United States Office of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R04-90/075
September 1990
Superfund
Record of Decision:
Pickettville Road Landfill, FL
-------
50872-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/R04-90/075
1. Recipient^ Accession No.
Title and Subdue
S\JPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Pickettville Road Landfill, FL
First Remedial Action - Final
5. Report D«te
09/28/90
7. Author**)
8. Performing Organization Rept. No.
9. forming Orgalnltatlon Name and Mint*
10. ProiecVTaak/Work Unit No.
11. Contract(C) at Grant(G) No.
(C)
(G)
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
11. Type of Report * Period Co<
800/000
14.
15. Supplementary Note*
19. Absffact (Limit: 200 words)
The 52-acre Pickettville Road Landfill site is an inactive municipal landfill in
Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida. The area is rural with mixed industrial and
residential usage. Adjacent to the site is Little Sixmile Creek to the east, which
empties into Sixmile Creek to the north of the site. Waste debris from the landfill is
present within the 100-year floodplain of Sixmile Creek. The site overlies a surficial
sand aquifer and a deeper limestone aquifer. From the 1940s to the 1960s, the site was
used primarily as a sand borrow pit. From 1968, when landfilling operations began, to
1971, the municipal landfill accepted all types of wastes. Subsequently, the landfill
accepted hazardous wastes exclusively. Types of wastes disposed of onsite included
waste oil, lead-acid battery liquid waste, battery casings, terpene sludge, and PCBs.
County site inspections in 1975 and 1976, revealed many improper waste disposal and
maintenance practices, and the landfill was closed in 1977. These disposal practices
resulted in leaching of wastes into Sixmile Creek, the ground water and soil. Several
investigations from 1979 to 1990, characterized the affected media and the nature and
extent of onsite and offsite contamination. This Record of Decision (ROD) addresses
both source control and management of contaminant migration, and is a final remedy for
(See Attached Page)
FL
17. Document Analysis a. Descriptor*
Record of Decision - Pickettville Road Landfill,
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: soil, debris, gw
Key Contaminants: VOCs (benzene, TCE, toluene), other organics (acids, PCBs), metals
(arsenic, chromium, lead)
b. Menflflen/Open-Ended Term*
c. COSAT1 FMd/Group
it. Availabilty Statement
19. Security a««» (This Report)
None
20. Security Class (This P»ge)
None
21. No. of Page*
91
22. Price
(See ANSt-Z39.18)
SM Instruction* on K»
-------
EPA/ROD/R04-90/075
Pickettville Road Landfill, FL
First Remedial Action - Final
Abstract (Continued)
the site. The primary, contaminants of concern affecting the soil, debris, and ground
water are VOCs including benzene, TCE, and toluene; other organics including acids and
PCBs; and metals including arsenic, chromium, and lead.
The selected remedial action for this site includes excavating the waste, soil and debris
from the 100-year floodplain of Sixmile Creek to a depth of five feet, followed by onsite
disposal of waste and debris within the landfill area; capping the landfill with a clay
and soil cover; installing a passive landfill gas venting system; providing an alternate
water supply to residents affected by the ground water contaminant plume by extending a
city water main, implementing a plugging and abandonment program for the affected wells;
ground water monitoring; and implementing institutional controls including ground water
use and deed restrictions, and site access restrictions, such as fencing. The estimated
present worth cost for this remedial action is $9,935,000, which includes an estimated
annual O&M cost of $171,100 for 20 years.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Surface water discharge limits are SARA Alternate
Concentration Limits (ACLs), and include benzene 115 ug/1 and vinyl chloride 115 ug/1.
Ground water discharge, which exceeds ACLs may indicate the need for future ground water
remediation.
-------
Record of Decision
Declaration
Site Naae and Location
?lc xettville Road Landfill S_te
Jacksonville, Ouval County, Florida
Statement of Basis and Purpose
" dccu.-.er.t presents the selected remedial action for th
e
Picxettville Road Landfill Site in Jacksonville, Florida. This
.remedy was chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental
Restcf.se, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as
ar. ended cy Superfund Ar.endnents and Reauthorizat ion Act of 1986
(SAHA;, and to the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Flan (NCP). This decision document
explains the factual and legal basis for selecting the remedy to the
site .
The State of Florida concurs with the selected remedy. The
information supporting this remedial action decision is contained in
the administrative record for this site.
Assessment of the Site
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this site,
if not addressed by implementing the response action selected in this
Record of Decision (ROD), may present an imminent and substantial
endangenr.ent to public health, welfare, or the environment.
Description of the Selected Remedy
The remedy selected by EPA will be the final action for the site.
This action will address surficial soils and the waste materials
present at the site, and it will provide for the remediation of
potential ground water threats to the environment. To rectify
soil/waste material problems at the site, the remedy will establish
baselines for conditions comparison, minimize the potential for
direct exposure to the landfill material, limit the potential for
future indiscriminate dumping at the site, address the Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER) statutory requirements
for closure and post-closure care of municipal landfills, and assist
in the management of future leachate generation. The selected remedy
will also remediate ground water threats at the site by establishing
baseline conditions for comparison, minimize hypothetical future
exposure risks via consumption, and reduce the potential for future
regional migration of ground water constituents associated with tne
landfill.
The major components of the selected remedy for this site are as
follows :
o Implementation of institutional controls including deed
restrictions that will regulate future development of the
site, and restrictions limiting ground water usage in the
surficial aquifer in the area immediately north of the site,
-------
-2-
o installation of a protective cover system that complies with
the State of Florida requirements for closure of municipa1
landfills (FAC 17-701.070),
o Installation of a perimeter security fence to restrict
unauthorized access to the site,
o Ir.plemer.taticr of a long-term ground water monitoring
program to periodically evaluate the hydrogeologic
conditions and quality of ground water underlying the site
in accordance with the Alternate Concentration Limit (ACL)
demonstration,
c Extension of the city water main to residents located
immediately north of the site to supply alternative sources
of potable water,
o Implementation of a plug and abandonment program for water
supply wells located in the area immediately north of the
site.
o Restoration of the Little Sixmile Creek will be conducted to
remove waste which have migrated from the site into the
creek. An ecological study of Little Sixmile Creek will be
conducted to determine if any negative environmental impacts
to the creek have occurred. In the event that the
ecological study reveals contamination which may impair the
ecological community, additional remedial actions for the
creek may be necessary.
Statutory Determinations
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment, complies with Federal and State requirements that are
legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial
action, and is cost-effective. This remedy utilizes permanent
solutions and alternative treatment technologies/ to the maximum
extent practicable for this site. However/ because treatment of the
principal threats of the site was not found to be practicable, this
remedy does not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a
principal element.
Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining on
site above health based levels, a review will be conducted within
five years after commencement of remedial action to ensure that the
remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human health and
the environment.
SEP 2 8 TOO
Grfeer C. Tidwell fl Date
EPA Regional Administrator
-------
Record of Decision
The Decision Summary
Pickettville Road Landfill
Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida
Prepared by:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
Atlanta, Georgia
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. 0 Introduction 1
1.1- Scope and Role of Operable Unit 1
2.0 Site Name, Location, and Description 1
3 . C Site History 3
3 .1 Enforcement Activities 5
4 . 0 Community Relations 8
5.0 Summary of Site Characteristics
5 . 1 Geomorphology 8
5 . 2 Local Geology 9
5 . 3 Surface Waters 11
5 . 4 Site Hydrogeology 12
5 . 5 Groundwater 13
5 . 5 Site Ecology 13
5 . 7 Soil 14
5 . 8 Sediment and Surface Water 14
6.0 Summary of Site Risks
6.1 Identification of the Contaminants of Concern...15
6 . 2 Exposure Assessment Summary 15
6.3 Summary of the Toxicity Assessment of the
Contaminants of Concern 21
6.4 Risk Characterization Summary 21
6 . 5 Environmental Risks 28
7 . 0 Description of Alternatives 28
7.1 Alternative 1 - No Action 28
7.2 Alternative 2 - Upgrade Existing Cover 29
7.3 Alternative 3 - Clay Municipal Landfill Cover...31
7.4 Alternative 4 - Performanced Based Landfill
Cover 33
7 . 5 Alternative 5 - On-Site Incineration 35
8.0 Summary of Comparative Analysis of Alternatives 36
8.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the
Environment 36
8.2 Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) 36
8 . 3 Long-Term Effectiveness 38
8.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume 38
8 .5 Short-Term Effectiveness 38
8 . 6 Implementability 38
8 . 7 Cost 38
8 . 8 State Acceptance 39
8 . 9 Community Acceptance 39
-------
9 . 0 Selected Remedy 39
9 .1 Cleanup Goals 40
10.0 Statutory Determinations 43
10.1. Protection of Human Health and the
Environment 43
10.2 Attainment of the Applicable or Relevant
and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) 43
10.3 Cost Effectiveness 45
10.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the
Maximum Extent Practicable 45
10.5 Preference for Treatment as a Principal
Element 46
FIGURES
Figure 2.1 - Site Location Map 2
Figure 2.2 - Site and Surrounding Property 4
Figure 5.1 - Composite Geologic Column of the PRLS Area
and the Relationship of the Aquifer Systems..10
Figure 7.1- Conceptual Schematic of Proposed Cover 32
TABLES
Table 3.1 - Chemicals of Concern at the Pickettville Road
Landfill Site 7
Table 6.1- Exposure Point Concentrations for Contaminants of
Concern 16
Table 6.2 - Human Exposure Points Associated with the
Pickettville Road Landfill Site, Jacksonville,
Florida 19
Table 6.3 - Reference Doses RFD's, Cancer Potency Factors
(q*), and USEPA Cancer Classification for Chemicals
of concern at the Pickettville Road Landfill Site,
Jacksonville, Florida 22
Table 6.4 - Hazard Quotients for Contaminants of Concern 23
Table 6.5 - Excess Lifetime Cancer Risks for Contaminants
of Concern 26
Table 8.1- Glossary of Evaluation Criteria 37
-------
APPENDICES
Appendix A --Surface Water Analytical Data
Appendix 3 - Groundwater Analytical Data
Appendix C - Soil Analytical Data
Appendix D - Sediment Analytical Data
Appendix E - Background Analytical Data
Appendix F - Responsiveness Summary
-------
FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT
Record of Decision
Summary of Remedial Alternatives
Pickettville Road Landfill
Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida
1.0 Introduction
The Pickettviile Road Landfill Site was proposed for inclusion on the
National Priorities List (NPL) in October of 1981. The Site has been
the subject of a Remedial Investigation (RI) and Feasibility Study
(FS) performed by the Responsible Parties under a Consent Agreement
with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The RI
consists of a two phase investigation to fully characterize the
presence and extent of contamination on and off site by evaluating
surface and subsurface soils, sediments, surface water, and
groundwater. It was completed in March of 1987. The RI was later
revised and the updated version was finalized in July of 1987. To
address recognized deficiencies in the RI and to provide a fuller
evaluation of contamination at the site, an Additional Site
Characterization was conducted and completed in November of 1988.
The RI also provided a basis for a site specific risk assessment
which was completed on August 17, 1989. The Feasibility Study (FS)
develops and analyzes potential alternatives for remediation at the
site and was issued to the public in draft form in June 1990.
1.1 Scope and Role of Response Action
Remediation at the Pickettville Road Landfill Site will address the
surficial soils/waste and the ground water. Therefore, EPA has
organized the remedial action into a final phase or action, which is
addressed in this Record of Decision (ROD).
This ROD has been prepared to summarize the remedial alternative
selection process and to present the selected remedial alternative
for the Pickettville Road Landfill Site.
2.0 Site Mjiin«»f Location, and Description
The Pickettville Road Landfill Site (PRLS) occupies 52.5 acres five
miles northwest of downtown Jacksonville, Florida (See Figure 2-1).
The address of the site is 5150 Pickettville Road, and it is located
in a mostly open, rural area with some industrial use. The landfill
is bordered to the north by Pickettville Road, to the east by Little
Sixmile Creek, and to the west and south by unoccupied land. Old
Kings Road intersects Pickettville Road to the west of the site and
Edgewood Drive intersects Pickettville Road to the east.
-l-
-------
00
c
Picketville Road
Landfill Site
The hckcllville Road Landfill near Jacksonville, Honda (USCJS l«>77).
-------
Surrounding the Pickettville Road Site are the Jacksonville Shipyards
Waste Disposal Area, the Westview Cemetery, and the Realco Demolition
Landfill, all of which lie to the northwest of the site, and the
Logistical Transportation and Petroleum Company which is situated to
the northeast. The area is moderately populated with the nearest
residential areas located approximately 600 feet west of the site.
Most of the proximate private residences are located to the north
(4), northwest (7), west (12), and southwest (25), but other nearby
hoires lie south (8) and southwest (13) of the site on the opposite
side of Little Sixmile Creek. The Blue Flame Lounge is located near
the eastern boundary of the site, near the intersection of Edgewood
Drive and Pickettville Road. A map of the site vicinity is shown in
Figure 2-2.
The site itself has an average slope ranging from four to seven
percent. Surface water drains in a northerly direction towards
Little Sixir.iie Creek. Most of the surface of the site is now covered
with vegetation. There is evidence that indiscriminate dumping of
household garbage is occuring on the site.
Little Sixrr.ile Creev, the closest surface water body, flows northward
and discharges into Sixmile Creek approximately 1000 feet north of
the Pickettville Road Landfill Site, just north of the Realco
property. Sixrr.ile Creek, which flows from east to west, eventually
discharges into the Ribault River, a main tributary of the St. Johns
River.
Currently, there are no effective security measures at the
Pickettville Road Landfill Site. Originally a fence separated the
landfill from Pickettville Road and extended about 500 feet south at
the eastern and western ends of the site; however, this fence has
been breached in several places and now allows for unrestricted
access. For the remaining boundary of the site, only woodlands and
the channel of Little Sixmile Creek separate the site from
surrounding properties.
3.0 Site History
The Pickettville Road Landfill began operation on a limited basis in
the early 1940's. However, until the 1960 's, the property was used
primarily as a borrow pit. Fill material, particularly sand, was
extracted from the site, resulting in the presence of large, below
grade excavations. Borrowing operations apparently involved the
excavation of the sand to a depth of approximately 20 feet, at which
point a confining clay layer was encountered. Interviews with Mr.
Claussen, former owner of the site, indicated that excavations at the
site may have been as deep as the Rock aquifer (approximately 50 feet
below existing land surface) in certain locations. These excavations
were subsequently backfilled with municipal and industrial wastes.
Among the wastes known to have been disposed of at the site are waste
oil, lead-acid battery liquid waste, battery casings, light terpene
sludge, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
-3-
-------
OQ
c
K)
I
Sl>ip>*cdi
•Una Ol*»ot*l Sue
I'ICKI TTVIII I MOAI)
LANIil ILL SIIL
I'K Ki-l I vi I I.- ltn.i.1 I.null i I I Ni I.
and Ail |.u cni d, MIC, |
-------
The site was acquired by Property and Securities Corporation (P&S) of
Augusta, Georgia in May of 1956. In 1968, the City of Jacksonville
began leasing the property from P&S, and full-scale landfill
operations commenced. A review of aerial photographs of the site
indicated that the waste was deposited at the site using the
moving-wall technique.
The Pickettville Road Landfill Site had been in almost continuous use
since 1967. Initially ail types of waste, including residential
garbage were disposed of at the site. However, in 1971, residential
garbage (sanitary waste) was diverted to other municipal landfills
and the site was dedicated for the disposal of hazardous wastes.
An Operational Plan for the site was prepared by the City in January
of 1972, and on September 26, 1972, the Jacksonville Public Health
and Welfare Committee approved a resolution permitting the use of the
Pickettvilie Site as a municipal dump. On December 10, 1973 the
Committee submitted an application to the City Department of Health,
Welfare, and Bio-Environmental Services for the development of the
Pickettville site as a sanitary landfill. On February 20, 1974, the
Department of Health, Welfare, and Bio-Environmental Services
forwarded the application to the Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation (FDER) and recommended the issuance of a temporary
operating permit pending the execution of hydrological and soil
studies. On March 12, FDER forwarded a temporary operating permit
dated January 1, 1974.
On April 13, 1976, the Jacksonville Public Works Department notified
the Duval County Department of Health and Welfare that the
Pickettvilie Site was to be closed and provided a plan for the
administration of the closure. On March 2, 1977, the City notified
FDER tnat the site would be closed to nonhazardous wastes as of March
4, 1977, but that "hazardous waste disposal" could continue until a
suitable alternative site could be found. All waste disposal at the
site ceased in July of 1977, and the landfill was closed by the City
using a soil cover that was graded and seeded with vegetation. The
City terminated the lease in November of 1977, but maintained
responsibility for monitoring ground water quality at the site.
Ownership of the site was transferred to Henry A. Claussen in August
1977. On January 1983 Henry Claussen transferred ownership of the
site to JAX 51, Inc., a Georgia company incorporated on the same day.
3.1 Enforcement Activities
Routine inspections conducted at the Pickettville Road Landfill
between May 1975 and November 1976 indicated a number of shortcomings
with disposal techniques at the site. During that period,
inspections conducted by the County Department of Health and Welfare
indicated problems with the disposal of waste oil, disposal of waste
paint without a soil cover, a lack of readily available cover soil,
-5-
-------
poor surface drainage, inconsistent cover depth, and inadequate
control of leachate along Little Sixmile Creek. Additionally, these
inspections revealed that excavation was occurring beneath the water
table; a drainage canal had been dug to Little Sixmile Creek; and
water pur.ped frcrr. the interior of the site was being spread
througho'-ii the landfill area.
After reviewing the results of groundwater analyses conducted at the
site in Ncverr-ber 1979, FDER found elevated levels of iron and
chromium in or.site wells . EPA prepared the Potential Hazardous Waste
Site Inspection Repcrr in May of 1980 and, in concert with FDER,
conducted an inspection of the adjacent Jacksonville Shipyards waste
disposal site between May and August of that same year.
Cn March 26, 1981, FDER notified the City of Jacksonville that the
Pickettville Site had been classified as an "open dump" under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). This classification
was later suspended pending further discussions between FDER and the
City and the anticipated collection of additional samples.
In July of 1981, EPA conducted an extensive site reconnaissance which
included ground water, surface water, soil, and leachate sampling.
The Mitre Xodel scoring of the site was completed on October 23,
1981. The sur\r.ary repcrt of the July reconnaissance was completed in
November 1981.
From March 5 to March 9, 1982, EPA notified H.H. Claussen and the
City of Jacksonville of their roles as Potentially Responsible
Parties (PRPs) at the Pickettville Road Site. Subsequent meetings in
June and July of 1982 between EPA FDER, the City, the County, and the
property owner delineated sampling and monitoring parameters, and
indicated a need to rectify erosion/leachate problems at the site. A
retaining wall to correct the erosion/leachate problem was completed
on November 1, 1982, however an EPA inspection noted the persistance
of the leachate problem at the site.
On March 11, 1983, EPA prepared the Site Inspection Report for the
Pickettville Road Landfill Site. On March 18 FDER indicated interest
in pursuing enforcement at the site. In August of 1983, the
Department of Health, Welfare, and Rehabilitative Services indicated
that no known contaminants were stored at the disposal sites in the
vicinity of the Pickettville Road landfill. In September of the same
year, the PRLS was listed on the NPL with a HRS score of 42.92. A
Remedial Action Master Plan (RAMP) was completed for the site by the
NUS Corporation in February 1984. This report indicated the presence
of a number of organic compounds and metals at the site. Table 3-1
lists the substances found at the site.
EPA began a search for PRPs at the Pickettville Road Landfill Site in
1985. An Administrative Order on Consent was signed in January 1986
in which the PRPs agreed with EPA to conduct RI/FS work at the site.
The revised RI was completed in July of 1987. An Additional Site
-6-
-------
Table 3-1
Chemicals of Concern
Pickettville Road Landfill Site
Surficial Soil
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Pyrene
Selenium
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Flouranthene
Flourene
Phenanthrene
PCB-1260
Ground Water
Arsenic
Barium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Acetone
Benzene
Toluene
Vinyl Chloride
Bis (2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Delta-BHC
Cyanide
Arsenic
Barium
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Sediment
Acetone
2-Butanone
Carbon Disulfide
Methylene Chloride
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Surface Water
Methylene Chloride
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
-7-
-------
Characterization Report to address deficiencies in the RI was
completed in November of 1988. The draft FS Report was submitted to
EPA in September 1989. In March 1990 EPA decided to revise the FS
which was completed in June 1990.
4.0 Community Relations
The RI/FS and the proposed plan for the Pickettville Road Landfill
Site were released to the public on June 28, 1990. These two
documents were made available in both the administrative record and
an information repository located at Highland Branch of the
Jacksonville Public Library . The notice of availability was
published in the Florida Times-Union on June 24, 1990, and the period
available for public comment was June 28 through July 27, 1990. In
addition to public comment and the accessibility of the information,
a public meeting was held on July 12, 1990 at which representatives
from EPA and the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation,
Duval County were available to answer questions and address community
concerns. A response to comments received during this period and at
the meeting is included in the Responsiveness Summary, Appendix F of
this Record of Decision.
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for the
Pickettville Road Landfill Site, chosen in accordance with CERCLA, a=
amended by SARA and, to the extent practicable, the National
Contingency Plan. The decision for this site is based on the
administrative record.
5.0 Summary of Site Characteristics
5.1 Geomorphology
The Pickettville Road Landfill Site is located in Duval County,
Florida, a lowland area lacking any significant changes in relief.
The topography of northeastern Florida is controlled by a series of
ancient terraces, which are actually abandoned shorelines formed
during the Pleistocene epoch as the sea underwent successive drops to
lower levels.
Originally used as a sand borrow pit, the excavations at the site
were subsequently filled with industrial and municipal wastes. As
stated previously, interviews with the former owner of the site
indicate that the landfill waste may have been deposited as deep as
the underlying Rock aquifer (approximately 50 feet below the land
surface) in certain locations. The site was closed in 1977 and is
currently inactive. The topography of the site, prior to operation
of the sand borrow pits and the Pickettville Road Landfill, consisted
of a northeastward trending ridge which had an elevation of
approximately 10 feet above mean sea level (amsl). The natural
topography of the site has been modified by excavation of the ridg
-8-
-------
and subsequent filling of the depression during the operation of the
landfill. The western flank of the site sloped toward Sixmiie Creek
located north of the site. The eastern flank of the ridge sloped
toward Little Sixmiie Creek, which is located along the Southeastern
boundary of the site.
Current landforms within the site reflect the disturbances associated
with former excavation and backfilling although site closure in 1977
brought a return to a relatively uniform surface configuration. Site
relief ranges from 0 feet above mean sea level along Little Sixmiie
Creek to a high of approximately 15 feet above amsl in the interior
of the landfill, with the steepest slopes occurring along the creek.
The site appears to be crowned somewhat, with the average slope
ranging from four to seven percent. Surface water drainage is
southeastward toward Little Sixmiie Creek. Some additional grading
has taken place in the northeastern portion of the site to control an
erosion/ieachate problem. Most of the surface of the landfill is now
covered with vegetation.
5.2 Local Geology
The Pickettville Road Landfill Site is underlain by undifferentiated
deposits of Kolocene to Pleistocene age which consist of loose, tan
to yellow, medium to fine sand that sometimes contains shells and/or
minor amounts of clay. Figure 5-1 is a composite geologic column of
the PRLS area and the relationships of the aquifer systems. In this
area, sand is stained rusty red to dark brown from iron oxide.
Ground-water occurs under water table conditions in the surficial
sand aquifer.
The surficial sand deposits are underlain by deposits of Pliocene or
upper Miocene age, represented by tan to buff, fine to coarse sand
and gray to light gray sandy clay, clayey sand, and shell beds. The
clay contains abundant mollusk shells. The lower part of the Miocene
deposits, i.e., the limestone unit, generally consist of a soft,
friable, cavernous, sandy limestone. The limestone unit is referred
to as the "shallow limestone aquifer" or the Rock aquifer. This unit
is the major water producing zone in the upper aquifer system and is
the unit tapped by most shallow water wells in Duval County.
Regionally, the thickness of the entire unit varies, ranging from
about ten feet in thickness in southwest Duval County to more than
130 feet in west Duval County. The altitude of the top of the
limestone unit varies from about 25 feet msl in western part of Duval
County to about 75 feet below msl in the eastern part of the County.
At the Pickettville Road Site, the top of the surficial limestone was
encountered at depths ranging from 40 to 60 feet below sea level.
The surficial sand aquifer, or water table, and the Rock aquifer
together comprise the upper aquifer system.
Underlying the Rock aquifer is the lower Miocene Hawthorn formation
which consists of sandy clay, interbedded with discontinuous lenses
of phosphatic sand, sandy limestone, and dolomite. Regionally, the
-9-
-------
PC:' t-z^ - E =.
9:: -'
1000-1
' , ' , r '
I ,1,1
1 ,1,1 -—L.
I , 1
I ' '
_r . ^^ ' , '
T. ' ' '
1 . ' , ' , '
^ .
' *
1^ . T ~t
^ , ' ^_ ' . r ' ';
1 • . *
1 ' . ' . ' . '
1 * . ^ * ~
1 * *
AVON PA = K LIM = 3"Ok.E
LAKEOTY LIMESTONE
Figure 5-1
Conposite Geologic Column of the PELS Area
and the Relationships of the Aquifer Systems.
-10-
-------
thickness of the Hawthorn formation ranges from 250 feet in southern
Duval County to SCO feet in the northern part of the county. This
formation is of relatively low permeability and confines the ground
water in the underlying Eocene age limestone.
The principal artesian aquifer in the area is the Floridan aquifer.
The Floridan aquifer is the principal source of fresh water in
northeastern Florida. It occurs in limestones of the Eocene age.
These formations, in descending order, are the Ocala Group
limestones, Avon Park Limestone, Lake City Limestone, the Oldsmar
Limestone, and a few discontinuous thin aquifers in the Hawthorn
formation that are hydraulically connected to the rest of the aquifer
system. The Floridan aquifer is separated from the upper aquifer
system by the extensive aquiclude in the Hawthorn formation and in
the Pliocene or upper Miocene deposits. The water bearing-zones
within the Floridan aquifer consist of soft, porous limestone and
porous dolor.ite beds. This unit is a homogeneous sequence of marine
carbonates, which underlie the Hawthorn. Most wells in the Floridan
aquifer are completed to depths as great as 1,000 feet below land
surface.
The landfill is covered by fine, sandy brown material. Natural soil
in the area consists of fine sand of the Albany Soil Association.
Slopes in these soils are from zero to five percent. Generally these
are well-drained soils.
5.3 Surface Waters
There are two primary surface water bodies in this area, Little
Sixmile Creek and Sixmile Creek. Surface runoff from the
Pickettville Road Landfill Site is carried primarily by sheet flow to
the southeast and into Little Sixmile Creek. Little Sixmile Creek is
approximately 10 to 50 feet wide and 0.5 to 2 feet deep. This creek
flows to the northeast at a very shallow gradient to its confluence
with Sixmile Creek, located approximately 700 feet downstream of
Pickettville Road. Sixmile Creek is significant because it drains
areas to the north of the site which are also subject to landfilling
operations.
Information pertaining to the flow rate of Little Sixmile Creek was
obtained from the United States Geological Survey (USGS). This
information indicated that the most recent flow rate data obtained
from the creek was 3.82 cubic feet per second (1,714 gallons per
minute), recorded on May 5, 1986. The lowest flow rate for Little
Sixmile Creek provided by the USGS was 2.66 cubic feet per second
(1,194 gallons per minute) measured on April 13, 1965. Based on the
best available information from USGS studies in Duval County, base
flow (groundwater discharge) makes up approximately 30 to 60 percent
of the total stream flow.
Sixmile Creek is located approximately 1000 feet north of the site.
The origin of Sixmile Creek is west of the site. Sixmile Creek flows
-11-
-------
from west to east and eventually discharges into the Ribault River
which is a main tributary of the St. John River. The St. John River
is actually a tidal basin draining the entire Jacksonville area into
the Atlantic Ocean. Sixmile Creek is approximately 50 to 80 feet
wide and 5 to 6 feet deep. The Ribault River is about 50 to IOC feet
wide and 11 feet deep. Both Sixmile Creek and the Ribault River have
minor tidal influence.
Four surface water and stream bottom sediment samples were collected
along Little Sixnile Creek during the Remedial Investigation phase.
Appendix A contains the sample location maps and analytical results
for the surface water. Sample SW-1 was at the point where Little
Sixmile Creek enters the PRLS; SW-2 and SW-3 were at two locations
within the PRLS; and SW-4 was at the point where Little Sixmile Creek
leaves the PRLS. These surface water samples were analyzed for
Hazardous Substances List (HSL) constituents (volatiles,
semi-volariles, pesticides, metals, and cyanide), carbonate,
bicarbonate, sulfate, and chloride. In addition, a mass spectral
library search was performed on each sample to identify additional
compounds, referred re as Tentatively Identified Compounds (TICs).
Methylene chloride was the only HSL volatile reported in
concentrations above detection limits, and only in the water sample
from SW-1. Two HSL seiri-volatile compounds (Di-N-Butyl Phthalate and
Bis (2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate) were above detection limits in three
surface water samples (SW-1, SW-2, and SW-3,). However, no HSL
pesticides were identified above detection limits in these samples.'-
Surface water sample SW-2 contained detectable levels of total lead
and total cyanide (11 ppb and 140 ppb respectively).
5.4 Site Hydxogeoloav
Site specific hydrogeologic data and interpretations were developed
in the Remedial Investigation and the Additional Site
Characterization Report.
Two aquifers occur beneath the site. Groundwater flow in the
unconfined surface aquifer is controlled by topography and flows
northeast to Little Sixmile Creek at a rate of 3.3 m/year.
Groundwater in the deeper (Rock aquifer) flows east-northeast at 10.6
m/year. Under normal climatic conditions, all groundwater from the
vicinity of PRLS discharges into Little Sixmile Creek and Sixmile
Creek.
Lithologic descriptions of soil borings were used to prepare the site
specific geologic cross-sections. An average of 40 to 50 feet of
siliciclastic sediments (the surficial aquifer) occur above a
limestone unit (the Rock aquifer). The Rock aquifer extends to the
top of the Hawthorn formation at depths of approximately 100 feet.
Although the surficial aquifer and the Rock aquifer are of a
-12-
-------
different lithology, the two aquifers are hydraulically
interconnected and are referred to as the upper aquifer system.
The surficiai clastic sediments typically consist of 10 to 15 feet of
silty sand and clay, up tc 7 feet of discontinuous gray silty clay,
10 to 20 feet of fine- to coarse-grained sand, and up to 20 feet of
gray clay. Fossiliferous clayey limestone underlies the surficiai
sedimenrs and occurs downward to the top of the Hawthorn formation.
The hydraulic conductivity of the uppermost silty sand and clay was
determined by slug to range from 3.7 X 10~b ft/sec (0.3 ft/day) to
1.49 X 10~4 ft/sec (12.8 ft/day). Clay rich sediments in this unit
may have lower conductivity. The hydraulic conductivity of the silty
clay unit was determined to be 3.3 X 10"9 ft/sec (2.5 X 10 ft/day)
by laboratory measurements of a sample obtained from a depth of 26 tc
25 feet. The hydraulic conductivity of the fine- to course-grained
sand was determined by slug tests to be 1.5 X 10 ft/sec (12.9
ft/day). The hydraulic conductivity of the gray clay unit at the
base of the surficiai aquifer was determined to be 2.6 X 10 "^
ft/sec (2.1 X 10"° ft/day) by laboratory measurements obtained from
a depth of 5£ feet. The hydraulic conductivity of the limestone
(Rock aauifer) was determined by slug tests to range from 3.76 X
10"5 ft/sec (3.25 ft/day) to 1.08 X 10~3 ft/sec (93.3 ft/day).
5.5 Groundwater
Groundwater was sampled from 21 locations, including two reference
stations located southwest of the site boundary. Appendix B contains
the sample location maps and analytical results for the groundwater.
All the samples were analyzed for volatile organic compounds,
semi-volatile organic compounds, PCBs, pesticides, and inorganic
substances. Groundwater sampled from monitoring wells on the east
side of Little Sixmile Creek generally showed no contamination. Deep
groundwater generally had fewer trace elements and lower
concentrations than shallow groundwater.
The groundwater quality data for the PRLS indicates that sporadic
contamination is emanating from the landfill. This can be expected
when a heterogeneous source is involved. However, maximum
contaminant levels (MCLs) in drinking water are violated for benzene
and vinyl chloride in off-site monitor well SMW-4. The ground water
in the surficiai aquifer has been classified as Class IIB, a
potential source of drinking water, utilizing the EPA Ground-Water
Classification Guidelines.
5.6 Site Ecology
The vegetative community dominating the site consists of a dense
ground cover with a widely scattered and patchy canopy and
subcanopy. Canopy and subcanopy species are dominated by Chinese •
-13-
-------
tallow, mimosa, Carolina laurel cherry and black cherry, with
occasional long leaf pine. Ground cover is dominated by goldenrod,
broomsedge, blackberry, Verbena brasilience, cabbage palm and dog
fennel. Considerable sooty mold is associated with the Verbena
brasilience. The site is bordered to the west by pine flatwoods and
a ground cover of gailberry and blackberry.
Based upon signs such as numerous game trails, scat, and tracks, the
wildlife in the area apparently consists of squirrel, rabbit,
oppossum and racoon. One hawk of undetermined species was observed
circling the site.
The primary channel of Little Sixmile Creek appeared clear and
relatively unobstructed. The secondary channel on the floodplain
exhibited considerable amounts of brownish algae as well as a
malodorous stench.
5.7 Surface Soil
Surface areas indicative of contamination were sampled at the PRLS in
June 1985. Appendix C contains the sample location maps and
analytical results for the surface soil. Eight soil samples were
collected from the upper six inches of soil. Sample SS-8 was the
background sample located near the upgradient pair of wells SMW-1 and
DXW-i (background analytical results are reported in Appendix E).
Samples SS-1 through SS-7 were taken from areas of obvious or
suspected contamination. The eight soil samples were analyzed for
HSL constituents and percent solids. Twenty three metals, five
base-neutral extractables, and PCBs were detected in surficial soil
samples. PCB-1260 was reported at four of the eight sampling
locations. All metals except potassium exceeded region specific
background levels for surficial soil.
Composite samples of the PRLS waste material were collected during
the installation of the three waste characterization wells. The
samples were analyzed for HSL constituents. The analytical results
demonstrated the presence of 13 metals, 10 volatile organic
compounds, 13 base-neutral extractables organic compounds, 2
pesticides, and dibenzofuran in the waste samples. All of the metals
except aluminum and manganese exceed region-specific background
levels.
5.8 Sediment and Surface Water
Four surface water samples obtained from Little Sixmile Creek and the
Realco Demolition Impoundment were collected and analyzed for PRLS
Indicator Constituents (PIC). Two samples were collected downstream
and one upstream of the landfill. The surface water sampling
locations were chosen to further define the local groundwater/surface
water flow system and to characterize the water quality of adjacent
surface water bodies. These locations document that ground water
-14-
-------
flow in the upper aquifer system is constrained to discharge to
Little Sixmiie Creek, Sixmiie Creek, and local ponds and impoundments
(see Appendix A).
Two constituents that were detected in the surface water samples are
methylene chloride (maximum 9 ppb) and bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
(maximum 2G ppb;. The background sample collected upstream from the
PRLS also revealed the presence of methylene chloride at 9 ppb and
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate at 32 ppb (see Appendix E).
Stream bottom sediment samples were collected from Little Sixmiie
Creek and the Realco Demolition Impoundment. Sampling locations and
analytical results are found in Appendix D. Five bottom sediment
samples from the Little Sixmiie Creek were collected during the
Additional Site Characterization (ASC); one sample was collected from
the Realco Demolition Impoundment. Analysis for PIC constituents was
performed on the samples. Results indicated the presence of acetone
(maximum 203 ppb), carbon disulfide (maximum 40 ppb), methylene
chloride (maximum 23 ppb), 2-butanone (maximum 36 ppb), and
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (maximum 11,974 ppb). The following
constituents exceeded background levels: arsenic, barium, cadmium,
chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, acetone, 2-butanone, carbon
disulfide and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate.
6.C Summary of Site Risks
6.1 Contaminants of Concern
Contaminants have been identified at the site in both the surficial
and rock aquifiers, surficial soil, buried waste, sediments and air.
In addition, there is the potential for fish in the surface water
bodies to be contaminated with site related chemicals. Table 6-1
contains the contaminants of concern and the exposure point
concentrations used for the risk calculations. Although direct
contact with buried waste material is not expected to occur, it is a
potential source of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the onsite
air. Air exposure concentrations for VOCs were modeled from the
buried waste data. Fish tissue concentrations were estimated based
on surface water and sediment data and the data from the two
monitoring wells (SMW-4 and SMW-10) located near (upgradient) Little
Sixmiie Creek.
6.2 Exposure Assessment
The exposure assessment evaluates the potential for exposure to media
in which chemicals of concern are identified. A complete exposure
pathway consists of a source of chemical release, a transport
mechanism to an exposure point, and a potential population in contact
with the exposure point. The potentially complete exposure pathways
at the PRLS are ingestion of groundwater from the surficial or rock
aquifers, direct contact with surface water, sediments and surficial
soils, inhalation from both the surficial soil and the buried waste
and ingestion of contaminated fish tissue. The exposure points are
-15-
-------
Table 6-1
Exposure Point Concent.rati.onr> lor Contaminants of Concern*
1
1
1
| Chemical
|
Metals
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
i Selenium
1
1
| Surficial
| Aquifer
| fma/1)
2.3E-02
1.5E-01
5.8E-03
6.0E-04
2.5E-02
Rock
Aquifer
(mq/1)
2.1E-01
4.6E-03
2.0E-04
4.3E-02
Media
Surficial
Soil
(mg/kq)
] .1K+ 0.1.
2.2K+02
2.2K+01
2.3E+02
1 . 7I-: + 01
7.5K+00
7 . 5K+02
Surface
Water Sediments Wastes
(mq/l)
5
2
2
9
4
4
(mq/kq)
.2E-03
.6R-02
.4E-02
. 1K-02
.OE-04
.OE-04
Volatiles
Acetone 1.7E-02
Benzene 1.9E-02
2-Butanone
Carbon Disulfide
Methylene Chloride
Toluene 3.1E-03
Trichloroethene
Vinyl Chloride 4.5E-03
9.3E-03
6.8E-03
4.7E-02
1.4E-02
1. 1ID-02
6.6E-03
1.2F.-01
4.0E-02
7.0E-03
3.9E-02
5.0E-03
1.1E-02
-------
Table 6-1 (continued)
Exposure Point Concentrations for Contaminants of Cono '~n
1 1
I I
| | Surficial
| Chemical | Aquifer
Extractables
Bis ( 2-ethylhexyl )
Phthalate
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Media |
1
Rock Surficial Surface |
Aquifer Soil Water Sediments Wastes |
(mq/ll fmq/kq) Omi/M (mq/kcn (mq/kql |
1.4B + 01 1.6E-0? G.OE-tOO
4.4E+01
2.0E+00
2.4Ef01
3.4R^01
Pesticides/PCBs
d-BHC
PCB 1260
5.0E-04
6.0E-05
2.5E-01
Miscellaneous
Cyanide
8.8E-03
2.5E-04
* A blank space indicates that the chemical is not a contaminant of concern for that media,
-------
summarized in Table 6-2.
Twenty-four constituents were identified in the surficial aquifer and
eighteen were identified in the rock aquifier. Both of these
aquifers discharge to nearby surface water. The two primary
receiving waters are Sixmiie Creek to the north and Little Sixmile
Creek to the east. Two offsite ponds are also groundwater discharge
points.
Although there is no known current consumption of groundwater in the
surficial aquifer, it is classified as a potentially potable drinking
water aquifier (G2) by the State of Florida.
Approximately four homes located between the landfill and the
discharge point may use wells which draw from the rock aquifer.
Private wells are also used on the far side of Little Sixmile Creek,
but they are not thought to be affected by the PRLS, since
groundwater discharges to the creek.
People fish in Sixmile Creek and in the Ribault River. Edible crabs
have been seen in Little Sixmile Creek. Fish can bioconcentrate
constituents to which they are exposed. Because the groundwater
discharges into the surface water, the fish ingestion pathway is
considered to be a potential exposure pathway. In addition, surface
water and sediments are accessible and will be evaluated as exposure
pathways.
Since the PRLS is not secure and there is evidence of human activity
at the site, the potential also exists for direct contact with
surficial soil and inhalation of chemicals from the soil and buried
landfill wastes.
The exposure assumptions for the groundwater ingestion pathway are
for the consumption of two liters of water from the contaminated
aquifer every day for a lifetime. The exposure scenario for exposure
to surficial soil assumes that children from the ages of 4 through 18
visit the site for 2 hours a day for 150 days per year. The exposure
routes for the contaminants of concern are absorption through the
skin, ingestion of soil and inhalation of dust. Exposure point
concentrations for the inhalation of volatiles was modeled based on
the concentration of buried wastes in the landfill area. The same
exposure scenario was used for this pathway as for the surface soil
pathway.
The exposure scenario for exposure to surface water and sediments
considers dermal absorption of chemicals from the surface water and
accidental ingestion of surface water and sediments. Children are
assumed to play in the creek with the same frequency as they visit
the PRLS.
Mean concentrations of chemicals of concern in the surface water or
in the two monitoring wells located near Little Sixmile Creek were
used to estimate potential fish tissue concentrations. The fish
ingestion scenario assumes a consumption rate of 6.5g of fish per
over a 70 year period.
-18-
-------
Tal'le G-2
Human Exposure Points Associated with the PIckettvllle Road Landfill Site, Jacksonville,
Medium
aurflcial aoll
waato
aurficlal aquifer
rock aquifer
ourface water and
aedlment
Patliway/UuuLu
Potential 1y-Exposed
inhalation of affected duat
dermal contact with affected
aoll/duat
ingestlon of affected aoll/
duat
runoff to surface water
inhalation of volatilized
compounds
Ingeatlon of and dermal
contact with affected water
discharge to surface water
Inhalation of volatilized
compounds
Ingeation of and dermal
contact with affected water
inhalation of volatilized
compounds
Inqeatlon of or dermal
contact with affected water
or sediment and fish
Children playing on.ilte;
adults dumping onalte;
neighbors; current and
futuie.
Children playing onsite;
adults dumping onaite;
curient and future.
Children playing onslte;
adults dumping onaite;
current and future.
Tin) landfill Is ovoiqtown wILIi
vegetat Ion which will decrease duat
generation.
The landfill Is overginwn with
veqoL.il Ion which will decrease dermal
contact with aoll.
The l.-iiidflll Is overgrown with
vegetation which will decieaso avail-
ability for Ingeatlon.
Children playing In the There Is evidence suggesting that
creek; people fishing in chlldien play In the cieeks; people
creek; current and future, have been seen fishing.
Children playing onaite;
adults dumping onaite;
neighbors; current and
future.
None current; hypothe-
tical future exposure.
Children playing in the
creek; people fishing in
the creek; currant and
future.
None current; hypothe-
tical future exposure.
About 4 households cur-
rently; future.
About 4 households cur-
rently; future.
Children playing In
affected area of creeks;
people flailing In creeks;
current and future.
Internal gas geneiaV. Ion la known to
occur at the site, thus upward move-
ment of volatile constituents Is
possible.
No supply wells are located in the
surficlal agulfer between the PULS and
the discharge points.
There la evidence suggesting th.it
children play In the cteoks; people
have been seen fishing.
Several residences between PRLS and
Slxmllfl CreeK to thn north may have
wells which draw on the lock aquifer.
Them in ovldmioe .niigiicsl Ing I li.it
chlldinn play In tli« rieeka; pimple
have bi:on seen flnhlng.
-------
Table 6-2 (Continued)
Medium
Pathway/Route
Potentially-Exposed
Population
Comm-aita
surface water and
sediment (contd.)
inhalation of volatilized
compounda
Ingeation of affected flan
Children playing In
affected area of crooks;
people fishing In cieeka;
curicnt and future.
Neighbors who consume
crabs or fish from
affocted auiface walnr.
Little Slxmlle Cieek. la very small
and proli.'tbly doe.i not support a
8 Iqnl f li;anL population of edible
apocles.
N)
O
I
-------
6.3 Toxicitv Assessment
Reference doses (RfDs) have been developed by EPA for indicating the
potential for adverse health effects from exposure to chemicals
exhibiting noncarcinogenic effects. RfDs, which are expressed in
units of rr.g/kg-day, are estimates of lifetime daily exposure levels
for humans, including sensitive individuals. Estimated intakes of
chemicals fron environmental media (e.g., the amount of a chemical
ingested from contaminated drinking water) can be compared to the
RfD. RfDs ere derived from human epidemiological studies or animal
studies to which -r.certainty factors have been applied (e.g., to
account for the use of animal data to predict effects on humans).
These uncertainty factors help ensure that the RfDs will not
underestimate the potential for adverse noncarcinogenic effects to
occur. RfDs for the site contaminants of concern are in Table 6-3.
Cancer potency factors (CPFs) have been developed by EPA's
Carcinogenic Assessment Group for estimating excess lifetime cancer
risks associated with exposure to potentially carcinogenic
chemicals. CPFs, which are expressed in units of (mg/kg-day)~-,
are multiplied by the estimated intake of a potential carcinogen, in
mg/kg-day, to provide an upper-bound estimate of the excess lifetime
cancer risk associated with exposure at that intake level. The term
"upper bound" reflects the conservative estimate of the risks
calculated from the CFF. Use of this approach makes underestimation
of the actual cancer risk highly unlikely. Cancer potency factors
are derived from the results of human epidemiological studies or
chronic animal bioassays to which animal-to-human extrapolation and
uncertainty factors have been applied. CPFs for the site
contaminants of concern are in Table 6-3.
6.4 Risk Characterization
The risk characterization step of the baseline risk assessment
process integrates the toxicity and exposure assessments into
quantitative and qualitative expressions of risk. The output of this
process is a characterization of the site-related potential
noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic health effects.
Potential concern for noncarcinogenic effects of a single contaminant
in a single medium is expressed as the hazard quotient (HQ) (or the
ratio of the estimated intake derived from the contaminant
concentration in a given medium to the contaminant's reference
dose). By adding the HQs for all contaminants within a medium or
across all media to which a given population may reasonably be
exposed, the Hazard Index (HI) can be generated. The HI provides a
useful reference point for gauging the potential significance of
multiple contaminant exposures within a single medium or across
media. The HI information for the site contaminants of concern is
summarized in Table 6-4. Excess lifetime cancer risks are determined
by multiplying the intake level with the cancer potency factor.
These risks are probabilities that are generally expressed in
scientific notation (e.g., 1 x 10~6 or 1E-6). An excess lifetime
-21-
-------
Table 6-3
Reference Doses RfD», Cancer Potency Factora (q*), and USEPA Cancer Claaaification for
Chemicals of Concern at the Plckettville Road Landfill Site, Jaceonvtlle, Floi-Lda.
Chemical
of Concern
oral
inhalation*
oral
inhalation*
U.SKl'A
(.'ancer
Classification
Metala
i
r-o
K)
I
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium VI
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Volatile Qrganica
Acetone*
Benzene
2-Butanone
Carbon diaulfide
Nethylene chloride
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Exc.ra,fit''*hl«* Oroanica
Bla(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
pyrene
Peat iq 1 daa /PCDa
Aroclor 1260
delta-BHC
Mlace
Irogen Cyanide
1.00 E-3
5.00 E-2
5.00 E-3
1.40 E-3
2.00 E-3
2.00 E-2:
3.00 E-3
(1.00 E-3)
(5.00 E-2)
(5.00 E-3)
4.30 E-4
5.10 E-5
(2.00 E-2)
1.00 E-3
1.00 E+0>
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
5.00
NC
4.10
NA
NC
0.40
NC
E + l
E+l
E-l
1.00 E-4
3.00 E-4
2.00 E-2-
(1.00 E-4)
(3.00 E-4)
(2.00 E-
7.70 EiO
NC
NC
(7.70 lift))
NC
NC
A
1)
A
1)2
U
A
U
1.00 E-l
7.00 E-4
5.00 E-2
1.00 E-l-
6.00 E-2»
3.00 E-l
NA
1.3 E-3
3.00 E+l
(7.00 E-4)
9.0 E-2.'
(1.00 E-l)
(6.00 E-2)
1.50 E+0-
7.35 E-3
(1.3 E-3)
NC
2.90 E-2-
NC
NC
7.T>0 E-3'
NC
1.1 E-2
2.3
NC
2.90 E-2
NC
NC
1.40 E-2
NC
1.7 E-2
2.95 E-l
1)
A
U
\)
112
1)
112
A
2.00 E-2
6.00 E-2
6.00 E-2.
6.00 E-2
6.00 E-2.
(2.00 E-2)
(6.00 E-2)
(6.00 E-2)
(6.00 E-2)
(6.00 E-2)
1.40 E-2
NC
NC
NC
NC
(1.40 E-2)
NC
NC
NC
NC
1)2
I)
I)
0
u
1)2
U
-------
Table 6-4
Hazard QuotLent.s for Contaminants of Concern*
I
1
IXJ
UJ
1
1
|
1
| Chemical
Metals
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Volatiles
Acetone
Benzene
2-Butanone
Media
Surficial Kock Surficial Surface
Aquifer Aquifer Soil Wai or/Sed imc-nts
6.
8.
1.
8.
3.
4.
7.
6E-01 1.4E-02
6E-02 1.2E-01 5.4E-03
5.4E-03
2E-01 9.4E-02 2.0E-01
6E-03 2.9E-03 1 . 1E-02
6E-02 6.1E-02 4 . 3E-04
3.1E-01
9E-03 2.7E-03
8E-01
Carbon Disulfide
Methylene Chloride
Toluene
3.
OE-04
1
1
1
1
4
3
3
2
8
4
.2E-04
.lE-CH
.5E-02
.7E-Or>
. !E-Or>
.7E-04
.2E-04
.6E-05
.5E-02
2
'>
2
7
I
2
6
2
Fish
.4K-01
.1E-02
.5E-05
.1E-02
.8E-01
.8E-01
.IE-OS
.OE-05
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride 9.
9E-02
4
.2E-04
1
1
6
6
3
4
.6E-07
.2E-05
.9E-05
.5E-04
. 1E-07
. 6E-04
-------
Table 6-4 (continued)
Hazard Quotient.s for Contaminants of Concern
1 1
1 1
| | Surficial
| Chemical | Aquifer
Extractables
Bis ( 2-ethylhexyl )
Phthalate
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Media
Rock Surficial Sui
Aquifer Soil Water/
2.GK-03
1 .3K -04
1 .5E-03
2.1E-03
Pesticides/PCBs
d-BHC
PCB 1260
4.8E-02
5.7E-03
Fish
1 .3E-02
4.2E-04
H.5E-03
Miscellaneous
Cyanide
1.3E-02
9.4E-03
Total
1.8E+00
2.9E-01
5.6E-01
6.2E-01
0.4E-01
1.2K-03
A blank space indicates that the chemical is not a contaminant of concern
-------
cancer risk of 1 x 10"° indicates that, as a plausible upper bound,
an individual has a one in one million chance of developing cancer as
a result of site-related exposure to a carcinogen over a 70-year
lifetime under the specific exposure conditions at a site. The
excess cancer risk levels associated with the site contaminants and
exposure pathways are contained in Table 6-5.
The Agency Considers individual excess cancer risks in the range of
10 to 1C~° as protective; however, the midpoint risk (10~°)
is generally used as the point of departure for setting cleanup goals
at Superfund sites.
The excess lifetime cancer risk for all carcinogenic indicator
chemicals in the surficial aquifer is 1.5 x 10~3 which exceeds the
target range of 10"* to 10" . Arsenic, which is known to cause
cancer in humans, represents most of the cancer risk. The excess
lifetime cancer risk associated with benzene, which is also known to
cause cancer in humans, is 1.6 x 10" . The excess cancer risk for
vinyl chloride (1.3 x 10" ) exceeds the target range.
The total hazard index for the surficial aquifer is 1.8, which
exceeds the target level of unity. Arsenic and benzene are the
primary sources of this risk.
Four households to the north of the PRLS are believed to use
grouncwater from affected portions of the rock aquifer for their
domestic water supply. The quality of the rock aquifer is acceptable
for consumption (i.e none of the contaminants exceed MCLs). There
are no detectable levels of carcinogenic chemicals in the rock
aquifer. The total hazard index for the rock aquifer is 0.59.
Barium and nickel represent the greatest non-cancer risks, but they
are below unity.
The cumulative risk associated with exposure to contaminated
surficial soil ;Ls 7.9 x 10" , which is within the target range but
exceeds the 10 point of departure level. Most of the risk
results from the presence of arsenic. The total hazard index is
0.56.
Surface water and sediments in several bodies of water (a private
pond, the Realco Demolition Impoundment, Little Sixmile Creek, and
Sixmile Creek) may be affected by surface-water runoff from the PRLS
and/or discharge of affected groundwater from both the surficial and
rock aquifers. Samples from Little Sixmile Creek and the Realco
Impoundment were used to represent affected surface water and
sediments. The total excess lifetime cancer risk (5.2 x 10"::) is
below the target range. The total hazard index is 1.7 x 10" ,
which is well below the target level of 1.
The potential future excess lifetime cancer risk for fish ingestion
is 2.4 x 10~5 which exceeds the 10~6 point of departure but is
within the target range. The current hazard index of 0.5 is below
the target of 1.
-25-
-------
Table 6-5
Excess Lifetime Cancer Risks for Contaminants of Concern*
1 1
1 1
| | Surficial
| Chemical | Aquifer
1 1
Metals
Arsenic 1.2E-03
Barium
Chromium
Media
Rock Surf
icial Surface
Aquifer Soil Water/Sediments Fish
5.
1.
3E-06 1.3E-09 4 . 3E-04
2E-07
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
7.6E-10
Volatiles
Acetone
Benzene 1.6E-05
2-Butanone
Carbon Disulfide
Methylene
Chloride
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride 1.3E-04
1.2E-08
1.4E-06
2.7E-08
1.2E-OG
].2E-07
J .21-1-08
-------
Table 6-5 (continued)
Excess Lifetime Cancer Risks for Contaminants of Concern
1 1
1 1
| Surficial
Chemical | Aquifer
Sxtractables
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
Phthalate
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Media
Rock Surficial Surface
Aquifer Soil Water/Sediments Fish Wastes
1 . 2E-06
1.6E-07 3.9E-OR 2.4E-06
2.8E-03
1.3E-04
1.5E-03
Pesticides/PCBs
d-BHC
PCS 1260
1.5E-06
Miscellaneous
Cyanide
Total
1.5E-03
7.1E-07
5.2E-08
4.3E-04
1.3E-07
A blank space indicates that the chemcimals is not a contaminant of concern for that m^dia.
-------
The total site risk for all media to which exposure currently occurs
includes the rock aquifer, surficial soil, surface water and
sediments, and fish ingestion. The current total excess lifetime
cancer risk of 9.7 x 10~° is within the target range of 10~^ to
10~°. Exposure to surficial soil and ingestion of fish accounts
for most: of this risk. The current total hazard index 1.4 exceeds
the acceptable range of 1.
Hypothetical future cumulative site risks would add the risks
associated with consumption of water from the surficial aquifer to
the current risk levels. The hypothetical future excess lifetime
cancer risk of all media is 1.9 x 10 , which exceeds the target
range. The total hypothetical future hazard index is 3.2. This also
exceeds unity because of the contribution of the surficial aquifer
and the fish ingestion pathway.
6.5 Environmental Risks
Numerous organic and inorganic compounds were detected in
environmental samples at the PRLS. It is not anticipated that the
current concentrations will have an adverse impact on the
environment; however, it is possible that concentrations may increase
over time. Sediments of Little Sixmile Creek contain some metal and
organic compounds at concentrations exceeding background
concentrations. However, the potential impact of these chemicals on'
aquatic organisms is unknown and an evaluation of current ecosystem
conditions would require biomonitoring and toxicity tests using
sediment and water from the creek. Little Sixmile Creek and Sixmile
Creek would likely be the most susceptible to environmental impact
should release of constituents increase.
7.0 Description of Alternatives
The following alternatives for remediation were evaluated in the
Feasibility Study Report:
1) No Action
2) Upgrade Existing Cover
3) Clay Municipal Landfill Cover with Gas Collection Layer
4) Performance Based Landfill Cover
5) On-site Incineration
7.1 Alternative 1: No Action
The Superfund program requires that the no action alternative be
considered at every site. Under the no action alternative, EPA would
take no further action at the site to control the source of
contamination. The no action alternative serves as a baseline with
which other alternatives can be compared.
-28-
-------
The no action alternative consists of utilizing the existing
vegetative cover at the site as a surface barrier to reduce the
potential for contact with the landfill material in conjunction with
implementation of a ground water monitoring plan to periodically
evaluate the hydrogeologic conditions and chemical quality of ground
water in the surficial and rock aquifers underlying the site. It
should be noted that the existing cover is not present on
approximately ten percent of the landfill surface. The waste
deposited in the landfill is exposed to the surface in the areas
where the cover is non-existent.
The above ground water sampling program will be implemented at the
site for a maximum of 20 years. Trend analyses will be performed or.
the ground-water analytical data to determine if the concentrations
of the chemical constituents of concern have attained asymptotic
conditions.
Alternative 1 does not attain Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARARs) and does not reduce potential risks associated
with the site.
The estimated annual operating and maintenance cost associated with
this alternative is $26,900 per year or $335,000 based on a 20 year
service life.
7.2 Alternative 2; Upgrade Existing Cover
Remedial Action alternative 2 involves upgrading the existing cover
installed in 1977 such that the landfill material is completely
covered with a natural material (soil) that prevents direct contact
with the waste and provides long-term protection to public health.
Tne cover proposed in this alternative is consistent with the closure
of municipal landfills in 1977. In essence, this alternative
proposes maintenance on the cover system used to close the PRLS in
1977.
Surficial debris at the site will be collected and disposed of as
follows: rubber tires deposited on the surface of the site will be
collected, shredded and disposed of on-site in the landfill or
collected and transported off-site for disposal at a permitted,
commercial facility. Wood debris, large metallic objects, and
general garbage will be disassembled or reduced in size and deposited
on-site in the landfill.
All of the existing vegetation covering the landfill will be cleared
and shredded for on-site disposal in the landfill. In addition, waste
deposited along Little Sixmile Creek will be removed to a minimum of
five feet from the creek bed and deposited on-site in the landfill in
a manner which minimizes concentrated weight loadings and uneven
settlement of the final cover.
-29-
-------
This alternative consists of installing a minimum six inch layer 01
compacted clay on top of the graded waste material. The clay will oe
overlain with a minimum of six inches of topsoil that will be seeded
wi^h short-root vegetation to minimize the potential for wind and
water erosion of the cover.
The existing site topography will be modified in order to promote
surface runoff and minimize ponding of surface water on the
landfill. The highest elevation of this landfill will be modified
from the existing 20 feet above mean sea level to 26 feet above mean
sea level. The landfill will be graded at two percent slopes on top
and for three percent horizontal to one percent vertical side
slopes. Approximately 12,500 cubic yards of material from the west
bank of Little Sixmile Creek and the surface of the landfill will be
re-deposited into the facility prior to installation of the cover.
Approximately 6,3CC linear feet of surface water drainage swale will
be installed around the perimeter of the site to collect stormwater
run-on and run-off. The drainage swale will be graded such that
stormwater is collected and transported to Little Sixmile Creek for
discharge.
A six foot high chain link fence will be installed around the
perimeter of the site to restrict unauthorized access to the site.
Signs will be posted along the fence prohibiting trespassing on the
site. Secured entrance gates will be located along the paved
roadways adjacent to the site for authorized or emergency access t
the landfill.
A groundwater monitoring program will be Implemented at the site as
part of the post-remediation care for the landfill. Ground water
samples will be collected from monitoring wells located downgradient
of the site, the surficial aquifer, and the rock aquifer. Monitoring
wells in the surficial and rock aquifers will also be located
upgradient of the site to determine background water quality.
The monitoring wells will be sampled on a quarterly basis for the
first year to establish ground water conditions after remedial
activities have been completed. Based on the resulting data, a
decision would be made as to the frequency of future sampling. The
above ground water sampling program will be implemented at the site
for a maximum of 20 years in accordance with FDER regulations for
long term maintenance of municipal landfills. Trend analyses will be
performed on the groundwater analytical data to determine if the
concentrations of chemical constituents monitored have obtained
asymptotic conditions.
This alternative does not implement technology components that attain
ARARs. While Alternative 2 has the potential to attain the
remediation goal of minimizing direct contact with the landfill
material, it does not acknowledge the remediation goal established
for ground water based on the continued operation of existing potable
water supply wells immediately north of the site.
-30-
-------
The estimated capital cost for this alternative is $3,674,400.
Annual operation and maintenance cost is $168,700 and total present
worth of Alternative 2 is $5,777,000 based on a 20 year service life.
7.3 Alternative 3; Clay Municipal Landfill Cover
Remedial Action Alternative 3 involves Implementation of the
following remedial technology components:
o Implementation of institutional controls including
restrictions that will limit ground water usage and regulate
future development of the site;
o Installation of a cover system that complies with the State
of Florida requirements for closure of municipal landfills
(FAC 17-701.070). The final cover will promote surface
water runoff, control potential fugitive vapor emissions and
minimize the potential for direct contact with the landfill
material;
o Installation of a perimeter security fence to restrict
unauthorized access to the site;
o Implementation of a ground water monitoring program to
periodically evaluate the hydrogeologic conditions and
quality of ground water underlying the site, in accordance
with the ACL demonstration;
o Extend a city water main to residents located immediately
north of the site to supply an alternative drinking source
as a precautionary measure to minimize the potential for
ingestion of ground water constituents associated with the
landfill in the surficial aquifer; and
o Implementation of a plug and abandonment program for water
supply wells in the area immediately north of the site.
All of the existing vegetation covering the landfill will be cleared
and shredded for on-site disposal in the landfill. In addition,
waste deposited along both sides of Little Sixmile Creek will be
removed to a minimum of five feet from the creek bed or the 100-year
flood plane, which ever is greater, and deposited on-site in the
landfill.
The final cover system proposed for the landfill includes a six inch
gas collection layer, consisting of course grain sand and piping,
will be installed directly on top of the graded waste material. A
geotextile fabric will be installed on top of the gas collection
layer and overlain by a cap consisting of two feet of compacted clay
that will have a minimum vertical permeability of 1 x 10 cm/sec.
Figure 7-1 presents a conceptual schematic of the cover system.
-31-
-------
CAS VENTiNG PIPE
2'COMPACTS; C_AY LA
GEOTEXT1LE
6" SANC LAYE=
WASTE AN;
GENERA LF:L
NOT TO SCALE
Figure 7-1
Conceptual Schematic of the Cover System
-32-
-------
The compacted clay cap will be overlain with a one foot layer of
topsoil. The topsoil will be seeded with short root vegetation to
minimize the potential for wind and water erosion of the cover. The
cover system described above will provide three feet of barrier
between the surface of the site and the material deposited in the
landfill, thus effectively minimizing the potential for direct
contact with the landfill material. The final topography of the site
will be configured to promote stormwater run-off and reduce the
potential for surface water ponding on the cover. Perimeter drainage
swales will be installed to facilitate the transportation of run-off
associated with the landfill. Debris located in the 100-year flood
plain of Little Sixmile Creek will be removed and deposited on the
landfill.
A ground water monitoring program and maintenance of the cover system
will be implemented at the site as part of the post-remediation care
for the landfill up to 20 years. Ground water samples will be
collected from monitoring wells located downgradient of the site, the
surficial aquifer, and the rock aquifer.
Monitoring wells will be utilized to collect potentiometric and
ground water quality data only. They will be sampled on a quarterly
basis for the first year to establish background data after
remediation activities have been completed in the surficial and Rock
aquifers.
This alternative does comply with the action and location specific
ARARs identified for the PRLS.
The estimated capital cost associated with alternative 3 is
$7,803,600. The estimated annual operation and maintenance cost is
$171,100 and the total present worth of remedial action Alternative 3
is $9,935,000.
7.4 Alternative 4; Performanced Based Landfill Cover
Remedial Action Alternative 4 involves implementation of the
following remedial technology components:
o Implementation of institutional controls including
restrictions that will limit ground water usage in the area
immediately north of the site and regulate future
development of the site;
o Installation of a cover system that complies with the State
of Florida requirements for closure of landfills (FAC
17-701.075). The final cover will promote surface water
runoff, control potential fugitive vapor emissions, minimize
the. potential for direct contact with the landfill material
and reduce the potential for leachate generation;
o Installation of a perimeter security fence to restrict
unauthorized access to the site;
-33-
-------
o Implementation of a ground water monitoring program to
periodically evaluate the hydrogeologic conditions and
quality of ground water underlying the site, in accordance
with the ACL demonstration;
o Implementation of a plug and abandonment program for water
supply wells located immediately north of the site; and
o Extend a city water main to the area immediately north of
the site to supply residents located within this area with
an alternate potable water supply.
The cover proposed for the site in Remedial Action Alternative 4
includes a geotextile fabric that will be installed directly on top
of the graded waste material. A 12inch gas collection layer,
consisting of course grained sand and piping, will be installed or.
top of the geotextile fabric.
A geotextile fabric will be installed on top of the gas collection
layer and subsequently overlain by a low permeability layer
consisting of 24 inches of compacted clay . The compacted clay cap
will be overlain with a synthetic liner. A drainage layer,
consisting of 12 inches of coarse grain sand, will be installed on
top of the synthetic liner to promote surface water runoff and
minimize the potential for ponding of water on the synthetic liner.
A geotextile fabric will be installed on top of the sand drainage
layer and subsequently overlain with 18 inches of clean general filj.-
material to attain the final grade. The topsoil will be seeded with
short root vegetation to minimize the potential for wind and water
erosion of the cover. The cover system described above will provide
a six foot barrier between the surface of the site and the material
deposited on the landfill.
A ground water monitoring program will be implemented at the site as
part of the post-remediation care for the landfill. Ground water
samples will be collected from monitoring wells located downgradient
of the site, the surficial aquifer, and the Rock aquifer. Monitoring
wells in the surficial and Rock aquifers will also be located
upgradient of the site to determine background water quality.
The monitoring wells will be sampled on a quarterly basis for the
first year to establish ground water conditions after remedial
activities have been completed. Based on the resulting data, a
decision would be made as to the frequency of sampling. The above
ground water sampling program will be implemented at the site for a
maximum of 20 years in accordance with FDER regulations for long term
maintenance of municipal landfills.
This alternative does comply with the action and location specific
ARARs identified at the PRLS. However, it will not comply with
chemical specific ARARs for soil because soil containing
concentrations of contaminants above clean-up levels would remain '
place.
-34-
-------
Estimated capital costs for this alternative is $21,698/700. The
estimated annual operation and maintenance cost is $215,200 and the
total present worth of Alternative 5 is $25,007,000 based on a 30
year service life and a 5 percent discount rate.
7.5 Alternative 5; On-site Incineration and Off-site Disposal
Remedial Action Alternative 5 involves the implementation of the
following remedial technology components:
o Implementation of institutional controls including
restrictions that will limit ground water usage in the area
immediately north of the site and regulate future
development of the site;
o Implementation of a plug and abandonment program for the
water supply wells located immediately north of the site;
o Extension of a city water main to the area immediately north
of the site to supply residents located within this area
with an alternate potable water supply;
o Installation of a perimeter security fence to restrict
unauthorized access to the site;
o Excavation and segregation of the waste material;
o On-site incineration of the waste material;
o Off-site land disposal of segregated non-combustibles and
ash from the incinerator; and
o Ground water monitoring, in accordance with ACL
demonstration.
On-site mobile, rotary kiln incinerators will be brought to the PRLS
for the thermal treatment of the waste. The waste will be excavated
from the site, dewatered, segregated to remove inert combustibles,
and subsequently incinerated. The ash from the incinerator will be
collected and stabilized if necessary. It will then be transported
to a permitted, off-site, commercial facility for land disposal.
Once the waste material has been removed from the site, the
excavation will be backfilled with clean soil similar to natural
soils at the site. The backfill will be placed in lifts and
compacted to minimize subsequent subsidence. A ground water
monitoring program identical to the one discussed in previous
alternatives will be implemented at the site to evaluate ground water
conditions in the surficial and Rock aquifers.
This alternative will comply with the Federal and State chemical
specific ARARs. Alternative 5 will also comply with all of the
potential Federal and State location-specific ARARs identified.
Stack emissions would conform to provisions of the Clean Air Act.
-35-
-------
Estimated capital cost for this alternative is $208,247,000. The
annual operation and maintenance cost for the implementation of
Alternative 5 is $16,165,00. The total present worth of Remedial
Action Alternative 5 is $301,778,000 based on a 7 year service life
and a 5 percent discount rate.
8 . 0 Summary of Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
This section provides the basis for determining which alternative
provides the best balance of trade-offs with respect to the
evaluation criteria. The major objective of the Feasibility Study
was to develop, screen, and evaluate alternatives for remediating the
Pickettville Road Landfill Site. Several remedial technologies were
identified for the surface soil cleanup. These technologies were
screened based on their feasibility with respect to the contaminants
present and the site characteristics. The technologies that remained
after the initial screening were evaluated in detail based on the
nine criteria required by SARA. Cost was use-1 to compare
alternatives only when they provided similar degrees of protection
and treatment. A summary of the relative performance of the
alternatives with respect to each of the nine criteria is provided in
this section. A glossary of the evaluation criteria is offered in
Table 8.1.
8. 1 Overall Protection of
All of the alternatives, with the exception of the "no action"
alternative, would provide protection of human health and the
environment by eliminating, reducing, or controlling risk through
treatment, engineering controls, or institutional controls. Because
the "no action" alternative offers no reduction in risk to human
health and the environment, it is not considered further in this
analysis as an option for this site.
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 will minimize direct contact with the
landfill waste and exposure through inhalation. Alternative 5 is the
most protective of human health and the environment because all waste
is removed from the area of contamination for treatment.
8.2 Compliance with App3 tfj*hi.e py Relev*"*'- *nd Appropriate
f ARARs)
Alternative 2 does not implement technology components that attain
ARARs. While Alternative 2 has the potential to attain the
remediation goal of minimizing direct contact with the landfill
material, it does not acknowledge the remediation goal established
for groundwater based on the continued operation of existing potable
water supply wells immediately north of the site. Because
Alternative 2 does not meet the ARARs for the site it is not
considered further in this analysis as an option.
Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 would comply with all potential Federal a
State ARARs.
-36-
-------
Table 8.1
GLOSSARY OF EVALUATION CRITERIA
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment - addresses
whether or not a remedy provides adequate protection and describes
how risks posed through each pathway are eliminated, reduced, or
controlled through treatment, engineering controls, or institutional
controls.
Compliance with ARARs - addresses whether or not a remedy will meet
all of the applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements of
other Federal and State environmental statutes and/or provides
grounds for invoking a waiver.
Long-Term Effectiveness - refers to the magnitude of residual risk
and the ability of a remedy to maintain reliable protection of human
health and the environment over time once cleanup goals have been
met.
Reduction of Toxicitv, Mobility, or Volume - is the anticipated
performance of the treatment technologies that may be employed in a
remedy.
Short-term Effectiveness - refers to the speed with which the remedy
achieves protection, as well as the remedy's potential to create
adverse impacts on human health and the environment that may result
during the construction and implementation period.
Implementabilitv - is the technical and administrative feasibility of
a remedy, including the availability of materials and services needed
to implement the chosen solution.
Cost -includes capital and operation and maintenance costs.
State Acceptance - indicates whether the State concurs with, opposes,
or has no comment on the preferred alternative.
Community Acceptance - will be assessed in the Responsiveness Summary
in the appendix of the Record of Decision after reviewing the public
comments received on the Feasibility Study and the Proposed Plan.
-37-
-------
8.3 Txano-tenn Effectiveness
Alternative 5 provides the most reliability and requires the least
long-term management of the site because it involves the removal of
all waste and contaminated soil. Long-term maintenance requirements
for Alternatives 3, 4 are limited to cap maintenance and monitoring.
8.4 Reduction of Toxi
Because Alternative 5 involves the excavating of waste and
contaminated soil and subsequent incineration, it provides for the
maximal reduction of contaminant toxicity, mobility, and volume with
respect to the site.
Alternatives 3 and 4 do not provide for the reduction of toxicity,
mobility, and volume of the landfill waste.
8.5 Short-term Effectiveness
Alternatives 3 and 4 are the most desirable in terms of this
criterion. Implementation time for these alternatives is shorter
(one or two years) than Alternative 5, which would require 7-8 years
to implement .
Risks to on-site workers and the surrounding community are primarr"
due to generation of airborne dust during clearing and waste
excavation. Alternatives 3 and 4 would require limited to extensive
excavation. Alternative 5 would generate incinerator stack emissions
that are controllable.
8.6
The process components required for Alternatives 3 and 4 are
available and have been effectively implemented for numerous site
remediations at landfills similar to the PRLS. General earthmoving
and excavation equipment will be required to upgrade and install the
cover (s) .
Alternative 5 would be difficult to implement because the one million
ydj of wastes are deposited in the water table up to 18 m below
land surface. Alternative 5 would requires complete excavation as
well as construction and operation of incineration facilities.
8.7 Cost
Cost-effectiveness is determined by comparing the costs of all
alternatives being considered with their overall effectiveness to
determine whether the costs are proportional to the effectiveness
achieved. Alternatives 3 and 4 are more cost-effective than
Alternative 5 because they offer similar reductions in risk to hu*
health and the environment.
-38-
-------
The estimated cost for each alternative is as follows:
Alternative Cost (Total Present Net Worth)
Alternative 3
Clay Cover with Alternative $9,935,000
Water Supply
Alternative 4
Engineered Performance Cover $25,007,000
with Alternate Water Supply
Alternative 5
On-Site Incineration $301,778,000
8.8 State Acceptance
The State of Florida, as represented by the Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation, has verbally concurred in the selection of
Alternative 3 as the preferred alternative for the Pickettville-- Road
Landfill Site.
8.9 Community Acceptance
During the public meeting, held on July 12, 1990, the Pickettville
community indicated a strong preference for Alternative 5.
9.0 Selected Remedy
EPA's preferred alternative for the protection of human health and
the environment at the PRLS is Alternative No. 3, which consists of
the construction of a clay landfill cover with a passive gas
collection layer. This alternative also includes the extension of
the city water main, continuous ground water monitoring, and the
plugging and abandonment of potable water supply wells. The specific
wells to be abandoned will be determined during the Remedial Design
phase.
Restoration of the Little Sixmile Creek will be conducted to remove
waste which have migrated from the site into the creek. Waste
deposited along both sides of Little Sixmile Creek will be removed to
a minimum of five feet from the creek bed or the 100-year flood
plane, which ever is greater, and deposited on-site in the landfill.
An ecological study of Little Sixmile Creek will be conducted to
determine if any negative environmental impacts to the creek have
occurred. In the event that the ecological study reveals
contamination which may impair the ecological community, additional
remedial actions for the creek may be necessary.
The pre-design phase of this alternative will include an extensive
well survey and the installation of three deep Floridan monitoring
wells that will determine the vertical extent of contamination. In
the event that these wells show contamination above the MCLs, a
feasibility analysis of groundwater remedial alternatives will be
conducted. The ROD will then be amended if deemed necessary to
address the groundwater contamination.
-------
The groundwater quality data for the PRLS indicates that sporadic
contamination is emanating from the landfill. This can be expected
when a heterogeneous source is involved. However, maximum
contaminant-levels' (MCLs) in drinking water are violated for benzene
and vinyl chloride in off-site monitor well SMW-4. The ground water
in the surficial aquifer has been classified as Class IIB, a
potential source of drinking water, utilizing the EPA Ground-Water
Classification Guidelines. Therefore, the MCLs are Applicable or
Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) for the ground water at
the site.
The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA)
allows for the setting of Alternate Concentration Limits (ACLs) when
the criteria of Section 121(d)(ii)(B)(ii) are met at a Superfund
site. These conditions are fulfilled at the PRLS. Therefore, ACLs
will be set such that the migration of contaminants from the landfill
at or below the ACLs will be protective of surface-water quality at
the point of discharge. In during the long t^rm monitoring of the
groundwater quality, contaminants are detected above the ACLs, a
feasibility analysis of groundwater remedial alternatives will be
performed. The ROD will then be amended if deemed necessary to
address the groundwater contamination.
Groundwater recovery and treatment were not considered feasible
because of the physical .characteristics of the site (over 1 millic
yd^ of wastes, portions of which are deposited in the water table
up to 18m below land surface).
Institutional controls will be imposed to assure that ground water
between the source and the discharge point will not be used for any
purposes that could result in human exposures to contaminants.
Based on current information, the selected remedy provides the best
balance of the nine criteria that EPA uses to evaluate each remedial
alternative proposed for a site. The rationale for selecting this
alternative includes the following reasons:
o provides immediate protection to human health from potential
threats associated with direct contact with the contaminated
surface soil/ waste, and ground water.
o provides an equal amount of protection as a Performance Base
Landfill Cover due to the fact that the waste is deposited
in the water table.
9.1 Cleanup goals
Alternate Concentration Limits (ACLs) Determination: In Section
121(d)(2)(B)(ii) of Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of
1986 (SARA) ACLs may be established where "on the basis of
measurements or projections, there is or will be no statistically'
significant increase of such constituents from such ground water
such surface water at the point of entry or at any point where tht
is reason to believe accumulation of constituents may occur
downstream."
-40-
-------
At the PRLS, ground water is discharging into Little Sixmile Creek.
The contaminants of concern -- benzene and vinyl chloride — have not
been detected in water or sediment samples taken from the stream.
The current practical quantification limit for these two compounds in
water samples .is 1.0 ppb. We will set the maximum allowable level in
the surface water at two orders of magnitude below this number or
0.01 ppb, providing additional assurance that the compounds will not
be detected.
During a USGS study in the area, it was determined that a low flow
discharge rate for Little Sixmile Creek was 2.66 cubic feet per
second (cfs). The stream channel is approximately 20 to 30 feet in
width. For the modeling demonstration it will be assumed that ground
water discharge from the PRLS to the stream occurs over a width of 10
feet. It is assumed that a contaminant plume of 50 feet in width
discharges to the stream downgradient of the PRLS. The ground-water
velocity as determined in the Remedial Investigation Report is 0.04
feet per day (ft/d).
Using the above data a dilution factor was determined for
contaminants in ground water discharging to Little Sixmile Creek;
this dilution factor is equal to 11,566. Applying this factor to the
allowable concentration in surface water of 0.01 ppb results in. an
allowable concentration in ground water at the point of exposure
(POE) of 115 ppb.
Solute transport modeling was performed to predict the ACL at the
point of compliance (POC) or the edge of the landfill. The modeling
demonstration indicated that no contaminant concentration reduction
is expected between the POC and the POE under a continuous source
scenario over a 30-year simulation time. Therefore, the ACL for
benzene and vinyl chloride will be set at 115 ppb at the POC.
The POC monitor wells are SMW-7, SMW-8, and SMW-10. Off-site monitor
well SMW-4 will be monitored to that assure that future levels in the
contamination previously detected at this location do not exceed the
ACLs for benzene and vinyl chloride.
The ACLs are contingent upon institutional controls being established
so that ground water within the effected area will not be used in any
way that could result in human exposures to contaminants as per
Section 121(d)(2)(B)(ii)(III) of SARA.
DILUTION MODEL:
GROUND-WATER INPUTS
velocity (v) = 0.04 ft/d
- 0.00000046 ft/8
discharge area (A) = 10 ft X 50 ft
= 500 ft2
discharge (Qgw) = v X A
= 0.00000046 ft/s X 500 ft2
= 0.00023 cfs
-------
SURFACE WATER INPUTS
discharge (Qsw) = 2.66 cfs
concentration (Csw) = 0.01 ppb
CALCULATION"OF DILUTION FACTOR
Qgw + Qsw
DF =
Qgw
0.00023 cfs + 2.66 cfs
0.00023 cfs
= 11,565
CALCULATION OF ALLOWABLE CONCENTRATION IN GROT.".:D WATER AT THE POINT
OF EXPOSURE
Concentration (Cgw) = Csw X DF
« 0.01 ppb X 11,566
- 115 ppb
ONE-DIMENSIONAL SOLUTE TRANSPORT MODEL
INPUTS
velocity (v) = 0.04 ft/d
effective porosity (n) * 0.2
longitudinal dispersivity = 40 ft
retardation factor » 1 (no retardation)
time (t) = 30 years
= 10,950 days
distance from POC to POE = 400 ft
initial concentration (Co) = 0 ppb
MODEL USED:
ONED1 - An Analytical Model for Solute Transport in a Semi-Infinite
Column from the International Ground Water Modeling Center,
Indianapolis, Indiana.
Using the above inputs the solute transport model predicts that under
a continuous source scenario over a 30-year migration period, the
contaminants of concern would gradually reach the point of exposure
(Little Sixmile Creek) at concentrations equal to the allowable
concentration. This is reasonable since the travel distance from the
source to the receptor is 400 feet. Therefore, the ACLs for benzene
and vinyl chloride will be set at the allowable groundwater
concentration of 115 ppb.
-42-
-------
10.0 Statutory Determinations
The U.S. EPA and FDER have determined that this remedy will satisfy
the statutory requirements of Section 121 of CERCLA by providing
protection of-human health and the environment, attaining ARARs,
providing cost effectiveness, and utilizing permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies
to the maximum extent practicable.
10.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The selected remedy of a clay landfill cover provides protection of
human health and the environment by eliminating the direct threat
through dermal contact with contaminated surface soil and buried
waste. The other components of the remedy such as extension of the
city water main, plug and abandonment of potable water wells, and
ground water monitoring, will prevent public exposure to the
contaminants present in the ground water.
10.2 Attainment of the Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARARs)
Remedial actions performed under CERCLA, as amended by SARA, must
comply with all applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs) or comply with a justifiable waiver. The Preferred
Alternative for the PRLS was evaluated on the basis of the degree it
complied to these requirements. The recommended alternative was
found to meet or exceed the ARARs.
As stated in Section 121(d)(2)(B)(ii) of SARA, ACLs may be
established where "on the basis of measurements or projections, there
is or will be no statistically significant increase of such
constituents from such ground water in such surface water at the
point of entry or at any point where there is reason to believe
accumulation of constituents may occur downstream". At the PRLS,
ground water is discharging into Little Sixmile Creek. The
contaminants of concern, benzene and vinyl chloride, have not been
detected in water or sediment samples taken from the stream. The
current practical quantification limit for these two compounds in
water samples is 1.0 ppb. The maximum allowable level in the surface
water will be set at two orders of magnitude below this number or
0.01 ppb, providing additional assurance that the compounds will not
be detected.
In order to develop the ACL, solute transport modeling was performed
to predict the ACL at the point of compliance (POC) or the edge of
the landfill. The modeling demonstration indicated that no
contaminant concentration reduction is expected between POC and the
point of exposure (POE) under a continuous source scenario over a
30-year simulation time. Therefore, considering the mixing of
discharge into Little Sixmile Creek the ACL for benzene and vinyl
chloride will be set at 115 ppb at the POC.
-41-
-------
When ARARs are not available for specific compounds or exposure media
(such as groundwater), the cleanup goals are based on non-promulgated
advisories or guidance such as the proposed Florida Recommended
Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (RMCLs), proposed federal MCLGs,
lifetime Health Advisories (HAs), and reference dose (RfD) based
guidelines.
Federal location-specific ARARs for the PRLS include the following:
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA^ location
requirements - Mandates that hazardous waste treatment, storage,
or disposal facilities located within a 100-year floodplain must
be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to avoid
washout.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRAT Closure under
Subtitle D - Because the State of Florida requirements for
closure of municipal landfills (FAC 17-701 070) is more stringent
than the closure under RCRA Subtitle D, the PRLS will be closed
under FAC 17-701.070.
Endangered Species Act - The selected remedy is protective of
species listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered
Species Act. Requirements of the Interagency Section 7
Consultation Process, 50 CFR Part 402, will be met. The
Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, will be
consulted during remedial design to assure that endangered or
threatened species are not adversely impacted by implementation
of this remedy.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act - Requires adequate protection
of fish and wildlife if any stream or other body of water is
modified. Additionally, actions in wetlands are required to
avoid adverse effects, minimize potential harm, and restore and
preserve natural and beneficial values.
National Historical Preservation Act - Requires that action be
taken to preserve or recover historical or archaeological data
which might be destroyed as a result of site activities. There
is no information to indicate that the PRLS contains any historic
or archaeological significance.
Federal regulations that contain potential action-specific ARARs for
the site are listed belowz
40 CFR Section 264.99 Compliance Monitoring Program - establishes
criteria for monitoring ground water quality when .contaminants
have been detected.
Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria fAWQCl - is the maximum
concentration for the protection of aquatic life. The AWQC may
not be initially met. However, these standards will be achi
over a short period of time because the source of contaminatio
(the landfill) will be capped.
-44-
-------
RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions ILDRs) - Establishes restrictions
on the placement of RCRA hazardous wastes. The LDRs are
applicable only if the soil is excavated and removed from site or
excavated and treated.
Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration Act (OSHA^
The selected remedial action contractor will develop and
implement a health and safety program for its workers. All
onsite workers will meet the minimum training and medical
monitoring requirements outlined in 40 CFR 1910.
State regulations that contain potential action specific ARARs for
the site are listed below:
Florida Administrative Code Chapter 17-3 - The Florida
Administrative Code Chapter 17-3, Maximum Contaminant Levels
(MCL) for Class III surface water bodies, will be met.
Florida Administrative Code Chapter 17-701.070 - Installation of
a protective cover system that complies with the State of Florida
requirements for closure of municipal landfills (FAC 17-701.070)
will be met.
10.3 Cost Effectiveness
The present estimated cost of EPA's selected remedy is $9,935,000.
The selected remedy affords overall effectiveness proportional to its
costs such that the remedy represents a reasonable value for the
money. When the relationship between cost and overall effectiveness
of the selected remedy is viewed in light of the relationship between
cost and overall effectiveness afforded by other alternatives, the
selected remedy appears to be cost effective.
10.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
Technologies to thp Mayimiim Extent
The U.S. EPA believes this remedy is the most appropriate remediation
solution for the PRLS and provides for the best balance among the
evaluation criteria for the remedial alternatives considered. The
selected remedy provides short and long term protection to potential
human receptors, is readily implemented, and is cost effective.
Although SARA provides for EPA to select permanent remedies where
feasible, source control cannot be easily accomplished at the PRLS
due to the saturated conditions of the waste materials. Excavation
of these materials would require the removal of one million cubic
yards of saturated waste. This technology would not be easily
implemented, would incur tremendous costs, and is not warranted by
existing conditions .
Several physical limitations have been identified at the PRLS that
would limit the implementability and effectiveness of ground water
-------
recovery and treatment. An active or passive ground water collecuion
system if placed along the creek would inhibit ground water flow from
the landfill area to the stream. Such a system would lower the water
table in the area such that all ground water discharge to Little
Sijor.ile Creek within the radius of the influence system is
eliminated.
Treatment would require the de-watering of the waste material as deep
as the Rock aquifer. Consequences of a recovery system would include
the need to manage the discharge of up to 5 MGD of recovered ground
water, the creation of large water level declines, significant impact
on local stream flow, mobilization of waste constituents vertically
downward into a water supply aquifer and the loss of 5 MGD from a
natural resource.
The selected remedy, which involves installing a clay landfill cover
with gas collection layer, extending the city water main,
implementing institutional controls and continuous ground water
monitoring, does not include a treatment technology due to the many
physical characteristics of the PRLS.
10.5 Preference for Treat'Tnent as a Principal Bl^T^ent
The statutory preference for treatment will not be met for the
selected remedy for reasons stated in the previous section.
Treatment was found to be impractical because of the extent of t'
waste present and other physical characteristics of the site and ,'s
surrounding area.
However, this remedy will prevent future exposures from the affected
media and protect human health and the environment.
-46-
-------
APPENDIX A
Surface Water Analytical Data
Pickettville Road Landfill
Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida
-------
SW-1 SURFACE-WATER
SAMPLING POINT
AND NUMBER
Sur face-Water and f.tronm holtom Sampling Points
-------
Kaiaric-js S.±star.re List (HSL) Cor.stit-er.ts
Repcrted fc: Surface-Water Sarnies
Water
SW-l SW-2 SW-3 SW-4 Quality
(Ccr.cer.traticr.s in ppt) Criteria1
KSL V"CL.-.r:iE3
r.rthyls-e C.u.ltrice 25 - - -
KS1 SHL-.I-VCL-.TILiS
C:-:;-=-tvl F.-.ti-alate £J 6J 10 - 3:
E.s (2-Ethylr.exy;) Pr.tr.alats 51 9s 40 =J 3
9—Hexadecsr.cit Acid 53J 13CJ — — —
Kexar.edicic Acid -
Zicrtyl Ester 26." 23J - -
Fer.tadecar.tic Acid 5J - - -
1,2,3 Trichltrcprc-a-e - SJ
2-.v.et:-.ylri-clGpe.-tar.=i - 23J
Cvclchexar.cr.e - - - 11J -
if.icbutyric Arid -
S-c-er.tvl Ester - - - 6J -
Lead
Cyar.ice (Tstal)
11
140
30
5
Note:
Data should be considered qualitative only.
I/ - Florida Class III Surface-Water Quality Criteria.
2/ - Total Phthalate Esters
- » Reported less than detection limit.
J - Estimated quantity because quality control criteria
were not met.
A-2
-------
Cc:^.-.-epe! o' Cc-s:; tji.-.ts in Surface Water, littl* Simile Creek, •:
t.-.e Pickettvil.e Scad landf:;'. Site, Jacksor.vi He. Florid*.
-c y » tc:a'. rj-cs- cf saircles ar.alyieii.
t: P..-.:-*.- - p.a«ir_- C;-cs.-:.-atis-s.
e) A,-i t.-.-?«:ie mear utilises 5C% of metnoc detection limit for those data points
rspo-:ec as tei:» c-a".' :atii-, lir.;: (3ID.
A-3
-------
APPENDIX B
Groundwater Analytical Data
Pickettville Road Landfill
Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida
-------
OSMW-7 SURFICIAL AQUIFER WELL
LOCATION ft NUMBER
ADMW-4 ROCK AQUIFER WELL LOCATION
ft NUMBER
?M^!.'_!.f CM I n"ir° • »n«M
. \
DMW-4 SMW-4
(9SMW-6 WASTE CHARACTERIZATION WELL
LOCATION ft NUMBER
• SG-2 STAFF OAOE LOCATION ft NUMBER
II i I IIMW-4
I""" 1 I OMW-8^ .
;J \}™vg3i
II
"KFTTvn i r noAn Ij V(
I ANOIIII SMI IKMW I |>\
*» li \V
DMW 10
X O /
SMW 10 <
Ivi I Ic lt(.:«l l.iiuin II r,i
Monitor-Woll nrel Sl.aff
Gape locations
-------
to
I
K)
EXPLANATION
SUnFIClAL AQUIFfR WCLL
OSMW-7 LOCATION A NUUUER
0.06 GMOUNO-MATEn ELEVAIION
IN FEET (MOD
®VUCVU 3 WASTE OHANACTEDIZATION WELL
LOCATION ft NUMBER
• SG-2 STAFF QAQE LOCATION A NUMBER
—10—- GROUND-WATER CONTOUR IN FEET (USD
SMU/-I4
4.63
INFERRED DIRECTION OF HORIZONTAL
GROUND-WATER FLOW
" IO ->*WW»«'IJ
SMU/
a.as
PICKf Tl VII I I lli>AD
ANDI it i su i
I'll li.-l I vi I I, II, ,.,,| | .,,,,11 i I I M I
.Sin I;n i? i i| I In- Sin I n i.i I
A.(in Irr mi N»VHII|M i I!. I'lMH
-------
03
I
NUMBER
GROUND-WATER ELEVATION IN FELT (MSL)
GROUND-WATER CONTOUR IN FEET (MSL)
INFERRED DIRECTION OF HORIZONTAL
GHOUNO-WAieft FLOW
l'i. li,-i I vi I I,- K,,,,! 1.111,11 i 11 :.'i i>
IKIK..-I ric: .Sin |.ice n| I IK-
nil N'lVdiilNT L' IIUIM
-------
Parameters Reported In Surficial Aquifer Ground-Water Samples Collected
From Applicable Wells at the Piclcettville Road Landfill Site, Jacksonville,
Florida During September 1988.
K=r.it = r-Well Location
Constituent
SMW-1 SMW-4 SMW-7 SMW-8
(Ccncentratons in ppb)
SMW-10
SMW-14
Alur.inu.T
Ar.titnony
Arsenic
Barium
Calcium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Scdiu.T,
Zinc
VOLATILES
Acetone
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
2-Hexanone
Toluene
Vinyl Chloride
67CC
—
—
200 3
8COO
2S
52CC
7J
6000
23
2.2
4C
-—
—
80
--
—
--
—
_-
—
NA
NA
13
C2 J
NA
NA
NA
—
NA
NA
—
NA
NA
NA
NA
26
103
11
-—
6
S
5200
—
—
—
17000
—
3900
6J
11000
83
0.7
—
--
—
40
—
--
—
-_
— _
--
1500
60J
—
—
22000
—
13000
--
9400
304
0.2
—
10000
25000
—
32
—
33
16
_-
--
—
103
—
142000
—
45700
--
34000
1494
—
—
15000
79000
--
27
—
—
— —
— -
—
NA
NA
—
—
NA
NA
NA
14
NA
NA
—
NA
NA
NA
NA
—
--
—
16
—
—
50
1000
1000
300
50
50
2
16CDOC
5000
1
BASE - NEUTRAL EXTRACTABLES
Bia ( 2-Ethylhexyl ) Phthalata
PESTICIDES - PCBs
Delta-BHC
Endosulfan I
MISCELLANEOUS
Cyanida (Total)
—
—
—
——
—
NA
NA
——
—
—
—
--
23J
1.5
—
~
10J
0.33
0..31
28
22J
NA
NA
~
* .- Maximum Contaminant Laval (Florida Primary & Sacondary Drinking Watar Standards)
NA - Not Analyzed
- - Below Datection Limit
J - The associated numerical value is an estimated quantity bacause quality control
criteria were not met. (See Appendix B, Section 1).
B-4
-------
Parameters Reported ir. Reck Ac-ifer Ground-Water S*ncles Collected From Aeolicable bells a:
tne Pickettville Road lancr:II. S;:e, Jacksonville, Florida Curing Se;:emoe- 193S.
Monitor-Well i scatter.
C;i-s:i t-je-.t
C.-.'-' Ou--i CHW-7 CHU-S BMW-? cm. -'.3 C«--1i *:_•
(Concentrations ir. pes)
A1, .rv'-vj- 1'" NA -• •• NA
Sa-iur •- 2C:: -- 30:: 32S 3CCJ
ca'.r-x- -• NI 5io:: 52::: NA ?i:::
Cc==e- :• NA £S -• NA
Irs.-. 2" NA -• -- .- 3C:
Lear 7. 13
Masresijr •• NA 13CCC •- NA 2iCCC
Msrga.-.ese -• NA •• 15 NA 2:
>•«-:.-, C.7 -- -- -• 0.2
Nicxe'. 7: NA 60 -• NA
Pctass'j- •- NA 5000 600: NA 60C:
SOC;'^T 1?::: NA 13000 300:0 NA teoc:
Zirc i- NA 80 -- NA 30
v:.i':'.-:i
Acetor.e •• -- •• 16
2-Hexar.c,-e -• 13 •• 13
BASE - NEUTSAL EXTSACTAS'.ES
Bis(2-E:r>l".«»v- ;:-:-s:ate -• li; 17: 17. •. = , '5:
Oi-N-Sutyl Phtnalate
Pc3*:o:ccs • POSS
De'.ta-BHC -• NA O.CS3 -- NA
Endcsulfar, 1 NA -• O.C?2 NA
10::
NA
NA ic::
NA 30:
s:
NA
NA 5C
2
NA
NA
NA 160000
NA 5COC
2~
16
UJ
--
NA
NA
• - Haxiflun Contaminant Level (Florida Primary i Secondary Drinking water Standards)
NA • Not Analyzed
•• - Below Detection Limit
J • The associated numerical value is an estimated quantity because quality control criteria were
not met. (See Appendix I, Section 1).
B-5
-------
ntl Stili-il ,in<-<» l.lM (IIM.) Cons! I I in-lit n
l'i>poi I oil lor C.fcM I ii-;l a I I t>il Mniiilni Mi-I I 1
iir.i. VOI.ATII.ES ;
Oh Inrof or*
n«nzene
Et hy 1 hentene
Xy Icne
Acetone
IISI. J5FM1-VOI.ATILES
DI-N~nutyl Phthalate
nla (2-Ethylhexyl ) Phthalate
TIC COMPOUNDS
1,2.3 Tr Ichloropropane
2-Chloroethanol Phosphate
2-Methylcyclopentanol
Cyclohoxanone
i Thlnhiityrlc Acid - *
<* Spentyl Eater
llexnnedlolc Acld-
Oloclyl Ester
Sub -it Ituted Alkanea-
Eater
IISL PESTICIDES AND PCnS
PCB - 1260"
II SI, METALS (Total)
Arnenlc
l).i r \ urn
ChromluM
Load
Set en In*
Nickel
Itnryl 1 IUM
Mnrcury
VnnAil In*
MoniTOH -wri.i. i nc AT inn
SMW-I r,MW~i r,MW-4 r.nw-5 ;,ftw-f, HMW-I IIMW-I
(1'oni-pnl i .it lon-i in |>|)l>)
?/?.!---
- - • Sr, - -
- -•,;__
- - - ('III
?.M)0
4.1 - in - 1 2 in
2.1 79 1.1 5n«i ?',n in n
6.1 - -
25.1 - * - - - 4.10.1 04.1
5.1 - - _ _ .
15.1 - - -
13J - - - - ll.l
16.1 - 550.1 - 105.1
- - - 210 IIJ
O.BJ -
34 - 66 25 12
440 - 210 110 4)0 62
91 - 22 47 in - -
10 - 27 - 61 11
II - 12 9
55 - nn 51 -
6 -
0.4 - - -
110
mw-4 nn.
ino
I 1
51J
40.1
71.1
ion
37
50
50
50
50
III
Note: D.ita should tin considered
I/
?/
I/
• •?
. Itallvc only.
rinrdln Prlm.iry Or I nk lni|-»y.il or M.mliniim Contaminant l.«vol (MCI.).
Mo Hal a, n<*c Cano M. lor Total Ti I h,t I oinol h.iiuvi .
, .
- - ll.ipur I ml I iinn I 11.in ilnl O'rl Ion I I m I I .
.1 • i:.-»l Imnl ml ifiinnl. I I y lioirnurni ipinllly control rrllnrlo
WIIMI not mill
-------
l\ft7.1 ril 1.1st (H';i| Cunsl i I in-ill •;
I'f pol I i-il IMI I x I '.I I in) Mini I I iii Wi- I I •,
MONITMU Ul.l.l. I.MCATIMN-.
MM-1 HW-2 MW-1 MW-S HMS-I MM-. .' MM-. - I SK ? |,,v •-V • M«'l.l/
(Cnm-iMil i .il Itiii-i hi |>|>l>)
IISL VOLATII.ES
Methylena Chloride - - - I.I - -
Chlorofor* - - - - f.i - -
Xylene - ------ s--
Acetune - - - - - - I I 1,400
IISL SEMI-VOLATILES
DI-N-Butyl Phthalat* 51 6.1 I.I - ',7 f,.i 7.1 ?o
Bia (2-Ethylhexyl ) Phth«l»te 13 Ii.O _ Mil 470 ) I >\ 4JI) Ui> n
TIC COHPOUNDS
9-llexanedlolc Acid ___ _ _ __
lloxanedlolc Acid -
Dloctyl Etter - - - - -
Thlobutyrlc Acid -
Spentyl - - - - - - I I.I IU
IISL PESTICIDES AND PCBs
PCB - 1260 - . 8J - -- - _._.
IISL HRTALS (Total)
Arsenic - - 14 - - 40 10 - SO
Barlu* ISO - 160 - I ?0 in 100 - - 1,000
ChroMlun - -- - ~ J' - _ - Ml
. Lead - - I 10 - 3'IO 9 - S M)
Beryl HUM - - - - - '" -___
ADDITIONAL
Cyanide _ _ _ _ - 400 -
Note i
Data should be considered qualitative only.
I/ • Florida Primary Or Ink In«|-H*ter Maximum Contaminant l.nvel (MCI.)
- • Reported leas than the
-------
Major Inoi <}i\>\ I <: ritn-M i I iicul •: l'"|ioi t
for Hon I I or W.> I I •-.
( Coix cut i ,ill mi'. In |i|iiu)
Honl tor-Wall
Locations
Calclu*
Magnesium Potrtnsliim Snillnm
HI <-9
40
04
160
1 2
54
1-,
10
44
4J
r.
II
-
_
-
1 10
24
r,o
-
-
07
Of,
210
2 10
"
IS
7
-
SG
44
1 20
1 )R
110
-
142
15
210
64
? ;o
1114
in
M. 2
-
4. 7
1 1
3G
20
5
-
10
1
7.5
28
Ifi
2'.
Hotel
Data should be cons M«»re«1 qualitative only.
Reported 1<*H9 Minn ilolncL I on limit .
-------
APPENDIX C
Soil Analytical Data
Pickettville Road Landfill
Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida
-------
r>
i
X SURFACE-SOIL SAMPLING
POINT AND NUMBER
Surface-Soil Samplinq Points
-------
ll.tzardoiifi .'".nliMl nttc.n l.lnl (1C.I.) I'misl I I in-n( :i
llrpnc Iti.l for Sin ' .lire Soil :;.ini|i I ii'i
n
IISL SEMI-VOLATILES
nta(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
Fluorene
Phenanthrone
Fluoranthene
Pyrone
TIC COMPOUNDS
9-llexadecenolc Acid
HSL PESTICIDES AND PCD«
PCB-1260
IISL METALS (Total)
Araenlc
Uarlum
Cadnlun
Chronlu*
Lead
Mercury
SelenluM
Silver
SS-1
-
-
-
-
—
13.000J
•"
9.7
80
0.09
9.1
8.1
49
2.400
4.7
iionirir. LOCATION
sr.-2 ns-J ss -4 :;:;-5
(Toni.-cnl t -it Innn In u<|/kr]
97,000
-
-
-
— — — _
•
— _ _
200 94J 00.1
(Concentrations In imj/kg
6.7 0.0 15 12
150 130 410 llf.
0.26 0.40 0.64 0.67
5.'. 12 24 27
26 01 JO 140
71 0.42 0 . 1 II 0.19
2,800 0.9S 7.1 0.9S
-
*
SS-f. Sfi-7 SS-0
flw)
_
11,000
!(>'>, 000
110,000
2411,000
-
1 7J
(Iw)
11 12 i
50(1 1/0 1411
J.I 0. \'> 0. 04
6 J 12 1.0
I.JOO 311 21
0 . 0 J - 0 . S •>
i . c n . f.
Notet
Data should be considered qualitative only.
- • Reported leaa than detection limit.
J • Estimated quantity because quality control criteria wore not mol
-------
. I
•ci-Tre-ce ef Cirsr- :-je-;s in :re Sur-foiil So'l, Pi'eittTv'.le *ca;
Uncoil Sit«, .iicnonv-'. le. fieriaa.
Jetectior. 4) Range b)
Al.nrxr 7/7
A.-.:-.7t:-v •, / 7
A.-se-r 7/7
3a-<-r: 7/7
3e.-v. ; ;LTI 7/7
:io---- - / -
Ca.i-'j-i 7 / •
:^:rv_r 7/7
CCM. : j / 7
:.-=c<- 7 / 7
,.J= 7/7
.*«;.-« :tr 7/7
-1«a.'-;arese 7/7
xe-r-rv 6 / 7
x;ct;. 5/7
= c:jss-.-- 7/7
S«'.e.-i'j-. 7 / 7
Si Lve- 1 / 7
Soc: _r 6/7
T.-.a. '. :UP. 1 / ~
varjcrur * 4 / -
*•'•>• •* ~
SASs • SEJTSAL £X-SACTA3'.£3 ;.;/<;)
S:$:i-s:nvin««vUPRt.-.ti«:i • .• -
.:.s*.r»
-------
APPENDIX D
Sediment Analytical Data
Pickettville Road Landfill
Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida
-------
o
EXPLANATION
SG-2 8TAFF QAQE LOCATION I NUMBER
II SW-? SURFACE-WATER SAMPLE
LOCATION A NUMBER
HI SFD-2 BOTTOM-SEDIMENT SAMPLE
LOCATION A NUMBER
PICKFTTVIII f no/\l)
Ml I
sw/srn
PlB
.Snrfacn-Walor nixl Strc«nm-IVil Ion
i MI; Incnl.inns
Pic.lcpUvilli' Rnnrl l.nnflfill
-------
H=C2:dc_s S-.±3--a.-.:= List (KSL) Crr.stifjer.ts
Repcried f;: Sedirr.er.t Sarzles
j-. 5E^~2 SE3-3
(Ccr.rer.traticr.s ir. uc.Ag dv)
— r.yl Eszer
1 f. 1 <-. £--ela..- .-,.-.£ - -.- - -
4-'2,:. 3,3 -Tet:a,---_-vl -
• Butyl 'pher.cf ""'"" 1,5:CJ
Arser.i:
Eariur: 22
C2d.-.iu.-
Chrcr^^ ,9.2
Lead
Selenium
Eervliiur
Cscal;
Nickel 12
Var.aci'jr.
Cyanide (Total)
- 2,
_
"
22
160
0.08
22
52
11
3.0
3.5
10
28
26
1COJ
_
^
11
71
0.06
11
88
1.2
1.8
2.9
4.6
8.8
33
-
0..
_
^
3.
43
1.
30
50
—
1.
—
—
—
-
8
e
3
Note:
Data should be considered qualitative only.
- » Reported less than detection limit.
J - Estimated quantity because quality control criteria were not met.
D-2
-------
; t
Oicyre-.ee e' Const: t-je-.ts ir Secimer:. Littie Simile Cree*. Pic«ettvil.e
Roas Land-ii. Site, Ja:*s"vi t le, Fioricz.
F-ec-e-rv e'
Cc'St i t--e-: De:e:ticr. e: Range
H.JTA.S (per.:
A-se-.: 3/5 • 1.0 •
Ba-i-_- 2/5 • 2C •
' C3- •_- • / 5 * C.5 -
Crror.!.- 5/5 1.4 •
Lea: 5/5 5.2 -
Ne-:-~. 2/5 • C.C2 -
. Se.e--.--r 3/5 • C.5 •
v:.i~:.E: (pec-
A:e::rs 2:5 * '.2 -
2 - B.tanc-- 1/5 • 12 -
fe-.^.e-t Cr..s-:se • / 5 • 6 •
5" B-S"-"""---==' , , ,
t:
14
7: "
4.6
7;
42S
•..5
C.6
2::
3e
4C
2:
1197.
near, e:
5
2:
2-
9'.
C.3'
C.3i
4"
1:
1
6:::
Tne anai/rica. values presentee above were cEtainetf from »«nplcs SeD-2 tn.-oc;'
SH:-i CSerterse- 1?i= .
a: x / y; wne-e x « OLnoe- cf sanc;es witr. ar^'.y:ical results ibove me cetecTicr
li-::, •."« y » teta'. PKJTS*- e' sa.rs.es •r.aiyiec.
t) Minirxr • haximur Coneer.tratiers.
c: A--.tr.-e:-.: mes- uri'. izes 5Ci e-' iretr.c: c?te:t>" litri: fo- tnose ca:5 oe;.-t;
resc-tec as b«;c. Cuar.Titaisr iir:: (3C.;.
»
* Detectic-. Lin-:
C3- • r; '«.:
c=: = .;/«.;
-------
APPENDIX E
Background Analytical Data
Pickettville Road Landfill
Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida
-------
; i
Analytical 3at» Obtained Our-r«s Seocemoer 1582 F'W r.ie
S-rficial Ao-ife- a; :ne Bic*et:ville Soaa Lancfil'. Site, Ja:»ss.-vi'.'.«,
f Icrica.
Heni tcr-.'e1.'.
S3.-'
(C;neertra:icrs
we - 1 e
• • * » 3
A I jr : -
Arse- :
3ar--jn
2 ire
VCLAT'lSS
AcSTsre
Seniene
£t"y l benzene
2-Hexansne
Toluene
BASH • NEUTRAL EXTRACTABlES
8ts(2-etnylh«xyl)Phtn»late
PESTICIDES • PC8S
Otlta-BMC
Endosulfan I
MISCELLANEOUS
Cyanide (Total)
C.2
•- Below Detection Limit
J The associated nunerieal value is an estimated quantity because Quality
control criteria were not met.
-------
Background A.-o'.y:ica! Ca;a OBtained During Sestetieer 19&8 Frcn
tne Rock t^ife- a: tr.s Pickertvill* Roac Landfill See,
Jackscrvi Ue. : ;-'CJ.
Her: to.--We'. . Loca:tcn
(Csnjentratiin ir pet)
ca ::••_.- 7occ:
C:::e- &'•
Les:
Mag-.es:_- 7CC:
M.a~s»nese
He-c-'y
255J
9C3C
Bis(2-E:nylhexyl)Fn:nala:e
;:::=s • PCSS
Oe'.:a-B-C
Eriecsjifar. 1
•• • Belou Oettction Liiri:
J • Tht assoc'iatcd nvjnerical value is «n tstinwtcd quantity becaust
quality control criteria were not met.
E-2
-------
Site-Specific Sackgrcund Concentrations For Sediment in U:t'.e
Sixmile Greet, p;cke::viUc load tandfiU Site, Jacksonville,
Florida.
Cer.st iruer:
Sample Nurccr
(Csncentrations in pec!
H5T4-.S
Arse-.i:
Lea:
2.0
12. -
C.4
VCLATILJ3
Acetcr.e
Carter Ois-lf'de
^e:-y!.e-e C.'.lorlce
16.C
ASc-KcJTSAL EXTRACTA3LHS
8is(2-Ethylhexyl)Pht.-.alate
Be'.cw Cetsction Ltmi;
E-3
-------
Si ts-Ss«^; f i
PicVe::v: ! l
Corcer.trjt iorj For Little Siwiit* Cf«eV,
'.l S:te, Jiekjonvi I te, Florida.
Cc.-st ituen:
Sa.r^le
SW-1
(Coneentritions in ppt:
VCLAT.ES
fe::y{e-e C'~ isr-'ss
E-4
-------
r • o-,3 - -
Ai. -!-••-
A.-ti-:.-.y
Arse- _:
Hi". ~
Eerylii.-
Cac.-. _.-
Caic: j-
C.-..-C.T_.-
C;cai-
Crpcer
Ire."
Lea:
Kac.-esiu-
Md-.ca-ese
y.erc.ry
N.ixei
?-rass.ur
Se.e.-.iu-
Siiver
Scii'..-
T.'.aiii1;.-
Va.-.aii-j-
Zi.-.c
Ficottviiie Read La.-.c:iii Site, Jaclcso.-.vilie, Fisrida.
(Csr.cer.trations reported ir. mc/kg! .
Csr.cer.t raticr [a: Cs.-.ce.-.trat i" 'i'
TC: - 2c,cc: x
< 1 . C x
<:. : - 2.6 ' x
:: - 2.6 x
< 1 . C x
N; x:c:
:;: -2,3:: x
1-2: x
<3.C x
<: - i: x
iOC!C,C-C x
<1C x
50-1,5:: x
<:.o - is: x
<:.::-c.c: x
<5.C - 5.0 x
2, 20: - s, ac:
<: . i - c . i »
N: *;=:
5CC - 2.00C x
N: xi=;
<7.c - 2: x
<5.C - 17 x
N: No data.
[a; Ba:
-------
APPENDIX F
Responsiveness Summary
Pickettville Road Landfill
Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
The D.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established a
public comment period from June 28, 1990 through July 27, 1990
for interested parties to comment on EPA's Proposed Plan for
remediation for the Pickettville Road Landfill Site. Also, in
response to requests from the affected community, EPA extended
the comment period to August 26, 1990. The public meeting
conducted on July 12, 1990 was held at the Paxon High School in
Jacksonville, Florida. The meeting presented the results of the
studies undertaken and the preferred alternative for the site.
A responsiveness summary is required by Superfund policy to
provide a summary of citizen comments and concerns about the
site raised during the public comment period, and the responses
to those concerns. All comments summarized in this document
have been factored into the final decision of the preferred
alternative for cleanup of the Pickettville Road Landfill Site
(PRLS).
This responsiveness summary for the Pickettville Road LandfillI
site is divided into the following sections. :
I. Overview This section discusses the recommended
alternative for remedial action and the public reaction
to this alternative.
II. Background on Co|"|nunity Involvement and Concerns This
section provides a brief history of community interest
and concerns regarding the Pickettville Road Landfill
site.
Ill. Snmmarv of
the Public
Responses This section presents both oral and written
comments submitted during the public comment period,
and provides responses to these comments.
IV. Remaining Concerns This section discusses community
concerns that EPA should be aware of in design and
implementation of the remedial alternative for the
site.
I. Overview
The preferred remedial alternative was presented to the public
in a fact sheet released on June 28, 1990 and at a public
meeting held on July 12, 1990. The recommended alternative
addresses the source of the contamination by containing the
landfill wastes and preventing human exposure to the ground
water. The major components of the recommended alternative
include:
-------
-2-
o Installation of a clay municipal landfill cover with a
gas collection layer. The final cover will promote
surface water runoff, control potential fugitive vapor
emissions and minimize the potential for direct contact
with the landfill material;
o Installation of a perimeter security fence to restrict
unauthorized access to the site;
o Implementation of institutional controls including
restrictions that will limit ground water usage and
regulate future development of the site;
o Extend the city water main to residents to supply an
alternative drinking source as a precautionary measure
to minimize the potential for ingestion of ground water
constituents;
o Implementation of a plug and abandonment program for
water supply wells in the area immediately north of the
site;
o Implementation of a ground water monitoring program to
periodically evaluate the hydrogeologic conditions and
quality of ground water underlying the site.
The community favors the on-site incineration alternative.
Their comments and an additional explanation are addressed in
the following sections.
;ommunitv Involvement and Concern
There has been little media attention focused on the
Pickettville Road Site. Information obtained from on-site
discussions with local residents revealed that the hazardous
waste issue became a focal point of community awareness when the
site was placed on the National Priorities List in December
1982. Heavy media coverage of other sites in the area generated
publicity about water quality, which resulted in increased
concern among residents over the quality of their drinking
water.
The Pickettville Civic Club is the citizens' group that was
formed in 1983 as a result of publicity over other sites in the
area and a reported decline in the quality of residents' water.
The primary concern of the Civic Club and the residents living
near the Pickettville Road site centers on the potential ground
water contamination and the declining quality of their drinking
water.
-------
-3-
III. Summary of Malor Questions and Comments Received During
the Public Comment Period and EPA's Responses
1. Residents of the area have requested the implementation of
Alternative 5, on-site incineration, to protect the health and
welfare of the people of the Pickettville area.
EPA Response; EPA is required by law to select a remedy for
Superfund sites that is protective of human health and the
environment. The remedy selection process involves a comparison
of each alternative with the nine evaluation criteria
established by the Agency. The nine evaluation criteria are
presented in Exhibit 1.
The first step of remedy selection is to identify those
alternatives that satisfy the threshold criteria. Only those
alternatives that provide adequate protection of human health
and the environment and comply with environment laws are
eligible for selection. Alternatives that do not satisfy the ~
threshold criteria are not evaluated further. The second step
involves the balancing of five primary criteria * long-term
effectiveness, [reduction in toxicity, mobility, and volume],
implementability, short-term effectiveness, and cost. The final
step is to evaluate the modifying criteria, which is state and
community acceptance.
Remedial alternatives for the Pickettville Landfill Site were
evaluated using the above criteria. Both on-site incineration
(Alternative 5) and the landfill closure (Alternative 3) met the
threshold criteria. However, during the second step, on-site
incineration was not determined to be the most effective
alternative for remediation for the following reasons:
a. Incineration involves contaminant destruction by combustion
at very high temperatures. It is considered a proven
technology for organics, but the metals present in the soil
will form toxic metal oxides which would be difficult to
remove.
b. On-site Incineration will require adherence to strict
operation procedures to protect the community and on-site
workers during remediation activities. This alternative
would require a very stringent monitoring and health and
safety plan due to the nature of the technology.
c. The extensive excavation and on-site incineration activities
may pose a risk to on-site workers, the community, and the
environment to potentially adverse conditions for a period
of seven years.
-------
-4-
d. incineration is not cost-effective. Cost-effectiveness is
determined by comparing the costs of all the alternatives
being considered with their overall effectiveness to
determine whether the costs are proportional to the
effectiveness achieved. In respect to effectiveness,
landfill closure is very compatible to incineration in that
all exposure pathways are addressed for a much lower cost.
EPA could not justify a $301 million dollar remedy when a
$9.9 million dollar remedy would meet the same remedial
action objective.
In comparison to the evaluation criteria, incineration was not
determined to be the most effective alternative for remediation
of the Site.
EPA's preferred alternative for the Pickettville Landfill Site
is Alternative 3, which consists of the construction of a clay
landfill cover with a passive gas collection layer.
Installation of a clay landfill cover, would prevent potential!
exposure to the landfill waste. This alternative would provide
T mrnorii ate protection to the risks posed from the site by r
eliminating the exposure routes of direct contact with the
landfill materials.
Alternative 3 also includes the extension of the city water
main, continuous ground water monitoring, and the plugging and
abandonment of potable water supply wells. Ground water sample:
from private wells in the vicinity of the site were collected i
August 1990 by the State of Florida Department of Health and
Rehabilitative Services. This information in conjunction with
the design data will be used to determine which wells need to b
abandoned. The specific wells to be abandoned will be
determined during the Remedial Design phase.
Restoration of the Little Sixmile Creek will be conducted to
remove waste which have migrated from the site into the creek.
Waste deposited along both sides of Little Sixmile Creek will b
removed to a n»
-------
-5-
construction and operation and maintenance tasks that are
associated with the remedy. If the PRPs choose not to implement
the remedy*- EPA has the option of ordering the PRPs to conduct
the work, fill a civil suit seeking a court injunction ordering
them to conduct the work, or conduct the work utilizing Federal
funds which will include filing a cost recovery action against
the PRPs.
2. Several citizens have noted a gradual deterioration in the
quality of their drinking water.
EPA Responset Groundwater contamination has been confirmed
through multiple sampling episodes in the surficial aquifer near
monitor well SMW-4. Alternate Concentration Limits (ACLs) were
developed for benzene and vinyl chloride and long-term
monitoring will be undertaken to assure that the ACLs are not
exceeded. However, the monitor wells at other locations around
the PRLS show signs that the water quality in the surficial
aquifer is degraded due to the waste materials. Also, there are
several industrial facilities located in the Pickettville area
that may be affecting the quality of the ground water. The
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation has been informed
of reports of dumping into area creeks and the Florida
Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services is currently
sampling residential wells in the Pickettville area. Hopefully,
through these efforts the cause of the poor water quality can be
determined and rectified.
3. Many residents explained that Sixmile Creek is tidally
influenced and often floods during heavy rain.
EPA Response: Sixmile Creek and portions of Little Sixmile
Creek, which runs adjacent to the landfill, are tidally
influenced freshwater tributaries of the Ribault River.
Contaminants have been detected in surface water and sediment
samples from the Little Sixmile Creek over the stretch along the
PRLS.
EPA has taken, into consideration the issue of tidal influence,
and restoration of the Little Sixmile Creek will be conducted to
remove waste which have migrated from the site into the creek.
Waste deposited along both sides of the Little Sixmile Creek
will be removed to a minimum of five feet from the creek bed or
the 100-year flood plane, which ever is greater, and deposited
on-site in the landfill. An ecological study of Little Sixmile
Creek will be conducted to determine if any negative
environmental impacts to the creek have occurred.
4. One citizen attributed the death of trees on her property
to the landfill.
EPA Response: The death of trees north of the site may be due
to the hydraulic mounding of the landfill which prevents water
-------
-6-
flow to those areas north of the site. Also, there are other
potential sources of contaminants located in areas to the north of
the PRLS that- could provide additional impacts to the environment in
this area.
5. Many residents expressed concern over the "health" of the
neighborhood.
EPA Response; According to the Risk Assessment studies, there are
two exposure routes in which the public may be affected by the
landfill. They are dermal contact with surface soils and the
ingestion of ground water. The proposed remedy will eliminate both
of these risks by preventing exposure to the landfill soil/waste and
ground water; therefore, human health will be protected in the
future.
6. There are claims that the former sand borrow pit contained waste
that was deposited 100 feet deep.
EPA Response: Historical photos of the site do not indicate that the
borrow pit approached 100 feet in depth. On-site borings conducted
during the Remedial Investigation only confirmed waste to 20 feet *i
total depth. Due to the shallow water table in a silty sand unit it.
would be extremely difficult to quarry in this area to depths
exceeding 20 feet. However, to address this concern, additional deep
monitoring wells will be installed during the pre-design phase of the
remedial design. These wells will be strategically placed to detect
any contamination that may be originating from these areas.
7. There are concerns over the lack of aquatic life in Little
Sixmile Creek.
EPA Response: The lack of aquatic life in Little Sixmile Creek may
be due to an oxygen deficiency that is present in the creek. The
deficiency maybe due to a hydraulic complication. The secondary
channel that has been dug does not allow continuous flow of the creek
which prevents the production of oxygen in the water. Again, an
ecological study of Little Sixmile Creek will be conducted to
determine if any negative environmental impacts to the creek have
occurred.
8. Some citizens of the area questioned the cost of Alternative 3
($9,935,000) and long-term maintenance of the site if this remedy is
implemented.
EPA Response: The present worth cost of Alternative 3 ($9,935,000)
includes the estimated capital cost ($7,803,600) and the operation
and maintenance costs over a 20 year period ($2,131,700). Operation
and maintenance will include continuous ground water monitoring
the area, landfill cap maintenance, and perimeter fence maintena.
-------
-7-
9. Many residents have requested that EPA perform the cleanup
with the inclusion of all dump sites in the Jacksonville area
instead of addressing each site separately.
EPA Response: EPA does not have the authority to allocate
federal funds for Superfund sites to other sites that are not on
the National Priorities List (NPL) nor to Federal facility
sites. EPA is currently addressing contamination at all sites
in the Jacksonville area listed on the NPL.
10. There are concerns by citizens over the diminishing
wildlife community in the PRLS and Sixmile Creek area. One
citizen expressed concern for the eastern crested headed
woodpecker, which was claimed to be on the endangered species
list.
EPA Response; Based on the information currently available to
the EPA, the eastern crested headed woodpecker is not on the
endangered species list in the State of Florida. In addition, ~
the preferred remedy would eliminate the threat to wildlife in
the area that was posed by the Pickettville site.
11. Several residents inquired about suggestion for obtaining
the 20% match for the Technical Assistance Grant (TAG).
EPA Response; EPA recognizes that less populated areas with
moderate income households may not be able to raise the entire
match. Since the purpose of these grants is to enable just such
a community to hire an advisor to review and interpret Superfund
documents for the community, EPA allows the substitution of
in-kind, or non-cash, contributions for all or part of the
required match. In-kind contributions include volunteer
services by members of your association or community to conduct
activities under the grant, such as bookkeeping/accounting to
maintain grant financial records and prepare required reports;
auditing of your group's financial records; drafting or editing
contract for proposal or contract to procure the advisor; your
project manager's overseeing the technical advisor; preparing
letters or comments to the Agency incorporating the advisor's
recommendations; editing or distributing newsletters to the
community; or copying documents to provide to the technical
advisor. Non-cash contributions can also Include equipment use
(copiers or word processors); supplies (such as pencils,
computer disks, paper, or envelopes); telephone calls or
postage; photocopying or printing donated by group members or to
the group; publication of notice seeking qualified advisor; or
fees for public meeting facilities for meetings to keep
community informed.
-------
-8-
12. Local citizens petitioned the EPA to extend the public
comment period and to request that EPA enforce the City of
Jacksonville to supply an alternate water supply system to the
Pickettville area.
EPA Response; The request to extend the public comment period
was granted by the EPA. However, the latter request must be
pursued with the City of Jacksonville officials. Based on our
findings, there is no basis for an alternate supply system
except in the area of the groundwater plume.
The following comments were submitted by the Pickettville Road
Landfill Site (PRLS) Steering Committee concerning the Agency's
changes to the Risk Assessment (RA) submitted by Geraghty and
Miller.
1.) The commenter stated that EPA deleted from the Geraghty •*.
and Miller RA the fact that acetone, ethylbenzene, ~j
bis(2-ethylhexyl)- phthalate (BEEP), and methylene chloride "•
were detected in the trip and field blanks at concentrations
comparable to the samples from the Site.
EPA Response; Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund.
Health Evaluation Manual. EPA 1989. fRAGSl specifies that if
chemicals which are considered to be common laboratory
contaminants, are detected in a blank sample, then the site
samples associated with the blank samples should exceed the
concentration detected in the blank sample by at least ten
times to be considered a positive result. For other
contaminants detected in the blank which are not considered to
be common laboratory contaminants, the site samples should
exceed the blank by five times to be considered a positive
result. The site chemicals detected in the blanks which are
classified as common laboratory contaminants are acetone, BEHP,
and methylene chloride. EPA does not object to the comparison
of the site contaminants with the chemicals contained in the
associated blank samples. These chemicals were not excluded
from the risk calculations and the RA should discuss potential
sources of uncertainty. The comparison between blanks and site
samples, in the Geraghty and Miller RA, will not be deleted
from the final Agency approved RA.
2.) The commenter stated that EPA deleted from the Geraghty
and Miller RA a reference to the Federal Water Quality Criteria
(FWQC) not constituting an applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirement (ARAR).
EPA RESPONSE; As has been stated in correspondence with the
PRLS Steering Committee, the FWQC (for the protection of
aquatic life and human health) are considered to be relevant
-------
-9-
and appropriate for groundwater if the groundwater is
discharging to surface water (as is the case at the PRLS) and
the surface, water is being used for purposes for which the FWQC
is designated to protect. In addition, the preamble to the
December 21, 1988 proposed revisions to the NCP, discusses the
relevancy and appropriateness of FWQC in regard to their use as
ARARs for groundwater as a drinking water source. (The
introduction to the final NCP, March 1990, states that the
preamble to the proposed NCP reflects EPA's intent in the final
NCP, unless the final NCP directly contradicts the proposed
preamble.) The preamble states that "... when a promulgated
MCL exists, the FWQC for that constituent would not be relevant
and appropriate in water that is a potential drinking water
source. However, when MCLs are not available, a FWQC may be
relevant and appropriate in water that is a potential drinking
water source." State water quality standards take precedence
over MCLs and FWQC. To be relevant and appropriate, FWQC must
also be based on current scientific toxicity values i.e.
current RfDs and potency factors, and must be adjusted to .
reflect only exposure from drinking the water. In summary, a .•
FWQC could be considered to be relevant and appropriate for the
consumption of groundwater for a specific constituent if no MCL
or state water quality standard exists, the FWQC has been
adjusted for drinking water consumption only and the FWQC is
derived from current scientific information. Based on the
preceding discussion, the FWQC should be classified as relevant
and appropriate for groundwater at this site. This discussion
will be contained in an addendum to the RA.
3.) The commenter inquired about using unfiltered groundwater
sample data versus filtered groundwater sample data.
EPA RESPONSE; EPA guidance (RAGS) for risk assessments for all
regions clearly states that unfiltered samples should be used
for risk assessment purposes. RAGS states the following:
"While filtration of ground-water samples provides useful
information for understanding chemical transport within an
aquifer, the use of filtered samples for estimating exposures
is very controversial because these data may underestimate
chemical concentrations in water from an unfiltered tap.
Therefore, data from unfiltered samples should be used to
estimate exposure concentrations." Although MCLs were
promulgated for public water systems and are considered to be
appi i r?«m a for such systems they are also considered to be
relevant and appropriate for private wells. It appears to be a
moot point as to whether MCLs should be compared to filtered or
unfiltered samples. They should be compared to samples that
will be representative of the samples to which individuals will
be potentially exposed. In addition, the water samples for the
risk assessment should represent the concentrat ion to which an
individual could be potentially exposed. Individuals with a
-------
-10-
private veil could be exposed to water from an unfiltered tap
and the use o-f filtered samples could underestimate the risk to
this individual.
4.) The coomenter inquired whether benzene and vinyl chloride
should be considered site-related contamination because they
were only detected in an offsite well.
EPA RESPONSE; The issue of whether a chemical is site-related
is not a risk assessment issue. The chemical is still
contributing to the total site risk for a potentially exposed
individual regardless of the source of the chemical. The
issues of contaminant origin and responsibility are resolved
outside the realm of the risk assessment. In addition, the
concern has been raised that the quantitation limit used for
benzene is higher than the groundwater ARAR for benzene. So,
potentially there could be onsite wells, which exceed the ARAR.
for benzene, but are below the quantitation limit. EPA does f
not object to the discussion of the potential source of site •
contamination in the RA as long as the potential nonsite ;
contaminants are not excluded from the risk characterization.
5.) The commenter inquired why EPA deleted from the RA the
conclusion that concentrations of contaminants in surface water
and sediments would be expected to decrease downstream of the
PRLS "unless another source exists."
EPA RESPONSE; Stream characteristics e.g. flow and bottom type
can influence stream concentrations. Constituent
concentrations could be significantly higher further downstream
if the bottom is very rocky, especially at settling points
where flow is decreased and contaminated sediment settles out.
The addendum to the RA will discuss this issue.
6.) The commenter inquired why EPA deleted from the RA a
reference to the similarity between the occurrence and
concentrations of chemical contaminants at the PRLS and other
Florida landfills.
EPA RESPONSE; EPA feels that the purpose of this comment is to
downplay the potential hazards associated with this site
because it is probably similar In composition to many Florida
(non-Superfund) landfills. However, EPA would like to point
out that there are also many landfills in the State of Florida
which are Super fund sites. EPA does not think that this
comment serves any purpose in the RA. This discussion will be
included in an addendum to the RA.
7.) The commenter made reference to other regions utilizing
filtered data for risk assessment purposes.
EPA RESPONSE; The risk assessment guidance for all regions
states that unfiltered samples should be used for risk
assessment purposes (See EPA's RESPONSE to comment 3).
-------
11-
9.) The cpmmenter inquired why EPA deleted from the RA the
signatures of the staff of Geraghty & Miller, Inc., although it
retained the Geraghty & Miller footer on each page of the text.
EPA RESPONSE; The signature page will be returned to the
document. However, the Geraghty and Miller footer brings
inappropriate recognition to the contractor in a document
prepared and approved under Agency oversight. A statement to
the effect will be included in the RA addendum.
IV. Remaining Concerns
The community's concerns surrounding the Pickettville Road
Landfill site will be addressed in the following areas:
community relations support throughout the Remedial
Design/Remedial Action, and incorporation of
comments/suggestions in the Remedial Design.
Community relations will consist of making available final "
documents (i.e. Remedial Design Work Plan, Remedial Design -
Reports, etc.) in a timely manner to the local repository.
Also, issuance of fact sheets to those on the mailing list will
further provide the community with project progress and a
schedule of events. The community will be made aware of any
principal design changes made during the project design. If at
any time during the Remedial Design or Remedial Action new
information is revealed that could affect the implementation of
the remedy or if the remedy fails to achieve the necessary
design criteria, the Record of Decision may be revised to
incorporate new technology that will attain the necessary
performance criteria. Community relations activities will
remain an active aspect of the Remedial Design/Remedial Action
phase of this project.
------- |