely. This assumption is
supported by the Pompano Beach Land Use Plan through 1998.
Further, it is assumed that the Site will remain paved over this
period. This assumption is reasonable given the expected use of
the property. However, because the Biscayne Aquifer is a sole-
source aquifer, risk from exposure to ground water under a future
potential residential scenario was calculated and the results
included in the Baseline Risk Assessment Report as an appendix.
These calculations (excluding arsenic) showed that the future risk
at the Site would be within EPA's protective range for residential
consumption of ground water, even if the Site were to become
residential.
The only chemical which exceeds acceptable risk (1E-4) and
acceptable HQ (1.0) is arsenic in ground water. Future residential
carcinogenic risk was calculated to be 2.47E-04 and the
noncarcinpgenic HQ was 1.1. These risk calculations are based upon
one sample, in which arsenic was detected at 12 ug/1, a level well
below the drinking water standard of 50 ug/1. However, risk levels
for arsenic are affected by a very conservative slope factor. A
-25-
-------
memorandum from a previous EPA Administrator directing use of this
slope factor states that the uncertainties associated with the
quantification of inorganic arsenic are such that risk estimates
(for both cancer and noncancer effects) could be modified downward
as much as an order of magnitude (USEPA, 1988).
The selection • of exposure scenarios also has a significant
influence on estimated doses. Actual exposures to the receptor
population will vary in accordance with the degree to which the
receptors participate in the activities described by the exposure
scenarios. The exposure scenarios presented in this assessment are
very conservative (most work is conducted indoors, resulting in
only extremely transient exposure periods to particulate emissions
or contaminated soil) and likely overstate actual contaminant
intakes for a worker.
6.6 ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
The Site is located in the middle of a heavily
industrial/commercial area with no habitat corridors and limited
opportunity for foraging and shelter. There is no surface water
located on any of the areas of concern. The existing fauna are
isolated and confined (with the exception of avian species) by
concrete and fences. The receptor populations are minimal
notwithstanding the gopher tortoises found on a nearby property.
The gopher tortoise's risk is extremely low due to the location and
mobility characteristics of these animals as well as the low
potential for off-site migration of the contaminants. The gopher
tortoise's burrows are located approximately 600 feet northwest of
the Site. Their life is spent typically in and around their
burrows which become a more or less permanent home. These
tortoises appear to be permanent inhabitants of this area. There
is a very low potential for surface soil mobility through
particulate emissions. The chance is remote that contaminated soil
of any significant amount would be ingested by these tortoises.
No other significant receptor populations were identified. Avian
activity might be more notable during the spring, but due to the
location and size of the existing habitat, it is unlikely that any
significant population would be attracted.
Aquatic life in the Pompano-Cypress Creek Canal are not considered
as potential receptors because surface runoff from the Site does
not reach the canal. In addition, ground water in the vicinity of
the Site flows east-southeast, whereas the canal is located south
of the Site. Constituents in the ground water would have to
migrate several miles before intercepting the canal. Wells
immediately downgradient of the Site between the Site and the canal
showed extremely low contaminant levels. Therefore, Site
contaminants in the ground water are not expected to reach the
canal.
-26-
-------
7.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE "NO ACTION" SELECTED ALTERNATIVE
EPA has determined, based on the results of the RI and Risk
Assessment, that no action is needed for the soil at the Site. RI
and Risk Assessment results also indicated that no action is
necessary for the ground water at the Site. However, because the
future potential noncarcinogenic 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 Site. Quarterly monitoring will tentatively include EPA
monitor wells MW-1 and one (1) new permanant wells to be installed
along the eastern portion of the Site. In addition, ERM wells WCS-
2. WCS-12, WCS-13, and WCS-14 or other downgradient wells shall be
s :led. Wells to be sampled shall be finalized in a Sampling and
A. ysis Plan to be prepared prior to the start of monitoring. The
sar-.ples shall be analyzed for volatile and extractable organic
compounds and metals. Based upon EPA's Cost of Remedial Action
(CORA) model, the estimated cost of the monitoring is $48,000
(Table 7-1). If monitoring indicates a potential threat to human
health or 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
The selected remedy as presented in this decision document has no
difference, significant or otherwise, from the proposed plan.
-27-
-------
TABLE 7-1: Estimated Cost of Monitoring
CORA GROUNDWATER MONITORING COST MODULE (503)
SITE NAME:
WILSON CONCEPTS, INC.
INPUTS
Parameter
Value
RESULTS
Component
Total
Number of wells to install 1
Average well depth (ft) 25
Protection during setup of D
drill rig & installation
of above-grade piping
Protection during drilling D
Average temp (degrees F) 85
Confidence level H
Number of wells to monitor 6
Monitoring frequency 4
Monitoring requirements:
24 Plasma Metals Y
Pest/PCS N
GC-BN N
GC-Acid N
HSLORG N
VOA GC/MS Y
Acid GC/MS Y
B/N GC/MS Y
CAPITAL COST
0 S< M COSTS
12,000
36,OOO
NOTES:
install 1 well, monitor 6f gc/ms analysis
-28-
-------
APPENDIX A
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION SAMPLING
DATA AND LOCATIONS
-------
M»
300
2M> 22S ZOO
liO I7b 100 7S SO
c?-2
®
4^1
1 __ _J
I "L I I I I
* 00 ' * •|-L-1.._-
-~---«=ii3?^^£j#i:-.. .."i _
110
HOAU
K -------- H_...
QD
T,- 0
T
i —
--- 2011
Figure A-1
Phu.se I Soil Swpte Locations
YVUm» ComnptB
Pompano Beach, Florida
LtCCNO
(JD SIOHU [IHAIMS/CAICH BASINS
[;.J OHAiNnciu AppNoxiMAn: AHIAI. CXIENI
H UNCt
PHOPCH11 I INC
• SHALLOW UONIION will
• OfCP UOHIION WELL
A SCW. SAUPU COtlCCIlO CON FON TO. ANALYSIS
SOIL SAUFU CCKltCllU Al IS - 2 fT.
© SHOW CRAOt (OK Mt IALS AND VOLA1US
ANAIVSCS
©SOIL SAUPIL COll EC ICO AI II If WAITH
lABLl IOH MLIA1S AND VOIAlliS ANALYSIS
S SPLII SAUI'll COU tCUD BY UYNAUAC
Al
-------
TABLE A-l
Analytical Results for Phase I Soil Samples
Collected During Soil-Gas Survey
Wilson Concepts, Pompano Beach, Florida
SAMPLE
ORQANICS
Dichloromeihine
(ug/kg)
Toluene (ug/kg)
Xylenet (ug/kg)
INORGANICS
Anenic (mg/kg)
Barium (mg/kg)
Chromium (mg/kg)
Le*d (mg/kg)
Mercury (mg/kg)
I75W.50S
(I.S-2.01)
22000
10000
S 200
-
--
ow.os
(1.5 2.0')
-
-
-
1.300
21 000
12.000
7700
0 HO
IOOW.75S
(1520')
--
4.900
2 800
0580
0200
OW.I25S
2300
4600
3 300
25W.200S
-
9900
8600
6000
0038
OW.250S
(1. 5-2.0')
3 400
4 700
3 100
0031
IOOW.250S
(I.S'2.0')
-.
1 100
-
IOOW.250S WT
4 400
3 200
1 200
0019
I75W.250S
(1520')
1 500
3000
Analyied for but not detected
A2
-------
TABLE A-l
Analytical Results for Phase I Soil Samples
Collected During Soil-Gas Survey
Wilson Concepts, Pompano Beach, Florida
Pige2
SAMPLE
OROANICS
Dichloromethane
-------
TABLE A- 2
Analytical Results for Phase I Soil Samples
Collected for TCL and TAL Analyses
Wilson Concepts, Poopano Beach, Florida
SAMPLE
ORGANICS
2-Buttnone (ug/kg)
Acetone (ug/kg)
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloromethane (ug/kg)
Dibromochloromethane (ug/kg)
Ethylbenzene (ug/kg)
Methylene Chloride (ug/kg)
Styrene (ug/kg)
Tetrachloroethylene (ug/kg)
Toluene (ug/kg)
INORGANICS
Aluminum (mg/kg)
Barium (mg/kg)
Calcium (mg/kg)
Chromium (mg/kg)
Iron (mg/kg)
Lead (mg/kg)
Magnesium (mg/kg)
Manganese (mg/kg)
Mercury (mg/kg)
Vanadium (mg/kg)
Zinc (mg/kg)
25W,OS
(2.0-4.01)
-
130 B
--
-
-
-
-
-
~
5J
756
9J
1,940
3.9
487
1.2
29.3 J
-
0.041
-
-
75W.250S
(3.0-3.51)
-
12 JB
1,300
-
-
-
4 J
-
-
-
1,270
10.7 J
4,500
9.5
648
3.1
50.5 J
-
0.055
6 J
-
200W.50S
(3.0-3.5')
-
17 B
-
-
-
6 J
-
4 J
3 J
4 J
229
-
1590
-
46.4
-
19.5 J
-
0.011
-
-
225W.250S
(3.0-4.0')
8.100
3.500B
13,000
1.200J
500 J
--
—
—
-
-
830
4.9 J
14.400
573
1,060
2.3
93. 6 J
5
0.019
-
16.1
- Analyzed for but not detected
B Detected in associated blank
J Estimated concentration
-------
MVHUIIIQ
-D__
n
S. W. Blh STREET
in=STA-
15-SLC
TJ-
\r
— 1
1
„ ra . i— i «-i r-
fl-'-SLA
6-SIB
6-S1C
1 !
1 ^stA J
J
-
1_
1
•A
.LJ
n r
II L
13-SLB
Ll
I
•
r
\
r i t
12- SLA
I2-5LH
|O Cl C
1— i
• A
.
Cl A
o-s
o-s
— 1
[3 "
---
11-SLA
TT^STIT
11-SLC
9-SLA
9-SLB
9-SLC
8-SLA
8-Sl.B
8-SLC
LEGtNQ
SLA - 0-6"
SLH - 1.5-2"
SLC - 1-3.5'
: - PROPERTY LINE
—X— FENCE
APPROXIMATE SCALL
24 0 12
( IN FCEI )
I inch • 24 t|.
&EPA
Figure A-2
Phase II Soil Sample Locations
Wilson Concepts
Pompano Beach, Florida
A5
-------
TABLE A-3
Mllaon Concept*, Pen
,,i )IK;ANIC ELEMENTS
|I,\KIIIM
. llbALT
. IIHOM1UM
(-I'l'LR
.Hl.YBDENIIM
lllCKtL
1 LAD
I.TRONTIUH
'1 ITANIUM
VANADIUM
KITH I KM
ZINC
MERCURY
ALUMINUM
MANGANESE
CALCIUM
MAGNESIUM
IRON
SODIUM
EXTRACTABLC ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) FHTHALATE
fllRGEABLE ORGANIC COHPOtWDS
TOLUENE
1-SI.A
09/24/81
KG/KG
56
1 0
93
1.0
39
1400
36
5. 7
2.6
* 2
1200
12
110000
570
650
350
UO/KO
8200
UO/KO
--
1 SL8
09/24/91
MO/ICO
--
30
--
—
3.4
ia
--
--
310
200
10
620
"
UO/KO
--
UG/KO
--
1-SLC
09/24/91
MO/ICO
1.4
55
25
20
—
--
--
--
320
1200
--
260
"
UO/KO
--
UG/KO
--
•pane B*«ch, Florid*
2 -SLA
09/25/81
MO/KG
4.6
4.1
i.;
--
41
21
1.3
J.5
--
430
1.4
2400
19
160
"
UO/KO
6100
UO/KO
--
3-SLA
09/24/91
MG/KO
51
4 1
a. i
23
/ .5
2300
Zt
4.6
2.3
r. a
640
3.7
160000
240
400
530
UO/KO
--
UG/KO
--
3-SLB
09/24/91
MO/KO
7 1
2.9
66
12
—
34
24
27
3.2
1.6
660
25
2900
38
390
"
UG/KO
.-
UG/KO
5.3J
3-SLC
09/24/91
HO/KG
1.0
--
1.6
--
—
13
14
—
--
--
110
--
1100
--
160
"
UO/KO
..
UO/KO
--
6-SLA
09/24/91
HG/KO
3.0
2.1
12
7.9
1.4
10
6.9
36
22
1.2
12
690
6.0
5600
93
430
** ~
UO/KO
_-
1 ,
UO/KO
3.6J
8-SLB
OB/24/91
MG/KO
1.4
2 1
- - "
2. 1
240
35
--
--
--
330
2.9
23000
300
150
~ ~
UO/KO
--
UO/KO
--
6-SLC
09/24;
HO/KO
4.7
4.6
IB
4.0
140
23
—
--
6.9
o. ia
360
2.3
laooo
73
200
UO/KO
.-
UO/KO
--
••rnOTNOTES***
II HOT ANALYZED
i:r
-------
TABLE A_3cont.)
INORGANIC ELEMENTS
BARIUM
COBALT
CHROMIUM
COPPER
MOLYBDENUM
NICKEL
LEAD
STRONTIUM
TITANIUM
VANADIUM
YTTRIUM
ZINC
MERCURY
ALUMINUM
MANGANESE
CALCIUM
MAGNESIUM
IRON
SODIUM
EXTRACTABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
HEXADECANOIC ACID
PETROLEUM PRODUCT
Hi lion Concept •, fcmpfno •••ch, Florid*
7 -SLA
09/2S/91
MB/KG
4.0
2.6
0.9
U
7.6
720
26
4.3
1.7
10
1100
0.0
66000
2*0
610
230
UG/KG
3000JH
N
7-SLB
09/25/91
MO/KG
3.4
1.1
3.6
2.6
2.0
--
39
34
2.4
1.1
--
1100
3.6
100
42
470
*" ~
UG/KG
-.
--
7-SLC
09/25/91
MO/KG
1.3
--
1.3
1.0
--
--
9.3
24
._
--
1.0
too
--
620
--
60
"
UG/KG
--
a-su
09/25/91
MO/KG
7.6
2.4
37
7.4
1.0
24
7.4
140
28
3.0
2.6
9.7
1600
12
13000
220
1200
"
UG/KG
--
--
6-SLB
09/25/91
MS/KG
2.1
7.4
2.6
--
-_
--
a. s
9.6
--
1.7
.-
--
370
1.4
610
14
110
"
UG/KG
--
--
6-SLC
09/25/91
MG/KG
--
--
3.6
--
--
--
11
1.6
--
--
3.7
--
120
--
990
--
58
...
UG/KG
--
--
9- SLA
09/25/91
MG/KG
9.7
1.2
7.6
16
--
4.0
19
630
11
7.2
1.9
34
0.06
660
17
90000
490
1600
260
UG/KG
--
"-
9-SLB
09/25/91
HG/KG
3.9
4.6
6.7
10
--
7.3
9.9
330
10
1.6
2.2
12
-.
640
3.6
23000
140
430
110
UG/KG
--
--
0-SLC
09/23/91
MG/KG
3.3
1.6
--
--
--
--
40
4.8
1.3
1.2
--
--
360
--
090
--
130
"
UG/KG
--
--
10-SLA
09/25/91
MG/KO
4.3
--
4.3°
--
--
--
--
2100
27
3.0
2.3
--
1100
3.2
160000
310
330
370
UG/KG
--
--
10-SLB
09/23/91
NO/ID
2.9
--
2.3
--
—
--
--
700
9.2
1.3
1.5
--
--
630
1.1
44000
72
130
190
UG/KG
--
10-SLC
09/23/91
MG/KO
r.3
--
--
--
--
.-
3.7
1.5
-.
--
--
- -
170
--
570
--
130
"
UG/KG
--
--
PURGEABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
NONE DETECTED
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
•••FOOTNOTES"*
NA - NOT ANALYZED
J - ESTIMATED VALUE
N - PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF PRESENCE OF MATERIAL
-- - MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
A7
-------
TABLE ^_ 3lcont. )
Analytical Re.ult. lor Ph»«« II Boil 8«-pl«.
Hllion Concepts, tonptno B*t.ch, Florida
INORGANIC ELEMENTS
BARIUM
COBALT
CHRGMIUH
COPPER
NICKEL
LEAD
STRONTIUM
TITANIUM
VANADIUM
YTTRIUM
ZINC
ALUMINUM
MANGANESE
CALCIUM
MAGNESIUM
IRON
SODIUM
11 -SLA
09/25/91
MG/KG
3.6
42
37
41
59
20
160
7.6
--
13
80
440
61
16000
78
340
11 SLB
09/25/91
MG/KG
3 7
—
29
1.2
--
60
42
--
2.4
17
4 BO
12
5100
30
230
1I-SLC
09/2V91
MG/KG
1 3
L .
--
--
54
15
--
140
--
600
140
12 SLA
09/25/91
MG/KG
5 1
4 1
34
27
51
B90
12
31
20
33
160
4 6
84000
290
350
290
12-SLB
09/25/91
MG/KG
42
42
--
1100
16
2.7
30
1500
21
72000
140
430
300
12-SLC
09/25/91
MG/KG
2. 7
—
I.S
--
61
4.3
23
3. 1
500
--
5BOO
26
300
13-SLA
09/25/91
MG/KG
4.4
4. 7
5.0
2.2
5.5
190
19
1.2
15
5.4
830
5.9
26000
150
500
13-SLB
09/25/91
MG/KG
15
--
--
5.9
25
--
--
--
160
--
460
--
100
13-SLC
09/25/91
MG/KG
1. 4
2.5
--
17
23
--
1000
--
970
15
95
14-SLC
12/04/91
MG/KG
6.3
—
16
--
25
30
1.7
1.8
560
1.6
1700
20
300
15-SLA
09/25/91
H9/K0
S.I
4.9
9.1
• .7
7.9
5.8
130
8.9
18
11
840
6.0
9500
73
550
15-SLC
09/25/91
MO/KG
1.6
--
--
--
84
11
480
--
5200
51
74
EX TRACT ABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IKS/KG
BIS(DIHETHYIETHYL)METHYLPHENOL
PHENAMTKREHE CARBOXYLIC ACID, OCTAHYDRO-
DIMETHYL(METHYLETHYL)METHYL ESTER
1 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUND
UG/KC
DC/KG
800JN
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
800JN
UG/KG
UG/KC
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG UG/KG
800JN
20000J
PURGEABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
TOLUENE
(H- AND/OR P-) XYLENE
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
"FOOTNOTES*"*
NA - NOT ANALYZED
J - ESTIMATED VALUE
N - PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF PRESENCE OF MATERIAL
-- - MATERIAL HAS ANALYZID FOR BUI NOT DETECTED
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
5 3J
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
7.3J
14J
UG/KG UG/KG
>
Afi
-------
TABLB A- 3( •-<">»•)
Analytical R«»ult« (or Ph»> II Soil
Hi lion Concept*, Po*pano B*ach. Florida
INORGANIC ELEMENTS
BARIUM
CADMIUM
COBALT
CHROMIUM
COPPER
NICKEL
LEAD
STRONTIUM
TITANIUM
VANADIUM
YTTRIUM
ZINC
MERCURY
ALUMINUM
MANGANESE
CALCIUM
MAGNESIUM
IRON
SODIUM
EXTRACTABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL> PHTHALATE
PETROLEUM PRODUCT
16-SLA
09/25/91
MG/KG
9.2
0.66
1.4
IB
e.s
11
8.*
55
a. *
1.3
4.3
2000
0.52
2800
iao
4000
71
690
"
UG/KG
--
--
17 -SLA
09/25/91
MD/KG
4.0
--
3.0
1.6
12
--
7.2
28
3.1
1.1
22
--
1100
7.0
1200
27
300
"
UG/KG
6800
N
18-SLA
09/25/91
MB/KG
6.8
0.82
3.6
180
25
9.5
12
170
11
2.9
1.0
48
0.06
710
14
27000
220
1400
1)0
UG/KG
--
--
601 SL
09/24/01
MG/KG
-_
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
12
--
--
--
130
"
UG/KG
--
--
602-SI
09/24,
MS/KG
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
HA
NA
NA
NA
HA
NA
HA
HA
UG/KG
NA
NA
703-SLC 71S-SLC
09/24/91 09/25/91
MG/KG
1.1
31
2.1
17
29
1.0
130
2.9
1400
460
UG/KG
MG/KG
1.9
1.9
77
21
490
4800
SO
90
UG/KG
PURGEABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
NONE DETECTED
UG/KG
UG/KG
"FOOTNOTES"*
NA • HOT ANALYZED
N - PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF PRESENCE OF MATERIAL
-- - MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
A9
-------
TABLE A-4
Analytical Results'" Cor Phase I
Ground-Water Samples
Wilson Concepts, Pompano Beach, Florida
WELL LOCATION:
OROANICS:
1,1-Dichloroethane
AcHune
bii(2 Elhylhexyl)
phlhiUle
Trichloroethylene
INORGANICS:
Aluminum
Ancnic
Barium
Calcium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganeae
Nickel
PoUuium
Sodium
WCS 1
13
23
170
378
-
15.6 J
110,000
-
1,490
--
840 J
65.4
1,000
WCM
—
18
--
130
4,630
12
32 6 J
115,000
14 1
4,770
3.9
1,6101
98 9
65.7
2,000 J
WCS 12 WCS 13 WCD 14 MCL
12 NE
NE
4"'
5
280 NE
50
18 - 2,000
100,000 110,000 47,000 NE
100
1,700 1.200 230 300"
NE
2,000 1,600 8,800 SO1"
16 NE
NE
1,200 NE
6,100 8,200 3,500
FDWS
•
NE
NE
NE
3
NE
50
1,000
NE
50
300"'
NE
50"'
NE
NE
160,000
FQWOC
2,400
700
14
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
150
NE
NE
(I) All reaulti in
(2) Propoaed MCL
(3) Secondiry lUndirdi
FDWS Florida Drinking Witer SUndird
KJWOC Florida Oround Wtler Quidtnce Concentration
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
NE Vilue doe« not exiit
All
-------
TABLE A-5
Analytical Results of Phase II
Ground-Water Samples
Wilson CoacepU, Pompano Beach, Florida
WELL LOCATION:
MW-I
TW-J
TW-4
MW-S"
WCS-I
WCS-ll
rows
FOWOC
INOKOANK7S
Ahmnn
Barim
C*lcim
Iran
Miiraiun
UliUMir
Malykdcnn
Satiaa
Strcmim
Tiwwo
Yuifam
Zioo
44»
-
54.009
1,100
520
-
-
2,400
560
12
-
II
170
19
14,000
520
1.400
20
70
4,«00
1,000
II
-
-
46O
17
34.000
590
620
-
-
1,300
410
-
-
-
WO
-
51.500
130
1.650
-
-
7.650
743
17.5
-
-
300
16
120.000
150
5,200
II
-
19,000
1,400
20
-
-
no
14
120.000
no
I.IOO
to
-
1,60)
410
14
-
-
199
24
17.000
670
1.200
51
-
10.000
TOD
12
-
II
200
22
(7.000
1,700
1,400
23
-
5,000
1.000
-
-
-
120
11
97,000
1.400
1.300
27
-
5.00
1.200
-
-
-
-
II
69.000
290
I.MO
-
-
9.900
tio
-
II
-
. HE
7,000
NE
MO<1>
HE
3O (31
NE
HE
HE
HE
HE
5.000 (3)
NB
1.000
NE
300(3)
NE
50(1)
NE
160,000
NE
NE
HE
5.000 (1)
NE
HE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
fUROEABLE OROANKS
ChbfCellBlB
Sulft» Diaufa
2.61
46
NE
75
NE
NE
NE
75
NE
NE
2.400
NE
6.100
NE
EXTRACT ABLE ORUANICS
MKDiax!tol)c9okteulka>dia»
HrtT>inWhjl)nWtvlf*x»i4
Uin*axOi)\&*n*
CbkHcdianhylpttml
D«lt»k™«h>Bx«ua»
DityiodkMtvUnfciB
Dnxlyl bamac
rXavlivlftm*
EibyUvttfcr Knout
UfOiflfnfi^xam
Noaylltod
raiakaa tiatact
ItWtoUW^o,—
__-_-_--_ JIN
-_ &JN
_-------- UN
--------- 7IN
_________ 11H
--------- IOIN
--------- SIN
--------- UN
_________ 21N
-_ - - UN
-.- - - - - - 51N
__-_--__- 2JN
_- _ _ UN
- UN - - - 2JN
-.- - - _ ' - 20IN
-----N---N
--------- 101
NE
HE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
HE
NE
NE
NE
HE
HE
HE
NE
NK
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
HE
NE
.NE
NE
NE
NE
HE
HE
NE
HE
NE
NE
HE
NE
NE
NE
HE
HE
NE
NE
HE
NE
HE
(I) Roulu In ft/L
(7) RefOrted M the •vtm|» of Mtf^fe wi ihylkale MaplB <
II)
NE
A12
-------
Figure A-4
Phase I Air SanpHof LocaUona
Wilson CoKepte
Pompano Be«rh, florida
VtCtMO
QD STOKU DRAINS/CAICM BASINS
Q.^ DRAINMtLO - APPHOXIMAll AHtAJ. EKUHI
*— nnci
pRoeisnr UNC
• AIR SAJJFli LOCAI10M
40
_-)
A13
-------
TABLE A-6
Summary of Air Sampling Results
Wilson Concepts, Pompano Beach, Florida
'••
Simple Location:
Traffic Report Number:
Caniuer Number:
Date Collected:
Panuaetcr
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethina
1 , 1 -Dichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Chloroethane
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
350W.233S
31149
S3
8/21/90
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.0
ND
200W.250S
31150
S2
8/21/90
ND
ND
ND
ND
3.9
2.9
ND
OW.100S
3IISI
S9
8/21/90
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3SOW.238S
31154
S5
8/22/90
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.6
1.0
ND
200W.250S
31155
S6
8/22/90
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.7
ND
OW.IOOS
31152
S8
8/22/90
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
350W.238S
31153
SI
8/24/90
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.2
4.7
200W.2SOS
31156
S7
8/24/90
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.8
0.7
2.4
.OW.IOOS
31148
S4
8/24/90
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.5
ND
OC/MS
Detection
Limiu •
ppbv'1'
._.
—
_..
1.0
1.0
5.0
5.0
0.7
01
0.7
ND Not detected
(I) Part* per billion volume
A14
------- |