United jStates
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROO/R04-86/018
September 1986
Superfund
Record of Decision
Sapp Battery, FL
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
("(tat 'tad /lU/I'VClIO'U 0" Iltt 'f!vtnt btft»f! co,""ltllfllJ
1. ",'O,.T NO. I~' 3. "'ECI"'Ef\j"'S ACCESSION 1\;0
EP~/ROD/R04-86/018
4. TIT!.! ANO S"'8TITI..Ii 5. IIIEPO"1' OA1'E
SUPERFUND RECORD OF CECISION SePtember 26, 1986
Sapp Battery, FL s. "EIIIFO"''-4IN'' Ol'lCANIZAT'ION COOE
7. AuTMOIIIIISI' 8. "ERFOR'-4INC Ol'lCANIZArION ~e"o"'r-.o
9. fOEAFOA'-4INC OACAf\jIZATION /ljA'-4' ANO AOORESS 10. ""'OCI'IAM E\.EMENT '<0
;1' CON1'I'IACT/CAANT,,
-------
EPA/ROD/R04-86/0l8
Sapp Battery, FL
16.
ABSTRACT (continued)
insitutional controls will be assessed and implemented during the Remedial
Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA) ohase of the oroject. Estimated capital cost of the
selected remedy is $14,318,544 with annual O&M costs of $25,631.
-------
,1tO S7~"
~'" t'ol'
",. . ..
~ I.. I 'i
S~}1;j
~~.... , '- ~~..
i'"~ ,+>
~"'( PROIt.C.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
.345 COURT1.AND STREET
ATI..ANTA, GEORGIA 30365
MfMORANIXJM
DATE:
SEP 2 G 1086
SUBJECT:
Record of Decision for the Sapp Battery NPL CERCLA Site,
Jackson County, Florida
FRa1:
Chief, Remedial Action Section
TO:
Jack E. Ravan, Regional Administrator
THRU :
Richard D. Stonebraker, Acting Chief
Emergency & Remedial Response Branch
Patrick M. Tobin, Director TJrljJL~:-
Waste Management Division
~7
The attached Record of Decision (ROD), when signed by you, will constitute.
the Agency's official selection of a permanent remedy for the Sapp Battery
site. The recommended alternative includes:
- Excavation and solidification of soils/sediments which contain contaminant
levels higher than those set in the Risk Assessment.
- Depositing solidified material into an onsite disposal cell built to
Florida Class I Sanitary Landfill Standards.
- Removal and treatment of contaminated groundwater in aquifers underlying
the site.
- Long teon operation and maintanence will include:
- maintenance of onsite disposal cell
- monitori~J of potable water wells within
a one~nile radius of the site.
There are several c0mplete routes of exposure, such as deonal contact,
ingestion of contamin~ted groundwater and possibly soils. Selection
. and implementation of this remedy will permanently restore the gr-ound'....ater
and would rerrove exposUt"e pathways.
The State of Florida has concurred with the Qroposed remedy and has agreed
to provide funding for 10% of the Remedial Action which is estimated to
have a present worth cost of $16,552,209.00.
'.
-------
-2-
I recannend that
Decision, there
you approve this memorandUi\ and the attached Record of
of 'cially selecting this remedy for the Sapp Battery site.
-#
7-.;2~-?~
DATE
CONCUR :
-/1) ~~
Richard D. Stonebcaker, Acting Chief
Emergency & Remedial Response Branch
9~~/J<-
, DATE
CONCUR :
Q1u.LL: /17 -;t£;~~
Patrick M. TObin, Director
Waste Management Division
o 'I f - U
7-"-""'<>
-------
RE(X)P.D OF DECISICN
REMEDIAL ALTEPNATIVE SELEcrION
SITE
Sapp Battery Site
Jackson County, Flo~idn
ccx:uMENTS REVIEWED
I am basing my decision primarily on the followinq documents describing
site specific conditions and the analysis of effectiveness and cost of
the remedial alternatives at the Sapp Battery site:
- Remedial Investiqation ReDort, FOER, January 1984:
- Initial Remedial Measures Program, Soil Sampling'
and Analyses, ESE, June 1984
- Surrmary Report, Ecolooy & Environf'1€nt, ,July 1986:
- Feasibility Study ReDart, Ecology & Enviro~ent, Auqust
1986.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED PEMEDY
Excavation of. soils and sediments containing contaminant levels above
those set in the Risk Assessment.
Fixation of the excavated soils/sediments and onsite disposal of
the solidified matrix into a cell built to Florida Class I sanitary
Landfill Standards.
- Groundwater removal and tr.eatMent of the underlyin0 aquifers.
- Treatment and dischar-ge of contaminated surface '..Jater from the onsite
sw~ and the offsite Steele City Ray area
Needed institutional controls will he assessed C'\nd imfllernented
durinq the Remedial Desi0n/Remedial Action (RD/RA) flhase of the project.
- A monitor orogr~ for ratable water wells located within a one-mile
radius of the site.
- Operation and ~1ainten;:\r.cp. (O",~1) activitiAs will inclucie:
- groundwater rnonit0dnq.
- maintenance of onsite rlisDosal cell.
- A labor.atory study will be performed by EPA's Environnental Response
Team to assess the aprlicC'\bility of the soils washinq technology at the
site. Sh~Jld the results be positive, consideration will be given to
integrating the soils 'Hashing technolO1Y into the selected remedy. The
laboratory study is expected to take approximately two montr,s to complete
and will be undertaken immediately upon the availibilty of funding.
-------
DECLARATIONS
'Consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) and the National Contingency Plan (40
CFR, Part 300), I have determined that the above described remedy for the
Sapp Battery site is a cost effective remedy and provides adequate
protection of the public health, welfare and the environment. The State
of Florida has been consulted with and agrees with the approved remedy.
The State has furthermore agreed to provide its 10% cost share for the
remedial action and, at the appropriate time, to take over the maintenence
of the onsite disposal cell and the post remedial action long term monitorinq.
I have also determined that the action being taken is .appropriate when
balanced against the availability of. Trust Fund monies for use at other
sites. If additional remedial actions are determined to be necessary, a
Record of Decision will be prepared for approval of that action.
SEP 2 6 1985
Jdr,~
Jack E. Ravan
Regional Administrator
Date
'.
-------
SECTION I
SITS LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Sapp Battery Site occupies an area of approximately 45 acres in a
rural part of Jackson County, Florida. It is located approxDnately 5
miles south of the town of Cottondale and two miles north of the town of
Alford: it is Dnmediately north of Jackson County Road 280 and ~ediately
west of the Atlanta and St. Andrews Bay Railroad tracks (see Figure 1).
Currently, about 15 acres of the site are covered by two surface water
bodies, which are connected by a small channel (see Figure 2). All that
remains of the Sapp Battery Recycling Facility is the plant's concrete
foundation. Surface water runoff is controlled by a series of berms
around the southern and eastern boundaries of the most heavily contaminated
area. There is also an approximately 5 acre area liner over the area
directly south of the existing foundation: this liner covers the area
that was excavated by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
(FDER) during their Initial Remedial Measures (IRMs). On the northwest
edge of the site, surface drainage is directed into the offsite swamp.
Directly across County Road 280, is Steele City Bay which receives drainage
from onsite surface water bodies. All of the above described features
can be distinguished on Figures land 2.
-------
" rfford^^'fe*"^*'-
FIGU72 1
-------
i-
.. "I" NORTHWEST
......' . # ,~lANDFlll
, '.~' :~. 1 't6'-J
t-J1~f: UIIl1 \'r .I'-~ ;;:'" Ir-&)
, . SIl:~,II' ~ " '\.J
~i" ~//
Y ~A::K WEIGH"
SCALE ~ .
.
~I
"'I HOLDING "" fORMER fACilITY I, ,..
~ ! :r~ . : ~r. 8 "","'ON .. ~l 'I:
!",J ~... ) I.
! fOAM"~ r)"~~'.. # -~!,'.'f I.;
I -'ESI~(NCE L . - J' ,I . \,., ,j.;;
. L\.J't,] , . ~ -,' . . .:. -.:.' ,'.'-,- ;
! ::-...JC'-:/1- '. )tl!{;_"!~",.! '_~lf,I:~'~"~ I]
L . .J~ ..... - -, I
-.---.'- .-- .-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-..:;..:-;;;..:;;..-' '-'~ .~,"'.:_- ---
- - '-'''- --.." . ,- ...."" ...--- -I:'~,,,:~,..'.:I :iUII" '--'--'--/'-. ~~,;':~I ',~;',; -'I~'~~ : '-~I-lr-' - . '.
- ----------.-..1. ..---
,
)
\
...,
H
([I
'd
t, ~
tJ
o ..0
... "
0111
.-
&c. Al E
100 41111 600 ADO' I I 1
._~.- .--::.-- :'::::.--
'.n tOU ,',18 /IIU Mt ,t nt;
- .'
~
-------
SEcrION II
SITE AND REGlTLA'IORY HIS'IORY
Sapp Battery Service, Inc. initiated their operation of crackinq open used
automobile batteries to recover lead in the year 1970. Beginning as a
small operation, the business at its peak employed 35 personnel, occupied
14,000 square feet of plant (of which now only the foundation remains)
and processed about 50,000 used batteries a week. Standard Operatinq
Procedure for dealing with the wastes was to dump the acid from the
batteries outside the plant; where it ran southeast into the west swamp,
which drains into the East and Southeast Swamps, and eventually under
CR-280 into Steele City Bay. The broken battery casings were primarily
disposed of in a man-made fishing pond that was north of the plant and
alongside the boundaries of the West Swamp; however, there is a profusion
of battery casing chips distributed over most of the site.
By 1977, ~~e acid discharge from the plant had started to kill the cypress
trees in Steele City Bay and beyond. The FDER received its first complaints
about the situation in the spring of 1978. In response to enforcement
actions by FDER, the Sapp Battery management undertook several steps to
alleviate the problem. The more significant measures included:
1) digging the large Holding Pond for the acid wastewater directly south of
the plant; 2) using the fill excavated from the pond, constructing a "berm
south of the West Swamp; and 3) dredging a channel to connect ~~e West
and East Swamps. Subsequent inspections by FDER confirmed that these
measures had failed to remediate the problem and FDER followed with a
series of legal actions. In January of 1980, Mr. Jerry Sapp, the owner
of the Sapp Battery Salvage Company, abruptly closed down the business
and, in effect, walked away from the site.
In response to citizen concern about hiqh acidity and lead concentrations
in Steele City Bay, the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) undertook emergency cleanup actions under its Clean Water Act
Section 311 provisions. The actions undertaken were: 1) the existing
berm was built up and extended to the east; 2) an additional berm was
constructed north of the plant areai 3) the chipPed battery casings
between the Holding Pond and the West Swamp were bulldozed into a pilei
4) one ton of hydrated lime was disked into the soil; 5) two trenches,
one south of the West Swamp and one between the Holding Pond and the West
Swamp, were dug and filled with lime; and 6) a lime slurry was sprayed
into the Holding Pond, the West Swamp and the CR-280 culvert. However, pH
values returned to their previous low values within a short while.
In 1980, in an effort to combat the problem of remediating abandoned
hazardous waste dumps, Congress enacted the comprehensive Environmental
Response, compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). The Sapp Battery site
was proposed for inclusion on the National priorities List (NFL) in
October 1981 and included on the final NFL when it was published in August
1982. In September 1982, FDER negotiated a Cooperative Agreement Grant
-------
to implement a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) at
, the site. The original grant size was $235,000.00; this was supplemented
in 1983 with an additional $50,000.00.
FDER chose to conduct the RI portion of the project internally. The field
work was accomplished in the spring of 1983. The field work included a
comprehensive samp~inq program of the shallow soil, the battery casing
disposal areas, both onsite and offsite surface water and sediment, and
groundwater. The results of these sampling activities are given in detail
in the Final Report - Sapp Battery Site - Remedial Investigation, FDER,
January 20, 1984. In general, the results indicated that onsite soils,
surface water, sediments and groundwater were heavily contaminated with
several heavy metals; most notably lead.
Concurrently with the RI, EPA had tasked its REM contractor, NUS to
conduct a very limited sampling expedition and produce a focused Feasibility
Study. However, when the draft document was received, it was agreed by
both EPA and FDER that there was not enough hard data available to support
implementing a remedial action. Consequently, the draft document was
never finalized and this effort was terminated.
In December of 1983, FDER contracted with an outside consultant, Environmental
Science & Engineering (ESE), to conduct the FS. As the first task of the FS,
ESE was to produce a document assessing the need to implement any Initial
Remedial Measures (IRMs) and what form these proposed IRMs would take.
ESE submitted several proposed IRMs to FDER in January 1984. FDER in
turn identified additional IRMs that FDER felt would be needed and, in'
February 1984, submitted a request to EPA to fund the state identified
IRMs using Superfund monies.
Although EPA was not opposed to bnplementing IRMs at the Sapp Battery
Site, EPA disagreed with the extent of the proposed IRMs that FDER requested.
As a result, EPA informed FDER by letter in March 1984 that the Agency
~ould be able to fund same, but not all, of the IRMs that FDER had proposed.
FDER rejected the-EPA offer and instead implemented their selected IRMs
using the State of Florida's Water Quality Trust Fund. The federally
funded RI/FS was put on hold.
FDER completed the following IRMs in mid-1984: 1) erecting a 6 feet high
fence around three of the 4 sides of the site (the northern side was left
unfenced because it borders a marshy area); 2) draining of the holding
pond and the onsite treatment of 176,445 gallons of contaminated water
fram that pond; 3) excavation and removal of 9195 cubic yards of contaminated
sludge/soil, mostly in the area of the holding pond; 4) construction of
a berm and a weir to control stormwater runoff; 5) backfilling the holding
pond area with clean fill fram the northern part of the property. An
attempt was made during 1984 to separate and recycle the pile of chipped
battery casings and debris but due to operational problems, the recycling
process proved non-co?t-effective and the majority of the chip pile was
disposed of offsite. A temporary cap was installed over the excavated
areas in early 1985.
-------
. Having stabilized the site, FDER renewed its FS efforts. Because the
original RI effort had not completely delineated the extent of the
contamination, EPA and FDER agreed that an additional more extensive
sampling effort was needed to support a decision on remedial action.
accomplish that goal, an additional $394,000.00 was allocated to the
Cooperative Agreement grant. This took place in May 1985.
To
During the early part of 1985, FDER declined to renew the contract with ESE
and instead selected Ecology and Environment, Inc. (E&E) to be their new
FS consultant. A scope of work for the additional sampling tasks was
agreed upon and the additional field studies were accomplished in the
latter part of 1985. The two reports resulting fram this effort, the
Summary Report for the Field Investigation at the Sapp Battery Site, E&E
February 28, 1986, and the Feasibility Study Report for the Sapp Battery
Salvage Site, E&E February 1986, were submitted at the end of February 1986.
The first draft of the Feasibility Study reauired extensive work before it
could be used to select a site-specific remedy. The revised FS Report
was submitted to the Agency on August 15, 1986.
-------
SEcrICN III
CURRENT SITE STATUS
SITE GEOUX;Y
In general, there are three aquifer systems in the vicinity of the Sapp
Battery Site: the confined Floridan aquifer system, the overlying semi-
confined intermediate aquifer system, and the shallow, unconfined surficial
aquifer system. In addition, possibly two or three more localized semi-
confined hydrostratigraphic units occur within the intermediate deposits.
The shallow surficial aquifer system in this area of Jackson County lies
within Pliocene-age sands and clays and Holocene- to Pleistocene-aqe
undifferentiated marine, fluvial, and terrace materials. In general,
this aquifer system is present to a depth of 10 to 30 feet below land
surface, and is confined below by the upper impermeable clayey layers of
the intermediate aquifer system. This aquifer is in direct communication
with the surrounding cypress swamps: hence, water levels are commonly
very near or at land surface in low-lying areas.
The semi-confined intermediate aquifer system lies within the Pliocene-
and Miocene-age clays, sandy clays, and clayey sand seauences, which
exhibit great variability with respect to texture and continuity. This
aquifer system ranges in thickness from 30 to greater than 100 feet. The
great variability of the intermediate aquifer reflects the undulating
surface of the underlying limestone as well as the presence of filled-in
sinkholes. The major potentiometric surface within the intermediate
aquifer slopes to the south-southwest in the western portion of the site
and to the west in the eastern portion of the site.
The Floridan aquifer is thought to be 400 to 600 feet thick. It has a
gentle easterly flow: with a hydraulic gradient of less than 0.01%. The
additional field work confirmed the conclusion that several sinkholes
breach the Floridan aquifer system at the site.
BATTERY INVESTIGATION
In the RI. one of the major tasks was to determine the extent of the
buried battery casings. The results indicated that there are approximately
23,000 cubic yards of buried battery casings.
SOILS INVESTIGATION
In the original RI, the site was divided into four areas for the purpose
of soil sampling. A total of 31 soil samples were taken from eleven
different depths at eleven different locations and analyzed for lead,
cadmium, antimony, manganese, copper, nickel and aluminum. The results
can be seen in Table 1.
-------
'rl\f;lJ~ 1
Metals Analysi9 - Shallow Soil Samp I e9
S.lpp Bilt~
I I
Metals Concentration (mg~l
Soil S amp Ie Deptn.
I. D. 11 (feed Pb Cd Sb Mn CII IIi. Al
--
AIl- I - 1 0 - 0.5 84,490 11. 2 114 n IS '). 1 'i, (,0/.
AII-I-2 2 - 2.5 14,120 0.) <9 6.4 15 Q 1.5,10')
AII-I-) 5 - S.5 ),714 (0.2 < II 7.7 18 7. I <)6 , 97 1
AII-I-4 8.5 - 9 623 <0.2 < II 9.0 18 ).1 t./J,IA7
I ,
I I AII-2-1 0 - 0.5 (.6 <0.2 <9 5.9 7.7 ').2 2IJ,')07
I AII-.2-2 2 - 2.5 5.2 <0.2 <8 4.5 6.4 \ . 7 36,1 \Q
AII-2-3 5 - 5.5 8.6 <0.2
-------
'fIUJI.£ 1 (c:ont)
Metals Analysis - Shallow Soi t Sam~
Sap~atte!:1.
Metals Concentration (m~
Soi I Sample Depth
1.D. II (feet) Pb Cd Sb Mn Cu Ni Al
-- _.-..-
AII-8-1 ) - 3.5 204 <0.2 <8 28 6.8 4.3 3",2')9
AII-8-2 5 - 5.5 92 <0.2 <9 12 5.) 1.3 )/1 , 91 'J
AII-8-) 8 - 8.5 422 <0.2 <12 1J 5. I 4.5 lO,OllO
AII-9-1 4 - 4.5 77 <0.2 19 2.1. 1.0 0.7 J,RR2
AII~lO-t 2.5 - 3 331 <0.2 <8 7.2 3.3 'I. ') 2I,OR'1
AII-IO-2 6 - 6.5 13) <0.2 <10 6.) ).r, ') . 7 ll'l , 7 I II
AII-II-l 0.5 - 1 10.4 <0.2 <10 122 I.. 0 ').0 :'0. ',111
AII-II-2 5 - 5.5 6.6 <0.2 (10 6.7 6.8 ') . () '. I . (11'\ II
AII-II-) 9 - 9.5 10.5 <0.) < 16 8.6 5.4 '). ') ')1,0'.1
I ;
-------
Three of the soil samples underwent a modification of the EP Toxicity
Test. The details of the testing procedure can be found in Chapter
Five in the RI. The test results are in Table 2.
The results of the RI soil sampling documented extensive lead contamination.
As a result of this, FDER decided to implement IRMs. To define the
extent of their proposed soil cleanup, FDER implemented an additional
soil sampling program. A grid was laid out, as shown in Figure 3, and
approximately forty-two soil cores were taken and analyzed for total
lead. The details of the sampling locations and the results of the
analyses can be found in Table 3.
As can be seen by examining Figure 3, the sampling effort encompassed
only the area of the site in and around the holding pond, roughly south
of the plant foundation and west of the West Swamp. This was the area
targeted by FDER's IRMS and, in fact, over 9000 cubic yards of this
contaminated sludge/soil was removed and replaced with clean fill.
Sampling in the immediate area of the holding pond was done before the
fill was put in place and the remaining lead levels were residual. After
the fill was in place, a synthetic liner was put over the area.
An extensive surface and subsurface soils investigation was undertaken
during the Additional Field Investigation in 1985. Detailed information
about the results of the latest study can be found in the E&E summary
Report. However, a general sense of the areal and vertical extent of the
contamination can be had by examining Figures 4 through 8. These
figures show the levels of lead that were found at each of the sampled
depths. .
In SUITUt'ary, gross lead contamination of the surface soils (0-0.5 feet)
is generally restricted to the western half of the site. In c~\trast,
gross lead contamination 0.5 and 10 feet below land surface is, for the
most part, restricted to four areas: the Northwest Landfill, northeast
of the plant foundation, between the West Swamp and the plastic liner,
and south of the West Samp and plastic liner. The high lead concentrations
in the first three of these areas appears to be correlated with the
occurrence of greater thicknesses of battery chip fill; whereas lead
contamination in the southernmost area is probably a result of its being
located in a former surface drainage path.
SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT INVESTIGATION
For the Remedial Investigation, a total of twenty sampling stations were
established: four onsite and the remaining sixteen in the drainage area
of Steele City Bay and Little Dry Creek. At each station, a water and a
sediment sample were taken. The exception is at Station 100 where only a
sed~ent sample was taken.
The water samples were analyzed for a number of parameters. The specific
results can be seen in Tables 4 and 5. In general, it is very evident
-------
EP T=xi:ity
~... -... - -
...'~~
- Se1eccec Sha11o~ Soi: Sa~=:es
S.:Jpp Ea~cer\' .
Analv:ical Results mg/l
So i 1 Samrle
1.D. " As Ba Cd Cr Pb Se
AII-I-2 <0.005 <0.5 <0.05 <0.C5 7.28 0.02
AH-4-2 <0.005 <0.5 <0.05 <0.05 0.23 <0.0:"5
1\11-6-1 <0.005 <0.5 <0.05 <0.05 11 .31 <0.005
.
-------
-:1.-". -
;
~ ,... . .
s ~ .
,. -
.:. '. .:.' .., - . ~ . .
- - -
::.s~
. .,
- . -
-" .."
~:: :. :
~ ., '-. .' --
'. - - -: '01 J
~ -=- : ~ ~ :- '"
to')~. = =:::
-:-:-:T;...
- -
. 'oj
~ ~ '.. ~ ~ :-
( ~ - J
.... . '.
r. . :
" -
- . .
.,
"
, .
-------
-'----------------------
---------------
-----------
------
-----
:: '% ~ ... . - . . 'T C. 'T 'T = , . ...
.:, . . - -
: :. : :' : "I. [. :! l;. 1: .. "I ~ ~ :! '%
. . - . -
,, = .. ' - - , r: l. ! ': ~ -. " ,
- :...<:. . . - . .
,, ~ .; :: , "I " ? .. , ,.. - 1 . -: " 1 " . .., "I, ~. ~
- , - . .. - --
~ 7 ' ! ~ - .., ' ,, - ... 2= 7 - - . . ;: t" - .. - :.
. ,' , .:. c: . .
. 1 . .. - - 1: .. '4 - ,.. :, :', ' - - 62 ' --
- . - -
c. " ~ .,- . 10 " .. 7 c < ., - c. < ;: :
.. c: . . ::. . .
. - 2 "Ie. - . " ~.r. - " " - , .. - ~ 1: ., ~
~- ' . , .. - -'" . ...
t. t. .. ; "I 1" £: - " " ~ . r; ' "6 ,. " ' ; .
. " ~ - - - -
- , -<: r: - - - - l. - 10 ' '" - ,"I . " c '
.:. ..;, - .. '0 - .
7/0 - - - ,. i 1 't l. ~: - I: . ~ ' c. .:. "I
. I ~ . - - . .
7: ':t ':t .. - ! 2 't <2 c ,
-------
~.'-.-'I
I. .'
, ~:., :: ~:
----------
. "
. "
. =.
. .;
~"
:~
':~
~'7
.. "
., =.
., "
" .
" '
" ~
" ..
'. "
(; =.
to -=:
-
-
- -
T.:'':'~
(c:):-:~ )
(' - ... :
'Of - . -
'\ - <:'
~ ;. ":- I
: ~ <::
- ,..-
- -
- - . - ' -
I :-.. -
- - .. V ~
, '} - '. "..
-~C'.~
~I":'~
. --
( :' . )
.; .
=.
"
~
------
---------------------
--------
--------
----------
. - . . ::. ' e ': " . ':: :
.. 0 . - . .; , : :;.
~ ,. . , - ,, =. .. ~ F ( =
- - . . . . .
.. ., " . t:: ::. .- ~ . ,. 3 - :. :
.. - - ~
. , ,. " . (" ,. Q I. ? '. 6 10 ,, ~ =
. " ,. - . .
. ~ ~ -. C, Q ,. ~ 2 ? ~ j. =.
. . - . . ,. . .
,. '- .- . ~ 1: " . c:: c:: - .. =
~ .; . - . . - - . . - . ~
" " ~ ,. ,. . " . ,. ~ 4 . I? ': ' ., 10
~ .
' " . - i ' .. ,. " " 1 :' " ~ ! " =
.. ~
, r. C ,. c:. ,. ::, Q " 7 ~ .. ': ~ ..
"" . - . -
? i '" ,. ': " f: " " c. " .. ., .,
. . . - . . .. - - . .
.. - ~ . :' 1 ::' . . . =. ,. . .. . ::. ::. . 2
- - - - - .
. . . !' . ::. .,. ., ., 0 1 ,. 1 " 1 c::
, . - ~ - .
. '7 (" - ::. - - !' . :: t:: " -; i " "
,. - .' - . . . -
. .. - ,. "I Q ~ ,, 7 !' ~ c . . ::.
. . , . o' - . . ..
i " 1 c ::. ? ' c:: 7 ! ., t
.. . - . . . . . . - . . -
? .. ., . . = . c , = . ,, -: :.
.. .. . . . ,.
., ~ ~ ,. - ~ ' ., - , ..
., - .. ~ - ' . . -
1 " . ,- - c: ~ c - r: ., , " ::' .. - =.
- ,. . ,.
. .. - , - . ~ ::. < .. ::. : ( - ::.
,. " . . - .
. : .. - ., . " '" 1 ~ '7 - -
r:
~ =. ., :: - ,. - " - . ., - ., ::. ::
-.
.--
---
-------
L:::."
-- w
S7:~AC=:
AP.EA
I
~
.
40
.
"
.
'2
.
':)
UTT£J:lY POS" L
SmLJNG POND
J BENCH MAAK
.. ' '0.00
.
SO
.
52
.
51
.
53
.
81
-:-"'.'~: : :::-:-....:.<.::~
.
7'
"' .,
. . :',
. ..':)
1:'.. ACID POND. . X~J
'"',' .' -0 -,'.
:..'.-,-.. .'","..' ,',.';'
';,:.:,': :':'.~:.:'. .::,~ :~~.\..:.::~. ~":~':,':'''''~
.
I'
:s
r-.
2:
,
.
,.
.
':
.
16
.
2'
SI:
~.
. ;.&C;:{>:
:6 :':')~'~).::>:~'.:'~':'.:.:"": .
.
2S
.
25
.
3'
.
3S
.
...
.
'5
.
5'
/
l..
~.-.
I.u "
!
.
55
.
58
.
57
.
6'
.
55'
.
58
..
'I'
.
7'
.
75
.
76
WES7 SW':',I,I~
""",
.
u
,'''0,
.
85
,'1.
..'"
"""
",I.
. . . . .
" 92 93 " 95
~'" ""
. /
04
~~ 25 50 KEY
I FEE"!' . SOIL CORE LOC':'7ICN
SCALE
FIGU'?Z :3
SAPP BATT=~Y
HAZARDOUS WASI=- Si~=-
-------
".,,--
SA ./ './
0'. r'-,;;>
51 // .-,.,
FSA 7~. - -, f
05~; /'.:.- "~. /FSc.
/ . .01'
I "". - + ~94
FSA r - -. .Jo.. / ::In,
03 . .'" ~' - .. /
,,39?" /.... ~. ~ - t4=SE
, I - .-. : r02
,;' ~~. '. I - - - 13
,279 :- -:,-/
/ - .";"'..1
FSA J""'=-. - -1FSE
OS. t..' - I .03
41.000,)-:,...~ 174
F5A ' j.. -- ,
06. ' .., ........
55,000/- .~.-:--. ~~\
(, - ,,- -' FSE
SA /. - ". --- --: -\ .04
7"..... . 629
FSB 6fJ,80)'. -. -... - -. - - -:; \ .
~: 02. (- - - --. \ t r-. ~ ,...- ....' "" ~ ~
~ 8:3:30 I' F ~~ - -.. - - - -, " _.'. SE
.' I POND' 3°Jl,b6: - .4"""--'.""'--.':~OS
~." I I I" \. - . - .,"......, }300
~. FSa \. - - - - J R;~ r - ~ - .-~ _. ~: .7FSE
.~ 6~~:OO;' gg9d . - -- . . .:.:. r. 06
~. F S~ ' ~ 500 +- -.., / 283
..,:~780" "," "''',, , ~g,; L .::-- ;. -. '.- :.-;'
\"'"'" 'FSS" ' j;"1:>'~ ~:~ ~ ,;~~;
'~'",', , 'OS8 " /- ~. - -/' \110
"'O:L " ' ", 654 , ' , "",' FSA (-.; - >FSE
..<~/.,:.S43:::;;,' ;"..,.;i~~;~~;_7 ;~
. '."'.FS'B'.. .27'612-
. '-~";<.:~:., . .
.~.'. .,..'
E?::'~(:':"":
..," .0.2" .........
."" SAMPLE
: F~L
. 3020 01-
:'.: 9670. 2.4''-
~' SAMPLE
~ FSL
: 0:2.
.- NIl>.
.'
..-,
. '
FSG: '
S1 -
'. 19.200
.~ 22,700.
.'
.
.
.
.
I
.
I
I,
.
.,
.
.
.'
.'
.-
.'
.
I,
I'.>
.'
.
..
.'
...
.
FSG
, 71.
1680
FSG
91 e-,
636,
~
~
FSG
15.
'2
FSG
25.
22
FSG
62e
\02.
-LEGEND
F~a
2~.
3060
FSG
J3-
a1
FSG,
434"
, 1740.
FSG F-sa
53 -.54. '
2264 177
fSG' FSG
64 . 65 .
113,500 201
O Gre~tcr thon 79
mg/kg 01 Pb
NIA
Not Apolicable
FSG
35.
42
FSG
45.
68
"
."'-
FSG
73.
37
FSG
75 -
511
591
FSG FSO FSG
OS. RS8, 87.'
,1790 90.000 1180
22.300
FSG FSG FSG
95." ,96. 97 8
22 16,100 J640
169,000
FSG
82.'
830\
PLASTIC LINER
FSS
'6.
76
NOTE: Double numbers
indicate a duplicate sample
was taken.
o
50
100
SCALE
JOO 400
600FEET
160 METERS
200
500
...
o to
..c-
80
120
40
lEAD CONCENTRATIONS {mg/kg} IN THE A INTERVAL
(0-0.5 Feet) SAMPLES OF ON-SITE.SOll BORINGS
FIGURE 4
-------
. .. .0.2-. ....... . .,
.. SAMPLE
: FSL FSG
: 01. 23-
: " 2.4' 4790
. SAMPLE
: FSl
.' 02-
: N/A
.
.
"'
.",
.
.
.
.
."
o
.
.
o
."
o
o
."
.' '
.'
.
.,
.,
.' .
.
. ,,,
.,"
I
.,"
.'
"
'"
.~.
I'
.
FSG
15.
5
FSG
25.
6
FSG
35.
<5
- lEGEND
O Greater than 105
mgl kg of Pb
N/A
Not Applicable
FSG
45.
9
FSG
55.
107
FSG
56.
20
FSG FSG FSC FSG
66. 67. 68. 698
17 28 7 11
-
. :-
FSC', '
S18
84,200
FSG
658
220
FSG
758
:;1
FSG
718
212
FSG,,, FSG
76 8 77 8,
8:120 :194,0
FSG
798
6
FSG
78.
76
FSG
888
46
,. '.
FSA ".1."''''/'
018 """./
7 ,,'/' _--1
/' - ~.-I
/'. =--... I FSE
. / 801
FSA ....' . -' +/ 3,45
/- - - .....
0388 ,~, -' ';../
/..... ..:.~tf:SE
f:. - ,. ~, - /802
I ,.. 2
.-- -: ./
/ - .-./
- . -1FSE
058 -
111 - - -....J. 03
11:1 1--.... ~ 6
FSA /. - -- "-
OG . .. - ~
57.000/' --- ~ -- ~ \
SA r - - - - ;. -'. FSE
/. - --.-.-\.04
7' . - ..... - " 7
5.9?O -........ -. :;\
r .., .- - ~- '\
FSA --A - . - '", .' - FSE FSS
08-(..4.;.. .........-.',+ -:,'.. fl05 17.
2r.ap~ - - . '-:-' ;.,,;'''''.-.72:1/20
FSAr - -=-- .-"'J '...,.. - '~F' 5"
09., "- '"
~:l6 -.. ~...:. ' - ,:.. I .06 FSS
II- +. - '.....- - -" =- . / 1 0 1 a .
FSA L .:: - ,"'> ' . ~.....,
10 8 '" _. - :)
J . ,,,: - ". S"
J 86 - - - ,,- '"
.J-...,,,:,-- - .07
/'..., ~ '"' .- _/ 46
-'~ - ..,t=sE'
11. y,;. - -- 7' . OS
4750 ':-./ 170
FSA
'2:02
FSG
82.
17
FSG
91.'
3.42
FSA
048
25
FSS
16.
PLASTIC LINER
. "
..'
e,
o.,
e
..;~" F 58
eo., 038,,,,"
.-1~O "
."
.,..
8" .
.':i~,;:.
. .'
--- ~
(- \
I \
\ POND \
\ \
\ , I
,---
FSS
158
FSS
01.
.. FSS'
.., 06-
:, 3260 FSA
: 13 - :
"" 4735/8842" .
. " 0
.. ... . .
.~.........................
NOTE: Double numbers
indicate a duplicate sample
was taken.
o
SCALE
300 400
600 FEET
50
100
200
500
...
o 10
-~-
40
160 METERS
eo
120
LEAD CONCENTRATIONS (mg(kg) IN THE B INTERVAL
(0.5-2.5 Feet) SAMPLES OF ON-SITE SOIL BORINGS
FIGURE 5
-------
FSG
62.
6
FSG
71.
601
FSG
73.
20
FSG
82.
17
FSG
91.
258
FSC;
14 .
7
FSG
24.
10
FSC;
15.
4
- LEGEND
FSG
25.
6
FSG
35.
4
O Greater than 105
mg/kg of Pb
FSG
34.
3
FSG
44.
4
N/A
Not Applic~ble
FSC;
45.
4
FSG
54.
54
FSG
56.
23
FSG FSG
66 . 67.
6560 2S
FSG FSG FSG
75 . 76 - 77 -
95 25,300 5120
FSG FSG FSG
85. 86. 87.
58 46,700 9430
FSG FSG FSG
9S . 96.' 97.
115 872 5010
FSG
78.
59
FSG
55.
S9
FSG
68.
11
FSG
69.
8
FSG
79.
7/ <5
FS8
06.
42
--
~.... ...-
FSA ~:-:-;;;,
01. /.. -.i'
5//.~-1
FSG FSA / - ......;: (
888 02. /" . Fse
S 12 / ~ -~ - /.01
/"'-,,+/2
F SA /-. -, ."" /
03. ~. - '" /
85 ~ . ':'-- ~SE
t. - .-. _"'1.02
- . :.. 96
1:-- -:,./
I. .-4-:./
FSA ,..-' . -1FSE
05 . I, - - I .03
75 !-. '... ~ < 5
FSA .. \
Q6 .. ..- -.......
6560 /.. .....- -:-. -. ~~ \
r - -..:. -. ' ~ F SI:
SA / - -......., - \ . 04
~ . - ..... .. ..-.. 7
8; 1 ~ - - ...... . -. -= \
FSA~-: ;--. ~.;:-::;,JSE FSS
08 <'( - ~.. .-'. .... -' - .. 05 17.
12 300 _: 4- - . ". ~.... r
11:4()Cl . - . - .'A... 7 62
F'S-; r . "";.- .--':. .~: '7Fse
09 " - . - I
~~ - ~ ..;..- - - .06
If-. +~.-.-.-. ~ :+~./ 6
F SA I. .: . . . - . ~- . -:.. .../
J1~:1 ;::: -- ~' -:- ~SE
~... ..;, - - . '7 .07
/- 4-. .- ._/ 5/4
-..~ -/F:sE
". V - '.-,. .08
8140'~ 26.3
FSA
12-
661
FSA
13.
63
FSA
04.
120
FSS
168
PLASTIC LINEA
FSS
01.
o
50 100
.-.
o 10
- -
(--- --\
! \
\ POND \
\ ,
\ _/
'----
FSS
18.
FSS
1$8
NOTE: Double numbers
indicate a duplicate sample
was tak en.
200
SCALE
300 400
500
600 FEET
160 METERS
40
80
120
LEAD CONCENTRATIONS (mg/kg) IN THE C INTERVAL
(2.5-5.0 Feet) SAMPLES OF ON-SITE SOl L
BORINGS
FIGURE 6
-------
FSC FSC
14. 15.
7
FSC FSC LECEND
FSL
01. 24. 25. 0 Greater than 105
FSG mg/kg of Pb
FSG FSG
FSL JJ 8 348 JS 8
028 J
FSG FSG
44. 458
FSC
G8.
FSG
698
-- --
(- \
I '
I POND \
I \
\ -)
"----
...~.
FSA ....~.- /~
01. ,/ A I'"
",,/ .--1
FSG FSA /~......;. I
88. 02 8 / '. . FSE
4 25/ - ---1.01
/... _0.....1
FSA /- _..:. ....-/
03 8 Iii>-' A -/
9 I..... ,', - ~5E
t...-~ :/802
I:. ....:-;
/. ,+- /
L-w-. . -1FSE
, -....j 8 OJ
.. ~
F~p j - .-- ""'
oe /'.....--~
53:°/:.---: -. -.' ~ \ FSE
7' /. '... - - --, -.' 804
290/"' ._----.---:\
FSA.I':'-~ .:-. : ~~-:-: - ),SE F5S
O~ A.4 .'- 4-;:_. ~ -, - ,. 05 17 .
41=- -- - ..
, - - A . -.... -7
F-S~r . -:0-0-0:-: . 0....: '7~SE
0,,9 9 I . o' .:':.. I 806. F SS
f.. ~:.'.::"'-' ....':/ 188
FS~ !: ; - -4-. .: o~ -4.-/ .
10 I A . -. - - )SE
55 - - .../.:
,;. "".' ~.:. A .- 7' .01
/~ - -.. ,.,
A 0-.:: -=- . .~...?SE
,,_. '1;.. '-7 808
547 :.. /
SA
126~
FSG
78.
11
FSG
798
~
FSC
91 .
20
FSA
04 8
9
FSA
05.
~
FSS
168
PLASTIC LINER
.Fsa
068
FSS
158
FSS
018
NOTE: Double numbers
indicate a duplicate sample
was taken.
o
50 100
200
SCALE
300 400
500
600FEET
--.
o 10
40
80
120
160 METERS
- -
LEAD CONCENTRATIONS (mg/kg) IN D INTERVAL
(5.0 TO 7.5 FEET) SAMPLES OF ON-SITE SOIL
BORINGS
FIGURE 7
-------
-".
FSA ",."'-:' /'
o 1. /'-./
29// .-.}
FSC FSC FSA /'. --. f
870. a8. 02. / . . -. - FSE
344 6 31 / - -. - 1.01
F!:G I"'" - ..... I
97. FSA /-....:...-/
57' 03; f-' - .. /
/... .' ~ -- ~SE
! - ---. : / .02
I~- -:-;
/. .-./
c-- ... -1FSE
. -.J. 03
FSA' j. . ...':- '\
06 . .,- "-
928' j'" ~"""-';).
"A r;..-~"';' --'~ \ FSE
:;. J ~.. - - -. :\ .04
r '60/' -- "": ... -... ~ - - . -:- \
FSA.(-; : - ... ~~:~... 'hE FSS
0.!!.1--:'". 4.: '.':'" -. - f05 17.
~. . ... - . ... - ";'''''--7
FS-;r_-<;~_-"':. "':...".:= .7FSE
~ 1'/ -. - .- -:.. ( .06
~4;4~ ;:ht,:)"/"i 1::
Fsa ~- .:-- -7' .07
05. /- -,/
FSA (... - ~ :-"'1SE
11. \ - -.-;' .OB
190 "':.. '"
FSA
12.
60
FSA
13.
. 254
151
FSL
01.
FSC FSC
14. 15.
7
FSG F5C
24. 25.
FSG FSG FSG
33. 34. 35.
9
FSC FSG
44. 45.
FSG FSG FSG
54. 55. 56.
20
FSG FSG
64. 65.
33 10
FSL
02.
FSG
62.
FSC
71.
16
FSC
73.
FSC
82.
FSG
91 .
18
Fsa
01.
PLASTIC LINER
(--- ""'\
I \
\ POND \
\ \
\ _I
,---
Fsa
06.
FSS
01.
o
50 100
200
- ..
o 10
40
- -
LEGEND
o Greater than 105
mg/kg of Pb
FSC
68.
FSG
69.
-
~
FSC
75.
17
FSG
77.
947
FSG
78.
16
FSC
79.
FSG
76-
200
FSA
04.
11
FSS
16.
FSS
18.
FSS
158
NOTE: Double numbers
indicate a duplicate sample
was taken.
SCALE
300 400
500
600 FEET
eo
120
160 METERS
LEAD CONCENTRATIONS (mg/kg) IN E INTERVAL
(7.5-10.0 Feet) SAMPLES OF ON.SITE SOIL
BORINGS
FIGURE 8
-------
-:;.. =.T ,- 4
Surface ~ac~r Qualicy Resulcs
SC~~~arc Farame:ers
Sam? I e I Datc ~f To:al I Akalini:y 5 pe c if i c ,. :
Acidicy I mg/l . !
pH Conduce.nce SL:~!ice S'::~a:e '
mg/l . - I I
NlJm~cr Sam;111ng SU as CaC03 ur.\.,os!CIn C& .'1 -.... /,
I -!> - I
5\0'-101 5-25-83 3.2 10 0 1420 0 I 0-\ I
, .
r
I .
5.'-102 5-25-83 3.4 1.3 0 568 0 I I
170- -I
SW-103 5-25 -83 3.3 Nh NA 250 0 53
10-26-83 3.0 0.8 0 471 t;A t;A' I
I
5W-I0~ 5- 25-83 3.3 2.1 0 420 0 130 -I
SW-I05 5-25-83 4.2 0.3 0 76 0 ~ 13
SW-I06 5-25-83 4.2 0.5 0 56 O.!. ~9
,
SW-107 5-25-83 4.3 0.4 0 39 0.2 17
5W-I08 5-25-83 4.5 1.2 0 42 1.5 18
5W- 1 09 5- 25-83 4.4 0.9 0 70 0.6 32
sw- 11 0 5-24-83 4.5 0.4 0 46 0.1
sw- III 5-24-83 4.0 0.5 0 94 0 18
sw- 112 5-24-83 4.6 0.4 0 55 0 18
SW- 113 5-2~-83 5.7 0.5 Q.5 50 0 16
sw- 114 5- 24-83 5.1 0.5 6.6 67 0 10
sw- 11 5 5-23-83 4.3 0.2 3.9 63 0 10 -
SW-116 5-23-83 4.6 0.3 4.9 31 0.1 12
-
SW-l1 7 5-24-83 4.9 0.3 ,4.3 31 0.2 I 3.2
I
I 12
SW-118 5-24-83 4.8 0.3 4.6 33 0.1 '
I
51,.;-119 5-25-83 5.7 NA 14 33 0.1 I 9.1.
NA - ~aterial was not analy?ed.
-------
1'1- : - ~ 5 .
Surface ~acer Q~alicy R~sulcs
~~etal~ A"'.al"'sis
Date I ~etals Conce~~ra~ion ug/l I
Sac:~le of I I I Cd I I . I I
~;I..:""er Sa~:')le rb Cu Sb ..; As Mn I-.! I S~ I
".
S~-101 5-25-83 4 ,100 26 3 35 I 64 I 1 4,loOO 11 ,000 i < 1
5\<-102 5-25-83 5,100 10 8 3 10 4 480 9,1.~O 1
51,;-103 5-25-83 37 3 6 1 3 6 110 < 100 1
5\.1-103 10-26-83 100 NA <200 <10 NA <10 170 8,200 < 1
SW-I04 5-25-63 100 lo 2 1 1 3 270 9,40:). r-i'!"
~ .
SW-105 5-25-83 66 2 17 1 6 16 100 1,500 < 1
5w-106 5-25-83 12 2 2 1 4 1 60 < 100 < 1
5w-107 5-25-83 18 l. < 1 1 5 2 40 loOO < 1
5w-108 5-25-83 21 2 2 1 3 1 130 8,000 1
5w-109 5-25-83 <100 :3 1 1 5 .6 60 8,100 < 1
51,,; -11 0 5-24-83 16 2 < 1 1 3 1 40 3,200 < 1
5W-111 5-24-83 34 4 5 1 2 5 70 9,700 < 1
"
5W-112 5-24-83 8 2 2 2 7 3 60 6,000 < 1 I
5w-113 5-24-83 25 7 4 1 6 6 60 3,600 < 1
5w-114 5-24-83 8 2 1 3 3 4 80 < 100 < 1
5w-115 5-23-83 9 2 < 1 1 7 4 80 < 100 < 1
5w-116 5-23-83 4 2 .< 1 1 3 1 10 < 100 < 1 I
5w-11 7 5-23-83 6 4 < 1 1 6 1 9G 600 1 I
< 1 1 80 I < 1 \
5~-118 5-24-83 4 2 1 2 2 ,OJO .
I I
, I
5w-119 5-25-83 31 2 (1 1 2 1 80 2~O ! 1
~A - material was not analyzed.
-------
. that by far the most contaminated surface water bodies were the Holding
Pond and the West Swamp. The lead content in the East Swamp, though
still fairly high, is more than 40 tbnes less than that measured in the
west Swamp and the Holding Pond. In all the remaining offsite stations,
the surface water did not appear to be highly contaminated with lead.
The metals values continue to fall as the sampling stations became further
removed from the site, by Station 115, they are only marginally above
background.
The results of the Remedial Investigation sediment sampling effort are
detailed in Table 6. In general, the highest lead concentrations could
be tound in the west Swamp, the Holding Pond and the West Steele City
Bay. As these areas were the prbnary receiving areas for the battery
acid effluent, this result was not surprising. The results from the
other sampling stations indicate spotty, highly localized areas of contamination
in Steele City Bay. As with the surface water samples, the sediment
samples further removed from the site were showing close to background
levels of contamination.
As part of the Summary Report priority pollutant confirmation study, five
surface water and sedliTIent samples were taken and analyzed for priority
pollutants. The results of the priority pollution confirmation study for
the most part supported the theory that selected metals are the only
contaminants of concern for the surface water and sediments. The IaN
levels of organics that were found could most probably be identified as
laboratory contamination. The exception to this is the finding of bis
(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate. This most probably can be attributed to the
leaching of plasticizers from the large volume of plasti.c battery chips
in the Dmmediate vicinity of these specific sampling areas.
No further surface water sampling was done~ however, an extensive sedilTIent
sampling program was implemented for the Summary Field Investigation.
The onsite sample locations are shown on Figure 9 and the offsite sample
locations are located on Figure 10. The sampling parameters are pH, lead,
cadmium, and antimony. For the purpose of clarity, the following
discussion of analytical results is divided into five geographical areas.
In the Northwest Swamp, five locations were sampled. In the 0-0.5 feet
depths, levels of lead in this area ranged from 110 to 520 mg/kg. In the
0.5 feet and 2.5 feet sample depth, the concentration decreased ranging
fran 25 mg;'kg to 70 mg!kg. Only traces of cadmium and antilTIony were
found in a couple of samples; in all cases, pH decreased with depth.
In the West Swamp, fifteen samples were taken fran five boring locations.
The borings were sampled at intervals of 0-0.5 feet, 0.5-2.5 feet, and
2.5-5.0 feet. The sample results indicate that the 0-2.5 feet layer of
sediment is still contaminated, with the worst contamination being at
the southern end of the west Swamp.
In the East Swamp, eight locations were sampled by fi.ve-foot oorings.
-------
-..- -. ---.-. ..----- -... -'-
TAELI: 6
Sediment Analv:ica! Results
S03mplc "h:c.,ls A~;'11)'si<; m~/kb I
I
Number I
Pb Cu Sb Cd ~i As !'in AI ." Se I
i
I
5D100 396 43 <44 <0.9 7.2 NA 11..9 59,868 SA i
I
I
14 , 590 < 8 1.8 3.4 12. 7 I
5DIOI 6.2 t-:A 15,817 ISA I
I
5DI02 4,354 5.2 27 2.9 3.1 NA 57 5,051 NA
SD103 90 30 19 10 <10 <1 4 1,100 1 I
SDI04 60 '0 1 10 20 <1 25 290 <1
SDIOS 18,700 31 34 <0.5 12 NA 101 :'7,579 NA
5D106 30 7 1 5 <10 <1 4 550 3
SD107 40 20 < 1 10 20 <1 11 1,400 <1
50108 < 10 60 < 1 40 <10 5 100 30,000 1
SD109 720 40 12 30 "30 <1 40 4,200 1
Sell 0 10 3 < 1 5 <10 <1 6 610 <1
SDlll 10 10 < 1 5 <10 <1 6 640 1
.
5D112 50 20 3 8 <10 <1 6 970 1
SD113 70 10 1 7 <10 <1 26 840
-------
I;
: '
I
,
I
.1
Ii Ir)
H
I I ~)
--
.
, 'J
l i
\;:>
I
I :
AhoUI 150 h.
10 HE
./
--"\--J: . ~~', ,,"--.', '.~Ol
--J. .- '.r
M- ~~.'-:"'f~ ;~.f~1-~~,~~~~ - -. -. - - -. -. - J - - -. -..., I
~ n.f . .&. ~ . \ .
) ~~-,~~~.:f IO~~:J " i ()-
~ ~ .
V. ~. :~. t D. tl-L! r:
t,.ijdJII\1~" " lj ~ - ,~'- ~,' ,',
, . \ 11'11.11' - . . '.. .
. '. - ,rM..-o", 0 ' fM 1~4.. -".' ~. fM.'
.. . I ~ (- . . I .-
~ . ~ . - . - .' f~W01' - .'. : ,-, ~ - , .
- ' -:' .' " ' tMII ~ ~ ,.' '. - .
F" r 0 I ~,LtF , !I'IIII'" JI, . ,_.' " '
. . ,. ..-..., .8 {Mil 1
47~l~. <-~ . r f;o~-ft'}J,~: ~ < ~
.. (,K05.' ~. -,','
- . I. -6- . <6"
- . - - .
. . 1 . ".; f J.
(.~ ~.
---- .
.
1 .
.
I
zl
.~
f OUNOA.JlON
Jl-U
:JI
t I
u
"
!?
..
II:
~
'::
z
....
:J)
.
..
10
SCALE
II "10 1110 ~OO (iIlO 80n
... :-..'-:::::'- .:=:-:-~'==--
!,II 1110 1',0 JIIII MI I [liS
._'~- ..
ON. SIT I: I\ND I\I>JI\CrNr SI OIMtN 1 SI\'MrU !.OCI\IIONS
.~
-- Il'caNO '---
.
'1 r. , ""I 1111,;"'1
..
III I...., ""';"9 .
.
S r tH)1 "011"9
.._- -.... - ..~. .'--
-------
, 'J
H
.;)
r::
a
~ I
1-'
o
LEGEND
n
...
. FMT 01
. FMU 01
. FMK 01
10 fool o.",h 8010"11
\
J ~ fool U.,uh Hortn"
~ r OQI O.p ,h 80. .n,
)
III
J
HIli
I" "
1/11"
\-~
'. ~,'~~~,!~" l
---.- '-.. .-=:-.::-::--:--:-- =-- ,
-, -.
o '00 !l00
. --=---
o 1 011 J(}()
...~:.- ~-
SCALE
:1000
)000 , t ( r
1000
400
""~
RUUM"'rRS
OrF--SITE SEDIMENT SAMPLE LOCATIONS
-------
"samples were taken at the same sample intervals as for the West Swamp.
In the 0-0.5 feet sample ranqe, only one sample was heavily contaminated
with lead; this was the sample location nearest the canal that drains the
West Swamp into the East Swamp. None of the deeper samples indicated
anything more than superficial levels of contamination.
In the Southeast swamp, three five-foot borinqs were taken and sampled
at the same intervals as the East Swamp. Levels of contamination were
similar to the levels that were found in the East Swamp.
A number of borings were taken fram the Steele City Bay and from the
wetlands area between US Highway 231 and Little Dry Creek. In general,
the same trend of lead concentration decreasing with depth that is found
in the onsite sw~s can also be seen in the offsite sediment samples.
The heaviest contaminated areas seem to be localized near the culvert
that used to carry surface water drainage from the onsite swamp areas
into Steele City Bay.
G~ATER INVESTIGATIOO
An extensive groundwater investigation was conducted as part of the
Remedial Investigation. A total of twenty-nine monitor wells were
installed in and around the Sapp Battery Site. This, in conjunction with
the boring program, the geophysical work and the pump test, provided a
comprehensive data base for the site.
Eleven wells were installed in the surficial aquifer. They were sampled
for a select number of metals as well as for the standard physical
parameters. The sample results indicated that the surficial aquifer has
been heavily contaminated with lead levels ranging from a low of 9 ppb
to a high 4300 ppb. The areas of worst contamination seem to occur in
the Holding Pond area and in the Northwest Landfill. However, almost
all of the surficial aquifer wells have been impacted by contamination.
Eleven monitor wells were installed into the intermediate aquifer. The
remaining seven wells were installed into the Floridan Aauifer. These
wells were sampled for the same parameters as the surficial "aauifer wells.
Though not as severely, the intermediate aquifer showed clear indications
of contamination. The lead levels were most seriously elevated, not
surprisingly, in the wells between the old plant foundation and the West
Swamp. The Floridan Aquifer wells in this area were also contaminated
with lead levels that were above MCLs.
When interpreting these results, one must take into consideration that
the area in general, and site-specifically, shows evidence of numerous
subsidence features. The conclusion of the RI is that the major vector
of migration of the groundwater in the upper two aquifers is vertical.
Thus, contamination contained in the upper two aquifers appears to be
-------
migrating directly into the Floridan Aquifer, which serves as the primary
drinking water supply for people in the region.
As part of the Summary Report Investigation, nine additional monitor
wells were installed and, then, all of the monitor wells were sampled
for the selected parameters. As with the RI results, all of the wells
indicated some level of contamination. For the surficial and the
intermediate aquifers, the worst levels of contamination occured primarily
in the west-northwest area of the site: sharing the same location as the
area of the worst soil contamination. Lead levels in the southwestern
and the eastern parts of the site seem to have either remained the same
or dropped off sanewhat.
Lead co~ccntrations measured in the onsite Floridan Aquifer system are,
again, highest in the western half of the site. Furthermore, the Floridan
system, for the most part, shows very large increases in lead concentrations
relative to those found in the earlier Remedial Investigation.
Lead concentrations in all three
in Figures 11 - 13.
aquifer systems are depicted graphically
Water level elevations in all three aquifer systems tend to support the
RI's conclusion that there is a strong natural vertical gradient that is
much greater than the shallow horizontal gradient. This would support
the downward migration of contaminants into the upper part of the Floridan
Aquifer system, especially where confinement is less effective. This
condition is sustained at the Sapp Battery Site.
PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT
As part of the original Cooperative Agreement Award, a program of regular
sampling of nearby residential wells was instituted. As of this writing,
there have been five rounds of sampling. There have been no violations
of Primary Drinking Water Standards for lead that have been detected so
far. However, there has been a general trend of increasing lead levels
in residential wells that are downgradient from Sapp Battery.
In 1984, the Florida Health and Rehabilitative Services (FHRS) set up a
program to test the blood of residents in the area for elevated lead
levels. Most of the people that were tested showed no signs of elevated
lead levels; of the few that did, none of these individuals had any past
connection with the Sapp Battery Site.
CLEANUP CRITERIA
The extent of the contamination currently on-site can be seen in Table 7.
As part of the FS process, indicator chemicals were selected. The indicator
chemicals were selected fran the list of contaminants found in each
medium and were chosen to represent the worst of the site contaminants.
-------
Cleanup criteria for the indicator chemicals were then set. Federal and
. State standards were used when applicable. Otherwise, a risk-based
approach was applied to develop site specific cleanup goals. The indicator
chemicals and the cleanup criteria are shown in Table 8.
During the internal review of the August 1986 Feasibility Study Report,
questions were raised concerning some of the ass~Dtions that were used to
develop the cleanup criteria. The major questions were as follows:
o For the calculation of the soil lead cleanup criteria, the assumption
was that 20% of lead is obtained from drinking water. The calculation
for the pRMCL that was published in the 11/13/85 Federal Register used
a different percentage.
o The antUnony soil cleanup criteria was based on the assumption that 292
ug/day was an acceptable intake from drinking water for an adult. In
fact, 292 ug/day is the total ADI for an adult.
Several other less pressing questions were also brought up. Accordingly,
same of the criteria may be revised during the design phase of the project.
These possible revisions would not impact the choice of remedy and would
not significantly ~pact that amount of contaminated material to be
treated. It is anticipated that approximately 95,000 cubic yards of soil
and 22,000 cubic yards of sediment would be treated.
-------
-
i
I
=
,',
"J
1.1
l:)
r:
,.,
II
I .
I'
! .
---
----------..---
til;l rill
.-
:-:.;-'- M~ ),JI: > ~ 0., 0 '. ;-.~'~-, ~~:--- - '--~- -- ____m'--- --------- ---- ----------'-,
;-... .--: 0 . .,~-:- 1,0 :.., " ," -/ .
\~/\' .':"-~ -r"-->~;'~~r~_o---,_o_O_-_J_._._" !. I
i (~~","-~'~~i:"~~)~') , ) i (h '
( --, 0 . . 6210 . . ,
"" ) '. .-. I 24illl ~ I ' ' -
. f':.:.', . {.~r0 (1\ . ~"'-
~,,):: 1111;" ':; "I' MW 11')<: 1--0 f f. -'I '- -, ... .\
. . .) II 'HI' - . U ;' .. . .
'., ,-' ~-~_:'\ I" 0 ' .//-(,"~) (' ": 'I" :.'.', :. "
',-,_....- ,. \ ()W~~IIC !.~~.'n~!! r.o.'" " -' '4'- ',' . '.' .:',' - .~ '.
, . .'UII . .' ." . .",
I J'- . I: ,'i 1\/ 1 "'-1"" . . I .'. .
IOU " nc l . .
. r. \ ~. ~ ) :. .,. .'.' . _...: ,'\':" . . a....
I ' ~ / I - "-' \) I
! ~ IfL, i;!.& q lCI ~<;' ,
;}! \ .;\ '''''' ,-. ."', ( /!o ;'.,; I /:
. l'tll;:'I/II~:"'" )-.. '0 ~ . r"w,rc -' - -,.', \. 'I (;
I III ";1,11 ',;I:E }lIr~ -I;' 1/' \ .'. ' I. ,'. \. :,\'\v 1/\'
(I' \ l.r I '1'11111 - . . .' --. '. . , ., - - .. .( I .
i "j \~~'<) \f' MWO(~: ' '\li~';:"'I\; ;' ")I~I~"~' ,2
, '\/ 'I\.1WI)C. r~~ _.11,. ()\,' :,'" '., ~ .'.' ." /'j
lo _/~. . - " .L. - 0 - . - - - . - . -. - . ..~ ~ .:.:.. .;~.:;, ,,'J -: ',,---" . I.
...." -,. -, .-,' I'...:.... II...,:. .'111" . . .. " \11 /II 'II I 1111 ' . : ,. t, II
- . - .... . - -,. - . -- . - . . -. - - ---.. .
-. '-"---""9-'------.'--"-
,-- _._._n_~
~;I' 1\ I r
CI ',II
/1111
-
IIflllll \ I
"-
.'IIU '.11 t I "',
I.ClII
411U
-
'-
...
It 'II ',tI
. - -
IIiU
1',11
---
. qn--ql ('I'
I.II.-I!; ".0
«) n n..-.I.('I- 11::111 :'t:,
i 'i..n r)()
() l(~,;:; U':II' :~()
]\.:;:;
till! f
tJ'I"'~""'''f .I)r\......hp,
'~H") 1t'\I1'" .'" .Itlfl"''' Itlf! "ne
all., ,.1.IV la, 1111,1" ""I' "",1111\
.... """''1'1 f '''~ ,,111'
tHllf 11,,1..,1.°1111...1"'1,
111,1,1 .'1" ,d"I.I.. ",' ,..tI"II~
.'~ 1\ 1 .It.. I'U
1 I 1\ II I: ( ) I' J 1:1 tJ I 111\ I\() N ~; (1'101,) I (\J M ( I N I 111111111 ; W I." ,I ~; ( 11'1 r J II I 1111 ' .111 : I III""
!\(}III/ I II :;Y\ II f\1
-------
"1
H
C, )
I:
, I
II
I'
: "
-------.---------.----.
--_._~ -------------'-----'-'------.- _._- ----.-
>-7.1 \ :-:.>:.c~ --_::'.~~-~:,~..'--" .'
,,-"'" .'. r--~7'-:--I.._._._._,---,_J_,_._--, I
') I .., '\. ) I f
I \~'~ ,,:'>~:'i'(;' ,~~~ '~/:(I i ' ( \)
l, " l.> ,
"" -' ,. ",IW n!lJ\ ' ,
':-J~:)~~, :. :'.!. ~~.]~} D ' ( , ~I~L,! ,r./<">,
("I:, 1/11,1',1 I MIVU'ln r0 p ~'" 'I,"" . .\
, , J II. )'If , . ) ( J . ~ \JP- - " . . "
. ," - , . ,..! ,Ii , fl' ,'"' , ' " '
", ..---- -\ 'I .-' " ~)... ; I' '-,'
'~-- - ,/ \ \ ') ('~ .' ~ " '.' " - '.'. . ~', '
i ; "'Y'~;'I;''-II'/" ~',", i -" ,
. .. / : l' ,,- , '. '. ' ,,~, ~ ,,', \ 'i ' . ,
J f1 " /',-j - ,.., ~ ,/' .711 L. .
i 1\ ,\ L _?~] (; ,{', ~~,;-(l r.II~/JlII \ ",~' ,
r.1\'I11!'I'tl'\\ r;II,I/lJII1~I-;-'mJllllt)""J l', ,MWI!01,\:;1 1 \',,:. I
',.I".I! \ II... ( '.1\. I,"). , ) "
,/ '", " \ ." \ '
;' I .. " "- Jl\ii.,l,'J ',IIV II 11111 I \. "", , :~
/1.1 f I ;) .1.11)0., . -;.' . IU . -
'/1' ~ " '~ ':"', ", O~'~';;:::};, " U r.IWU711 't',' ,"l \ ~~
1 . "011 (/ ) , , . ' t
. I .. 'I ... . .. ..
',1" : ... ..., ":,--' . ) .
I '),.)1,'1'1 "" --)' ."". " ' ,,:/', ",:' I;
. /11111~.IIIt\.\I'I' r A ....../ ...,' -.. - I-
I' 111~:II""1.1 11;11 f" /' ,~o - ,.\ . I' ("\ f. I.; (I
I,IWI:' 1\ , 1',' "- 'I" "; 111.'(' . . , :- ,J '-\1":/1
I,'~" ,~I ,I --... ~ ' r.1W (1',11 () , " . ';' , ", ' ' ,', ,/, ~
I\-. J, ., ~1IV(l1I1 \, ,(r.IIVI1/\ "1~! " " . - I' .. . Ii'
'': /" t/', , II, ,),,1;11/' 1\/. 111',111/'.' ,~
, )( ,~,II'I: \ MW 1:111 (,~~ 1\1\'111(,11 () " - ,'-, ","."',, ',. I.,
- ,- -.., L . - I -- !"!- ~~" JL - - . _I ~ - - - - -- - - - - - ~ - ~ ; ...:. . '-' -' I
.'-- ._, ..,
" dl
LIUI..lv II,..... :un
--.( ,
\//1/1,111 /III
-., -- ,_.. ..-..
.------..-.,-
~ ,I ' 1\' I
I) '.It
. . .
.'11'1
-
1."0
-
"11'.
-
IIItIl t. I I
-
Ullf
~ - -
'nil
I',"
:011 ".11 II "'.
I I 1\ 1 ) (' ( If II I f J I 11/\ I II II J \ (I'l'l 0) IN WI I I ~; ( 11'1 r J I (I II" If J I I It r.lI I 'I \ I I
~, ". ~; I I fl1
1
1 I 1,1 ""
. II!',":'! I':"
1 It; III 1 O')/)
":'I';'~";' 1.11,111 10",
. ,
Li 1:11 1 ~nl:'l
I",;:;
\" ,""'011"1' UloI:', r,O
I)
II ':::; :.1"'11 r,ll
, IJlIIi
rl"vl lilt,.. II.,. ...1..-,
1'1'\1'1"'1,,11', .11" ."'d." ,I"'j,,..,
,,1,.1 ",'1, .'.1..1,-,
1"- 1,. .11'1
1,.,.11...11'1"
IJtll1 I ".1.'. .". "
,. , .
. ,
'" ! I III I II
-------
'.
i~
I
I
'.
I
,I
III
I)
..
.
~
: '1
:'t
,,)
r:
: J
; J
1 .
( ,J
,
,1
'I
----
--~----- -..
11 LI 1111
..--.--- --'-'--'--~--.'
---\:\---:"~'-:'~~::" ' " "
, ..- -" '~ ," .. ~,' , .. ~ . ': . .. . /'
, ." .:;., -' . ".. . ' ". ' . .. -"/ I
\. "/ I .. '-'''','; / I
') ?,,':' \ r ";-=', ~~:-::- : \.. -.. - .. _.. - . _.. - - - J - . - . - - -, ,
I \.,~",,-:, '. j',' ~'-~0' 'F~.c i ( ~ )
, ( J .
''\ ' ," ,', ~, ,"'- / ,..
, {"" , ' " L- -, --'"
." - . 10 \.J "-' , (1 . .' "
~'I':'U:~"~": " ,.~\ JI f '\-'I'"~''' '
, ,) I,. ' ,I. " ) J \ J ,P ,-'.,
- ..' - .. ,,() - ,,:.-;' - . -,' -' . . ,
. '.-'--'-'\" (') 4', ,,".,"'-/\' ';1' . ,,",'
".: ", \ I " 0 - ('-' .. {,':',. 0 ,'..,
. J _.'~.'-'... ..- \-". '....~
() , ' ' 0' " ..' ,
I 1,1 \ 'j (1,1/\ : ,.- . I " ~, 1'1' I ,i,. - 0 ' , I " ' 0' " '
. . / ...'. . .. -. ..
I ' ,:0/ " '" "', " ,
. !"no < 0 ~ ' , / ", ;/ <,' '. ~, " ", /: ...' /') ),! 0 ' '. /
" ~ > III II) I " " . " '
,,11':1111 O'I~ \ \i'4l.',i, /'J ~ j, l,_< ) u f',,: - '
" - \'0 1.( 'f" \,J 1.11'1.'1/\ ,I " J
": I \ r 111','::-\1101/ ~H'11141\..'" I" '.' " '/'
:, I III \JIJ'\ (111'1 J.. \ ' ,
, " I' \ lilli' '( '< t' .r-' t, , ..
'I~ -'- ... '" /./ . ~ i \ '-" ,". , ~.
j ,,',) \. I,II'~ ,~:,.,ll " I \fl J,:'
/' , ,I 1"11 J ' , l'
,; I '~ ' ", t), ,-; , \" , ' ';
l : "/ II ,(/' /)....:" 11, ,1 ('
, 1 . 'I ' , ) ,
I \ : 1.11'1 1,'1\ .)':, ,:' , 0 I:~:' :i 0, ' \.'1/:
1 """1 II < .\1'1' '\ . ( \' \ -' \ ('/ ': '
, " ( . , -' flO ' . ,. 1,!lV ( 1\ ( J
I 1"',11:1':1' ~ / ", " , ','
J' / 1"11 ' '/' 0, ..
,1 " ........... .. . . '- ,J '-
, ,,\ I I .. (' "II"J 0',/\ U - . '"'' " I
\ 4 'n \ . . -' . ~. - \ . .. .. ~ - . . . '. . ... '. I ~
".." , . I I. , ..... .
! \~'!/' ".:-'" 11,1." ~ ,~)', }('/: III,' ~~I, I :"',1111:,,' ,',;
)( \\\ . 0' . I
....- l".\'~~I! ,... - - J\... . - . - . - - - - - ."~ ~';~."'! -i. '. .;....; -..::. J '..,' , , '~'o-', I
---.---
""""'-1 .... 1.1 .'11"
'..J II
,. ,
;,
',II '" /11"/111
"'. -...
'.""" --'
',11\11
It
. . .
'.It '1111
-
1I"1t f t I I
-
:PH ""I II " .
',n
111111
-
11111
"III'
-
,',U
"III
. - -
.
q"('.\ (.;'
! ! i.-111
1f)nn
4 )
fI: 'P,,,,,; ('1- I.: ::'n '/10,
: "'-' I' 1 'III!)
{p','.-!I ("I' '11;"\1) ",f)
J I ': : ~ ~
u
( )
I I'~ ,:: : 'I.II! ",11
tll) II
f"'''''llIt.." 1'1"'1111,.,.
11'1111 ,,- \'"'' ...t. ,tho",I' .fll' ,,,,,.
,,".1 ""1 C)",."I"
I"" 1""..11\
01,"1. I..,.... "'01 1II,It
"" II
fl"..t.I,' t......1 ".\
It.oI.
, d 1,.1,. II'
",1..
\..1\ I'
. It '"', I' I 1. I
I I /\ I ) (', >r ILl r'J I 11/\ I I ( ) I'll; (1'1'\ d If -.I \V I I I ~; ( )1'1 r J III I III I I I lit II I ,"\ rJ 1\ C " 'I I I II
~. y ~; I I 1.1 ,
-------
T1\BLC 7
U'C"' IT CON'AHIHAJlOH StHtARY
Conl.lnonl Concenlrallon Range (pP-, cJlcepl pit, ~I[h Is In pit mils).
[0., I romenl.' Hedl. M Aa Cd I't\ HI fib Sb pit SUlrA'e:t Re'~rence:t
Soils
. (h- sl l e 0.66- 2.0- 0.46- 2.66- NA A,n
NA NA ).01 NA 'HA 0),000 8)1.0 8.)4
,~\ . orr-slle NA 0.11 N> NA 2.) 8.81-
'~, lI9D.O NO NA NA A,n
','j',
'.. Sedlrar.n'lII
. 0,- III It e HA NS 0.49- 2.16. O.~S- 2.19- NA A
).01 NA NA 'lI,1oo 216.0 1.0S
. orr -sll e (front 198)) 1012.0- O.Oll- 2.ll-
8199.2S t() O.H NA 2.2 2)2.21 t() HI' NA A,C
Surhce Wltl er
8 (h.sHe NA 0.006 t() HA NO 0.0'''' If) 2.0- ) '.0- A,R,C,O,[
1/a).1 6.) 8'11.11
. O"..He 0.)0- 0.01_. ).4- ).2- A,C,O,(
6.60 t() t() 0.0) 0.0'8 2.86 t() S.t, 1 JO.O
. ,
-------
. I
I I
I
. I ~
~]\!H,E 7
(con t)
[n.,ironrrent.1 Hedi.
Cont .,,'nent Concentnt ion Range (Ppal. ellcepl ptt, ", ic" is In pli mil s).
AI
As
Cd
t\1
Hi
Pb
Sb
"'1
Sulratu
Re rt!fences
I .
I
Crounc1.teter
. tbnito r i 111) We lis (19 8S)
- Sur rid el I.S- O. 006~ 0.001- 0.078- 0.007- 0.118 ,.~- 10.0. A,[
28~.0 0.282 0.016 28.1 NO 4.96 8.2 1111110.0
- I nt e ""e.li.te 0.986- 0.021 0.002- 0.02~- 0.49S 0.006- NO J.O. 1.0. A,r
981.0 0.246 11.4 6.28 6.0 111100.0
- r lorillon 0.~S9- 0.014- 0.002- O.O,!}.. 0.028 0.012- tf) 4. ). 1.0. A,r
l1S.0 0.092 0.026 2.46 J.68 0.0 4111.0
. Res itle lit 101 Wells (198~) 0.0)8 O.OOJ- 0 . 004- O.OlS 0.007- NO 6.0- ?O. "\,0,1'
0.12S NO 0.008 0.296 0.0'9 8.2 111.11
Air NA NA NA NA NA 0.0.19- NA NA NA II.'
6.12
(mi\sI
uq/. )
References
A - [ & [ 1')0 S
n - r!if I?OS
C - r!il' 1')fJ S
o - lIe;~y Het eh '.'Ile rorce 1985
( - furR """,'!.'i"1 Illvest iqot ion
r - 011 HaledlJls Co.
(ShUon 14 only)
N'\ - Nnl A,IIIIYIe
-------
TABLE 8
Contaminants
Groundwater
(rrg/1 )
Surface
Water
(rrg/1 )
Soils
(rrg/kg)
Sedirrents
(ng/kg)
Air
(ug/m3)
AluminLU11 5.0 0.150 NA 3,966 N1\
Antina1y NA NA 248 NA NA
Arsenic 0.05 NA NA NA 1.2
eadmiLU11 0.01 o. 0008 5.2 143 0.5
lead 0.05 0.03 79 200 1.5
105
Manganese 0.05 NA NA NA N1\
Nickel 0.15 NA °NA NA NA
rH NA + or -1 NA N1\ NA
of normal
I
I
!
t
i
-------
.< ... - -..------. --.---------
--------. -- -- -- -- -
SEcrICN IV
ENFORCEMENT - SAPP BAITERY SITE
SITE HISTORY
The Sapp Battery Salvage Company was originally owned by Mr. Brown Sapp.
The company was engaged in purchasing used automotive batteries for
reconditioning and resale. In 1970 ~~. Brown Sapp's son, Mr. Jerry Sapp,
took over the company and began an operation which included cutting open.
old batteries to reclaim the lead for resale. Under Jerry Sapp's operation
the canpany grew from employing 6 employees to 85 employees. Approximately
12,000 square feet of building space was added to the site, in addition
to truck weighing scales, loading docks, chipping mills for breaking up
battery casings, and a lead storage are~.
The Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (State) began receiving
complaints about the Sapp Battery Salvage Company's contamination of the
steel Ci~y Bay and cypress trees swamp in the spring of 1978. The State
issued a Warning Notice to Mr. Jerry Sapp in July of.1978 and again in
1979 on an unpermitted discharge of materials. In response to the warning
NOtices Mr. Sapp made unsuccessful 1 attempts to alleviate the off-site
discharge.
In NOvember 1979, the State issued a Notice of Violation to Jerry Sapp
fo_r an unpermitted discharge of materials, water quality violations,
illegal discharge and illegal dredging and filling. EPA conducted a
cleanup action in August 1980 to correct the extremely low ph and high
lead concentrations in the Steel City Bay. However, by September of 1980
the low ph levels in the Steel City Bay had returned.
In January 1981, Mr. Jerry Sapp stopped operations, removed all the
structures, equipment from the site, and sold the land to his inlaws, Mr.
and Mrs. ~erdice Ivey.
The State received a final judgement of the Notice of Violation enforce-
ment case it filed against Mr. Jerry Sapp on July 10, 1981. t-Ir. Sapp was
required to pay the state $11,159,000 of which they collected $11,000.
The court found that Mr. Sapp had no visible means to fund the assessed
judgement and released him from further financial liability.
ENFORCEMENT ANALYSIS
EPA and the State entered into a cooperative agreement allocating
"Superfund" monies to conduct a Remedial Investigation for study of the
contamination caused by the Sapp Battery Salvage Site. The State has the
enforcement lead on the site with EPA tracking the State's efforts.
-------
In March 1982, CERCLA Sl04 Notice letters were issued to the potentially
. responsible parties (PRPs). PRP's at this Site include Mr. Jerry Sapp,
the Sapp Battery Salvage Company, and Mr. and Mrs. Herdice Ivey, the
current land owners. In April of 1984 EPA contractors, GCA, ~rformed a
financial assessment of Sapp Battery salvage Company. The contractors
found that it was impossible to trace the sale or transfer of Sapp Battery
salvage Company assets due to the State of Florida's and Jackson County's
recordiNJ requirements and procedures.
The PRP's on this Site are financially unable or ~nwilling to perform the
desired cleanup at the Site. It is recommended that the remedial design'
and remedial action (RD/RA) proposed for the Site be funded with Superfund
Ironies.
CONSISTENCY wITH aTI:IER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
The Site has been inactive since 1981. Prior owner's and operator's
business activities consisted of recovering lead from batteries. Waste-
water containing battery acid and dissoived heavy metals were discharged
to cement lined pits which overflowed into an unlined pond onsite.
Battery casings were disposed of in several onsite fills.
Sampling results have shown contamination of soils, surface water, ground-
water and sedunents on the Site with lead, manganese, aluminum, cadmium
and antirrony. Run-off discharges from the Site have adversely impacted
the Steel City Bay, resulting in an emergency cleanup by EPA. It has been
determined that contaminated waters from the Site are seeping into the
Floridan Aquifer. Residents in the Cities of Alford, Steel City and'
Kynesville, use wells located in the Floridan Aquifer and are thus
threatened by contamination. The Sapp Battery salvage site was placed on
the National priorities List on october 23, 1981.
Under Alternative No.5, The contaminated soils, and sediments will be
excavated. The excavated materials shall be solidified to toem a solid
mass of impermeability and placed in on-site disposal cells these lined
disL)Osal cells are to be constructed above grade in confoemance with the
State of Florida Class I Sanitary Landfill Standards and capped with a
liner and soils and revegetated. The solidification system will be
operated in conformance with RCRA standards for a waste treatment system.
The treated material will be managed as an industrial, non-hazardous,
waste. All excavated areas will be backfilled with clean material,
graded and revegetated.
,
Extraction and treaon8nt of yroundwater and surface water will be conducted
so that they meet the maximum contaminant llinits established by the National
Interim Drinking Water Regulations, State of Florida Drinkin] \~ter Regu-
lations, and EPA recommended maximum contaminant limits.
-------
-'.~~""""'"
-..------
.Surface application of treated groundwater and surface water would require
NDPES Permit. RCM Permits will be required for the groundwater treatment
facility. On site groundwater recovery and treatment will control further
miyration of contaminants.
Alternative No. 5 is a cost effective, technologically feasible and reliable
process which requires minimal long term maintenance. Bench-scale testing
of the solidification process will be performed prior to design and
construction to identify reagent dosage rates to insure effectiveness and
feasibility. This alternative effectively mitigates and mintmizes
damage to and provides adequate protection of public health, welfare and
the environment at the Sapp Battery Salvage Site.
-------
SEcrICN V
ALTERNATIVES CCNSIDERED
PRELIMINARY SCREENING
A vast range of remedial technologies were considered for inclusion in
the Feasibility Stu~y. As stated in the NCP, the preliminary remedial
technologies that were considered for Sapp Battery can be broken down
into two general cateqories: source control measures and management of
migration measures. As required, the no-action alternative was included
in the analyses.
The source control remedial technologies are as follows:
o
Disposal in secure landfill
o
Thermal treatment
o
solution mining
o
Neutralization/detoxification
o
Capping
o
Permeable treatment beds
o
Bioreclamation
o
Solidification
Because of their nature, several of the source control measures can also
be considered management of migration (MOM) measures for the purpose of
controlling surface water and sediment migration.
The MOM measures considered were as follows:
o
Slurry trench
o
Grout curtain
o
Water table adjustment
o
Plume containment
o
Groundwater treatment
o
Alternative water supply
o
Diversion/collection structures
-------
o
Regrading/revegetation
The preliminary alternatives were then screened based on the fOllowing
criteria: (1) cost; (2) environmental impact; (3) public health effect;
(4) regulatory compliance; and (5) engineering feasibility. The process
is shown on Table 9.
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
The remedial technologies that passed the screening process were then
grouped into a series of six remedial alternatives. Included in this
list is the mandatory no-action alternative as well as alternatives that
fulfill the requirements of 40 CFR 300.68 (f). The remainder of this
section is devoted to describing the remedial alternatives in detail.
ALTERNATIVE NO. I:
NO-AcrION
The no-action alternative would involve maintaining present site conditions
and continuing groundwater and surface water monitoring. The remediation
measures that have been undertaken to date would be maintained in their
present state, with the site fencing extended on the north side to
complete a full enclosure.
Additional monitoring wells to monitor the movement of the contaminant
phn-nes would not be necessary. However, the potable water supply wells
within a I-mile radius of the site should be sampled and analyzed regularly
(once a year) to detennine whether heavy metal concentrations in the
potable water supply reach levels which exceed the state groundwater
quality standards.
ALTERNATIVE NO.2:
OFF-SITE DISPOSAL, Gm~TER TREATMENT
The off-site disposal alternative would involve complete source removal
and the excavation of all contaminated soils, sediments, and wastes with
subsequent transportation and disposal at a RCRA-permitted secure landfill.
During removal operations, adjustment of the water table would be required
for those areas where the depth of the planned excavation exceeds 5 feet.
A French drain type system would be the most effective for this process.
Dewatering would also lower the moisture content of the contaminated
materials below the groundwater table, which would facilitate handling of
the materials for transportation by a licensd carrier with proper manifest
documentation to a nearby secure landfill. After excavation of the
contaminated materials was complete, the excavations would be backfilled
with clean, compacted fill, and then regraded and revegetated to control
surface runoff and erosion.
-------
PR(~ :!-!I ~:o,
'7.:.? ~: 9
S~F.~::': ",: 0-" c;;:~:> i':'~
~L:W..:'_:::~ s
r"I;1.:'~~O" ::.:'e:~.
("~~:O"'- Plot: :;.c
8I\el"itL ~.:~ro
CD'~ ~p,c~ (f (~C~ P~;\o::I~:S:;t (..:~,..~~:;-c :~ *: a:.-
P.e"'e~i.~ Tec-'l'\o~oC;Y 5T LT. 5T U. :o~;::..,.C! rris~:~:~'.': :..:~ ~:~
,. ~ 8Ction ) ) ~~,
2. Di8pou~ in leeu:. ~.ndf ill
. (Y.(-lite 2 2 ) 2 ) ) , '\'r,
. Or--lit. 2 2 , 2 " , Tr'
,. Thet'lll,l trllbllent 2 2 2 2 Z Ie~
4. Solution ainil'\9
. In-dtu Z , , " , 1 lOt)
. Continuoul Z , , " 2 2 T~ S
. Blt.ch procels 2 ' , " 2 , Ie
S. N~t:l~iZltiDn/d.t.oxiricltion 2 , 2 "'0
6. C.ppirw; , 2 2 2 2 ' , Yes
7. Pe~'b~e tre.tmel'\t bedl 2 2 2 2 2 2 "t)
8. 8i or.e 1..... tiOI'\ 2 " 2 ~
9. Solidificltion
I Cement-based 2 2 , 2 ) ' ) '\'r'
. Pouollnic 2 2 1 2 2 ' , "c
. Thet'lllophstic, or98nic
po ~ rille:', le~r -cement,
9 ~ISlif ic ltion 2 , 2 ) ) ) ~
10. S:urry trench 2 2 ~
, ,. Crout curtain 2 2 ~
n. W,b: tab:e Idjultrent 2 2 2 Yr,
111. P~Ullle cont.lil'1'ftent 2 2 'CJ
n. C: OUI'\d... t, e r Ind Surf Ice ..t.f!r
t :~.t.ment
8 Bio~og1cal 2 1 1 1 1 ) 1 ~
. Chell'licl~ oddl~ion 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 ';J
. C'lemic I~ reduct,10n 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 ~
. Hydrolysil 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 ':
. l1 :uid-l1quid solvent
u ~ act. 2 ' 2 '<:
--
-- -- --------~-
-:-:.- ---.,~--::,.-~.~--.~"~:,<=.-:- -->, .-".---"..,-'.
-------
:- .~ ..:: .-: 9 (':::-.:)
~ . a : ..n.. .:... ::~~f::'1
c,." . r:"'- ~..c~;:
t"'t~"~ 0: ....~ a:: "".
C:s ~ :-~a:~ ~'r~:~ : ~; -: a ~::-", :-;;-~'!:'~~ : . : i."
F.e"e~..l iec:~"'o:o~ 51 L:. S~ . '. ~ :-;. - ,-": ~ rpas.:.~:': :.:: :.: ro:
...
. ~e u~ r aU za U.on ' 2 2 2 2 2 2 Yes
. CZO""~10n.'Pl"Oto lysu 2 " 1 l ' ':
'
. Pn~'s10c::'\e"'.c:a: S~S~~~ 2 ) ) ) " ) ...! S
. !on exc:"II:-w;e 2 2 ) , : Z .~s
. L1QU1~ 101'1 ex:"Ian;e 1 2 ~ 2 ~ 2 : '=
.. ..
. Ite..e ~e OSIIIOS lS 2 2 2 , ) 2 ."es
. Ultrariltr.tion 2 2 2 , , / 2 2 \.es
. rr eeze c: r~s till. za t 101'1 1 " " 2 2 . -
'.
. Car~ol'l .dso rpt 101'1 1 2 2 2 2 2 ... \:
.
. Aeutiol'l 2 1 l ' 2 1 ':
I . R.o 1d ..nod r i ltr.tJ.on 2 2 2 : 2 2 2 ":
- . E:lectrolysis 1 2 ~ 2 2 2 2 '=
..
,
., 16. Altern.the ..ter suoo ly
t . T ie- i,., .i tn e"i.ti~ ..,.. tet'!l , ) 2 2 ~:
. L 01:.1 tre.tme,.,t/distr1out~0'"
Iy' tet'!l 1" " 2 2 No
. 0-\1 ne res 1de,.,t ~.l tr e atJlle nt
1 . ys t I!!'S 2 " 2 :3 '!'~S
17. Oi..ersion/collec:tion struc:tures ' 2 2 2 ~ ) ) ~~S
..
. Inter~ptor trend'les 1 1 1 1 2 ~
18. Regr Idi:-r;/:!'Weget at10n ' 2 2 2 2 ' ) "'~S
Key:
:> - r...orllb le
2 - rur
1 - ",r....o f.o le
-5T & ./"ert-ten!! 11110ld s
1.1 & long-term lInolc:t.
.....- .... ..
. ----
--=~.
-----
--~-
I -:.:::~.: ;-,~.
. .
-',-_.--'
-------
The recovery system for the surficial aquifer is estilnated to consist of
.29 2-inch diameter wells with depths of ten to twenty feet. This system
incorporates the existing site monitor wells. The reason for the larqe
number of surficial wells and the associated small diameter is that this
aquifer yields water at a low rate.
The recovery system for the Floridan aquifer would consist of a network
of seven existing 4-inch monitor wells. To recover deep contamination,
an additional 250 feet deep well would be installed.
A recovery system for the intermediate aauifer was not considered because
the pump test conducted during the RI indicated that the intermediate
aquifer system is lowered when the Floridan aquifer is pumped. In
addition, the intermediate aquifer yields only small quantities of water,
except in very localized areas. Thus, a large number of wells would be
reauired.
contaminated surface waters would be pumped from the west swamp, which
would be hydrologically isolated from other surface water bodies, to the
on-site treatment system. pumping of the surface water would not begin
until dredging of the contaminated sediments was complete, as silting of
the water during dredging might contribute contamination to the water.
In order to achieve the proposed discharge limit of lead in the treated
groundwater and surface water, the precipitation/sedimentation/flocculation
process might have to be combined with polishing treatments such as ion
exchange, reverse osmosis, or ultrafiltration. Such additional treatment
would increase the capital and O&M costs. Before any treatment facility
could be designed, extensive pilot testing would have to be conducted to
determine which type of treatment process was needed. Water removed for
excavation purposes would also be treated in this manner, which would
require installation of the treatment systems as the initial phase of
site work. Treated water would be discharged by surface spraying, piping
to surface water bodies, or injection into the Floridan aquifer.
contaminated sludge generated by the water treatment process would be
dewatered as required and transported to the off-site RCRA disposal
facility. post-closure groundwater monitorinq of residential and ~nitoring
wells, as well as surface water, would be performed, with site maintenance
as reauired.
ALTERNATIVE NO.3:
eN-SITE DISPOSAL, GROUNDWATER TREATMENT
This alternative is similar to the off-site disposal alternative except
that the excavated contaminated materials would be disposed of in a secure
landfill constructed on-site. The secure landfill facility would be a
double-lined landfill constructed to meet 40 CFR 264 standards with a
leachate collection system and an ~rmeable cap to minimize infiltration.
All contaminated soils and sediment excavated from the site would be
placed in this facility. Studies to determine the possible adverse
-------
. environmental and public health effects during construction and operation
of an on-site facility would have to be conducted prior to implementation.
As with the previous alternative, groundwater from the shallow, and
Floridan aquifer zones would be withdrawn via permanent withdrawal wells
to be installed after closure of the secure landfill and site regrading.
The withdrawn groundwater would be treated by precipitation, sedimentation,
and flocculation processes before reapplication to the site by either
spraying, surface application, or injection into the Floridan aquifer.
The shallow aquifer groundwaters would be withdrawn by a series of well
points as discussed for the previous alternative. Surface water from the
west swamp would also be pumped and treated as in Alternative No.2.
Excavated areas would be backfilled with clean, compacted fill before
regrading and revegetation. post-closure monitoring of the residential
and monitoring wells and surface waters and site maintenance would be
performed as required.
ALTERNATIVE NO.4:
CAPPING, ALTERNATIVE WATER SUPPLY
The capping alternative would serve to isolate designated on-site disposal
locations for contaminated materials. Areas containing contaminated
materials outside the disposal locations would be excavated with water
table adjustment as required and transported to the disposal area.
Contaminated sediments from the surface water bodies would be dredged and
allowed to drain prior to being transported to the area(s} to be capped.
The shallow contaminated soils from the east side of the west swamp would
be removed by scraper pans and hauled to the areas to be capped. Drainage
water from the dredged sediments would be allowed to drain back to the
bodies from which the sediments were dredged. No on-site treatment of
water is considered in this alternative, as dewatering for excavation and
groundwater withdrawal would not be performed. The cap would consist of
a 2-foot thick layer of compacted claYi covered by a 2-foot layer of
soil. The cap would be revegetated.
The area that would be covered by the cap encompasses virtually all areas
between the western site boundary and the west swamp, and includes the
contaminated areas in the northwest corner of the site. The existing cap
south of the plant foundation, which is exposed and is showing signs of
deterioration, would be covered by the new cap. This capping scheITle
would eliminate the need for deep excavation of contaminated materials
and dewatering and treatment of withdrawn water (the cost of extending
the cap over the areas of deep contamination with a vegetative cover is
less than the cost of dewatering and excavating an eauivalent area). All
areas to be capped would be cleared and grubbed.
Because long-term groundwater or surface water treatment is not a part of
this alternative, an alternate water supply would be provided for nearby
potable water users. The low population density of the area makes
individual treatment units the only viable way of providing an alternate
water supply.
-------
.Once capping was completed, the site would be regraded with uncontaminated
soils and revegetated to control surface runoff and erosion. Post-closure
groundwater sampling and analysis of monitoring wells, surface water
monitoring, and residential well monitoring would be performed with site
inspection and maintenance as required.
ALTERNATIVE NO.5:
FIXATION, G~TER TREATMENT
Chemical fixation involves mixing contaminated soils and sediments with a
matrix material to prevent or inhibit transport of contamination by
leaching.. Type II or Type V portland cement (sulfate-resistant) is
possibly the most cost-effective matrix material suitable for fixation.
Sodium silicate may be added to reduce the permeability of the final mix.
As with the disposal alternatives, the contaminated soils and sediments
would be excavated from the site. Dewatering of the areas to be excavated
would probably be required, and dewatering of the excavat~ sediments
might be necessary to facilitate handling. The excavated contaminated
materials would be mixed with the cementatious matrix material, and placed
in an on-site disposal cell built to Florida Class I Sanitary Landfill
Standards. The excavated .areas would be backfilled with clean, compacted
fill, then regraded and revegetated.
Groundwater and surface water would be pumped and treated in the same
manner as described for the disposal alternatives, as well as process
water from dewatering the excavated sediments and areas to be excavated.
If the sludge from the groundwater treatment process could not be chemically
fixed, then it would be disposed of in an off-site Class I facility. The
treated water would be reapplied to the site by spraying, piping to nearby
surface water bodies, or injection.
Extensive pilot studies and bench-scale testing of the effectiveness of
the chemical fixation process would be required before implementation to
determine the opt~ formulation which would prevent the contaminants
from leaching. As with the other alternatives, post-closure monitoring
of groundwater, potable well water, and surface waters and site maintenance
would be performed.
ALTERNATIVE NO.6:
SOILS WASHING/FIXATION, GROUNDWATER TREATMENT
Solution mining involves pumping solvents, reactants, or chelating agents
through a contaminated soil or sediment to flush out the contamination,
then treating the flushing agent to precipitate the contaminants. This
process can be performed in-situ, or the soil can be excavated and treated
-------
by a batch process, or by passing it continuously through the treatment
'stage. The batch process is recommended because of the greater control
over contact tUne with the contaminated soil, and the greater degree of
mixing this method permits. It is anticipated that up to 50% of the
contaminated soil could be treated with this system. The remainder would
be solidified and disposed of onsite as in Alternative 5.
After the groundwater table was adjusted downward by pumping, the
contaminated soils and sediment would be excavated and treated with a
chelating agent (i.e., EDTA) to remove the lead. The soluble lead is
then recovered from the EDTA and the EDTA is reconstituted for reuse.
Extensive bench-testing and pilot studies of the soils washing process
would be required to determine the effectiveness of lead removal and to
prevent the resolubilization of elemental lead. After treatment, the
flushed soils would be backfilled into the excavations and compacted.
Soils washing would remove primarily solubilized lead adsorbed onto
soil particles and very finely divided lead particles. Larger, discrete
particles would not be affected by the solution mining process if a '
chelating agent were used, but could be dissolved with acids or strong
alkali. Relative costs of soils washing are difficult to determine
because of the proprietary nature of the process and its limited application
to date.
As witn the disposal alternatives, contaminated,groundwater would be
pumped from the ground by means of permanent withdrawal wells and well
point systems to be installed on the site. The process water from the
solution mining, contaminated water surface, 'and the pumped groundwater
would be treated by precipitation/flocculation/sedimentation processes
along with neutralization before reapplication to the site. The site
would be capped to reduce infiltration, and then regraded and revegetated.
Post-closure groundwater monitoring and site maintenance would then be
performed as required.
RELIABILITY AND IMPLEMENTABILITY OF ALTERNATIVES
The six alternatives were evaluated according to the engineering feasibility
and long-term reliability of the respective alternatives. The following
summarizes the findings.
Alternative One - There are no engineering requirements; therefore,
ilnplementability and reliability do not apply. Consequently, the achievable
level of cleanup is zero.
Alternative Two - Soil borinqs would be required to determine the limits
of excavation work to be required. Bench and pilot scale testing would
be required before design and implementation of the groundwater treatment
facilities.
Implementing this remedy would require temporarily dewatering the surficial
aquifer and some clearing of the land surface.
-------
Excavation and offsite removal is considered a very effective technique
. for treating contaminated soils. With proper design and maintenance,
the groundwater treatment system should be fairly reliable.
Alternative Three - This alternative would require the same special
engineering considerations as Alternative Two. In addition, a secure
RCRA-type landfill would have to be designed.
In implementing this alternative, the landfill would have to be constructed
before excavation of contaminated soils. Otherwise, it is similar to
Alternative Two.
Both on-site disposal in a RCRA-type landfill and groundwater treatment
are considered very reliable technologies: on the condition that they are
properly designed and maintained.
Alternative Four - The decision would have to be made on the most cost-
effective way to provide an alternative water supply to the relatively
sparse population in the area. The two methods being considered are
running in water lines from the town of Marianna, about 10 miles away,
putting in an entirely new production well.
or
This alternative can be fairly easily implemented and if the gap is
properly maintained, this alternative is fairly reliable. However, the
level of cleanup achieved is low.
Alternative Five - Alternative Five is almost identical to Alternative
Three. The major difference is that the contaiminated soil and sediment
would be fixed in a cement matrix before being placed in an on-site landfill.
Bench and pilot scale testing would be required for the implementation of
the fixation process.
The short-term reliability of the fixation process for metal contaminated
soils is considered to be good. The long-term prognosis is not known.
Alternative Six - This alternative would require extensive bench and
pilot scale testing of the soil washing technology. The equipment
used for the soils washing would probably have to be designed and built
from scratch.
The Dnplementability and the reliability of the soils washing technique
is unknown; however, experience on other projects would indicate that the
soils washing technique would be difficult to implement and of questionable
reliabili ty.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The six alternatives were evaluated to determine what sort of environmental
impact each would have. The following results were determined:
-------
Alternative One - The Unpact on air quality would be minLmal. The impact
of surface water, soils, and groundwater would remain severe because the
source would continue to release contamination.
Alternative Two - The llTIpact on air quality would be minimal. The impact
on surface water could be moderate because the excavation of sedUments
will stir up silt. As the soil is being shipped off-site and the groundwater
is being treated, the Dmpact to both these media should be slight.
Alternative Three - The environmental bmpact is the same as for Alternative
TwO.
Alternative Four - The environmental impact on the air qulity would be
slight. Because excavation of the sediment will cause silting, the bmpact
on the surface water may be moderate. The impact on soils would be high
because contaminated soils would be only partially contained by the cap.
The ilTIpact on the groundwater would be high because the contaminated
groundwater would continue to linpact the Floridan aquifer and the partially
contained soils would continue to produce leachate.
Alternatives Five and Six - The environmental impacts of these two
alternatives would be the same as that described for Alternative Two.
COSTS
The capital costs were prepared using standard
and are based on 1986 dollars. The costs were
estimations derived fram the cleanup criteria.
between -20% and +50%.
engineering estimations
prepared using the volume
The estimated accuracy is
The Operation and Maintenence (O&M) costs are projected for 30 years.
costing purposes, it was assumed the the wastewater treatment system
would be in operation for seven of those years.
For
Table 10 shows the capital and the O&M costs for each alternative.
WE'I'LANa3 ASSESSMENT
Alternatives 2,3,5 and 6 all involve the excavation of wetland areas. .
These action are considered to prevent the continuing degradation of the
wetland areas fram the contaminated sedUments. In order to prevent
further releases into the wetlands, it is anticipated that any sediment
excavation activities would occur during the dry season. It is also
anticipated that the groundwater removal activities would temporarily
lower the local surficial water table. Should dewatering activities be
necessary, the affected areas would be temporarily isolated with earthem
berms to prevent stirred up sediments fran escaping into unaffected areas.
Once excavation activities cease, all berms, walkways and other structures
would be removed and the wetlands area would be allowed to restore itself
naturally.
-------
Alttrno~lV~
1 .
~ I1:t.1on
:--.5:"-:': 10
::a;JHol
$56,463
26,1141,475
12,396,616
6,547,1135
14,)18,544
16,5)9,56)
:csts
AAnua! 06 ~
1- -:,. r~nr::;, 1- 30 ~.e8rs
517,6)1/17,631
4)3,864,'2),6)'
453,864/3' ,6)1
47,631/47,631
4 )6 , B 6.:!; 25 , 6 :' 1
436,064/:5,631
\oior~:"\
$221,663
29,661,':")
'4, 7SC, ~~~
4,996,443
16,56:,1Q9
'8,7-:'S,3~5
2.
Orr-site disoose!,
9roun~water treat-
ment
3.
On-site dlsposal,
ground.~ler lrtot-
IIIent
4.
Capping, proviS1on
or I!ternathe
water supply
5.
Solid Hat ion,
groundwater treat-
III ent
6.
Solution mining/
5011 ~shlng;
groundwater treat-
ment
-------
SECTION VI
OOMMUNITY RELATICNS
The community relations aspect of the project has been linplemented by the
lead agency, FDER. Funding for community relations was provided to FDER
as part of the Cooperative Agreement. In addition, FDER conducted a
fairly extensive community relations effort during its IRMs.
On August 28, 1986 FDER held a public meeting to present the findings of
the Summary Report and the final draft Feasibility Study Report. Questions
raised by the public at this meeting, as well as written auestions
submitted during the official public comment period, are addressed in the
Responsiveness Summary.
It is anticipated that EPA, as the lead agency for the RD/RA, will take
over the prime responsibility for community relations.
-------
SECTION VII
(X)MPLIANCE WITH O'rnER ENVIRCNMENTAL LAWS
The applicable laws at the Sapp Battery site are as follows:
o Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 1984 Amendments;
o National Environmental policy Act;
o Various dredge & fill programs;
o Executive Order 11990;
o Florida Class III Surface Water Standards;
o Safe Drinking Water Act;
o Florida State Drinking Water Standards;
o Florida Class I Sanitary Landfill Standards.
By performing an RI/FS at the Sapp Battery site, the Agency has fulfilled
the requirements of NEPA.
Alternative One is the no-action alternative and thus does not comply
with RCRA. The other environmental laws would not apply.
Alternative Two would comply with RCRA. The types and levels of
contamination that would be left in place would not violate RCRA hazardous
waste laws. Because wetland areas would be affected, the presidential
Executive Order on wetlands would need to be adhered to and appropriate
dredge and fill permits to be obtained. Should the option of injecting
the treated groundwater into the Floridan be selected, a Class 5 Underground
Injection Control permit would have to be obtained.
Alternative Three would have to meet the requirements of RCRA Part 264
for the on-site RCRA landfill. Otherwise the requirements are similar to
the requirements of Alternative Two.
Alternative Four would not. meet the requirements of RCRA because it would
leave the contaminated material in place. The alternate water supply
'would have to meet the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 1986
Amendments. Other environmental laws would not be applicable.
Alternative Five would require that the on-site disposal cell meet Florida
Class I Sanitary Landfill Standards. Otherwise, the requirements are
similar to the ones for Alternative Two.
Alternative Six would have to meet the same environmental laws as Alternative
Five.
-------
SEcrION VIII
RECOMMENDED AI.. TERNATIVE
SELEcrED REMEDY
The recommended alternative is Alternative Five. This consists of
solidification and onsite disposal of contaminated soils/sediments,
surface water treatment and a groundwater recovery and treatment system.
The soil and sediment volumes to be excavated are as described in Section
rv of the ROD. Dewatering of the areas to be excavated would probably be
required, and dewatering of the excavated sediments might be necessary to
facilitate handling. The excavated materials would be screened, mixed
with solidification agency and placed in an on-site disposal cell. The
excavated areas would be backfilled as necessary with clean fill, graded,
and revegetated.
The long-term performance of the solidified material would be tested and
modeled. Testing would include studies on the effects of weatherinq and
lonq-term leaching potential of the material.
pilot-scale testing would also be conducted. Data derived from this
testing would support design of the solidication eauipment and be utilized
to provide additional verification of the process. This verification is
necessary, since the mixing efficiency of soil and application may linpact
final product characteristics.
It is estimated that the solidification phase of this project will reauire
2 years to complete. Considering the high volume of materials requiring
management, the disposal area will be constructed, operated, and closed
in phases or as several small, discrete cells, thus minimizing the surface
area exposed to the elements, and hence, leachate collection and treatment
requirements. The area along the central portion of the northern site
boundary will be utilized as the disposal area. The design and operation
of the facility will be in conformance with Florida Class I Sanitary
Landfill Standards.
The treatment of groundwater and surface water will be accomplished by
chemical precipitation on a continuous-flow basis. The inorganic compounds
will be precipitated by addition of chemicals to the treatment water.
Treatability studies are needed to determine design parameters and
procedures. Design factors that must be determined for particular water
quality parameters are:
o Best chemical addition systemi
o Opti~ chemical dosei
o Optimum pH conditionsi
o Rapid mix requirementsi.
o Flocculation requirementsi
-------
o Sludge production; and
o Sludge flocculation, settling, and dewatering characteristics.
Two methods of disposing of the treated water were assessed in the FS.
For costing purposes it was assumed that the treated water would be
injected into the Floridan aauifer. However, the method of discharging
the treated water into an offsite surface water body was also considered
technically feasible. Both of these methods will be further assessed in
the Remedial Design Phase and the most technically feasible, environmentally
sound and cost effective method will be chosen.
The O&M for this remedy includes the maintenance of the water treatment
system and the disposal cells. It is anticipated that the water treatment
system will be in operation for seven years. The disposal cells will be
maintained and monitored for thirty years. EPA will provide O&M costs
for one year on the source control portion of the remedy; after which the
State of Florida will assume O&M responsibility. EPA will provide 90% of
the funding for the groundWater treatment system until the cleanup objectives
have been met.
As part of the remedy, private wells within a one-mile radius of the site
would be monitored. These private wells would be initially monitored
once every six months. If, over a period of time, the data indicates
that there is no significant increase in the levels of the contaminants
of concern, the monitoring frequency may be reduced to once a year.
In addition to and concurrently with the impleMentation of the design
phase, EPA's Environmental Response Team (ERr) will conduct laboratory
tests on contaminated soils fran the Sapp Battery site. The purpose of
the tests will be to ascertain whether the soil/sediment cleanup goals
can be reached using an EIJI'A based soils washing technology. Should the
tests have positive results, EPA, in conjunction with FDER, will assess
the desirability of integrating soils washing into the above described
remedy.
-------
APPENDIX A
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
SAPP BATTERY SALVAGE SITE
FEASIBILITY STUDY
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY FOR PUBLIC MEETING
AUGUST 28, 1986
-------
John
Ellerbee
Brent
Hartsfield
John
Ellerbee
Brent
Hartsfield
John
Ellerbee
Brent
Hartsfield
recycled paper
States that he thought it cost $3,000 a truck-
load to haul out the excavated soils during the
previously completed clean up.
Question: 1) Where do you try to cut
costs?
2 )
How was the excavated area
backfilled and with what?
The cost for transportation of the excavated
soils off site was approximately $800 per load.
Since there were hazardous materials involved
a contractor certified in certain safety proce-
dures was required. The trucks were also spe-
cially prepared to transport these materials.
They were lined and a cover was put on them.
Why are we concerned with the lead at Sapp
Battery if lead is a naturally occurring ele-
ment?
We did evaluate what levels of lead and other
metals are naturally occurring, that was part of
the risk assessment. You do find lead occurring
naturally in soils at levels of about 10-15ppm,
but at the site we are finding thousands of
ppm's. When it gets that much above background,
or what's naturally occurring, then you do have
a health problem.
Who sets standards for the different enVlron-
mental areas?
For surface water and groundwater there are
federal and state standards. These are based on
many studies and tests and have been adopted
after pretty rigorous exercise. As far as soils
and sediments are concerned, there are no stan-
dards. So, we have to look at exposure routes
like ingestion by children, and look at what
levels would be safe, say in a child's blood.
Then, based on that you can make some assump-
tions on how much a child would eat and then
back into how much you can leave in the soil. So
you're right, there are no standards for soils
and sediments. You get more into a toxicological
and health risk assessment. We did have the
state health department, a consulting firm and
the EPA involved, so the experts were involved
in setting those numbers.
~('olu~~. and en\ironment
-------
J.ohn
Ellerbee
Brent
Hartsfield
Margaret
Stoneberger
Brent
Hartsfield
Amos Morris
Brent
Hartsfield
Amos Morris
J. Paul Oxer
rf"ryrled pn",er
If you checked the sewage outfall from Marianna,
you would probably find more lead than at Sapp
Battery.
They have to meet state discharge standards for
lead, and that is regulated as a separate issue.
(Suggested that Brent send Mr. Ellerbee a copy
of the report. She found it very informative
and thought Mr. Ellerbee might understand the
problem better after reading it). .
We do have copies of the report, if you'd like
to read in more detail about the risk assess-
ment. I'll be glad to provide you with a copy.
Why did it take 3 or 4 years for you to respond
to the problem once it was reported?
FDER was first aware of the situation in 1977 or
1978. You can't just go out and require the man
to do a clean up. There are certain state
procedures where you have to first give him an
opportunity to continue to run his business and
take care of the problem himself and make cer-
tain adjustments. We had to go through that and
that took a certain amount of time before we
could tell he wasn't going to be responsible and
take care of the problem. That's part of the
reason for the time involved. Once we know he's
not going to take care of the problem himself,
before you take him to court you have to issue a
warning notice and a notice of violation. There
are certain procedures you go through, then by
the time you go to court, that was another
period of time, and you really have to go to
court before you force him to close down. There
are certain legal requirements before you can
actually run him out of business. At times
that's a good thing to have so no one is accused
of putting someone out of business for no rea-
son. In a situation like this it does hurt you,
because it does take time.
Just for the record, I'm a member of a club in
Jackson County and we have been monitoring the
Chipola River and Dry Creek from Highway 2 to
down below Peacock Ridge.
Would you care to identify the group?
-2-
..c()I0!t~. ..nd en-wnm"n.
-------
Amos Morris
Brent
Hartsfield
Amos Morris
Brent
Hartsfield
Barbara
Greadington
Brent
Hartsfield
recycled paper
1 don't think it's necessary. 1 can if 1 need
to. We found more lead and cadmium north of
Interstate 10, between there and Marianna, than
we did anyplace else. The lead and cadmium in
Dry Creek has been below the standards for ~he
last five years.
We have also been testing those areas. HRS, the
GFWFC, as well as others have tested there.
You're right, when you get 1 or 2 miles from the
site, we are finding normal acceptable levels of
the metals. We find the high levels on the
southwest portion of the sites in Steele City
Bay. That is what the proposed clean-up alter-
natives address." We aren't proposing going into
Dry Creek-Little Dry Creek, because at this
point, we aren't finding contamination, or high
contamination in that area. Testing downstream
has shown the levels are high enough to be a
health risk.
If you get in there and start digging don't you
think it will agitate it and start things flow-
ing downstream again?
That is definitely a concern. If we get into
removing sediments from the swamps, that is
something that will be considered in the design.
We may have to temporarily isolate those areas
with berms and dikes or employ filter screens to
keep the contaminants from moving downstream.
Seasonal factors would also be a consideration.
We would try not to do this in the rainy season.
Where does the 10% of the cleanup cost not cov-
ered by Superfund come from? Will there still be
pursuit of Mr. Sapp? If the cleanup begins in
mid or late 1987 when will it be complete?
Superfund, as it is set up now, will cover 90%
of the cleanup costs through federal funds. The
other 10% is provided by the State. FDER cur-
rently has the Water Quality Assurance Trust
Fund. This is money that was appropriated by
the State legislature for things like this.
The state went to court and was awarded 11 mil-
lion dollars. We have collected $11,000. When
the studies and cleanup are completed we will go
back for final cost recovery. At the same time
that the state was in court with Mr. Sapp, the
IRS was in litigation with him " for some tax
evasion problems. From what I understand they
-3-
~culuj:~" and ..n,ironmrn,
-------
i .
I
Panama City
Channel 11
Reporter
Brent
Hartsfield
Panama City
Channel 11
Reporter
Brent
Hartsfield
Panama City
Channel 11
Reporter
Brent
Hartsfield
Sandra Rowe
rflrycled paper
were unable to recover any money either. I'm
not sure what the chances of recovering any more
money are, but we will try.
The length of the cleanup will depend on what we
decide to do. If we go with groundwater recov-
ery and treatment on site, which is in 4 of the
alternatives, that's a long term proposition.
Most of the construction could be completed in a
year. Within the first year we would install
the recovery wells, construct the treatment
plant and get everything operational. It is
estimated in the Feasibility Study from some
computer modeling, that to restore the ground-
water to State drinking water standards will
take about 5 to 6 years. The other cleanup
activities, even most of the items addressing
soils and sediments, can be completed within the
first year.
Who owns the property?
From what I understand, it's owned by his mother
and father-in-law, Mr. and Mrs. Ivey.
So, the state is actually cleaning up someone
else's problem?
When we go back to court for the final recovery,
one of the things we do will be to try to force
the sale of the property. I'm not sure legally
exactly how that would work. When we were in
court before, there was a lot of movement of his
assets. If he deeded the property to his in-
laws before a certain date we may not be able to
get it.
Was the $11,000 recovered from confiscated
goods?
'Yes.
It was from auctioning a truck.
If you treat the groundwater, will it eliminate
the problem or will it continue at the same
level of contamination? Will we have more or
less contamination over the next 5, 10 or even
15 years? Also, will you only treat for lead or
will you try to treat for arsenic, copper,
nickel and others?
-4-
«ulog~' and en';r(lnmenl
-------
Brent
Hartsfield
Juan Lehman
Brent
Hartsfield
recycled paper
It will be a period of years before the ground-
water meets state standards. Initially, you may
not see that much of a change in the groundwater
that is on the boundaries of the property. This
is because the majority of the recovery wells
will be centered on the site. I'm not sure how
it will change over the 5 or 6 years, but at the
end of that time it should meet state standards.
Lead is the major concern, because it is more
widespread and at higher concentrations relative
to the standards. In'the risk assessment we
considered all the contaminants we were finding
in the groundwater. Some of the others above
state standards were arsenic, aluminum, antim-
ony, and cadmium. If there were no state stan-
dards for a contaminant we referred to other
things, like a Federal Health Advisory. After
consideration, we set objectives for the 3 or 4
contaminants that were a problem. We will con-
tinue to monitor throughout the cleanup and when
those 3 or 4 metals are at standards the cleanup
will be complete.
(States that he is a Jackson County Resident and
a member of the Chipola Basin Protective Group) .
Based on the comments of your consultant, I
assume alternatives 5 and 6 are considered the
most likely alternatives. Both the alternatives
involve containing the soils on-site. Since
this is a geologically unstable area, wouldn't
it be better to remove the soils altogether?
The major difference in cost will be in the cap-
ital cost and Superfund will pay for 90% of it.
Why not go with the alternative that would
remove the soils to a more geologically stable
area?
I would also like to request more time to review
reports, in the future? We received this report
only one week prior to this meeting.
When evaluating the alternatives, the geology
on-site is a consideration. We have identified
some sinkholes. However, these do not cover the
whole site. They are mainly located in the area
of the west swamp. If we chose one of the
alternatives that involved leaving the soils
on-site, we would select an area that has a
suitable geology. If the whole site was
unsuitable, which it doesn't appear to be, then
-5-
....ol"g~ and en-ironment
-------
Juan Lehman
J. Paul Oxer
Juan Lehman
Brent
Hartsfield
Juan Lehman
Brent
Hartsfield
Comment from
crowd
Brent
Hartsfield
recycled paper
that would weigh heavily against on-site con-
tainment. We feel that it can be contained on-
site. There are some geologically suitable
areas of the site.
I don't understand why we should consider keep-
ing the soils in this area if there are already
approved sites elsewhere and if the Federal
government will provide 90% of the funding.
What Brent says is true. There are areas on
site that seem to be properly suited for the
type of containment we are considering.
If we keep these soils on-site, might it be more
likely that we would have a permanent hazardous
waste disposal site established in this area?
There is a difference in cleaning up an existing
problem and in setting up a site for receiving
waste from other areas. There is a state regu-
lation that prohibits the creation of a hazar-
dous waste landfill specifically for the purpose
of receiving hazardous materials from other
locations. When you are considering cleaning up
soils that are there and are contaminated,
that's not specifically prohibited.
The suitability of the site is considered. For
example, if we were near the coast and s~scep-
tible to flooding, that might weigh against on-
site containment. We feel that in this case
on-site containment is a viable alternative.
I would like to go on the record, for myself and
those that I'm familiar with, saying that we
want those soils taken to a site that has
already been approved for hazardous waste dis-
posal.
We will add that to the record.
We will submit our written comments hopefully by
the 8th.
In response to your request about the reports,
there is additional time after the meeting to
submit comments. We didn't have that much lead
time in distributing the reports.
-6-
eeolog~ and en--u-onmenl
-------
Audrey Elofson
Dr. Atkerson
Audrey Elofson
Dr. Atkerson
Audrey Elofson
Dr. Atkerson
Audrey Elofson
Brent
Hartsfield
Charles Mesing
recycled paper
- ---~- - ~--
I'm with the Chipola Basin Protection Group.
Could we ask Dr. Atkerson (HRS) if he has any
information on the latest fish testing?
Since 1983, we (HRS, FDER, and the GFWFC) have
been coming here every spring and collecting 50
or 60 fish from several sites along the Chipola
River. We have not seen a great .deal of differ-
ence up and down the Chipola, above or below Dry
Creek. Apparently, large amounts of lead were
no longer, if ever, getting into the river by
the time we began collecting fish. We collected
60 -70 fish this June and we should receive that
data from the lab by September 1st.
(Pointed out that the testing actually began in
1982, before HRS was involved. She also stated
that the tests were run on the whole fish at
first, but the 1985 testing was run just on the
filets) .
Question: I understand that cadmium is showing
a decrease, but that lead and mercury are
higher. Is this correct?
There has not been any dramatic increase in lead
in the fish. We have been checking for lead,
mercury, cadmium, copper and arsenic and some
others. We are monitoring over time to see if
things are changing. Cadmium does seem to have
dropped out of the system.
Copper seems to be lower?
Copper is primarily a concern because it is
toxic to the fish. It is not particularly toxic
to humans. Lead and mercury have shown an
increase over the 3 years of the study. There
are several different ways to interpret that.
You never get the same number twice.
My point is that we don't need additional input
to the Chipola river from the SAPP battery site.
So we would like to see the site cleaned up. I
don't think a lot of people here are aware of
the effect this has had basin wide and will
continue to have until the cleanup is accom-
plished.
One of our objectives in the cleanup will be to
eliminate that as a continuing source to the
surface water system.
Have you compared the levels of contaminants to
any other systems in the state?
-7-
~..ulul!~. and en-ironment
-------
Dr. Atkerson
Jackie Farren
Stephenson
Brent
Hartsfield
J. Paul Oxer
. Jackie Farren
Stephenson
Brent
Hartsfield
recycled paper
Yes, for ~he four years of the study we chose
the Santa Fe River near Gainesville. It is
considered one of the most pristine rivers in
the state.
Frankly, the levels were comparable in both
rivers. In my own mind, I can't ascribe the
lead and mercury that we see in the fish in the
Chipola River to the SAPP battery site. The
distribution within the river does not suggest
that and comparison with other water basins does
not suggest that.
If you decide to go with the alternatives that
involve capping, what guarantee would I have, as
a property owner, that there would not be
runoff? I understand there may be contamination
on part of my property. What about the other
people across south County Road 280? Has that
been tested? What will happen to our property
values?
With the alternatives that involve capping, the
design would be to prevent run off from going
off site. It would also have to be maintained.
Continuous monitoring would be required to make
sure the cap is not eroding or the material is
not leaking out.
If you recall each one of the alternatives takes
into account long-term monitoring and mainte-
nance.
What about the real estate value of property
adjoining the site after the cleanup is com-
plete?
That will depend on which cleanup is chosen. If
you excavate the material and haul it away, the
site will have unlimited use and I guess result
in better value for the adjoining property. With
on-site containment, there would need to be some
kind of access limits to the containment area.
This would limit the land's use. I'm not sure
how this would affect your property values. This
is one of the things that will be considered in
choosing an alternative.
Concerning soils off site, we have sampled about
15 locations off of the Sapp Battery property
itself. We went to all boundaries of the site.
-8-
~"Io~~. and f'n\ir"nm..nl
-------
Jackie Farren
Stephenson
Brent
Hartsfield
Larry Williams
Rick Rudy
Larry Williams
Rick Rudy
Larry Williams
Rick Rudy
Larry Williams
Rick Rudy
Larry Williams
Rick Rudy
Larry Williams
recycled paper
Acceptable levels of lead were found in all
locations except for the spot on your property
which is in the southeast corner and adjacent to
the Sapp property near the access driveway. The
levels we are finding are above the cleanup
criteria we've set for soils. They are not as
high as some other areas of the si te.. We feel
based on the fact that your property doesn't
have a home on it right now or kids that will be
on there everyday, that those lead levels are
okay until we get to the final cleanup.
Would it be okay, for cattle, stock and horses
at the present time?
We have presented tDe data to HRS and asked them
to make that determination. When looking at the
health effects of the soils we will rely on HRS.
We have spoken to them on the phone and there
doesn't appear to be any short term problem. HRS
will make the final determination and it will be
forthcoming.
How many wells are there on site?
42.
What is the depth from the land surface, to. the
limerock?
That is highly variable. The limestone undu-
lates. It is pockmarked. Depending on where
you are it varies from 90 feet to 130 feet.
What is above 90
feet?
That consists of sediments which are fairly
impermeable, sandy-clay, clayey-sand. .
What is within 20 feet of the limerock? Clay?
That is the weathered zone, the past weathered
zone? It is not necessarily clay.
How thick is the layer of clay between the sur-
face water and the limerock?
There is one very thin layer of clay midway
down. It is horizontally not continuous, from
what we know.
Doesn't that layer of clay normally stop the
surface water from going into the drinking
water?
-9-
f'("ulo~~' and en~irunment .
-------
Rick Rudy
Larry Williams
Rick Rudy
Larry Williams
Rick Rudy
Larry Williams
Rick Rudy
Larry Williams
Rick Rudy
Larry Williams
Rick Rudy
Larry Williams
Rick Rudy
Larry Williams
Rick Rudy
Larry Williams
Rick Rudy
~arry Williams
n'\r'r'rlfHj f}'I)<'f
That's not correct. We have data to indicate.
that by pumping on the Floridan aquifer you draw
down those 2 upper aquifers. That data is in
the FDER remedial investigation report.
Does that surface water have a way of getting
into the drinking water, fast?
Yes, but not fast.
Would you say that the surface water has a ten-
dency to be purified by the time it gets to the
limerock? .
No, the pH will keep the lead ions in solution.
The data shows contamination in the Floridan
aquifer.
You drilled 42 wells. How many showed contami-
nation in the limerock?
In the Floridan?
Right!
Two of those 42 are the existing plant wells.
There, the deepest one is 190 feet and the other
is 130 feet.
Did they show contamination?
They are the most highly contaminated wells on
the site. One is at 1800 ug/l and the other is
3680 ug/l.
You are saying they are above state standards?
By far, above the state
are 10 or 11 additional
nated and probably half
hundred mg/l.
standards. Then there
wells that are contami-
of them show several
Above the standards?
Yes.
So, you're saying the Floridan aquifer is conta-
minated on the site?
It is contaminated.
Above s~ate standards?
-10-
l'("..log~ and "n-irnnm"nl
-------
Rick. Pudy
Larry Williams
Rick Rudy
Larry Williams
Rick Rudy
Larry Williams
Brent
Hartsfield
Larry williams
Brent
Hartsfield
Larry Williams
Brent
Hartsfield
Larry Williams
Brent
Hartsfield
recycled paper
Above state standards, which are 50 ug/l.
You haven't found any wells off the site above
state standards?
That's correct.
How many of the 42 wells on-site showed conta-
mination above state standards?
I can't say exactly without looking it up, but
around the plant facility almost all of them and
that's two-thirds of the wells.
Do you think that hauling the contaminated soil
off-site will stop the contamination in the
Floridan?
To add to what Rick said, another factor con-
tributing to the deep contamination is the
existence of solution channels or sink holes on
site. These allow the surface water to move to
the deep aquifer more quickly than if you had a
site with regular geology, that is clay layers
that would confine the contamination.
You say you've got contamination in the Florida
limerock on the site?
That is correct, beneath the SAPP property which
is 35-40 acres. The majority of our monitoring
wells are on those 35 acres. So beneath the
site, where all the dumping was occurring, we
are finding lead way above state standards in
the deep aquifer. When you move away from the
site tOothe residential wells, you don't find
any contamination above s~ate standards. The
computer models show that contamination i5 mov-
ing from beneath the site to the private wells,
but it's not there yet. The model predicts that
it will be a few years before it reaches those
wells.
Did you do any studies at the Odum battery site?
Not as part of this work. This study was to
address SAPP battery and it's effects.
The ODUM facility is a lot closer to the limer-
ock there isn't it?
I'm not that familiar with that site. If you
have specific questions, I can put you in touch
with someone at DER who is.
-11-
('(""Io~' and p.n-",ronm,,"!
-------
Judy Carter
Brent
Hartsfield
Judy Carter
J. Paul Oxer
Audrey Elofson
Brent
Hartsfield
John Ellerbee
Brent
Hartsfield
Danny Riles
Why are we spending the taxpayers dollars to
clean up a site that mayor may not transfer
lead to other parts? All the wells have been
tested and none are showing contamination. Why
should we clean it up so the Ivey's can come
back and use it? Nobody has been contaminated.
They've checked everybody's blood in the county.
Why are we spending money when we probably won't
be able to get it back?
The property itself is not all that has be~n
affected. The contamination has already
impacted off-site areas. There is a small area
Df soils; it has impacted the swamps and a creek
off-site. Also, the groundwater has the poten-
tial to move off-site.
All that the blood testing shows is that up to
this point nobody in the area has an unsafe
level of lead in their blood. But, that's not
to say that if we didn't do anything, that there
isn't the potential for problems in the future.
Why is this more a risk than jumping in the car
and driving down the road?
When you speak of risk assessment you have to
consider the assumption of risk. When we tell
you there is a certain risk out here you can
assume that risk and live with it. We're not
going to force it on you. When you go out on
the highway, you choose to assume the risk of
potentially putting your life in danger. If we
leave this stuff out there it may be an unac-
ceptable risk for those who aren't prepared to
assume that.
In 15 years, if you don't clean this up how far
do you think the contaminant plume will have
moved?
The modeling has shown that potentially 25-30
wells in the immediate vicinity would be
impacted in 10 years.
Will iron contaminate you?
I guess, if it were high enough. If we decided
we had an iron problem we would evaluate that i
relation to what you find naturally.
Why hasn't anyone kept tabs on Mr. Sapp since h
got out of jail, so you could get some money ou
of him?
-12-
-------
Brent
Hartsfield
Danny Riles
Brent
Hartsfield
K. 0..
Stephenson
Brent
Hartsfield
J. Paul Oxer
recycled paper
The f~ct that he is out of jail is up to the
judge. We took it to court and won the award
but we can't really enforce anything beyond
that.
Are you all keeping tabs on the people at United
Metals?
That is being headed up by our district office
in Pensacola. After what happened with SAPP,
I feel sure it's not going to happen again.
.What will be the final outcome of this meeting?
How is the decision going to be made?
We will be receiving comments through Sept-
ember 8 1986; FDER, EPA and E&E will all look at
the comments and questions, evaluate them and
come up with what we feel is the best solution
for the site. Of course, everything that has
been said tonight is part of the consideration.
It is important that you know that the decision
has not been made. Your input tonight is
important in the decision making process.
-13-
..C'u'og:~. and ~n\ir...nnJt~nl
-------
PUBLIC MEETING'
SAPP BATTERY FEASIBILITY STUDY
August 2B, 1986
NAME
ADDRESS
~6J1:f'7Y. -=jk. .
Wh11,
..1
. -,. . .
/~'I;':"~
/
i/i~:..;.: ,:. I
. .. ,. '. .. I' . .
.~ ..-
;'41 .....""
-
/"
(" . ~ :, . -- l.
r~,
/
. PHONE NUMBER
I ~-, - IS
lr.::::J X 51 /1
... "" - ...~
S7Q. u"{~ C/
'-'6- /j ? .., ;>
-/ ..., """"- --- . ,
.s ....,~- J"i ~ ~
sr;cr-'6.[8
> 7~/- Lf'i?:>
(;x! { }.- {k Cf r ~~(j: /; ~ \.) 0; -4-0 f ~
. JO. 0' '-~ .. ".1, _....:~>(~:;",..#
-......
I';' "
I' '. . .
. .
.r ~..
\... .
c-~£~
- C- d ~ 0
- ,..J.-" . .11.-- .,..(
- .,.. .-. !
I
I I
J (..." - ;PI)
. , ," .
I j.. ~.! /~
I ....- I' ... I..~... ¥
" . ,." .''''''' .,~......,
.'.. . I' /"", L'
. . ~ - I
v' " j ...
. \. I
~;;:.:.::.~ "':_.:'r-" ..0-1 '-
0. ~ J2y7/ / ';2~ /--
" A . / f .. .~
ti J,.;..{'''''''''<~ -/ ".....;:. 1'-.-:.,..-... .., -r.--
/,,' . /.f' -/
11t~-. ~ '. :.-...."~' ~ . ...-~~.. '. " ,# .
i
i'
1
, .
-
~ J>' ....,.. .. ,
-I-
~/ / ~. ~! '? .
5 7 1-Lf c; u '-/
5 7 q - L/:; u L./
7)7('-' $7'10
/ -, t'
---.. ...: - .~"};.." -.: .
-------
NAME
PUBLIC MEETING
SAPP BATTERY FEASIBILITY STUDY
August 28, 1986
ADDRESS
/I / j/ '1 LLJ.. j .,~~- R;t ~, I~ JfC1 - I
LJ1~J ..~ --- ~ ( ~-p.
PHONE NUMBER
v
()'-
1\ {.../ t
QL (}{:.E.!:.. \.. ~f\()U)IJ
~ !P! 11'~)/1
Be;i:? ~ C c: ~cJ.- ~.
.----. I
L){{,\.-c ~h U ~t:
l A R.yitY-y#,..l
w: II 1Jc
~~( l2~1
.' (i!'-~ - ./
/' i ~ ,)-
/ .1./ ./ .
[,/ ~,I?~~':-
.- , r / fJ X I ~ J
:-J f? ~ J _iJJ (~r:. ,',{,,",\
,~ 1 t.r ~ ~ I i-~ 'y
R/, ~ 8:)-(.I? ,/
/ .... ~I
Qc i ()';)!I~~, d. 3::J. 1..3.
/
P ~t ~)( ":!f
/' ( It' /1"
)'j'f t'_':'u.~ ..!t.,/\CZ,-1Yer
;2,1 ij /~) ex 332) ~~~~
It
Or:D ~
. . . t:l 0\( --
~~
-
'.
; .\
. -'----'~ (..1 "~'':.;. 3'e.~: t'
- .' "
,.,/" '....'" t~
a,.J- V J5 d ~ J ~ '-VJl.:.t
'/Z,. ~ tJi-f? '-
;,( 3,l V 3)
-~~,
.L1-(' 17 ~/' Y J ,{ 'Jj ~P-W""
/: . ~ tV". '1 (;' ,,,,, ,
, ~<. \J
:- ',-' C1 .:..r . I '7 ~ ,'1; ()"' i" 'J.
--" l /. ~ .-:' ~~ I - ~ ~...
A ~.,..\c"~,,,,, ~:,,-,i.""" 1]..-!-
3
s y-y J'Y
S79-f/ 13
,/J7-/6 ~~--
II
~ (
s 71. ~/t
~ a f::, - ~/ .r-o [/
:::: j"- \ -"""'\
-' ~-
.'...oJ ..~.. :::~ .- ...
-' .
';l7-t!-(O/
J"1,- VG9?'
-------
PUBLIC MEETING
SAPP BATTERY FEASIBILITY STUDY
August 28, 1986
NAME
ADDRESS
//
/ .'
./
t, 7~ J-
,,1/ .
~. ,-"',:....t.-./-K: ,.~.
\..
I
i
'-/ ,
~/
j"
~i'
/' :'
"
I '") .~ <:"
e>... ----' - .
\"'r,;,,;,- ,,' ',:( C' ~,...
m~ \ L 'w, /::
,
" '
"7~ '
\~. L,
\ ...
\.- /.~.,..... \~ ~ ~
~.! ,.0;.... t ,~.-
. -~"
\ '"'""'-~ t--:~:" \'-',,0 ';.. - ~'.", ,:, >
-. .1/,..('
" .....~ I' " '" '-.; j', ;.:.L (' ,.. :
~ .""'" ;' . - ,..,.---"
~ ~ ~.' r-
/?, - I' J ,-
If.... t.. '\ ..., t:) 'r. ~
I'. ',' ' ,.... - I
~) J ;--:: r V -I - ;.,;;
." 1"",--' . .,...' , .
, .
. - ~ -......
.,) " / '
/. )1/ \. I , ( r' -'./, :' :/ , - ;'
','" . "1/ ! I
/':,1,'..',.. '.r,\."!.,! "i..':_t!.~.A,"'" /';',1') I ,", 'I: j ,', ',_:'/1/ " ...,' .
~ I - -'" - ," .1.. '" '-' ,'. ..,,'. . ". -s'- '.:..-:' :,l""',.;
./".~. - 0'\'," I,,'. , -,: L. -£ ) ~Ji~:?>~~' ~ / },; :11 .
::> '.-. "-'-',-," . ........ .... J~' . ~ :":::>'~"'."
~,t
A..f...f~~
.Lr ..e sz...,..
4
PHONE NUMBER
.
/"'/ ~ -
.' I
I .
t/{:;-/
( t
I (
t, I ,
I_.~ ~ ~.
" ! , !
~. I" t. .
-;!. .....:. - L. ... L ,t~" ~. !
,'" -\ /
.".. / --,
-./' :' l .
,I / ~ ',' -'7
-'/ -' .) ,/
. ..., " :511-- ~I c3:t
..
)~ ~.
-~3f.5
-------
PUBLIC MEETING
SAPP BATTERY FEASIBILITY STUDY
August 28, 1986
NAME
ADDRESS
PHONE NUMBER
(
\,
\.1.
~...s
\. ,
'" \.
\. \.
I.V
-::r. l~
~
5
-------
Se~7e~b~= 1f 1986
~~: B?=-:.!?fie1d
~~ec: r~~a:e~ent Sec:icn
State of ~lcr~da
De~z=tment cf Ehv:r0nmental Rec~lation
~,L~ Towers Of:ice Build~~~
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tall~~assee, Flcrida 32301-8241
R~:
Se.rp Bc>.-I-tt':::~ Site
Dear }=. Ha=tsfield:
We wi~~ to th~~ yo~ fc= the exce11e~t ?~d i~fo~ativ~ ~lblic E~~=i~C
on Se.~p 'Ba";te~r !l?z?.!"OOtlS ,.,~~te site on AUG'-'.st ~8, 1,?86 2.t Alfc:!:'C., ~}c=ida.
YO'..l a=e to be cOJ':"!!1!:~ded 0:1 the most 1'=0 fessi::lC!l ::12.:1ne= ~-:. ,..'~~c:: ~r7\.'. he~d1ed
the c:!\les:ic:: and a..~SHer :?e=i~d ?.t thi.s neet::.ng.
After CivirC considerable thouGht to the various op7,ians ~vailable.to
pt:.r;e the s~ te, ..re feel the remc\ral of all contc~in?.xts 2.nO he.za=:dou~
rn8.terial from the site by t::'Uck to an ou.t of st?te !,repar=d hazc=U0'.lS
~~ste landfill would in the lone ~_m be' +~e most ecc~0~ical R~d perm.rtment of Enviromr.entl'.l Regulc>.tj.o!'1.. Tn view of the fact th2.t this
is the most costl;{ of the options, we Hondered if :rou have ex:,-,lored t~1e
pcssibili~r of an a:pI='ro~riation in severc>-l cO!1tinn~nc ~re:::'.rs; ;:!$su."'1i.-:.C, of
course, th2.t Con~sS ",ill appropriate nonies ?_~uall~~ to the St1per:\md whi c::. Hill
be fund.ine 9076 of the costs. ~:.ri th the public becominG' more and more c'.WC!.re
of the se=i.ous and long term effects of contaJ'!'inaticn, the Superfund_,.!i1l,
of necessi~", be an on~inc project. A second choice of the options presented
",ould be "soil vTC'.shine;".
There are many people in this area "mo feel as we do (as evidenced.
'rry the 12.rge tU!'!l out for the te~ting of blood s2.I!!;:les fo= leC?d) CJ.'.:': ".110 fQ::'
vG'.riotls reC'.son~ ,..'i11 not 'o/ri te to ;'-"01.1 ,'7i th =eg?rd to t1:is m2. tt'?r. Flec!.!~e
consider them also when mak~ncS' your deteriTina tion.
':.'hen ~rou are again in ou:!." 2.rea, we vlould be :r:>le?sed to h2.V!? ~rOtl vis:" t
us. ~..re are located on C-280, one cu2.rter mDe "'e st of the Sa p~ :?a. tte::y s:.. te
at the large white gates on the south side of the h:..ghway.
~ J;S;;~F
~=TC~:{~~
'.'.'!LL 1.A1': E. STC'E~:g~G:sR
Yzilin~ address:
V. E. Stonebe=ger
P. O. Box 373
C1:ipley, Flor:..da 32428
Pnone: 579~964
~f~~ITW~m
SEP 3 1986
BUREAU OF
nrf=:r...'~..TIC:"J.~
-------
2150 Hyde Park Street
S&ra.sota., Florida. :3:3519
2 Sept.ember 1986
Mr. Brent Hartsfield
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
Bureauof Operations
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32:399-2400
Mr. Hartsfield I
I wish to thank whoever is responsible for providing me with the information on
the Sapp Battery site cleanup.
From the information provided I feel .the remedial alte~tive should be selected
by evaluation of public health risk first and environmental 1mpa.ct. second. The
cost criteria. for all appear to be within reason.
I recommend Al.ernative 2. I would appreciate being 1nf'ormed as to which
remedial alternative you select.
~S1ncerely,
/) .; (J C:' :/\.
"- vid C. GoUJ.~ ~-
Lieutenant Colonel USA Retired
~JE@rnITW4
SEP 5 1986
BUREAU OF
,~
.,:,"'
-------
I-hl~
:;z:::: Q nL CA.- rPr~S5/C'~~(
. . - £' H. g. / H i2. <. v- ~
. . ....
. j4e- G U se"V!k;11- w ho ha $a .
.. .
J " - _. . _. .. .. ._. - .8 t.L j 9 e 5 .;:-.; c(.. . - I &. -- ~{ J 1- t-) 6 IV' . . .-. . -
---'-'-'U" -_._-;-o___c/~a~. LA-p WQ!-4Y"_. -. ..
. _. .._.- - . .. -.ff -- 50 I.~/:J --- Ct fP j?PtY1 dl ~- - -- .- - .-'-
- -... .-.-. -. f; a..7 .. t) I/L V (00 .Ie .t-cfL--- 'f-u. ~..- --. - ----.-----.
"'-'-"--------- ......--//--.-- -'------'--"------'--- -1(--.--.-.... --- - - -- --"-..
. - ---.-- . --.- __0 IV ~ - 1511 L L I 0 ~. - - .; -t_. ~~-~-~.. [cL -- '- -- 0..__' "-
--.-------..__._-'t:a. k~___~__._. C.O_ooV.JLr .--'f-?~_. ---.. .--...---'--
. '_0- -- .'-. _.# (' :-e.t:L_. W t~--.---5 o_J;'. f-c;- --- -----'-0--"..
- ----...- _.--.-. '-'- . c;c. j, 90 y j;--. nIL .50 ~- c C{ ((J d - -- - ... -- -- - -
. -. -oo U?o L ~ 0 K-S ....
~
~. - -. ------- - -..... .. 4 . -. - u_-.. - . . -. .. .
- ..-----. . -. ..:::;::::._. ha.. v~. - /'j.fJ 1-- :3> L.fl. Yl - f{t z.
. ..-.- ._u.------.-.--- O/YOd'...e..e-f - - () R-_.~JL_.. ..Il- YJ2~. ."'-- ----
'- --.---.--.... --._--_. r3 .(.L. +--.:J;:;.,. - clo --.- {e vt.O.tu.- CO__V~ ~.__.. -- -.-.
. --. '.--'---'--" .--- ..-So.l.-i----..U-?_C!. u- I d--_..__~ k.So ~_.k_-_a._~ iZ- u.--- --.-
- - .-.-'--' - -- -.--. ...-r. L--fCt.{ ~.- f0-y. - FLL-{. t.l:.X~-- cJ Y 'I/.Z1.-1-'---
---.;.A.~_oc._-!i~-9'./&.-- tf? 0.1 9a"v0._.U-I.t'L_.i~-y, '_--0--__"'-----
- ~~~m.H.W~~.-'
SEP 8 1986 '...
. -.- .--.-. . - - .- --- - - - ------.--- . -. ... -..-... ._. .
. - --.-.
~ 1L f3 'L fiR ~ P e; . --
. . .. J- 0 o. r? a.. f rl Cl.t!'--. ff.- v . - -..
BUREAU OF . DCA ~t-t. c{{ ~-
- .."'- OPERATJONS"-'-'-- _. .. .. .--. ..-. .- '-- -- J-===- (3 "7 s 2-Jl-
- . ..... -.-. .... -.. ._.. -.
-------
APPENDIX B
CCNCURRENCE FRa1 STATE
-------
STAT~ OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
TWIN TOWERS OFFICE BUIL.DING
2600 BL.AI R STONE ROAD
T AL.L.AH ASSEE, FL.ORI DA 32301-8241
BOB GRAHAM
GOVERNOR
VICTORIA J. TSCHINKEL.
SECRETARY
September 24, 1986
Mr. Jack E. Ravan
Regional Administrator
United States Environmental
Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Dear Jack:
The Florida Department of Environmental Regulation agrees with
the selection of Alternative #5 as described in the final draft
feasibility study for remediation of the Sapp Battery Superfund
Site in Jackson County, Florida.
This alternative includes on-site treatment of ground water and
surface water, fixation of soils and sediments, and long-term
monitoring. This alternative will effectively treat contaminated
ground water, surface water, soils and sediments.
The cost estimate for Alternative #5 is $14,319,000 for capital
construction costs, $1,997,000 for operation and maintenance of
the groundwater recovery and treatment system for an estimated
seven years and $27,000 for the first year of site upkeep and
water quality monitoring. The state will provide matching funds
equal to ten percent of these costs, or about $1,634,300, from
the state Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund. The state is
committed to perfoFm.site ~pk~~p~and long-term monitoring upon
completion of the~i~~edial' abti~ities.
Special Condition ~o.
that FDER labor costs
feasibility study may
.'
20. of our cooperative agreement stipulates
for the remedial investigation and
be applied to the required matching funds.
Pmtpctinq FI(Jt~irf(1 and Your o()tl,;,ll(v ol lilr:
-------
Mr. Jack E. Ravan
September 24, 1986
page Two
In addition, the state spent $1,665,898 on a planned retnoval
which significantly reduced the spread of contamination into
surface and ground water. These costs should also be applied to
the required matching funds. Upon completion of the feasibility
study phase, a detailed cost breakdown will be provided with a
formal request that these costs apply to our match.
The USEPA has agreed to conduct laboratory tests on contaminated
soils and sediments from the Sapp Battery site within the next
three months. The tests will determine whether the soil and
sediment cleanup goals can be achieved using an EDTA based soil
washing technology. If the tests have positive results, USEPA
and FDER will consider integrating soil washing into the selected
remedy.
The remedial investigation and feasibility study have been
successfully completed through a concerted effort by FDER and the
USEPA. We look forward to continued cooperation with the USEPA
during implementation of the cleanup phase.
Sincerely,
1;#
Victoria J. Tschinkel
Secretary
VJT/ps
------- |