IAROD Southern Solvents Superfund Site

INTERIM AMENDED RECORD OF DECISION

SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SUPERFUND SITE

TAMPA, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY
FLORIDA

ST*.

Prepared By:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4
Atlanta, Georgia

SEPTEMBER 2018


-------
IAROD Southern Solvents Superfund Site

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.1	Site Name and Location	1

1.2	Statement of Basis and Purpose	1

1.3	Assessment of Site			2

1.4	Description of Changes to the Selected Remedy	2

1.5	Statutory Determinations			4

1.6	Authorizing Signatures					4

PART 2: THE DECISION SUMMARY				5

2.1	Introduction	5

2.2	Site Name, Location, and Brief Description	5

2.3	Site History and Enforcement Activities	6

2.3.1	Operational History			6

2.3.2	Previous Investigations					6

2.4	Community Participation			9

2.5	Scope and Role of Operable Unit or Response Action					10

2.6	Site Characteristics	10

2.6.1	Geography	r	10

2.6.2	Site Geology	.'	10

2.6.3	Site Hydrogeology	11

2.7	Site Risks					12

2.8	Description of the Original Selected Remedy		12

2.9	Description of the Explanation of Significant Differences	13

2.10	Basis for the Document	14

2.11	Remedial Action Objectives	15

2.12	Description of Alternatives	16

2.12.1 Detailed Remedial Alternatives Evaluation			16

2.13	Summary of the Comparative Analysis of Alternatives	22

2.13.1	Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment	23

2.13.2	Compliance with ARARs	23

2.13.3	Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence			24

2.13.4	Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume through Treatment			24


-------
IAROD Southern Solvents Superfund Site

2.13.5	Short-Term Effectiveness	25

2.13.6	Implementability			:	25

2.13.7	Cost	26

2.13.8	State/Support Agency Acceptance	27

2.13.9	Community Acceptance	27

2.14 Principal Threat Wastes		27

2.14	Selected Remedy		28

2.14.1	Rationale for the Selected Interim Remedy			28

2.14.2	Description of the Selected Interim Remedy	28

2.14.3	Summary of Estimated Interim Remedy Costs			31

2.14.4	Expected Outcomes of the Selected Interim Remedy			31

2.15	Statutory Determinations				32

2.15.1	Protection of Human Health and the Environment	32

2.15.2	Compliance with ARARs		32

2.15.3	Cost Effectiveness	.-	32

2.15.4	Utilization of Permanent Solutions to the Maximum Extent Practicable	32

2.15.5	Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element			32

2.15.6	Five-Year Review Requirement	33

2.16	Documentation of Significant Changes	33

2.17	References	33

APPENDICES

Appendix A - Figures

Appendix B - Tables

Appendix C - ARARs Table

Appendix D - Proposed Plan

Appendix E - Responsiveness Summary1

Appendix F - Support Documents from 2014 PIAR and 2017 FFS

ii


-------
IAROD Southern Solvents Superfund Site

LIST OF ACRONYMS

AST	Aboveground Storage Tank

AR	Administrative Record

ARAR	Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements

bgs	Below ground surface

CERCLA	Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980

(Superfund)

CFR	Code of Federal Regulations

CUL	Cleanup Levels

CVOC	Chlorinated Volatile Organic Compound

DCE	Cis-l,2-dichloroethylene

DHRS	Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services

DNAPL	Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid

DPT	Direct Push Technology

EPA	Environmental Protection Agency

ERD	Enhanced Reductive Dechlorination

ERH	Electrical Resistance Heating

ESD	Explanation of Significant Differences

FAC	Florida Administrative Code

FDEP	Florida Department of Environmental Protection

FFS	Focused Feasibility Study

FS	Feasibility Study

Ft/day	Feet per day

Ft/day/foot Feet per day per foot

FYR	Five-Year Review

GAC	Granular Activated Carbon

GCTLs	Groundwater Cleanup Target Levels

gpm	Gallons per minute

HRS	Hazard Ranking System

ICs	Institutional Controls

ISCO	¦ In-situ Chemical Oxidation

ISTR	In-situ Thermal Remediation

LDA	Large Diameter Auger

LTM	Long-Term Monitoring

MCLs	Maximum Contaminant Levels

|ig/kg	Microgram per kilogram

Hg/L	Microgram per Liter

mg/kg	Milligram per kilogram

mg/L	Milligram per Liter

MIP	Membrane Interface Probe

MNA	Monitored Natural Attenuation

MW	Monitoring Well

MPE	Multiphase Extraction •

NADC	Natural Attenuation Default Concentration

NaMn04	Sodium Permanganate

NCP	National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan

in


-------
IAROD Southern Solvents Superfund Site

LIST OF ACRONYMS (Continued)

NPL

National Priority List

O&M

Operation and Maintenance

OU

Operable Unit

PCE

Tetrachloroethene (or Tetrachloroethylene)

PPb

Parts per billion

PIAR

Post ISCO Assessment Report

PID

Photo-ionization Detector

PRP

Potentially Responsible Party

RA

Remedial Action

RAOs

Remedial Action Objectives

RCRA

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RD

Remedial Design

RD/RA

Remedial Design/Remedial Action

RG

Remedial Goal

RI

Remedial Investigation

RME

Reasonable Maximum Exposure

ROD

Record of Decision

SARA

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act

SACM

Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model

SCTLs

Soil Cleanup Target Levels

SESD

Science and Ecosystem Support Division

SVE

Soil Vapor Extraction

SWFWMD

Southwest Florida Water Management District

TBC

To Be Considered

TCE

Trichloroethene (or Trichloroethylene)

USACE

United States Army Corps of Engineers

U.S.C.

United States Code

VISL

Vapor Intrusion Screening Level

VOCs

Volatile Organic Compounds

yd3

Cubic Yards

iv


-------
IAROD Southern Solvents Superfund Site

PART 1: THE DECLARATION

1.1	Site Name and Location

Site Name: Southern Solvents Superfund Site

Site Location: 4009 West Linebaugh Avenue, Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida
Lead Agency: United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV (EPA)

Support Agency: Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP)

Site Identification No.: FL0001209840

1.2	Statement of Basis and Purpose

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a Record of Decision (ROD)
for the Southern Solvents Superfund Site (Site), Operable Unit 1 (OU1) in September 1999.

This Interim Amended ROD (IAROD) identifies in-situ thermal remediation (ISTR) as the
selected interim remedy to address the subsurface soil and surficial aquifer in the dense non-
aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) source zone. The selected interim remedy also includes
enhanced reductive dechlorination (ERD) to address any chlorinated volatile organic compounds
(CVOC) remaining in the groundwater within the defined DNAPL source zone, and monitored
natural attenuation (MNA) to document the effectiveness of the treatment and collect data to
address any remaining areas of contamination within the surficial aquifer in the final ROD. This
interim remedy will not directly address any CVOC contaminant mass that exists in the
subsurface soil and surficial aquifer outside of the defined DNAPL source zone. After
implementation of the selected interim remedy, it is anticipated that CVOC contamination
outside the treatment area will persist above Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP) Groundwater Cleanup Target Levels (GCTL) and Soil Cleanup Target Levels (SCTLs)
[hereafter called "cleanup levels (CULs)] in the subsurface soil and surficial aquifer. Offsite
contamination in soil and the surficial aquifer (OU1), and contamination in the deeper, Floridan
Aquifer (OU2) will be addressed with a final ROD.

The original ROD was selected on September 30, 1999; it selected excavation and offsite
disposal for unsaturated onsite soil, and in-situ chemical oxidation (ISCO) for the surficial
aquifer. A November 2002 Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) modified the selected
remedy for the vadose zone by selecting soil vapor extraction (SVE) to treat the onsite vadose
zone, rather than excavation. SVE treatment of unsaturated soil was completed in 2011 followed
by three rounds of ISCO injections, which were completed between 2008 and 2011. Sampling
conducted in 2014 indicated that contamination continues to persist in low permeability soil
below the water table and in the deeper zones of the surficial aquifer. It is expected that
implementation of the selected interim remedy will significantly reduce the mass of

1


-------
IAROD Southern Solvents Superfund Site

contaminants in the source zone, which will reduce the migration of contaminants to the
underlying Floridan aquifer and support a Final ROD. The Final ROD will address both the
offsite contamination in OU1, and contamination in OU2.

This IAROD is issued in accordance with Section 117 of CERCLA, 42 USC §9617, and Section
300.435(c)(2)(ii) of the NCP, 40 CFR §300.435(c)(2)(ii). This Amendment has been prepared to
document the nature of the modification to the selected remedy identified in the 1999 ROD; to
summarize the information that led to the Amendment; and to affirm that the Amendment
complies with the statutory requirements of CERCLA §121 and with the NCP. This Amendment
fundamentally alters the remedy selected in the 1999 ROD with respect to scope, performance,
and cost. Per Highlight 7-2 of the July 1999 ROD Guidance, this ROD Amendment will become
part of the Administrative Record file in accordance with Section 300.825(a)(2) of the NCP.

FDEP has been involved in the evaluation and of the interim remedy alternatives and is
anticipated to concur with the selected interim remedy.

This Amendment, and all documents relied upon to make the decision to amend the remedy
selected in the 1999 ROD, is incorporated into the Administrative Record (AR) for the Site. The
AR is available for public review at the following locations:

EPA, Region 4 Superfund Record Center
61 Forsyth Street NW
Atlanta, GA, 30303

North Tampa Branch Library
8916 North Boulevard
Tampa, FL, 33604

1.3	Assessment of Site

The interim remedy selected in this decision document is necessary to protect the public health
or welfare and the environment from actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances into
the environment.

1.4	Description of Changes to the Selected Remedy

This decision document sets forth the changes to the selected remedy for the Site by addressing
the treatment of the source zone soils remaining onsite. Upon completion of this response
action, EPA may identify the need for additional response actions at the Site.

The selected interim remedy for the Site was identified as ISTR with ERD in the Proposed Plan,
and presented as Option 3 in the Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) (USACE, 2017). The selected
interim remedy consists of the following components:

2


-------
IAROD Southern Solvents Superfund Site

•	Drilling by sonic drilling techniques to install heater borings, extraction wells, and
temperature probes.

•	Placing heater electrodes on 20-foot centers.

•	Spacing extraction wells in-between the heater electrodes to maximize contaminant
removal.

_ • Spacing temperature electrodes within the treatment area at three-foot intervals to ensure
adequate temperature monitoring throughout the area to avoid cold spots.

•	Removing existing PVC monitoring wells and horizontal SVE wells before the treatment.

•	Performing confirmatory soil sampling to determine if the performance goal has been met
before the thermal system heaters are turned off permanently.

Performing ERD applications once site soils cool to approximately 50 degrees centigrade
within the same treatment area.

•	Monitoring of the groundwater within and outside of the treatment area.

The estimated present value cost for the selected interim remedy is $5,472,192.

In addition to amending the selected remedy, this action will also amend the Remedial Action
Objectives (RAOs) established in the 1999 ROD. The RAOs for this interim remedy include the
following:

1.	Prevent further degradation of the Floridan aquifer caused by release of contamination from
the Southern Solvents source area;

2.	Prevent or minimize the migration of groundwater with contamination exceeding maximum
contaminant levels (MCLs) (or other appropriate health-based levels) beyond the current plume
boundaries;

3.	Prevent or minimize impacts on human health and the environment from exposure to onsite
contaminated soil and groundwater.

4.	Treat and reduce the DNAPL, CVOC mass and subsurface contamination below the water '
table within OU1 to a total CVOC concentration of 1.0 mg/kg or lower to prevent or minimize
further migration of COCs from OU1 to the downgradient groundwater and to underlying OU2;
and

5.	Prevent or minimize further migration of contaminants in the soil to the groundwater by
removing CVOCs from the vadose zone near the concrete pad and parking area.

3


-------
IAROD Southern Solvents Superfund Site

1.5	Statutory Determinations

This interim action is protective of human health and the environment in the short term and is
intended to provide adequate protection until a final ROD is signed; complies with those federal
and state requirements that are applicable or relevant and appropriate for this limited-scope
action; and is cost-effective. Although this interim action is not intended to address fully the
statutory mandate for permanence and treatment to the maximum extent practicable, this interim
action does utilize treatment and thus supports that statutory mandate. As this is an interim
action, it will only partially address the statutory mandate to reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume
as a principal element of the remedy. The final response will fully meet the mandate. EPA will
utilize the five-year review process levels to ensure that the remedy continues to provide
adequate protection of human health and the environment because this remedy will result in
hazardous substances remaining within OU1 above health-based levels. EPA will continue to
review this remedy as EPA continues to develop remedial alternatives for OU1.

1.6	Authorizing Signatures

Superfund Division

4


-------
IAROD Southern Solvents Superfund Site

PART 2: THE DECISION SUMMARY

2.1	Introduction

In September 1999, EPA signed a ROD for the Site designed to eliminate the potential risk to
identified receptors. The remedy consisted of excavation and offsite disposal for the onsite
vadose zone, and ISCO for the surficial aquifer. In 2002, EPA issued an ESD, which modified
the selected remedy for the vadose zone soil, selecting SVE to treat the onsite vadose zone soil.
SVE treatment of the vadose zone soil was completed in 2011, and three rounds of ISCO
injections were completed between 2008 and 2011.

Sampling conducted in 2014 indicated that CVOC contamination, including DNAPL, continues
to persist in low permeability soil below the water table and in the deeper zones within the
surficial aquifer. A FFS was completed in 2017. The results of the FFS guided EPA in selecting
ISTR as the interim remedy to remediate the CVOCs in the DNAPL source zone. It is expected
that implementation of the selected interim remedy will significantly reduce the mass of
contaminants in the source zone, which will minimize the migration of contaminants to the
underlying Floridan aquifer. A subsequent final ROD will address the offsite contamination in
OU1 soil and groundwater and in OU2 groundwater. This interim remedy will neither be
inconsistent with, nor preclude, implementation of a final remedy.

2.2	Site Name, Location, and Brief Description

The Site consists of a parcel of land that is approximately 100 feet (ft) wide by 185 fit long
occupying 0.4 acres. The Site is located at 4009 West Linebaugh Avenue in the northwestern
quadrant of Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida (Figure 1, Appendix A). It is located in Range
18-East, Township 28 South, Section 16, approximately 500 feet west of the intersection of Gunn
Highway and West Linebaugh Avenue lying at latitude 28 degrees, 2 minutes, 23 seconds
(28°02'23") north and longitude 82 degrees, 26 minutes, 8 seconds (82°26'8") west. It is
bordered by an urgent care center to the east, a tire repair shop to the west, a catering company to
the north, and by West Linebaugh Avenue to the south. The Site is located in a predominately
commercial area, with some mixed residential land use located approximately 400 feet southwest
of the Site, immediately outside the Floridan aquifer groundwater CVOC plume. The only
structure on the property is a one-story sheet-metal building and an exterior concrete slab along
the north end of the building (Figure 2, Appendix A). Except for a parking area located on the
eastern portion of the Site, the Site is vegetated with grass. The parking lot is paved with asphalt
and is used for parking and equipment storage by the current site owner, AAA Diversified
Services, Inc, a commercial painting business.

5


-------
IAROD Southern Solvents Superfund Site

The Site was placed on the National Priorities List (NPL) in 2000. EPA's Site Identification No.
is FL0001209840. This document is issued by EPA, the lead agency for Site activities, and the
FDEP, the support agency. This has been a Superfund-lead site since being placed on the NPL.

2.3 Site History and Enforcement Activities

2.3.1	Operational History

Aerial photographs show that the Site was part of an orchard in 1965, and that the existing metal
warehouse building was present in 1972. By 1980, vertical and horizontal aboveground storage
tanks (ASTs) are evident. A 1987 aerial photograph showed only one AST remaining, which was
no longer visible in the 1991 aerial photograph. Land use and land cover surrounding the Site
changed from agricultural use in 1956 to primarily commercial use in 1991. Between 1977 and
1985, Southern Solvents, Inc. stored, transferred, and distributed tetrachloroethylene (PCE) to
the local dry-cleaning industry. PCE was brought to the site by tanker trucks owned by Southern
Solvents, Inc., directly from a PCE producer. PCE was stored in two ASTs at the north end of the
facility on a 25-foot by 35-foot concrete slab. The last of the tanks was removed by 1991. The
structural integrity of the ASTs at the time of the removal is unknown. At times, PCE was stored
in tanker trucks parked in the parking lot of the facility. FDEP reported that accidental spills of
unknown quantities of PCE from the storage tanks due to overfilling occurred in the mid-1980s.
A larger spill occurred from an untended tanker, which released PCE over a weekend. It is
believed that these spills are the cause of the soil and groundwater contamination at the Site.

The facility was later leased to P.J.'s Spa from 1985 until August 1989. The Site was sold to the
current owner, AAA Diversified Services, Inc., in 2002. The EPA entered into a Prospective
Purchaser Agreement with the current owner in June 2002.

2.3.2	Previous Investigations

Many investigations have occurred at the Site since it was first discovered in 1988. In the late
1980s, investigations were launched by Florida's Department of Health and Rehabilitative
Services (DHRS) and Mortensen Engineering, Inc., of Tampa, Florida (Mortensen, 1989;
Mortensen, 1991; Mortensen, 1994; FDEP, 1996). Southern Solvents, Inc. has also assessed the
contamination at the Site in the early 1990s. Because of the investigations that took place prior
to EPA's involvement at the Site, EPA had extensive information on the Site condition prior to
conducting a fund-lead Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) at the Site. This
historical information was used in developing EPA's approach for conducting the RI/FS, which
began in 1997 and was completed in 1999. Due to the levels of contamination at the Site and the
impact on private drinking water wells, EPA expedited cleanup in accordance with the
Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM) guidance. The data received from the Remedial
Investigation (RI) were used to develop the Hazard Ranking System (HRS) package for the Site,
which received a HRS Score of 50 and subsequently was placed on the-NPL on July 27, 2000.

6


-------
IAROD Southern Solvents Superfund Site

In April 1998, EPA began field activities for the RI at the Site. Additional groundwater wells
were installed and extensive soil and groundwater sampling was conducted to fully delineate the
nature and extent of contamination at the Site. The investigation was completed in March 1999
(Bechtel, 1999a). The March 1999 RI Report concluded the following:

•	The source as defined consisted of highly contaminated soils, groundwater, and aquifer
matrix material. Operations conducted at the north end of the building and in the
northeast corner of the Site resulted in releases of PCE. After the PCE release to the
surface soils, the PCE migrated downward under the influence of gravity as an
immiscible-phase liquid.

•	Dissolved phase contamination has migrated into the Upper Floridan aquifer in response
to a downward hydraulic gradient beneath the Site. Evidence of PCE contamination was
detected in groundwater samples collected at a depth of approximately 65 feet.

•	All PCE concentrations detected above the method detection limit in groundwater
samples were present at levels in excess the risk-based screening concentration (1.1
micrograms per liter (jig/L)) and the Florida MCL (3 |ng/L).

•	PCE concentrations in groundwater exceeded the one percent of solubility criterion,
indicating the potential occurrence of DNAPL.

•	Although lateral movement away from the source area and offsite migration occurred, the
small, highly concentrated contaminant plume defined by results of sampling of the
shallow wells indicated that there were little horizontal flow occurring at the water table.

•	The extent of offsite contamination in the Upper Floridan aquifer was unclear northwest
and southeast of the Site. Non-detectable concentrations in deep wells southwest and
northeast partially circumscribed the plume boundary in the deep aquifer.

A Feasibility Study (FS) was completed by Bechtel in 1999 that identified and screened
numerous response actions and technologies both for source control and for treating the plume.
(Bechtel, 1999b). Guided by the results of the FS, EPA issued a ROD in September 1999 that
selected a combination of excavation/disposal and ISCO as the selected remedy.

In 2002, prior to implementing the soil component of the remedy, EPA, in consultation with
FDEP, modified the remedy to include treatment of the contaminated onsite vadose zone soil by
SVE, and the performing of a pilot test to confirm the effectiveness of ISCO in treating the
DNAPL in the surficial aquifer.

In 2003, a membrane interface probe (MIP) survey was completed to delineate the DNAPL
source zone and to characterize the soil in which the DNAPL was present. The survey
successfully identified the most highly contaminated portions of the Site and resulted in the
subsequent discovery of free-phase DNAPL in MW EPA-60, where a permanent well was
installed (Figure 3, Appendix A).

In 2005, the SVE system was installed, including enlarging a storm-water retention pond on the
neighboring property and a vapor barrier. The SVE system began operating on June 20, 2005 and

7


-------
IAROD Southern Solvents Superfund Site

was shut down on June 30, 2006 (Black & Veatch, 2007). The SVE system was successful in
significantly reducing the concentration of contaminants in the vadose zone.

The Phase 1 and Phase 2 ISCO injections were initiated in 2008 and 2009, respectively.
Following the Phase 2 injections, groundwater sampling and a MIP investigation were conducted
to evaluate the effectiveness of the remedy. The March 2011 MIP investigation concluded that
elevated CVOCs continued to persist in the shallow subsurface (9-13 feet below ground surface
(bgs)) and in the deeper zone from 28-38 feet bgs. The investigation further indicated that the
ISCO injections were not effective in these zones because of the fine-grained soils in these
zones. The MIP investigation did show that the ISCO injections were effective in the central
zones between 13-28 feet bgs. In this zone, the MIP responses were muted or eliminated
(Geosyntec, 2011).

The Phase 3 ISCO injections, conducted in November 2011, were modified to include a
recirculation system which was anticipated to operate for up to 6 months; however, the system
was ineffective, possibly due to manganese dioxide precipitation in the surficial aquifer which
significantly reduced its permeability (USACE, 2016).

Between April and June 2014, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and EPA
conducted a soil investigation and groundwater sampling event at the Site. The purpose of the
investigation was to evaluate the effectiveness of the previous remedial actions (i.e., SVE and
ISCO) and to determine the distribution and extent of contaminants across the Site. PCE
concentrations in the soil ranged from non-detect to 23,000 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg),
and in the groundwater from non-detect to 170,000 ng/L. In addition, DNAPL was again
detected in one of the monitoring wells, MW-EPA-60 (Figure 4).

Soil and groundwater data were compared to pre-remedial action levels to determine if the
remedial action had been successful. Generally, PCE concentrations across all media showed
significant reductions. In the vadose zone and in the shallow saturated soils, the concentrations
and the extent of contamination had been significantly reduced and the remaining contamination
was confined to a relatively small source area. This indicated that the SVE and ISCO injections
were effective in the vadose zone and the shallow saturated soil. In the deeper soils within the
surficial aquifer, the CVOC concentrations were also found to be significantly reduced.

However, elevated CVOC concentrations in the soils continued to persist in the deeper surficial
soils, especially within the lower permeability soil horizons (Figures 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 in
Appendix A). Because of these lower permeability horizons within the surficial aquifer, the
ISCO amendment was unable to contact the CVOCs in these zones. Similarly, although
groundwater concentrations also showed a significant reduction, post-ISCO elevated levels of
PCE continued to persist in the source area in the deeper zones due to matrix diffusion and
leaching from the low permeability soils that the ISCO did not treat. This warranted EPA to
develop a strategy for further remediation of the DNAPL source zone via a new Proposed Plan
and Interim Amended Record of Decision.

8


-------
IAROD Southern Solvents Superfund Site

2.3.2.1 Existing Memorandum of Agreement for Institutional Controls

In December of 2008, EPA and the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD)
signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to address the institutional controls (ICs) for
groundwater at four Superfund sites within the SWFWMD. The Southern Solvents Superfund
site was one of these four sites addressed in the 2008 MOA. Since 2008, the MOA has been
updated and currently addresses ICs for groundwater at five Superfund sites within the water
management district. As of September 2018, the MOA is in the process of being updated again to
add more site.

2.4 Community Participation

This Section summarizes recent community involvement activities.

The 2002 ESD (USEPA, 2011), the 2005 Treatability Study Work Plan (Black & Vetch, 2005)
and the 2017 Focused Feasibility Study Report (USAGE, 2017) and all other pertinent
documents for the Site were made available to the public in February 2018. All documents can
be found in the AR and the information repository maintained at EPA Superfund Record Center
in Region 4 and at the North Tampa Branch Library, 8916 North Boulevard, Tampa, Florida.
The 2018 ROD Amendment Proposed Plan (Proposed Plan) Summary Fact Sheet was distributed
to the public in late January 2018. The 2018 Proposed Plan (Appendix C) was also distributed in
late January 2018. The 30-day public comment period on the Proposed Plan ran from January
30, 2018 through the close of business on March 2, 2018. The Proposed Plan meeting was held
on February 6, 2018 at the North Tampa Branch Library, 8916 North Boulevard, Tampa, Florida.

EPA placed an ad in The Tampa Bay Times newspaper on January 31, 2018, to announce the
Proposed Plan public meeting. At this meeting, representatives from EPA, FDEP, current and
previous property owners, neighboring commercial businesses, and local community residents
were in attendance. The audience was encouraged to ask their questions towards the end of the
presentation. Questions received during the Proposed Plan meeting can be grouped into the
following main categories: 1) past disposal practices/disposal areas, 2) past manufacturing
activities, 3) identified areas of concern/contamination, 4) size/stability of identified plumes and
defining extent of contamination, 5) length of remedial action/monitoring, and 6) institutional
controls/site boundary/redevelopment of site and/or property. The transcript of the meeting,
which can be found in Appendix D, includes a transcript of the presentation, the questions asked,
and responses.

EPA received two sets of written comments from the same individual during the public comment
period. These comments can be grouped into the following categories: 1) future communication
efforts; 2) land use and future and past impacts on neighboring buildings; 3) proper public
notification; 4) irrigation permits and institutional controls; 5) site cleanup progress; 6) public
meeting attendees; and 7) vapor capture system. All comments received during the public

9


-------
IAROD Southern Solvents Superfund Site

comment period and EPA's response to these comments can be found in Section 4.0 of the
Responsiveness Summary (Appendix D).

2.5	Scope and Role of Operable Unit or Response Action

EPA has organized the cleanup work at the Site into two OUs:

•	OU1 consists of the soil and surficial groundwater, as described in the 1999 ROD.

•	OU2 consists of the groundwater in the Floridan aquifer, and will be addressed in a
subsequent ROD.

This Interim Amended ROD fundamentally alters the remedy selected in the 1999 ROD and
2002 ESD with respect to scope, performance, and cost. However, the overall strategy for the
remediation of OU1 is consistent with previous decision documents. The selected interim
remedy will focus on the aggressive treatment of the soils and groundwater within the defined
DNAPL source area. Remediation will be optimized by targeting the source zone (i.e. the
highest levels of CVOCs in the soil and groundwater) first. This phased approach of treating the
highly contaminated source zone within the surficial aquifer will reduce further migration of
CVOC contaminants to the underlying Floridan aquifer. The goal of the interim remedy is to
achieve a reduction of at least 80 to 90 percent in mass of DNAPL in the source area, and to
achieve a performance level of 1.0 mg/kg total CVOCs in the soil. This interim action will
neither be inconsistent with, nor preclude, implementation of the final remedy for the Site. After
the "source zone treatment", the more dilute offsite dissolved plume in the groundwater of OU1
will be addressed in a final ROD. The final ROD will also address offsite soil contamination in
OU1 and the groundwater contamination in OU2.

2.6	Site Characteristics

2.6.1	Geography

The Site is in a highly developed area of Hillsborough County, Florida with local areas occupied
by commercial/industrial properties and mixed residential, recreational, and camping facilities.
Hillsborough County has a population of approximately 1.278 million and Tampa is the county
seat. The area has been heavily impacted by development. Ground elevations in this area are
approximately 40 feet above sea level. Figure 1 shows the location of the Site.

2.6.2	Site Geology

The soil onsite is primarily composed of very fine to medium-grained quartz sand, silty sand, and
lean clay. The clay layer is from the Hawthorn Formation and varies greatly in thickness across
the Site. Limestone of the Tampa Member of the Acadia Formation lies beneath the Hawthorn
Formation and the limestone unit appears to be highly weathered at shallow depths beneath the
overlying sediment. More detail regarding site geology and hydrogeology may be found in the
1999 ROD.

10


-------
IAROD Southern Solvents Superfund Site

2.6.3 Site Hydrogeology

The three aquifers affected by contamination at the Site are the unconfined surficial aquifer, the
semi-confined intermediate aquifer, and the Upper Floridan aquifer. The surficial and
intermediate aquifers are sources of recharge for the Upper Floridan aquifer. The localized
direction of flow in the shallow surficial aquifer varies seasonally from northeast to northwest.
The direction of flow for the intermediate aquifer is west/northwest and the direction of flow for
the Upper Floridan aquifer is to the west. A downward vertical gradient exists for all three
aquifers. Groundwater beneath the Site is classified as current and potential sources of drinking
water (EPA Class II Aquifer).

2.6.3.1	Surficial Aquifer

The surficial aquifer is composed primarily of unconsolidated deposits of fine-grained sand, silt
and clayey sands with an average thickness of 30 feet. The surficial aquifer system extends from
the water table to the intermediate semi-confining unit. The surficial aquifer system ranges in
thickness from 15 to 35 feet and is unconfined, except in localized areas where clay layers create
semi-confining conditions.

Groundwater typically occurs from two to six feet bgs in the region and from 4.5 to 8.5 feet bgs
at the Site, the unconsolidated materials that comprise the surficial aquifer are generally low in
permeability; therefore, it neither yields nor transmits significant amounts of water. Surficial
groundwater flow is localized and is significantly controlled by topography and the karst
geology. Groundwater in the surficial aquifer is often vertically intercepted by the Floridan
aquifer before it travels horizontally and is therefore not considered to be a regional flow system.

The surficial aquifer is the principal recharge source of the Upper Floridan aquifer via downward
vertical leakage across the semi-confining unit or aquitard. Recharge is primarily through
surface water infiltration of precipitation; groundwater discharge occurs through seepage into
area creeks, rivers, and wetlands. The surficial aquifer is used primarily for lawn irrigation and
watering livestock. Typical yields are less than 20 gallons per minute (gpm). Horizontal
hydraulic conductivity of the surficial aquifer varies from 3 to 40 feet per day (fit/day). Cherry et
al, (1970) reported the vertical hydraulic conductivity ranges from 1.34 x 10"4 ft/day to 28.1
ft/day with an average porosity of 39 percent. Effective porosity is approximately 25 percent
(Cherry and Brown, 1974).

2.6.3.2	Intermediate Aquifer (semi-confining unit)

Below the surficial aquifer is a semi-confining unit comprised chiefly of clay, silt, and sandy
clay that retards the flow of water between the overlying surficial aquifer and the underlying
Upper Floridan aquifer. The confining materials are a blue-green to gray, waxy, plastic, sandy
clay and fat clay. The upper portion of the Arcadia Formation (Hawthorn Formation) typically
forms the semi-confining layer. The middle and lower parts of the Arcadia Formation contain

11


-------
IAROD Southern Solvents Superfund Site

the predominately carbonate Tampa Member that is typically in direct hydraulic connection with
the underlying limestone units. Regionally, the thickness of the unit varies from essentially zero
to more than 60 feet. Due to the highly karstic nature of the Tampa Member, the thinning or
absence of the clay in areas significantly increases the hydraulic connection between the surflcial
and Upper Floridan aquifers. The semi-confining unit is generally encountered at about 15 to 20
feet bgs across the Site, and ranges in thickness from 2.5 feet in MW-EPA-55 (onsite monitoring
well) to 28.5 feet in MW-EPA-38 (offsite monitoring well) (Bechtel, 1999a).

The vertical hydraulic conductivity of the semi-confining unit averages 1.22 x 10"3 ft/day
(SWFWMD, 1996). Much of the leakage occurs through fractures or karstic collapses in the
confining unit, rather than through the clay itself. The SWFWMD conducted over 22 aquifer
pumping tests that determined an average leakage coefficient (vertical conductivity/thickness) of
2.3 x 10"4feet per day per foot (ft/day/foot).

2.7	Site Risks

This interim action reduces the risk to receptors from the groundwater in both the surflcial and
Floridan aquifers. The Floridan aquifer is the primary source of drinking water in the
SWFWMD. The continued presence of DNAPL in the surficial aquifer source results in CVOCs
migrating downward into the underlying Floridan aquifer and leaching into the groundwater of
the surficial aquifer. By reducing the bulk of the CVOC mass within the source area, the
migration of CVOCs to the Floridan aquifer is reduced. The interim remedy is necessary to
prevent further environmental degradation, and to achieve significant risk reduction quickly
while a final remedial solution is being developed.

2.8	Description of the Original Selected Remedy

Historical information collected by FDEP was used in developing EPA's approach for
conducting the RI/FS for the Site. The RI/FS began in 1997 and was completed in 1999. Due to
the levels of contamination at the Site and the impact on private drinking water wells, EPA
expedited cleanup in accordance with the SACM guidance. After the RI/FS was completed, a
ROD was prepared and signed identifying the selected remedy in 1999.

The 1999 ROD organized the work into two operable units and outlined actions for
contamination in OU1 and alluded to a second ROD that would address the contamination in the
deeper aquifer or OU2. The major components of the 1999 ROD were as follows:

•	Excavate shallow soils above the water table (approximately 0 to 4 feet) around the
building and send offsite for treatment/disposal. Remove the concrete slab and underlying
contaminated soil behind the building.

•	In the initial phase, use chemical oxidation to treat the saturated soils and groundwater in

12


-------
IAROD Southern Solvents Superfund Site

the areas where levels of PCE exceeded 300 parts per billion (ppb) in groundwater. This
level was chosen because 300 ppb was the Natural Attenuation Default Concentration for
PCE in Florida. In addition, chemical oxidation was to be used to treat the unsaturated,
shallow soil contamination underneath the building.

• Evaluate the effectiveness of chemical oxidation and its continued use to treat the

remaining contamination after successful implementation of the initial phase. Determine
if chemical oxidation will complement the treatment technology ultimately chosen as the
remedy strategy for remediating the Floridan aquifer.

The remedial alternative selected in the 1999 ROD included in-situ treatment via chemical
oxidation along with additional options for shallow excavation. A combination of technologies
was selected because of uncertainty if ISCO alone would successfully treat the shallow,
unsaturated soils (vadose zone). Excavation of the shallow contaminated soils above the water
table (and not underneath the existing building) was selected as a viable option. The 1999 ROD
estimated 725 cubic yards (yd3) of soil was to be excavated. Remediation goals for the vadose
zone soils were 50 fig/kg for PCE, 30 jag/kg for TCE, and 70 (ig/kg for cis-l,2-DCE. It was
anticipated that since the building had a concrete slab that will act as a lid, that ISCO would be
effective for treating the contaminated shallow, unsaturated soil underneath the building. For the
surficial groundwater remedy, ISCO was regarded as the best technology to treat the
groundwater component concurrently with the subsurface soils. The 1999 ROD stated that by
using ISCO in conjunction with soil remediation alternatives, an estimated reduction of
approximately 30 percent in overall costs would be achieved. The final cleanup goals for
treatment of surficial groundwater contamination were 3 jag/L for PCE, 3 jag/L for TCE, and 70
|ig/L for cis-1,2-DCE. The total cost of the selected remedy was estimated to be $4,636,306.

2.9 Description of the Explanation of Significant Differences.

In September of 2002, EPA issued an ESD to modify the OU1 remedy selected in the 1999 ROD
(USEPA, 2002). The ESD modified the selected remedy for the vadose zone soils and
incorporated the performance of a pilot test to confirm the effectiveness of ISCO in treating the
DNAPL in the saturated zone soil and groundwater of the surficial aquifer, prior to full scale
implementation. The ESD modified the selected remedy for the unsaturated soil by specifying
that all the unsaturated soil exceeding the soil CULs would be treated by SVE. Soils excavated
as part of the SVE system installation were to be disposed offsite at a permitted disposal facility.
The SVE system moved air through the subsurface to remediate the unsaturated zone. In
addition, contaminant vapors in the unsaturated zone were to be collected by the underground
SVE system, which consisted of a series of horizontal wells and piping under the building. The
system collected soil vapors containing the contaminants in vapor form from the unsaturated
zone. The collected vapors were transferred to a treatment system that removed the VOCs prior
to being discharged to the atmosphere. The treatment system consisted of granular activated
carbon (GAC) to strip the VOCs and emissions monitoring that verified removal and determined
carbon replacement cycles.

13


-------
IAROD Southern Solvents Superlund Site

The ESD stated that although using ISCO was theoretically possible to treat the vadose zone, the
effectiveness was marginal without the presence of groundwater to serve as a medium to place
the oxidant in contact with the contaminated soil. The existence of the impermeable cover
provided by the building's slab, the physical properties of PCE, and exceptionally high
permeability of the vadose zone soils, all made SVE an effective method for treating this zone.
Also, the building's impermeable slab would prevent any short-circuiting of air flow enabling
SVE to effectively extract the vapor. The cost was estimated at $255,000 for SVE treatment of
all the vadose zone soil beneath and around the building. These costs were estimated to be
between 40 to 55 percent lower than the costs estimated for the combined excavation and
disposal of accessible soils around the building and SVE under the building ($638,000).

2.10 Basis for the Document

The remedy selected in the 1999 ROD was excavation and offsite disposal for the onsite vadose
zone and in-situ chemical oxidation (ISCO) for the soil and groundwater in the surficial aquifer.
A September 2002 ESD modified the selected remedy for the vadose zone by selecting SVE to
treat the onsite vadose zone, rather than excavation. SVE treatment of unsaturated soil was
completed in 2011, followed by three rounds of ISCO injections, which were completed between
2008 and 2011.

In 2014, EPA funded the USAGE to perform a Post ISCO Assessment to evaluate the
effectiveness of the ISCO events and the SVE system that was installed. For this investigation,
the USACE advanced 30 soil borings and collected 86 soil samples from across the Site. EPA
personnel collected groundwater samples from 42 wells screened in the surficial aquifer.
(USACE, 2016). This investigation is part of the AR.

The soil and groundwater data were compared to pre-remedial action levels to determine if the
remedial action has been successful. In general, PCE and other CVOC concentrations across all
media have shown significant reductions. Sampling results confirmed the continued presence of
PCE at elevated levels in both the soil and groundwater. PCE concentrations in the soil ranged
from non-detect to 23,000 mg/kg exceeding the remedial goal of 0.03 mg/kg. PCE
concentrations in the groundwater ranged from non-detect to 170,000 jag/L exceeding the
remedial goal of 3 |ig/L. DNAPL was observed in monitoring well EPA60. In the vadose zone
and in the shallow saturated soils the PCE concentrations have been reduced and the remaining
contamination is confined to a relatively small area. These results indicate that the SVE and
ISCO injections were effective in the vadose zone and shallow saturated areas of the surficial
aquifer. The investigation found that in the deeper subsurface soils, PCE concentrations had
been significantly reduced and the extent of soil contamination had shrunk substantially.
Sampling conducted in 2014 indicated that contamination continues to persist in low
permeability soil below the water table and in the deeper zones of the surficial aquifer.

14


-------
IAROD Southern Solvents Superfund Site

ISCO was unsuccessful at reducing the contaminant mass in the subsurface soils to levels below
the remediation goals. Significant PCE and other CVOCs continues to persist in the low
permeability soils below the water table and in the deeper zones of the surficial aquifer. Because
of the amount of clay material with lower permeability coefficients in this part of the surficial
aquifer, the ISCO treatment was unable to travel through the soils to contact the CVOCs in these
zones and the contaminants remain trapped in the low permeability soils.

Groundwater concentrations of CVOCs also show a significant reduction in the post ISCO
sample site-wide, however elevated levels of PCE will continue to persist in the source area
due to matrix diffusion and leaching from the low permeability soils that the ISCO did not
reach.

It is expected that implementation of the selected interim remedy will significantly reduce the
mass of contaminants in the onsite subsurface soils and onsite groundwater in the surficial
aquifer. The objective of this interim remedy would be to remove 80 to 90 percent of the CVOC
mass in the treatment area and to achieve a performance level of 1.0 mg/kg total CVOC
concentration in the soil. It is anticipated that there would still be a dissolved groundwater
plume offsite with concentrations above the FDEP's CULs.

This will result in a reduction in the downward migration of CVOCs to the underlying Floridan
aquifer and ultimately support a subsequent ROD for offsite contamination in OU1 soil and
groundwater and in OU2 groundwater.

ISTR will permanently destroy the CVOCs in the onsite subsurface soils and groundwater
resulting in a total CVOC.mass of 1.0 mg/kg. Post treatment sampling will evaluate the
effectiveness of the ISTR and the system will continue to operate until the goal of 1.0 mg/kg is
achieved. CVOC concentrations in the groundwater will also be reduced by applications of ERD
designed to treat any elevated CVOCs remaining in the groundwater and prevent CVOCs from
migrating downgradient and offsite in the surficial aquifer as well as prevent or minimize further
migration of COCs from OU1 to the downgradient groundwater and to underlying OU2.

2.11 Remedial Action Objectives

RAOs provide overall goals to guide the selection and implementation of remedial alternatives.
The following RAOs were established under the 1999 ROD with the goal of eliminating the
potential risk to identified receptors:

1.	Prevent further degradation of the Floridan aquifer caused by release of contamination from
the Southern Solvents source area;

2.	Prevent or minimize the migration of groundwater with contamination exceeding MCLs (or
other appropriate health-based levels) beyond the current plume boundaries; and

15


-------
IAROD Southern Solvents Superfund Site

3.	Prevent or minimize impacts on human health and the environment from exposure to onsite
contaminated soil and groundwater.

EPA is not modifying these RAOs, however in addition to the 1999 RAOs, the RAOs for this
interim remedy include the following:

4.	Treat and reduce the DNAPL, CVOC mass and subsurface contamination below the water
table within OU1 to a total CVOC concentration of 1.0 mg/kg or lower to prevent or minimize
further migration of COCs from OU1 to the downgradient groundwater and to underlying OU2.

5.	Prevent or minimize further migration of contaminants in the soil to the groundwater by
removing CVOCs from the vadose zone near the concrete pad and parking area.

2.12 Description of Alternatives

The remedial alternatives described below are interim measures that will remove a significant
portion of the CVOC mass within the site property. Once the CVOC mass removal is achieved,
EPA will develop and evaluate additional remedial alternatives to restore the groundwater in the
surficial aquifer and in the Floridan aquifer. Table 1 in Appendix B summarizes each
alternative.

2.12.1 Detailed Remedial Alternatives Evaluation

2.12.1.1 Alternative 1: No Action

Estimated Capital Costs: $0
Estimated Annual O&M Costs: $0
Estimate Present Worth Costs: $0
Estimated Construction Timeframe: N/A

Alternative 1 represents a baseline condition where no remedial action is implemented to which
the other alternatives can be compared. No additional investigation or remedial action would
occur at the Site. PCE contamination in the subsurface would continue to persist in the surficial
aquifer and to migrate vertically through the semi-confining Hawthorn Formation into the
Floridan aquifer. Due to the existing contaminant mass (both as DNAPL and adsorbed in low
permeability zones) present in the subsurface, there is potential for the groundwater plumes in
both the surficial aquifer and the Floridan aquifer to expand if a steady state condition has not
been achieved. Over time, natural attenuation processes such as dilution, dispersion, and
volatilization would degrade the contaminant plumes. Current site data suggests that most of the
contaminant mass is in the form of PCE with relatively little of the daughter products (i.e., TCE,
DCE, and VC) detected, indicating that the subsurface geochemical conditions are not favorable
for the natural dechlorination of PCE.

16


-------
IAROD Southern Solvents Superfund Site

2.12.1.2 Alternative 2: Thermal Treatment of the RAO Zone (Limited to Onsite Areas) followed
by a polishing step with ERD

Estimated Capital Costs: $5,297,155
Estimated Annual O&M Costs: $76,883
Estimate Present Worth Costs: $7,820,394
Estimated Construction Timeframe: 6-7 months

c

Alternative 2 utilizes an ISTR technology to volatilize and capture site contaminants to achieve
CVOC mass reduction of the onsite soils, including the defined source area and onsite
groundwater plume. The RAO Zone consists of the soil mass that exceeds the CUL of 30 p.g/kg
for PCE, as well as the onsite area where groundwater concentrations exceed the CUL of 3 (j.g/L
for PCE. The RAO Zone treatment area encompasses about 75 percent of the site property,
located along the south and west boundaries of the Site with an estimated treatment area of
12,800 square feet and a treatment volume of 24,000 cubic yards (yd3) (Figure 11, Appendix A).
This area was proposed so that the system would effectively volatilize any DNAPL or CVOCs
present in the onsite subsurface (soils and groundwater) and reduce onsite groundwater
concentrations.

The heat generated by the ISTR system would cause the CVOCs adsorbed to the soils in the
groundwater to volatilize and move into the dissolved phase where they would be transported to
the surface with the steam and groundwater via multiphase extraction (MPE) wells. Once on the
surface, the recovered vapor and water would then be treated using an air stripper and GAC
which would capture the CVOCs. For this alternative, the system would be turned off when one
of the following occurs: 1) the total mass recovered reaches an asymptotic recovery rate which
would make operating the system less cost effective, 2) an estimated average CVOC soil
concentration of 1.0 mg/kg is reached, or 3) over 80 percent of the mass within the treatment
area has been recovered. The initial estimates indicate that the treatment system would take
approximately 180 to 217 days (or 6 months for electrical resistance heating (ERH) and 7
months for thermal conductance heating (TCH)) based on current soil and groundwater
concentrations.

In-situ thermal technologies are proven technologies and can generally achieve higher
contaminant mass removal in heterogeneous and lower permeability soils than amendment
injection technologies; usually greater than 85 to 90 percent of the contaminant mass. In-situ
thermal technologies represent the most aggressive in-situ CVOC source treatment technology
that is currently available. Groundwater contamination both onsite and offsite likely will
continue to persist for an extended period. Although the source would be eliminated and the
groundwater plumes would likely begin to retract, it may be several decades before
concentrations onsite and offsite achieve compliance with ARARs.

A secondary benefit of thermal technologies is that elevated temperatures of the soil and
groundwater can enhance the effectiveness of bioremediation processes and reaction rates. To

17


-------
IAROD Southern Solvents Superfund Site

expedite cleanup of the groundwater plume and take advantage of the warmer subsurface
conditions, a polishing step using ERD technologies would be applied to the treatment area while
the soil temperature is still elevated (approximately 40 to 50 degrees centigrade). Groundwater
wells would be installed after the treatment area has cooled for long-term monitoring purposes,
until the next phase of groundwater treatment is performed. The thermal treatment and ERD
polishing step are expected to remove a majority of the contaminant mass in the soil and
groundwater within the treatment area, therefore greatly reducing the time to achieve CULs.
Long-term monitoring (LTM) with MNA would be performed after the thermal and groundwater
treatment to collect data to allow the development of the final remedy. By reducing the
contaminant mass in the surficial aquifer and the Hawthorn Formation, potential contaminant
flux into the Floridan aquifer is expected to be significantly reduced.

Major components of this remedial alternative include:

•	Demolition of the existing building and concrete pad.

•	Limited tree removal.

•	Partial fence removal for site access.

•	Removal of all existing vertical monitoring wells and horizontal SVE wells made of PVC
plus other existing piping and vaults that may be a hindrance to the effective operations
of the thermal system.

•	Installation of approximately 51 thermal heating wells to a depth of 55 feet or greater and
38 MPE wells.

•	Installation of approximately 20 shallow horizontal SVE wells.

•	Installation of aboveground vapor phase treatment system: vacuum blower, heat
exchanger, carbon absorption unit.

•	Installation of water/non-aqueous phase liquid phase treatment system.

•	Installation of power trailer and control trailer.

•	Implement ISTR for an estimated 220-day-treatment period.

•	Real-time performance monitoring of thermal enhancement with downhole
thermocouples.

•	Performance monitoring of multiphase influent and treated effluents.

•	Confirmation soil samples to determine the performance of the thermal treatment.

•	Application of an in-situ bioremediation (i.e., ERD) product within the treatment area as a
polishing step.

•	Restoration of the building, fencing and surface features including parking lot and
concrete pad.

•	Installation of permanent monitoring wells for long-term performance monitoring.

•	Continue MOAs to prevent groundwater usage within plume until MCLs are met.

•	Monitoring for a period of ten years to assess groundwater conditions and to determine
the final remedy.

18


-------
IAROD Southern Solvents Superfund Site

2.12.1.3 Alternative 3: Thermal Treatment of the DNAPL Source Zone followed by a polishing
step with ERD

Estimated Capital Costs: $3,520,643
Estimated Annual O&M Costs: $73,695
Estimate Present Worth Costs: $5,472,192
Estimated Construction Timeframe: 6-7 months

Alternative 3 also utilizes ISTR to volatilize and capture site CVOCs. However, the area of
treatment is smaller than Alternative 2, covering only 23 percent of the Site (Figure 12,

Appendix A). The goal for this alternative is to achieve significant mass reduction in the soils in
the area that has been defined as the DNAPL source zone in the 2017 FFS (USACE, 2017). The
DNAPL source zone was defined as an approximately 7,500 yd3 of soil that is most likely to
contain residual DNAPL remaining in place after the previous remedial actions. Also, the area
was defined using a matrix of DNAPL indicators and information from the soil delineation
presented in the RI (Black & Veatch, 2007). The major components of this remedial option
would be the same as Alternative 2, except for the following:

•	Partial demolition of the existing building and concrete pad.

•	No tree removal.

•	Installation of approximately 23 thermal heating wells to a depth of 55 feet or greater and
8 MPE wells.

•	Installation of approximately 200 feet of shallow of horizontal SVE wells.

Additional area outside of the treatment area would be needed for the vapor recovery and
treatment system and operational support trailers.

Uneven heating of the heterogeneous soils could result in pockets of untreated CVOC mass in
the soil within the treatment area. This would result in some diffusion of the CVOCs into the
groundwater. As in Alternative 2, the MPE system can be operated after the thermal system is
turned off to remove the heated groundwater with elevated CVOC concentrations to prevent
them from migrating outside the treatment area.

As in Alternative 2, it is expected that after the thermal treatment, the groundwater
concentrations would be reduced relative to the initial concentrations. A groundwater polishing
step using in-situ ERD technologies would be applied within the treatment area to take advantage
of the elevated soil and groundwater temperatures as the subsurface cools.

Some soil with CVOC (including PCE) concentrations above the 1.0 mg/kg that are located
outside of the treatment area would remain both onsite and offsite. Although the DNAPL source
area would be removed and the groundwater plume may begin to contract, it may be several
decades before the CVOC concentrations onsite and offsite achieve compliance with ARARs.
Groundwater wells will need to be installed after the treatment area has cooled for long-term

19


-------
IAROD Southern Solvents Superfund Site

monitoring purposes, until the next phase of groundwater treatment is performed based on the
final ROD. To facilitate achieving the final groundwater and soil CULs, a final ROD would
address the remaining groundwater plume in both the surficial and Floridan aquifers.

Performance monitoring of both aquifers would occur to monitor the plume concentrations and
to provide data for designing a remedy for the final ROD. After implementation of the final
ROD, MNA may be required to achieve the final CULs.

2.12.1.4 Alternative 4: Soil Excavation by Large Diameter Auger (LDA)

Estimated Capital Costs: $7,813,060
Estimated Annual O&M Costs: $76,883
Estimate Present Worth Costs: $ 11,091,070
Estimated Construction Timeframe: 7 months

Alternative 4 utilizes large diameter augers to excavate and remove contaminated soil for offsite
disposal. The LDA excavation would focus on removing all soil previously delineated to contain
CVOC concentrations above the CUL of 30 |ig/kg for PCE and TCE within the onsite property,
which encompasses most of the subsurface soils within the fenced area. An area of
approximately 11,350 square feet would be removed to a total depth of 45 feet for an excavation
volume of 18,917 yd3 (Figure 13 Appendix A).

The Site is relatively small, therefore traditional mechanical excavation methods utilizing
backhoes and trackhoes that require benching would not be feasible. The LDAs would utilize
casing with each borehole backfilled after it is drilled. This would eliminate the need to dewater
the subsurface due to the elevated water table (i.e., 7 feet bgs). To completely excavate all the
native soil material, th$ auger holes would overlap, which means that the backfilled material
(usually a flowable cement) would be partially excavated with each new boring. This would
significantly increase the volume of material for disposal as it is mixed with the excavated soils,
but may reduce the amount of soils that would be classified as hazardous waste for disposal. The
flowable cement is used as a backfill material because it can be compacted in the borehole while
other material such as soil cannot. It is also designed to be used without dewatering, as would be
needed in a conventional excavation.

The LDA excavation method uses a five to eight-foot diameter auger head to remove
overlapping columns of soil to the desired depth. Soils will be removed from the augers as they
are removed from the casings by scraping the soils into a backhoe bucket. The auger lifts the
soil to the surface where it is placed on a concrete pad to dry before transportation and disposal.
Any water in the soils will be contained as it separates from the soil stockpiles during the drying
period. It is expected that any residual waters will evaporate. Drying the soils before disposal
reduces the weight of the soils thus reducing disposal costs. Soil vapor will be monitored as the
soil dries using a photoionization detector (PID). Any soils with extremely high PID readings or
obvious DNAPL will be segregated from the other soils for disposal purposes. Due to the size of

20


-------
IAROD Southern Solvents Superfund Site

the Site there will be limited or no room for a pad to be placed or for trucks to enter and leave the
Site.

A large crane would be onsite to place the casings as the opening area undergoes the augering
process. The casing is advanced and the soils are excavated within the casing, eliminating the
need for dewatering the Site during excavation activities. A soil drainage pad would need to be
built to stockpile the excavated soils while the groundwater drains and is captured. Confirmatory
soil samples from the sidewall of the boring would need to be collected to determine when the
area of elevated contamination has been removed. Air monitoring will be required during
excavation activities for both worker protection and public safety. During the excavation
activities, PCE contaminated soils and potentially DNAPL will be brought to the surface where
some of the PCE will likely vaporize as the soils dry. As reflected in proposals, the air
monitoring of the soils as they dry are generally required as part of the contractors' costs for their
own safety.

Site impacts will be relatively significant. The building, parking lot, and concrete pad would
need to be demolished and rebuilt. The current tenant would not be able to occupy the building
during the excavation activities. Temporary relocation would need to be provided for up to 12
months until the excavation is complete and the building is replaced.

The excavated soils will need to be disposed of in a permitted facility. The soils are estimated to
be disposed of as 90 percent non-hazardous soils with 10 percent (or 3,978 tons) estimated for
disposal as hazardous. The soils can be segregated as they are removed based on PID readings
and then tested before disposal. The excavated soils could also be treated or stabilized before
disposal so that all soils could be disposed of as non-hazardous waste. These costs could be
weighed against the disposal costs for hazardous wastes once the volume of soils that may be
hazardous is identified.

To fully excavate all contaminated soil, the LDAs would need to be advanced through the
Hawthorn confining unit to the top of the Floridan aquifer. This would open a direct conduit for
contaminated groundwater and DNAPL to migrate from the surficial aquifer into the Floridan
aquifer. Because of this concern, EPA has recommended to restrict the depth of excavation to a
minimum of five feet above the Floridan aquifer. This would allow some of the confining layer
of soil, which is likely contaminated above CULs, above the Floridan aquifer to remain in place
below the area of excavation.

The remaining groundwater plume outside of the excavation area will need to be addressed with
the final ROD. The columns of flowable cement will allow water to flow through them but may
have a reduced permeability when compared to the rest of the Site, which may cause some
disruption to the current groundwater flow paths below the Site. The groundwater plume
surrounding the excavated area would be included in the groundwater remedy for the final ROD.

21


-------
IAROD Southern Solvents Superfund Site

2.13 Summary of the Comparative Analysis of Alternatives

Section 121(b)(1) of CERCLA presents several factors that at a minimum EPA is required to
consider in its assessment of alternatives. Building upon these specific statutory mandates, the
NCP articulates nine evaluation criteria to be used in assessing the individual remedial
alternatives.

The nine criteria are grouped into three categories: Threshold Criteria, Primary Balancing
Criteria, and Modifying Criteria. A description for each of these criteria is summarized in the
following:

Threshold Criteria: The two threshold criteria described below must be met for the alternatives
to be eligible for selection in accordance with the NCP.

1.	Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment determines whether an
alternative eliminates, reduces, or controls threats to public health and the environment
through institutional controls, engineering controls, or treatment. While some alternatives
may present better scenarios for overall protection, this criterion is not measured by degree.
Each alternative is either protective or not protective. Only protective alternatives can be
carried forward for detailed comparison.

2.	Compliance with ARARs evaluates whether the alternative meets Federal and State
environmental statutes, regulations, and other requirements that pertain to the Site, or
whether a waiver is justified.

Primary Balancing Criteria: The following five criteria are utilized to compare and evaluate
the elements of one alternative to another that meet the threshold criteria:

3.	Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence considers the ability of an alternative to
maintain protection of human health and the environment over time.

4.	Reduction of Toxicity. Mobility, or Volume through Treatment evaluates an alternative's
use of treatment to reduce the harmful effects of principal contaminants, their ability to move
in the environment, and the amount of contamination present.

5.	Short-term Effectiveness considers the length of time needed to implement an alternative
and the risks the alternative poses to workers, residents, and the environment during
implementation.

6.	Implementabilitv considers the technical and administrative feasibility of implementing
the alternative, including factors such as the relative availability of goods and services.

22


-------
1AR0D Southern Solvents Superfund Site

7.	Cost includes estimated capital and annual operation and maintenance costs, as well as
present worth cost. Present worth cost is the total of an alternative over time in today's dollar
value. Cost estimates are expected to be accurate within a range of +50 to -30 percent.

Modifying Criteria: The modifying criteria are used as the final evaluation of remedial
alternatives, and relate to stakeholder feedback on the RI/FS and Proposed Plan:

8.	State/ Support Agency Acceptance considers whether the State agrees with EPA's
analyses and recommendations, as described in the RI/FS and Proposed Plan.

9.	Community Acceptance considers whether the local community agrees with EPA's
analyses and preferred alternative. Comments received on the Proposed Plan are an important
indicator of community acceptance.

Following the detailed analysis of each individual alternative in the 2017 FFS, a comparative
analysis, focusing on the relative performance of each alternative against the nine criteria, was
conducted (USACE, 2017). This comparative analysis evaluates each of the alternatives based
upon their strengths and weaknesses in relation to the nine evaluation criteria. A summary of the
comparative analysis is presented in the following sections. Only those alternatives that satisfied
both threshold criteria were evaluated under the remaining balancing and modifying criteria.
Specifically, the No Action alternative was not carried forward.

2.13.1	Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would be protective of human health and the environment. Alternatives
2 and 3 are thermal treatments that would aggressively remove a significant portion of the
CVOC mass within a relatively short period of time. Alternative 4 involves excavation of
contaminated soil above the semi-confining unit. Due to the risk of exacerbating CVOC
migration by completely breaching that unit, some soil contamination would not be removed.
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would remove the DNAPL source zone and a significant portion of the
CVOC mass, greatly reducing the potential for mass flux into the Floridan aquifer. Alternative 2
and Alternative 4 apply to a broader area than Alternative 3, which would specifically target the
area of greatest CVOC mass. All alternatives would require a follow on remedial action to
address offsite contamination in the surficial aquifer and contamination within the Floridan
aquifer at the Site.

2.13.2	Compliance with ARARs

Compliance with ARARs addresses whether a remedy will meet all the ARARs of other Federal
and State environmental statutes or provides a basis for invoking a waiver. Appendix C contains
the ARARs Table relevant to this IAROD for Southern Solvents.

23


-------
IAROD Southern Solvents Superfund Site

All the alternatives evaluated in the FFS are expected to eventually comply with ARARs.
However, the timeframes for each are difficult to project with a high degree of confidence given
the uncertainties involved. It is anticipated that Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 alone would not achieve
ARARs for the groundwater in a reasonable timeframe, therefore each would be considered an
interim remedy. Alternatives 2 and 3 would permanently remove a significant amount of CVOC
mass in a relatively short period of time. The mass reduction would enable a follow-on
groundwater treatment to successfully achieve ARARs for the Site in a reasonable period.
Alternative 4 would permanently remove a significant amount of CVOC mass from the
excavation area. However, some residual soil CVOC mass would remain in the unexcavated
portion of the surficial soils, especially in the lower portion of the Hawthorn Formation. The
mass in these remaining soils would continue to diffuse CVOCs into the groundwater resulting in
a longer timeframe for the follow-on groundwater treatment to achieve ARARs than for
Alternatives 2 and 3.

2.13.3	Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence

Alternatives 2 and 3 utilize in-situ thermal technologies, which have been proven to be an
effective method to remove CVOC contaminant mass in heterogeneous and low permeability
soils in the saturated and unsaturated zones. If properly designed and implemented, thermal
treatment would significantly and permanently reduce the mass of CVOCs at the Site. Long
term effectiveness is considered high because contaminants are physically removed from the
Site. Neither Alternative 2 nor Alternative 3 would treat the portion of the contaminant mass
located offsite. Residual contamination outside of the treatment area would contribute to a
potential rebound of CVOC concentrations in the groundwater. In addition, uneven heating of
heterogeneous soils could result in pockets of untreated CVOC mass in the soil that could diffuse
into the groundwater. Alternative 3 would target a smaller area for treatment and therefore
would leave a greater amount of residual contamination outside of the treatment area, reducing
the long-term effectiveness.

Alternative 4 would permanently remove a significant amount of CVOC mass from the
excavation area. However, some residual soil CVOC mass would remain in the unexcavated
portion of the surficial soil, specifically in the lower portion of the Hawthorn Formation.

Residual CVOC mass in this soil would continue to diffuse CVOCs into the groundwater.
Contaminated groundwater would persist around the excavated area onsite and continue to
migrate offsite. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would all require a follow-on groundwater remedy to
remediate any remaining CVOCs located outside of the treatment zone of this interim remedy in
the surficial and Floridan aquifers.

2.13.4	Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume through Treatment

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would significantly reduce the toxicity, mobility, and volume of
contaminants at the Site by permanently removing a significant portion of the CVOC mass in the
soil. By reducing the mass, the concentration gradient would be lower resulting in less mobility

24


-------
IAROD Southern Solvents Superfund Site

of onsite contaminants by diffusion. Toxicity reduction would result from lower soil and
groundwater concentrations across the Site. Reductions in toxicity and volume would be greater
for Alternative 2 than Alternative 3 due to the size of the treatment area. Alternative 4 is unique
in that contaminated soil would be excavated and removed. There is a concern that if the
confining unit separating the surficial and Floridan aquifers is removed, then the mobility of
CVOC impacted groundwater between the surficial aquifer and the Floridan aquifer would be
increased. Potential components of Alternative 4, including backfilling with flowable cement,
may mitigate this risk and reduce mobility of groundwater in the excavation area.

2.13.5	Short-Term Effectiveness

Alternatives 2 and 3 involve volatilizing contaminants from the soil and groundwater, collecting
the vapor in MPE wells and treating it onsite. Generally, there is little risk to site personnel from
vapor released from thermal treatment systems. Perimeter air monitoring is performed while the
system is operating to ensure no vapor migrates offsite and soil vacuum measurements are made
surrounding the treatment area to ensure that all the vapors in the subsurface are controlled by
the vacuum extraction system. Impacts to the businesses surrounding the Site would be short-
term. There may be some impacts from noise, dust and fugitive air emissions, but they would be
manageable. Operating time is estimated to be six to seven months.

Alternative 4 involves excavation operations in which PCE would be volatilized from the soil
and groundwater as it is brought to the surface and dried, presenting the potential for a small
short-term health and safety risk to site workers. Air monitoring is utilized by the vendors and
contractors to monitor volatiles and protect workers and the public from exposure. Impacts to
the businesses surrounding the Site would be short-term and any vapors would be quickly diluted
in the atmosphere. Fence line air monitoring will be required. There may be some impacts from
noise, dust and fugitive air emissions, but they would be manageable. Operating time is also
estimated to be six to seven months.

2.13.6	Implementability

For Alternatives 2 and 3, thermal technologies are routinely employed for remediation at sites
contaminated with chlorinated solvents. In addition, thermal technologies have been approved
and implemented at similar sites throughout the State of Florida. The equipment is commonly
available and there are multiple vendors that specialize in thermal treatment technologies. The
necessary high voltage power is located across the street from the Site. The Tampa Electric
Power Company would require a 10-month lead time to bring 480 V, 3-phase power to the Site.
The Site has access to water and is already fenced with controlled access. It is amenable to
multiple drilling techniques for heater and extraction well installations. A significant portion of
the contaminant mass is located within the Site boundaries where the treatment is planned.
However, the Site is also relatively small, and the treatment area defined for Alternative 2 would
not leave much room for the supporting trailers and MPE equipment. Because the treatment area
for Alternative 3 is smaller than Alternative 2, there would be more room for the supporting

25


-------
IAROD Southern Solvents Superfund Site

trailers and other equipment needed to operate the system. Hence, Alternative 3 would be more
implementable than Alternative 2. Alternative 2 would have a significant impact to the building,
including the potential for complete demolition for access to the treatment area. This would
require temporary relocation of the building occupants. For Alternative 3, only part of the
building (about 875 square feet) plus the concrete pad would need to be removed to access the
treatment area.

For Alternative 4, LDA is a relatively common excavation method and has been used at multiple
sites in Florida. Soil excavation is a very common direct source removal technology and no
administrative restrictions are expected. There are several vendors available with the necessary
equipment and experience to conduct the work. The primary hindrance to the implementability
of Alternative 4 is the small site with very limited access for truck traffic and storage/staging
area for the equipment necessary to perform the excavation. The area of excavation occupies 65
percent of the fenced area and 54 percent of the Site. This would leave little room for staging a
drying pad, soil stockpile, area for the large equipment needed for loading soils and for the truck
traffic, even with the building and fencing removed. The property abuts onto a busy highway,
making working near the roadway a safety hazard. The area surrounding the Site is built up with
existing buildings on each side of the fence line, leaving little available space to expand the
operations if the fencing is removed. The existing building would need to be removed along with
the slab and utilities before this option could be implemented. The tenant would need to be
temporarily relocated. Both demolition and relocation items affect the implementability.

2.13.7 Cost

Table 2 in Appendix B summarizes the costs associated with each evaluated alternative. The net
present value of an alternative is the amount of capital required to be deposited, at present time,
at a given interest rate to yield the total amount necessary to pay for initial construction costs and
future expenditures, including O&M and future replacement of capital equipment. Where
applicable, the total present worth cost was developed using a duration of 30 years (for those
applicable activities at a discount rate of seven percent). The seven percent rate is based on
EPA's guidance (USEPA, 2000) and a depiction of appropriate cost estimates under the current
financial climate.

The total net present costs would be $7,820,394 for Alternative 2, $5,472,192 for Alternative 3,
and $11,091,070 for Alternative 4. Capital cost includes engineering and design, mobilization,
site development, equipment, construction, demobilization, utilities, and sampling/analyses.
Capital costs were $5,297,155 for Alternative 2, $3,520,643 for Alternative 3, and $7,813,060
for Alternative 4. Operating costs were calculated for activities that continue after completion of
construction, such as routine O&M of treatment equipment, and groundwater monitoring.
Estimated operating costs were 718,532 for Alternative 2, $688,735 for Alternative 3, and
$718,532 for Alternative 4.

26


-------
IAROD Southern Solvents Superfund Site

2.13.8	State/Support Agency Acceptance

The State of Florida has reviewed and provided EPA with comments on the pertinent related
reports/documents (i.e., the FFS and Proposed Plan). FDEP reviewed the January 2018 Proposed
Plan for this Interim Amendment, attended the Proposed Plan public meeting that was held in
Tampa, Florida on February 6, 2018, and reviewed a draft version of this Interim Amendment.
FDEP has expressed its support for the selected interim remedy and has stated that FDEPs
concurrence is anticipated.

2.13.9	Community Acceptance

A fact sheet based on the Proposed Plan was distributed to interested residents, to local
• newspapers, and to local, State, and Federal officials the week of January 29, 2018. A public
meeting was held on Tuesday evening, February 6, 2018. The public comment period on the
Proposed Plan began January 30, 2018 and closed on March 2, 2018. During the comment
period, there was not any strong negative sentiment expressed. Two sets of written comments
were received during the public comment period, both sets from the same individual. Similarly,
there wasn't any strong contrary opinion expressed during either the Proposed Plan public
meeting or in the submitted written comments. The complete Responsiveness Summary is in
Appendix E.

2.14 Principal Threat Wastes

The NCP establishes an expectation that EPA will use treatment to address the principal
threats posed by a site wherever practicable (40 CFR §300.430(a)(l)(iii)(A-F)). This
expectation is derived from CERCLA §121 (Cleanup Standards). Identifying the principal
threats combines concepts of both hazard and risk. In general, principal threat wastes are
those source materials considered to be highly toxic or highly mobile that generally cannot be
contained in a reliable manner or would present a significant risk to human health or the
environment should exposure occur. The manner in which principal threats are addressed
generally determines whether the statutory preference for treatment as a principal element is
satisfied. The DNAPL present in the subsurface soils is identified as a principal threat waste.
Contaminated groundwater generally is not considered to be source material. However,

DNAPL in groundwater may be considered as source material and therefore as a principal
threat waste (USEPA, 1991). The alternatives developed in the 2017 FFS address the
principal threat wastes present in OU1.

27


-------
IAROD Southern Solvents Superfund Site

2.14 Selected Remedy

2.14.1	Rationale for the Selected Interim Remedy

EPA and FDEP collaborated to develop four alternatives to aggressively treat the source zone
contamination in OU1. Alternative 3, thermal treatment of the DNAPL source zone followed by
a polishing step with ERD, is selected as the preferred alternative for the interim remedy. This
section summarizes the alternatives and details the rationale for eliminating Alternatives 1, 2,
and 4 and for selecting Alternative 3. Table 3, Appendix B, presents a graphic illustration of the
comparative analysis for ease of comparison.

Each of the remedial options were screened and evaluated against the nine NCP criteria. The
results of the evaluation indicate that Alternative 3 provides the best balance of trade-offs among
the nine NCP criteria. Alternative 3 would provide overall protection of human health and the
environment, compliance with ARARs in conjunction with a follow-on remedy, and would
provide long-term effectiveness and permanence. Alternative 3 would reduce the toxicity,
mobility, and volume, and would be effective in the short-term. In addition, Alternative 3 was
the most implementable of the alternatives and provided the lowest cost. Alternative 3 has the
support of the FDEP as well as general community acceptance.

Alternative 2 would achieve the largest mass removal in both the soil and groundwater.

However, this alternative was costlier and less implementable.than Alternative 3. Alternative 2
did not significantly increase the long-term effectiveness or permanence of the interim remedy
over Alternative 3. Alternative 2 also did not provide a significantly greater reduction in
toxicity, mobility, and volume compared with Alternative 3.

Alternative 4 would not treat the groundwater at all, but would permanently remove the CVOC
mass from the area of soils that are excavated. This alternative represented the highest cost and
least implementable option and would leave some CVOC mass remaining in the Hawthorn
Formation above the Floridan aquifer. The remaining columns of backfill material may induce
slight changes in the flow of groundwater through that area, which could affect the follow-on
groundwater remedy.

For each alternative evaluated (including Alternative 3), CVOCs will remain in the surficial
groundwater and in soil of OU1 outside of each treatment area. This remaining contamination
would need to be treated by the follow-on remedy, which will be addressed in a future ROD.

2.14.2	Description of the Selected Interim Remedy

The selected interim remedy would utilize ISTR for CVOC mass removal in the DNAPL source
zone as identified in the 2017 FFS (USACE, 2017). The objective of this interim remedy would
be to remove 80 to 90 percent of the CVOC mass in the treatment area and to achieve a
performance level of 1.0 mg/kg total CVOC concentration in the soil. It is anticipated that there

28


-------
IAROD Southern Solvents Superfund Site

would still be a dissolved groundwater plume with concentrations above the FDEP's CULs. A
final remedy will be developed to treat the remaining groundwater concentrations above CULs in
OUlandinOU2.

The treatment area consists of approximately 4,050 square feet to 50 feet bgs. The treatment is
assumed to consist of the following components:

•	Partial demolition of the existing building and concrete pad.

•	Partial fence removal for site access.

•	Removal of all existing vertical monitoring wells and horizontal SVE wells made of PVC
plus other existing piping and vaults that may be a hindrance to the effective operations
of the thermal system.

•	Installation of approximately 23 thermal heating wells to a depth of 55 feet or greater and
8 MPE wells.

•	Installation of approximately 200 feet of shallow of horizontal SVE wells.

•	Installation of aboveground vapor phase treatment system: vacuum blower, heat
exchanger, carbon absorption unit.

•	Installation of water/non-aqueous phase liquid phase treatment system.

•	Installation of power trailer and control trailer

•	Implement ISTR for an estimated 220-day-treatment period.

•	Real-time performance monitoring of thermal enhancement with downhole
thermocouples.

•	Performance monitoring of multiphase influent and treated effluents.

•	Confirmation soil samples to determine the performance of the thermal treatment.

•	Performing ERD applications once site soils cool to approximately 50 degrees centigrade
within the same treatment area.

•	Restoration of the building, fencing and surface features including parking lot and
concrete pad.

•	Installation of permanent monitoring wells for long-term performance monitoring.

•	Continue existing MOAs to prevent groundwater usage within plume until CULs are met.
Groundwater monitoring for a period of up to ten years to assess groundwater conditions
and to determine the final remedy.

Analytical costs include annual costs for VOCs by EPA Method SW8260, plus natural
attenuation parameters, and groundwater geochemistry parameters. Regulatory
reporting/consulting costs include preparation of monthly status reports for the treatment system,
other required CERCLA status reporting, monthly air and water permit reporting, and other
project management and regulatory interactions. The long-term monitoring cost and a 30 percent
contingency for O&M costs are also included. A minimum operating timeframe of 10 years was
estimated to allow for time to collect enough groundwater data for the surficial and Floridan
aquifers post treatment to prepare and design the final remedy for the groundwater.

29


-------
IAROD Southern Solvents Superfund Site

2.14.2.1	Performance Criteria

The objective of this interim remedy would be to remove 80 to 90 percent of the CVOC mass in
the treatment area and to achieve a performance level of 1.0 mg/kg total CVOC concentration in
the soil. The treatment area consists of approximately 4,050 square feet to 50 feet bgs.
Performance metrics would need to be developed to evaluate the success of the thermal
treatment. These metrics could be based on several lines of evidence. Metrics could include: 1)
subsurface temperature - the temperature could be monitored to determine when the
temperatures throughout the treatment zone achieves the 100 degrees centigrade mark (i.e., 100
percent over 90 degrees centigrade, 95 percent at 100 degrees centigrade). All temperatures
monitored within the treatment zone should achieve 90 degrees centigrade or more for a
minimum of 30 days; 2) soil samples - confirmatory soil samples could be collected from the
area of highest soil concentrations before treatment, to compare to pretreatment concentrations.

2.14.2.2	Performance Monitoring

The remedy will be evaluated by means of an appropriate performance monitoring plan (PMP) to
be developed during the remedial design phase and included in the final remedial design
document. The PMP, at a minimum, will explain, in sufficient detail, how the effectiveness of
the remedy will be assessed; define, using measurable matrices, when an area will transition
from the active treatment phase to the long-term monitoring/MNA phase; and identify/define the
criteria to be used to determine if potential remedial enhancement is needed to be implemented at
any of the treatment areas. Preliminary monitoring components include the following:

•	Real-time performance monitoring of thermal enhancement with downhole
thermocouples.

•	Performance monitoring of multiphase influent and treated effluents.

•	Confirmation soil samples to determine the performance of the thermal treatment.

•	Performing ERD applications once site soils cool to approximately 50 degrees centigrade
within the same, treatment area. .

2.12.2.1 Institutional Controls

Per the September 1999 ROD, the installation of wells and usage of groundwater are regulated
by the SWFWMD through the issuance of individual and general water use permits. The district
also regulates water well construction and requires permits for all new water wells. Therefore,
exposure to contaminated groundwater during the implementation of this remedy is unlikely
and institutional controls would not be necessary. The December 2008 MOA will continue to
address the ICs for groundwater at the Site. The main purpose of the MOA is to develop a
framework of cooperation between EPA and the SWFWMD and to set forth the mutual
understanding of the parties concerning cooperative efforts to minimize the potential effects of
groundwater contamination in areas within SWFWMD's jurisdiction that are impacted or
potentially impacted Superfund sites, including procedures for information sharing

30


-------
IAROD Southern Solvents Superfund Site

and assisting in the implementation of certain ICs through the application of regulatory practice
within SWFWMD's jurisdiction, to prevent the potential human exposure to contaminated
groundwater in areas impacted or potentially impacted by Superfund sites.

Per the 2008 MOA, EPA policy defines ICs as non-engineering instruments such as
administrative or legal controls that eliminate or minimize the potential of the remedy by
limiting land or resource utilization. ICs at a Superfund site may be selected as part of a
removal or remedial action. ICs selected as part of a remedial action are in the decision
document and may be more specifically established during the remedial design. At many
Superfund sites, ICs are used to eliminate potential human exposure to contaminated
groundwater beneath the Superfund site property and other adjacent or nearby properties.

2.14.3 Summary of Estimated Interim Remedy Costs

Total estimated costs for the selected interim remedy are $5,472,192 (Table 4, Appendix B).

The information in the cost estimate summary table is based on the best available information
regarding the anticipated scope of the remedial alternative. A 7% discount rate was used to
estimate present worth for the selected remedy. The long-term monitoring cost and 30 percent
contingency for O&M costs were applied to maintain consistency from a cost comparison
standpoint with other vendor cost estimates. A LTM timeframe of up to 10 years is assumed
after implementation of the interim remedy was estimated to allow for time to collect
groundwater data for the surficial and Floridan aquifers to prepare and design the final remedy
for the groundwater in OU1 and OU2.

Cost estimates provided at this stage of the CERCLA process are anticipated to be accurate to
within minus 30 percent and plus 50 percent. Changes in the cost elements are likely to occur
because of new information and data collected during the engineering design of the remedial
alternative. Major changes may be documented in the form of a memorandum in the AR file, an
ESD, or a ROD amendment.

2.14.4 Expected Outcomes of the Selected Interim Remedy

There is no change in the expected outcome from the 1999 ROD. The selected remedy allows
EPA to aggressively treat the highest levels of contamination at the Site that continue to be a
source of further contamination in the surficial and Floridan aquifers. EPA expects that the
selected interim remedy will eliminate a significant amount of CVOC source material, while
further investigation of OU2 occurs. Contamination will remain outside of the treatment area at
the Site above CULs, which will be addressed by a final ROD. Upon achieving the cleanup

31


-------
IAROD Southern Solvents Superfund Site

goals, the contaminants in the soil and surficial aquifer will be below levels that would prevent
unlimited land or groundwater use.

2.15 Statutory Determinations

2.15.1	Protection of Human Health and the Environment

The selected interim remedy will protect human health and the environment in the short-term by
significantly reducing the mass of CVOCs present in the soil and groundwater. In addition, the
selected interim remedy will reduce the flux of CVOCs from the subsurface soils into the
surficial groundwater and into the Floridan aquifer groundwater.

2.15.2	Compliance with ARARs

The selected remedy is not expected to achieve CULs in the groundwater in a reasonable
timeframe. Therefore, the selected remedy would be considered an interim remedy. The mass
reduction achieved with this interim remedy is expected to enable a final remedy to comply with
ARARs. The interim remedy will neither be inconsistent with, nor preclude, implementation of
a final remedy for surficial groundwater and for the Floridan aquifer.

2.15.3	Cost Effectiveness

The selected interim remedy is the most cost effective of the evaluated remedial alternatives. The
selected interim remedy provides the best overall protection in proportion to cost, and meets all
other requirements of CERCLA.

2.15.4	Utilization of Permanent Solutions to the Maximum Extent Practicable

The selected interim remedy provides for a reduction in the toxicity, mobility, and volume of the
contaminants at the Site. The thermal treatment component of the interim remedy will remove a
significant portion of the CVOC mass in the soil and groundwater in the treatment area. The
ERD component of the interim remedy is anticipated to create a permanent, self-sustaining,
bioactive zone where the microbial population will mineralize the remaining contaminants to
harmless, non-hazardous by-products.

2.15.5	Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element

The statutory preference for treatment will be met by this interim remedy. The selected interim
remedy includes thermal treatment and enhanced reductive dechlorination treatment as principal
elements.

32


-------
IAROD Southern Solvents Superfund Site

2.15.6 Five-Year Review Requirement

The 1999 ROD initially prescribed a "policy" five-year review (FYR) after the completion of the
remedial action. However, because this remedy will result in hazardous substances and
contaminants remaining onsite in excess of levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure, a statutory review will be conducted within 5 years after the initiation of the remedial
action, and every 5 years thereafter. EPA will conduct the reviews until the levels of COCs
allow for unrestricted use of soil and groundwater with unlimited exposure to these media. The
FYRs will be conducted to ensure that the remedy is, or will be, protective of human health and
the environment. If results of the FYRs reveal that remedy integrity is compromised and
protection of human health is insufficient, then additional remedial actions will be evaluated by
EPA and FDEP. The statutory FYRs will be conducted in accordance with CERCLA Section
121(c) and the NCP requirement 40 CFR 300.430(f)4(ii).

2.16	Documentation of Significant Changes

The Proposed Plan was released for public comment in January 2018. Alternative 3, ISTR
followed by ERD, was identified as the Preferred Alternative for OU1 in the Proposed Plan.
EPA reviewed all written and verbal comments submitted during the public comment period.
The comments received were supportive of the Preferred Alternative, and therefore the selected
interim remedy has not changed from the Preferred Alternative described in the Proposed Plan.

2.17	References

Bechtel, 1999a. Bechtel Environmental, Inc. Remedial Investigation Report for the Southern
Solvents Site, Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida. March 1999.

Bechtel, 1999b. Bechtel Environmental, Inc. Feasibility Study Report for the Southern Solvents
Site, Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida. 1999.

Black & Veatch, 2002. Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp., Final Design Report for the
Former Southern Solvents Site, Operable Unit No. 1, 2002.

Black & Veatch, 2005. Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp., Work Plan - Technical

Approach, Pilot-Scale Potassium Permanganate Injection, Former Southern Solvents Site,
Operable Unit #1. 2005.

Black & Veatch, 2007. Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp., Final Remedial Investigation
Report for the Former Southern Solvents, Inc. Site, Operable Unit #2. April 2017.

Black & Veatch, 2008. Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp. Pilot Scale Sodium Permanganate
Injection Former Southern Solvents, Inc. Site. Operable Unit #1. August 2008.

Black & Veatch, 2009. Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp. Procedural Modification for
Phase II Injection Event, Pilot-Scale Sodium Permanganate Injection, Former Southern

33


-------
IAROD Southern Solvents Superfund Site

Solvents, Inc. Site - OU1, Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida. Technical Memorandum.
March 2009.

Black & Veatch, 2011. Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp. Phase II Injection Summary,
Former Southern Solvents, Inc. Site - OU1. Technical Memorandum. June 2011.

Cherry et al., 1970. Cherry, R.N., Stewart, J.W., Mann, J. A., General hydrogeology of the

Middle Gulf Area. Florida Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Geology, Report of
Investigation No. 56. Tallahassee, FL, 1970.

Cherry and Brown, 1974. Cherry, R.N., Brown, D.P., Hydrogeologic aspects of a proposed
sanitary landfill near Old Tampa Bay, Florida: Florida Bureau of Geology, Report of
Investigation No. 68, 25p, 1974.

FDEP, 1996. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Preliminary Assessment,
Southern Solvents, Inc., Hillsborough County, Florida. FL #0001209840.

Geosyntec, 2011. Geosyntec Consultants. Memorandum for the Former Southern Solvents
Conceptual Layout and Approach for Phase 3 ISCO. May 2011.

McCarty, P.L., 2010. Groundwater contamination by chlorinated solvents: History, remediation
technology and strategies. In: Stroo H., Ward C. (eds) In Situ Remediation of Chlorinated
Solvent Plumes. SERDP/ESTCP Environmental Remediation Technology. Springer, New
York, NY.

Mortensen, 1989. Mortensen Engineering, Inc., Letter dated February 14, 1989, from F.A.
Mortensen (Mortensen Engineering, Inc.) to J. Hartley (Southern Solvents, Inc.),
"Preliminary Contamination Assessment at the Southern Solvents Site."

Mortensen, 1991. Mortensen Engineering, Inc., Contamination Assessment Report, Shallow
Aquifer System. February 1991.

Mortensen, 1994. Mortensen Engineering, Inc., Contamination Assessment Report, Upper
Floridan Aquifer System. February 1994.

Scott, 1988. Scott, T.M., Lithostratigraphy of the Hawthorn group (Miocene) of Florida: Florida
Geological Survey Bulletin No. 59, 148 p, 1988.

SWFWMD, 1996. Southwest Florida Water Management District, Memorandum of Agreement
Between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Superfund Division and the
Southwest Florida Water Management District, September 2008.

USACE, 2016. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District. Post ISCO Assessment
Report, Southern Solvents Superfund Site, Tampa, FL. March 2016.

USACE, 2017. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District. Focused Feasibility Study
Report, Southern Solvents Superfund Site, Tampa, FL. November 2017.

USEPA, 1988. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guidance for Conducting Remedial
Investigations and Feasibility Studies under CERCLA. OSWER-9355.3-01. October 1988.

34


-------
IAROD Southern Solvents Superfund Site

USEPA, 1991. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. A Guide to Principal Threat and Low-
Level Threat Wastes. USEPA 9380.3-06FS. November 1991.

USEPA, 1996. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Presumptive Response Strategy and Ex
Situ Treatment Technologies for Contaminated Ground Water at CERCLA Sites: Final
Guidance. Directive 9283.1-12. EPA 540/R-96/023. October 1996.

USEPA, 1998. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Risk-Based Concentration Table. Region
III Technical Guidance Manual, Risk Assessment. Hazardous Waste Management Division,
Office of Superfund Programs, Region III, Philadelphia, PA. April 1998.

USEPA, 1999a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Proposed Plan for Record of Decision,
Southern Solvents, Inc. Superfund Site, Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida. August 1999.

USEPA, 1999b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Record of Decision, Summary of
Remedial Alternative Selection for the Soil and Surficial Aquifer Operable Unit 1 at the
Southern Solvents Site, Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida. September 1999.

USEPA, 2000. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. A Guide to Developing and

Documenting Cost Estimates during the Feasibility Study. EPA-R-00-002, OSWER 9355.0-
75.

USEPA, 2002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Explanation of Significant Differences,
Operable Unit 1 at the Southern Solvents Site, Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida. August
2002.

USEPA, 2010. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Technical Review of ISCO at the
Southern Solvents, Inc. Superfund Site - OU1. National Risk Management Research
Laboratory. Ada, OK. February 2010.

35


-------
APPENDIX A
Figures


-------
MOOIFIED FROM USCS OUMfflRANGES: CITRUS PARK, Fl
US SULPHUR SPRDttS, Fl



20385 059 SSF001.0GN

P- t Site Location Map
9 Southern Solvents Rl


-------
Figure 2
Site Layout
Southern Solvents Rl


-------

-------
®GEEG)

IT DIA HDPE Injection Line (TYP)

ess®)
easac®

• MP17

. •• Concrete Slab • '

•mpoi- : ; ; *MPii /*: ;-'i.

• MP10

_ Building



Extraction Well Well Location (showing screen interval (ft BLS))
Injection Well Location (showing screen interval (ft BLS))

Recirculation Injection Well Location (showing screen Interval (ft BLS))
Membrane Interface Probe (MIP) Location
Groundwater Sampling Location
1/r DIA HDPE Injection Line (TYP)

.............	3/4- q|A HDPE Groundwater Extraction Line

Groundwater Flow Direction

	 Building

	—- Concrete Slab

		Concrete Walkway

— Asphalt

:	SVE System Enclosure

— - —	Fence line

'	Concrete Slab

Note:

1. ft BLS indicates feet below land surface.



-Asphalt

Proposed Phase 3 ISCO Layout

Former Southern Solvents
4109 West Linebaugh Ave.
	Tampa. FL	

Geosyntec0

consultants

|

May 2011

Figure
4


-------
V '"UW2«

r'":

_ If A __, ,

J®-, t?*-«

-	vv*"-' -

^vv f 			,	i-'PA-" TV,	MW-5 ,,EPA3|

* -» I MW-a """ - -

P9M

EPA"7EPA-20

CPA.1.1

*

WWfW

PA 4QEPA-42

^:EPA4^ ii, W'23 EPA^P/^V

„MW-27 .	MW-rt

>S7	—• - OW-S^ ,

"^fcPA-44 DW-3
W23 EPW MW-19'
FPA-4S*PAt2l

EPA-45 jOW-5*

EPA 59*X'|

tPA?;|

1 - VEW

¦ PHftfanpi

V««* Fxeslwo

MBftiright C2013 E«rt.
DeLorme. NAVTEQ

- - EPA-22

EPA...69EPA-7Q



- ' 'L;'-Vi'iifr

/E™r,rfPAQ ^ •

SPA-52*' „	-

s S*f% •,

;| ^pa^.!£pa-72 ] ^

Jl ^

3 i\ t » ft*

f t •

—.	m

t 1 9

9b EPA- 5
- EPA-36
rvtwjj i*ePA 4

« * A «_ | 1 1 * ^
1 * T	v

. 	

ir.	^

•mmk	vwfiwn ift

o&©m&ip lawrosiTVv * epa-44
^itoggijUfg,	JS1H HSfipnlkn9% "

f* ! £ A*

7 mC ' > .

w ••. '

* 4#

Legend

Groundwater Monitoring Wells
Floridan
Intermediate
Shallow

| x — x • Fence Line

ftfi

Property Boundary

10 125 250	500

Feet

«¦¦* *•

*• )»>«

:,t

US Amy Corp* of I
SMraadOMrtel

^^tSSrSmSffSm^

~'v" ; 1* Ifc < '!> ¦ _¦¦" _ I	»

},	.	jfeAfagBBasteba lutortm Th mjlHH,6HMMfta» MflBG

		¦		asfcetepn. ©ji®»yar Oranartr	,

Figure 7

(Groundwater Well Location Map
Southern Solvents Superfund Sitej
Tampa, Florida

September 2014 figured


-------
-x-x-*7

B12 - Boring ID
15 mg/kg- Max PCE concenlralion
146 PPM- Max PID

B27
NS mq/ka

B18
2 6 mg/kg
41.7 PPM

B29
NS mg/kg

B17 <
0.085 mg/kg
17.8 PPM

B5

..oB26„ 0 015 mg/kg
0.031 mg/kg "|m9'kS 6.7 PPM
< 7 PPM I SSPPM^	•

Legend

• Soil Broing Location
PCE > 50 mg/kg
- - - - Dashed where estimated

PCE>50 mg/kg
x — x • Fence Line

Property Boundary

~- Cross-Section Locations

HTHWOmttoBtcUax

Figure 8
Horizontal Extent of
Soil Contamination
Southern Solvents Superfund Site

	Tampa, Florida

September 2014 {Figured'


-------

-------

-------

-------
Figure 10: 3-D Image of Subsurface Soil Contamination from 2018 FFS

1000 • 5000
5000 -10000
10000 - 25000
25000 ¦ 50000


-------

-------

-------

-------
APPENDIX B
TABLES


-------
Table 1. Summary of remediation alternatives (from USACE, 2017)

SOUTHERN SOLVENTS REMEDATION ALTERNATIVES

Alternative

Description of Remediation Alternatives

Option 1

No Action

This alternative is required to be carried through for the purposes of
comparing and evaluating the other alternatives as a baseline.

Option 2

Thermal
Treatment by
ISTR in the
RAO Zone
with polishing
step

This alternative utilizes ISTR applied to the defined RAO Zone as described
in Section 9. The objective of this option would be to remove between 80 to
90% of the mass of CVOCs in the soil and groundwater within the treatment
area to the extent that is cost effective and to achieve a 1.0 mg/kg CVOC
concentration in the soil.

Option 3

Thermal
Treatment by
ISTR in the
DNAPL Source
Zone with
polishing step

This alternative also utilizes ISTR for CVOC mass removal, but in the
smaller zone identified in Section 9 as the DNAPL Source Zone. The
objective of this option is also to remove between 80 to 90% of the CVOC
mass in the treatment area and to achieve a performance level of 1.0 mg/kg
CVOC concentration in the soil.

Option 4

Soil Excavation
by LDA and
Caissons

This alternative would target removing all the subsurface soils within the site
property boundary that have been documented with CVOC concentrations
greater than 0.03 mg/kg. The excavation will be performed using caisson
excavation method and LDAs. Soils would be removed from within the
caissons, allowed to drain, segregated by contaminant screening methods,
and then transported to an appropriate disposal facility. Groundwater that has
drained from the soils would be collected and disposed of.


-------
Table 2: Comparison Costs of Remedial Alternatives

Alternative

Capital

Costs

Total
Indirect

Costs

Total 10
YR LTM

Total 10
Year LTM
Present
Value

Total *

1

No Action











2

Thermal T reatment of
RAO Zone with ERD
and LTM

$4,074,735

$1,222,420

$768,830

$718,532

$7,820,394

3

Thermal Treatment of
DNAPL Source Zone
with ERD and LTM

$2,708,187

$812,456

$736,946

$688,735

$5,472,192

4

Soil Excavation by
LDA and Disposal

$6,010,046

$1,803,014

$768,830

$718,532

$11,091,070

*30% added to costs for contingencies


-------
Table 3: Comparison of Remedial Alternatives (Options)

Alternative

Option 1

No
Action

Option 2
Thermal Treatment -
On Site RAO Zone to
1.0 mg/kg

Option 3
Thermal Treatment

- Small DNAPL
Source Zone to 1.0
mg/kg

Option 4
LDA Excavation of On Site
Soils > 0.03 mg/kg

Screening Criteria



Protectiveness

Low

Moderate to high, will
reduce CVOC mass in
both groundwater and
soil over a majority of
the site.

Moderate,

Will reduce the
CVOC Mass in soil
and groundwater in
smaller area than
Options 2 and
4.

Moderate,

Will reduce the CVOC Mass in

soil over an area similar to
Option 2 and larger than Option

3. Groundwater will not be
treated at all as in Options 2 &
3.

ARARS

Low

Will meet objective of

FFS for Mass
Reduction, but will not
meet ARARs for
groundwater. Will
require additional
groundwater treatment
to achieve ARARs.

Will meet objective

of FFS for Mass
Reduction, but will
not meet ARARs for
soil or groundwater.
Will require
additional
groundwater
treatment to achieve
ARARs.

Will meet objective of FFS for
Mass Reduction, but will not
meet ARARs for soil or
groundwater. Will require
additional groundwater
treatment to achieve ARARs.

Long Term
Effectiveness

Low

Will be effective, but
untreated groundwater
offsite will reduce
long term
effectiveness.

Will be effective, but

untreated
groundwater outside

the treatment area
will reduce long term
effectiveness.

Will be effective in removing
mass from soils, but remaining
mass in soils left in place will
reduce long term effectiveness.


-------
Table 3 (Continued): Comparison of Remedial Alternatives (Options)

Alternative

Option 1

No
Action

Option 2
Thermal Treatment -
On Site RAO Zone to
1.0 mg/kg

Option 3
Thermal Treatment
- DNAPL Source
Zone to 1.0 mg/kg

Option 4
LDA Excavation of On Site
Soils > 0.03 mg/kg

Screening Criteria



Short Term
Effectiveness

Moderate

High

High

High

Reduction of Mass,
Volume & Toxicity

Low

Will result in a
significant reduction

in CVOC Mass,
Volume and Toxicity

Will reduce CVOC
Mass, Volume and
Toxicity, more than
Option 4 but not as
much as Option 2.

Will result in a reduction of
CVOC Mass, Volume and
Toxicity, but less than Option 2
but more than Option 3.

Implementability

High

Moderate

High

Low

Cost ofCVOC
Mass Removal by
T reatment and
Excavation

Low

Moderately high

Lowest

High


-------
TABLE 4:

FEASABILITY STUDY COST ESTIMATE FOR THERMAL TREATMENT
FOR DNAPL SOURCE ZONE

COST DESCRIPTION I Quantity

Unit

rate

ESTIMATED COST

SUB-TOTALS

I. DIRECT CAPITAL COSTS'











1) Building Demolition and Replacement, site restoration

0.35

LS

$175,000.00

$61,250.00



2) Abandon exisiting vertical and horizontal PVC wells, move utilities

1

LS



$36,083 00



3) Tennant Relocation

10,000

mo

8

$80,000.00



4) Mob/Demob

1

LS



$64,000.00



5) Drilling

1

LS



$198,860 00



5) System Installation (ERH and MPE)

1

LS



$880,901.00



6) Power Drop

1

LS



$35,000.00



7) Operation and Maintenance of Systems

1

LS



$407,691.00



8) Utlities Electric

2,383,332

kWH

0.100

$238,333.20



9) Utilites Water

3,614,806

gal

0.004

$14,459.22



10) Confirmation Sampling - Soil

1

LS



$28,000.00



11) Heater and MPE Well Abandonment

1

LS



$1,610.00



12) ERD Polishing Step within 12,000 sq ft Treatment Area - 2 applications

2

event

$331,000

$662,000.00



























TOTAL DIRECT CAPITAL COSTS









$2,708,187













II, INDIRECT CAPITAL COSTS (Per Cent of Direct Capitol Costs)
1) CERCLA Work Plans and Regulatory Interface ( 5%)

5%





$135,409



2) Engineering Design and Specifications (I0%)3

10%





$270,819



3) Permitting, Bonding, and Insurance (2%)

2%





$54,164



4) Engineering Oversight (8%)

8%





$216,655



5) System Reporting - As Built and Operations (5%)

5%





$135,409



























TOTAL INDIRECT CAPITAL COSTS









$812,456













III. ANNUAL LTM











1) Install Monitoring Wells for LTM

1

LS



$37,103



2) LTM for 10 yrs, once per year, 12 wells.One report per year3

1

LS



$628,962



3) IDW disposal for 10 years

1

LS



$3,886



SubTotal for LTM







$669,951



5) LTM Oversight, Meetings and Interfacing with Regulators 10% of subtotal :





$66,995



TOTAL LTM COSTS







$736,946



NPV 1(1 YR LTM Costs









$688,735













7) CONTINGENCY - 30%'









$1,262,813.50













TOTAL OPTION 3+ lOyr NPV LTM OPERATING









$5,472,192













!) Site specific cost estimate from McMillan/McGee, Regenisis, and RACER

2)	Engineering design costs can include preparation of drawings and specs, pre and post construction site
surveying, RD assessment needs, contractor bidding support and prep of design drawings.

3)	LTM includes installing 10 groundwater monitoring wells, sampling 15 wells annually plus reporting
system inspections and trouble-shooting.

4)	Assumes govement oversight of LTM plus meetings and phone conferences

5)7%	discount rate assumed for 10 year LTM costs

6)	Cost for this task was taken from other cost proposals to maintain consistency.

7)	Total net present value is the sum of direct and indirect capital costs and present value of LTM costs
using a 7% discount rate.


-------
FEASIBILY STUDY CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS
THERMAL TREATMENT OF DNAPL SOURCE AREA PLUS ERD
VENDOR SUPPLIED ESTIMATES AND RACER ESTIMATE
SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SUPERFUND SITE

I.	GENERAL CAPITAL COSTS/ INDIRECT COSTS

•	A breakdown of the direct capital costs for the various components of the soil excavation can be
found in the accompanying Site Specific estimates from McMillian/McGee, Regenesis, and RACER
for well abandonment. The RACER cost estimating software has been developed for use by the US
Army Corps of Engineers' Environmental Center of Expertise.

•	Indirect capital costs are presented as a percentage of the direct capital costs based on relevant
USEPA FS cost estimating guidance and experience with similar sites.

II.	THERMAL TREATMENT

For FS costing purposes, the design is based on a treating approximately 5,200 sq. ft. to 50 feet bgs. The

treatment is assumed to consist of the following components:

•	Drilling by sonic drilling techniques to install all heater borings, extraction wells and temperature
probes.

•	Heater electrodes will be placed on 20 foot centers.

•	Extraction wells are spaced in-between the heater electrodes to maximize contaminant removal.

•	Temperature electrodes are spaced within the treatment area at 3-foot intervals to ensure adequate
temperature monitoring throughout the area to avoid cold spots.

•	The existing building and fencing and parking lot would need to be demolished and rebuilt after the
treatment is complete (it may be possible to keep the building intact during this option, that would
need to be evaluated during the RD phase).

•	The existing tenants using the building will need to be relocated during the treatment and rebuilding
period (may be able to remain, will need to be evaluated further during the RD phase).

•	Existing PVC monitoring wells and horizontal SVE wells will need to be removed before the
treatment.

•	Confirmatory soil sampling will be performed to determine if the performance goal has been met
before the thermal system heaters are turned off permanently.

•	Two ERD applications will be performed once site soils cool to approximately 50 degrees C within
the same 12,800 sq. ft. treatment area as Option 2.

Page I


-------
III. LONG TERM MAINTANENCE

For FS costing purposes, the following annual operation and maintenance (0&M)'costs were included

and accounted for as follows:

•	Reinstalling 7 groundwater monitoring wells for LTM purposes in the surficial and Floridan aquifers.

•	Sampling the 7 new groundwater wells and 8 existing groundwater wells annually to collect data to
prepare the final groundwater remedy.

•	Analytical costs include annual costs for VOCs by SW8260, plus natural attenuation parameters, and
•groundwater geochemistry parameters.

•	Regulatory reporting/consulting includes preparation of monthly status reports for the treatment
system, other required CERCLA status reporting, monthly air and water permit reporting, and other
project management and regulatory interactions.

•	The long-term monitoring cost and 30% contingency for O&M costs to maintain consistency from a
cost comparison standpoint with other vendor cost estimates.

•	A minimum operating timeframe of 10 years was estimated based to allow for time to collect enough
groundwater data for the surficial and Floridan aquifers post excavation to prepare and design the
final remedy for the groundwater of OU2 and OU3.

Page 2


-------
APPENDIX C
ARARs TABLE

i


-------
List of ARARs and TBCs for the Southern Solvents Superfund Site, Tampa FL for 1AROD

Action Specific ARARs

Action/Media

Requirement

Prerequisite

Citation

Classification of ground water

All ground water of the state is classified according to the
designated uses and includes the following:

Class G-I - Potable water use, ground water in single source
aquifers which has total dissolved solids content of less than 3,000

mg/1.

Class G-II - Potable water use, ground water in single source
aquifers which has total dissolved solids content of less than
10,000 mg/l, unless otherwise classified by the Florida
Environmental Regulation Commission.

Groundwater within the stale of
Florida - Applicable

F.A.C. 62-520.410

Restoration of ground water as
a potential drinking water
source

All ground water (except for Class G-I V) shall meet the minimum
criteria for ground water specified in F.A.C. 62-520.400(l)(a)-(f).

Ground water within the state of
Florida with designated beneficial
use(s) of Class G-l or Class G-II -
Relevant and Appropriate

F.A.C. 62-520.400
Minimum Criteria for
Ground Water



Class I and Class 11 ground water shall meet the primary drinking
water standards listed in F.A.C. 62-550.310 for public water
systems, except as otherwise specified.



F.A.C. 62-520.420(1)
Standards for Class -1
and Class - 11 Ground
Water


-------
List of ARARs and TBCs for the Southern Solvents Superfund Site, Tampa FL for IAROD

Action Specific ARARs

Action/Media

Requirement

Prerequisite

Citation

Classification of ground water

All ground water of the state is classified according to the

designated uses and includes the following:

Class G-l - Potable water use, ground water in single source

aquifers which has total dissolved solids content of less than 3,000

mg/l.

Class G-II - Potable water use, ground water in single source
aquifers which has total dissolved solids content of less than
10,000 mg/l, unless otherwise classified by the Florida
Environmental Regulation Commission.

Groundwater within the state of
Florida - Applicable

F.A.C. 62-520.410

Restoration of ground water as
a potential drinking water
source

All ground water (except for Class G-1V) shall meet the minimum
criteria for ground water specified in F. A.C. 62-520.400( 1 )(a)-(f).

Ground water within the state of
Florida with designated beneficial
use(s) of Class G-I or Class G-II -
Relevant and Appropriate

F.A.C. 62-520.400
Minimum Criteria for
Ground Water



Class I and Class 11 ground water shall meet the primary drinking
water standards listed in F.A.C. 62-550,310 for public water
systems, except as otherwise specified.



F.A.C. 62-520.420(1)
Standards for Class -1
and Class - 11 Ground
Water


-------
List of ARARs and TBCs for the Southern Solvents Superfund Site, Tampa FL for 1AROD

Action-Specific ARARs



Only water from a potable water source shall be
used in the abandonment of a water well.



F.A.C. 62-532.500(3)(g)

Groundwater Monitoring for Monitored
Natural Attenuation (MNA) remedy

A minimum of two monitoring wells is required1

•	At least one well shall be located at the
downgradient edge of the plume; and

•	At least one well shall be located in the
area(s) of highest groundwater
contamination or directly adjacent to it if
the area of highest groundwater
contamination is inaccessible (for example,
under a structure).

Groundwater monitoring as part of the
remedy relying on natural attenuation -
Relevant and Appropriate

F.A.C. 62-780.690(8)(a)
Natural Attenuation with
Monitoring



The designated monitoring wells shall be sampled
for analyses of applicable contaminants no more
frequent than quarterly.'

Groundwater monitoring as part of the
remedy relying on natural attenuation -
Relevant and Appropriate

F.A.C. 62-780.690(8)(b)



Water-level measurements in all designated wells
and piezometers shall be made within 24 hours of
initiating each sampling event.1

Groundwater monitoring as part of the
remedy relying on natural attenuation -
Relevant and Appropriate

F.A.C. 62-780.690(8MO

Operation of Groundwater Treatment System (e.g., ERH with MPE)

Operation and Monitoring of
groundwater treatment system (e.g.,
ERH and MPE)

A separate air permit will not be required if the total
air emissions from all on-site remediation
equipment system(s) do not exceed 5.51bs/day for
any single HAP or 13.7 lbs/day for total HAPs.

Note: Although permit not required under CERCLA
121(e)( 1) for on-site response actions, the specified
thresholds are relevant to application of other air
emissions requirements.

Operation of an active remediation
system that emits contaminants into the
air - Relevant and Appropriate

F.A.C. 62-780.700(3)(f)(3.)


-------
List of ARARs and TBCs Tor the Southern Solvents Superfund Site, Tampa FL Tor IAROD

Action-Specific ARARs

Operation and Monitoring of
groundwater treatment system
including groundwater monitoring

wells (e.g., ERH, MPE, and ERD)

Unless otherwise provided in CERCLA
Remedial/Removal Action Work Plan, the
following shall be obtained or determined during
the active remediation:

•	Water level data collected from all
designated wells, piezometers, and staff
gauge locations each lime monitoring and
recovery wells are sampled (water-level

. measurements shall be made within 24-
hour period)

•	Total volume of any free product recovered
and the thickness and horizontal extent of
free product

•	Total volume of groundwater recovered
from each recovery well

•	Concentrations of applicable contaminants
based on analyses performed on the
effluent from the groundwater treatment
system

•	Concentrations of applicable contaminants
based on analyses performed on the
untreated groundwater from select
recovery wells

Operation of an active remediation
system - Relevant and Appropriate

F.A.C. 62-780.700(1 l)(a)
through (e)

Operation and Monitoring of
groundwater treatment system (e.g.,
ERH, MPE, and ERD)

Unless otherwise provided in a CERCLA Remedial
Action Work Plan, the following shall be obtained
or determined during the active remediation:

• Concentrations of recovered vapors from a
vacuum extraction system and post-
treatment emissions
Additional sampling may be performed based upon
the estimated time of breakthrough as follows:
1. Concentrations of recovered vapors from
individual wells shall be determined using an
organic vapor analyzer with a flame ionization
detector, or other applicable field detection device

Operation of an active remediation
system utilizing activated carbon off-gas
treatment - Relevant and Appropriate

F.A.C. 62-780.700(1 l)(i)(l.)
and (2.)


-------
List of ARARs and TBCs for the Southern Solvents Superfund Site, Tampa FL for IAROD

Action-Specific ARARs



in order to optimize airflow rate and contaminant
recovery;

2. The influent and effluent samples shall be
collected using appropriate air sampling protocols
and shall be analyzed using an analytical method.





Corrective action for leaks during
operation of groundwater treatment

system (e.g., ERH and MPE)

If effluent concentrations or air concentrations
exceed specified or prescribed levels or plume
migration occurs during remediation system start-up
of during operation of the treatment systems, then
corrective actions shall be taken.

Operation of an active remediation
system - Relevant and Appropriate

F.A.C. 62-780.700(13)

Post-Active Remediation Monitoring
for groundwater treatment system
(e.g., ERD)

Unless otherwise provided in CERCLA Remedial
Action Work Plan, the following shall be performed
as follows:

•	A minimum of two monitoring wells' are
required with at least one located at the
downgradient edge of the plume: and at
least one located in the area( s) of highest
groundwater contamination or directly
adjacent;

•	Designated monitoring wells shall be
sampled quarterly for contaminants that
were present;

•	Water-level measurements in all designated
wells and piezometers shall be made within
24-hour of initialing each sampling event.

Operation of an active remediation
system - Relevant and Appropriate

F.A.C. 62-780.750(4)(a)
through (c) •

General standards for process vents
used in treatment of VOC
contaminated groundwater

Select and meet the requirements under one of the
options specified below:

•	Control HAP emissions from the affected
process vents according io the applicable
standards specified in §§ 63.7890 through
63.7893.

•	Determine for the remediation material treated
or managed by the process vented through the

Process vents as defined in 40 CFR $
63.7957 used in site remediation of
media (e.g., soil and groundwater) that
could emit hazardous air pollutants
(HAP) listed in Table 1 of Subpart
GGGGG of Part 63 and vent stream flow
exceeds the rate in 40 CFR
4j63.7885(c)( 1) - Relevant and
Appropriate

40 CFR § 63.7885(b)

F.A.C. 62-
204.800(1 l)(b)(59)


-------
List of ARARs and TBCs for the Southern Solvents Superfund Site, Tampa FL for IAROD

Action-Specific ARARs



affected process vents that the average total
volatile organic hazardous air pollutant
(VOHAP) concentration, as defined in §
63.7957, of this material is less than 10
(ppmw). Determination of VOHAP
concentration will be made using procedures
specified in § 63.7943.

Control HAP emissions from affected process vents
subject to another subpart under 40 CFR pari 61 or
40 CFR part 63 in compliance with the standards
specified in the applicable subpart.





Emission limitations for process
vents used in treatment of VOC
contaminated groundwater

Meet the requirements under one of the options

specified below;

•	Reduce from all affected process vents the total
emissions of the HAP to a level less than 1.4
kilograms per hour (kg/hr) and 2.8 Mg/yr (3.0
pounds per hour (Ib/hr) and 3.1 tpy);

•	Reduce from all affected process vents the
emissions of total organic compounds (TOC)
(minus methane and ethane) to a level below

1.4 kg/hr and 2.8 Mg/yr (3.0 Ib/hr and 3.1 tpy);

•	Reduce from all affected process vents the total
emissions of the HAP by 95 percentby weight
or more; or

•	Reduce from all affected process vents the
emissions of TOC (minus methane and ethane)
by 95 percent by weight or more.

Process vents as defined in 40 CFR §
63.7957 used in site remediation of
media (e.g., soil and groundwater) that
could emit hazardous air pollutants
(HAP) listed in Table 1 of Subpart
GGGGG of Part 63 and vent stream flow
exceeds the rate in 40 CFR §
63.7885(c)(1) - Relevant and
Appropriate

40 CFRij63.7890(b)(l)-(4)

F.A.C. 62-
204.800(1 l)(b)(59)

Standards for closed vent systems
and control devices used in treatment
of VOC contaminated groundwater

For each closed vent system and control device you
use to comply with the requirements above, you
must meet the operating limit requirements and
work practice standards in Sec. 63.7925(d) through
(j) that apply to the closed vent system and control
device.

NOTE: EPA approval to use alternate work
practices under paragraph (j) in 40 CFR § 63.7925

Closed vent system and control devices
as defined in 40 CFR § 63.7957 that are
used to comply with § 63.7890(b) -
Relevant and Appropriate

40 CFR § 63.7890(c)

F.A.C. 62-
204.800(1 !Xb)(59)


-------
List of ARARs and TBCs for the Southern Solvents Superfund Site, Tampa FL for IAROD

Action-Specific ARARs



will be obtained inaCERCLA document





Monitoring of closed vent systems
and control devices used in treatment
of VOC contaminated groundwater

Must monitor and inspect the closed vent system
and control device according to the requirements in
40 CFR § 63.7927 that apply to the affected source.
NOTE: Monitoring program will be developed as
part of the CERCLA process and included in an
appropriate CERCLA document.

Closed vent system and control devices
as defined in 40 CFR i? 63.7957 that are
used to comply with § 63.7890(b)-
Relevant and Appropriate

40 CFR § 63.7892
F.A.C. 62-
204.800(1 l)(b)(59)

Wastewater Treatment and Disposal - Contaminated Groundwater and Treatment Residuals

Discharge of treated groundwater to
a Wastewater Facility

An industrial user shall not introduce into a
Wastewater Facility (WWF) any pollutant which
causes pass through or interference.

Discharge pollutants into a "Wastewater
Facility" as defined in F.A.C. 62-
625.200(29) by an industrial user (i.e.,
source of discharge) - Applicable

F.A.C. 62-625.400(1 )(a)
General Prohibitions

Discharge of treated groundwater to
a Wastewater Facility

The following pollutants shall not be introduced into

a WWF:

•	Pollutants which create a fire or explosion
hazard in the WWF

•	Pollutants which will cause corrosive structural
damage to the WWF, but in no case discharges
with pH lower than 5.0. unless the WWF is
specifically designed to accommodate such
discharges;

•	Solid or viscous pollutants in amounts which
will cause obstruction to the flow in the WWF
resulting in interference;

•	Any pollutant, including oxygen demanding
pollutants, released in a discharge at a tlow rate
or pollutant concentration which will cause
interference with the WWF;

•	Heat in amounts which will inhibit biological
activity in the WWF resulting in interference.

Discharge pollutants into a "Wastewater
Facility" as defined in F.A.C. 62-
625.200(29) by an industrial user (i.e.,
source of discharge) - Applicable

F.A.C. 62-625.400(2Xa)-(h)
Specific Prohibitions


-------
List of ARARs and TBCs for the Southern Solvents Superfund Site, Tampa FL for IAROD

Action-Specific ARARs



but in no case heat in such quantities that result
in.the discharge from the treatment plant having
a temperature that exceeds 40° C (104° F)
unless the Department, upon request of the
control authority, approves alternate
temperature limits in accordance with Rule 62-
302.520, F.A.C.;

•	Petroleum oil, nonbiodegradable cutting oil, or
products of mineral oil origin in amounts that
will cause interference or pass through;

•	Pollutants which result in the presence of toxic
gases, vapors, or fumes within the WWF in a
quantity that will cause acute worker health and
safety problems; or

•	Any trucked or hauled pollutants, except at
discharge points designated by the control
authority.

-





Local Limits: Where specific prohibitions or'limits
on pollutants or pollutant parameters are developed
by a public utility in accordance with F.A.C. 62-
625.400(3), such limits shall be deemed to be
pretreetment standards.

Discharge pollutants into a ''Wastewater
Facility" as defined in F.A.C. 62-
625.200(29) by an industrial user (i.e.,
source of discharge) - Applicable

F.A.C. 62-625.400(4)

Waste Characterization - Primary Waste (e.g., excavated waste and contaminated soil, purged ground water) and Secondary Wastes
(&g., contaminated equipment or treatment residuals, well cuttings)

Characterization of solid waste (all
primary and secondary wastes)

Must determine if solid waste is a hazardous waste
using the following method;

•	Should first determine if waste is excluded
from regulation under 40 CFR 261.4; and

•	Must then determine if waste is listed as a
hazardous waste under subpart D 40 CFR Part
261.

Generation of solid waste as defined in
40 CFR 261 2-Applicable

40 CFR 262.11(a) and(b)
F.A.C. 62-730.160



Must determine whether the waste is (characteristic
waste) identified in subpart C of 40 CFR part 261 by

Generation of solid waste which is not
excluded under 40 CFR 261.4(a) -

40 CFR 262.11(c)


-------
List of ARARs and TBCs for the Southern Solvents Superfund Site, Tampa FL for IAROD

Action-Specific ARARs



either;

(1)	Testing the waste according to the methods
set forth in subpart C of40 CFR part 261, or
according to an equivalent method approved by the
Administrator under 40 CFR 260.21; or

(2)	Applying knowledge of the hazard
characteristic of the waste in light of the materials or
the processes used.

Applicable

F.A.C. 62-730.160

•

Must refer to Parts 261, 262, 264, 265, 266, 268,
and 273 of Chapter 40 for possible exclusions or
restrictions pertaining to management of the specific
waste.

Generation of solid waste which is
determined to be hazardous waste -
Applicable

40 CFR 262.11(d)
F.A.C. 62-730.160

Characterization of hazardous waste
(all primary and secondary wastes)

Must obtain a detailed chemical and physical
analysis on a representative sample of the waste(s),
which at a minimum contains all the information
that must be known to treat, store, or dispose of the
waste in accordance with pertinent sections of 40
CFR 264 and 268.

Generation of RCRA hazardous waste
for storage, treatment or disposal -
Applicable

40 CFR 264.13(a)(1)
F.A.C. 62-730.180(1)

Determinations for management of
hazardous waste

Must determine each EPA Hazardous Waste
Number (waste code) applicable to the waste in
order to determine the applicable treatment
standards under 40 CFR 268 et seq.

Note: This determination may be made concurrently
with the hazardous waste determination required in

Sec. 262.11 of this chapter.

Generation of hazardous waste for
storage, treatment or disposal-
Applicable

40 CFR 268.9(a)
F.A.C. 62-730.183



Musi determine the underlying hazardous
constituents [as defined in 40 CFR 268.2(0] in the
characteristic waste.

Generation of RCRA characteristic
hazardous waste (and is not D001 non -
wastewaters treated by CMBST,
RORGS, or POLYM of Section 268.42
Table 1) for storage, treatment or
disposal - Applicable

40 CFR 268.9(a)
F.A.C. 62-730.183


-------
List of ARARs and TBCs for the Southern Solvents Superfund Site, Tampa FL for IAROD

Action-Specific ARARs

Determinations for management of
hazardous waste

Must determine if the hazardous waste meets the
treatment standards in 40 CFR 268.40, 268.45, or
268.49 by testing in accordance with prescribed
methods or use of generator knowledge of waste.
Note: This determination can be made concurrently
with the hazardous waste determination required in
40CFR 262.il.

Generation of hazardous waste for
storage, treatment or disposal -
Applicable

40 CFR 268.7(a)
F.A.C. 62-730.183



Must comply with the special requirements of 40
CFR 268.9 in addition to any applicable
requirements in CFR 268.7.

Generation of waste or soil that displays
a hazardous characteristic of ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity for
storage, treatment or disposal -
Applicable

40 CFR 268.7(a)
F.A.C. 62-730.183

Waste Storage - Primary Waste (e.g., excavated waste and contaminated soil) and Secondary Wastes
(e.g., contaminated equipment or treatment residuals, well cuttings)

Temporary on-site storage of
hazardous waste in containers

A generator may accumulate hazardous waste at the

facility provided that:

•	waste is placed in containers that comply with
40 CFR 265.171 -173;and

•	the date upon which accumulation begins is
clearly marked and visible for inspection on
each container;

•	container is marked with the words "hazardous
waste": or

Accumulation of RCRA hazardous
waste on site as defined in 40 CFR
260.10- Applicable

40 CFR 262.34(a);
40CFR262.34(aXlXi):
40 CFR 262.34(a)(2) and (3)
F.A.C. 62-730.160



• container may be marked with other words that
identify the contents.

Accumulation of 55 gal. or less of
RCRA hazardous waste or one quart of
acutely hazardous waste listed in
261.33(e) at or near any point of
generation - Applicable

40 CFR 262.34(c)(1)
F.A.C. 62-730.160

Use and management of hazardous
waste in containers

If container is not in good condition (e.g. severe
rusting, structural defects) or if it begins to leak,
must transfer waste from this container to a

Storage of RCRA hazardous waste in
containers - Applicable

40 CFR 265.171
F.A.C. 62-730.180(2)


-------
List of ARARs and TBCs for (he Southern Solvents Superfund Site, Tampa FL for IAROD

Action-Specific ARARs



container that is in good condition.







Must use container made or lined with materials
compatible with waste to be stored so that the ability
of the container to contain is not impaired.



40 CFR 265.172
F.A.C. 62-730.180(2)



Containers must be closed during storage, except
when necessary to add/remove waste.

Container must not opened, handled and stored in a
manner that may rupture the container or cause it to
leak.



40 CFR 265.173(a) and (b)
F.A.C. 62-730.180(2)

Storage of hazardous waste in
container area

Area must have a containment system designed and
operated in accordance with 40 CFR 264.175(b)

Storage of RCRA hazardous waste in
containers with free liquids -
Applicable

40 CFR 264.175(a)
F.A.C. 62-730.180(1)



Area must be sloped or otherwise designed and
operated to drain liquid resulting from precipitation,

or

Containers must be elevated or otherwise protected
from contact with accumulated liquid.

Storage of RCRA-hazardous waste in
containers that do noI contain free
liquids (other than F020, F021, F022,
F023, F026 and F027) - Applicable

40 CFR 264.175(c)(1) and
(2)

F.A.C. 62-730.180(1)

Waste Treatment and Disposal - Primary Waste (e.g„ excavated waste and contaminated soil) and
Secondary Wastes (e.g., contaminated equipment or treatment residuals, well cuttings)

Disposal of RCRA hazardous waste
in a land-based unit

May be land disposed if it meets the requirements in
the table "Treatment Standards for Hazardous
Waste" at 40 CFR 268.40 before land disposal.

Land disposal, as defined in 40 CFR
268.2, of restricted RCRA waste -
Applicable

40 CFR 268.40(a)
F.A.C. 62-730.183



All underlying hazardous constituents [as defined in
40 CFR 268.2(i)] must meet the UTS, found in 40
CFR 268.48 Table UTS prior to land disposal

Land disposal of restricted RCRA
characteristic wastes (D00I -D043) that
are not managed in a wastewater
treatment system that is regulated under
the CWA, that is CWA equivalent, or
that is injected into a Class 1
nonhazardous injection well -
Applicable

40 CFR 268.40(e)
F.A.C. 62-730.183


-------
List of ARARs and TBCs Tor the Southern Solvents Superfund Site, Tampa FL for IAROD

Action-Specific ARARs

Disposal of RCRA hazardous waste
soil in a land-based unit

Must be treated according to the alternative
treatment standards of 40 CFR 268.49(c) or
according to the UTSs specified in 40 CFR 268.48
applicable to the listed and/or characteristic waste
contaminating the soil prior to land disposal

Land disposal, as defined in 40 CFR
268.2, of restricted hazardous soils -
Applicable

40 CFR 268.49(b)
F.A.C. 62-730.183

Disposal of RCRA hazardous waste
in a land-based unit

To determine whether a hazardous waste identified
in this section exceeds the applicable treatment
standards of 40 CFR 268.40, the initial generator
must test a sample of the waste extract or the entire
waste, depending on whether the treatment
standards are expressed as concentration in the
waste extract or waste, or the generator may use
knowledge of the waste.

If the waste contains constituents (including UHCs
in the characteristic wastes) in excess of the
applicable UTS levels in 40 CFR 268.48, the waste
is prohibited from land disposal, and all
requirements of part 268 are applicable, except as
otherwise specified.

Land disposal of RCRA toxicity
characteristic wastes (D004 -D011) that
are newly identified (i.e., wastes, soil, or
debris identified by the TCLP but not the
Extraction Procedure) - Applicable

40 CFR 268.34(f)
F.A.C. 62-730.183

Disposal of RCRA hazardous waste
debris in a land-based unit (i.e.,
landfill)

Must be treated prior to land disposal as provided in
40 CFR 268.45(a)( 1 )-(5) unless EPA determines
under 40 CFR 261.3(f)(2) that the debris no longer
contaminated with hazardous waste or the debris is
treated to the waste -specific treatment standard
provided in 40 CFR 268.40 for the waste
contaminating the debris.

Land disposal, as defined in 40 CFR
268.2, of restricted RCRA hazardous
debris - Applicable

40 CFR 268.45(a)
F.A.C. 62-730.183

Disposal of RCRA characteristic
wastewaters in a POTW

Are not prohibited, if wastes are treated for purposes
of the pretreatment requirements of Section 307 of
the CWA, unless the wastes are subject to a
specified method of treatment other than DEACT in
40 CFR 268.40, or are D003 reactive cyanide.

Land disposal of hazardous wastewaters
that are hazardous only because they
exhibit a characteristic and are not
otherwise prohibited under 40 CFR 268
- Applicable

40 CFR 268.49(b)
F.A.C. 62-730.183


-------
List of ARARs and TBCs for the Southern Solvents Superfund Site, Tampa FL for IAROD

Action-Specific ARARs

Waste Transportation - Primary and Secondary Wastes

Transportation of hazardous waste
otf-site

The generator manifesting requirements of 40 CFR
262.20-262.32(b) do not apply. Generator or
transporter must comply with the requirements set
forth in 40 CFR 263.30 and 263.31 in the event of a
discharge of hazardous waste on a private or public
right-of-way.

Transportation of hazardous wastes on a
public or private right-of-way within or
along the border of contiguous property
under the control of the same person,
even i f such contiguous property is
divided by a public or private right-of-
way - Applicable

40 CFR 262.20(f)
F.A.C. 62-730.160

Transportation of hazardous waste
off-site

Must comply with the generator standards of Part
262 including 40 CFR 262.20-23 for manifesting.
Sect. 262.30 for packaging. Sect. 262.31 for
labeling. Sect. 262.32 for marking. Sect. 262.33 for
placarding.

Preparation and initiation of shipment of
hazardous waste off-site - Applicable

40 CFR 262.10(h);
F.A.C. 62-730.160

Transportation of hazardous
materials

Shall be subject to and must comply with all
applicable provisions of the HMTA and HMR at 49
CFR 171-180 related to marking, labeling,
placarding, packaging, emergency response, etc.

Any person who, under contract with a
department or agency of the federal
government, transports "in commerce,"
or causes to be transported or shipped, a
hazardous material - Applicable

49 CFR 171.1(c)

Transportation of samples (i.e.
contaminated soils and wastewaters)

Are not subject to any requirements of 40 CFR Parts
261 through 268 or 270 when:

•	the sample is being transported to a laboratory
for the purpose of testing; or

•	the sample is being transported back to the
• sample collector after testing

•	the sample is being stored by sample collector
before transport to a lab for testing

Samples of solid waste or a sample of
water, soil for purpose of conducting
testing to determine its characteristics or
composition - Applicable

40 CFR 261.4(d)(l)(iHiii)
F.A.C. 62-730.030

ARAR = applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement

CFR = Code of Federal Regulations

CWA = Clean Water Act

DCE = cis-l,2-dichloroethene

ERH = Electrical Resistance Heating


-------
ERD = Enhanced Reductive Dechlorination [bioremediation]

F.A.C. = Florida Administrative Code, Chapters as specified

FDEP = Florida Department of Environmental Protection

F.S. = Florida Statutes

HAP = hazardous air pollutant

HMTA - Hazardous Materials Transportation Act

HMR = Hazardous Materials Regulations

MPE = Multi-phase Extraction [well(s)]

PCE = tetrachloroethene

RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
TBCs = To Be Considered (guidance(s)]
TCE = trichloroethene

TCLP = toxicity characteristic leaching procedure
UHCs = underlying hazardous constituents
USDW = Underground Sources of.Drinking Water
UTS - Universal Treatment Standards
VOC = volatile organic compound

' The designated number of wells, sampling time frames/frequency, and specific parameters for analyses will be provided in a Monitoring Plan that is included in
a CERCLA post-ROD document prepared as part of the Remedial Design or Remedial Action which is approved by the EPA and the FDEP.


-------
APPENDIX D
January 2018 Proposed Plan

/


-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency

/#sr5«%x

Superfund Proposed Plan for Record of Decision Amendment



Southern Solvents, Inc. Superfund Site

SI

Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida



January 2018



COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
OPPORTUNITIES

30 DAY PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD

DATES; January 30, 2018 - March 2, 2018
PURPOSE: To solicit comments on the Proposed
Plan for Record of Decision Amendment

PUBLIC MEETING

DATE: February 6, 2018 (note: tentative)
TIME: 6:00 PM
PLACE: North Tampa Branch Library
8916 North Boulevard
Tampa, Florida 33604
PURPOSE: To discuss details of the Proposed
Plan for Record of Decision
Amendment

EPA CONTACTS

Direct your written comments to:

Karl Wilson, UFA Remedial Project Manager at
vvilson.kariraepa.gov: or U.S. Mail to:

USEPA Region 4, Superfund Division - 11th Floor,
61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, GA 30303,

Further questions, please contact:

L'Tonya Spencer, EPA Community Involvement

INTRODUCTION

The Region 4 office of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is issuing this Proposed
Plan for a Record of Decision (ROD) Amendment at
the Southern Solvents, Inc. Superfund Site in Tampa,
Florida (Figure 1). EPA is issuing this Proposed
Plan as part of its public participation responsibilities
under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or
Superfund) and the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) for
selecting a Remedial Action (RA). EPA is the lead
agency for action at the Site and the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) is
the support agency.

What Is a Proposed Plan?

A Proposed Plan is a document to facilitate public
involvement in a site's remedy selection process.
EPA is issuing this Proposed Plan as part of its
public participation responsibilities under Section
300.430(f)(2) of the NCP. A Proposed Plan presents
EPA's preliminary recommendation on how to best
address contamination at a site, describes the *
evaluated alternatives, and provides EPA's
recommended Preferred Alternative.

EPA, in consultation with the FDEP, will select a
final remedy for the Southern Solvents site after all
information and public comments received during
the 30-day public comment period is reviewed and
considered. The proposed Preferred Alternative may
be modified, or another remedial action presented in
this plan may be selected based on new information
or public comments. Therefore, the public is
encouraged to review and comment on all of the
alternatives presented in this Proposed Plan. The
EPA's final decision will be documented in an

Amended Record of Decision (AROD) with
inclusion of a Responsiveness Summary addressing
public comments.


-------
This Proposed Plan summarizes information from
the March 2016 Post In-Situ Assessment Southern
Solvents Site and the October 2017 Focused
Feasibility Study (FFS). This report is available for
review, and the public is invited to comment on the
documents during a 30-day comment period. Site
specific documents may be reviewed at the
information repository located at the North Tampa
Branch Library, 8916 North Boulevard Tampa,
Florida, 33604.

This Proposed Plan identifies changes to the in-place
remedies selected in the Operable Unit I (OU1) 1999
ROD. The Site consists of a parcel of land that is
approximately 100 feet wide by 185 feet deep or 0.4
acre. The only structure on the property is a one-
story sheet-metal building and an exterior concrete
slab along the north end of the building. With the
exception of a parking area located on the eastern
portion of the Site, the remainder of the site is
vegetated with grass. The parking lot is paved with
asphalt and is used for parking and equipment
storage by the current owner, AAA Diversified
Services, Inc., a commercial painting business. The
Site is located in a predominately commercial area,
with some mixed residential land use.

This Proposed Plan presents an amendment to the
initial remedy for the OU1 contamination soil, that
includes an estimated $5.3 million dollars in
additional cleanup work on the Site, that will be
implemented by contractors under the oversight of
EPA.

Specifically, this Proposed Plan addresses:

1.	Changes in the remedy from treatment of the
principal threat waste, dense non-aqueous
phase liquid (DNAPL) composed mostly of
perchloroethylene (PCE), using chemical
oxidation to treat the DNAPL using in-situ
thermal technology;

2.	A new Remedial Action Objective (RAO) to
treat and reduce the DNAPL, chlorinated
volatile organic compound (CVOC) mass
and subsurface soil contamination below the
water table within OU1 (soil and surficial
aquifer) to a total CVOC concentration of 1.0
mg/kg;

3.	Prevention of further migration of
contamination in the soil to the groundwater

by removing CVOCs located in the soils in
the unsaturated zone; and
4. Development of a phased remedy approach
to allow for flexibility to incorporate
remediation effectiveness data. An Interim
ROD will be developed to aggressively
reduce the CVOC mass from the subsurface
soils. This reduction will allow for the
development of a final remedy and Final
ROD that will subsequently address the
groundwater in OU 1 and OU2 (Floridan
aquifer).

SITE BACKGROUND

The Site is located at 4009 West Linebaugh Avenue
in the northwestern quadrant of Tampa, Hillsborough
County, Florida. It is located approximately 500 feet
west of the intersection of Gunn Highway and West
Linebaugh Avenue. It is bordered on the east by an
urgent care center and a tire, wheels, and brakes
repair shop on the west, by a catering company to the
north, and to the south by West Linebaugh Avenue.
Aerial photographs show that the site was part of an
orchard in 1965. In 1972, aerial photographs show
the metal warehouse building. Later, in 1980,
vertical and horizontal aboveground storage tanks
(ASTs) are evident. Southern Solvents, Inc., stored,
transferred, and distributed PCE to the local dry
cleaning industry from 1977 until 1985. The facility
was later leased to P.J.'s Spa from 1985 until August
of 1989. The site was sold under a Prospective
Purchaser Agreement with the EPA in June 2002 to
its current owner, AAA Diversified Services, Inc.
Land use changed from agricultural in 1965 to
primarily commercial use by 1991.

PCE was brought to the site by tanker trucks owned
by Southern Solvents, Inc., directly from a PCE
producer. PCE was stored in two ASTs at the north
end of the facility on the concrete slab. The last of
the tanks was removed by 1991. The structural
integrity of the ASTs at the time of the removal is
unknown. At times, PCE was stored in tanker trucks
parked in the parking lot of the facility. FDEP
reported that accidental spills of unknown quantities
of PCE from the storage tanks due to overfilling
occurred in the mid-1980s. A larger spill occurred
from an untended tanker, which sank into the sand
lot, permitting the PCE to flow out its vents over a

2


-------
weekend. It is believed that these spills are the cause
of the soil and groundwater contamination at the site.

As a result of Hillsborough County Health
Department investigations, PCE and to a much lesser
extent, its breakdown products (i.e. trichloroethene
(TCE) and cis-l,2-dichlorothene (DCE) were found
on and offsite in 1988. PCE, TCE, and DCE (which
are all CVOCs) were detected at concentrations
greater than the State of Florida's drinking water
standard maximum contaminant level (MCL). The
EPA conducted and completed a preliminary
assessment at the site in 1996. The site was placed
on the National Priorities List (NPL) on July 27,
2000.

In 1999, EPA issued a ROD for OU1 that
documented the selected remedy for the soil and
surficial aquifer at the Southern Solvents site.
Discontinued in 2011 due to lack of effectiveness,
the remedy generally consisted of the following
components:

•	Excavation of contaminated, unsaturated soils
around the existing building;

•	Initial treatment of highly contaminated
saturated soil and surficial groundwater using
in-situ chemical oxidation (ISCO);

•	Evaluation of continued use of ISCO in areas
with low PCE concentrations;

•	Final treatment of the surficial groundwater to
the cleanup goal using ISCO; and

•	Groundwater use restrictions by designating
the area a Delineated Area under the
Southwest Florida Management District.

The net present value of the remedy selected in 1999
was $4.6 million dollars.

In 2002, prior to implementing the soil component of
the remedy, EPA, in consultation with FDEP
modified the remedy for shallow unsaturated soil and
installed a soil vapor extraction (SVE) system. The
system operated from 2005 to 2006, and then again in
2011. Between 2008 and 2011, EPA completed three
phases of ISCO injections, using sodium
permanganate as the oxidant.

In 2014, the United States Army Corp of Engineers
(USACE) conducted a post-ISCO soil investigation in

order to delineate the vertical and horizontal extent of
PCE contamination in the subsurface soils at the Site.
Similarly, the EPA conducted a groundwater
investigation and collected samples in 2014. The
effectiveness of ISCO treatment was also assessed.
Elevated levels of PCE in the soils throughout the
source zone area were identified. PCE concentrations
ranged from non-detect to 23,000 mg/kg.

Contaminant concentrations showed a significant
reduction from pre-remediation levels indicating that
the SVE and ISCO were successful in partially
reducing contaminant mass. ISCO was less effective
in treating DNAPL in low permeability areas in the
deep contamination zones at the site. The post-ISCO
assessment report confirmed these findings. Higher
levels of CVOC concentrations were observed in the
deeper zones in the source area. Sampling indicated
that that significant mass is present in and above a
clay layer (Hawthorn Formation) that separates the
surficial aquifer from a deeper Floridan aquifer. The
investigation revealed that the source will continue to
diffuse and leach CVOCs into the deeper aquifer.
Groundwater data indicated that there is still a
significant groundwater plume that has migrated
offsite. In general, CVOC concentrations in the
groundwater have decreased over the past two
decades, especially PCE in the shallow zones in the
subsurface. The results also indicated that there is
evidence that diffusion continues to occur from the
fine grained low permeability soils in the intermediate
surficial sediment zone above the top of the clay layer
or Hawthorn Formation. The use of ISCO utilizing
permanganate was determined to have been effective
at reducing contaminant concentrations in some areas,
particularly in the shallower zones with higher
permeability. The ISCO was also effective in the
intermediate zone in areas with higher permeability.
However, the oxidant did not penetrate the low
permeability areas which have accumulated
substantial DNAPL. These areas continue to diffuse
contaminants into the groundwater at concentrations
exceeding regulatory limits and remedial objectives.

SCOPE AND ROLE OF THE ACTION

This Proposed Plan will lead to an Amendment of
the 1999 OU1 ROD. An Interim ROD will be
developed to aggressively reduce the CVOC mass
from the subsurface soils. This reduction in CVOC
mass will allow for the development of a final
remedy and final ROD for the site. The proposed

3


-------
changes in remedy will focus on the following areas:
1) a change in treatment of PCE DMAPL in the
subsurface soils, from ISCO to thermal application;
and 2) incorporating a CVOC mass removal rate that
range from 80 to 90% in the treatment area or an
estimated 12,000 pounds of PCE; and 3) establishing
a remedial goal of 1.0 mg/kg CVOC concentration in
the soil. The overall strategy for the OU1
remediation is to initially focus on aggressive
remediation of the source area followed by a phased
remediation of the outlying areas of groundwater
contamination. Remediation will, in general, be
optimized by targeting the highest levels of mass
first. Subsequent to source treatment, the more dilute
downgradient dissolved plume in the groundwater
will be addressed by enhanced reductive
dechlorination (ERD) or bioremediation in the
Interim ROD.

SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS

The results of a 1998 risk assessment found that the
Site presents little to no ecological habitat due to the
small site size, existing buildings, paved parking
area and concrete pads. The risk assessment found
that risks to human health was limited. There were
no contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) or
contaminants of concern (COCs) identified in the
surface soils, and as the area is supplied water by
Hillsborough County, only future residential
receptors were identified with a potential risk from
the groundwater contamination and only
construction workers from the CVOCs in the
subsurface soils.

Although there were no risks regarding the soil
medium, there were immediate and unacceptable
risks regarding PCE in groundwater. A conceptual
site model examined several surficial aquifer
exposure pathways as well as tap water and water
vapors at the showerhead. Receptor populations
included future industrial workers, future residents,
adults and children. Ingestion, dermal contact, and
inhalation were identified as exposure routes.

Because PCE is present in the subsurface in DNAPL
form, there is a persistent risk in that CVOCs will
continue to migrate through and around low
permeability zones, downward to the Hawthorn
Formation clay layer and the underlying Floridan

aquifer. DNAPL is considered a principal threat
waste under EPA guidance and there is an
expectation in the NCP to treat such wastes
wherever practicable [40 CFR 300.430(a)(l)(iii)].

During implementation of the 1999 OU1 ROD, the
surficial soils were treated by the SVE system.

REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES (RAO's)

The RAO's provide overall goals to guide the
selection and implementation of remedial
alternatives. RAO's were established under the
1999 ROD, with the goal of eliminating the potential
risk to identified receptors. The purpose of this
ROD Amendment is to select actions to achieve the
RAO's established under the 1999 ROD. This
action is needed because the remedy selected in
1999 ROD was not effective in achieving the
RAO's. Specifically, this Amendment seeks to
select actions to achieve the first RAO, "Prevent or
minimize the migration of groundwater with
contamination exceeding the MCLs (or other
appropriate health-based levels) beyond the current
plume boundary." The following RAO's were
established under the 1999 ROD:

•	Prevent further degradation of the Floridan
aquifer caused by release of contamination
from the Southern Solvents source area;

•	Prevent or minimize the migration of
groundwater with contamination exceeding
MCLs (or other appropriate health-based
levels) beyond the current plume boundaries;

•	Prevent or minimize impacts on human
health and the environment from exposure to
onsite contaminated soil and groundwater;
and

•	To the extent practicable, restore the
groundwater in the Floridan aquifer beneath
the Site to its most beneficial use.

As stated above, the purpose of this Amendment is
to select actions to achieve the RAO's. In addition,
this Amendment clarifies the RAO's established
under the 1999 ROD. The following are the clarified
RAO's:

•	To treat and reduce the DNAPL, CVOC
mass and subsurface contamination below
the water table within OU1 to a total CVOC

4


-------
concentration of 1.0 mg/kg or below to
prevent or minimize further migration of
COCs from OU1 to the downgradient
. groundwater and to the underlying Floridan
aquifer (OU2);

•	Prevent or minimize further migration of
contaminants in the soil to the groundwater
by removing CVOCs from the vadose zone
soil vicinity of the concrete pad and parking
area;

•	Maximize the CVOC mass removal or
destruction of residual DNAPL and
adsorbed-phase VOCs from the surficial
aquifer that can be a source of leaching of
VOCs;

•	Aggressively treat and reduce all CVOCs in
the concentrated DNAPL Source Zone that
has been previously identified; and

•	Development of a phased remedy approach
to allow for flexibility in incorporating
remediation effectiveness data.

Reducing the CVOC mass in the surficial aquifer
will address most of the original RAOs. Once the
mass of CVOCs is reduced, the CVOC
concentrations remaining in the groundwater will be
evaluated and groundwater treatment technologies
that will address the final RAO will be proposed and
evaluated.

Using a phased approach and remediating known
source of CVOC contamination to soil and
groundwater within the identified source areas will
also address the principal threat waste (mainly PCE).
The proposed interim remedial action will be
selected after considering public comments in the
Interim ROD.

Cleanup Levels (CULs) for Southern Solvents were
identified in the 1999 OU1 ROD. The CULs are
based on FDEP's soil cleanup target levels (SCTLs)
and groundwater cleanup target levels (GCTLs). The
SCTL and GCTL for PCE is 0.03 mg/kg and 3 ^g/L,
respectively.

The treatment areas have been divided into two
zones: the RAO Zone and the DNAPL Source Zone.
The RAO Zone consists of the soil mass that exceeds
the RAO for PCE of 0.05 mg/kg, as well as the

onsite area where groundwater concentrations
exceed the GCTL of 3 ng/L for PCE. This zone is a
much broader area that includes the DNAPL Source
Zone. The RAO Zone is approximately 12,800 fit2 in
areal extent.

The DNAPL Source Zone is defined as the area
where the DNAPL has been observed and where the
highest PCE concentrations in the soil and
groundwater have been found. This area includes the
locations where the initial releases occurred. The
DNAPL Source Zone is approximately 4,050 ft2 in
area with a total depth of approximately 50 feet and
approximate volume of 9,630 cubic yards.
Approximately 36% of the total contaminant mass in
the soils is believed to be contained in this zone.

SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES

Following an initial screening of available cleanup
technologies, four alternatives (Options) for
achieving the objective of reducing the CVOC mass
at the site were identified. These options are
designed only for the interim step of destroying a
significant amount of the CVOC mass within the
property boundary. Once the CVOC mass removal is
achieved, a follow-on groundwater treatment will be
selected by evaluating and comparing the
technologies available for groundwater treatment.

The options are as follows:

Option 1: The No Action Alternative is required to
be carried through for the purposes of comparing
and evaluating the other alternatives as a baseline.

Option 2: In-situ Thermal Remediation (ISTR) in
the RAO Zone with groundwater polishing using in-
situ ERD technologies. This Alternative utilizes
ISTR applied to the RAO Zone. The objective of this
option would be to apply heat via electrodes and
remove through volatilization an estimated 80 to 90
% of the mass of CVOCs in the soil and
groundwater within the RAO Zone to the extent that
it is cost effective and achieve a 1.0 mg/kg CVOC
concentration.

Option 3: ISTR in the DNAPL source area
groundwater polishing using in-situ ERD
technologies. This Alternative also utilizes ISTR for
CVOC mass removal, but in the smaller zone as the

5


-------
DNAPL Source Zone. The objective of this option is
also to apply heat via electrodes and remove through
volatilization between 80 to 90% of the CVOC mass
in the DNAPL source area, to achieve a performance
level of 1.0 mg/kg CVOC concentration in the soil.

Option 4: Soil Excavation by Large Diameter
Augers (LDA's) and Caissons. This alternative
would target removing all the subsurface soils within
the property boundary that have been documented
with CVOC concentrations greater than 0.03 mg/kg.
The excavation will be performed using caisson
excavation method and LDA's. Soils would be
removed from within the caissons, allowed to drain,
segregated by contaminant screening methods, and
then transported to an appropriate disposal facility.
Groundwater drained from the soils would be
collected for disposal.

EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

Remedy selection under Superfund requires that
each remedial alternative be evaluated by nine
criteria. The purpose of this analysis is to identify
relative advantages and disadvantages of each
alternative. For this evaluation, the nine criteria
identified in the NCP were used to evaluate the four
remedial alternatives.

A detailed evaluation of the remedy evaluation
criteria was conducted in the FFS. Table I provides
a summary of that analysis and comparison of the
above four alternatives. Results of the evaluation
indicate that Option 2 would achieve the largest
mass removal in both the soil and groundwater. This
alternative represents the most aggressive option. It
is recognized that there would likely remain pockets
of groundwater and soil above the remedial goals
(RG's) due the heterogeneity of soils producing
uneven heating in the subsurface. The residual
CVOC concentrations would be addressed with a
follow on polishing step that would treat the
remaining groundwater plume in the surficial
aquifer.

Options 3 would treat the CVOC mass in the soils
and groundwater, but addresses a smaller area than
Option 2 and would leave a higher CVOC mass in
the soils and groundwater outside the treatment area.

Option 4 does not treat the groundwater at all, but
would permanently remove the CVOC mass from
the area of soils that are excavated. The remaining
columns of fill material may induce slight changes in
the flow of groundwater.

Option 3 would leave the largest mass of CVOCs in
the groundwater. Options 2 and 4 would remove
almost as the same mass. However, Option 2 would
treat some groundwater within the area of soils.
Option 3 would also leave some untreated mass in
the soils outside the treatment area which would
need to be treated by the groundwater remedy as
well.

For Options 2 and 3, a polishing step using in-situ
bioremediation through ERD is planned for the areas
treated by the thermal technologies. This will occur
after the thermal systems have been turned off and
the subsurface has cooled. The elevated subsurface
temperatures have been found to increase the
effectiveness of ERD applications.

EPA'S PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

The most cost effective option is Option 3, this
option would aggressively remove a large amount of
CVOC mass for the least cost, therefore achieving
most of the RAOs in the 1999 OU1 ROD. Total
costs for Option 3 area estimated at $5.3 million
dollars.

DNAPL/Soil/Groundwater Remedy

The treatment area for Option 3 is approximately
4,050 ft2 located over the zone with the highest soil
concentrations where DNAPL occurs (Figure 2).
Additional area outside the treatment would be
needed for the vapor recovery and treatment system
and operational support trailers.

Option 3 focuses on treatment of the smaller
DNAPL source area where spills occurred and
removal of any residual DNAPL remains in the
soils. Based on confirmatory soil samples collected
after the ISCO application, it is expected that
treating this area would remove the residual DNAPL
present in the subsurface as well as significantly
reduce the CVOC mass in the soil within the
DNAPL treatment zone. The system effectiveness
would be monitored using condensate and

6


-------
temperature probes installed, which will be in real
time.

Option 3 does not directly address the groundwater
concentrations within the treatment area, however, it
is expected that the groundwater concentrations
would be reduced after the thermal treatment.
Groundwater polishing using in-situ ERD
technologies would be used within the treatment area
to take advantage of the elevated soil and
groundwater temperatures as the subsurface cools.
ERD technologies have been found to be more
effective at the higher temperatures post-thermal
treatment.

The installation of wells and usage of groundwater
are regulated by the Southwest Florida Water
Management District through the issuance of
individual and general water use permits. The
district also regulates water well construction and
requires permits for all new water wells. While
exposure to contaminated groundwater during the
implementation of this remedy may be unlikely,
institutional controls (ICs) will be addressed in a
final ROD to the extent necessary.

Based on information currently available, EPA
believes the Preferred Alternative meets the
threshold criteria and provides the best balance of
tradeoffs among the other alternatives with the
respect to the balancing and modifying criteria. EPA
expects the Preferred Alternative to satisfy the
following statutory requirements of CERCLA
121(b): (1) be protective of human health and the
environment; (2) comply with ARARs (or justify a
waiver); (3) be cost effective; (4) utilize permanent
solutions and alternative treatment technologies or
resource recovery technologies to the maximum
extent practicable; and (5) satisfy the preference for
treatment as a principal element.

FIVE YEAR REVIEW REQUIREMENT

The 1991 ROD initially prescribed on a "policy"
five-year review after the completion of the remedial
action. However, because this remedy will result in.
hazardous substances and-contaminants remaining
on site in excess of levels that allow for unlimited

use and unrestricted exposure, a statutory review
will be conducted within 5 years after the initiation
of the remedial action, and every 5 years thereafter,
until the levels of COCs allow for unrestricted use of
soil and groundwater with unlimited exposure to
these media. The five-year reviews will be
conducted to ensure that the remedy is, or will be,
protective of human health and the environment. If
results of the five-year reviews reveal that remedy
integrity is compromised and protection of human
health is insufficient, then additional remedial
actions will be evaluated by the EPA and FDEP. The
statutory five-year reviews will be conducted in
accordance with CERCLA Section 121(c) and the
NCP requirement 40 CFR 300.430(f)(4)(ii).

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

EPA encourages the public.to provide comments on
the Proposed Plan during the 30-day public
comment period which begins on January 30th and
extends through March 2,2018. Documents
supporting this Proposed Plan can be found on line
at:

https://cumulis.epa.^pv/^upercpad/cursites/csitinfo.c

i"m?id—0406539. Site specific documents can be
reviewed at the information repository located at the
North Tampa Branch Library, 8916 North Boulevard
Tampa, Florida, 33604.

Upon timely request. EPA will extend the comment
period for an additional 30 days. Comments may be
emailed to: Wilson.Karl@epa.gov. Hard copies may
be sent via U.S. Mail, to Karl Wilson, US EPA
Region 4, Superfund Division - 11th Floor, 61
Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, GA 30303.

PUBLIC MEETING

EPA will host a public meeting on Tuesday, February
6, 2018, at 6:00 pro at the North Tampa Library.
Representatives from EPA will present the rationale
behind the Proposed Plan for the Southern Solvents
site, and answer any questions the public may have
regarding the future cleanup plans. Please plan to
attend.


-------
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON
THE SOUTHERN SOLVENTS
SUPERFUND SITE:

Karl Wilson

Remedial Project Manager
US EPA R4 Superfund Division
Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
Wilson.Karl@epa.gov
404.562.9295 (office)

L'Tonya Spencer

Community Involvement Coordinator
US EPA R4 Superfund Division
Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
Spencer. LaT onya@epa.gov
404.562.8463

John Sykes

Contract/Project Manager

Waste Site Cleanup Section

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

John.Sykes@dep.state.fl.us

850.245.8960 (office)


-------
NCP EVALUATION CRITERIA

Threshold Criteria

Overall Protection of Human Health and Environment -
Assessment of the degree to which the cleanup alternative
eliminates, reduces, or controls threats to public health
and the environment.

Compliance with ARARs - An evaluation of whether or not
the alternative complies with identified federal and more
stringent state environmental laws or regulations or
provides a justification for a waiver under CERCLA
121(d)(4).

Primary Balancing Criteria

Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence - The cleanup
alternative is evaluated in terms of its ability to maintain
reliable protection of human health and the environment
over time once the cleanup goals have been met.

Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume - An evaluation
of how well a cleanup alternative reduces the harmful
nature of the chemicals; the ability of the chemicals to
move from the site into the surrounding area; and the
amount of contaminated material.

Short-term Effectiveness - The length of time needed to
implement a cleanup alternative is considered.This criteria
also assesses the risks that carrying out the cleanup
alternative may pose to workers and nearby residents.

Implementability - An assessment of how difficult the
clean up alternative will be to construct and operate,
and whether the technology is readily available.

Modifying Criteria

State Acceptance - USEPA takes into account whether or
not the state agrees with the recommended alternative and
considers comments from the state on the RI/FS Reports
and Proposed Plan.

Community Acceptance- USEPA considers the comments
of local residents on the recommended alternative
presented in the Proposed Plan and RI/FS Reports.

9


-------
TABLE 1

FORMER SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SUPERFUND SITE NCP COMPARISON SUMMARY

DESCRIPTION





Option 1
No Action

Option 2
Thermal Treatment - On
Site RAO Zone to 1.0
mg/kg

Option 3
Thermal Treatment -
Small DNAPL Source
Zone to 1.0 mg/kg

Option 4
LDA Excavation of On Site
Soils > 0.05 mg/kg

Description

Maintain the current
groundwater monitoring
system. The No Action
Alternative is required to
be carried through for the
purposes of comparing
and evaluating the other
alternatives as a
baseline.

Thermal Treatment by In-
situ Thermal Remediation
(ISTR) in the RAO Zone.
This Alternative utilizes
ISTR applied to the
defined RAO Zone. The
objective of this option
would be to remove
between 80 to 90 % of the
mass of CVOCs in the soil
and groundwater,

Thermal Treatment by
ISTR in the DNAPL
source area. This
Alternative also utilizes
ISTR for CVOC mass
removal, but in the
smaller zone as the
DNAPL Source Zone. The
objective of this option is
also to remove between
80 to 90% of the CVOC
mass in the treatment
area.

Soil Excavation by large
diameter augers (LDA's) and
Caissons. This Alternative
would target removing all the
subsurface soils within the
property boundary that have
been documented with
CVOC concentrations greater
than 0.05 mg/kg. The
excavation will be performed
using caisson excavation
method and LDA's. Soils
would be removed from
within the caissons.

1. Overall
Protection of
Human Health
and

Environment

Low

Moderate to high, will
reduce CVOC mass in
both groundwater and soil
over a majority of the site.

Moderate, will reduce the
CVOC Mass in soil and
groundwater in smaller area
than Options 2 and
4.

Moderate, will reduce the CVOC
Mass in"soil over an area similar
to Option 2 and larger than Option

3. Groundwater will not be
treated at all as in Options 2 & 3.

2. Compliance
with ARARs

Low

Will meet objective of FFS
for Mass Reduction, but
will not meet ARARs for
groundwater. Will require
additional groundwater
treatment to achieve
ARARs.

Will meet objective of
FFS for Mass Reduction,
but will not meet ARARs
for soil or groundwater.
Will require additional
groundwater treatment to
achieve ARARs.

Will meet objective of FFS for
Mass Reduction, but will not
meet ARARs for soil or
groundwater. Will require
additional groundwater
treatment to achieve ARARs.

3. Reduce
Toxicity,
Mobility, or
Volume
Through
Treatment

Low

Will result in a significant
reduction in CVOC Mass,
Volume and Toxicity

Will reduce CVOC Mass,
Volume and Toxicity,
more than Option 4 but
not as much as Option 2.

Will result in a reduction of
CVOC Mass, Volume and
Toxicity, but less than Option
2 but more than Option 3.

4. Short-term
Effectiveness

Moderate

High

High

High

5. Long-term
Effectiveness

Low

Will be effective, but
untreated groundwater
offsite will reduce long
term effectiveness.

Will be effective, but
untreated groundwater
outside the treatment
area will reduce long term
effectiveness.

Will be effective in removing
mass from soils, but
remaining mass in soils left in
place will reduce long term
effectiveness.

6. Implementability

High

Moderate

High

Low

7. Cost of CVOC
Mass Removal
by Treatment
and Excavation

Low

Moderately high

Lowest

High

8. State and
Community
Acceptance

Acceptable to both
State and Community

Acceptable to both
state and community.

Acceptable to both State
and community.

Acceptable to both State
and Community, Risks to
construction workers
/public during remedial
action are manageable
through best management
practices.

ARAR = Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
CVOCs = Chlorinated Volatile Organic Compounds
LDAs = Large Diameter Augers
ISTR= In Situ Thermal Remediation

DNAPL = Dense Non-aqueous Phase Liquid
RAO = Remedial Action Objective
FFS = Focused Feasibility Study


-------
Figure 1

Southern Solvents Superfund Site

>MaaddwlCt

Southern Solvents Site

sffh slarif^ogfapfii cs^CtiESw®

mM


-------
Figure 2
DNAPL Source Zone

Legend

A SoU Bonno Locations
—• DNAPL Source Zone
1 1 Treatment Area

Property Boundary
¦ Cross-Section Locations
B12 - Bonng ID
15 - Max PCE concentration
in each bonng, mg/lcg

ND= Not Detected
NS=Not Sampled

0 5 10 20

Feet

1 inch = 20 feet

US Amy Cert* or EnglnMrs

Savannah District
GMtan Hyarogeoibgy. «M
HTRW Design

Option J

DNAPL Source Zone
Ihermal Treatment .Area
Southern Solvents Superfund Site
Tampa. Florida
December 2017 | Figure 2

l


-------
USE THIS SPACE TO WRITE
YOUR COMMENTS

Your input on the Proposed Plan for the Southern Solvents, Inc. Superfund Site is important to EPA.
Comments provided by the public are valuable in helping EPA select a modified clean-up remedy for the
site.

You may use the space below to write your comments, then fold and mail. Comments must be postmarked by
March 2, 2018. If you have any questions about the comment period, please contact Karl Wilson, EPA
Remedial Project Manager at 404.562.9295 (office); of L'Tonya Spencer, EPA Community Involvement
Coordinator, at 404.562.8463. Comments may also be submitted via email to Wilson.Karl@epa.gov.

Name:

Address:

City:

State: 	 Zip:


-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

L'Tonya Spencer, CIC

Superfund Division - 11th Floor



Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center

Karl Wilson, RPM

61 Forsyth Street, SW



Atlanta, GA 30303-8960



Official Business
Penalty for Private Use

10922011 vl


-------
Appendix E

Responsiveness Summary and Public Meeting Transcript

j


-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
RECORD OF DECISION AMENDMENT

SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SUPERFUND SITE

TAMPA, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA

Based on Public Comment Period
January 30, 2018, through March 2, 2018
Public Meeting Held on February 6, 2018
in the North Tampa Branch Library
Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida

Prepared by:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
September 2018

Record of Decision Amendment
Southern Solvents Superfund Site
August 2018


-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY

RECORD OF DECISION AMENDMENT
SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SUPERFUND SITE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION	PAGE No.

1.0 OVERVIEW			1

2.0 BACKGROUND	1

3.0 SUMMARY OF MAJOR ISSUES/CONCERNS/QUESTIONS/STATEMENTS

VOICED DURING PROPOSED PLAN PUBLIC MEETING AND RESPONSES	3

4.0 SUMMARY OF MAJOR ISSUES/CONCERNS/QUESTIONS/STATEMENTS

VOICED DURING PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD		!	

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment A - Transcript of February 6, 2018 Public Meeting


-------
Responsiveness Summary

Record of Decision Amendment
Southern solvents Superfund Site

1.0 OVERVIEW

The development of this Responsiveness Summary is in accordance to the requirement set forth in 40
CFR Section 300.430(f)(3)(i)(F). This community relations Responsiveness Summary is divided into the
following sections:

Section 2.0 BACKGROUND

This section discusses the Environmental Protection Agency's preferred alternative for remedial action
and provides a brief history of community interest.

Section 3.0 SUMMARY OF MAJOR ISSUES/CONCERNS/QUESTIONS/ STATEMENTS VOICED
DURING PROPOSED PLAN PUBLIC MEETING.

This section provides a summary of issues/concerns and questions/comments voiced by the community
and responded to by the Agency during the Proposed Plan public meeting. The "community" may
include local homeowners, businesses, the municipality, and not infrequently, and potentially
responsible parties (PRPs).

Section 4.0 SUMMARY OF MAJOR ISSUES/CONCERNS/QUESTIONS/ STATEMENTS VOICED
DURING PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.

This section provides a comprehensive response to all significant written comments received by the
Agency and is comprised primarily of the specific legal and technical questions raised during the public
comment period.

2.0 BACKGROUND

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conveyed its preferred remedial alternative for Amending
the 1999 ROD as modified by the 2002 ESD for the Southern Solvents, Inc Superfund Site Proposed
Plan public meeting on February 6, 2018. The Southern Solvents Superfund Site (Site) consists of a
parcel of land that is approximately 100 feet wide by 185 feet deep or 0.4 acre. The Site is located at
4009 West Linebaugh Avenue in the northwestern quadrant of Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida. It
is located in Range 18 East, Township 28 South, Section 16 (USGS, 1987), approximately 500 feet west
of the intersection of Gunn Highway and West Linebaugh Avenue lying at latitude 28 degrees, 2
minutes, 23 seconds (28°02'23") north and longitude 82 degrees, 26 minutes, 8 seconds (82°26'8") west.
It is bordered on the east by an urgent care center and a tire, wheels, and brakes repair shop on the west,
by a catering company to the north and to the south by West Linebaugh Avenue. The Site is located in a
predominately commercial area, with some mixed residential land use. The only structure of the
property is a one-story sheet-metal building and an exterior concrete slab along the north end of the
building. With the exception of a parking area located on the eastern portion of the Site, the remainder of
the Site is vegetated with grass. The parking lot is paved with asphalt and is used for parking and
equipment storage by the current site owner, AAA Diversified Services, Inc. AAA Diversified Services,
Inc. is a commercial painting business.

Aerial photographs revealed that the Site was part of an orchard in 1965. In 1972, aerial photographs
showed the metal warehouse building. Later, in 1980, vertical and horizontal aboveground storage tanks

Record of Decision Amendment
Southern Solvents Superfund Site
August 2018


-------
Southern Solvents Supcrfund Site
Record of Decision Amendment
Responsiveness Summary
September 2018

2

(ASTs) were evident. A 1987 aerial photograph showed only one AST remaining. The AST was no
longer visible in a 1991 aerial photograph. Land use and land cover surrounding the Site changed from
agricultural in 1956 to primarily commercial use in 1991. Southern Solvents, Inc. stored, transferred,
and distributed tetrachloroethylene (PCE) to the local dry-cleaning industry from 1977 until 1985. The
facility was later leased to P.J.'s Spa from 1985 until August 1989. The Site was sold under a
Prospective Purchaser Agreement with the EPA in June 2002 to AAA Diversified Services, Inc.

PCE was brought to the Site by tanker trucks owned by Southern Solvents, Inc. directly from a PCE
producer. PCE was stored in two ASTs at the north end of the facility on the concrete slab. The
structural integrity of the of the ASTs at the time of removal is unknown. At times, PCE was stored in
tanker trucks parked in the parking lot of the facility. FDEP reported that accidental spills of unknown
quantities of PCE from the storage tanks due to overfilling occurring in the mid-1980s. A larger spill
occurred from an untended tanker, which sank into the land lot, permitting the PCE to flow out its vents
over a weekend. It is believed that these spills are the cause of the soil and groundwater contamination at
the Site.

The Agency placed an ad in The Tampa Bay Times newspaper on January 31, 2018, to announce the
ROD Amendment Proposed Plan public meeting. The meeting was held on February 6, 2018 at the
North Tampa Branch Library, 8916 North Boulevard, Tampa, Florida. At this meeting, representatives
from EPA, FDEP, current and previous properties owners, neighboring commercial businesses, and
local community residents were in attendance. The audience was encouraged to ask their questions
towards the end of the presentation.

3.0 SUMMARY OF ISSUES/CONCERNS/QUESTIONS/STATEMENTS VOICED DURING
PROPOSED PLAN PUBLIC MEETING AND RESPONSES

The questions/concerns expressed during the Proposed Plan public meeting can be grouped into the
following main categories: past disposal practices/disposal areas, past manufacturing activities,
identified areas of concern/contamination, size/stability of identified plumes and defining extent of
contamination, length of remedial action/monitoring, institutional controls/Site boundary/redevelopment
of Site and/or property, and truck traffic/wear and tear on roads. Due to the volume of questions asked
during the Proposed Plan presentation and at the end of the presentation during the Question and Answer
portion of the meeting, it is not feasible to list each question and the response here. The reader is
referred to Attachment A of this Responsiveness Summary for a copy of the Proposed Plan public
meeting transcript. The transcript captured each question followed by the response to the question.

4.0 SUMMARY OF ISSUES/CONCERNS/QUESTIONS/STATEMENTS VOICED DURING PUBLIC
COMMENT PERIOD

EPA received two sets of written comments from the same individual during the public comment period.
These comments can be grouped into the following categories: 1) future communication efforts; 2) land
use and future and past impacts on neighboring buildings; 3) proper public notification; 4) irrigation
permits and institutional controls; 5) site cleanup progress; 6) public meeting attendees; and 7) vapor
capture system. The comments are listed below, in bold text, and EPA's response follows, in italicized
text.


-------
Southern Solvents Superfund Site
Record of Decision Amendment
Responsiveness Summary
September 2018

3

Set I

Why was the builder allowed to build a residential community so close to a superfund site?

EPA does not become involved in individual real estate transactions. However, agency representatives
can conduct presentation or provide information about site cleanup plans for the public, including the
real estate and lending/financial community.

Why have I not been notified about this site prior to this notice I received in the mail today?

EPA's goal is to provide sufficient notice of an upcoming event to ensure the greatest level of public
participation. The EPA will consider providing public notification more than once and communicating
10 to 14 days before, one week before, and one day before the event being announced.

Why was the notice dated January 2018 and post-marked Feb 2, 2018 and received too late to
attend the public meeting scheduled for February 6, 2018 at the North Tampa Branch Library?

EPA's goal is to provide sufficient notice of an upcoming event to ensure the greatest level of public
participation. The EPA will consider providing public notification more than once and communicating
10 to 14 days before, one week before, and one day before the event being announced.

Are the use of sprinklers causing an exposure to the contaminants by our residents and pets from
the ground water?

EPA's human health risk assessment results indicated that site-related contaminant concentrations in
onsite surface soil, onsite subsurface soil, and offsite groundwater (including the area wells sampled by
the Hillsborough County Health Department) at the Site did not pose significant carcinogenic or
noncarcinogenic risks to human health. The Cedar Wood community doesn't appear to be impacted by
the preferential flow path regarding the contaminant plume. Nonetheless, EPA encourages you to
contact the Hillsborough County Health Department to test the drinking water in your community if you
feel that there has been an exposure of any kind.

The drinking water to our community is supplied by Hillsborough County, are we in danger of
exposure to the chemicals from our drinking water?

EPA's human health risk assessment results indicated that site-related contaminant concentrations in
onsite surface soil, onsite subsurface soil, and offsite groundwater (including the area wells sampled by
the Hillsborough County Health Department) at the Site did not pose significant carcinogenic or
noncarcinogenic risks to human health. The Cedar Wood community doesn't appear to be impacted by
the preferential flow path regarding the contaminant plume. Nonetheless, EPA encourages you to
contact the Hillsborough County Health Department to test the drinking water in your community if you
feel that there has been an exposure of any kind.

Why has this site not been totally cleaned up since according to the information in this flyer that
was mailed, this was discovered by the EPA and placed on the National Priorities List in July of
2000?


-------
Southern Solvents Superfund Site
Record of Decision Amendment
Responsiveness Summary
September 2018

4

After the 1999 ROD was signed, EPA performed excavation and in-situ chemical oxidation (1SCO) at
the Site. A 2002 document (known as an ESD or Explanation of Significant Differences) was signed that
called for 1SCO in combination with soil vapor extraction or SVE). EPA conducted three phases of
ISCO injections to remediate the source area. Phase 1 was conducted in August 2008. Phase 11 was
conducted in March 2009. Phase 111 was conducted in July 2011. Overall, these injections along with
SVE were successful in cleanup the contamination in shallow subsurface (or a vadose zone). The
injections were ineffective in the deeper subsurface or the surficial aquifer. In 2014, EPA determined
that there was a need for further characterization and remediation of the source area.

Set 2

What happens to the vapor that is a result of the remedy?

A vapor cap will be placed over the entire treatment area to control off gassing and to have a positive
seal to enhance the effectiveness of the vapor recovery system. The system would heat the subsurface to
approximately 100 degrees centigrade and the steam and heat generated will dissolve the CVOCs from
the soils so they can be transported to the surface treatment system with the groundwater and vapors.
The recovered vapor (along with contaminants) and water will then be treated with granular activated
carbon.

Why was I allowed to receive a permit for her irrigation well (she doesn't know how deep the well
is)?

Please contact the Hillsborough County Health Department regarding the parameters and provisions of
your well permit.

Why did it take so long to receive the notification?

EPA's goal is to provide sufficient notice of an upcoming event to ensure the greatest level of public
participation. EPA will consider providing public notification more than once and communicating 10 to
14 days before, one week before, and one day before the event being announced.

Will they be notified if this process is approved?

Yes, EPA is required to publish a public notice in "a major newspaper of general circulation" when a
remedial action is taken that differs significantly from the remedial action that had previously been
selected and documented in the ROD or in any ROD amendments. EPA will send out a notice that the
ROD amendment has been signed prior to moving into the Remedial Design phase.

Was there anyone from the Cedar Wood community present?

It did not appear to be any attending from the Cedar Wood community at the Proposed Plan public
meeting. EPA will check to see if the Cedar Wood community HOA requested a meeting.

Were the owners of the property and the tire shop present at the meeting?


-------
Southern Solvents Superfund Site
Record of Decision Amendment
Responsiveness Summary
September 2018

5

Yes, representatives from AAA Diversified Services and Advance Performance Tire and Wheels shop
were present at the Proposed Plan public meeting.

Why wasn't I notified of the Superfund Site before now?

EPA's goal is to provide ample notice. EPA will keep you notified of our actions from this point
forward.


-------
IN RE: SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting on 02/06/2018

1	US EPA REGION 4 - SUPERFUND DIVISION

2

3

4	SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SUPERFUND SITE

5	PROPOSED PLAN MEETING

6

7	TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2 018

8	6:00 P.M. TO 6:45 P.M.

9

10	NORTH TAMPA BRANCH LIBRARY

11	8 916 NORTH BOULEVARD

12	TAMPA, FLORIDA 33 6 04

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24 Reported By:

Janet Hall, RPR, CRC, FPR
2 5 Huseby Job No. 191948

www.huseby.com	Huseby, Inc. Regional Centers	800-333-2082

Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco


-------
IN RE: SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SUPERFUND SITE

Meeting on 02/06/2018	Page 2

1

APPEARANCES :

2

3

KARL WILSON, EPA Remedial Project Manager
L1 TONYA SPENCER, EPA Community Involvement

4

SIGN-IN SHEET (Attached) '

5

YANISA ANGULO, DEP - SWD

6

DEREK MATORY, EPA

7

BARBARA MOUTSATSOS, Public

8

C.K. DRECHLO, Public

9

JACK BRUBAKER, Public

10

GERALD BORSETH, Public

11

MICHAEL FILIPPELLO, Public

12

JOHN SYKES, III, DEP - Tallahassee

13

C. JADE RUTLAND - EPA

14



15



16



17



18



19



20



21



22



23



24



25



www.huseby.com	Huseby, Inc. Regional Centers	800-333-2082

Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco


-------
IN RE: SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SUPERFUND SITE

Meeting on 02/06/2018	Page 3

1	PROCEEDINGS

2	***********

3	KARL WILSON: . I want to thank you guys for

4	coming out to this, public meeting. My name a

5	Karl Wilson. I'm the remedial project manager

6	for the EPA. I've been doing this for

7	two-and-a-half years. So I'm fairly new at it.

8	I've been with the EPA for six years, though.

9	But I'm new to the Superfund division.

10	I do have here with me our community

11	involvement coordinator, L'Tonya Spencer.

12	L'TONYA SPENCER: I'm L'Tonya Spencer.

13	KARL WILSON: I have our associate

14	regional counsel; Jade Rutland is here.

15	I have my manager, Derek Matory. He's

16	also here.

17	And we were expecting to have the owner

18	here as well. We're still waiting for him.

19	AUDIENCE: The owner of what?

2 0	MS. RUTLAND: The owner of the company.

21	AUDIENCE: Southern Solvents?

22	AUDIENCE: No,

23	AUDIENCE: No? What? The owner of what?

24	AUDIENCE: The company. The painting

25	company. That's what they're talking about.

www.huseby.com	HusebyrInc. Regional Centers	800-333-2082

Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco


-------
IN RE: SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SUPERFUND SITE

Meeting on 02/06/2018	Page 4

1	AUDIENCE: Oh. AAA? -

2	KARL WILSON: Yeah. Okay.

3	. So this is our proposed plan for Southern

4	Solvents.

5	I'll talk about the plan that we have that

6	we're proposing and also talk about Superfund

7	and what we do. And talk about --

8	L'TONYA SPENCER: Just right quick. If

9	you could, let Karl go through his presentation

10	and do the question and answer at the end.

11	AUDIENCE: Question and answer. Sure.

12	L'TONYA SPENCER: Because we have a

13	transcriptionist that's going to be

14	transcribing the meeting. So we want her to

15	get your comments and remarks. Get them

16	adequately.

17	AUDIENCE: Okay. Sure'.

18	I see. She's just going here.

19	KARL WILSON: So I'll talk about the

20	Superfund process. I'll talk about the site,

21	the history of the site, and the contamination

22	at the site. And also I'll talk about our

23	options for cleanup.

24	And, like L'Tonya said, if you have any

25	question, feel free.

www.huseby.com	Huseby, Inc. Regional Centers	800-333-2082

Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco


-------
IN RE: SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SUPERFUND SITE

Meeting on 02/06/2018	Page 5

1	I don't know everything. But I'll be sure

2	to try to get to the right person to answer all

3	of your concerns and comments.

4	AUDIENCE: Okay.

5	KARL WILSON: Can you hear me?

6	AUDIENCE: Yes. Don't I look like I can

7	hear you?

8	KARL WILSON: I'm sorry.

9	Okay. I'm sorry.

10	(Next slide)

11	So what is Superfund? Superfund is the

12	law or an act that was passed by Congress for

13	us to address hazardous and toxic sites

14	throughout the country.

15	Back in the '70s, two main sites gained a

16	lot of attention because of their toxic waste.

17	Love Canal in New York. And also the Valley of

18	the Drums in Louisville, Kentucky. There were

19	a lot of human health and environmental risks

20	from these two sites.

21	And so Congress established CERCLA in

22	response to these toxic sites in 1980. And

23	CERCLA means Comprehensive Environmental

24	Response, Compensation, Liability Act; or

25	Superfund. It's one big fund that your

www.huseby.com	Huseby, Inc. Regional Centers	800-333-2082

Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco


-------
IN RE: SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SUPERFUND SITE

Meeting on 02/06/2018	Page 6

1	taxpayer dollars are going to to help clean up

2	these sites around the country.

3	So Superfund allows EPA to clean up the

4	sites. It forces the parties that are

5	responsible for contamination to perform

6	cleanup and also reimburse the Government for

7	any EPA-led cleanup.

8	There are thousands of sites nationally.

9	They're all on a National Priorities List.

10	NPL. They consist of manufacturing facilities,

11	processing plants, landfills, mining sites, dry

12	cleaners, et cetera, et cetera. The list goes

13	on and on.

14	(Next slide)

15	So as far as Southern Solvents, just a

16	little bit of background about that site.

17	Hello. Come on in.

18	It is a Superfund site.. It is located at

19	4009 West Linebaugh Avenue. And it's in Tampa>
2 0	Florida, in Hillsborough County.

21	And, sir, we have handouts here and a

22	sign-in sheet when you get a chance.

23	The site formerly stored, transferred, and'

24	distributed a chemical called perchloroethylene

25	or PCE to local dry cleaners in the area.

www.hiiseby.com

Charlotte ~ Atlanta

Huseby, Inc. Regional Centers
~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston

800-333-2082
~ San Francisco


-------
IN RE: SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SUPERFUND SITE

Meeting on 02/06/2018	Page 7

1	Currently it operates as AAA Diversified

2	Services. It's a commercial painting business.

3	And most of the work is done offsite. But the

4	workers, they're just there for about two hours

5	max. They take-their equipment and they do

6	most of the work offsite. They paint

7	warehouses and buildings and office buildings.

8	The site consists of a parcel of land.

9	It's approximately 100 feet wide by 185 feet

10	deep. It's about 0.4 acres in size. And it's

11	a property -- it's really a one-story

12	sheet-metal building with a concrete slab.

13	Have you guys seen that out there?

14	AUDIENCE: Uh-hum.

15	(Next slide)

16	KARL WILSON: So to zoom in on the

17	property -- you see here. This is West

18	Linebaugh Avenue here. The yellow is the

19	property boundary. The building is right here.

20	And the concrete pad is here. There's an

21	asphalt parking area right there.

.22	So it's predominantly in a commercial

23	business area. There's some mixed residential

24	land use as well, as you are aware.

25	(Next slide)

www.huseby.com	Huseby, Inc. Regional Centers	800-333-2082

Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco


-------
IN RE: SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SUPERFUND SITE

Meeting on 02/06/2018	Page 8

1	So as far as the current site conditions.

2	As I mentioned, PCE contamination is there.

3	It's in the soil. From our past investigations

4	we learned that there had been

5	(Interruption at door)

6	KARL WILSON: From earlier investigations

7	we learned that there had been spills and

8	releases of that PCE from two above-ground

9	storage tanks in the concrete slab area.

10	There were also releases from tanker

11	trucks that would unload and load the PCE in

12	the concrete ground area.

13	We also discovered that the contamination

14	goes as far as 4 0 feet deep in the subsurface.

15	The highest concentration level that we've

16	seen out there as of 2014 is 23,000 mg/kg. So

17	that's a large number.

18	And so just to talk a little bit about the

19	PCE and what it does to you or to the human
2 0	body, PCE exposure can affect your central

21	nervous system; your eyes, your kidneys, your

22	liver, and other major organs. Your lungs,

23	your mucous membranes, et cetera. So it can be

24	lethal if exposed to it.

25	(Next slide)

www.huseby.com	Huseby, Inc. Regional Centers	800-333-2082

Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco


-------
IN RE: SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SUPERFUND SITE

Meeting on 02/06/2018	Page 9

1	Okay. Here I'm just showing -- this is a

2	map showing the horizontal extent of the

3	contamination at the site. And as you see

4	here, this is the building here. And this is

5	the concrete slab, this smaller rectangle.

6	These little red triangles, those are our

7	sampling points, where we took samples out

8	there. And you may not be able to see it from

9	here, but this point right here, this is that

10	23,000 mg/kg hit that we got out there of PCE.

11	As you see, most of the hits are right

12	here, in this area. The highest levels were

13	right there, where the concrete slab is.

14	But we also have some hits, you know, in

15	the asphalt area. We have some hits that are

16	offsite as well.

17	(Next slide)

18	AUDIENCE: Where is that? How far away

19	from the pad is that?

2 0	I'm sorry. I was supposed to wait, wasn't

21	I?

22	L'TONYA SPENCER: Yeah. If you could

23	write it down so you could state your name.

24	Go ahead, Karl.

25	AUDIENCE: I apologize.

www.huseby.com	Huseby, Inc. Regional Centers	800-333-2082

Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco


-------
IN RE: SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting on 02/06/2018

Page 10

1

KARL WILSON: We can go back towards the

2 end.

3

AUDIENCE: That's all right.

4

KARL WILSON: There's also a PCE DNAPL at

5	the concrete slab. DNAPL means Dense Non

6	Aqueous Phase Liquid. So it's liquid in form.

7	It's denser than water. It's immiscible and

8	does not dissolve in water. And it has

9	migrated downward. It's penetrated a clay

10	layer that's 40 feet below ground surface. And

11	it's making its way to the groundwater.

12	So we also know there's PCE contamination

13	in the groundwater. It spans about 15 acres in

14	size. And there's offsite migration.

15	It's 45 feet in depth and greater.

16	So the highest level we've seen in the

17	groundwater is 300,000 micrograms per liter.

18	And that's as of 2 014.

19	So it is a big concern.

20	(Next slide)

21	And so this map here just shows that

22	groundwater plume. It's green here. Do you

23	see that highest hit is right here, the

24	3 00,000 micrograms per liter. It's right here.

25	This is where the concrete slab is. The yellow

www.huseby.com	Huseby, Inc. Regional Centers	800-333-2082

Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco


-------
IN RE: SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SUPERFUND SITE

Meeting on 02/06/2018	Page 11

1	is the property boundary.

2	So as you can see here, we have hits in

3	the groundwater that's offsite. We have some

4	hits that are across Linebaugh Avenue there.

5	There are some hits behind the site as well.

6	(Next slide)

7	So as you are aware, we've been out there

8	for a long time. We've done a lot of different

9	efforts to clean this up.

10	We've done some excavation.

11	AUDIENCE: May I say that I am not aware?

12	You're saying you-all are aware, but I am not

13	aware.

14	KARL WILSON: I'm sorry. But we've been

15	out there for a long time.

16	AUDIENCE: Okay.

17	KARL WILSON: We issued a Record Of

18	Decision back in 1999.

19	AUDIENCE: 1999?

20	KARL WILSON: That just spells out the

21	cleanup, what we were doing.

22	So we did some excavation out there. We

23	removed contaminated soils at that building.

24	We've done some treatment. We've done chemical

25	oxidation. We've injected a series of rounds

www.huseby.com	Huseby, Inc. Regional Centers	800-333-2082

Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco


-------
IN RE: SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SUPERFUND SITE

Meeting on 02/06/2018	Page 12

1	of sodium permanganate in three phases.

2	We've also does some extraction out there,

3	soil vapor extraction, to extract out the

4	vapor.

5	And these efforts, they've been partially

6	successful. But we still notice that there's a

7	PCE plume in the subsurface and also in the

8	groundwater. So there's more to be done.

9	(Next slide)

10	So our new strategy is to modify the

11	Record Of Decision, the document that speaks to

12	the cleanup. We have to develop an interim

13	measure that would address the PCEs in the

14	subsurface first. And that's why I'm here

15	today, is to present the proposed plan for this

16	measure.

17	We have four options that we evaluated for

18	cleanup. And after the proposed plan we would

19	do a new Record Of Decision or ROD amendment.

20	And it will allow us to the design of the

21	technology. And also perform the work as well

22	to clean up.

23	And, lastly, we would have to develop a

24	final ROD for the groundwater portion.

25	So right now we're going to tackle the

www.huseby.com	Huseby, Inc. Regional Centers	800-333-2082

Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco


-------
IN RE: SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting on 02/06/2018

Page 13

.1	soil portion and come back later and handle the

2	groundwater portion.

3	(Next slide)

4	Okay. So these were our options that we

5	evaluated in the focused feasibility study.

6	We have Option 1, which is our no action

7	option. It's basically our baseline option.

8	And it's typical that we do these to use as a

9	baseline, according to our regulations and our

10	rules. And there's a zero cost element to the

11	no action. We would leave things as they are.

12	Option 2 is to do a thermal treatment

13	covering 75% of the property. That would

14	include that concrete slab and also those areas

15	beyond the concrete slab. It would take about

16	nine months to do that, using 50 to 80

17	electrodes to apply the heat in the ground.

18	There's also going to be an extraction system

19	as well as a vapor cap system, along with

20	bioremediation at the polishing step. And by

21	bioremediation, we're going to biodegrade the

22	contaminant that's remaining in the soil.

23	So we estimated a total cost of

24	$6.7 million for that particular option.

2 5	AUDIENCE: That's cool. You add bugs.

www.huseby.com	Huseby, Inc. Regional Centers	800-333-2082

Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco


-------
IN RE: SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting on 02/06/2018

Page 14

1 That1s great.

2

Sorry.

KARL WILSON: So Option 3 is thermal

3

4	treatment only covering that concrete slab

5	area. So it's more focused right there, where

6	we're seeing the highest hits of PCE. It would

7	take approximately six months to get out there

8	and to input or install 20 to 25 electrodes.

9	Also, there would be an extraction system and a

10	vapor cap system as well.

11	There's also a bio component to this

12	option. And we're looking at a total cost of

13	$5.3 million.

14	AUDIENCE: That's an expensive bug.

15	KARL WILSON: The thermal is expensive as

16	we11.

17	And I'll talk about that after this slide.

18	Option 4 is excavation. And it's covering

19	75% of the property. It would take seven

2 0	months to dig everything up. Dig and haul it.

21	And the building would have to be demolished if

22	that option were to be our choice. And the

23	total cost would be around $11 million.

24	(Next slide)

.25	So we worked with our state counterpart,

www.huseby.com	Huseby, Inc. Regional Centers	800-333-2082

Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco


-------
IN RE: SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SUPERFUND SITE

Meeting on 02/06/2018	Page 15

1	the State of Florida, FDEP, and came up with

2	the preferred alternative, which is Option 3.

3	And Option 3 is just focusing on that smaller

4	DNAPL source area where the concrete slab is.

5	We would use thermal technology to mitigate the

6	DNAPL source area and use 22 heater borings for

7	electrodes, and use 12 Multi Phase Extraction

8	wells, MPE wells, at 50 feet deep. So we're

9	using a combination of electrodes and wells to

10	extract the vapor out.

11	There would be a vapor cap for off-gases.

12	And the vapors would be treated with Granulated

13	Activated Carbon, GAC.

14	And, ideally, we want to heat the surface

15	to 100 degrees Celsius. Heat the ground to 100

16	Celsius. This would take approximately 60 days

17	or two months to do.

18	AUDIENCE: One day in summer.

19	Sorry. I'll shut up.

20	KARL WILSON: And so the footprint for

21	this would be approximately 5,600 square feet.

22	So, ideally, we're going to attack the

23	volume of the soils most likely to contain

24	residual DNAPL and attack those highest PCE
2 5	concentrations.

www.huseby.com	Huseby, Inc. Regional Centers	800-333-2082

Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco


-------
IN RE: SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SUPERFUND SITE

Meeting on 02/06/2018	Page 16

1	And here we have CVOC, which stands for

2	Chlorinated Volatile Organic Compound. And

3	CVOC is just the umbrella for your PCE. And

4	all the PCEs breakdown chemically. PCE breaks

5	down into perchloroethylene and also

6	dichloroethylene, DCE.	So it's really an

7	umbrella to capture all	those different

8	constituents.

9	The system will be turned off when the

10	soil contamination reaches a plateau or a peak.

11	And also reaches a threshold of 1 mg/kg total

12	CVOC. So we will be sampling out there to

13	monitor how much we're removing. When we hit

14	this mark here, we plan on turning the system

15	off. And we think this will take us

16	approximately six to seven months. So half a

17	year is what we're looking at.

18	And later on we plan to apply the

19	bioremediation component to maintain that

20	1 mg/kg concentration.

21	So we hit it with thermal first a:nd come

22	in with the bio to finish it off.

23	(Next slide)

24	This slide just shows the thermal

2 5	technology that's going to be out there.

www.huseby.com	Huseby, Inc. Regional Centers	800-333-2082

Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco


-------
IN RE: SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting on 02/06/2018

Page 17

1	And as you see, we have a -- this is our

2	electrode matrix there, if you will. And

3	further up is our power supply. We plan on

4	using approximately 2.3 million kilowatts per

5	hour of energy. It's going to probably require

6	about 5.4 million pounds of water.

7	As you see here, the power will be sent

8	through the electrodes. And the vapor would

9	come out. And it will go through a heat

10	exchanger and on to a knockout pot. And the

11	condensate would be pumped to a treatment tank.

12	And the vapor would go to this blower here and

13	also be treated before vented to the

14	atmosphere.

15	Some of the main components of the

16	technology. There will be some drilling.

17	There will be construction going on out there.

18	Power drop as well. We'll have some utilities

19	to look at. Also, your onsite operator, your

20	extraction system will be going on. Sampling.

21	Waste disposal. And some restoration. Because

22	we plan on repairing the concrete slab. And

23	also working with the owner to repair any

24	damage that we may face because of this cleanup

25	effort.

www.huseby.com	Huseby, Inc. Regional Centers	800-333-2082

Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco


-------
IN RE: SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SUPERFUND SITE

Meeting on 02/06/2018	Page 18

1	(Next slide)

2	So that's pretty much the presentation.

3	I know I went through it kind of quickly.

4	I'm sorry.

5	AUDIENCE: You're fine.

6	KARL WILSON: And so I'll open it up, of

7	course, for any questions.

8	I know you had some questions.

9	AUDIENCE: Oh, I have a bunch of them.

10	L'TONYA SPENCER: Can you please state

11	your name first so she can put it on the

12	record?

13	CHRISTIE: My name is Christie.

14	And who's paying for this?

15	KARL WILSON: This is a Fund lead.

16	CHRISTIE: What?

17	KARL WILSON: Superfund lead site.

18	Meaning that we don't --

19	CHRISTIE: Fund lead?

20	KARL WILSON: L-e-a-d. Fund lead or

21	Fund-led site.

22	AUDIENCE: Karl, what drove to this? I

23	mean, how did you come upon this?

24	L'TONYA SPENCER: Can you state your name?
2 5	BARBARA: Oh, I'm sorry. My name is

www.huseby.com	Huseby, Inc. Regional Centers	800-333-2082

Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco


-------
IN RE: SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SUPERFUND SITE

Meeting on 02/06/2018	Page 19

1	Barbara.

2	I mean, the gentleman behind us has this

3	business. It's been there forever. And so

4	what made you come in on this now?

5	CHRISTIE: What was the clue? Yeah.

6	KARL WILSON: You mean the contamination?

7	BARBARA: I mean, the contamination is

8	there. But what said -- "Hey. I was driving

9	down the street and, hey, here's

10	contamination." Nobody said that. So who

11	spurred that on to you?

12	KARL WILSON: Well, this site has been on

13	our list --

14	BARBARA: -- since 1999?

15	KARL WILSON: Yes. Ideally, we want to

16	remove these sites from our list to clean up.

17	BARBARA: Okay.

18	KARL WILSON: They're going to clean up

19	these sites. So it's been there, around for 20
2 0	years.

21	BARBARA: Okay.

22	KARL WILSON: So that's why it's on the

23	list.

24	BARBARA: On the list to get done. Okay.

25	KARL WILSON: Does that answer your

www.huseby.com	Huseby, Inc. Regional Centers	800-333-2082

Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco


-------
IN RE: SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting on 02/06/2018

Page 20

1	question?

2	BARBARA: Yep. It does.

3	And how long have you been there? When

4	did you go in?

5	MAN: I've been there over 2 0 years.

6	BARBARA: Twenty years.

7	KARL WILSON: And so with the new

8	administration that we have now, they're really

9	looking at cleaning up all the sites.

10	BARBARA: Yeah. It's a good thing. For

11	sure.

12	CHRISTIE: We're just really wondering why

13	it took so long.

14	BARBARA: Well, that's the way it is. We

15	understand that. Because we're trying to get

16	roads put in. We're five and six, seven, eight

17	years out for roads. So --

18	This is good. This is good. From 1999?

19	Yeah.

2 0	KARL WILSON: We've been out there for a

21	while. And we tried different things.

22	BARBARA: Well, let's say you don't do

23	anything. That's the first option. You don't

24	do anything. That's zero cost.

25	I mean, who is it hurting? These men,

www.huseby.com	Huseby, Inc. Regional Centers	800-333-2082

Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco


-------
IN RE: SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SUPERFUND SITE

Meeting on 02/06/2018	Page 21

1	like you say, come. And they spend a couple

2	hours and they're gone. So who is it that

3	really

4	KARL WILSON: The groundwater is really

5	being impacted.

6	BARBARA: Okay.

7	KARL WILSON: We have drinking wells --

8	the water is not being consumed by anyone.

9	BARBARA: Right.

10	KARL WILSON: But it is being used for

11	irrigation purposes. There are some drinking

12	water wells filled around this site.

13	BARBARA: Okay.

14	KARL WILSON: That's the major concern;

15	protecting the groundwater.

16	BARBARA: And this is caused by cleaning?

17	Somebody had a cleaning business in there at

18	one time.

19	KARL WILSON: Right. They used PCEs.
2 0 MAN: Not me.

21	KARL WILSON: He's the current owner.

22	BARBARA: I know. I know.

23	KARL WILSON: So that contamination is

24	going to sit there forever, until someone comes

25	in and removes it.

www.huseby.com	Huseby, Inc. Regional Centers	800-333-2082

Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco


-------
IN RE: SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SUPERFUND SITE

Meeting on 02/06/2018	Page 22

1	BARBARA: And takes care of the problem.

2	CHRISTIE: So the amount of work that

3	you're going to have to do over there is going

4	to impact this man's business how?

5	KARL WILSON: Well, minimal impact.

6	Because the footprint for this thermal -- that

7	system --

8	Can you go back?

9	CHRISTIE: That looked huge.

10	KARL WILSON: So this is about 2 0

11	electrodes here. They go 50 feet in the

12	ground. They're probably spaced out, like,

13	five feet.

14	BARBARA: So you're not going to worry

15	about the water yet. You're going to get the

16	ground first?

17	KARL WILSON: Right. We're going to get

18	the soil first.

19	In the final decision that I talked about

20	we will address the groundwater later on. But

21	we want to attack the source first and remove

22	it to see how it's going to affect the

23	groundwater in the future.

24	CHRISTIE: This has just been something

25	that's been there for a while, and now it's

www.huseby.com	Huseby, Inc. Regional Centers	800-333-2082

Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco


-------
IN RE: SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SUPERFUND SITE

Meeting on 02/06/2018	Page 23

1	finally being taken care of?

2	KARL WILSON: Right. We've been working

3	on it for years. And we're just changing

4	technologies. That's what we're doing,

5	basically.

6	MAN: You guys have been out there for a

7	long time, though.

8	KARL WILSON: Yeah. We have been working.
'9 MAN: They have been working on it.

10	Because I've been there. The EPA has done a

11	good job.

12	KARL WILSON: Thank you. Thank you.

13	MAN: It's harder to get it out than it

14	was to put it in.	•

15	KA,RL WILSON: Yes. These electrodes are

16	about five feet apart. So this whole system is

17	probably no bigger than this space here, in

18	. this room.

19	BARBARA: Okay.

2 0	CHRISTIE: Okay. We're good. I'm good.

21	KARL WILSON: You had a question about

22	this map here, I think. About this schematic?

23	CHRISTIE: Yeah. Where is Cedarwood in

24	there?

2 5	BARBARA: No. That's not --

www.huseby.com	Huseby, Inc. Regional Centers	800-333-2082

Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco


-------
IN RE: SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SUPERFUND SITE

Meeting on 02/06/2018	Page 24

1	CHRISTIE: Is it anywhere near there?

2	BARBARA: No. No. We're across the

3	street.

4	KARL WILSON: You don't see it on here.

5	But Linebaugh Avenue is running this way.

6	CHRISTIE: Oh. Got you. Got you.

7	KARL WILSON: Yeah. And so the Urgent

8	Care Center will be right here. The tires,

9	wheels, and repair shop will be right here.

10	CHRISTIE: Got you.

11	MAN: That's me.

12	KARL WILSON: That's your shop? Okay.

13	Nice to you.

14	And the catering -- there's a catering

15	business back here.

16	CHRISTIE: Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.

17	KARL WILSON: You don't see it on this

18	map. But...

19	Go back.

2 0	Keep going. Keep going.

21	This is kind of blurry, I know. But the

22	tires, wheels and repair shop is here. The

23	Urgent Care Center is there. Linebaugh Avenue

24	is here. The Social Security Administration is
2 5	right here.

www.huseby.com	Huseby, Inc. Regional Centers	800-333-2082

Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco


-------
IN RE: SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SUPERFUND SITE

Meeting on 02/06/2018	Page 25

1	CHRISTIE: Oh. Got you. Okay. Thank

2	you. Thank you for that.

3	BARBARA: Okay.

4	CHRISTIE: I'm sorry more people weren't

5	here. But, like I said, I was just telling

6	her, I just got this today. I went, wait a

7	minute. It's tonight.

8	L" TONYA SPENCER: Well., if you have --

9	like I said, inbox me the homeowner's

10	association. I can send them the information

11	for your neighborhood.

12	And if you guys need Karl, you can contact

13	Karl. And he can"explain anything that you

14	need him to.

15	BARBARA: I'm sure, Karl, on Linebaugh

16	there there's a lot of businesses that have

17	been in there. So you've probably got a lot of

18	sites in there to clean up. I mean, I don't

19	know what's on your list to do. But we've had
2 0	a lot of business come and go. And who knows

21	what they put into the ground and stuff. So...

22	KARL WILSON: And for the ones who came in

23	kind of late, we do have a sign in. And I do

24	have business cards as well.

25	I know you guys have more questions. Like

www.huseby.com	Huseby, Inc. Regional Centers	800-333-2082

Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco


-------
IN RE: SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SUPERFUND SITE

Meeting on 02/06/2018	Page 26

1	Gerry?

2	MR. BORSETH: I don't have a lot of

3	questions.

4	KARL WILSON: Okay.

5	MR. BORSETH: I mean, you answered a lot

6	of my questions when you were out there.

7	KARL WILSON: Okay.

8	MR. BORSETH: Of course, I'm concerned

9	about not moving out and things of that nature.

10	KARL WILSON: Okay.

11	Did you want to speak to the -- can you

12	speak to the relocation? You don't have to.

13	MS. RUTLAND: I just think it's a little

14	premature.

15	Something that we'll do now is the

16	proposed plan. Then we'll follow-up with the

17	ROD. Then when Karl has the ROD, the Record Of

18	Decision, then we'll be getting into the

19	remedial design -- which takes two years, a
2 0	year, 18 months maybe?

21	KARL WILSON: Right.

22	L'TONYA SPENCER: Eighteen months.

23	MS. RUTLAND: And then towards the end of

24	the design he'll have something called the RA

25	Work Plan. And the RA Work Plan will also have

www.huseby.com	Huseby, Inc. Regional Centers	800-333-2082

Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco


-------
IN RE: SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting on 02/06/2018

Page 27

1	as a component of it -- I would say the QAWP.

2	I forget what it stands for. Quality Assurance

3	Work Plan. Those types of things will let

4	us -- then once we have those plans, which

5	we're probably two years out from, then those

6	plans will let us know what kind of exposure

7	risk we're looking at and things like that.

8	And that will let us know whether or not your

9	workers could stay in the building. If so, how

10	long. We need to have all of that information.

11	And we have to coordinate with headquarter's

12	offices to see what we would do in those

13	instances.

14	And so we, you know, work with the

15	businesses. We work around, you know, industry

16	and try to make it work for everyone. So that

17	when.we're doing our work we have to follow the

18	Quality Assurance Plan anyway, to see what the

19	exposure would be to what we call the dermal

20	risk, inhalation risk, mainly breathing it or

21	touching it, and being around those types of

22	things. And so what that would -- how it would

23	impact. And then we then create a plan and

24	work with the other offices.

25	BARBARA: That seems like a lot of money.

www.huseby.com	Huseby, Inc. Regional Centers	800-333-2082

Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco


-------
IN RE: SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SUPERFUND SITE

Meeting on 02/06/2018	Page 28

1	CHRISTIE: Is that going to be something

2	that I'm going to be hearing about, like I did

3	with this?

4	MS. RUTLAND: It will be part of what we

5	call the administrative record. And the

6	administrative record is housed at this

7	library.

8	L'TONYA SPENCER: It's here.

9	MS. RUTLAND: So everything that Karl has

10	used to come up with these options, it's here

11	in the library in the reference section. So --

12	it should be on a CD. And it automatically

13	runs if you put it in one of the computers. So

14	if there is any information that you would like

15	to look at, it's there.

16	CHRISTIE: So that's the only way we can

17	do a follow-up?

18	MS. RUTLAND: Oh, no. No. Some of the

19	things are published online as well, too. But

20	it's part of what we call the Statement of

21	Work. And these are the documents we go into.

22	And they're publicly available.

23	Sometimes, though, it may take awhile for

24	us to update the register. We do it within a
2 5	certain amount of days that we update that

www.huseby.com	Huseby, Inc. Regional Centers	800-333-2082

Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco


-------
IN RE: SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SUPERFUND SITE

Meeting on 02/06/2018	Page 29

1	administrative record. And, as always, you

2	have the Freedom of Information Act as well to

3	be able to request these documents.

4	And sometimes, if they are documents that

5	are publicly available and you contact Karl

6	directly and if you know exactly what it is

7	that you're looking for, we're able to go ahead

8	and provide it or find it and give it to you.

9	BARBARA: What kind of bugs are you

10	talking about?

11	CHRISTIE: That was cool.

12	KARL WILSON: Some type of micro

13	organisms.

14	BARBARA: Okay. We have plenty of ants.

15	We can give you a lot of ants.

16	CHRISTIE: We have lots of mosquitoes.

17	You know.

18	KARL WILSON: It's called Enhanced

19	Reductive Dechlorination. ERD. We haven't

20	really looked at a particular type of bio yet.

21	But it will be anaerobic in nature.

22	MS. RUTLAND: That's really cool.

23	L'TONYA SPENCER: And also the process

24	that she was talking about, we do send out

25	information. That two-year mark that they were

www.huseby.com	. Huseby, Inc. Regional Centers	800-333-2082

Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco


-------
IN RE: SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SUPERFUND SITE

Meeting on 02/06/2018	Page 30

1	talking about. We do come back out to the

2	community and let you know what's going on.

3	CHRISTIE: Cool. Thank you.

4	L'TONYA SPENCER: We'll have another

5	mailing. That's why I say, if you have the

6	homeowner's email the information to us, we can

7	make sure that when they get to that part we

8	get the information to the right people.

9	CHRISTIE: Okay.

10	KARL WILSON: Yes?

11	MAN: Obviously, I'm a little late.

12	Sorry. But as far as my property --

13	L'TONYA SPENCER: I'm sorry. Can you

14	state your name for the transcriptionist?

15	MICHAEL FILIPPELLO: Michael Filippello.

16	I own the Advance Performance Tires.

17	So are you guys going to be needing access

18	on my property as well?

19	KARL WILSON: Yes.

20	MICHAEL FILIPPELLO: What type of -- this

21	is very early in the process.

22	KARL WILSON: I know. Did you know

23	there's a drainage issue with your property?

24	MICHAEL FILIPPELLO: Well, I seem to have

25	the retention pond for, like, about five

www.huseby.com	Huseby, Inc. Regional Centers	800-333-2082

Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco


-------
IN RE: SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SUPERFUND SITE

Meeting on 02/06/2018	Page 31

1	properties.

2	KARL WILSON: How do you feel about that?

3	MICHAEL FILIPPELLO: I'd like to get rid

4	of it.

5	KARL WILSON: You would? 'Okay.

6	MICHAEL FILIPPELLO: Yeah.

7	KARL WILSON: So we'll work with you and

8	we'll work with Gerry and, you know, come up

9	with some kind of plan.

10	MICHAEL FILIPPELLO: There's a lot of

11	unusable property. We don't know how it got

12	there, got to be that way. Nobody else has a

13	retention bond. I've got the retention pond

14	for, like, four properties.

15	KARL WILSON: With our regrading efforts,

16	we'll work with you guys and see what's best,

17	what's suitable for that particular property

18	out there.

19	MR. BORSETH: Because I know there's

20	monitoring wells on my property as well. They

21	were trying to keep track of the plume.

22	KARL WILSON: Right.

23	MR. BORSETH: Has it still been growing?

24	Or where are they at with that?

25	KARL WILSON: All right. So this is the

www.huseby.com	Huseby, Inc. Regional Centers	800-333-2082

Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco


-------
IN RE: SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting on 02/06/2018

Page 32

1	groundwater plume. As you can see, this green

2	line here is offsite. I think your shop is

3	right there. The yellow is the boundary for

4	AAA Diversified.

5	These samples were taken in 2014.

6	MICHAEL FILIPPELLO: All the way out, as

7	far as that	.

8	KARL WILSON: Right. So we1 re seeing hits

9	of PCE where your shop is. We're seeing them

10	across the street. Above the state standard --

11	the state's MCL, Maximum Contaminant Level.

12	So -- it's still -- it's there. It's growing.

13	MICHAEL FILIPPELLO: And the stuff you're

14	going to be doing on Gerry's property, is

15	that -- I'm thinking that's going to reign all

16	that in. Or are you guys going to have to do

17	that at multiple locations?

18	KARL WILSON: The treatment at his

19	property is more for the subsurface, for the

20	soil.

21	MICHAEL FILIPPELLO: Okay.

22	KARL WILSON: The groundwater will be an

23	issue later on in the future that we're going

24	to address. But we were thinking, once we

25	clean up the source, it will impact the

www.huseby.com	Huseby, Inc. Regional Centers	800-333-2082

Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco


-------
IN RE: SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SUPERFUND SITE

Meeting on 02/06/2018	Page 33

1

groundwater. You know. We'll see some kind of

2

reduction.

3

MICHAEL FILIPPELLO: Reduction.

4

KARL WILSON: Yes. Ideally.

5

Question?

6

BARBARA: Can you see his runoff pond

7

there, by his business?

8

KARL WILSON: It's right here.

9

BARBARA: Okay. Where it's dark?

10

KARL WILSON: You have some oak trees back

11

there. Right.

12

MAN: Some oak trees. Yeah.

13

CHRISTIE: Are we going to have two-headed

14 •

ducks?

15

KARL WILSON: What's that?

16

CHRISTIE: Are we going to have two-headed

17

ducks?

18

I'm sorry.

19

KARL WILSON: There's a depression here,

20

right where his property is in the back. In

21

other words, his retention pond. It collects a

22

lot of rainwater.

)

23

CHRISTIE: Well, we need retention ponds

24

around here, obviously. But we don't want

25

contaminated retention ponds.

www.huseby.com	Huseby, Inc. Regional Centers	800-333-2082

Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco


-------
IN RE: SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting on 02/06/2018

Page 34

1

KARL WILSON: Well -- yeah. Right.

2

CHRISTIE: But we still need them.

3

KARL WILSON: We want them to.be clean

4 retention ponds.

5

MAN: Those retention ponds are collecting

6 storm water from rain. That's all it is.

7 That's just surface water runoff.

8

CHRISTIE: Well, remember when Linebaugh

9 . was two lanes? Four lanes? And they had the

10	runoff going in the wrong direction. Our

11	streets flooded. Because they, didn't have it

12	going into our retention pond. They had it

13	going askew.

14	So it's something that we need to have in

15	our neighborhood for the runoff. Correct?

16	BARBARA: Right. Oh, yeah.

17	CHRISTIE: So this is a low area. And

18	it's - - you know. It was built on -- most of

19	the place is built on a cow pasture and clay
2 0	and sand.

21	BARBARA: Like we say, if you know of

22	anything that's going on, they want.to buy our

23	area down there, you let us know.

24	KARL WILSON: Are there any more questions

25	or comments or concerns?

www.huseby.com	Huseby, Inc. Regional Centers	800-333-2082

Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco


-------
IN RE: SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SUPERFUND SITE

Meeting on 02/06/2018	Page 35

1	BARBARA: That's good.

2	CHRISTIE: Thank you.

3	KARL WILSON: Thank you, guys.

4	L'TONYA SPENCER: Thanks for coming.

5	Don't forget to sign in if you didn't sign in.

6	(Concluded at 6:42 p.m.)

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

www.huseby.com	Huseby, Inc. Regional Centers	800-333-2082

Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco


-------
IN RE: SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SUPERFUND SITE

Meeting on 02/06/2018	Page 36

1	CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER

2

STATE OF FLORIDA	]

3	: SS
COUNTY OF HILLSBOROUGH]

4

5	I, JANET HALL, certify that I was authorized to

6	and did stenographically report the foregoing

7	proceedings and that the transcript is a true and

8	complete record of my stenographic notes.

9	I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am not a relative,

10	employee, attorney, or counsel of any of the

11	parties; nor am I a relative or employee of any of

12	the parties' attorney or counsel connected with the

13	action, nor am I financially interested in the

14	action.

15	Dated this 15th day of February, 2018.

16

18			

JANET HALL, RPR, FPR

19	Notary Public State of Florida

Commission FF 1912 56

20	Expires .2/17/19

21

22

23

24

25

www.huseby.com	Huseby, Inc. Regional Centers	800-333-2082

Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco


-------
IN RE: SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting on 02/06/2018

Index: $ll..area

	$

$11 14:23
$5.3 14:13
$6.7 13:24

0

0.4 7:10
1-

1	13 : 6

16 : 11,20

100 7:9
15 : 15

12 15:7

15 10:13

18 26:20

185 7:9

1980 5:22

1999 11:18,

19	19:14

20	: 18

2

2	13:12

2.3 17:4

20 14:8
19:19 20:5
22 : 10

2014 8:16

10 : 18 32:5
22 15:6

23,000 8:16

9	: 10

25 14:8

3

3	14 : 3
15:2,3

300,000

10	: 17,24

4

4	14:18

40 8:14
10:10

4009 6:19'

45 10:15

5

5,600 15:21

5.4 17:6

50 13:16 .
15 : 8 22:11

6

60 15:16
6:42 3 5:6

7

70s 5:15

75% 13:13
14 : 19

8

80 13:16

A

AAA 4:1 7:1
32 :4

above-ground

8:8

access 3 0:17

acres 7:10

10	: 13

act 5:12,24
29:2

action. 13:6,

11

Activated

15 : 13

add 13:25

address 5:13
12:13
22 :2 0
32 :24

adequately

4 : 16

administration

20:8 24:24

administrative

28:5,6

29	: 1

Advance

30	:16

affect 8:20
22 : 22

ahead 9:24
29 : 7

alternative

15 :2

amendment

12:19

amount 22:2
28 :25

anaerobic

29:21

ants 2 9:14,

15

apologize

9:25

apply 13:17

16	: 18

approximately

7:9 14 : 7
15 : 16,21
16:16 17:4

Aqueous 10:6

area 6:25
7 :21,23
8:9,12
9:12,15
14:5 15:4,

www.huseby.com	Huseby, Inc. Regional Centers	800-333-2082

Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco


-------
IN RE: SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting on 02/06/2018

Index: areas..cards

6 34:17,23

areas 13 : 14

askew 34:13

asphalt 7:21
9 : 15

associate

3:13

association

25 : 10

Assurance

27:2,18

atmosphere

17 : 14

attack

15:22,24
22 :21

attention

5 : 16

AUDIENCE

3 : 19,21,
22,23,24
4:1,11,17
5:4,6 7:14
9:18,25
10:3

11:11,16,
19 13:25

14	: 14

15	: 18

18:5,9,22

automatically

28:12

Avenue 6:19
7:18 11:4

24 :5,23

aware 7:24
11:7,11,
12, 13

awhile 28:23

B

back 5:15
10:1 11:18

13	: 1 22 : 8
24 : 15,19
30:1

33	: 10,20

background

6 : 16

Barbara

18:25

19:1,7,14,
17,21,24
2 0:2,6,10,

14	, 22

21:6,9,13,
16,22
22:1,14
23 : 19,25
24:2 25:3,

15	27:25
29 : 9,14
33:6,9

34	: 16,21
35:1

baseline

13:7,9

basically

13 : 7 23:5

big 5:25
10:19

bigger 23:17

bio 14:11
16 :22
29:20

biodegrade

13 :21

bioremediation

13 :20,21
16 : 19

bit 6:16
8 : 18

blower 17:12

blurry 24:21

body 8:20

bond 31:13

borings 15:6

BORSETH

26:2,5,8
31:19,23

boundary

7:19 11:1
32:3

breakdown

16:4

breaks ,16:4

breathing

27:20

bug 14:14

bugs 13:25
29 : 9

building

7:12,19
9:4 11:23
14 .: 21 27:9

buildings

7 : 7

built 34:18,
19

bunch 18:9

business

7:2,23
19:3 21:17
22 :4 24:15
25 :2 0,24
33 : 7

businesses

2 5:16
27 : 15

buy 34:22

C

call 27:19
28:5,20

called 6:24
26 :24
29 : 18

Canal 5:17

cap 13:19

14	: 10

15	: 11

capture 16:7
Carbon 15 : 13
cards 2 5:24

www.huseby.com	Huseby, Inc. Regional Centers	800-333-2082

Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco


-------
IN RE: SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SUPERFUND SITE

Meeting on 02/06/2018	Index: care..contamination

care 22:1
23:1 24:8,

23

catering

24	: 14

caused 21:16
CD 28:12

Cedarwood

23 :23

Celsius

15:15,16

Center 24:8,
23

central 8:20

CERCLA 5:21,
23

cetera 6 :12

8 : 23

chance 6:22

changing

23:3

chemical

6:24 11:24

chemically

16 :4

Chlorinated

16 :2

choice 14:22

Christie

18:13,16,

19	19:5

20	:12

22:2,9,24
23:20,23
24:1,6,10,

16	25:1,4
28:1,16
29:11,16
3 0:3,9

33	:13,16,
23 34 :2,8,

17	35:2

clay 10:9

34	: 19

clean 6:1,3
11:9 12:22

19	: 16,18
25 : 18

32:25 34:3

cleaners

6:12,25

cleaning

20	: 9

21:16,17

cleanup 4:23
6:6,7
11:21
12:12,18
17:24

clue 19:5

collecting

34 : 5

collects

33:21

combination

15 : 9

comments

4:15 5:3
34 : 25

commercial

7	:2,22

community

3 : 10 30:2

company

3:2 0,24,2 5

Compensation

5:24

component

14:11

16:19 27:1

components

17 :15

Compound

16 :2

Comprehensive

5:23

computers

28 :13

concentration

8	: 15 16 :20

concentrations

15 :2 5

concern

10 : 19
21 : 14

concerned

26 : 8

concerns 5 : 3

34 :25

concluded

35 : 6

concrete

7:12,20
8:9,12
9:5,13
10:5,25
13:14,15
14:4 15:4
17 : 22

condensate

17:11

conditions

8:1

Congress

5 : 12,21

consist 6:10
consists 7 : 8

constituents

16	: 8

construction

17	: 17

consumed

21 : 8

contact

25:12 29:5

contaminant

13 : 22
32:11

contaminated

11:23
33:25

contamination

www.huseby.com	Huseby, Inc. Regional Centers	800-333-2082

Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco


-------
IN RE: SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SUPERFUND SITE

Meeting on 02/06/2018	Index: cool..element

4:21 6:5

CVOC 16:1,

26 :19,24

drainage

8:2,13 9:3

3 , 12

develop

30:23







10 : 12



12 : 12,23

drilling





16 : 10

D

dichloroethyle

17 : 16

19:6,7 ,10





21:23

damage 17:24

ne 16:6

drinking

cool 13:25

dark 33:9

dig 14:20

21:7,11

29:11,22

day 15:18

direction

driving 19:8

30:3

34 : 10

drop 17:18



days 15:16



coordinate

28:25

directly

drove 18:22

27 : 11



29:6

Drums 5:18



DCE 16:6



coordinator



discovered

dry 6:11,25
ducks 3 3:14,

3 : 11

Dechlorination

29:19

8 : 13

Correct



disposal

17

34 : 15

decision

11 : 18

17 :21

cost 13:10,

12 : 11,19

dissolve

E

23 14:12,



10:8



22 : 19



23 20:24

26 : 18

distributed

earlier 8 : 6

counsel 3 : 14

deep 7:10

6:24

early 3 0:21

counterpart

8:14 15 : 8

Diversified/

effort' 17:25

14 : 25

degrees

7:1 32:4

efforts 11:9

country 5:14

15 :15

division 3 : 9

12 : 5 31:15

6:2

demolished

DNAPL 10:4,5

Eighteen

County 6:20

14 : 21

15:4,6,24

26 :22

couple 21:1

Dense 10:5

document

electrode

covering

denser 10:7

12 : 11

17 :2

13 : 13

depression

documents

electrodes

14:4,18

33 : 19

28:21

13:17 14:8

cow 34:19



29:3,4

15:7,9

depth 10:15

dollars 6 :1

17:8 22:11

create 27:23

Derek 3:15



23:15

current 8:1



door 8 : 5



dermal 2 7:19



element

21:21



downward

13 : 10



design 12:20

10 : 9

www.huseby.com	Huseby, Inc. Regional Centers	800-333-2082

Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco


-------
IN RE: SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SUPERFUND SITE

Meeting on 02/06/2018	Index: emaiL.ground

email 3 0:6

exposure

filled 21:12

20

end 4:10

8:20 27:6,

final 12:24

Fund-led

10:2 26:23

19

22 :19

18 :21

energy 17:5

extent 9 : 2

finally 23 : 1

future 22:23

Enhanced

extract 12 : 3

find 2 9:8

32 :23

29:18

15 : 10







fine 18:5



environmental

extraction



G



finish 16:22



5:19,23

12 :2, 3
13:18 14 : 9



flooded

GAC 15:13

EPA 3:6,8

15:7 17:20

34 : 11

gained 5:15

6:3 23:10









eyes 8:21

Florida 6:20

gentleman

EPA-LED 6 : 7



15 : 1

19:2

equipment

F

focused 13:5

Gerry 26:1

7 : 5



14 : 5

31 : 8

ERD 2 9:19

face 17:24





facilities

focusing

Gerry's

established

6 : 10

15:3

32:14







5:21

fairly 3 : 7

follow 27:17

give 29:8,





15

estimated

follow-up

26 : 16

FDEP 15:1



13 : 23

good 2 0:10,

evaluated

feasibility

28:17

18 23:11,

12:17 13:5

13 : 5

footprint

20 35:1







excavation

feel 4:25

15 :20 22 : 6

Government

11:10,22

31:2



6 : 6





forces 6 :4



14 :18

feet 7:9



Granulated



8 : 14

forever 19:3

15 : 12

exchanger

21 :24

17:10

10:10,15

great 14 : 1

expecting

15:8,21

forget 2 7:2

22 : 11,13

35 : 5

greater

3 :17

23 : 16

form 10:6

10:15

expensive

14:14,15

Filippello

30 :15,20,

free 4:25

green 10:22
32 : 1

explain

24 31:3,6,

Freedom 2 9:2

ground 8:12

25 : 13

10 32:6,

fund 5:25

10 : 10

exposed 8:24

13,21 33:3

¦ 18:15,19,

13 : 17

www.huseby.com	Huseby, Inc. Regional Centers	800-333-2082

Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco


-------
IN RE: SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SUPERFUND SITE

Meeting on 02/06/2018	Index: groundwater..Karl

15 : 15

health 5:19

8 : 19

instances

22:12,16

hear 5:5,7

hurting

27 :13

25:21

hearing 2 8:2

20:25

interim

groundwater

heat 13:17



12 : 12

10 : 11,13,

T

interruption



15:14,15
17 : 9



17,22 11:3
12 : 8,24

ideally

8:5

13:2 21:4,

heater 15:6

15:14,22

investigations

15 22:20,

hey 19:8,9

19 : 15 33 :4

8:3,6







23 32:1,22

immiscible

involvement

3 3:1

highest 8:15

10 : 7

3:11

growing

9 : 12



10 : 16,23

impact 22:4,

irrigation

31:23

14:6 15:24

5 27:23

21 : 11

32 : 12

Hillsborough

32 :25

issue 3 0:23

guys 3 : 3

6:20

impacted

32 :23

7 :13 23:6
25 :12,25

history 4:21

21 : 5

issued 11:17

30 : 17



inbox 2 5:9



hit 9:10



-r

31 : 16

10 :23
16 :13,21

include

u

32:16 35:3

13 :14

Jade 3:14



hits 9:11,

industry

j ob 2 3:11

H

14 , 15

27: 15









half 16:16

11:2,4,5

information

K



14 : 6 32 : 8

25 : 10







handle 13:1

homeowner1s

27 :10

Karl 3:3,5,

handouts

25:9 30:6

28:14

13 4:2,9,

6 : 21



29:2,25

19 5:5,8

harder 23:13

horizontal

9 • 9

30:6,8

7:16 8:6





inhalation

9:24 10:1,

haul 14:20

hour 17:5

4 11:14,





27:20

hazardous

hours 7 : 4

inj ected

17,20

5 :13

21:2

14:3,15

he'll 26:24



11:25

15 : 20

housed 2 8:6

input 14:8

18:6,15,

headquarter1s

huge 22:9
human 5:19

install 14 : 8

17,20,22

27 : 11

19:6,12,

www.huseby.com	Huseby, Inc. Regional Centers	800-333-2082

Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco


-------
IN RE: SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SUPERFUND SITE

Meeting on 02/06/2018	Index: Kentucky..manager

15,18,22,
25 20:7,20
21:4,7,10,
14,19,21,

23	22:5,
10, 17

2 3:2,8,12,
15,21

24:4,7,12,
17 25:12,
13,15,22
26:4,7,10,
17,21 28:9
29:5,12,18
30:10,19,
22 31:2,5,
7,15,22,25

32	: 8,18,22
33:4,8,10,
15, 19
34:1,3,24
35 : 3

Kentucky

5:18

kidneys 8:21

kilowatts

17 : 4

kind 18:3

24	: 21

25:23 27:6
29:9 31:9

33	: 1

knockout

17 : 10

L1tonya

3:11,12
4:8,12,24
9:22

18 : 10,24
25:8 26:22
28:8 29:23
30:4,13
35:4

L-e-a-d

18 : 20

land 7:8,24

landfills

6:11

lanes 34:9

large 8:17

lastly 12 : 23

late 25:23
30 : 11

law 5:12

layer 10:10

lead 18:15,
17,19,20

learned 8:4,
7

leave 13:11

lethal 8:24

level 8:15
10 : 16
32 : 11

levels 9 :12

Liability

5 : 24

library

28:7,11

Linebaugh

6:19 7:18
11:4 24:5,

23	25 :15 -
34 : 8

liquid 10:6

list 6:9,12
19:13,16,
23,24
25:19

liter 10:17,

24

liver 8:22
load "8:11
local 6:25
located 6:18

locations

32 :17

long 11:8,
15 20:3,13
23:7 27:10

looked 22:9
29 : 20

lot 5:16,19
11:8

25:16,17,
20 26 :2,5
27 :25

29	: 15
31:10
33:22

lots 2 9:16

Louisville

5 : 18

Love 5:17
low 34:17
lungs 8:22

M

made 19:4

mailing 3 0:5

main 5:15
17:15

maintain

16 : 19

major 8:22
21 : 14

make 2 7:16
¦30:7

making 10:11

MAN 20:5
21:20
23:6,9,13
24:11

30	: 11

33 : 12 34 : 5

man1 s 22:4

manager 3:5,
15

www.huseby.com	Huseby, Inc. Regional Centers	800-333-2082

Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco


-------
IN RE: SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SUPERFUND SITE

Meeting on 02/06/2018	Index: manufacturing-owner

manufacturing

6 : 10

map 9 : 2

10 :21
23 : 22
24:18

mark 16:14
29:25

Matory 3:15

matrix 17:2

max 7 : 5

Maximum

32 : 11

MCL 32:11

Meaning

18 : 18

means 5:23
10 : 5

measure

12:13,16

meeting 3 :4

4 : 14

membranes

8:23

men 2 0:25

mentioned

8:2

mg/kg 8:16
9 : 10

16 : 11,20

Michael

30:15,20,

24 31:3,6,
10 32:6,
13,21 33:3

micro 2 9:12

micrograms

10:17,24

migrated

10 : 9

migration

10 : 14

million

13 : 24

14:13,23

17:4,6

minimal 22:5

mining 6:11

minute 2 5:7

mitigate

15	: 5

mixed 7:23
modify 12:10
money 2 7:25

monitor

16	: 13

monitoring

31:20

months 13:16
14:7,20

15	: 17

16	: 16
26:20,22

mosquitoes

29	: 16
moving 26:9
MPE 15:8
mucous 8:23
Multi 15:7

multiple

32 : 17

N

National 6 : 9

nationally

6 : 8

nature 2 6:9

29:21

needing

30	:17

neighborhood

25 : 11
34 : 15

nervous 8:21

Nice 24:13

notice 12 : 6

NPL 6:10

number 8:17

0

oak 3 3:10,

12

off-gases

15 : 11

office 7 : 7

offices

27	:12,24

offsite 7 : 3 ,

6 9:16
10:14 11:3
32 :2

one-story

7:11

online 2 8:19
onsite 17:19
open 18:6
operates 7 : 1

operator

17 : 19

option 13:6,
7,12,24
14:3,12,
18, 22
15 :2,3
20 :23

options 4:23
12:17 13:4

28	: 10

Organic 16:2

organisms

29	:13

organs 8:22

owner 3:17,
19,20,23
17 : 23
21:21

www.huseby.com	Huseby, Inc. Regional Centers	800-333-2082

Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco


-------
IN RE: SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SUPERFUND SITE

Meeting on 02/06/2018	Index: oxidation..purposes

oxidation

peak 16:10

12 : 7 31:21

problem 22:1

11 :25

penetrated

32 : 1

process 4:20



10 : 9

point 9 : 9

29 :23



P

people 2 5:4

points 9:7

3 0 :21





p.m. 3 5:6

30 : 8

polishing

processing

6 : 11

pad 7:20

perchloroethyl

13 :20

9:19

ene 6:24
16 : 5

pond 3 0:25

project 3 : 5

paint 7 : 6



.31:13

properties

painting

perform 6 : 5

33:6,21

31:1,14

12:21

34 : 12

property

3:24 7:2





parcel 7 : 8

Performance

ponds 3 3 : 23',

7:11,17,19

30 : 16

25 34 :4,5

11:1 13:13

parking 7:21

permanganate

portion

14 : 19

part 2 8:4,

12 : 1

12 :24

30:12,18,

20 30:7

r o

13:1,2

23 31:11,



person 5 : 2



17,20

partially

Phase 10:6

pot 17:10

32:14,19

12 : 5

15 :7

pounds 17:6

33:20

parties 6:4

phases 12 : 1

power 17:3,

proposed 4 : 3

passed 5 : 12

place 34:19

7, 18

12:15,18

past 8 : 3

plan 4:3,5

predominantly

26 : 16

pasture

12:15,18

7:22

proposing

34 : 19

16:14,18

preferred

4 : 6

paying 18:14

17 : 3,22

15 :2

protecting

26 : 16,25



21 : 15

PCE 6:25

27:3,18,23

premature

8:2,8,11,

31: 9

26 :14

provide 2 9:8

19,20 9:10

plans 27:4,6

present

public 3 :4

10:4,12

12 : 15

publicly

12:7 14 : 6

plants 6:11

presentation

4:9 18:2

28:22 29:5
published

15 :24
16:3,4

plateau

16 : 10

32 : 9



pretty 18:2

28 : 19

PCES 12 : 13

plenty 2 9:14

Priorities

pumped 17:11

16:4 21:19

plume 10:22

6 : 9

purposes

www.huseby.com	Huseby, Inc. Regional Centers	800-333-2082

Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco


-------
IN RE: SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SUPERFUND SITE

Meeting on 02/06/2018	Index: put..section

21 : 11

26 : 17

remember

rid 31:3

put 18:11

28:5,6

34 : 8

risk 2 7:7,

20 : 16

29:1

remove 19:16

20

23:14

rectangle

22 :21

risks 5:19

25:21

9 : 5





28 : 13



removed

roads 2 0:16,

red 9 : 6

11 :23

17

Q

reduction

removes

ROD 12:19,



33 :2,3

21 :25





24 26:17

QAWP 27:1

Reductive

removing

room 2 3:18

Quality

29 :19

16 : 13

rounds 11:25





27 : 2,18

reference

repair 17:23



question

28:11

24:9,22

rules 13:10

4 :10,11,25

regional

repairing

running 24:5

20:1 23:21

3 : 14

17:22

runoff 3 3:6

33 : 5

register

request 2 9:3

34:7,10,15

questions

28 :24

require 17:5

runs 2 8:13

18 : 7,8



25 :25

regrading

residential

Rutland

26:3,6

31 : 15

7 :23

3:14,20

34 :24

regulations

13 : 9

residual

26:13,23
28:4,9,18

quick 4 : 8

15 :24

29 :22

quickly 18:3

reign 32:15

response



reimburse

5 : 22,24

S



6 : 6





R

responsible

samples 9 : 7







releases





6 : 5

RA 26:24,25

8:8,10

restoration

32:5







rain 34:6

relocation

17 :21

sampling 9 : 7

rainwater

26 : 12



16 :12

retention

17:20

33 :22

remaining

30 :25





31 : 13

sand 34:20

reaches

13 : 22

16:10,11

remarks 4:15

33 : 21,23,

schematic

record 11:17

remedial 3 : 5

25 34 :4,5,
12

23 :22

12:11,19

26:19

section

18 :12





28 : 11

www.huseby.com	Huseby, Inc. Regional Centers	800-333-2082

Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco


-------
IN RE: SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SUPERFUND SITE

Meeting on 02/06/2018	Index: Security..Superfund

Security

24:24

send 25:10
29:24

series 11:25

Services 7 : 2

sheet 6:22

sheet-metal

7 : 12

shop 24:9,
12 , 22
32:2,9

showing 9:1,
2

shows 10:21
16 : 24

shut 15:19

sign 25:23
35 : 5

sign-in 6:22

sir 6:21

sit 21:24

site 4:20,
21, 22

6:16,18,23
7:8 8:1
9:3 11:5

18	: 17,21

19	: 12
21 : 12

sites 5:13,
15,20,22
6 :2,4,8,11

19 : 16,19
20:9 25:18

size 7:10
10 : 14

slab 7 : 12

8:9 .9 : 5, 13
10 :5,25
13:14,15
14:4 15:4

17	:22

slide 5:10
6:14 7:15,
2 5 8:25
9:17 10:20
11:6 12 : 9
13 : 3

14:17,24
16:23,24

18	:1

smaller 9 : 5

15 :3

Social 24:24

sodium 12:1

soil 8 : 3
12:3 13:1,
22 16:10
22 : 18
32 : 20

soils 11:23
15 :23

Solvents

3:21 4:4
6 : 15

source 15:4,

6 22 : 21
32 : 25

Southern

3:21 4:3
6 : 15

space 23:17

spaced 22:12

spans 10:13

speak	26:11,
12

speaks	12:11

spells	11:20

Spencer

3:11,12
4:8,12
9:22

18	: 10,24
25:8 26 :22
28:8 29 :23
30:4,13
35:4

spend 21:1

spills 8 : 7

spurred

19	: 11

square 15:21

standard

32 : 10

stands 16:1
27:2

state 9:23
14:25 15:1
18:10,24

30 : 14
32 : 10

state1s

32 : 11

Statement

28:20

stay 27:9
step 13:20
storage 8 : 9
stored 6:23
storm 34:6

strategy

12 : 10

street 19:9
24:3 32:10

streets

34 : 11

s tudy 13:5

stuff 2 5:21
32 :13

subsurface

8:14 12:7,
14 32:19

successful

12 : 6

suitable

31:17

summer 15:18

Superfund

3:9 4:6,20
5:11,25
6:3,18

www.huseby.com	Huseby, Inc. Regional Centers	800-333-2082

Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco


-------
IN RE: SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SUPERFUND SITE

Meeting on 02/06/2018	Index: supply..vapors

18 : 17
supply 17:3

supposed

9:20

surface

10 : 10

15:14 34:7
system 8:21

13:18,19
14:9,10
16:9,14
17:20 22 : 7
23 :16

tackle 12:25

takes 22:1
26 : 19

talk 4:5,6,
7,19,20,22.
8:18 14:17

talked 22:19

talking 3:25
29:10,24
30:1

Tampa 6:19

tank 17:11

tanker 8:10

tanks 8 : 9

taxpayer 6:1

technologies

23:4

technology

12:21 15:5

16	:25

17	: 16

telling 25:5

thermal

13:12
14:3,15

15	: 5

16	:21,24

22	: 6

thing 2 0:10

things 13:11
20:21 26:9

27	:3,7,22

28	: 19

thinking

32 :15,24

thousands

6:8 .

threshold

16 : 11

time 11:8,

15	21:18

23	: 7

tires 24:8,
22 30:16

today 12 :15

25:6

tonight . 25:7

total 13:23
14:12,23

16	: 11

touching

27:21

toxic 5:13,
16, 22

track 31:21

transcribing

4 : 14

transcriptioni
st 4:13
30 : 14

transferred

6:23

treated

15 : 12
17 : 13

treatment

11:24

13:12 14:4
17:11
32 : 18

trees 33:10,
12

triangles

9 : 6

trucks 8:11
turned 16:9

turning

16:14

Twenty 2 0:6

two-and-a-half

3:7

two-headed

33:13,16

two-year

29 :25

type 2 9:12,

20	30:20

types 27:3,

21

typical 13 : 8
U

Uh-hum 7 : 14

umbrella

16:3,7

understand

20:15

unload 8:11

unusable

31:11

update

28:24,25

Urgent 24:7,
23

utilities

17:18

Valley 5:17

vapor 12:3,4

13	: 19

14	: 10

15:10,11
17:8,12

vapors 15:12

www.huseby.com	Huseby, Inc. Regional Centers	800-333-2082

Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco


-------
IN RE: SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SUPERFUND SITE
Meeting on 02/06/2018

Index: vented..zoom

vented 17:13

Volatile

16 : 2

volume 15:23

W

wait 9:20
25 : 6

waiting 3:18

warehouses

7 : 7

waste 5:16
17 :21

water 10:7,8
17:6 21:8,
12 22:15
34:6,7

wells 15:8,9
21:7,12
31:20

West 6:19
7 : 17

wheels 24:9,
22

wide 7 : 9

Wilson 3:3,
5,13 4:2,

19	5:5,8
7 : 16 8:6
10:1,4
11:14,17,

20	14 : 3,15
15 :20

18:6,15,
17, 20
19:6,12,
15,18,22,

25	20:7,20
21:4,7,10,
14,19,21,

23	22 : 5,
10, 17

23:2,8,12,
15 ,21

24:4,7,12,

17	25:22
26:4,7,10,
21 29 : 12,

18	30:10,
19, 22
31:2,5,7,
15,22,25
32:8,18,22
33:4,8,10,
15, 19

34 : 1,3,24
35:3

wondering

20 : 12

words 3 3:21

work 7:3,6
12:21 22:2

26	:25
27:3,14, ¦
15,16,17,

24	28:21
31: 7,8,16

worked 14:25

workers 7 : 4

27:9

working

17 :23
23 :2,8,9

worry 22 :14

write 9:23

wrong 34:10

year 16:17

26	:20

years 3:7,8
19:20
20:5,6,17
23:3 26:19

27	: 5

yellow 7:18
• 10:25 32:3

York 5:17

you-all

11 : 12

zoom 7:16

www.huseby.com	Huseby, Inc. Regional Centers	800-333-2082

Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco


-------
APPENDIX F

Support Documents from 2017 Focused Feasibility Study


-------
US Army Corps of Engineers,
Savannah District

Southern Solvents Site

Tampa, Florida

Preliminary	Si

August 22, 2017
Revision 1


-------
About TerraTherm

A U.S. based company offering all major methods of subsurface heating:

-	In Situ Thermal Desorption (ISTD) via Thermal Conductive Heating (TCH)

-	Steam Enhanced Extraction (SEE)

-	Electrical Resistance Heating (ERH)

Completed 50 thermal projects worldwide either directly or through a Licensee
Meets treatment goals 100% of the time
TerraTherm Experience Modification Rating (EMR) history:
o 2015: 0.69
o 2014: 0.91
o 2013: 0.89
o 2012: 0.90

TERRATHERM

a Cascade Company

ADVISE | DESIGN | BUILD | OPERATE

2


-------
Site Background

Site Name: Southern Solvents Site
Site Location: Tampa, Florida

Site/Environmental Consultant: US Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District, Anna H Butler.

Objective: Obtain a conceptual cost to implement thermal remediation at the site.

Contaminants of Concern: Tetrachloroethylene (PCE), Trichloroethene (TCE) and cis-

1,2dichloroethene (DCE).

m

TERRATHERM

a Cascade Company

ADVISE | DESIGN | BUILD | OPERATE

3


-------
Site Location Map



ADVISE I DESI(5N I BUILD I OPERATE


-------
Geology and Hydrogeology

Geology: Grained sand, silt and clayey sands with an average thickness of 30 ft. The surficial aquifer
system extends from the water table to the intermediate semi-confining unit. The surficial aquifer system
ranges in thickness from 15 to 35 ft and is unconfined, except in localized areas where clay layers create
semi-confining conditions.

Hydrogeology: Water surface elevation is located at 7 ft bgs.

Assumed hydraulic conductivity value is approximately 0.85 feet/day (3.00x10"4 cm/sec).

Hydraulic gradient: A hydraulic gradient of 0.005 ft/ft was used for this evaluation.

W

TERRATHERM

a Cascade Company

ADVISE | DESIGN | BUILD | OPERATE

5


-------
Thermal Technologies Evaluated

Thermal Conduction Heating
(TCH IISTD)

For all sites with low to moderate groundwater
flow rates and either Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs) or Semi-Volatile Organic
Compounds (SVOCs).

Steam Enhanced Extraction
(SEE)

For permeable sites with significant
groundwater flow rates and for sites with either
volatile or moderately volatile contaminants.

Electrical Resistance Heating
(ERH)

For all sites with low to moderate groundwater
flow rates and either volatile or moderately
volatile contaminants.

temperature range 	

TERRATHERM

a Cascade Company

ADVISE | DESIGN | BUILD | OPERATE


-------
Thermal Technologies Evaluated

Note: ERH may also be a good thermal technology for the site. In the next design phase
TerraTherm will evaluate if ERH can be more cost effectively implemented at the site.

ADVISE 1 DESiGN 1 BUILD 1 OPERATE

Heating Method

Conduction

Steam injection, convection

Maximum Temperature

325-4OO'C (once dewatered)

100'C (boiling point)

100*C (boiling point)

Water

Soil thermal conductivity
(varies by a factor of 1 to 3
between most common
geologies)

Soil resistivity
(varies by a factor of more
than 200 for most common
geologies)

Hydraulic conductivity

Characteristics

Sensitivity to Contrasts
between Layers

Heat Input Governed By

Differences in water content
and flow may affect heating
rate

Aquitards not heated directly

Resistivity contrasts may

lead to uneven and
incomplete heating - long
electrodes may be inefficient

Steam


-------
Conceptual Treatment Scenarios

Treatment
Scenarios

Treatment
Area

Target Area
(ft2)

Target Depth
(ft bgs)

Target Volume
(CY)

Scenario 1

Area 1

12,825

0-50

23,750

Scenario 2

Area 2

5,193

0-50

9,617

W

TERRATHERM

a Cascade Company

ADVISE | DESIGN | BUILD | OPERATE

8


-------
Contaminants of Concern, Mass Estimate, and Remediation Goals

Contaminants of Concern: Tetrachloroethylene (PCE), Trichloroethene (TCE) and cis-1,2dichloroethene

(DCE).

Mass Estimate:

•	Treatment Scenario 1: 17,000 lbs.

•	Treatment Scenario 2: 7,470 lbs.

Remediation Goals: Mass reduction of at least 90%, achieving temperatures over 90 °C in all
thermocouples for at least 30 days.



Soil

Chemical Name

(mg/kg)



Target Level

c-1,2-DCE



PCE

1.0

TCE



TERRATHERM

a Cascade Company

ADVISE | DESIGN | BUILD | OPERATE

9


-------
Conceptual Treatment Approach/Methodology

Conceptual Treatment Approach:

Treatment Scenario 1 and 2

•	TCH using a heater spacing of 15 feet to target the boiling point of water

•	Soil vapor and steam extraction from multi-phase and horizontal extraction wells used to extract the
vaporized contaminants and steam and to maintain pneumatic and hydraulic control.

Vapor and Liquid Treatment Approach:

Treatment Scenario 1 and 2

•	Extracted liquid (condensate) and vapors to be treated using Granular Activated Carbon (GAC).

Monitoring:

•	Temperature and pressure monitoring to track subsurface heating, pneumatic, and hydraulic control.

•	Vapor and liquid treatment system monitoring for mass removal and discharge compliance.

TERRATHERM

a Cascade Company

ADVISE | DESIGN | BUILD | OPERATE

10


-------
Treatment Approach - Equipment: Scenario 1 and 2

TerraTherm is proposing to utilize our Tier-One
containerized equipment for this site since it meets the
following conditions:

Smaller treatment zones
Simple geology
Modest chemical mass
Expedited regulatory process
Well-defined objectives
Volatile contaminants (such as CVOCs)

Optimal, efficient, cost-effective solution:
Simplified design process
Expedited permitting
Simple heater borings
Standard heating systems
Pre-engineered treatment systems
Duration optimized based on monitoring
Simplified reporting

TERRATHERM

a Cascade Company

ADVISE I DESIGN I BUILD I OPERATE

11


-------
Treatment Area Map - Treatment Scenario 1


-------
Treatment Area Map - Treatment Scenario 2

OpOons 3: DNAPL Source Zone Treatmenl
5,193 sq fl X 50 (Ml depth
= 2S9,€50 cubic yards of sod
Remedial Goat 10 mgftg

Treatment Area 2:

Approximate Target
Treatment Area
(5,193 ft2)

A

'*sr





Legend

a Sot Boring Locations
ONAPL Source Zone

a

Property Boundary

	Cross-Secttor Locations

B12-Boring ID
15 - Max PCE concentration
meacfibomg mp*g

0 5 10 20

Optioe 3

DNAPL Source Zone
Thermal Treatment Area
Souihein Solvents SupeTftmd Site
Tampa Florida
October 2015 I Figure

TEaCa^JcS!?yM	ADVISE I DESIGN I BUILD ' 0PERATE	"


-------
Cross Section (North - South): Treatment Scenarios 1 and 2

ADVISE | DESIGN | BUILD | OPERATE

Treatment Depth
0.0 - 50.0 ft bgs

TERRATHERM

a Cascade Company

Treatment Area 1 and 2:


-------
Cross Section (North - South): Treatment Scenarios 1 and 2

* 5 ft heater stick down.

Groundwater
Surface

Approximate Depth
7 ft bgs

Treatment Area 1 and 2:

Treatment Depth
0.0 - 50.0 ft bgs

Horizontal Extraction Wells

ADVISE | DESIGN | BUILD | OPERATE

Vapor Cap

TERRATHERM

a Cascade Company


-------
Schematic of Typical TCH Site: Treatment Scenarios 1 and 2

Treated vapor
to atmosphere

Power Supply

Target

temperature at
centroids

Temperature and pressure
monitoring holes (1 of many)

Treatment area footprint

TERRATHERM

a Cascade Company

ADVISE | DESIGN | BUILD | OPERATE

16


-------
Conceptual Process Flow Diagram: Vapor and Liquid Treatment System:
Treatment Scenarios 1 and 2

Vapors to
atmosphere

Condenser

Vapor and
entrained _
liquid from
well-field

Cooling

water

return

Cooling
water

Pumped
liquid from
well-field

TERRATHERM

a Cascade Company

NAPL tank

ADVISE | DESIGN | BUILD | OPERATE

Water to
discharge 1


-------
I

Treatment Scenario 1

A.

TERRATHERM

a Cascade Company

ADVISE ( DESIGN I BUILD | OPERATE

18


-------
Conceptual Design Parameters/Treatment Outputs:
Treatment Scenario 1

Southern Solvents Site (T. Scenario 1)



USACE

Volume and heat capacity

Area 1

Unit

Treatment area

12,825

ft2

Upper depth of treatment

-

ft bgs

Lower depth of treatment

50

ft bgs

Volume, TFZ

23,750

yd3

Solids volume

15,438

yd3

Porosity

0.35



Porosity volume

8,313

yd3

Initial saturation

96

percent

Soil weight

68,933,198

lbs soil

Water weight

13,437,071

lbs water

Soil heat capacity

17,233,299

BTU/F

Water heat capacity

13,437,071

BTU/F

Total heat capacity, whole TTZ

30,670,370

BTU/F

TERRATHERM

a Cascade Company

ADVISE | DESIGN | BUILD | OPERATE

19


-------
Conceptual Design Parameters/Treatment Outputs (Continued):
Treatment Scenario 1

Southern Solvents Site (T. Scenario 1)



USACE

Energy balance

Area 1

Unit

TCH power input rate

1,331

kW

Water extraction rate during heatup

0,3

gpm

Average extracted water temperature

190

F

Percent of injected energy extracted as steam

30

%

Steam extracted, average

1,403

Ibs/hr

Energy flux into treatment volume

4,540,591

BTU/hr

Energy flux in extracted groundwater

22,475

BTU/hr

Energy flux in extracted steam

1,362,177

BTU/hr

Net energy flux into treatment volume

3,155,939

BTU/hr

Heating per day

2.5

F/day

Start temperature

50

F

Target temperature

244

F

Estimated heat loss, worst case

35

%

Operating time

Shake-down

5

days

Heating to boiling point

88

days

Boiling and drying

91

days

Heating to target temperature

7

days

Sampling/analysis phase

5

days

Post treatment vapor extraction

14

days

Total operating time

210

days

TERRATHERM

a Cascade Company

ADVISE | DESIGN | BUILD | OPERATE

20


-------
Conceptual Design Parameters/Treatment Outputs (Continued):
Treatment Scenario 1

Southern Solvents Site (T. Scenario 1)

Numbers of wells

Area 1

Heater borings, regular application
Multiphase extraction well, pumping
Horizontal SVE wells
Temperature monitoring holes

88
23
20
8

Southern Solvents Site (T. Scenario 1)

USACE



Process equipment

Value

Unit

ISTD power supply

1,330

kW

Treatment system power supply

150

kW

Total power need to site

1,850

kW

Estimated total electric load

2,300

kVA

Vapor extraction rate, total

1,000

scfm

Non-condensable vapor

500

scfm

Estimated steam extraction

500

scfm

Liquid extraction rate

1.1

gpm

Condensed liquid rate

2.8

gpm

Water treatment rate

3.9

gpm

Vapor treatment type

GAC w1 gas conditioning



Dominant contaminant of concern

Tetrachloroethene (PCE)



Estimated COC mass

17,000

lbs

Estimated COC mass treated by vapor system

16,830

lbs

Estimated COC mass treated by water system

170

lbs

Estimated max mass removal rate, vapor system

180

lbs/day

TERRATHERM

a Cascade Company

ADVISE | DESIGN | BUILD | OPERATE

21


-------
Conceptual Utility Requirements and Cost:
Treatment Scenario 1



mssm

Power usage, in ground

6,167,000

kWh

Power usage, treatment system

757,000

kWh

Power usage, total

6,924,000

kWh



Design and Procurement

$140,000

Construction and Operation

$2,830,000

Utilities, paid by client

$760,000

Total

$3,740,000

Cost for operating per 30 days is approximately $80,000 for equipment and
operational labor plus approximately $100,000 for utilities, totalizing $180,000.

W

TERRATHERM

a Cascade Company

ADVISE | DESIGN | BUILD | OPERATE

22


-------
Treatment Scenario 2

ADVISE | DESIGN | BUILD | OPERATE	23


-------
Conceptual Design Parameters/Treatment Outputs:
Treatment Scenario 2

Southern Solvents Site (T. Scenario 2)



USACE

Volume and heat capacity

Area 2

Unit

Treatment area

5,193

ft2

Upper depth of treatment

-

ft bgs

Lower depth of treatment

50

ft bgs

Volume, TTZ

9,617

yd3

Solids volume

6,251

yd3

Porosity

0.35



Porosity volume

3,366

yd3

Initial saturation

96

percent

Soil weight

27,911.898

lbs soil

Water weight

5,440,835

lbs water

Soil heat capacity

6,977,975

BTU/F

Water heat capacity

5,440,835

BTU/F

Total heat capacity, whole TTZ

12,418,809

BTU/F

TERRATHERM

a Cascade Company

ADVISE | DESIGN | BUILD I OPERATE

24


-------
Conceptual Design Parameters/Treatment Outputs (Continued):
Treatment Scenario 2

Southern Solvents Site (T. Scenario 2)



USACE

Energy balance

Area 2

Unit

TCH power input rate

590

kW

Water extraction rate during heatup

0.3

gpm

Average extracted water temperature

190

F

Percent of injected energy extracted as steam

30

%

Steam extracted, average

622

Ibs/hr

Energy flux into treatment volume

2,012,307

BTU/hr

Energy flux in extracted groundwater

22,475

BTU/hr

Energy flux in extracted steam

603,692

BTU/hr

Net energy flux into treatment volume

1,386,140

BTU/hr

Heating per day

2.7

F/day

Start temperature

50

F

Target temperature

244

F

Estimated heat loss, worst case

43

%

Operating time

Shake-down

5

days

Heating to boiling point

87

days

Boiling and drying

90

days

Heating to target temperature

7

days

Sampling/analysis phase

5

days

Post treatment wapor extraction

14

days

Total operating time

207

days

9

TERRATHERM

a Cascade Company

ADVISE | DESIGN | BUILD | OPERATE

25


-------
Conceptual Design Parameters/Treatment Outputs (Continued):
Treatment Scenario 2

Southern Solvents Site (T. Scenario 2)



Numbers of wells

Area 2

Heater borings, regular application

39

Multiphase extraction well, pumping

10

Horizontal SVE wells

8

Temperature monitoring holes

5

Southern Solvents Site (T. Scenario 2)

USACE



Process equipment

Value

Unit

ISTD power supply

590

kW

Treatment system power supply

50

kW

Total power need to site

800

kW

Estimated total electric load

1,000

kVA

Vapor extraction rate, total

440

sctm

Non-condensable \apor

220

sctm

Estimated steam extraction

220

scfm

Liquid extraction rate

1.1

gpm

Condensed liquid rate

1.2

gpm

Water treatment rate

2.3

gpm

Vapor treatment type

GAC w/ gas conditioning



Dominant contaminant of concern

Tetrachloroethene (PCE)

_

Estimated COC mass

7,470

lbs

Estimated COC mass treated by vapor system

7,395

lbs

Estimated COC mass treated by water system

75

lbs

Estimated max mass removal rate, vapor system

80

lbs/day

TERRATHERM

a Cascade Company

ADVISE | DESIGN | BUILD | OPERATE

26


-------
Conceptual Utility Requirements and Cost:
Treatment Scenario 2

Southern Solvents Site (T. Scenario 2)

USACE



Utilitv estimates

Value

Unit

Power usage, in ground

2,683,000

kWh

Power usage, treatment system

249,000

kWh

Power usage, total

2,932,000

kWh

Southern Soivents^Stte (T Scenario 2)

Design and Procurement

$120,000

Construction and Operation

$1,870,000

Utilities, paid by client

$320,000

Total

$2,310,000

Cost for operating per 30 days is approximately $70,000 for equipment and
operational labor plus approximately $40,000 for utilities, totalizing $110,000.

9

TERRATHERM

a Cascade Company

ADVISE | DESIGN | BUILD | OPERATE

27


-------
Cost Summary

Treatment

Target Volume

Cost

Scenarios







(CY)

$

Scenario 1

23,750

$3,740,00

Scenario 2

9,617

$2,310,00


-------
Notes/Assumptions: Southern Solvents Site

Assumptions:

•	Price:

•	+/- 30% price accuracy based on current understanding of preliminary Conceptual Site Model (CSM) as stated
in this treatment concept

•	Unit power cost assumed: $0.11/kWh

•	Turn-Key services:

•	Design/procurement/permitting (permitting managed by US Army Corps of Engineers, TerraTherm supports the
process)

•	Construction

•	Operations (site and office support)

•	Demobilization

•	Reporting

•	Construction:

•	250 ft/day drilling production assumed for Scenarios 1 and 2.

•	Electrical and mechanical connections above grade

•	Operations

•	Standard:

•	Treatment Scenario 1 and 2: Field Crew (1.0 persons on average) housed within 30 minutes drive to
the site

•	Office support: Project Management and Engineering

•	Demobilization

•	Bringing site back to as near to starting conditions as possible:

o Grouting up wells
o Removal of all equipment
o Overdrilling of wells is excluded



ADVISE I DESIGN I BUILD I OPERATE	29


-------
Possible Next Step: Southern Solvents Site

Basis of Design Report (BODR):

TerraTherm would be pleased to provide a proposal for preparation of the BODR (or
alternatively for preparation of the detailed design effort as described below) for the project.

The BODR includes the following:

•	Site visit and meeting

•	Thermal modeling and refinement of thermal treatment concept(s)

•	Evaluation of data gaps

•	Risk/uncertainty evaluation

•	Define exact scope of work for key project tasks (responsibility matrix)

•	Comparison of multiple treatment scenarios (if applicable)

•	Firm price cost estimate

The price for this deliverable can range from $25,000 to $30,000.

For further information, please contact Nate Bierschenk at 978.730.1200 Ext. 2611.

TERRATHERM

a Cascade Company

ADVISE | DESIGN | BUILD | OPERATE

30


-------

-------
ET-DSP™

Electro-Thermal
Dynamic Stripping Process

Preliminary Cost Estimate-005
Southern Solvents Superfund Site

Tampa, Florida

llan-McGee Corp

Prepared For:

~ CTQBER 3D, 2D 1 V


-------
Preliminary Cost Estimate-005

TM

ET-DSP In-situ Thermal Remediation
Southern Solvents Superfund Site
Options 2 & 3
Tampa, Florida

Notices

n providing this document, Mc! has relied on information provided by others. This estimate
s preliminary in nature. Should circumstances and / or information change, Mc2 may revise
any or all aspects of this Cost Estimate In consideration of such changes.

Vlc2 USA Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of McMillan-McGee Corp.

This is a confidential document prepared by McMillan-McGee Corp. for the exclusive use of
he intended party and specific to the project noted above. It is not to be reproduced,
jistributed or made available, in whole or in part, to any person, company, or organization
ather than the intended party without the written permission of McMillan-McGee Corp.

illan-McGee Corp

McMillan-McGee Corp.
4895 - 35B Street SE
Calgary, Alberta T2B 3M9 Canada
Ph: 403.279.7948
Fx: 403.272.7201
Web: www.mcmillan-mcgee.com

Point of Contact
Mr. Brent Winder, BA, B.S.Sc., MBA
Ph: 403.569.5103
Email: brent.winder@mcmillan-mcgee.com

Point of Contact 2
Dr. Bruce McGee, PhD, PEng.

Ph: 403.569.5101
Email: bruce.mcgee@mcmillan-mcgee.com

.... '



Prepared For:

October 3D, ZO 1 7


-------


1. Executive and Technical Summary

McMillan-McGee Corp. (Mc2) is pleased to provide this budgetary cost
proposal and preliminary technical design summary to the Army Corps of
Engineers (ACE) to install and operate an ET-DSP™ thermal
remediation system at the Southern Solvents Superfund Site in Tampa,
Florida.

ACE has been brought in to support a project in Tampa, Florida that
might be a good candidate for thermal remediation. ACE has been
tasked to develop remedial alternatives and has contacted Mc2 and
requested budgetary, turnkey pricing for this project.

Therefore, we have developed a design basis and costs that are both
conservative and realistic so that ACE will have accurate data to present
to their client. Mc2 will bring the appropriate design tools and provide
ACE with the necessary support and equipment to complete the thermal
remediation project in a professional, timely, and cost-effective manner
for their client.

ACE will be provided with a solution that includes the most experienced
design professionals, local and qualified equipment providers, and highly
competent installation and operations personnel to ensure that the
project is completed as expeditiously and safely as possible. Mc2 has
completed numerous thermal remediation projects in the Tampa area
both on time and on budget.

This proposal has been based on preliminary information provided to Mc2
along with experience on similar remediation projects. Although every
attempt has been made to be conservative with the design basis and
associated costs a more thorough review of the site conditions and
conversations with various subcontractors will be required.

This estimate provides the following information for each of two treatment
scenarios:

1 .A technical design summary basis for the costs provided;

2.	A preliminary well field layout;

3.	A preliminary schedule; and

4.	A cost estimate and the basic assumptions.

We have evaluated the site data provided by the Army Corps of
Engineers and are eager to begin work immediately on this very exciting
opportunity.

October 30, 2017
Confidential

McMillan-McGee

ET-DSP™ Estimate - Southern Solvents -Option2/3-05


-------
Mc'

M|.||

1.1. Technical Design Summary - Option 2 (Large Area)

Table 1 presents the major technical design parameters used to develop
the cost estimate for Option 2.

Table 1 Technical design summary - Option 2

Comments

Site Characteristics

Treatment Area [ft2]

Heated Volume [yd3]

Deep Extent of Treatment [ft. B^01
Shallow Extent of Treatment [ft. BGS]
Depth to Groundwater [ft. BGS]
Contaminants of Concern
Mass Estimate [lbs]

Remedial Goals [mg/kg]

Soil Resistivity (ohm-m)

Approximate; scaled from a figure provided by ACE

Treatment area x 55' depth interval
per supplied information
0	Treatment assumed close to surface

ion supplied by ACE
VOCs Primarily PCE, TCE, cis-1,2-DCE

| > Preliminary estimate provided by ACE



1.0
50-200

Latest goals from ACE, assumes total VOCs
Estimate, requires measurement in Mc thermal lab

Remedial Approach

ET-DSP™ Electrode Locations



51

8" OD, 10-12' long, 3/boring, ET-DSP™ HT design

Power Delivery Systems [kVA]

ii f-

3x1330

Web power control, 480V primary, multi-tap sec.

digiTAM™ Temp. Sensors



255

15 strings, 17 temp, sensors at 3' intervals

Electrode Spacing [ft.]

IBS

20

Based on expected resistivity, electrode layout

Bottom of Electrode [ft. BGS]



-55

Preliminary, dependent on resistivity data

Top of Electrode [ft. BGS]

ihr

-4

Preliminary, conductive heat transfer above

Target Temperature [°C]



-100

Avg. in treatment zone, steam stripping of COCs

MPE Extraction Wells - Vertical

H!

18

4" SS304 cont. wire wrap well screen or FRP,
0.010" slot size, C/W slurp tubes, possibly nested

VES Wells - Horizontal [ft]	650	2" Slotted FRP, set at 3-ft BGS in 12" trench

Vapor Recovery Air Flow [scfm]	400-500 Assumes 7'vadose and >10 PVX/day

Vapor Treatment Method	TBD Dependent on mass & abatement requirements

Liquid Treatment Method	AS/LGAC Air stripper, granular activated carbon

Vapor Cap [ft2]	17,285 Cellular concrete type, approximate R6



Summary

Information

Cumulative Energy Input [MW-Hr]

-5,878

Cumulative estimate based on 225 kWhr/yd3

Electrical Power Input [kW]

-1,360

Avg. for project duration, peak = -2000 kW
Service: 3 phase, 480V, 3000 A, 2500 kVA

Water Demand [gpm]

-16

-0.1 gpm/electrode, Re-circulation design

Time to Target Temp, [days]

-60

Approximately

Project Duration [days]

180

Base case for expected conditions

October 30, 2017
Confidential

McMillan-McGee

ET-DSP™ Estimate - Southern Solvents -Option2/3-05


-------
MC



1.2. Technical Design Summary - Option 3 (Small Area)

Table 2 presents the major technical design parameters used to develop
the cost estimate for Option 3.

Table 2 Technical design summary - Option 3

Units

Site Characteristics

Comments

Treatment Area [ft2]

Heated Volume [yd3]

Deep Extent of Treatment [ft.

Shallow Extent of Treatment [ft. BGS]
Depth to Groundwater [ft. BGS]
Contaminants of Concern
Mass Estimate [lbs]

Remedial Goals [mg/kg]

Soil Resistivity (ohnvm)

5,200 Approximate; scaled from a figure provided by ACE

10,592 Treatment area x 55' depth interval

55 ™8jj As!

0	Treatment assumed close to surface

Information supplied by ACE
Primarily PCE, TCE, cis-1,2-DCE

<¦ f-*,			

Preliminary estimate provided by ACE

Latest goals from ACE, assumes total VOCs

VOCs

1.0

50-200 Estimate, requires measurement in Mc2 thermal lab

ET-DSP™ Electrode Locations
Power Delivery Systems [kVAl
digiTAM™ Temp. Sensors
Electrode Spacing [ft.]

Bottom of Electrode [ft. BGS]
Top of Electrode [ft. BGS]
Target Temperature [°C]

28	8" OD, 10' long, 3/boring, ET-DSP™ HT design

1.5 x 1330	Web power control, 480V primary, multi-tap sec.

96	6 strings, 16 temp, sensors at 3' intervals

20	Based on expected resistivity, electrode layout

-50	Preliminary, dependent on resistivity data

|€®Ps'	Preliminary, conductive heat transfer above

-100	Avg. in treatment zone, steam stripping of COCs



Vapor/Liquid Extraction Wells

41 4" SS304 cont. wire wrap well screen or FRP,
flrf 0.010" slot size, C/W slurp tubes, possibly nested

Vapor Recovery Air Flow [scfm]

200-250 Assumes 7' vadose and >10 PVX/day

Vapor Treatment Method

VGAC Dependent on mass & abatement requirements

Liquid Treatment Method

AS/LGAC Air stripper, granular activated carbon

Vapor Cap [ft2]

7,500 Cellular concrete type, approximate R6

Summary Information

Cumulative Energy Input [MW-Hr]
Electrical Power Input [kW]

Water Demand [gpm]

Time to Target Temp, [days]

Project Duration [days]

-2,383

18X1 -

Cumulative estimate based on 225 kWhr/yd3

Avg. for project duration, peak = -827 kW
Service: 3 phase, 480V, 1200 A, 1000 kVA

-0.1 gpm/electrode, Re-circulation design

pproximately

• ¦ ¦

Base case for expected conditions

October 30, 2017
Confidential

McMillan-McGee
ET-DSP™ Estimate - Southern Solvents -Option2/3-05


-------
ESI

4

1.3.	Well Field Layout

A preliminary well field layout is presented in Appendix A for each of the
two treatment scenarios as provided by ACE. The layout has not been
optimized for possible obstacles such as buildings and utilities but does
portray a standard arrangement of electrode, extraction, and sensor
wells. This conservative design basis has been conceptualized based on
the following design parameters:

1.	Electrodes on 20-foot centers throughout the treatment zone. The

ET-DSP™ electrodes provide the 3 dominant heat transfer
mechanism of electrical heating, conductive heating, and
convective heat transfer. These electrodes can be spaced further
apart, use less energy, and heat more uniformly than standard
electrodes.

2.	Dedicated extraction wells on dense spacing to maximize

contaminant removal efficiencies. Extraction wells are not co-
located with electrodes. This maximizes vapour removal,
enhances total fluid/DNAPL recovery, augments the heating
process, and eliminates short-circuiting.

3.	Dense temperature sensor well spacing to optimize thermal

operations. Sensors spaced throughout the formation and not just
beside electrodes and at 3-foot intervals will ensure that there are
no cold spots and that the co-boiling point of the water/COC
mixture is achieved everywhere.

1.4.	Technology Description - Video

A short video that explains the ET-DSP™ process and its application at
an existing site can be found at the following Youtube link:

https://www.youtube. com/watch ?v=RAMDw9n9AoE

October 30, 2017
Confidential

McMillan-McEee

ET-DSP™ Estimate - Southern Solvents -Option2/3-05


-------
5

2. Schedule of Work

A detailed schedule for project completion is unavailable at this time.
However, a general timetable is presented below. Mc2 will perform a
numerical simulation to validate the preliminary design criteria during the
next stage of the project.

Table 3 Preliminary schedule

Duration

Notes

Remedial Design & Work Plan 4-6 weeks ^or,e	re^uired from client t0

finalize this task

6-10 weeks Drilling, vapour cap, surface connections

level of cor

nearby buildings and overall grounding





Operations & Maintenance

Initial estimate based on supplied
~6 months information. Final determination after the
numerical simulation.

1-2 weeks Electrodes remain in place but all other
I- Jj - >« | l/rW®6 recoverable equipment isramnu^

Final Report

ACE responsible for the final report but
4-6 weeks Mc2 would provide all relevant ET-DSP™
operational data.

October 30, 2017
Confidential

McMillan-McGee

ET-DSP™ Estimate - Southern Solvents -Option2/3-05


-------
o

6

3. Costs

The following tables present the cost estimate to install and operate the
ET-DSP™ system at the site for each of the treatment scenarios. This
estimate is based on the Mc2 scope of work to provide the ET-DSP™
equipment and services. A conservative estimate for energy costs
(based on $0.10/kWHr) has also been included.

All costs related to the Mc2 scope of work have been estimated with a
high degree of accuracy. However, the following list presents the major
cost items that have been estimated based on previous experience:

1.	Permitting;

2.	Drilling program & waste management;

3.	Power drop/utility connection;

4.	Extraction and Treatment system;

5.	General site operations and maintenance; and

6.	Confirmatory sampling.

The following cost table is presented with two elements. The first
includes a very precise depiction of Mc2's costs. The second part
provides estimates for the tasks that are typically considered the
responsibility of others.

October 30, 2017
Confidential

McMillan-McGee

ET-DSP™ Estimate - Southern Solvents -Option2/3-05


-------
MC

i

3.1. Cost Estimate - Option 2 (Large Area)

The following table provides for the estimated costs to complete the
12,825 ft2 area known as Option 2.

Table 4 Cost estimate - Option 2

Cost Items

1	Electrical Profiling

2	Modeling & Remedial Design

3	System Installation

4	Acceptance Testing

5	Operation & Maintenance

6	Demobilization

7	Final Report

Other Cost Elements - Estimated

1	Drilling

Electrodes
Extraction Wells
Sensor Wells
Waste

Abandonment

2	Construction/Civil

Piping/Manifold
Vapor Cap/Civil
Power Drop/Connection
Utilities

Electricity
Water
Fuel

5	Operator, On-Site

6	DPE/MPE System

7	Conf. Sampling/Reporting

8	Waste Disposal

9	Removals & Restoration

Units

Qty

Cost

Item Subtotal

1

4,652

4,652

1.0

44,217

44,217

1.0

912,760

912,760

1

28,665

28,665

1

472,723

472,723

I

84,415
0

84,415







1,547,431

3

4

¦¦ ¥

Subtotal

280,500
126,360
39,000
7,070
8,400

69,000
115,425

100,000

: ¦¦ ¦

Project Total

587,812
17,701

90,000
425,000
25,000
25,000
25,000

3,488,699

October 30, 2017
Confidential

McMillan-MoEee
ET-DSP™ Estimate - Southern Solvents -Option2/3-05


-------
Mc'



3.2. Cost Estimate - Option 3 (Small Area)

The following table provides for the estimated costs to complete the
5,200 ft2 area known as Option 3.

Table 5 Cost estimate - Option 3

Cost Items

1	Electrical Profiling

2	Modeling & Remedial Design

3	System Installation

4	Acceptance Testing

5	Operation & Maintenance

6	Demobilization

7	Final Report

Other Cost Elements - Estimated

1	Drilling

Electrodes
Extraction Wells
Sensor Wells
Waste

Abandonment

2	Construction/Civil

Piping/Manifold
Vapor Cap/Civil

3	Power Drop/Connection

4	Utilities

Electricity
Water
Fuel

5	Operator, On-Site

6	DPE/MPE System

7	Conf. Sampling/Reporting

8	Waste Disposal

9	Removals & Restoration

Subtotal - Other

Units

Item Subtotal

15,000
325,000
15,000
12,500
12,500



154,000
77,220
15,600
3,828
4,500

43,000
46,800
35,000

238,333
9,718

90,000
325,000
15,000
12,500
12,500

1,083,000

Project Total

2,021,516

October 30, 2017
Confidential

McMillan-McBee

ET-DSP™ Estimate - Southern Solvents -Option2/3-05


-------
2

Mc	"	1

Appendix A - Preliminary Site Layout

October 30, 2017
Confidential

McMillani-McQee

ET-DSP™ Estimate - Southern Solvents -Option2/3-05


-------
MW-iK
NDug/L

MW-5
59000 ug/L

IMW-11R-
' 45000 03,1

Option 2: Clean up to 1.01
2,800 ft sq X 50 ft = 24.1
Performance Goal = 1.0 m

EPA-6i '
80000 lA

MW-3R
520 ug/l.

EPA-3	

3100 ug/L

WFL-01

ET-DSP*" Well Field Layout
Preliminary - For Review a Discussion Purposes Only

0 85

ug/L

mglkg

000

mg/kg

EPA

7.6

ug/L

EPA-2

ug/L


-------

-------

-------

-------
Project Information

Southern Solvents
Chy, State
pofisblni step around bldg.
Prepared for:
USACE-Anna Butler

Target Treatment Zone (TTZ) Info

Treatment Area
Top Treat Depth
Bot Treat Depth
Vertical Treatment Interval
Treatment Zone Volume
Treatment Zone Volume
Soil Type
Porosity

Effective Porosity

Treatment Zone Pore Volume

Treatment Zone Effective Pore Volume

Fraction Organic Cartoon {foe)

Soil Density

Soil Oenslty

Soil Weight

Hydraulic Conductivity

Hydraulic Conductivity

Hydraulic Gradient

GW Velocity

SW Velocity

Sources of 3-D Microemulsion Demand

Dissolved Phase Mass
Sorbed Phase Contaminant Mass
Competing Electron Acceptor Mass
Stoichiometric SOME Demand
TTZ Groundwater Mass Flux
CVOC Mass Flu* through TTZ
CEA Mass Flux through TTZ
Total Mass Flux through TO
Total Mass Flux 3DME Demand

12,825
6,0
43.0
37.0
474,525
17,575
silty sand with clay
0.35
0.15
1,242,393
532,454
0.005
1.67
104
4.9E+07

1.2
4.23E-04
0.050
0.40
146

62
33,472
933
34,485
6,286
30
4S6
486
1,484

3-D Microemulsion to be Applied
CRS to be Applied
BOI Plus to be Applied
HRC Primer to be Applied	

REGENESIS

3-D Microemulsion*, BDI* Plus, CRS* Application Design

polishing step around bldg.

Application Method	Direct Push

Spacing Within Rows (ft)	18

Spacing Between Rows (It)	25

Application Points	29

Areal Extent (square ft)	12,825

Top Application Depth (ft bgs)	6

Bottom Application Depth (ft bgs)	43

3DME to be Applied (lbs)	40,000

3DME to be Applied (gals)	4,793

SDMEMix*	7%

Volume Water (gals)	63,682

3PME Mix Volume (gals)		68,476

CRS to be Applied (lbs)

CRS Volume (pis)

8DI Pius to be Applied (L)
BDI Mix Water Volume (gals)
HRC Primer to be Applied (lbs)
HRC Primer Volume (gals)

Total Application
Estimated Radius of

16,000
1.826

	J-	

Field App. Instructions

Input special application instructions
her* as needed.

Field Mixing Ratios

3DME Concentrate per Pt (lbs)
1379

Mix Water per Pt (gals)
2196

30ME Mix Volume per Pt (gals)
2361

CRS Volume per Pt (gals)
63

BDI Volume per Pt (L)
7.0

HRC Primer per Pt (lbs)
0

Volume per pt (gals)
2496

Volume per vertical ft (gals)
67

Prepo/wdfly: OaP$7174
Dot*. 1/14/2017
1 	1,, FMIB Assumptions/Qualifications

In generating this preliminary estimate, Regenesls relied upon professional judgment and site specific
information provided by others. Using this information as input, we performed calculations based upon
known chemical and geologic relationships to generate an estimate of the mass of product and subsurface
placement required to affect remediation of the site.


-------
m REGENESIS

Purchasing Information	Currently Available Packaging Options

Southern Snivpnr

-

polishing step around bldg

T-"





3-D Microemulsion Required
CRS Required
BOI Plus Required
HRC Primer Required

lbs
lbs
liters
lbs

40,000
16,000
202
0

3DME Package Type***

400 lb poly drums
2,000 lb reinforced plastic totes

#of packages

100
20

lbs teouired

40,000
40,000

3-D Microemulsion Cost*
CRS Cost

$
$

$121,600
$37,600

CRS Package TVoe***

400-lb poly drums

ft of package

40

lbs reouired

16,000

BDI Plus Cost
HRC Primer Cost
Total Product Cost

s
$
$

$34,340
SQ

$193,540

BDI plus Package Tvoe***

18-1 kegs

# of packages

12

I reouired

202

Estimated Tax and Freight %

Estimated Tax and Freight Cost*
Estimated Total Product Cost

%
s
$

1SX
$29.031
$222,571

HRC Primer Package Tvoe***

30-lb pails

# of packages

0

l required

0

Estimated RRS Application Cost

$

$108,410







Total Estimated Project Cost**

$

$330,981







Estimated RRS Days to Apply — 18

•Note that the combined tax and freight costs ate preliminary estimates only. Please
contact your local sales manager or Customer Service at 949-366-8000 to obtain a
shipping quote. You will be asked to provide a ship-to address and estimated time of
delivery.

**Total Project cost is only an estimate; actual protect cost
proposal are developed.

*•* Available Package Types are subject to change.

may change as the final scope and/or RRS


-------
TABLE C-l

FEASABILITY STUDY COST ESTIMATE FOR THERMAL TREATMENT

FOR RAO ZONE

COST DESCRIPTION



Unit

rate

ESTIMATED COST

SIB-TOTALS

I. DIRECT CAPITAL COSTS1











1) Building Demolition and Replacement, site restoration

1

LS



$175,000 00



2) Abandon exisiting vertical and horizontal PVC wells, move utilities.

1

LS



$49,230.00



3) Tennant Relocation

10,000

mo

12

$120,000.00



4) Mob/Demob

1

LS



$85,000.00



5) Drilling

1

LS



$354,200.00



5) System Installation (ERH and MPE)

1

LS



$1,271,054.00



6) Power Drop

1

LS



$100,000.00



7) Operation and Maintenance of Systems

1

LS



$591,388.00



8) Utlities Electric

5,878,122

kWH

0 100

$587,812.20



9) Utilites Water

4,762,682

gal

0.004

$19,050.73



10) Confirmation Sampling - Soil

1

LS



$25,000.00



11) Heater and MPE Well Abandonment

1

LS



$35,000.00



12) ERD Polishing Step within 12,000 sq ft Treatment Area - 2 applications

2

event

$331,000

$662,000.00



























TOTAL DIRECT CAPITAL COSTS









$4,074,735













II. INDIRECT CAPITAL COSTS (Per Cent of Direct Capitol Costs)
1) CERCLA Work Plans and Regulatory Interface (5%)

5%





$203,737



2) Engineering Design and Specifications (10%)2

10%





$407,473



3) Permitting, Bonding, and Insurance (2%)

2%





$81,495



4) Engineering Oversight (8%)

8%





$325,979



5) System Reporting - As Built and Operations (5%)

5%





$203,737



























TOTAL INDIRECT CAPITAL COSTS























III. ANNUAL LTM











1) Install Monitoring Wells for LTM

1

LS



$66,088



2) LTM for 10 yrs, once per year, 12 wells.One report per year 3

1

LS



$628,962



3) IDW disposal for 10 years

1

LS



$3,886



SubTotal for LTM







$698,936



5) LTM Oversight, Meetings and Interfacing with Regulators 10% of subtotal4





$69,894



TOTAL LTM COSTS







$768,830



NPV 10 YR LTM Costs









$718,532













7) CONTINGENCY - 30%6









51,804,706.32













TOTAL OPTION 3+ lOyr NPV LTM OPERATING









$7,820394













Notes:

1)	Site specific cost estimate from McMillan/McGee, Regenisis, and RACER

2)	Engineering design costs can include preparation of drawings and specs, pre and post construction site
surveying, RD assessment needs, contractor bidding support and prep of design drawings.

3)	LTM includes installing 10 groundwater monitoring wells, sampling 15 wells annually plus reporting
system inspections and trouble-shooting

4)	Assumes govement oversight of LTM plus meetings and phone conferences

5)7%	discount rate assumed for 10 year LTM costs

6)	Cost for this task was taken from other cost proposals to maintain consistency

7)	Total net present value is the sum of direct and indirect capital costs and present value of LTM costs
using a 7% discount rate.

Page 1 of 2


-------
FEASIBILY STUDY CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS
THERMAL TREATMENT OF RAO AREA PLUS ERD
VENDOR SUPPLIED ESTIMATES AND RACER ESTIMATE
SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SUPERFUND SITE

I.	GENERAL CAPITAL COSTS/ INDIRECT COSTS

•	A breakdown of the direct capital costs for the various components of the soil excavation can be
found in the accompanying Site Specific estimates from McMillian/McGee, Regenesis, and RACER
for well abandonment. The RACER cost estimating software has been developed for use by the US
Army Corps of Engineers' Environmental Center of Expertise.

•	Indirect capital costs are presented as a percentage of the direct capital costs based on relevant
USEPA FS cost estimating guidance and experience with similar sites.

II.	THERMAL TREATMENT

For FS costing purposes, the design is based on a treating approximately 12,800 sq. ft. to 50 feet bgs. The

treatment is assumed to consist of the following components:

•	Drilling by sonic drilling techniques to install all heater borings, extraction wells and temperature
probes.

•	Heater electrodes will be placed on 20 foot centers.

•	Extraction wells are spaced in-between the heater electrodes to maximize contaminant removal.

•	Temperature electrodes are spaced within the treatment area at 3-foot intervals to ensure adequate
temperature monitoring throughout the area to avoid cold spots.

•	The existing building and fencing and parking lot would need to be demolished and rebuilt after the
treatment is complete (it.may be possible to keep the building intact during this option, that would
need to be evaluated during the RD phase).

•	The existing tenants using the building will need to be relocated during the treatment and reebuilding
period (may be able to remain, will need to be evaluated further during the RD phase).

•	Existing PVC monitoring wells and horizontal SVE wells will need to be removed before the
treatment.

•	Two ERD applications will be performed once site soils cool to approximately 50 degrees C within
the 12,800 sq. ft. treatment area.

III. LONG TERM MAINTANENCE

For FS costing purposes, the following annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs were included
and accounted for as follows:

Page I


-------
Reinstalling'10 groundwater monitoring wells for LTM purposes in the surficial and Floridan
aquifers.

Sampling the 10 new groundwater wells and 5 existing groundwater wells annually to collect data to
prepare the final groundwater remedy.

Analytical costs include annual costs for VOCs by SW8260, plus natural attenuation parameters, and
groundwater geochemistry parameters.

Regulatory reporting/consulting includes preparation of monthly status reports for the treatment
system, other required CERCLA status reporting, monthly air and water permit reporting, and other
project management and regulatory interactions.

The long-term monitoring cost and 30% contingency for O&M costs to maintain consistency from a
cost comparison standpoint with other vendor cost estimates.

A minimum operating timeframe of 10 years was estimated based to allow for time to collect enough
groundwater data for the surficial and Floridan aquifers post excavation to prepare and design the
final remedy for the groundwater of OU2 and OU3.

Page 2


-------
TABLE C-2:

FEASABILITY STUDY COST ESTIMATE FOR THERMAL TREATMENT
FOR DNAPL SOURCE ZONE

COST DESCRIPTION

Quantity Unit

rate ESTIMATED COST

SUB-TOTALS

I. DIRECT CAPITAL COSTS'











1) Building Demolition and Replacement, site restoration

035

LS

$175,000.00

$61,250 00



2) Abandon existing vertical and horizontal PVC wells, move utilities

1

LS



$36,083.00



3) Tennant Relocation

10,000

mo

8

$80,000.00



4) Mob/Demob

1

LS



$64,000.00



5) Drilling

1

LS



$198,860.00



5) System Installation (ERH and MPE)

1

LS



$880,901.00



6) Power Drop

1

LS



$35,000.00



7) Operation and Maintenance of Systems

1

LS



$407,691 00



8) Utlities Electric

2,383,332

kWH

0 100

$238,333.20



9) Utilites Water

3,614,806

gal

0.004

$14,459.22



10) Confirmation Sampling - Soil

1

LS



$28,000.00



11) Heater and MPE Well Abandonment

1

LS



$1,610.00



12) ERD Polishing Step within 12,000 sq ft Treatment Area - 2 applications

2

event

$331,000

$662,000.00



























TOTAL DIRECT CAPITAL COSTS









$2,708,187













II. INDIRECT CAPITAL COSTS (Per Cent of Direct Capitol Costs)
1) CERCLA Work Plans and Regulatory Interface (5%)

5%





$135,409



2) Engineering Design and Specifications (10%)2

10%





$270,819



3) Permitting, Bonding, and Insurance (2%)

2%





$54,164



4) Engineering Oversight (8%)

8%





$216,655



5) System Reporting - As Built and Operations (5%)

5%





$135,409



























TOTAL INDIRECT CAPITAL COSTS









$812,456













III. ANNUAL LTM











1) Install Monitoring Wells for LTM

1

LS



$37,103



2) LTM for 10 yrs, once per year, 12 wells.One report per year '

1

LS



$628,962



3) IDW disposal for 10 years

1

LS



$3,886



SubTotal for LTM







$669,951



5) LTM Oversight, Meetings and Interfacing with Regulators 10% of subtotal 4





$66,995



TOTAL LTM COSTS







$736,946



NPV 10 YR LTM Costs









$688,735













7) CONTINGENCY - 30%'









$1,262,813.50













TOTAL OPT ION 3+ lOvr NPV LTM OPERATING









$5,472,192













1)	Site specific cost estimate from McMillan/McGee, Regenisis, and RACER

2)	Engineering design costs can include preparation of drawings and specs, pre and post construction site
surveying, RD assessment needs, contractor bidding support and prep of design drawings.

3)	LTM includes installing 10 groundwater monitoring wells, sampling 15 wells annually plus reporting
system inspections and trouble-shooting.

4)	Assumes govement oversight of LTM plus meetings and phone conferences

5)	7 % discount rate assumed for 10 year LTM costs

6)	Cost for this task was taken from other cost proposals to maintain consistency.

7)	Total net present value is the sum of direct and indirect capital costs and present value of LTM costs
using a 7% discount rate.

Page I of 2


-------
FEASIBILY STUDY CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS
THERMAL TREATMENT OF DNAPL SOURCE AREA PLUS ERD
VENDOR SUPPLIED ESTIMATES AND RACER ESTIMATE
SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SUPERFUND SITE

I.	GENERAL CAPITAL COSTS/ INDIRECT COSTS

•	A breakdown of the direct capital costs for the various components of the soil excavation can be
found in the accompanying Site Specific estimates from McMillian/McGee, Regenesis, and RACER
for well abandonment. The RACER cost estimating software has been developed for use by the US
Army Corps of Engineers'Environmental Center of Expertise.

•	Indirect capital costs are presented as a percentage of the direct capital costs based on relevant
USEPA FS cost estimating guidance and experience with similar sites.

II.	THERMAL TREATMENT

For FS costing purposes, the design is based on a treating approximately 5,200 sq. ft. to 50 feet bgs. The

treatment is assumed to consist of the following components:

•	Drilling by sonic drilling techniques to install all heater borings, extraction wells and temperature
probes.

•	Heater electrodes will be placed on 20 foot centers.

•	Extraction wells are spaced in-between the heater electrodes to maximize contaminant removal.

•	Temperature electrodes are spaced within the treatment area at 3-foot intervals to ensure adequate
temperature monitoring throughout the area to avoid cold spots.

•	The existing building and fencing and parking lot would need to be demolished and rebuilt after the
treatment is complete (it may be possible to keep the building intact during this option, that would
need to be evaluated during the RD phase).

•	The existing tenants using the building will need to be relocated during the treatment and rebuilding
period (may be able to remain, will need to be evaluated further during the RD phase).

•	Existing PVC monitoring wells and horizontal SVE wells will need to be removed before the
treatment.

•	Confirmatory soil sampling will be performed to determine if the performance goal has been met
before the thermal system heaters are turned off permanently.

•	Two ERD applications will be performed once site soils cool to approximately 50 degrees C within
the same 12,800 sq. ft. treatment area as Option 2.

Page I


-------
III. LONG TERM MAINTANENCE

For FS costing purposes, the following annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs were included

and accounted for as follows:

•	Reinstalling 7 groundwater monitoring wells for LTM purposes in the surficial and Floridan aquifers.

•	Sampling the 7 new groundwater wells and 8 existing groundwater wells annually to collect data to
prepare the final groundwater remedy.

•	Analytical costs include annual costs for VOCs by SW8260, plus natural attenuation parameters, and
groundwater geochemistry parameters.

•	Regulatory reporting/consulting includes preparation of monthly status reports for the treatment
system, other required CERCLA status reporting, monthly air and water permit reporting, and other
project management and regulatory interactions.

•	The long-term monitoring cost and 30% contingency for O&M costs to maintain consistency from a
cost comparison standpoint with other vendor cost estimates.

•	A minimum operating timeframe of 10 years was estimated based to allow for time to collect enough
groundwater data for the surficial and Floridan aquifers post excavation to prepare and design the
final remedy for the groundwater of OU2 and OU3.	•

Page 2


-------
TABLE C-3:

FEASABILITY STUDY COST ESTIMATE FOR SOIL EXCAVATION by LDA

COST DESCRIPTION

Quantity

Unit

rate ($)

ESTIMATED COST

SUB-TOTALS

I. DIRECT CAPITAL COSTS1

1) Excavate 26,526 cy from 811 holes -5.5 x 45 ft











LDA Excavation with Caison

24,727

cy

65

$1,607,255.00



2)Backfill with Flowable Fill

30,000

cy

60

$1,800,000.00



3) Drying Pad

1

LS



$5,000



4) Dewatering including transport and disposal2

44000

sal

5

$220,000 00



6) Transportation and Disposal of 346,00 tons of soil











Transportation

39,780

Ton

10.5

$417,690.00



Disposal - non haz (90%)

35,802

Ton

18.5

$662,337.00



Haz- (10%)

3,978

Ton

205

$815,490.00



TCLP for soil disposal waste profile

100

ea

400

$40,000.00



7) Mob/Demob/SetUp

1

LS



$80,000 00



8) Building Demolition and Replacement, site restoration

1

LS



$175,000



9) Abandon exisiting vertical and horizontal PVC wells, move utilities.

1

LS



$67,274.00



10) Tennant Relocation

10,000

mo

12

$120,000 00















TOTAL DIRECT CAPITAL COSTS









$6,010,046













n. INDIRECT CAPITAL COSTS (Per Cent of Direct Capitol Costs)
1) CERCLA Work Plans and Regulatory Interface (5%)

5%





$300,502



2) Engineering Design and Specifications (10%)3

10%





$601,005



3) Permitting, Bonding, and Insurance (2%)

2%





$120,201



4) Engineering Oversight (8%)

8%





$480,804



5) System Reporting - As Built and Operations(5%)

5%





$300,502



























TOTAL INDIRECT CAPITAL COSTS









$1,803,014













III. ANNUAL LTM











1) Install Monitoring Wells for LTM

1

LS



$66,088

•

2) LTM for 10 yrs, once per year, 12 wells.One report per year 4

1

LS



$628,962



3) IDW disposal for 10 jears

1

LS



$3,886



SubTotal for LTM







$698,936



5) LTM Oversight, Meetings and Interfacing with Regulators 10% of subtotal5





$69 894



TOTAL LTM COSTS







$768,830



NPV 10 YR LTM Costs6









$718,532













7) CONTINGENCY - 30%7









S2.559.477.64













TOTAL OPTION 4 + I0yr NPV LTM OPERATING8









$11,091,070













1)	Site specific cost estimate from EnviroTeck/Action Environmental plus RACER

2)	Dewatering costs based on compiled EPA data

3)	Engineering design costs can include preparation of drawings and specs, pre and post construction site
surveying, RD assessment needs, contractor bidding support and prep of design drawings.

4)	LTM includes installing 10 groundwater monitoring wells, sampling 15 wells annually plus reporting
system inspections and trouble-shooting.

5)	Assumes govement oversight of LTM plus meetings and phone conferences

6)	7 % discount rate assumed for 10 year LTM costs

7)	Cost for this task was taken from other cost proposals to maintain consistency

8)	Total net present value is the sum of direct and indirect capital costs and present value of LTM costs
using a 7% discount rate.

Page 1 of 1


-------
FEASIBILITY STUDY CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS THERMAL TREATMENT
OF DNAPL SOURCE AREA PLUS ERD VENDOR SUPPLIED ESTIMATES AND RACER
ESTIMATE SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SUPERFUND SITE

I.	GENERAL CAPITAL COSTS/ INDIRECT COSTS

•	A breakdown of the direct capital costs for the various components of the soil excavation can be found
in the accompanying Site-Specific estimates from McMillian/McGee, Regenesis, and RACER for well
abandonment. The RACER cost estimating software has been developed for use by the US Army Corps
of Engineers'Environmental Center of Expertise.

•	Indirect capital costs are presented as a percentage of the direct capital costs based on relevant USEPA
FS cost estimating guidance and experience with similar sites.

II.	THERMAL TREATMENT

For FS costing purposes, the design is based on a treating approximately 4,050 sq. ft. to 50 feet bgs. The
treatment is assumed to consist of the following components:

•	Drilling by sonic drilling techniques to install all heater borings, extraction wells and temperature
probes.

•	Heater electrodes will be placed on 20-foot centers.

•	Extraction wells are spaced in-between the heater electrodes to maximize contaminant removal.

•	Temperature electrodes are spaced within the treatment area at 3-foot intervals to ensure adequate
temperature monitoring throughout the area to avoid cold spots.

•	The existing building and fencing and parking lot would need to be demolished and rebuilt after the
treatment is complete (it may be possible to keep the building intact during this option, that would need to
be evaluated during the RD phase).

•	The existing tenants using the building will need to be relocated during the treatment and rebuilding
period (may be able to remain, will need to be evaluated further during the RD phase).

•	Existing PVC monitoring wells and horizontal SVE wells will need to be removed before the treatment.

•	Confirmatory soil sampling will be performed to determine if the performance goal has been met before
the thermal system heaters are turned off permanently.

•	Two ERD applications will be performed once site soils cool to approximately 50 degrees C within the
same 12,800 sq. ft. treatment area as Option 2.

Page 1


-------
II. LONG TERM MAINTANENCE

For FS costing purposes, the following annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs were included
and accounted for as follows:

•	Reinstalling 7 groundwater monitoring wells for LTM purposes in the surficial and Floridan aquifers.

•	Sampling the 7 new groundwater wells and 8 existing groundwater wells annually to collect data to
prepare the final groundwater remedy.

•	Analytical costs include annual costs for VOCs by SW8260, plus natural attenuation parameters, and
groundwater geochemistry parameters.

•	Regulatory reporting/consulting includes preparation of monthly status reports for the treatment system,
other required CERCLA status reporting, monthly air and water permit reporting, and other project
management and regulatory interactions.

•	The long-term monitoring cost and 30% contingency for O&M costs to maintain consistency from a
cost comparison standpoint with other vendor cost estimates.

•	A minimum operating timeframe of 10 years was estimated based to allow for time to collect enough
groundwater data for the surficial and Floridan aquifers post excavation to prepare and design the final
remedy for the groundwater of OU1 and OU2.

Page 2


-------
2014 Groundwater Sampling Results


-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
** *	REGION 4

z	Science and Ecosystem Support Division

*	Enforcement and Investigations Branch

h-A	980 College Station Road

Athens, Georgia 30605-2720

4SESD-EIB

August 28, 2014

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Southern Solvents Upper Aquifer Groundwater Final Report
Tampa, Florida
SESD Project ID No. 14-0199

FROM:

THRU:

TO:

Brian Striggow, Environmental Engineer
Superfund and Air Section

Timothy Simpson, Acting Chief /7^2>L
Superfund and Air Section	' '

Brad Jackson
Superfund Division

Attached please find the final report of the upper aquifer groundwater sampling conducted at
the Southern Solvents Site. Please feel free to contact me with any questions at (706) 355-8619
or email striggow.brian@epa.gov.

Attachment

cc: Jason Lennane, USACE


-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency

Region 4

Science and Ecosystem Support Division
980 College Station Road
Athens, Georgia 30605-2720

^ ,rx

(sSz)

Southern Solvents
Upper Aquifer Groundwater Sampling
Final Report

Tampa, Florida
Dates of Sampling:

May 13-20, 2014 and June 17-19, 2014

SESD Project Identification Number: 14-0199

^EDSrX

$ A \

PRO"**-0

Requestor: Brad Jackson

Superfund Remedial Section D
61 Forsyth St. SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960

SESD Project Leader: Brian Striggow

Superfund and Air Section
980 College Station Road
Athens, Georgia 30605-2720

SESD Project ID#: 14-0199

Page 1 of 450


-------
Title and Approval Sleet

Title: Southern Solvents Upper Aquifer Groundwater Final Report

Approving Official:

iyv-

Timothy Simpson, Acting Chief
Superfund and Air Section

Enforcement and Investigations Branch

Date

SESD Project Leader:

—-—-	-u„ w

Brian Striggow, Environmental Engineer	Date

Superfund and Air Section

Enforcement and investigations Branch

SESD Prefect ID* 144)199

Page 2 of450


-------
Table of Contents

Introduction	

Background 	

Summary	

Methodology	

Field Quality Control..
Results and Discussion
References	

11

5

5

6

7

8
8

Appendix A, Figures	

Figure 1, Well Locations

Figure 2, Hand-Drawn Site Map from Previous Work
Figure 3, Source Area PCE Concentrations
Figure 4, Water Table Gradient

13

Appendix B, Tables

23

Table 1, Stations, Samples, Analyses, and Methods

Table 2, Volatile Organic Compound Results

Table 3, Volatile Organic Compound Results (Detections Only)

Table 4, Water Levels and Well Information

Table 5, Water Quality Parameters

Table 6, Sample Descriptions

Table 7, Quality Control Sample Results

Table 8, Split Sample Comparison

Appendix C, Laboratory Data Sheets 	59

Appendix D, Logbook Scans	369

SESD Project ID#: 14-0199	Page 3 of 450


-------
Introduction

This report presents the results from monitoring well sampling events conducted in May
and June 2014 at the Southern Solvents Superfund Site (Site) in Tampa, Florida by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science and Ecosystem Support
Division (SESD). The study was conducted in response to a request by EPA Region 4
Superfund Division remedial project manager (RPM) Brad Jackson.

This project was initially conceived as a Floridan Aquifer sampling effort to characterize
the current status of the deeper aquifer underlying the site. However, during the same
time period, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) was conducting a soil-
sampling investigation of the Site's residual source contamination. Initial results and
impressions were that less residual contamination was present than expected. The focus
of this investigation was shifted to shallow groundwater in the immediate vicinity of the
Site to support the assessment of residual source contamination.

In the May 2014 mobilization, 42 shallow monitoring wells on the Site and in its vicinity
were sampled and each sample was submitted for analysis for volatile organic compounds.
A synoptic round of water level measurements was also conducted. The SESD laboratory
was not able to analyze samples from five of the wells due to the apparent presence of
residual permanganate from remediation injections. A second mobilization was
conducted to the Site in June 2014 in which the five wells with declined samples were
resampled using a technique to neutralize residual permanganate. A well with observed
dense non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPL) sampled in the first mobilization and a well
with presumed observed permanganate were also resampled. Two additional shallow
wells that had not been sampled in the first mobilization were also sampled.

Site activities were directed by a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) generated by
SESD. Field activities in an initial mobilization were directed by SESD Project Leader
Brian Striggow with sampling teams staffed with personnel working under the
Environmental Services Assistance Team (ESAT) contract. The second mobilization to
recollect samples declined by the SESD laboratory was staffed by ESAT personnel
directed by the original QAPP and additional guidance on sample preservation provided in
a QAPP extension memorandum.

The Investigation Derived Waste (IDW) was also sampled to characterize it for disposal.
The samples are noted in Table 1, Stations, Samples, Analyses, and Methods and the
laboratory data sheets are included in the appendix. However, the IDW analysis results
were reported in a separate memorandum and will not be otherwise reported or discussed
herein.

Background

The Southern Solvents Superfund Site is located at 4009 W. Linebaugh Ave in Tampa,
Florida on an approximately 0.4 acre parcel with a single commercial building. The
attached Figure 1, Well Locations shows the Site in proximity to the intersection of Gunn
Ave and W. Linebaugh Ave in a light commercial area. The site operated from 1977 to
1985 as a distributor of tetrachloroethene (PCE) dry cleaning chemicals. There were four
documented releases of PCE on the site from above-ground storage tanks and tanker
trucks during its operation.

SESD Project ID#: 14-0199

Page 5 of 450


-------
A Remedial Investigation (RI) has been conducted on the site, concluding that substantial
chlorinated solvent contamination exists in the surficial and Upper Floridan aquifer
systems and that dense non-aqueous phase liquid PCE remained as a source of continued
release to the environment. A soil vapor extraction (SVE) system has been operated on
the site and in-situ chemical oxidation (ISCO) conducted.

The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is currently investigating the Site
to determine contaminant levels in the wake of remediation activities. In April 2014 the
USACE conducted soil coring and sampling to support their investigation.

The aquifers of interest at the site are the surficial aquifer and the Upper Floridan Aquifer.
The surficial aquifer is approximately 30 ft thick and consists of fine-grained sand, silt and
clayey sands. Surficial water levels are reported in the 4.5 to 8.5 ft below-ground-surface
(BGS) range. Underlying the surficial aquifer is a semi-confining unit consisting
primarily of clay, silt, and sandy clay. The confining materials are typically a blue-green
to gray plastic clay of the Hawthorn Group.

The Upper Floridan Aquifer consists of a continuous series of carbonate units that include
portions of the Tampa Member of the Arcadia Formation, Suwannee Limestone, Ocala
Limestone, and Avon Park Formation. The Upper Floridan Aquifer serves as a regional
source of potable water. The primary source of Floridan aquifer recharge is leakage from
the surficial aquifer.

The Site and nearby environs had 82 monitoring wells associated with the Site as reported
in a 2006 draft RI report. Of the 82 wells, 48 are believed to have been installed in the
surficial system and 38 in the underlying Upper Floridan aquifer. An additional set of
wells has been installed on the Site since the RI report as part of remediation efforts
including a series of injection wells and at least eight surficial monitoring wells.

Summary

Forty four monitoring wells on the Site and in the Site vicinity were sampled in two
mobilizations. The sampled wells are all screened in material above a semi-confining unit
above the Floridan aquifer. Residual oxidant materials complicated laboratory analysis,
resulting in the resampling of several wells in a second mobilization. An ascorbic acid
neutralization agent was used in the second mobilization to neutralize residual oxidant.

Wells were sampled using low-flow techniques. A special effort was made to clean out
debris or DNAPL that may have accumulated in the well sumps. The Teflon® tubing
used in this work was left in each sampled well for any future sampling.

PCE was found in three source-area wells at concentrations in excess of 100,000 |ig/L.
DNAPL was observed when pumping the EPA60 well in two separate sampling events.
PCE is found at varying concentrations across a large portion of the surficial well field.

Breakdown products of PCE are found in many wells. Vinyl chloride was found in two
wells, although its presence may be masked by high reporting levels for the compound in
wells with high concentrations of other contaminants.

SESD Project ID#: 14-0199

Page 6 of 450


-------
Groundwater flow in the surficial aquifer system is apparently to the south-southwest,
significant downward vertical gradient exists. A resurvey of the well top-of-casing
elevations is recommended and is planned for fall of 2014.

A

Methodology

An SESD Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) was created for this sampling event.
The following SESD sampling and measurement procedures were cited in the QAPP and
used in this study:

Field pH Measurement
Field Specific Conductance Measurement
Field Temperature Measurement
Field Turbidity Measurement
Groundwater Level and Well Depth Measurement
Field Measurement of Dissolved Oxygen
Global Positioning System
Field Measurement of Total Residual Chlorine
Field Measurement of Oxidation-Reduction Potential (ORP)
Management of Investigation Derived Waste
Pump Operation

Field Equipment Cleaning and Decontamination
Groundwater Sampling

SESDPROC-100-R3
SESDPROC-101-R5
SESDPROC-102-R3
SESDPROC-103-R3
SESDPROC- 105-R2
SESDPROC-106-R3
SESDPROC- 110-R3
SESDPROC-112-R3
SESDPROC- 113-R1
SESDPROC-202-R2
SESDPROC-203-R3
SESDPROC-205-R2
SESDPROC-301-R3

Water Level Measurement

At the time of sampling, water level and total depth were measured using electronic
sounders. After all wells were identified, a complete round of water level measurements
was conducted after overnight equalization of the wells with the well caps vented.

Global Positioning System

Mapping Grade Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers were used to obtain
coordinates for the wells that did not have locations recorded in the DART/Equis
database. The coordinates reported herein were recorded in this work or were obtained
from previous reports. The location of each well is displayed in Figure 1, Well Locations
and the GPS coordinates are reported in Table 1, Stations, Samples, Analyses, and
Methods.

Groundwater Sampling

Well purging and sampling were performed using Low-Flow methods with a peristaltic
pump and new Teflon® tubing. As many wells were known to be poorly sealed and
residual treatment chemicals were present in the wells, a slightly altered purge procedure
was used. Initially, water was purged from the top of the water column to remove residual
treatment chemicals from the well casing. The bottom of each well was then 'vacuumed'
out to remove debris and any accumulated dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL).

SESD Project ID#: 14-0199

Page 7 of 450


-------
The tubing was then positioned at the estimated mid-screen level and a conventional Low-
Flow purge begun. Samples were collected using the soda-straw method by withdrawing
sample-filled tubing from the well and allowing it to drain into sample containers.
Teflon® tubing was left in each well for use in any future sampling events.

• In the second mobilization, the 40mL vials were pre-preserved with ascorbic acid powder
to neutralize residual permanganate. Additional ascorbic acid powder was available to the
samplers to use as required.

Field Quality Control

Analytical results associated with field quality control samples are presented in Table 6,
Quality Control Sample Results.

As noted in other sections, an ascorbic acid preservative was used in the second
mobilization to neutralize permanganate. A preservative blank of the ascorbic acid is
represented by sample PB1-0614. Acetone was detected in this sample at 41ng/L.
Acetone was detected in the split sample pair MW7-0614 and MW7-0614S at 9.1 fj.g/L
and 7.8 (ig/L respectively and in sample EPA61-0614 at 860 (j.g/L. The presence of
acetone in the preservative blank calls these results into question.

Volatile organic compound (VOC) trip blanks were prepared by the SESD laboratory and
transported with the samples throughout the mobilization and during transport to the
laboratory. There were no VOC detections in the VOC trip blanks.

Four split samples were collected during the two mobilizations. Relative Percent
Differences (RPDs) were calculated for each analyte detected in either sample of the split
pair and are displayed in Table 9, Split Sample Comparison. RPDs provide a quick means
of comparison between two results, tending to accentuate small differences and capping
large differences at 200%. The formula used for calculating RPD was:

Split Sample Result - Field Sample Result

RPD = 100% *			-	-	

Average of Field Sample Result and Split Sample Result

Agreement between split sample pairs is better than 33% RPD except for two pairs of
results which were near the reporting level and had RPDs less than 35%. This is
reasonable and expected agreement for groundwater sampling work.

End checks of water quality instruments either fall within or very close to SESD
standards. There are no limitations on the use of the water quality parameter data.

Results and Discussion

The 44 sampled wells and the samples collected are listed in Table 1, Stations. Samples.
Analyses, and Methods. The locations of the wells are shown in Figure J, Well Locations.
Additional detail of the source area wells is shown in a drawing provided by a past
contractor, Figure 2, Hand-Drawn Site Map from Previous Work. The hand-drawn figure
proved invaluable in disambiguating the tightly located wells on the Site.

SESD Project ID#: 14-0199

Page 8 of 450


-------
Each sample was submitted for analysis for VOCs. The analytical results are presented in
Table 2, Volatile Organic Compound Results and Table 3, Volatile Organic Compound
Results (Detections Only). Figure 3, Source Area PCE Concentrations visually presents
the PCE concentrations found in source area wells. Note that PCE is also present in wells
not shown in the figure.

Three wells contained PCE at concentration in excess of 100,000 ng/L (EPA60, EPA11,
and PMW01C) and an additional 14 wells contained PCE in excess of 1,000 |ig/L
(PMW02B, PMW02C, EPA20, EPA03, PMW01B, MW06, PMW01A, MW11R,
PMW04, MW11R, PMW04, PMW02A, MW05, EPA62, EPA64, and EPA63). The PCE
breakdown products trichloroethene (TCE), cis-1,2 dichloroethene, and trans-1,2-
dichloroethene were also found in numerous wells.

Vinyl chloride was found MW03R and PMW03 at concentrations of 1.0 ugl and below.
But, due to laboratory dilutions where high concentrations of other compounds were
present, reporting levels for vinyl chloride were as high as 1,000 (ig/L. This compound
may still be present at significant concentrations. Table 2, Volatile Organic Compound
Results includes the reporting level of all non-detected compounds.

Sampling in areas treated with in-situ chemical oxidiation (ISCO) can present challenges.
Residual oxidants can damage laboratory instrumentation and the site contaminants
present with oxidant in samples can degrade while awaiting analysis. The SESD
laboratory declined to analyze the May 2014 samples from five wells (MW7, MW12,
EPA61, EPA64, and PMW2C) due to the apparent residual sodium permanganate present
(indicated by tan to purple staining of the water). In response, SESD returned to the site
in June to resample the affected wells. For the second mobilization, a powdered ascorbic
acid neutralization compound was added to each 40 mL sample vial prior to mobilization
and additional powdered ascorbic acid was available to the samplers to treat samples to as
required. Except for the sample collected from EPA60 noted below, all samples collected
in the second mobilization were neutralized with the ascorbic acid compound. All of the
samples effervesced when added to the neutralized vials, which may contribute a negative
bias to results from the second mobilization. Table 6, Sample Descriptions includes the
media descriptions and any special observations made by the sample crews which may be
used to estimate the approximate levels of residual oxidant.

The EPA60 well pumped DNAPL material in both mobilizations in which it was sampled.
On initial pumping, this well typically pumps darkly purple-stained water which quickly
clears. PCE was found at an estimated level of 300,000 ng/L in the May mobilization and
at 110,000 ng/L in the June mobilization (the solubility limit of PCE is approximately
200,000 ng/L at 25°C). The lower level found in the second mobilization may be related
to the efforts to clean D1MAPL out of sump of the well, or to additional residual
permanganate brought into the well vicinity from pumping. Water from this well
effervesced in the presence of both HC1 and ascorbic acid. In the second mobilization,
after considerable effervescence was observed, the sample was containerized in the
absence of any preservative or neutralization compounds, so potential negative bias from
effervescence is not a factor in the resampling results.

The MW11R well pumps water stained an orange to yellow/orange color, indicating the
likely presence of residual permanganate oxidant. The laboratory analyzed the sample
from the first mobilization, but it was thought useful to collect a second sample using the

SESD Project ID#: 14-0199

Page 9 of 450


-------
ascorbic acid neutralization. The initial sample from May 2014 contained PCE at 45,000
(ig/L, TCE at 2,500 |ig/L, and cis-1,2 dichloroethene at 2,600 |ig/L. The repeat sample
from May 2014 contained PCE at 19,000 |ig/L, TCE at 5,400 (ig/L, and cis-1,2
dichloroethene at 7,400 (ig/L. As with the EPA60 well, pulling additional residual
treatment chemical into the well vicinity may have allowed additional oxidation to take
place after the initial sampling event.

The results of water level measurements are presented in Table 4, Water Levels and Well
Information and shown visually in Figure 4, Water Table Gradient. The Top-of-Casing
(TOC) elevations used were from the draft Ri report and the DART/Equis database. In a
separate third mobilization, SESD attempted to survey TOC elevations for wells that had
been installed more recently or had appeared to have been altered. After pulling an
elevation from an existing well, the elevation was checked against a second existing well.
The two known elevations could not be resolved. This exercise was repeated for four
additional wells and no pair of wells could be resolved to match the existing data. The
results of the short survey call into question the validity of the previously recorded TOC
elevations. SESD has plans to survey all TOC elevations for the Site well field.

Given the questionable nature of the elevation data set, SESD is reluctant to generate a
groundwater contour map. However, the calculated water level elevations are presented
visually in Figure 4, Water Table Gradient. The figure presents water table elevation
difference on the order of feet, while the errors discovered in the survey effort were on the
order of tenths of feet. The figure indicates generalized surficial groundwater flow to the
south-southwest. This conclusion is supported by site contaminants found in wells to the
south-southwest as far away as DW3 (appx. 450 ft), although contaminants are also found
in ostensibly cross-gradient and up-gradient wells. A considerable downward vertical
gradient is also found on the site.

The water quality parameters for each sample are listed in Table 5, Water Quality
Parameters. Of note, a strongly positive oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) bears a
rough correlation to wells in with apparently high levels of residual oxidant. By way of
example, samples from the EPA 64 well were described in the field notes as purple in
color in two mobilizations, and had measured ORP of 710 mV and 700 mV referenced to
a Ag/AgCl reference.

SESD Project ID#: 14-0199

Page 10 of 450


-------
References

Black & Vcatch, Draft Final Remedial Investigation Report Former Southern Solvents,
Inc. Site, October 2006

Butler, Cat, Hand-Drawn Site Map. February 21, 2008

USEPA, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Ground Water Sample
Preservation at In-Situ Chemical Oxidation Sites - Recommended Guidelines, August
2012

USEPA, OSWER, DNAPL Remediation; Selected Projects Approaching Regulatory
Closure, December 2004

USEPA SESD, Analytical Support Branch Laboratory Operations and Quality Assurance
Manual, May 2014

USEPA SESD, "Field Branches Quality System and Technical Procedures". Most recent
versions: http://www.epa.gov/region4/sesd/fbqstp

USEPA SESD, Quality Assurance Project Plan, Southern Solvents Surficial Groundwater
Sampling. May 7,2014

USEPA SESD, Memorandum: Resampling at Southern Solvents Site. June 3, 2014

USEPA SESD, Quality Assurance Project Plan, Southern Solvents Surficial Groundwater
Sampling. July 16,2014

SESD Project ID#; 14-0199

Page 11 of 450


-------
[MW2,

'mwoic,b,a\

\MW22\

Inset Detail

UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4

Southern Solvents

Figure 1, Well Locations
May 2014, SESD Project # 14-0199

Legend

Sampled Wells A

WLinebaughfA v.elj

SESD Project ID# 14-0199

Page 15 of 450


-------
Figure 2

Hand-Drawn Site Map from Previous Work



TREt

/' PO L V \
\ 7 A w K

I »"



£a fcJW £ L

'51 ©

© mwjA

. t/?££5

NO f'.T H

© MW?

VMp

O

3V£ kve

CPA5 5
o



ci'^ • o

ft-A

VEH-I ©

•V-

£PA-W o

fw-7 ©

1

f MW-4

C,CAv6l
ASfH Ai-T

© raw-f

3 nW-iiR

0

VMP

0' J io

(tff) ? I Z''101

cfii fiuTteu

V MP ¦¦	^]tiNtro (? Point

S'v£ =	£ £ r

- 3 *-3 'CtWt i? ire

f««:	r-i@tSrTofi

yJt i L

soultitRu $0LveNf<

StfuACf ^ISCA UJ#"U MCrUJ
-------
PMW01A |
Iscrn15-15.3|
117.000ug/L

PMW02C
scrn28-33
12,200ug/L

MW12
| scrn25-35
, 900ug/L |

PMW01C
scrn28-33 |
1240.000ug/L,

EPA63
scrn8-9
95.000ug/L|

EPA62
| scrn8-9
80.000ug/Ll

EPA60
scrn32-23 I
300.000ug/L,

| PMW04
I scrn10-20 I
45.000uq/l|

EPA02
8crn5-15|
| 11ug/L |

MW07
scrn25-35|
[ 150ug/L |

MW05
scrn5-15
59.000ug/L

EPA61
scrn43-33
| 9.3ug/L j

MW11R
I scrn5-15
,45.000ug/L|

EPA11
scrn26-36
140,000ug/L

EPA03
scrn5-15
3,100ug/L

Legend

PCE ug/L

0-100 #
101-1,000 O
1,001-10,000 O
10,001-100,000 O
100.001-1,000,000 9

10 20 30

iFeet

I MW03R I
I scrn5-15l
| 520ug/L t

EPA 59
I »crn9-10 |
|0.34J ug/L ^

PMW02A
scrn15-1S.3|
48 000ug/L \

J PMW02B I
I scrn23-281
|l,400ug/L|

EPA64
I scrn32-33 i
^88.000ug/L|

MW01
J scrn5-15 I
|0 14J ug/L |

EPA01
! scrn5-15|
1 7.6ug/L |

EPA10
| scrn26-361
1.1 ug/L

Southern Solvents

Figure 3, Source Area PCE Concentrations
May 2014, SESD Project # 14-0199

SESO Project ID#: 14-0199

Page 19 of 450


-------
SESD Project ID#: 14-0199

Page 21 of 450


-------
Appendix B
Tables

SESD Project ID#: 14-0199

Page 23 of 450


-------
Table 1, Stations, Samples, Analyses, and Methods

WGS84

Analyses and
Methods:

s

S
s

Si

.8

Is

n

1 Station ID

Longitude

Latitude

Sample ID

Sample Date/Time

Matrix



DW3

-82.510551

28.039451

DW3-0614

6/19/2014 1020

Groundwater



X

EPA01

-82.509877

28.040648

EPA1-0514

5/15/2014 12:05

Groundwater



X

EPA02

-82.510075

28.040575

EPA2-0514

5/16/2014 11:10

Groundwater



X

EPA03

-82.510020

28.040506

EPA3-0514

5/16/2014 11:55

Groundwater



X

EPA04

-82.510417

28.040351

EPA4-0514

5/16/2014 17:05

Groundwater



X

EPA10

-82.509878

28.040633

EPA10-0514

5/15/2014 16:05

Groundwater



X

EPA11

-82.510004

28.040511

EPA11-0514

5/16/2014 14:15

Groundwater



X

EPA13

-82.509935

28.039923

EPA13-0514

5/14/2014 10:35

Groundwater



X

EPA20

-82.509903

28.039924

EPA20-0614

6/19/2014 12:40

Groundwater



X

EPA42

-82.510490

28.041339

EPA42-0514

5/13/2014 11:00

Groundwater



X

EPA59

-82.510025

28.040628

EPA59-0514

5/19/2014 11:15

Groundwater



X

EPA60

-82.510063

28.040576

EPA60-0514

5/16/2014 17:25

Groundwater



X

EPA60-0614

6/17/2014 12:35

Groundwater



X

EPA61

-82.510027

28.04055

EPA61-0514

5/20/2014 15:25

Groundwater



0•

EPA61-0614

6/17/2014 17:20

Groundwater



X

EPA62

-82.509992

28.040600

EPA62-0514

5/20/2014 9:50

Groundwater



X

EPA63

-82.509960

28.040600

EPA63-0514

5/19/2014 10:15

Groundwater



X

EPA64

-82.50996

28.040603

EPA64-0514

5/19/2014 13:20

Groundwater



D*

EPA64-0614

6/18/2014 12:40

Groundwater



X

MW01

-82.509837

28.040673

MW1-0514

5/16/2014 12:12

Groundwater



X

MW02R

-82.509801

28.040424

MW2R-0514

5/16/2014 9:55

Groundwater



X

MW03R

-82.510011

28.040620

MW3R-0514

5/17/2014 15:55

Groundwater



X

MW04

-82.510080

28.040244

MW4-0514

5/14/2014 14:45

Groundwater



X

MWOS

-82.509923

28.040527

MW5-0514

5/15/2014 15:05

Groundwater



X

MW06

-82.510041

28.040233

MW6-0514

5/14/2014 16:25

Groundwater



X

MW07

-82.510075

28.040571

MW7-0514

5/17/2014 16:25

Groundwater



0*

MW7-0514S

5/17/2014 16:30

Groundwater



D*

MW7-0614

6/17/2014 10:05

Groundwater



X

MW7-0614S

6/17/201410:10

Groundwater



X

MWOS

-82.509979

28.040708

MW8-0514

5/15/2014 9:55

Groundwater



X

MW10

-82.509791

28.040363

MW10-0514

5/15/2014 10:15

Groundwater



X

MW10-0514S

5/15/2014 10:20

Groundwater



X

MW11R

-82.509914

28.04048

MW11R-0514

5/15/2014 13:15

Groundwater



X

MW11R-0614

6/18/2014 15:45

Groundwater



X

MW12

-82.509986

28.040612

MW12-0514

5/19/2014 16:20

Groundwater



D»

MW12-0614

6/18/2014 10:30

Groundwater



X

MW13R

-82.510417

28.040343

MW13R-0514

5/14/2014 15:00

Groundwater



X

MW14

-82.509922

28.040942

MW14-0514

5/14/2014 9:40

Groundwater



X

MW17

-82.508843

28.039818

MW17-0514

5/13/2014 13:04

Groundwater



X

MW20

-82.509580

28.040724

MW20-0514

5/14/201411:25

Groundwater



X

MW21

-82.510291

28.040839

MW21-0514

5/13/2014 15:37

Groundwater



X

MW22

-82.510430

28.039771

MW22-0514

5/13/2014 14:44

Groundwater



X

MW2S

-82.509214

28.040897

MW25-0514

5/13/2014 11:05

Groundwater



X

MW26

-82.510882

28.039806

MW26-0514

5/14/2014 12:55

Groundwater



X

MW27

-82.510918

28.041035

MW27-0514

5/13/2014 1230

Groundwater



X

PMW01A

-82.510021

28.040610

PMW1A-0514

5/19/2014 15:25

Groundwater



X

PMW018

-82.510027

28.040608

PMW1B-0514

5/20/2014 9:30

Groundwater



X

PMW01C

-82.510032

28.040608

PMW1C-0514

5/20/2014 11:35

Groundwater



X

PMW02A

-82.509993

28.040584

PMW2A-0514

5/20/2014 14:30

Groundwater



X

PMW02B

-82.509998

28.040583

PMW2B-0514

5/20/2014 15:45

Groundwater



X

PMW02C

-82.S10002



PMW2C-0514

5/20/2014 16:20

Groundwater



D*



PMW2C-0614

6/17/2014 15:50

Groundwater



X

PMW03

-82.510073



PMW 3-0514

5/19/2014 12:10

Groundwater



X



PMW3-0514S

5/19/2014 12:15

Groundwater



X

PMW04

-82.509966



PMW4-0514

5/20/2014 11:30

Groundwater



X



PMW4-0514S

5/20/2014 11:35

Groundwater



X



-

-

IDW1

5/19/2014 12:30

Investigative Derived Waste

X

X



-

-

IDW2

5/19/2014 15:20

Investigative Derived Waste

X

X



-

-

IDW3

5/19/2014 15:40

Investigative Derived Waste

X

X



-

-

IDW4

5/19/2014 16:00

Investigative Derived Waste

D*

0*



-

-

IDW4-0614

6/19/2014 14:50

Investigative Derived Waste

X

X



-

-

IDW5

5/20/2014 15:50

Investigative Derived Waste

D*

0*



-

-

IDW5-0614

6/19/2014 15:10

Investigative Derived Waste

X

X



-

-

IDW6

5/20/2014 17:05

Investigative Derived Waste

X

X



-

-

IDW6-0614

6/19/201415:35

Investigative Derived Waste

X

X



-

-

PB1-0614

6/18/2014 13:00

Preservative Blank



X



-

-

TB1-0514

5/19/2014 13:30

Trip Blank-Water



X



-

-

T81-0614

6/18/2014 16:00

Trip Blank-Water



X



-

-

TB2-0514

5/20/2014 13:50

Trip Blank - Water



X



"



TB2-0614

6/19/2014 16:00

Trip Blank - Water



X

*D - Laboratory declined to analyze due to apparent presence of permanganate

SESD Project ID#: 14-0199

Page 25 of 450


-------
Table 2, Volatile Organic Compound Results

Sheet 1 of 7



Station ID

DW3

EPA01

EPA10

EPA11

EPA13

EPA02

EPA03

EPA04



Sample ID

0W 3-0614

EPA 1-0514

EPA10-0514

EPA11-0514

EPA13-0514

EPA2-0514

EPA3-0514

EPA4-0514

Sample Date

6/19/2014 10:20

5/15/2014 12:05

5/15/2014 16:05

5/16/2014 14:15

5/14/2014 10:35

5/16/2014 11:10

5/16/2014 11:55

5/16/2014 17:05

Analyte

Units











(nv and/or p-)Xylene

m/i

LOU

LOU

LOU

1000 u

1.0 U

1.0 U

sou

1.0U

1,1,1,2-Tetrachtofoethane

ug/L

0.50 U

0.50 U

OSOU

500 U

0.50 U

osou

25 u

OSOU

1.1,1-T richlof oethane

ug/L

0.50 U

OSOU

O-SOU

500 U

OSOU

asou

2SU

O.SOU

1.1,2,2-T etrachloroethane

ug/L

0.50 U

05OU

OSOU

500 U

0.50 U

0.50 U

2SU

asou

1,1,2-TrtchtofO-1.2,2 -Trifiuoroethane (Freon 113)

ug/L

0.50 U

0.50 U

OSOU

500 U

0.50 U

OSOU

2SU

osou

1,1,2-Trlchloroethane

ug/L

0.50 U

0.50 U

0.50 U

SOOU

0.50 U

O.SOU

25 U

O.SOU

1,1-Dichloroethane

ug/L

OSOU

0.50 U

OSOU

5OOU

050U

osou

25 U

osou

l.J-Oichloroethene (1,1-Dichloroethylene)

ug/L

0.50 U

OSOU

0.50 U

SOOU

OSOU

0.50 U

25 U

osou

1,1-Dichloropropene

ug/L

050 U

OSOU

0.50 U

SOOU

OSOU

0.50U

25U

O.SOU

1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene

ug/L

0.50 U

050U

OSOU

SOOU

0.50 U

osou

25 U

OSOU

1,2,3-Trichloropropane

ug/L

0.50 U

O.SOU

0.50 U

SOOU

050U

0.50 U

25 U

0.50 U

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene

ug/L

0.50 U

OSOU

0.50 U

SOOU

0.50 U

O.SOU

25 U

0.50 U

1,2,4-Trim ethyl benzene

ug/L

O.SOU

050U

0.50 U

SOOU

OSOU

050U

2SU

0.50V

l,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane (DBCP)

ug/L

1.0U

LOU

LOU

1000 U

1.0 u

LOU

sou

LOU

1,2-Dibromoeth ane (EDB)

ug/L

O.SOU

0.50 U

O-SOU

SOOU

0.50 U

asou

25 U

OSOU

1,2 -Dichtorobenzene

ug/L

050 U

OSOU

asou

SOOU

OSOU

asou

25 u

0.50U

1.2-Otchtar oethane

ug/L

0.50 U

0 50 U

OSOU

SOOU

OSOU

asou

2SU

osou

1,2-CSichlofopropane

««A

OSOU

0.50 U

asou

SOOU

asou

asou

25 U

OSOU

1.3,5-Trimethyfbenzene

ug/L

OSOU

050 U

0 sou

SOOU

0.50 U

asou

2SU

O.SOU

1,3-Dichlorobenzene

ug/L

OSOU

o so y

0 50 U

SOOU

OSOU

asou

25 U

asou

1.3-DichlOfopfopane

ug/L

OSOU

0 50U

0.50 U

SOOU

0 50 U

0.5OU

25 U

osou

1,4-Dtchlorobenzene

u«/L

0.50 U

050U

0.50 U

soou

OSOU

osou

25 U

asou

2,2-Diehloropropane

ug/L

0.50 U

050 U

0.50 U

SOOU

osou

O-SOU

25 U

osou

Acetone

ug/L

4.0 U

4.0 U

4 0U

4000 U

4.0 U

4.0 U

200 U

4.0 U

Benzene

ug/L

0.50 U

050 U

0.171,0

SOOU

asou

osou

25U

asou

Bromobenzene

ug/L

0.50 U

OSOU

OSOU

SOOU

asou

asou

25 U

osou

Bromochloromethane

ug/L

0 50 U

0,50 U

0,50 U

SOOU

asou

0.50 U

2SU

O.SOU

Bromodichlorome thane

ug/L

0.50 U

05OU

OSOU

SOOU

OSOU

1.4

25 U

0.50 U

Bromoform

ug/L

LOU

LOU

LOU

1000 u

LOU

0.44 J.0

SOU

1.0 u

Bromomethane

ug/L

2.0 U

2.0U

2.0 U

2000 U,J,0

2.0 U

2.0UJ.O

100UJ.O

2.0 U.J.O

Carbon Tetrachloride

ug/L

0.50 U

050 U

050U

SOOU

0.50 U

0.50 U

2SU

osou

Carbon disulfide

ug/L

10 U

2.0 U

2.0 U

2000U

2.0 U

2.0 U

100 U

2.0 U

Chlorobenzene

ug/L

0.50 U

0.50 tl

0.S0U

SOOU

0.50 U

osou

25 U

O.SOU

Chloroethane

ug/L

2.0 U

2.0 U

20 U

2000 W

2.0 U

2.0 U

100 U

2.0 U

Chloroform

ug/L

OSOU

OSOU

0.50U

1000

OSOU

6.6

2SU

osou

Chloromethane

ug/L

0.50 U

OSOU

OSOU

500U

0.50 U

osou

2SU

0.50 U

Cyclohexane

Ug/L

0.50 U

050U

OSOU

SOOU

0.50 U

osou

25 U

O-SOU

Dibromochloromethane

ug/L

0.50 U

0.50 U

O-SOU

SOOU

OSOU

0.70

2SU

O.SOU



ug/L

0.50 U

0.50 U

OSOU

SOOU

0.50 U

a92

2SU

O.SOU

Dichlorodifluorom ethane (Freon 12)

ug/L

050 U

OSOU

asou

SOOU

0501/

osou

25U

O.SOU

Ethyl Benzene

ug/L

0.5OU

050U

0.50 U

SOOU

OSOU

osou

25 U

O.SOU



ug/L

050 U

OSOU

osou

SOOU

OSOU

osou

2SU

OSOU

Hexachioroethane (TIC)

ug/L

















kopropylbenzene

ug/L

0.50 U

0.50 U

OSOU

SOOU

OSOU

O.SOU

25 U

OSOU

Methyl Acetate

ug/L

LOU

10U

to a

1000 u

10U

1.0 u

SOU

t.OU

Methyl Butyl Ketone

ug/L

LOU

t.OU

t.OU

1000 u

1.0U

1.0 u

SOU

LOU

Methyl Ethyl Ketone

ug/L

4.0 U

4.0 U

4 OU

4000 u

4.0 U

4.0 u

200 U

4.0 U

Methyl Isobutyl Ketone

ug/L

LOU

1.0 U

LOU

1000 u

LOU

t.OU

SOU

1.0 U

Methyl T-Butyl Ether (MTBE)

ug/L

0.50 U

050U

OSOU

SOOU

osou

osou

25 U

0.50 U

Methylcyclohexane

ug/L

0.50 U

OSOU

OSOU

5OOU

osou

asou

25 U

osou

Methylene Chloride

ug/L

OSOU

OSOU

asou

SOOU

OSOU

osou

25 U

osou

Styrene

ug/L

0.50 U

OSOU

OSOU

SOOU

0.501/

asou

25 U

O.SOU

Tentatively Identified Compounds

ug/L

10 U

10 u

10 u

10000u

tou

tou

SOOU

10U

Tetrachloroethene (Tetrachloroethylene)

ug/L

0.50 U

7.6

1.1

140000

osou

11

3100

3.S

Toluene

Ug/L

0.50 U

OSOU

OSOU

SOOU

osou

osou

25U

O.SOU

Trlchloroethene (Tr ic hloroethyl en e)

ug/L

S.S

0.62

0.50 U

SOOU

osou

0.S1

140

osou

TrichkwoBuoromethane (Freon 11)

ug/L

050U

0.50 U

OSOU

SOOU

osou

asou

25U

O.SOU

Vinyl chloride

ug/L

0.50 U

OSOU

OSOU

SOOU

osou

0.50 U

25 U

0.50 U

cis-l,2-Dtchtoroethene

ug/L

0 56

1.4

OSOU

230 j.o

osou

11

ISO

asou

cis-1,3- Dichloropropene

ug/L

0.50 U

OSOU

OSOU

SOOU

0.50 U

asou

2SU

O.SOU

n-Butytt>enzene

ug/L

0.50 U

OSOU

OSOU

SOOU

0.50 U

osou

25 U

OSOU

n-Propylbenzene

ug/L

0.50 U

OSOU

0.5OU

SOOU

0.50 U

asou

2SU

O.SOU

o-Chlorotoluene

ug/L

OSOU

OSOU

05OU

SOOU

asou

asou

25 U

0.50 U

o-Xylene

ug/L

0.50 U

OSOU

OSOU

SOOU

asou

osou

2SU

O.SOU

p-Chlorotokiene

ug/L

0.50 U

OSOU

asou

5OOU

osou

asou

2SU

0.50 U

p-hopropyitoluene

ug/L

0.50 U

0.50 U

a sou

SOOU

0.50 U

O.SOU

25 U

OSOU

secButylbenzene

ug/L

0.50 U

OSOU

O-SOU

soou

osou

a sou

25U

asou

tert-Butytbenzene

ug/L

OSOU

OSOU

0.50 U

5OOU

osou

osou

25 U

O.SOU

trans- 1.2-Dichloroethene

ug/L

0.50 U

asou

0.50 U

SOOU

osou

0.26 J.O

25 U

O.SOU

trans-1.3-Oichloropr opene

ug/L

0.50 U

OSOU

asou

SOOU

0.50 U

asou

2SU

O.SOU

Qualifiers: U - nondetect, J - estimate, 0 - other- refer to lab data sheets	Legend

Detection: | «

SESD Project ID#: 14-0199

Page 27 of 450


-------
Table 2, Volatile Organic Compound Results

Sheet 2 of 7

Station ID
Sample ID
Sample Date

EPA20

EPA42

EPA59

EPA60

f PASO

EPA61

EPA62

EPA20-0614

EPA42-0514

EPA59-0514

EPA6O-0S14

EPA60-0614

EPA61-0614

EPA62-0514

6/19/2014 12:40

5/13/2014 11:00

5/19/2014 11:15

5/16/2014 17:25

6/17/2014 12:35

6/17/2014 17:20

5/20/2014 9:50

Analyte

Units









(m- and/or p-)Xylene

ug/l

SOU

1.0 U

1.0U

2000 U

1000 u

10 u

1000 u

1,1,1,2-T ttracMoroethane

ug/L

25 U

©sou

0.50 U

1000 u

500U

42

soou

1,1, 1-Trtchloroethane

ug/l

25 U

0.50 U

0.50 U

1000 u

500 u

5.0 U

soou

1,1,2,2-Tetrachlor oethane

ug/L

25 U

O.SOU

asou

1000 u

soou

sou

soou

L 1,2-Trkhtoro-1,2,2 Trifluoroethane (Freon 113)

ug/L

25 U

0.50 U

osou

1000 u

500 U

sou

soou

1,1,2-Trichlor oethane

ug/l

25 U

O.SOU

0.50 u

1000 u

soou

5.4

soou

1,1-Oichlofoethane

ugA

25 U

asou

osou

1000 u

soou

5 .OU

soou

1,1 -Dichloroethene (U-Dtchtoroethytene)

ug/l

25 U

0.50 U

0.50 U

1000 u

soou

5.0 U

soou

1,1 Dichloropropene

ug/L

25 U

05OU

asou

1000 u

soou

sou

soou

1,2,3-Trichlorobemene

ug/l

25 U

a sou

asou

1000 u

soou

5.0 U

soou

1,2.3-Trichloropropane

ug/l

25 U

asou

asou

1000 u

soou

sou

soou

1.2,4-Trichlorobenzene

ug/L

25 U

asou

05OU

1000 u

soou

5.0 U

soou

1,2,4-Trimethylbemene

ug/l

25 U

osou

O.SOU

1000 u

soou

5.0 U

soou

l,2-Dibromo-3-Chk>ropropane (DBCP)

ug/l

sou

1 .ou

1.0 u

2000 U

1000 u

10 u

1000 u

1.2-Oibromoethane (EDB)

ug/L

25U

osou

asou

10001/

soou

sou

soou

1,2-Oichlorobenzene

ug/L

25 U

0.50 U

o.sou

1000 u

soou

sou

soou

1,2-Dichlor oethane

ug/L

25 U

0.50U

asou

1000 u

soou

5.0 U

soou

1,2-Dichloropropene

ug/L

25 U

osou

osou

1000 u

soou

sou

soou

1,3,5-Trimethylbenrene

ug/l

25 U

osou

asou

1000U

soou

5.0 U

soou

1,3 Dichlorobenj ene

ug/L

25 U

osou

0.50 U

1000 u

soou

SOU

soou

1,3-O>chloropropane

ug/L

25 U

0.50 U

o.sou

1000 u

soou

5,0 U

soou

1.4-Dichloroberuene

ug/L

25 U

osou

asou

1000 u

soou

5.0 U

soou

2, JOichlofopropane

ug/l

25U

asou

asou

1000 u

soou

5.00

soou

Accton*

ug/L

200 U

4 0U

4.0 U

aooou

4000 U

860

4000 U

Benzene

ug/l

25 U

osou

osou

1000 u

soou

5.0 U

soou

Bromobenzene

ug/l
ug/l

25 U
25 U

O.SOU
0.50 U

osou
asou

1000U

1000 u

soou
soou

sou
5.0 0

soou
soou

Bromoform

ug/L
ug/l

25 U
SOU

asou
1.0 u

o.sou
1.0 u

1000 u

2O00U

soou

10O0U

3.0 J.O

10 u

soou
1000 u

Bromomethane

ug/L

100 u

2.0 U

2.0 UJ.O

4000 UJ.O

2000 U

20 U

2000U.1.0

Carbon Tetrachloride

ug/l

25 U

osou

asou

1000 u

soou

34

soou

Carbon disulfide

ug/l

1001/

2.0 U

2.0 U

4000 U

2000 U

20U

2000 U

Chloroben/ene

ug/L

25 U

0.50 U

osou

1000 u

soou

3.8 J.O

soou

Chloroethane

ug/L

100 U

2.0U

2.0 U

4000 u

2000 u

20 U

2000 U

Chloroform

ug/L

25 U

osou

asou

3700

2900

52001.0

soou

Chloromethane

ug/l

25U

osou

osou

1000 u

soou

sou

SOOU

QkUwom

ug/l

25 U

asou

osou

1000 u

soou

sou

soou

Dibfomochloromethane

ug/l

25U

asou

osou

1000 u

soou

sou

soou

Dibromomethane

ug/l

25 U

osou

osou

1000 u

soou

5.0 O

soou

Dichlorodtfluorarn ethane (Freon 12)

ug/l

25 U

osou

o.sou

1000 u

soou

5.0 0

soou

Ethyl Benzene

ug/l

25U

osou

asou

1000 u

soou

5.00

soou

Henachlorobutadiene

ug/l

25 U

osou

o.sou

1000 u

soou

5.0 u

soou

Hexachloroethane (TIC)

ug/L











100 NJ



Isopropylbenrene

ug/L

2SU

osou

0.50 U

1000 u

soou

sou

soou

Methyl Acetate

ug/l

SOU

10U

1.0U

2000 U

1000 u

10 u

1000 u

Methyl Butyl Ketone

ug/l

SOU

1.0 u

1.0 u

2000 U

1000 u

10 u

1000 u

Methyl Ethyl Ketone

ug/L

200 U

4.0 U

4.0 U

aooou

4000 u

40 U

4000 U

Methyl bobutyl Ketone

ug/l

SOU

1.0 u

1.0 u

2000U

1000 u

10 u

1000 u

Methyl T Butyl Ether (MTBE)

ug/l

25U

0 SOU

0.50 U

1000 u

soou

sou

soou

Methylcyclohexane

ug/l

25 U

osou

0.500

1000 u

soou

sou

soou

Methylene Chloride

ug/l

25U

asou

osou

1000 u

soou

3.4 J.O

soou

Styrene

ug/l

25U

osou

osou

1000 u

soou

5.0 O

soou

Tematiwely Identified Compounds

ug/l

500 U

10 u

10 u

20000 U

10000 U



10000u

Tetrachloroethene (Tetrachloroethylene)

ug/l

2900

aui.o

0.341,0

300000 J.O

110000

9J

80000

Toluene

ug/L

25U

osou

asou

1000 u

soou

5.0 0

soou

Trichloroethene (Trlchloroethylene)

ug/l

1100

osou

0.49 ),0

1000 u

soou

sou

1100

Trtchkjrofkjoromethane (Freon 11)

14/I

25 U

osou

o.sou

1000 u

soou

5.0 U

soou

Vinyl chloride

14/I

2SU

0.50 u

o.sou

1000 u

soou

sou

soou

cis-l,2-Dichloroethene

ug/L

220

o.sou

29

1000 u

soou

5.0 U

1200

cis-l,3-Dichloropropene

ug/l

25 U

0.50 U

osou

1000 u

soou

sou

soou

n-Butylbenzene

ug/L

25 U

o.sou

asou

1000 u

soou

sou

soou

n-Propylbenzene

ug/l

25 U

0.50 U

asou

1000 u

soou

sou

soou

o-Chlorotoluene

ug/L

25 U

0.50 U

o.sou

1000 u

5OOU

sou

soou

o-Xylene

ug/l

25 U

osou

osou

1000 u

soou

5.0 U

soou

p-Chlorotoluene

ug/l

25U

asou

osou

1000 u

soou

s.0 U

5OOU

p-lsopropyltoluene

ug/l

25U

asou

osou

1000 u

soou

s.ou

soou

sec-Butylbenzeoe

ug/l

25 U

0.50 U

osou

1000 u

soou

50U

soou

tert-Butylberuene

ug/l

25 U

asou

asou

1000 u

soou

sou

soou

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene

ug/L

2SU

asou

0.65

1000 u

soou

5.0 O

soou

tram-1.3-Dichloropropene

ug/L

25 U

0.50 U

asou

1000 u

soou

5.00

soou

Qualifiers: U - nondetect, J - estimate, O - other- refer to lab data sheets	Legend

Detection :|~

SESD Project ID#: 14-0199

Page 29 of 450


-------
Table 2, Volatile Organic Compound Results

Sheet 3 of 7

Station ID
Sample ID
Sample Date

EPA63

EPA64

MW01

MW10

MW10

MW11R

MW11R

EPA63-0514

EPA64-0614

MW1-0514

MW 10-0514

MW10-0514S

MW11R-0514

MW11R-0614

5/19/2014 10:15

6/18/2014 12:40

5/16/201412:12

5/15/2014 10:15

5/15/2014 10:20

5/15/2014 13:15

6/18/201415:45

Analyte

Units









(m- and/or p-)Xytene

ug/L

20001/

1000 u

1.0 u

1.0 u

l.OU

1000 u

200 U

1,1,1.2-Tetrachtaroethane

ua/i

1000 U

500 U

o.sou

osou

asou

soou

100 u

1,1, X-T richloroethane

u«/L

1000 U

soou

0.50 U

o.sou

osou

soou

100 u

1,1,2.2-Tetrac hloroethan e

ug/l

1000 u

5001/

0.50 U

o.sou

osou

soou

100 u

1,1,2-Trkhloro-1,2,2-Trifluoroethane (Freon 113)

ug/l

1000 u

5001/

a sou

0.50 U

asou

soou

100 u

1,1,2-TricMoroethane

ug/l

1000 u

500U

0.50 U

o.sou

asou

soou

100 0

1,1 - Dkhloroethane

ug/l

10001/

soou

0.5OU

osou

o.sou

soou

100U

1.1-Dichloroethene (1,1-Otchtoroethylene)

ugA

1000 u

500 J

asou

asou

asou

soou

100 u

1,1-Dkhloropropene

ug/l

1000 u

soou

0.50 U

o.sou

osou

soou ¦

100 u

1.2.3-Trichlorobenrene

ug/l

1000 u

500 U

0.50 U

asou

o.sou

soou

100 u

1.2,3-Trkhloropropane

ug/l

1000U

soou

050 U

o.sou

asou

soou

100 u

1,2,4-Trie hloroben? en e

ug/l

1000 u

soou

asou

osou

osou

soou

100 u

1.2,4-Trimethylbenzene

ug/L

1000 u

soou

0.50 U

0.50 U

asou

soou,

100 u

l,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane (DBCP)

u»/l

20000

1000 u

1.0U

1.0 u

1.0 u

1000 u

200 U

1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)

ug/t

iooou

soou

OSou

osou

asou

soou

ICO u

1.2-DicMorobenzene

ug/l

1000 u

soou

asou

o.sou

0.50 U

soou

100 u

1,2-Dichloroethane

ug/l

1000 u

soou

o.sou

0.50 U

asou

soou

100 u

1,2-Dichloropropane

ug/l

1000 u

soou

asou

o.sou

asou

soou

100 u

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene

ug/l

1000 u

soou

0.50 u

asou

asou

soou

100 u

1,3-Dkhbroberuene

ug/l

1000 u

soou

osou

asou

asou

soou

100 u

1,3 0>chloropropane

ug/L

1000 u

soou

osou

0.50 U

o.sou

soou

100 u

1,4-Dichlorobeniene

ug/l

1000 u

soou

asou

asou

osou

soou

100 u

2,2-Dtchloropropane

ug/l

1000 u

soou

asou

o.sou

osou

soou

100 u

Acetone

Ug/l

moou

*000 u

4.0 U

4.0 U

4.0 U

4000 U

900 U

Benzene

ug/l

1000 u

soou

osou

asou

0.50 U

soou

too u

Bromobenzene

ug/l
ug/l

1000 u
1000 u

soou
soou

asou
osou

osou
o.sou

asou
asou

soou

500 U

100 u
100 u

Bromoforrn

ug/l
ug/l

1000 u
2000 U

soou

, 10O0U

asou

10U

o.sou
l.OU

osou
1.0 u

soou
1000 u

100 u

200 U

Bfomomethane

UgA

*ooou,io

?OOOU •

2.0UJ.O

2.0 U

2.0 U

2000U.J.O

400 U

Carbon Tetrachloride

ug/l

1000 u

soou

asou

osou

asou

soou

100 u

Carbon disulfide

ug/l

4000 V

2000 U

2.0 U

20U

2.0 U

2000 U

soou

Chlorobenrene

ug/l

1000 u

soou

0.50 U

o.sou

asou

soou

ioou

Chloroethane

ug/l

*000 u

2000U

20 U

2.0 u

2.0 U

2000 U

too u

Chloroform

ug/l

1000 u

15000

o.sou

o.sou

osou

soou

100 u

Chloromethane

ug/L

1000 u

soou

osou

o.sou

asou

soou

100 u

Cyclohenane

ug/l

1000 u

soou

asou

o.sou

o.sou

soou

100 u

Oibromochioromethane

ug/L

1000 u

soou

asou

asou

asou

soou

ioou

Dibromom ethane

ug/L

1000 u

soou

asou

osou

osou

soou

100 u

Diehlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12)

ug/l

iooo u

soou

O.SOU

osou

0.50 U

500U

IOOU

Ethyl Benzene

UgA

1000 u

soou

asou

o.sou

osou

SOOU

100U

Hexachlorobutadlene

Ug/l

IOOOU

soou

O.SOU

o.sou

osou

SOOU

IOOU

Hexa chloroethane (TIC)

ug/l















Isopropylberuene

ug/l

1000 u

soou

osou

0.50 u

asou

soou

IOOU

Methyl Acetate

UgA

70001/

1000 u

1.0 u

l.OU

l.OU

1000U

200 U

Methyl Butyl Ketone

ug/L

2000 U

1000 u

10 U

1.0 u

l.OU

1000 u

200 U

Methyl Ethyl Ketone

ug/L

8000 U

4000 U

4.0 U

4.0 U

4.0U

4000 U

BOO U

Methyl Isobulyl Ketone

ug/l

2000 U

lOOO u

LOU

l.OU

l.OU

1000 U

200 U

Methyl T-Butyl Ether (MTBE)

ug/l

1000 u

SOOU

OSOU

1.1

1.3

soou

IOOU

Methylcyciohexane

ug/L

1000 u

soou

0.50 U

o.sou

O.SOU

soou

IOOU

Methylene Chloride

ug/L

1000 u

soou

0.50 U

asou

o.sou

soou

100U

Styrene

ug/l

1000 u

soou

asou

asou

O.SOU

soou

IOOU

Tentatively Identified Compound!

ug/l

200001/

10000 u

io u

10 u

10 u

10000 u

2000 U

Tetrachloroethene (Tetrachloroethylene)

ug/l

95000

88000

0.14 J,0

16

16

45000

19000

Toluene

ug/l

1000 u

soou

asou

o.sou

asou

soou

IOOU

Trkhloroethene (Trichloroethylene)

ug/l

GOO 1.0

soou

osou

0.191.0

0.171,0

2500

5400

Trkhlorofluoromcthane (Freon 11)

ug/l

1000 u

soou

0.50 U

asou

o.sou

soou

100U

Vinyl chloride

ug/l

1000 u

soou

asou

o.sou

asou

soou

IOOU

cis-l,2-0ichloroethene

ug/l

1300

soou

0,501/

osou

asou

2600

7400

els-1,3- Dichloropropene

ug/l

1000 u

soou

O-SOU

o.sou

asou

soou

IOOU

n-Butyl benzene

ug/L

10001/

soou

asou

o.sou

asou

soou

IOOU

n-Propytbenzene

ug/L

1000 u

soou

asou

asou

asou

500 U

IOOU

o-Chlorotoluene

ug/l

1000 u

soou

asou

osou

asou

soou

IOOU

o-Xylene

ug/l

1000 u

soou

osou

osou

osou

soou

IOOU

p-Chlorotoluene

ug/l

1000 u

soou

0.50 U

o.sou

asou

soou

IOOU

p-ltopropyltoluene

ug/l

1000 u

soou

asou

osou

osou

soou

100U

lec-Butylberuene

ug/l

1000 u

soou

osou

osou

asou

soou .

IOOU

tert-Butylbenzene

ug/l

1000 u

soou

asou

osou

osou

soou

IOOU

»rarrc-l,2-Dkhloroethene

ug/l

1000 u

soou

o.sou

o.sou

OSOU

soou

IOOU

tram-l,3-0ichloropropene

UgA

1000 u

soou

osou

osou

asou

soou

IOOU

Qualifiers: U - nondetect, J - estimate, O - other- refer to lab data sheets	Legend

Detection: [

SESD Project ID#: 14-0199

Page 31 of 450


-------
Table 2, Volatile Organic Compound Results

Sheet 4 of 7



Station ID

MW12

MW13R

MW14

MW17

MW20

MW21

MW22



Sample ID

MW12-0614

MW13R-0514

MW14-0514

MW17-0514

MW20-0514

MW21-0514

MW22-0514

Sample Date

6/18/2014 10:30

5/14/2014 15:00

5/14/2014 9:40

5/13/2014 13:04

5/14/2014 11:25

5/13/201415:17

5/13/2014 14:44

I Analyte

Units













(m- and/or p-)Xylene

Ug/L

10 U

tou

1.0 u

LOU

1.0 U

LOU

LOU

1,1.1.2-Tetrachloroethane

u«/L

5 0U

0.5OU

a sou

050U

o.sou

OSOU

osou

1,1,1-Trichloroethane

ug/l

SOU

0.50 U

O-SOU

asou

0.50 U

asou

osou

1.1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane

"l/L

SOU

OSou

o.sou

o.sou

OSOU

OSOU

osou

l,1.2-Trlchk>ro-l,2.2-Trtfluoroethane (Freon 113)

Ug/l

SOU

050U

0.50U

o.sou

o.sou

asou

o.sou

L 1.2-Trichkwoethane

u«/l

SOU

0.50 U

asou

o.sou

0.50 U

asou

o.sou

1,1-Dkhloroethane

ug/l

SOU

0.50 U

OSOU

0.50 U

o.sou

OSOU

osou

1.1-Dichloroethene {1,1-Dlchloroethylene)

ug/i

sou

OSOU

OSOU

o.sou

asou

o.sou

osou

1.1-Dichloropropene

Ug/l

sou

OSOU

asou

o.sou

OSOU

asou

o.sou

1,2.3-Trichlotobemene

u«/l

sou

OSOU

o.sou

OSOU

OSOU

OSOU

o.sou

1.2,3-Trichloropropane

ug/l

sou

OSOU

asou

O.SOU

OSOU

OSOU

o.sou

1,2.4-Trtchlorobeniene

ug/l

sou

OSOU

05OU

050U

OSOU

OSOU

osou

1,2.4-T rimethylbeniene

ug/l

sou

OSOU

OSOU

O-SOU

OSOU

OSOU

osou

1.2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane (OBCP)

u«A

to u

1.0 u

i.ou

LOU

LOU

I0U

LOU

1,2-Dibromoethane (EOS)

ug/i

sou

OSOU

asou

o.sou

O.SOU

OSOU

asou

1.2-Dichtoroberaene

ug/L

5.0 U

OSOU

asou

o.sou

OSOU

o.sou

O.SOU

1,2-Dichloroethane

ug/L

SOU

OSOu

asou

o.sou

asou

asou

o.sou

1.2-Ofchloropropane

ug/l

S.0U

OSOU

asou

OSOU

asou

OSOU

osou

1,3,5- Tr im ethytbem ene

ug/L

SOU

osou

O-SOU

OSOU

OSOU

asou

o.sou

1,3-Dichlorobenzene

ug/l

5.0 U

OSOU

OSOU

0.50 U

0.50 U

OSOU

o.sou

1.3-Dtchloropropane

u«A

S.0U

OSOU

OSOU

O-SOU

o.sou

0.50 U

osou

1,4-Dichlorobenrene

ug/L

sou

OSOU

OSOU

0.50 U

asou

asou

asou

1,2 Dichloropropane

ug/l

sou

OSOU

O.SOU

OSOU

osou

OSOU

osou

Acetone

ug/L

*ou

4.0 U

4.0 U

4 OU

4.0 U

4.0 U

4.0 U

Benzene

ug/L

S.0U

OSOU

asou

OSOU

OSOU

asou

o.sou

Bromobenzene

ug/l

sou

OSOU

0.S0U

O.SOU

o.sou

o.sou

o.sou

Bromochloromethane

ug/l

sou

OSOU

OSOU

OSOU

o.sou

0.50 u

o.sou

Bromodichlorom ethane

ug/L

sou

OSOU

asou

O-SOU

050 U

O-SOU

0.50 U

Bromoform

ug/l

10 u

1 ou

10U

LOU

LOU

LOU

1.0U

Bromomethane

ug/L

20 U

2,0 U

2.0 U

2.0 U

2.0 u

2.0 U

2.0 U

Carbon Tetrachloride

ug/L

sou

o.sou

0.50 U

o.sou

asou

OSOU

o.sou

Carbon disulfide

ug/l

20 U

2.0 U

2.0 U

2.0 U

2.0 u

20 U

2.0 U

Chlorobenzene

ug/L

sou

o.sou

OSOU

o.sou

0.50 U

O-SOU

asou

Chloroetharte

ug/l

20 U

2.0 u

2.0 U

2.0 U

2.0 U

2.0 U

2.0 U

Chloroform

ug/L

7.4

0.50 U

OSOU

O.SOU

OSOU

O.SOU

osou

Chloromethane

ug/L

sou

o.sou

asou

OSOU

OSOU

OSOU

o.sou

Cycloheune

ug/l

sou

o.sou

O-SOU

O.SOU

osou

0.50 U

osou

Dibromochloromethane

ug/L

sou

OSOU

asou

0.50 U

asou

o.sou

o.sou

Olbromomethane

ug/L

sou

O.SOU

OSOU

OSOU

asou

osou

osou

Oichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12)

ug/l

sou

OSOU

O-SOU

0.50 U

OSOU

asou

osou

Ethyl Benzene

ug/L

5,0 U

OSOU

O-SOU

OSOU

OSOU

osou

asou

He«ach(orobutadiene

ug/l

sou

OSOU

OSOU

OSOU

OSOU

0.50 U

osou

Hexachloroethane (TIC)

ug/l















hopropylbervene

ug/l

sou

OSOU

asou

0.0901,0

O.SOU

osou

osou

Methyl Acetate

ug/l

10 u

LOU

I.OU

LOU

LOU

LOU

I.OU

Methyl Butyl Ketone

ug/l

10 u

1.0 u

1.0 u

LOU

I.OU

10U

1-0 U

Methyl Ethyl Ketone

ug/l

*ou

4.0U

4.0 U

4.0 U

4.0 U

1.2 J.0

4.0 U

Methyl kobutyl Ketone

ug/l

10 u

1.0 u

10U

I0U

LOU

I.OU

I.OU

Methyl I Butyl Ether (MTBE)

ug/L

sou

OSOU

0.15 J.O

OSOU

OSOU

asou

osou

Methyfcydohexanc

ug/l

SOU

OSOU

asou

O.SOU

OSOU

asou

osou

Methylene Chloride

ug/l

sou

OSOU

0.50 U

OSOU

asou

osou

osou

Styrene

ug/L

SOU

0.50 U

asou

OSOU

asou

osou

osou

Tentatively Identified Compounds

ug/L

100 u

10 u

10 u

10 u

10 u

10 u

10 u

Tetrachioroethene (Tetrachkxoethylene}

ug/l

900

6.7

0.50 U

0.50 U

0. IB 1.0

2.5

B-5

Toluene

ug/l

SOU

osou

asou

O.SOU

osou

asou

osou

TrichkNoethene (Trkhloroethytene)

ug/l

24

0.19 i,0

O-SOU

0.S0U

OSOU

z.t

LS

Trichlorofluoromelhane (Freon 11)

ug/l

sou

o.sou

0.50 U

050 U

0.50 U

0.50 U

osou

Vinyl chloride

ug/l

sou

o.sou

OSOU

OSOU

OSOU

asou

o.sou

cis-1.2 Dichloroethene

ug/l

sou

OSOU

asou

050U

OSOU

osou

0.67

cis- 1.3-Oichioropropcne

ug/l

5.0 U

OSOU

asou

o.sou

OSOU

asou

O.SOU

n-Butyibenzene

ug/l

sou

05Ou

OSOU

o.sou

OSOU

osou

o.sou

n-Propylbeniene

ug/l

sou

0.50U

osou

o.sou

0.50 U

0.50 U

osou

o-Chlorotoluene

ug/L

sou

OSOU

0.S0U

OSOU

o.sou

OSOU

0.50 U

o-Xytene

ug/L

sou

OSOU

OSOU

O.SOU

OSOU

0.50 U

o.sou

p-Chiorotoluene

ug/l

sou

OSOU

O.SOU

0.50 U

OSOU

osou

0.50 u

p Isopropyltoluene

ug/l

sou

osou

O.SOU

OSOU

OSOU

asou

o.sou

sec-Butylberuene

ug/L

sou

0.50 U

OSOU

0.50 U

OSOU

0.50 U

o.sou

tert Butylbenzene

ug/l

sou

o.sou

asou

o.sou

050U

o.sou

o.sou

tram- J, 1- Dichloroethene

ug/L

sou

OSOU

asou

o.sou

OSOU

osou

osou

trans-1,3-Dichloropropene

ug/l

5.0 U

O-SOU

OSOU

OSOU

O.SOU

0.S0U

o.sou

Qualifiers: U - nondetect, J - estimate, O - other- refer to lab data sheets	Legend

Detection: | 98

SESD Project ID#: 14-0199

Page 33 of 450


-------
Table 2, Volatile Organic Compound Results

Sheet 5 of 7

Station IC
Sample IC
Sample Date

MW25

MW26

MW27

MW02R

MW03R

MW04

MW05

MW25-0514

MW2MJ514

MW2 7-0514

MW2R-0514

MW3S0514

MW4-0514

MW5-0514

S/13/2014 11:05

5/14/2014 12:S5

S/l 3/2014 12:30

5/16/20149:55

5/17/2014 15:55

5/14/2014 14:45

5/15/2014 15:05

I Analyte

Units







(m- and/or p-)Xylene

ui/l

LOU

10 U

l.OU

10U

1.0 u

1.0 u

1000 U

1,1.1,2-T etrachioroethane

ug/l

0.50 U

OSOU

0.50 U

osou

O.SOU

asou

5000

1,1,1-Trichloroethane

ug/l

0.50 U

0.50 U

0.50 U

osou

O.SOU

OSOU

500U

1.1.2,2-T etrachioroethane

"¦A

0.501/

O.SOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

0.500

0 50 U

S00 U

l,1.2-Trkhloro-l,2,2-Trifluoroethane (Freon 113)

u«/l

0.50 U

OSOU

0.50 U

OSOU

O.SOU

osou

500 U

1,1,2-Trlchloroethane

ug/l

050 U

O.SOU

OSOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

0.50 u

500 U

1.1-Dichloroethane

u(A

0.50 0

OSOU

050U

osou

O.SOU

asou

500 U

1,1-Dlchloroethene (1,1-Dichtoroethylene)

ugA

0.50 0

OSOU

OSOU

0 501/

099

O.SOU

500 U

1,1-Dichloropropene

ug/l

0.500

050 U

O.SOU

O.SOU

OSOU

asou

500 U

1,2,3-Trichtofobenzene

ug/l

0,50 U

0.50 U

OSOU

O.SOU

0.50 U

osou

SOOU

1,2,3-T riehloropropane

ug/L

0.50 U

OSOU

0.50 U

O.SOU

OSOU

asou

500 U

1,2,4-Trlchlorobenzene

ug/L

0.50 U

O.SOU

050 U

O.SOU

OSOU

0.50 u

SOOU

1,2,4-lrtmethyibenzene

ug/l

050 V

OSOU

0.501/

osou

O.SOU

O.SOU

SOOU

l,2-Oibromo-3-Chloropropane (DBCP)

ugA

1.0 U

1.0 u

1.0 u

LOU

1.0 U

LOU

1000 u

1,3-Dibromoethane (EDB)

ug/L

0.50 U

OSOU

asou

osou

0.50 U

OSOU

SOOU

1,7-Dichkwobeofene

ug/l

O.SOU

OSOU

OSOU

osou

osou

050U

SOOU

1.2 Dichiof oethane

ug/l

0.50 U

05OU

0.50 U

O.SOU

osou

OSOU

SOOU

1.2 DicMoropropane

ug/l

0501/

OSOU

fl50U

OSOU

OSOU

osou

SOOU

1,3,5-TrimethYlbenzene

ugA

0.50U

osou

O.SOU

0.50 U

asou

asou

SOOU

1.3-Dichlofobenzene

ug/l

0.50 U

OSOU

OSOU

osou

O.SOU

osou

SOOU

1,3-DicWoropropane

ug/l

0.50 U

O.SOU

OSOU

osou

O.SOU

osou

SOOU

1,4-CHchlorobenzene

ug/l

OSOU

OSOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

asou

SOOU

2,2-Dtchioropropane

ug/l

0.50 U

OSOU

OSOU

OSOU

OSOU

asou

SOOU

Acetone

ug/l

4 0 U

4.0 U

4.0 U

4 OU

4 0U

4.0 U

4000 U

Benzene

ug/l

0.50 U

O.SOU

osou

O.SOU

O.SOU

asou

SOOU

Bromobenzene

ug/l

0.50 U

O.SOU

osou

O.SOU

O.SOU

asou

SOOU

Bromochloromethane

ug/l

0.50 U

OSOU

O.SOU

OSOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

SOOU

Bromodichloromethane

ug/l

0.50 U

OSOU

050 U

0.50 U

O.SOU

O.SOU

SOOU

Bromoform

ug/L

1.0 U

1.0 u

10U

1.0 u

1.0 U

1,0 u

1000 U

Bromoroethane

ug/L

1.0 U

2.0 U

2.0UJ.0

2.0 U,J.O

2 0U.J.0

2.0 u

2000 U.1,0

Carbon Tetrachloride

ug/l

0.50 U

O.SOU

osou

OSOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

SOOU

Carbon disulfide

ug/L

2.0 U

2.0 U

2.0 U

2.0 U

2.0 U

2.0 U

2000 U

Chlorobenzene

ug/L

0.50U

O.SOU

osou

O.SOU

osou

0.S0U

SOOU

Chloroethane

ug/l

2.0 U

2.0 U

2.0 u

2.0 U

2.0 U

2.0 U

2000 U

Chloroform

ug/l

0.50 U

0.401.O

osou

0.50 U

0.19 KO

O.SOU

SOOU

Chloromethane

ug/l

0.50 U

050 U

0.50 U

O.SOU

05OU

O.SOU

SOOU

Cydohrane

ug/L

0501/

050U

osou

OSOU

osou

asou

SOOU

Dibromochloromethane

ug/l

0.50 U

OSOU

0 sou

O.SOU

O.SOU

asou

SOOU

Oibromom ethane

UgA

0.50 U

OSOU

osou

OSOU

osou

O.SOU

SOOU

DKhlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12)

ug/l

0.50 U

OSOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

osou

OSOU

SOOU

Ethyl Benzene

ug/l

O.SOU

OSOU

osou

asou

O.SOU

asou

SOOU

Hexachlorobutadiene

ug/l

0.50 O

OSOU

osou

O.SOU

0 501/

0.50 U

SOOU

Hexachlor oethane (TIC)

ug/L















Isoptopylbenzene

ug/l

osou

OSOU

osou

O.SOU

OSOU

asou

SOOU

Methyl Acetate

UgA

1.0 U

1 on

1.0 u

1.0U

10 u

lOU

1000 u

Methyl Butyl Ketone

ug/l

1.0 U

1.0 U

10U

LOU

1.0 u

lOU

1000 0

Methyl Ethyl Ketone

ugA

4.0 IJ

4:0 U

40U

4.0 U

4 0U

4.0 U

4000 U

Methyl Isobutyl Ketone

ug/l

1.0 u

1.0 u

1 ou

l.OU

1.0 u

LOU

1000 U

Methyl T-Butyl Ether (MTBE)

ug/l

0.50U

osou

osou

osou

OSOU

osou

SOOU

Methylcydohexane

ug/l

0501/

OSOU

osou

0.50U

O.SOU

osou

SOOU

Methylene Chloride

ugA

0.500

O.SOU

O.SOU

osou

OSOU

asou

SOOU

Styrene

ug/L

0500

0.S0U

OSOU

osou

O.SOU

osou

SOOU

Tentatively Identified Compounds

ug/L

10 U

10 u

10 u

10 u

lOU

10 u

10000U

Tetrachtofoethene (Tetrachloroethylene)

ug/L

O.SOU

IS

O.SOU

O.SOU

520

0.85

59000

Toluene

ug/l

0.50 U

OSOU

0.50 U

osou

0 14 J,0

asou

SOOU

Trkhloroethene (Trichloroethylene)

ug/l

O.SOU

O.SOU

OSOU

O.SOU

42

0.59

1200

TrichloroRuoromethane (Freon 11)

ug/l

O.SOU

O.SOU

osou

O.SOU

O.SOU

asou

SOOU

Vinyl chloride

ug/l

0.50U

OSOU

0.50 U

OSOU

0.69

asou

SOOU

cls-l,2-Dichloroethene

ug/l

0.501/

aiuo

0.501/

0.50 U

560

0.96

4X1,0

cis-1,3-Dichtoropr opene

UgA

O.SOU

OSOU

OSOU

0.50 U

osou

asou

SOOU

n- Butyl benzene

ug/l

0501/

OSOU

asou

O.SOU

osou

asou

SOOU

n-Propylbenzene

ug/l

OSOU

OSOU

0.50 U

0.50 U

0.50 u

asou

SOOU

o-ChlorotoUiene

ug/l

OSOU

OSOU

050U

osou

OSOU

asou

SOOU

o-Xylene

ug/l

0.50 U

050 U

0.50 U

osou

osou

asou

SOOU

p-Chlorotoluene

ug/l

O.SOU

asou

osou

O.SOU

osou

osou

SOOU

p-lsapropyltoluene

ugA

O.SOU

OSOU

osou

O.SOU

osou

osou

SOOU

set-Butylbenzene

ug/L

O.SOU

OSOU

osou

0.50U

OSOU

asou

SOOU

tert-Butylbenzene

ug/L

O.SOU

OSOU

osou

O.SOU

osou

0.500

SOOU

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene

ug/L

OSOU

OSOU

osou

O.SOU

22

O.SOU

SOOU

trans-1.3- Dichloropr opene

ug/l

OSOU

osou

0.50 U

O.SOU

0.501/

0.50 U

SOOU

Qualifiers: U - nondetect, J - estimate, 0 - other- refer to lab data sheets	Legend

Detection:!;

SESD Project ID#: 14-0199

Page 35 of 450


-------
Table 2, Volatile Organic Compound Results

Sheet 6 of 7

Station 10
Sample ID
Sample Date

MW06

MW07

MW07

MW08 PMW01A

PMW01B

PMW01C

MW5-0514

MW7-0614

MW7-0614S

MW8-0514 PMW1A-0514

PMW1B-0S14

PMW1C-0514

5/14/2014 16:25

6/17/2014 10:05

6/17/2014 10:10

5/15/2014 9.55 5/19/2014 15:25

5/20/2014 9:30

5/20/201411:35

Analyte

Units



(m- and/or p-)Xytene

Ug/l

ioou

1.0 u

l.OU

l.OU

S00 u

100 U

2000U

1.1,1.Z-Tetrachloroethan*

ug/l

sou

<7.50 U

OSOU

0.50 U

250 U

SOU

1000 U

1,1,1-Trichloroethane

ug/L

sou

0.50 U

0.50 U

OSOU

250 U

SOU

1000U

1.1.2,2-TetracMoroethane

ug/L

SOU

0,50 U

OSOU

OSOU

250 U

SOU

1000U

1.1.2-Trichloro-l,2.2-Trtfluoroethane (Freon 113)

u«A

sou

0 50 U

0.50 U

osou

250 U

SOU

1000 u

1,1,2-Trichioroethane

ug/l

sou

0.501/

asou

O.SOU

250U

SOU

1000U

1,l-Dtchkwoettwne

u«/l

sou

0,50 U

0.50 U

0:50 U

250U

SOU

tooou

1,1-Oichloroethene (1,1 -Oichtoroethylene)

ug/l

sou

osou

0.50 U

OSOU

2SO U

SOU

10001/

1,1 -Dlchloropropene

ug/l

sou

0 sou

0.50 U

O.SOU

250 U

sou

1000 u

1,2,3-Trichlorobeniene

ug/l

sou

osou

osou

O.SOU

250 U

sou

1000U

1,2.3-Trichloropropane

ug/l

sou

osou

osou

O.SOU

250 U

SOU

1000 u

1,2,4-TricMorobenzene

ug/l

sou

osou

0.50U

O.SOU

250U

sou

lOOOU

1,2.4-Trimethyfbenjene

ug/l

sou

osou

0.50 U

050U

250 U

sou

1000U

l,2-Dtbromo-3-Chloropropane (OBCP)

ug/l

toou

1.0 u

l.OU

l.OU

SOOU

100 u

20OOU

1,2-Dibromoethane (tOB)

u«A

sou

osou

asou

osou

250 U

sou

lOOOU

1,2-Dkhlorobeniene

ug/l

sou

osou

asou

asou

250 U

sou

lOOOU

1.2- Otchloroethane

ug/l

SOU

0.50 U

0.50 U

O.SOU

250 U

sou

iooo a

1.2-Dichloropropane

ut/l

sou

osou

asou

osou

250 U

SOU

lOOOU

1,3,5-Trimethylbenjene

ug/l

sou

osou

asou

osou

250 U

sou

lOOOU

1,3- Dichlorobenzene

ug/l

sou

0.50 u

asou

asou

250 U

5OU

1000U

1.3-Dichloropropane

ug/l

sou

0.50 u

osou

osou

250 U

sou

tooou

1,4-Dichloroben*ene

ug/l

sou

OSOU

asou

0.411.0

250 U

sou

1000U

2,2-Ofchtoropropane

ug/l

sou

OSOU

asou

0.50 U

250 U

sou

1000 u

Acetone

ug/l

400 U

*.1

7.8

4.0 U

2000 U

400 u

BOOOU

Bnucm

ug/l

sou

osou

asou

0.291.O

250 U

sou

tooou

Bromobeiuene

ug/l

sou

osou

osou

asou

250 U

sou

tooou

Bromochioromethane

ug/l

sou

osou

0.50 U

osou

250 U

sou

tooou

BromodicMoromethane

ug/l

SOU

OSOU

0.50 U

O.SOU

2SOU

sou

tooou

Bromoform

ug/l

toou

l.OU

1.0 u

l.OU

500U

100 u

2000 U

Bromomethane

ug/l

XX u

2.0 u

20 U

2.0 U

1000 UJ.O

200 UJ.O

4000 UJ.O

Carbon tetrachloride

ug/L

sou

0.151,0

0.1*1,0

O.SOU

250 U

sou

tooou

Carbon disulfide

ug/l

TOOU

2.0 U

2.0 U

2.0 U

1000 U

200 U

4000U

Chiorobenfene

ug/l

SOU

050 U

OSOU

0.331.0

250 U

sou

tooou

CMororthane

ug/l

100 u

2.0 U

2.0 U

2.0 U

lOOOU

200 U

4000 U

Chloroform

ug/l

181,0

2.S

7.6

0.080 J.0

250 U

131,0

1200

Chlorom ethane

ug/l

SOU

osou

asou

OSOU

250 U

sou

tooou

Cyclohexane

ug/l

sou

0.50 U

osou

0.50 U

2SOU

sou

10001/

Dlbromochloromelhane

ug/l

sou

OSOU

osou

O.SOU

250 U

sou

10001/

Oibromomethane

ug/l

sou

OSOU

osou

osou

250 U

sou

tooou

Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12)

ug/l

sou

0 50 u

asou

osou

250 U

sou

tooou

Ethyl Benzene

ug/l

sou

OSOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

250 U

sou

tooou

Hexachlorobutadiene

ug/l

sou

OSOU

OSOU

O.SOU

250 U

sou

tooou

Hexachloroethane (TIC)

ug/l















Isopropylberuene'

ug/L

sou

O.SOU

osou

O.SOU

250 U

sou

tooou

Methyl Acetate

ug/L

100 u

tou

l.OU

1.0U

SOOU

100 u

2000 U

Methyl Butyl Ketone

ug/L

ioo u

l.OU

l.OU

l.OU

SOOU

100 u

2000 U

Methyl Ethyl Ketone

ug/L

400 U

4.0 U

4.0 U

4.0 U

2000 U

400 u

8000 U

Methyl Isobutyl Ketone

ug/L

100 u

l.OU

tou

l.OU

SOOU

100 u

2000 U

Methyl T-Butyl Ether (MTBE)

ug/l

sou

0.50 U

osou

O.SOU

250 U

sou

tooou

Methylcyclohexane

ug/L

sou

osou

0.50U

O.SOU

250 U

sou

tooou

Methylene Chloride

ug/l

sou

osou

0.50 U

O.SOU

250 U

sou

tooou

Styrene

ug/L

sou

osou

osou

OSOU

250 U

sou

tooou

Tentatively Identified Compounds

ug/l

1000 u

10 u

10 u

10 U

50000

1000U

20000u

T etr achloroethene (Tetrachloroethylene)

ug/l

7100

150

140

0.16 J.0

17000

5800

240000

Toluene

ug/L

sou

osou

asou

O.SOU

250 U

sou

tooou

Trichloroethene (Trlchloroethyfene)

ug/L

160

0.27 J.0

0.2S1.0

O.SOU

160 J.O

sou

tooou

Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11)

ug/l

sou

osou

O.SOU

0.50 U

250 U

sou

tooou

Vinyl chloride

ug/L

sou

osou

OSOU

O.SOU

2SOU

sou

tooou

ci*-l,2-Dichloroethene

ug/L

560

0.55

0.441,0

asou

1401,0

sou

1000 u

cis-1.3-Dichloropropene

ug/l

sou

osou

asou

OSOU

250 U

sou

tooou

n-Butylbetuene

ug/l

sou

0.50U

OSOU

OSOU

250 U

sou

lOOOU

n-Propytberuene

ug/L

sou

0.50 U

asou

O.SOU

250 U

sou

tooou

o-Chlorotoluene

ug/l

sou

osou

0.50 U

OSOU

250 U

sou

tooou

o-Xylene

ug/l

sou

0.50 U

O.SOU

O.SOU

2 SOU

50 U

tooou

p-Chlorotoluene

ug/L

sou

osou

asou

0.50 U

250 U

5OU

tooou

p-lsopropyltoluene

ugA

sou

osou

0.S0U

asou

2SOU

sou

tooou

sec-Butylbenzene

ug/L

sou

0.50 U

asou

0.50 U

250 U

sou

1000U

tert-Butylbeniene

ug/L

sou

0.50 U

osou

O.SOU

250 U

sou

tooou

trans- 1,2-Okhloroethene

ug/l

sou

OSOU

osou

osou

250 U

sou

tooou

trans-1.3- Dichlor opropene

ug/L

sou

OSOU

0.50U

0.50 U

250 U

sou

tooou

Qualifiers: U - nondetect, J - estimate, O - other- refer to lab data sheets	Legend

Detection: f

SESD Project ID#: 14-0199

Page 37 of 450


-------
Table 2, Volatile Organic Compound Results

Sheet 7 of 7



Station ID

PMW02A

PMW028

PMW02C

PMW03

PMW03

PMW04

PMW04



Sample ID

PMW2A-0514

PMW28-0514

PMW2C-0614

PMW3-0514

PMW3-0514S

PMW4-0514

PMW4-05145

Sample Date

V20/201* 14:30

5/20/2014 15:45

6/17/2014 15:50

5/19/2014 12:10

5/19/2014 12:15

5/20/201411:30

5/20/2014 11:35

Analyte

Units











(m- and/or p-)Xyiene

u«/l

10O0U

750

20 U

1.0 u

1.0 U

1000 0

1000 0

1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane

ug/l

SOOU

12 U

7.4 l.O

0.50 0

0.50 0

5001/

5OOU

1,1.1-T richlof oethane

u«/l

5OOU

12 U

10 U

0.500

0.5OO

SOOU

5000

1,1.2,2 Tetrachforoetfcane

u«A

saou

12 U

10 0

0.50 U

0.50 U

5000

SOOU

l,l,2-Trichtoro-l,2,2'TrTfluor oethane (Freon 113)

ug/L

SOOU

12U

10 U

0.50 U

0.50 0

5000

SOOU

1,1,2-Trichloroethane

ug/L

500(7

12 U

10 0

0.50 U

0.50 0

500 0

SOOU

1,1-Dichioroethane

U|/l

5000

12 U

iOO

0.50 U

050U

5000

SOOU

1,1-Oichtoroethene (1,1-Dichloroethylene)

Uf/l

SOOU

12U

JOU

0.50 U

0,500

500 0

SOOU

1,1-Dichtoropropene

ug/L

500 U

12 U

100

0.50 U

0.500

500 0

SOOU

1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene

ug/l

500 U

12 0

10 u

0.50 U

0 500

5000

500 0

1,2,3-Trichloropropane

ug/L

500 0

12 U

10 0

0.50 0

OSOU

5000

SOOU

1,2,4- T ric hiorobenzene

ug/L

500 U

12 0

10 0

0.50 O

0.50 O

5000

SOOU

1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene

Ug/l

5000

12 U

100

0500

OSOU

500 0

SOOU

l,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane (DBCP)

ug/L

1000 U

25 0

700

1.0 U

1.0 U

1000 0

1000 u

1.2-Dibromo ethane (EDB)

ug/L

500 U

12 U

10 u

050 0

OSOU

5000

SOOU

1,2-Dichlorobenzene

ug/L

500 O

12 U

10 u

0.50 U

050U

500 O

SOOU

1.2-Dichlor oethane

ug/L

5OOU

12 U

10 u

0.50 0

OSOU

5000

SOOU

1.2-0ichloropropane

ug/L

500U

12 U

10 u

0.50 U

0.500

5000

SOOU

1,3,5-Trimethylberuene

ug/l

500 U

12 U

10 o

0.50 U

OSOU

500 O

SOOU

1.3-Dichlorobenzene

ug/L

5OOU

17 O

10 u

0.50 U

0.500

500 0

5OOU

1.3-Dichhxopcopane

ug/L

SOOU

12 U

10 u

050 0

0.50 U

500 0

SOOU

1.4-Dichtor obenzene

ug/L

5OOU

12 U

10 u

0.50 0

OSOU

50017

SOOU

2,2-Dichloropfopane

ug/l

500 U

12 U

10 u

0.50 O

asou

500 0

SOOU

Acetone

ug/l

4000 U

100 0

80 U

4.0 O

4 00

4000 U

4000 u

Benzene

ug/l

500 0

12 U

10 u

0.50 U

0.50 0

500 0

SOOU

Bfomobenzene

>4/1

500 U

12U

10 u

0.50 U

0.50 U

500 0

SOOU

Bromochioromethane

ug/l

500 U

12 U

10 u

0 500

asou

500 O

500 0

Bromodichlorome thane

ug/L

5OOU

12 U

10 0

0.50 U

OSOU

500 0

500 0

Bromoform

ug/L

10OOU

25 U

TOO

1.0 0

1.00

1000 0

1000 u

Bromomethane

ug/L

moo uj.0

50UJ.O

40 U

2.0U.1.O

2.0U.J.O

2000 UJ,O

2000 U, 1,0

Carbon Tetrachloride

ug/L

5OOU

3.81.0

19

0.50 U

0.50 0

5000

SOOU

Carbon disulfide

ug/L

2000 U

SOU

40 O

2.0 U

7.0 0

70000

2000 U

Chlorobenzene

ug/l

500 U

12 U

10 U

0.50 U

0.50 U

500O

SOOU

Chloroethane

ug/l

1000U

500

40 U

2.0 U

2.0 U

7000 O

2000 U

Chloroform

ug/l

5OOU

30

690

050 0

OSOU

5OOO

SOOU

Chloromethane

ug/L

500 U

12U

10 U

0.50 U

0.50 U

500 U

SOOU

Cyctohewne

ug/L

SOOU

J 70

10 0

0.50 U

OSOU

SOOO

SOOU

Dibromochloromethane

ug/L

500 U

12 U

10 U

0.50 U

asou

500 0

SOOU

Dibromoroethane

ug/l

5OOU

12U

10 o

0500

OSOU

5OOO

SOOU

Dtchforodtfluoromethane (Freon 12)

ug/L

5OOU

12 U

10 0

oseMoropropene

ug/l

5OOU

12 0

10 u

0.500

OSOU

5000

SOOU

n-Butylbenzene

ug/l

5001/

12 U

10U

OSOU

0.50 O

5000

SOOU

n-Ptopylbenzene

ug/L

500 U

12U

10 0

0.50 0

050 0

5000

SOOU

o-Chlorotoluene

ug/l

5000

12 0

10 u

0.50 U

0500

500O

SOOU

o-Xytene

ug/l

500 0

12 U

10 u

OSOU

0.50 O

5000

soou

p-Chiorotoluene

ug/l

5OOU

12 U

10 0

05OU

0500

5OOO

SOOU

p - teopropyttoluene

ug/l

500 U

12 U

10 0

0.50 0

OSOU

5000

SOOU

sec-Butylbefuene

ug/l

500 U

12 U

10 0

0.50 O

OSOU

500 U

SOOU

tert-Butylbenzene

ug/l

SOOU

12 U

10 u

0,50 U

OSOU

soou

5OOU

trans-1.2-Otch tor oethene

ug/l

SOOU

12U

10 u

0.301,0

0.331.0

500 0

saou

trans- 1.3-Dichloropropene

ug/l

5OOU

12 U

10 u

0.50 U

asou

500 0

SOOU

Qualifiers: U - nondetect, J - estimate, O - other- refer to lab data sheets	Legend

Detection: | 98

SESD Project ID#: 14-0199

Page 39 of 450


-------
Table 3, Volatile Organic Compound Results (Detections Only)

Sheet 1 of 4



Station ID

0W1

EPA01

EPAIO

EP*11

EPA02

EPA20

EPA03 EPA04

EPA42

EPA59

EPA60

EPA60

Sample ID

DW 3-0414

EPA1-0S14

EPA1O0S14

EPA11-OS14

EPA2-0514

EPA20-0614

E PA 3-0514 EPA4-0514

EPA42-0S14

EPA59-0514

EPA6O-0S14

EPA60-0614



Mmmtnaa

¦li .'li !¦





¦"l ' 1 ¦ ¦



W-iri'ln'i'il'iW











Analyte

Units

1,1,1,2-Tetraehloroethene

ug/L

<0.50(1

<0.5OU

<0.50 U

<500 O

<0.50 0

<75 0

<25 O

< 0.50 O



c 0.50 0

<0

50 0

<1000 0

<500 0

1,1,2-Trichtoroetharw

u«A

< 0.50 U

<0.50 O

<0.50 U

<500 0

< 0-50 U

<75 O

<75 0

<0.50 0



: 0 50 0

<0

SOU

<1000 0

<500 0

1,1 -Dichloroethane

ug/L

<0-50 0

<0S0U

< 0 50 U

<500 0

<0 50 0

<75 0

<75 0

<0.50 0



c 0 50 0

To

500

<1000 0

<500U

1,1-Dichloroethene (1,1-Dlchlo'oethylenel

ug/L

<0500

<0 50U

<0 50 O

<500 0

<0500

<75 0

<750

<0 50 0



: 0.500

<0.

500

<1000 0

<500 0

1,4-Dlehloroberuene

ug/L

<0.50U

< 0.50 U

< 0 50 U

<500 0

<0.50 0

<25 0

<75 O

<0.50 0



.0 50 0

To

500

<1000 0

<500 0

Acetone

ug/L

<4.0 U

<4,0U

<4.0 U

<4000 0

<4.0 0

<700 0

<200 0

<4.0 0



<4,00

<4,00


-------
Table 3, Volatile Organic Compound Results (Detections Only)

Sheet 1 of 4



Station ID

DW3

EPA01

EPA10

OW11

EM02

EPA2C

EPAC3

EPA04

EM42

EPA59

EPAfiO

EPA60



Sample ID
Matrix

0W 3-0614
Groundwater

EPA1-0514
Groundwater

EPA10-0514

EPA11-0514
Groundwater

EPA2-0514

EPA20-C614
Groundwater

EPAWH14
Groundwater

EPA4-0514

EPA42-0514
Groundwater

EPA59-0514

Groundwater

EPA60-0514

EPA60-0614
Groundwater

Analyte

¦-Tlfl1,TWI.II,,.LlU ... UM«I.I'.Jul 		

Units

1.1.1,2-Tetrachloroethane

ufl/L

< 0.50 O

<0 50 0

<0.50 0

<500 0

<0.50 0

<250

<250

< 0.50 0

< 0.50 0

<0500

<1000 0

<5000

1,1,2-Trlehloroe thane

ut/L

<0 50 U

<0.50 0

< 0.50 0

<5000

<050 0

<25 O

<250

<0.50 0

<0.50 0

<0,50 0

<1000 0

<500 0

1,1-Dichloroe thane

ut/L

<0 501/

<0 500

<0500

<500 0

<0 50 0

<25 0

<25U

<0500

<0500

<0.500

<1000 0

<5000

l.l-OichtoroethefwIl.l-Dtchtorwthylmw)

Uf/L

<0501/

<0500

<0500

e

ug/l

<0 50 0

<0.500

000 0

<500 0
<500 0

8romoform

ug/l

<1.0 u

<1.0 0

< 1-0 0

<1000 0

0.44 J.O

<500

<50 0

<10 0

<1.00

<1.0 0

<7000 0

<1000 0

Carbon Tetrachloride

U|/l

050 0

<0.50 0

»

<1000 0

<500 0

tram-l,2-0ichtoroethene

uf/L

<0.50.0

<0.50 0

• 0 50 0

<500 0

0.26 J.O

<75 0

<75 0

<0.50 0

<0 50 0

0.65

<1000 0

<500 0

Qualifiers: U - nondetect, J - estimate, 0 - other- refer to lab data sheets	Legend

Detection: | w

SESD Project ID#: 14-0199

Page 41 of 450


-------
Table 3, Volatile Organic Compound Results (Detections Only)

Sheet 3 of 4



Station ID

MW17

MW30

MWJ1

MW22

MWJ6

MW03R

MW04

MW05

MW06

MW07

MW07



Sample ID
Matrix

MW17-0514
Groundwater

MW20-0514
Groundwater

MW21-0514
Groundwater

MW22-0514
Groundwater

MW26-0514
Groundwater

MW3H-0514
Groundwater

MW4-0514
Groundwater

MW5-0514
Groundwater

MWM514
Groundwater

MW7-0614

MW7-0614S
Groundwater

Analyte

Units



1,1.2-Trlchloroethane

ug/l

<0.5OU
<0501/

<0.500
<0.50 O

<0.500

<050 U

<0 50 0

<0.50U
<0500

<0500

<500 0

<500

<0.50 0
<0.50 0

<050 0

1,1 -Dkhloroethane

ug/L

<0S0U

<0 501/

<0 500

<0500

<0.50 0

<0500

<0 5OU

<500 0

<50 0

<0.50 0

<0.S0 0

1,1-Dichloroethene (1,1-ttchloroelhylene)

ug/L

<0500

<0500

<0500

<050 0

<0 50 0



<0500

<5000

<500

<0500

<050 O

1,4-Dtthlorobenrene

u^l

< 0.50 O

< 0.50 0

< 050 U

<0500


-------
Table 3, Volatile Organic Compound Results (Detections Only)

Sheet 4 of 4



Station ID

MWOB

PMW01*

PMW01B

PMW01C

PMW02A

PMW02B

PMW02C

PMW05

PMW03

PMW04

PMW04



Sample ID
Matrix

MWKJ514
Groundwater

PMW1A-0514
Groundwater

PMW1B-0514
Groundwater

PMW1C-0514
Groundwater

PMW2A-0514
Groundwater

PMW2B-C514
Groundwater

PMW2C-0614
Groundwater

PMW 3-0514
Groundwater

PMW 3-0514S
Groundwater

PMW4-0514

PMW4-0514S
Groundwater

Analyte

Units

1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroe thane

uf/i



<250 U

<500

<10000

<500 U



74J.0

<0.50 U

<0.500

<5000

<5000 ,

1,1,2-Trlchloroe thane

Uf/L

<0 500

<250 0

<50 0

<1000 0

<500 0

<120

<100

<0.50 0

<0.500

<5000

<5000

1,1-Olchloroethane

Ug/L

<0.50 0

<250 O

<500

<1000 0

<500 0

<12 U

<10 0

<050U

<0.500

<5000

<500 0

1,1- Dichloroethene (1,1-Dichloroetbylene)

uf/l

<0 500

<250 O

<500

<1000 0

<500 0

<12 0

<10 0

<0.5 00

< 0 50 O

<5000

<500 0

M-OkNorobcrmnc

ug/L

0.41 J.O

< 250 0

<500

•-1000 0

<5000

<12 0

<100

<0.500

<0500

<500 y

<5000

Acton.

m/i



< 2000 U

<400 0

<9000 0

<4000 0

<100 0

<80 0

<40 0

<4:0 U

<40000

<4000 0





0.29 LO

< 250 U

-50 0

<1000 0

<5000

<12 0

<100

<0.500

<0.50 0

<5000


-------
This Page Intentionally Blank

SESD Project ID» 14-0199


-------
Table 4, Water Levels and Well Information



WGS84



Well ID

Longitude

Latitude

Well Total
Depth

Top of
screen

Bottom of
screen

Ground
Surface
Elevation

Top of Casing
Elevation***

Date-Time of
Measurement

Water Leve
(ft BTOC)

Water Table
Elevation

DW1

-82.510070

28.040549

65

55

65

na

40.83

5/17/2014 10:47

16.05

24.78

DW2

-82.509627

28.041249

59

49

59

41.90

41.70

5/17/2014 0:00

15.71

25.99

DW3

-82.510551

28.039451

44

34

44

37.2

37.02

5/17/2014 0:00

7.26

29.76

6/19/2014 10:20

6.38

30.64

EPA01

-82.509877

28.040648

15

5

15

41.63

41.60

5/17/2014 10:10

6.77

34.83

EPA02

-82.510075

28.040575

15

5

15

40.80

40.72

5/17/2014 10:25

6.04

34.68

EPA03

-82.510020

28.040506

15

5

15

41.10

40.89

5/17/2014 10:42

6.33

34.56

EPA04

-82.510417

28.040351

15

5

15

41.90

41.68

5/17/2014 9:56

7.55

34.13

EPA10

-82.509878

28.040633

36.5

26

36

41.50

41.43

5/17/2014 10:13

6.71

34.72

EPA11

-82.510004

28.040511

36.5

26

36

41.14

40.97

5/17/2014 10:39

6.44

34.53

EPA13

-82.509935

28.039923

29

18

28

40.19

40.01

5/17/2014 0:00

6.22

33.79

EPA14

-82.510639

28.039576

15.5

5

15

36.90

36.73

5/17/2014 0:00

3.61

33.12

EPA20

-82.509903

28.039924

58

47

57

39.95

39.82

6/19/201412:40 |

14.14

25.68

EPA21

-82.510659

28.039575

40

30

40

36.90

36.82

5/17/2014 0:00

8.03

28.79

EPA42

-82.510490

28.041339

30

20

30

39.28

39.49

5/17/2014 8:33

4.92

34.57

EPA43

-82.510514

28.041322

30

27

30

39.42

39.26

5/17/2014 8:44

2.83

36.43

EPA55

-82.509975

28.040627

150

130

150

41.08

40.97

5/17/2014 12:04

16.25

24.72

EPA58

-82.509993

28.040608

210

200

210

40.92

40.63

5/17/2014 12:03

16.31

24.32

EPA59

-82.510025

28.040628

11

9

10

na

na

5/17/2014 11:48

5.94



EPA60

-82.510063

28.040576

33.5

32

33

na

na

5/17/2014 10:33

6.20

-

6/17/2014 12:35

5.13

-

EPA61

-82.510027

28.04055

33.5

32

33

na

na

5/17/2014 11:01

6.73

-

6/17/2014 17:20

5.22

-

EPA62

-82.509992

28.040600

10

8

9

na

na

5/17/2014 11:27

6.02

-

EPA63

-82.509960

28.040600

10

8

9

na

na

5/17/2014 11:30

5.97

-

EPA64

-82.50996

28.040603

40

32

33

na

na

5/17/2014 11:34

6.30



6/18/2014 12:40

5.32

-

MW01

-82.509837

28.040673

15

5

15

41.60

41.11

5/17/2014 10:05

6.21

34.90

MW02R

-82.509801

28.040424

15.5

5

15

41.00

40.81

5/17/2014 10:10

6.12

34.69

MW03R

-82.510011

28.040620

15.5

5

15

40.90

40.82

5/17/2014 11:42

5.97

34.85

MW04

-82.510080

28.040244

15

5

15

40.20

39.95

5/17/2014 10:02

5.80

34.15

MW05

-82.509923

28.040527

15

5

15

41.10

40.85

5/17/2014 10:36

5.97

34.88

MW06

-82.510041

28.040233

30

20

30

40.50

40.27

5/17/2014 10:06

6.09

34.18

MW07

-82.510075

28.040571

35

25

35

40.7

40.49

5/17/2014 10:41

5.83

34.66

6/17/2014 10:05

4.91

35.58

MW08

-82.509979

28.040708

40

30

40

41.40

41.10

5/17/2014 10:19

6.44

34.66

MW10

-82.509791

28.040363

35

25

35

41.40

41.09

5/17/2014 10:14

6.55

34.54

MW11R

-82.509914

28.04048

15.2

5

15

40.9

40.73

5/17/2014 10:33

5.81

34.92

6/18/201415:45 1 4.85

35.88

MW12

-82.509986

28.040612

35

25

35

40.9

40.58

5/17/2014 11:17

5.82

34.76

6/18/2014 10:30

5.18

35.40

MW13R

-82.510417

28.040343

25

15

25

41.80

41.63

5/17/2014 9:59

7.50

34.13

MW14

-82.509922

28.040942

32

22

32

40.68

40.51

5/17/2014 9:08

5.56

34.95

MW17

-82.508843

28.039818

30

20

30

40.54

40.27

5/17/2014 0:00

6.09

34.18

MW18R

-82.511225

28.040278

30

20

30

40.60

40.47

5/17/2014 0:00

6.57

33.90

MW19

-82.510531

28.039406

20

10

20

37.30

37.03

5/17/2014 0:00

4.06

32.97

MW20

-82.509580

28.040724

35

25

35

40.79

41.32

5/17/2014 9:15

6.37

34.95

MW21

-82.510291

28.040839

35

25

35

41.06

40.97

5/17/2014 9:02

6.83

34.14

MW22

-82.510430

28.039771

20

10

20

37.70

37.48

5/17/2014 0:00

4.13

33.35

MW23

-82.510693

28.040761

35

25

35

41.80

41.82

5/17/2014 9:41

7.33

34.49

MW25

-82.509214

28.040897

23

13

23

42.60

42.41

5/17/2014 0:00

7.18

35.23

MW26

-82.510882

28.039806

23

13

23

38.24

37.93

5/17/2014 9:48

4.67

33.26

MW27

-82.510918

28.041035

34

24

34

41.00

40.82

5/17/2014 9:30

6.44

34.38

PMW01A

-82.510021

28.040610

15.3

15

15.3

na

na

na*



PMW01B

-82.510027

28.040608

28

23

28

na

na

5/17/2014 11:53

5.84

.

PMW01C

-82.510032

28.040608

33

28

33

na

na

5/17/2014 11:57

6.18

.

PMW02A

-82.509993

28.040584

15.3

15

15.3

na

na

na*

-

PMW02B

-82.509998

28.040583

28

23

28

na

na

5/17/2014 11:46

6.07

-

PMW02C

-82.510002

28.040583

33

28

33

na

na

5/17/2014 11:42

6.09

-

PMW02C

-82.510002

28.040583

33

28

33

na

na

6/17/2014 15:50

5.00



PMW03**

-82.510073

28.040627

20

10

20

na

na

5/17/2014 11:32

5.67

.

PMW04

-82.509966

28.040562

20

10

20

na

na

5/17/2014 11:51

6.27

.

VEW1

-82.510068

28.040588

106

96

106

na

40.90

5/17/2014 11:11

16.18

24.72

* small diameter (~3/8") well could not be sounded	Legend

** Data for PMW03 not available, assumed to be similar to PMW04	data not available

*** Top of Casing Elevations are from previous work and	non-synoptic water levels

are in need of updating - see text	value could not be calculated

na
6/18/14

SESD Project ID#: 14-0199

Page 49 of 450


-------
Table S, Water Quality Parameters



Station ID

DW3

I EPAOi

I EPA02 |

| EPA03 ]

| EPA04

I EPAiO

I EPAii |

| EPA13 |

I EPA20 1

I EPA42 i

1 EPA59

EPA65

EPA50

Sample ID

DW3-0614

EPA1-0514 1

EPA2-0514

EPA3-0514

EPA4-0514

EPA10-0514

EPA11-0514

EPA13-0514

EPA20-0614 |

EPA42-0514

EPA59-05I4

EPA60-0514

EPA60-Ki4

Sample Date

I 6/19/2014 I

5/15/2014

5/16/2014

5/16/2014

5/16/2014

5/15/2014

5/16/2014

5/14/2014

6/19/2014 1

5/13/2014

5/19/7014





Parameter

Unit*



























Dissolved Oxygen

mg/l

0.36

1.61

1.88

0.76

0.18

0.28

0.19



0.45

0.92

0.14

0.96

0.75

Oxidation Reduction Potential

mV Ag/AgCI ref

-220

-190

-200

-100

-170

-230

0

-90

-210

-80

-260

475.50

490

PH

pH Units

6.80

6.08

6.69

5.75

5.53

5.75

4.22

4.72

6.76

5.26

6.55

6.28

6.35

Specific Conductivity

us/cm

599.30

528.50

460.80

213.10

116.20

674.80

1059

98.65

715.30

83.17

345.10

7984

7069

Temperature

DegC

25.2

24.9

24.5

23.2

26.3

25.7

24.6

28.5

29.8

29

25.6

26.3

27.8

Turbidity

NTU

1.74

6.03

26.10

9.99

5.53

9.74

4.25

3.67

9.14

8.96

24.30

190

19.40

Dissolved Oxygen
Oxidation Reduction Potential

Sample Pit

mV Aq/AqCI ref



0.14

Deo C

m

18080

6-80

Dissolved Oxvoen

Oxidation Reduction Potential

_EH_

Station IBI	RW07	1	MWOfl

t'j -'in; ,,* •.'•itiaii r.:	u««- >. ;•.«¦¦.. ¦,[->!¦¦ .

mV Aq/Aqd ref

6-31

4*1

0-0S

-2W

6.06

619

JUSL

-260

5-46

_ts_

310

9#

_5J6_

Specific Conductivity

us/cm

798.40

_§02L_

_1U2_

_yi9_



_ioL§a_

150 5Q

Temperature

Peg C

25.3

9-1?

25-8

265

23-90

28.6

8,9?

27.2

_LSZ_

_L20_



Dissolved Oxvoen
Oxidation Reduction Potential

ma/I
mV Aa/AaCI ref

0.25
-220

0.91
-120

0.28
-20

0.08

-320

0.55
-160

2.13
-50

0.24
-260

10.66

19.90

15.86

0.86

0.04

DH

oH Units

5.67

6.23

4.74

6.11

6.17

6.38

8.38

6.16









Specific Conductivity

us/an

129

322.10

50.34

255.60

585

1219

1042

1912









Temperature

Deq<;

26.8

26.6

23.9

25.1

24.9

26.4

26.4











Turbidity

NTU

IX

6.11

4.86

1000

3.05

5.62

240

0.85

8.93

8.57

m

110

SESO Protect ID#: 14-0199

Page 51 of 450


-------
Table 6. Simple Descriptions

Station ID

Sample ID

Media Description

Additional Notes

DW3

DW3-0614

Clear, with sulfur odor

None

EPA01

EPA1-0S14

Slightly stained color, no odor

None

EPA02

EPA2-0514

Stained color, no odor, turbid

Black particles in well.

EPA03

EPA3-0514

Clear with sulfer odor

None

EPA04

EPA4-0S14

Clear with tulfer odor

Well has root mass inside.

EPA10

EPA10-OS14

Slightly stained color, no odor

None

EPA11

EPA11-0S14

Clear

None

EPA13

EPA13-0514

Not provided. Low Turbidity

Vault gets filled with water.

EPA20

EPA20-0614

Clear, no odor

None

EPA42

EPA42-0S14

Clear, no odors

None

EPAS9

EPA59-0514

Yellow, turbid, has sulfur odor

None

EPA60

EPA60-0514

Stained color, petroleum odor

Has permanganate and NAPL. Sample effervesced when mixed with the HCI preservative.

EPA60

EPA60-0614

Resample: Clear, no odor

Has NAPL. Sample effervesced when mixed with the Absorbic Acid preservative.

EPA61

EPA61-0514

Dark purple and turbid

Has permanganate

EPA61

EPA61-0614

Resample: Dark purple and turbid

Has permanganate. Strong reaction when mixed with the Absorbic Acid preservative. Extra pres. reouired

EPA62

EPA62-0514

Clear

None

EPA63

EPA63-0514

Turbid

Too of well mav have been broken off

EPA64

EPA64-0514

Purple and very turbid

Smells of TCE. Has permanganate.

EPA64

EPA64-0614

Resample: Purple, turbid, no odor

Has permanganate. Strong reaction when mixed with the Absorbic Acid preservative. Extra pres. reouired.

MW01

MW1-0514

Clear, no odors

Well has root mass inside.

MW02R

MW2R-0514

Clear

Well has root mass inside.

MW03R

MW3R-0S14

Silty

None

MW04

MW4-0514

Clear

None

MW05

MW5-0514

Silty

None

MW06

MW6-0514

Clear

None

MW07

MW7-0S14.MW7-OS14S

Purple, no odor

Has permanganate.

MW07

MW7-0614.MW7-0614S

Resample: light purple, no odor

Has permanganate. Sample effervesced when mixed with the Absorbic Acid preservative. A black and white precipitate was created when preserved.

MWOS

MW8-0S14

Dear, no odors

None

MW10

MW10-0514.MW10-0S14S

Silty

None

MW11R

MW11R-0514

Orange to Yellow/Oiange

Possible treatment chemical

MW11R

MW11R-0614

Resample: Yellow, chemical odor

Sample effervesced when mixed with the Absorbic Acid preservative.

MW12

MW12-0514

Slightly pink and turbid

HfahORP

MW12

MW12-0614

Resample; Stained, turbid, no odor

Sample effervesced when mixed with the Absorbic Acid preservative.

MW13R

MW13R-0S14

Clear with sulfur odor

None

MW14

MW14-0514

Clear, no odors

None

MW17

MW17-0514

Clear

None

MW20

MW20-0514

Clear, no odors

None

MW21

MW21-0514

Slightly yellow with sulfur odor

None

MW22

MW22-0514

Clear

Well is buried and may need a metal detector to find in future

MW25

MW25-0514

Clear

Well casing appears to have been altered, possibly when a new sidewalk was installed. Depth does not match previous recordings. Shavings were found in the well

MW26

MW26-0514

Clear

None

MW27

MW27-0S14

Clear, no odors

None

PMW01A

PMW1A-0514

Brown, very turbid

None

PMW01B

PMWlfl-0514

Clear, no odors

None

PMW01C

PMW1C-0S14

Clear, strong chemical odor

Chemical odor.

PMW02A

PMW2A-0514

Stained, no odor

None

PMW02B

PMW2B-0S14

Clear, no odor

Water turned pink and dissolved oxygen spiked before normalizing.

PMW02C

PMW2C-0514

Purple, no odor

Has permanganate.

PMW02C

PMW2C-06J4

Resample: Purple, no odor

Has permanganate. Sample effervesced when mixed with the Absorbic Add preservative.

PMW03

PMW3-0S14.PMW3-0S14S

Brown, turbid, has sulfur odor

Conductivity spiked on multiple occasions before normalizing.

PMW04

PMW4-O514.PMW4-0S14S

Turbid with sulfur odor

None

¦R4DAflT*

IDW Samples

Various

Strongest reaction with absorbic add.

SESD Project ID#' 14-0199

Page S3 of 4S0


-------
Table 7, Quality Control Sample Results



Station ID













Sample ID

PB1-0614

TB1-0514

TB1-0614

TB2-0514

TB2-0614



Matrix

Preservative Blank

Trip Blank - Water

Trip Blank-Water

Trip Blank - Water

Trip Blank - Water



Sample Date

6/lg/2014 13:00

5/19/2014 13:30

6/18/2014 16:00

5/20/2014 13:50

6/19/2014 16:00

I Analyte

Units











(m- and/or p-)Xylene

ug/L

1.0 U

1.0 u

1.0 U

1.0 U

1.0 U

1,1.1.2-Tetrachloroethane

uf/L

0.50 U

O.SOU

O.SOU

0.50 U

O.SOU

1,1,1-Trichloroethane

ug/l

O.SOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

0 5OU

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane

ug/L

0.50 U

O.SOU

O.SOU

0.50 U

O.SOU

1,1,2-Trlchloro- 1,2,2-Trifluoroethane (Freon 113)

ug/i

0.50 U

O.SOU

O.SOU

0.50 U

O.SOU

1,1,2-Trlehloroethane

uf/L

0.50U

0 .50 U

o.sou

O.SOU

0.50 U

1,1-Dichloroe thane

ug/L

0.50 U

0.50 U

O.SOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

1,1-Diehloroethene (1,1-Dichioroethylene)

ug/L

0.50U

O.SOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

1,1-Dichloropropene

ug/L

a sou

O.SOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

1,2,3-Trichloro benzene

ug/L

O.SOU

OSOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

1,2,3-Trichloropropane

ug/L

O.SOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

1,2,4-T richlorobenzene

ug/l

OSOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

1,2,4-Trimethyl benzene

ug/L

O.SOU

OSOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

l,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane (D8CP)

ug/L

10 u

1.0 U

1.0 u

1.0 u

1-0 u

1,2-Dibromoethane (EDS)

ug/L

O.SOU

0 50 U

0.50 u

O.SOU

OSOU

1.2-Dichlorobenzene

ug/L

O.SOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

0.50 U

1,2-Dichlo roe thane

ug/L

O.SOU

0 .50 U

OSOU

OSOU

O.SOU

1,2-Dichloropropane

ug/L

O.SOU

O.SOU

0.50 U

O.SOU

OSOU

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene

ug/L

O.SOU

0.50 U

O.SOU

0.50 U

O.SOU

1,3-Dichlorobenzene

ug/L

OSOU

0.50 U

O.SOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

l,3-Dichk>ro propane

ug/L

O.SOU

0.50 U

OSOU

0.50 U

0.50 U

1,4-Oichloro benzene

ug/l

OSOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

0.50U

O.SOU

2,2-Dichloropropane

ug/L

O.SOU

0.50 U

O.SOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

Acetone

ug/L

41

4.0 U

4.0 U

4.0 U

4.0 U

Benzene

ug/L

0.50 U

0.50U

O.SOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

Bromo benzene

ug/L

O.SOU

OSOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

Bromochloro methane

ug/L

O.SOU

OSOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

Bromodichloromethane

ug/l

O.SOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

Bromoform

ug/L

1.0 u

1.0 u

1.0 u

1.0 u

1.0 u

Bromomethane

ug/l

2.0 U

2.0 UJ,O

' 2.0 U

2.0UJ.O

2.0 U

Carbon Tetrachloride

ug/L

O.SOU

OSOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

Carbon disulfide

ug/L

2.0 U

2.0 U

2.0 U

2.0 U

2.0 U

Chlorobenzene

ug/L

O.SOU

O.SOU

o.sou

O.SOU

O.SOU

Chloroethane

ug/L

2.0 U

2.0 U

2.0 U

2.0 U

2.0 U

Chloroform

ug/L

O.SOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

0.50 U

Chloromethane

ug/L

O.SOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

Cyclohexane

ug/L

O.SOU

O.SOU

OSOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

D ibromochlorometha ne

ug/L

O.SOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

o.sou

O.SOU

Dibromome thane

ug/L

O.SOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

0.50 U

O.SOU

Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12)

ug/L

OSOU

O.SOU

0.50 U

O.SOU

O.SOU

Ethyl Benzene

ug/L

0.50 U

0.50 U

0.50 U

0.50 U

O.SOU

Hexachlorobutadiene

ug/l

O.SOU

OSOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

Isopropylbenzene

Ug/L

O.SOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

o.sou

O.SOU

Methyl Acetate

Ug/L

1.0 u

1.0 u

1.0U

1.0 u

1.0 u

Methyl Butyl Ketone

Ug/L

1.0 u

1.0 u

sou

1.0 u

1.0 u

Methyl Ethyl Ketone

ug/L

4.0 u

4.0 U

4.0 U

4.0 U

4.0 U

Methyl Isobutyi Ketone

ug/l

1.0 u

1.0 u

1.0 u

1.0 u

1.0 u

Methyl T-Butyl Ether (MTBE)

ug/L

O.SOU

OSOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

Methylcyclohexane

ug/L

o.sou

OSOU

O.SOU

0.50 U

O.SOU

Methylene Chloride

ug/l

O.SOU

0.50 U

O.SOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

Styrene

ug/l

o.sou

O.SOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

Tentatively Identified Compounds

ug/L

10 u

10 u

10 U

10 u

10 u

Tetrachloroethene (Tetrachloroethylene)

ug/L

0.50 U

0.50 U

O.SOU

O.SOU

0.50 U

Toluene

ug/l

O.SOU

0.50 U

0.50 U

O.SOU

O.SOU

Trichloroethene (Trlchloroethylene)

ug/L

O.SOU

0.50 U

O.SOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

T richlorofluoromethane (Freon 11)

ug/L

O.SOU

OSOU

O.SOU

OSOU

OSOU

Vinyl chloride

ug/L

O.SOU

O.SOU

o.sou

0.50 U

OSOU

ci»-l,2-Diehloroeth«ne

ug/L

050U

O.SOU

O.SOU

OSOU

O.SOU

ds-l,3-Oichloropropene

ug/L

O.SOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

n- Butyl benzene

ug/L

O.SOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

OSOU

n-Propylbenzene

ug/L

O.SOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

o-Chloro toluene

ug/L

O.SOU

0.50 U

O.SOU

0.50 U

O.SOU

o-Xylene

ug/L

O.SOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

0 50U

p-ChlorotoHiene

ug/L

OSOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

0.50 U

O.SOU

p-lsopropyltoluene

ug/l

OSOU

OSOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

sec-Butylbenzene

ug/L

O.SOU

OSOU

0.50 U

OSOU

O.SOU

tert-Butylbenzene

ug/L

O.SOU

030 U

O.SOU

O.SOU

0.50 U

trans-1,2-Oichloroethene

ug/l

O.SOU

0.50 U

O.SOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

trans-l,3-Oichloropropene

ug/l

O.SOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

O.SOU

Qualifiers: U - nondetect, J - estimate, O - other- refer to lab data sheets	Legend

Detection: | m

SESD Project ID#: 14-0199

Page 55 of 450


-------
Table 8, Split Sample Comparison



Station ID

MW10

Relative Percent
Difference

MW07





Sample ID

MW10-0514

MW10-0514S

MW7-0614

MW7-0614S



Sample Date



5/15/2014 10:15

5/15/2014 10:20



6/17/2014 10:05

6/17/2014 10:10



Analyte

Units





Acetone

ug/L

4.0 U

4.0 U



9.1

7.8

-15.4%

Carbon Tetrachloride

ug/L

0.50 U

0.50 U



0.15

0.14

-6.9%

Chloroform

ug/L

0.50 U

0.50 U



2.5

2.6

3.9%

Methyl T-Butyl Ether (MTBE)

ug/L

1.1

1.3

16.7%

0.50 U

0.50 U



Tetrachioroethene (Tetrachloroethylene)

ug/L

16

16

0.0%

150

140

-6.9%

Trichloroethene (Trichloroethylene)

ug/L

0.19

0.17

-11.1%

0.27

0.25

-7.7%

Vinyl chloride

ug/L

0.50 U

0.50 U



0.50 U

O.SOU



cis-l,2-Dichloroethene

ug/L

0.50 U

0.50 U



0.55

0.44

-22.2%

trans-l,2-Dichloroethene

ug/L

0.50 U

0.50 U



0.50 U

0.50 U





















Station ID

PMW03

Relative Percent
Difference

PMW04

Relative Percent
Difference



Sample ID

PMW3-0514

PMW3-0514S

PMW4-0514

PMW4-0514S

Sample Date



5/19/2014 12:10

5/19/2014 12:15

5/20/2014 11:30

5/20/2014 11:35

Analyte

Units





Acetone

Ug/L

4.0 U

4.0 U



4000 U

4000 U



Carbon Tetrachloride

Ug/L

0.50 U

0.50 U



500 U

500 U



Chloroform

Ug/L

0.50 U

0.50 U



500 U

500 U



Methyl T-Butyl Ether (MTBE)

Ug/L

0.50 U

0.50 U



500 U

500 U



Tetrachioroethene (Tetrachloroethylene)

ug/L

0.92

1.3

34.2%

45000

44000

-2.2%

Trichloroethene (Trichloroethylene)

ug/L

0.38

0.47

21.2%

1500

1800

18.2%

Vinyl chloride

ug/L

0.71

1

33.9%

500 U

500 U



cis-l,2-Dichloroethene

ug/L

15

20

28.6%

5800

6500

11.4%

trans-l,2-Dichloroethene

ug/L

0.3

0.33

9.5%

500 U

500 U



Qualifiers: U - nondetect, J - estimate, 0 - other- refer to lab data sheets	Legend

Detection: | 9a

SESD Project ID#: 14-0199

Page 57 of 450


-------
Groundwater Results

for Floridan Wells

SESD Project ID#'. 14-0199

Page 59 of 450


-------
^	UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

* *	REGION 4

I. $	Science and Ecosystem Support Division

'J?	Enforcement and investigations Branch

'^1	980 College Station Road

j p*0W	Athens, Georgia 30605-2720

4SESD-EIB

April 23,2015

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Southern Solvents Floridan Aquifer Groundwater Final Report
Tampa, Florida
SESD Project ID No. 15-0058

FROM:

THRU:

TO:

Brian Striggow, Environmental Engineer
Superfund and Air Section

Kevin Simmons, Acting Chief
Superfund and Air Section '

Brad Jackson
Superfund Division

Attached please find the final report of the Floridan aquifer groundwater sampling conducted at
the Southern Solvents Site. Please feel free to contact me with any questions at (706) 355-8619
or email striggow.brian@epa.gov.

Attachment

cc: Jason Lennane, USACE


-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency

Region 4

Science and Ecosystem Support Division
980 College Station Road
Athens, Georgia 30605-2720

Southern Solvents
Floridan Aquifer Groundwater Sampling
Final Report

Tampa, Florida
Dates of Sampling:

December 16-19, 2014

SESD Project Identification Number: 15-0058



LU

O

^t0SrX

Requestor: Brad Jackson

Superfund Remedial Section D
61 Forsyth St. SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960

SESD Project Leader: Brian Striggow

Superfund and Air Section
980 College Station Road
Athens, Georgia 30605-2720

SESD Project ID#: 15-0058

Page 1 of 230


-------
Title and Approval Sheet

Title: Southern Solvents Floridan Aquifer Groundwater Sampling Final Report

Approving Official:

Kevin Simmons, Acting Chief
Superfund and Air Section
Field Investigations Branch

Vn

ec>i5

Date

SESD Project Leader:

Brian Striggow, Environmental Engineer	Date

Superfund and Air Section
Field Investigations Branch

SESD Project IM: 15-0058

Pag# 2 of 230


-------
Table of Contents

Introduction	

Background 	

Summary	

Methodology	

Field Quality Control..
Results and Discussion
References	

11

5

5

6

7

8

9

Appendix A, Figures

13

Figure 1, Sampled Well Locations.

Figure 2, All Site Wells.

Figure 3, Hand-Drawn Site Map from Previous Work.

Figure 3, Source Area PCE Concentrations.

Figure 4, Water Level Contours for Wells with Total Depth Greter Than 70 ft.

Figure 5, Tetrachloroethylene Concentrations w/ Symbol Size Proportional
to Concentration.

Figure 6, Trichloroethylene Concentrations w/ Symbol Size Proportional
to Concentration.

Figure 7, cisl,2-Dichloroethylene Concentrations w/ Symbol Size Proportional
to Concentration.

Appendix B, Tables	29

Table 1, Stations, Samples, Analyses, and Methods.

Table 2, Southern Solvents Well Field.

Table 3, Volatile Organic Compound Results.

Table 4, Exceedances of MCLs or ROD Standards.

Table 5, Water Quality Parameters.

Table 6, Water Level Elevations.

Table 7, Split Sample Comparison.

Table 8, VOC Trip Blank Results.

Appendix C, Laboratory Data Sheets 	51

Appendix D, Logbook Scans 	143

SESD Project ID#: 15-0058

Page 3 of 230


-------
Introduction

This report presents the results from monitoring well sampling events conducted in
December 2014 at the Southern Solvents Superfund Site (Site) in Tampa, Florida by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science and Ecosystem Support
Division (SESD). The study was conducted in response to a request by EPA Region 4
Superfund Division remedial project manager (RPM) Brad Jackson.

An earlier project (SESD Project #14-0199) had originally been conceived as a Floridan
Aquifer sampling effort to characterize the current status of the deeper aquifer underlying
the site. However, during the same time period, the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) was conducting a soil-sampling investigation of the Site's residual
source contamination. Initial results and impressions were that less residual
contamination was present than expected. The focus of the earlier investigation was
shifted to shallow groundwater in the immediate vicinity of the Site to support the
assessment of residual source contamination.

Subsequently, plans were made to return to the Site to complete the Floridan Aquifer
sampling. The Site mobilization was conducted in December 2014 and 35 groundwater
samples were collected from 32 wells. Wells with a Total Depth greater than 55 ft total
depth were sampled in this work. In the earlier shallow groundwater sampling, it was
noted that there were discrepancies in the recorded well elevations, as well as wells
without elevation data. The entire known well field was surveyed for elevation during the
sampling mobilization. A round of water level measurements was also made of the
sampled wells near the conclusion of sampling.

Site activities were governed by a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) generated by
SESD. Field activities were directed by SESD Project Leader Brian Striggow with
sampling teams staffed with SESD staff and personnel working under the Environmental
Services Assistance Team (ESAT) contract.

The Investigation Derived Waste (IDW) was also sampled to characterize it for disposal.
The samples are noted in Table 1, Stations, Samples, Analyses, and Methods and the
laboratory data sheets are included in the appendix. However, the IDW analysis results
are reported in separate communication and will not be otherwise reported or discussed
herein.

Background

The Southern Solvents Superfund Site is located at 4009 W. Linebaugh Ave in Tampa,
Florida on an approximately 0.4 acre parcel with a single commercial building. The
attached Figure 1, Sampled Well Locations shows the Site in proximity to the intersection
of Gunn Ave and W. Linebaugh Ave in a light commercial area. The site operated from
1977 to 1985 as a distributor of tetrachloroethene (PCE) dry cleaning chemicals. There
were four documented releases of PCE on the site from above-ground storage tanks and
tanker trucks during its operation.

A Remedial Investigation (RI) has been conducted on the site, concluding that substantial
chlorinated solvent contamination exists in the surficial and Upper Floridan aquifer
systems and that dense non-aqueous phase liquid PCE remained as a source of continued
release to the environment. A soil vapor extraction (SVE) system has been operated on
the site and in-situ chemical oxidation (ISCO) conducted.

SESD Project ID#: 15-0058

Page 5 of 230


-------
The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is currently investigating the Site
to determine contaminant levels in the wake of remediation activities. In April 2014 the
USACE conducted soil coring and sampling to support their investigation.

The aquifers of interest at the site are the surficial aquifer and the Upper Floridan Aquifer.
The surficial aquifer is approximately 30 ft thick and consists of fine-grained sand, silt and
clayey sands. Surficial water levels are reported in the 4.5 to 8.5 ft below-ground-surface
(BGS) range. Underlying the surficial aquifer is a semi-confining unit consisting
primarily of clay, silt, and sandy clay. The confining materials are typically a blue-green
to gray plastic clay of the Hawthorn Group.

The Upper Floridan Aquifer consists of a continuous series of carbonate units that include
portions of the Tampa Member of the Arcadia Formation, Suwannee Limestone, Ocala
Limestone, and Avon Park Formation. The Upper Floridan Aquifer serves as a regional
source of potable water. The primary source of Floridan aquifer recharge is leakage from
the surficial aquifer.

The Site and nearby environs had 82 monitoring wells associated with the Site as reported
in a 2006 draft RI report. With additional wells since installed and/or discovered, there
are currently believed to be 93 monitoring wells associated with the Site, of which 82 are
available for sampling. The remaining 11 wells have either been documented as
destroyed, or could not be located after an extensive search. The complete well network is
documented in Table 2, Southern Solvents Well Field.

Summary

Thirty two wells on the Southern Solvent Site estimated to be screened in the Floridan
Aquifer were sampled in this effort, although some shallower wells may be screened in
semi-permeable materials overlaying the Floridan.

Wells were sampled using low-flow techniques. The Teflon® tubing used in this work
was left in each sampled well for any future sampling. All accessible wells were
resurveyed for elevation using differential leveling techniques referencing a nearby
benchmarks. The datum for well elevations was changed and significant errors were
found in the previously surveyed elevations. All of the Site's known monitoring well
information is tabulated herein and wells known to be destroyed or which could not be
located after an extensive search are documented.

The ROD Cleanup Goals are 5 |ig/L ng/L for tetrachloroethylene, 3 ng/L for
trichloroethylene, and 70 ng/L for cisl ,2-dichloroethylene. There were 18 wells which
exceeded the cleanup goal for tetrachloroethylene, 20 wells which exceeded the cleanup
goal for trichloroethylene, and 8 wells which exceeded the cleanup goal for cisl,2-
dichloroethylene.

The three Site contaminants listed for cleanup goals in the ROD are are present in the
most distally located well from the Site (EPA73 appx 1500 ft west) where a
trichloroethylene level of 9 |ig/L exceeds the ROD cleanup goal. Wells nearer the Site
contain levels far exceeding the cleanup goals for the ROD cleanup compounds.

SESD Project ID#: 15-0058

Page 6 of 230


-------
Floridan Aquifer groundwater flow in the vicinity of the site is to the west with a slight
southerly element. The potentiometric surface gradient is approximately 0.0002 ft/ft.

Methodology

An SESD Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) was created for this sampling event.
The following SESD sampling and measurement procedures were cited in the QAPP and
used in this study:

SESDPROC-100-R3	Field pH Measurement

SESDPROC-I01-R5	Field Specific Conductance Measurement

SESDPROC-102-R4	Field Temperature Measurement

SESDPROC-103-R3	Field Turbidity Measurement

SESDPROC-105-R2	Groundwater Level and Well Depth Measurement

SESDPROC-106-R3	Field Measurement of Dissolved Oxygen

SESDPROC-110-R3	Global Positioning System

SESDPROC-113-R1	Field Measurement of Oxidation-Reduction Potential (ORP)

SESDPROC-203-R3	Pump Operation

SESDPROC-301-R3	Groundwater Sampling

Water Level Measurement

At the time of sampling, water level and total depth were measured using electronic
sounders. After all wells were identified, a complete round of water level measurements
was conducted after overnight equalization of the wells with the well caps vented.

Global Positioning System

All wells had coordinates previously recorded in the Region 4 Equis database. In previous
work, wells with inaccurate coordinates were updated with data obtained by Mapping
Grade Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers. GPS was used only to navigate to
wells in this project

Groundwater Sampling

Well purging and sampling were performed using Low-Flow methods with a peristaltic
pump and new Teflon® tubing. After fastening a weight (stainless steel bolt) to the
bottom of the tubing, the tubing was positioned at the estimated mid-screen level and a
conventional Low-Flow purge begun. Samples were collected using the soda-straw
method by withdrawing sample-filled tubing from the well and allowing it to drain into
sample containers. The Teflon® tubing was left in each well for use in any future
sampling events.

SESD Project ID#: 15-0058

Page 7 of 230


-------
Field Quality Control

Analytical results associated with field quality control samples are presented in Table 7,
Split Sample Comparison and Table 8, VOC Trip Blank Results.

Volatile organic compound (VOC) trip blanks were prepared by the SESD laboratory and
transported with the samples throughout the mobilization and during transport to the
laboratory. There were no VOC detections in the VOC trip blanks.

Three split samples were collected during the mobilization. Relative Percent Differences
(RPDs) were calculated for each analyte detected in either sample of the split pair and are
displayed in Table 9, Split Sample Comparison. RPDs provide a quick means of
comparison between two results, tending to highlight small differences and capping large
differences at 200%. The formula used for calculating RPD was:

Split Sample Result - Field Sample Result
Average of Field Sample Result and Split Sample Result

Agreement between split sample pairs is better than 33% RPD except for two pairs of
results which were near the reporting level and had RPDs less than 35%. This is
reasonable and expected agreement for groundwater sampling work. In the case of the
EPA35 sample pair, the EPA35-1214 field sample was submitted by the lab to an
additional dilution that the EPA35-1214S was not. There is good agreement between the
compounds found at relatively high levels, such as Tetrachloroethylene at 1600 (ig/L in
both samples of the split pair and Trichloroethylene found at 740 ng/L in EPA35-1214
and at 840 |ig/L in EPA35-I214S resulting in an RPD of 12.7%. In the case of this
sample pair with the two different dilutions, the comparison between a result in one
sample with the reporting level of the other is not favorable. Chlorobenzene was not
detected in field sample EPA35-I214, with a reporting level of 25 |ig/L while the
compound was detected at an estimated concentration of 0.16 jag/L, resulting in a near-
maximum RPD of -197.5%.

Although SESD does not currently have a standard for split sample comparison, split
sample agreement of 33% RPD is common for this type of work. Compounds occurring
at relatively high levels (greater than 25 ng/L) show good agreement, while the
compounds found at lower concentrations (less than 25 ng/L) show relatively poor
agreement with RPDs ranging from 9.5% to 116.5%. The relatively high variability
should be taken into account in comparing the lower level results (less than 25 (ig/L) to
action or remedial levels.

End checks of water quality instruments either fall within or close to SESD standards.
There are no limitations on the use of the water quality parameter data.

SESD conducted six differential leveling loops using conventional leveling techniques
with a digital level. All of the survey loops met third-order standards for loop error
calculated by the formula:

Allowable Closure Error (ft) = 0.05 * 7LooP Length in Miles

SESD Project ID#: 15-0058

Page 8 of 230


-------
Results and Discussion

The 32 sampled wells and the 35 samples collected are listed in Table 1, Stations,

Samples, Analyses, and Methods. The locations of the sampled wells are shown in Figure
1, Sampled Well Locations. The entire Site well field is shown in Figure 2, All Site Wells.
Table 2, Southern Solvents Well Field shows basic well construction data for the entire
well field, and indicates the status of all wells. Additional detail of the source area wells
is shown in a drawing provided by a past contractor, Figure 3, Hand-Drawn Site Map
from Previous Work. The hand-drawn figure proved invaluable in disambiguating the
tightly located wells on the Site.

The results of water level measurements are presented in Table 6, Water Level Elevations.
The water level information is also shown as labels in Figure 4, Water Level Contours for
Wells With Total Depth Greater Than 70 ft. In the earlier sampling of the shallower site
wells, a short elevation survey was planned to add elevations for wells where this
information was not availble. At the outset of the survey, the known elevations of several
site wells was compared and discrepancies between the well elevations could not be
resolved. This exercise called the validity of the entire elevation data set into question and
plans were made to resurvey the elevations of all Site wells. The elevation survey was
conducted concurrently with sampling activities in this study.

In evaluating the newly surveyed elevations, it .became apparent that there was an average
0.8 ft difference in elevation between the historical and newly obtained elevations. The
new work was done in reference to the 1988 North American Vertical Datum (NAVD88).
Per the benchmark data sheet, the benchmark used for the survey has an elevation 0.8 feet
lower in the NAVD88 system than its elevation in the older 1929 National Geodetic
Vertical Datum ("NGVD29). While this accounts for the average difference between the
old and new survey, there were a myriad of differences between the surveys with
differences of over 0.5 ft common. The new survey was conducted to third-order
differential leveling standards and in all cases exceeded that standard. The new elevations
are suitable for establishing groundwater flow directions and top-of-casing (TOC)
elevations in reference to the NAVD88 datum for the entire accessible well field have
been entered in the Region 4 Equis data storage system.

This project sampled wells with total depths greater than 55 ft. This depth was chosen as
an estimate of a depth where wells would be expected to be screened in the Floridan
Aquifer. In examining the labeled wells in Table 6, Water Level Elevations, it can be seen
that the shallower wells have water levels elevations significantly above those of the series
of deeper wells. These shallower wells are believed to be screened in less permeable
materials where a significant vertical downward gradient exists. This elevated
groundwater surface can be found for wells as deep as 70 ft total depth such as EPA50
with a water level elevation of 28.79 feet (NAVD88) immediately adjacent to EPA46 with
a total depth of 110 ft and a water level elevation of 24.74 feet (NAVD88). To obtain
groundwater contours which indicate the groundwater flow in the Floridan aquifer, only
wells with greater than 70 ft total depth had their water level elevations contoured. As
shown in Figure 4, Water Level Contours for Wells With Total Depth Greater Than 70 ft,
groundwater flow direction in the Floridan Aquifer in the vicinity of the Site is to the
West and South-West. As expected, the gradient of the potentiometric surface is very
shallow at approximately 0.0002 ft/ft.

SESD Project ID#: 15-0058

Page 9 of 230


-------
Each sample was submitted for analysis for VOCs. The analytical results are presented in
Table 3, Volatile Organic Compound Results and Table 4, Exceedances of MCLs or ROD
Standards. The results for VOCs with cleanup goals in the Record of Decision (ROD)
compounds are shown visually in Figure 5, Tetrachloroethylene Concentrations w/
Symbol Size Proportional to Concentration, Figure 6, Trichloroethylene Concentrations
w/ Symbol Size Proportional to Concentration, and Figure 7, cisl,2-Dichloroethylene
Concentrations w/Symbol Size Proportional to Concentration.

The ROD Cleanup Goals are 3 (ig/L 1,000 (ig/L for tetrachloroethylene, 3 ng/L for
trichloroethylene, and 70 |ig/L for cisl,2-dichloroethylene. There were 18 wells which
exceeded the cleanup goal for tetrachloroethylene, 20 wells which exceeded the cleanup
goal for trichloroethylene, and 8 wells which exceeded the cleanup goal for cisl ,2-
dichloroethylene. Several of these wells are in the highly contaminated areas of the site
and represent contamination migrating downward through semi-permeable materials. An
example would be well DW1 located on the site proper with a toal depth of 65 ft and a
tetrachloroethylene concentration of 910 (ig/L.

Three figures are provided to display the concentrations of ROD cleanup goal compounds:
Figure 5, Tetrachloroethylene Concentrations w/ Symbol Size Proportional to
Concentration, Figure 6, Trichloroethylene Concentrations w/ Symbol Size Proportional
to Concentration, and Figure 7, cisl ,2-Dichloroethylene Concentrations w/ Symbol Size
Proportional to Concentration. These figures visually show the migration of these
compounds to the west, and to a lesser extent to the south. The westernmost well, EPA73,
produced samples with 0.14 (ag/L tetrachloroethylene, 9.0 (ig/L trichloroethylene, and 6.3
Hg/L cis 1,2-dichloroethylene. This well is approximately 1500 ft west of the source area
and is screened from 135 to 150 ft BGS.

The EPA52 and EPA66 wells are located approximately 850 ft west of the source area and
are screened from 50 to 70 ft BGS and 130 to 150 ft BGS respectively. The EPA52 well
contained 170 (ig/L tetrachloroethylene, 270 (ig/L trichloroethylene, and 130 (ig/L cis 1,2-
dichloroethylene.. The EPA66 well contained 270 (ig/L tetrachloroethylene, 310 (ig/L
trichloroethylene, and 31 (ig/L cisl,2-dichloroethylene. Except for the 31 (j.g/L cisl ,2-
dichloroethylene in EPA66, these levels all exceed the cleanup goals for these
compounds.

ROD cleanup compounds are found at higher levels nearer and underlying the source area
and to a limited extent to the south of the site. The compounds are found at significant
levels downgradient to the west of the site. Two apparently destroyed wells, EPA71 and
EPA72, were located immediately south of Linebaugh Ave and approximately 950 ft west
of the source area. These two wells would have provided useful information on the
movement of the downgradient movement of these compounds.

The water quality parameters for each sample are listed in Table 5, Water Quality
Parameters. The pH of sampled wells varied from mildly acidic to mildly basic (5.6 to
7.8). The dissolved oxygen of sampled wells was generally low (less than 0.8 mg/L) and
the oxidation-reduction potential was nearly neutral (-300mV to -1 lOmV referenced to a
Ag/AgCl reference electrode).

SESD Project ID#: 15-0058

Page 10 of 230


-------
References

Black & Veatch, Draft Final Remedial Investigation Report Former Southern Solvents,
Inc. Site, October 2006

Butler, Cal, Hand-Drawn Site Map. February 21, 2008

USEPA SESD, Analytical Support Branch Laboratory Operations and Quality Assurance
Manual, May 2014

USEPA SESD, "Field Branches Quality System and Technical Procedures". Most recent
versions: http://www.epa.gov/region4/sesd/fbqstp

USEPA SESD, Southern Solvents Upper Aquifer Groundwater Sampling Final Report.
Aug 28, 2014

USEPA SESD, Southern Solvents Floridan Aquifer Groundwater Sampling Quality
Assurance Project Plan. November 25, 2014

USGS, National Geodetic Survey Data Sheet for Benchmark AL0I57, Retrieved March
20, 2015

SESD Project ID#: 15-0058	Page -\ ^ 0f 230


-------
Appendix A
Figures

SESD Project ID#: 15-0058

Page 13 of 230


-------
sayuaifc, ixofc

Legend

Rorklan WeHs Sampled 12-14 A
Upper aquifer Wette Sampled 06-14 /\
Upper aquifer Wells Not Sampled 05-14 0

SESO Project ID# 15-0058

Page 15of 230


-------
[EPA42I

Legend

EPA40

Floridan Wells Sampled 12-14	A

Upper aquifer Wells Sampled 05-14	/\

Upper aquifer Wells Not Sampled 06-14	£

Destroyed or Decommissioned Wells	^

IEPA70J

|MW27l

[EPA571

EPA41

(MW14

IEPA69J

[MW21

[EPA73J

[EPA53I

IEPA66J

EPA04'

[MW13Rj

[MW04|

[MW06^southern Solvent* Site|

[dwsJ

[EPA71 EPA72]

[EPA48i

[MW16]

|MW24j

[EPA67)

[EPA44'

IMW26I

|MW17|

IMW22J

[MWOl]

EPA59«MW03Rl

[MW08I

[PMW01C,B,A<
¦PMWO3B

'EPA46J

'EPAOll

IMW12I

'EPA 10]

[VEWll

[EPA21J

[EPA02'

IEPA64M
* EPA 63]

[EPA14|

IMW19

[EPA 601

IEPA49!

[MW09J

MW07'

IPMW04

IEPA65

IMW05]

[MW02R]

'Wells may exist under pavint

[MWlOj

Southern Solvents

Figure 2, All Site Wells
December 2014

Page 17of230


-------
Figure 3

Hand-Drawn Site Map from Previous Work

Z'	N

/ po L V ^



me

N

O

•>.	

( . 7f?££5

no RT H

G £ l

v«p

o

5V£

PM.VJ-'i o

mwm©	OhW3ft

CP/S55
©

• © © w •'*

HW-A
EP* O
• 58

o

Y£rM ©

epftj o

EPA.frO O
MVi-7 ©

<
O

DW-I ©

VmP
©

9 tPA
© EPt\b1

E1>A

¦bt

© © ©

P^w VK'i- ^mw
-2C -?6 2A

f MW-1

© EPA-fcl

(ovr COO ft")
CorJtrtfTf p/w

AAA UlVeMf Pl£D

0 EPA-il

CPA 3 0

Ai^VS

cP/i ¦ o

E t-' A u->G

GiC^va

ASfW.LT

© rnw f

0 wW-llR

vmp

5VE

o* r if
/6y z/zw'o?

¦ CM f3yTi.eR

SESD Projecl ID#: 15-0058

'/MP •-
6v£ =

7= WW:

Wfwn

1x2''.-tCCl	ifT

:¦»¦: ~ "iK-h'ca,ic{>;r£

l-'/.i

¦pf f<-F	MQlilToil

yJ£ LL

^OUtHC^H, SOLVENT*

$e>ull.C£ ARC A UJfii TUJOf^K

¦rT bft i.>M;7 2 Wg

Page 19 of 230


-------
EPA40 (24.85) 70TDV*
PTW01 (24.86) 70TD\\

EPA70 (24.68) 110TD

EPA41 (24.86) 70TD

EPA22 ( 24.77VS5TD
VEW1 (24/75) 106TD

EPA34 (24.81) 74TD
Linebaugh Ave.<^ o,

A EPA48 (24.82) 70TD

\	U> 2

EPA47 (24.83) HOfD
/EPAS^fa^e) 110TD

EPA36 (26.930 70TD'
EPA35 (24!«) 110TD

EPA50 (28^79) 70TD
EPA46 (24.74)SjOTD-

(24.66) 150TI

EPA49 (28.45) 70TD

UNITED STATES

Sources
Mapmyjn<

SESD Protect ID#: 15-0058

DW2 (25.88) 59TD

PA38 (24.78) 110TD

EPA73 (24.51) 150TDI	\

\	ERA52 (24.69)\70TD\ EPA45 (14.81) 70TD

\ EPA66 124.68) 15oA)-n^ \	\

>EPA37 (24.95) 70TD
1 (24.86) 65TD

Hoilow B&inc

Legend

Saroptod Wells >5570 A

dTT%

Southern Solvents
Figure 4

Water Level Contours for Wells wtth Total
Depth Greater Than 70 ft

EPA99 (24.78) 120TD =

Well ID (Water Level Elev.) Weil Total Depth


-------
Legend

Results

Wells Sampled Dec 2014

Lintbaugh Ave

Lmebaugh Ave

Linebaugh Ave.



Southern Solvents
Figure 5

Tetrachloroethylene Concentrations
w/ Symbol Size Proportional to Concentration

SESD Project ID#: 15-0058


-------
Southern Solvents
Figure 6

Trichloroethylene Concentrations
wI Symbol Size Proportional to Concentration

N

Legend

Results

0.1
1

10 •

Wells Sampled Dec 2014 A



SESD Project ID#: 15-0058


-------
SESD Project ID#: 15-0058

Page 27 of 230


-------
Table 1, Stations, Samples, Analyses, and Methods.



Analyses

(Volatile organic
compounds)



WGS84

1

Method

CLP SOM01.2 VT

| Station ID

Latitude

Longitude

Sample ID

Sample Date/Time

Matrix



DWl

28.040549

-82.510070

DWl-1214

12/18/2014 14:10

Groundwater

X

DW2

28.041249

-82.509627

DW2-1214

12/16/2014 11:05

Groundwater

X

EPA22

28.040780

-82.510287

EPA22-1214

12/16/2014 15:10

Groundwater

X

EPA34

28.040364

-82.509909

EPA34-1214

12/17/2014 12:33

Groundwater

X

EPA35

28.040314

-82.510309

EPA35-1214

12/17/2014 10:21

Groundwater

X

EPA35-1214S

12/17/2014 10:26

Groundwater

X

EPA36

28.040312

-82.510355

EPA36-1214

12/17/2014 9:30

Groundwater

X

EPA37

28.040772

-82.509593

EPA37-1214

12/18/2014 8:55

Groundwater

X

EPA38

28.040777

-82.509569

EPA38-1214

12/16/2014 13:55

Groundwater

X

EPA40

28.041320

-82.510452

EPA40-1214

12/18/2014 9:35

Groundwater

X

EPA41

28.040996

-82.510746

EPA41-1214

. 12/18/201414:20

Groundwater

X

EPA45

28.040502

-82.511019

EPA45-1214

12/18/2014 16:15

Groundwater

X

EPA46

28.039603

-82.510597

EPA46-1214

12/17/2014 12:50

Groundwater

X

EPA47

28.039920

-82.509879

EPA47-1214

12/18/2014 16:55

Groundwater

X

EPA48

28.039962

-82.509479

EPA48-1214

12/19/2014 12:30

Groundwater

X

EPA49

28.039385

-82.509858

EPA49-1214

12/18/2014 12:05

Groundwater

X

EPA50

28.039653

-82.510655

EPA50-1214

12/17/2014 13:20

Groundwater

X

EPA50-1214S

12/17/2014 13:20

Groundwater

X

EPA51

28.039538

-82.511151

EPA51-1214

12/17/2014 10:30

Groundwater

X

EPA52

28.040362

-82.512315

EPA52-1214

12/17/2014 11:30

Groundwater

X

EPA53

28.040402

-82.511274

EPA53-1214

12/19/2014 13:00

Groundwater

X

EPAS4

28.039384

-82.509832

EPA54-1214

12/18/2014 11:15

Groundwater

X

EPA55

28.040621

-82.509983

EPA55-1214

12/18/2014 15:10

Groundwater

X

EPA56

28.039384

-82.509930

EPA56-1214

12/18/2014 14:30

Groundwater

X

EPA58

28.040600

-82.509999

EPA58-1214

12/18/2014 12:10

Groundwater

X

EPA58-1214S

12/18/2014 12:15

Groundwater

X

EPA65

28.038773

-82.510230

EPA65-1214

12/17/2014 17:00

Groundwater

X

EPA66

28.040359

-82.512304

EPA66-1214

12/16/2014 16:15

Groundwater

X

EPA67

28.039828

-82.511946

EPA67-1214

12/16/201415:00

Groundwater

X

EPA68

28.039824

-82.511971

EPA68-1214

12/16/2014 12:05

Groundwater

X

EPA69

28.041126

-82.512382

EPA69-1214

12/17/2014 15:30

Groundwater

X

EPA70

28.041166

-82.512382

EPA70-1214

12/17/2014 15:00

Groundwater

X

EPA73

28.040502

-82.514399

EPA73-1214

12/16/2014 11:25

Groundwater

X

PTW01

28.041321

-82.510490

PTW01-1214

12/18/2014 11:30

Groundwater

X

VEW1

28.040588

-82.510068

VEW1-1214

12/18/2014 11:25

Groundwater

X

-

-

-

TB01-1214

12/18/2014 15:45

Trip Blank-Water

X

-

-

-

TB02-1214

12/19/2014 14:20

Trip Blank-Water

X

-

-

-

IDW1-1214

12/19/2014 14:00

Investigative Derived Waste

X

-

-

-

IDW2-1214

12/19/2014 14:05

Investigative Derived Waste

X

-

-

-

IDW3-1214

12/19/2014 14:10

Investigative Derived Waste

X

-

-

-

IDW4-1214

12/19/2014 14:15

Investigative Derived Waste

X

SESD Project ID#: 15-0058

Page 31 of 230


-------
Table 2, Southern Solvents Well Field.



NAVD88











Top of
Casing

Ground
Surface
Elevation

M	

Total Wei
Depth (f
BGS)

Top
of
Screen
(ft BGS)

Bottom o
Screen (ft
BGS)





WGS84

Elevation

Dia.
(in)



Station ID

Latitude

Longitude

(ft)

Comments

DW1

28.040549

-82.510070

40.08

40.25

65

55

65

2

Found 30' W of orig coordinates. Coordinates updated.

DW2

28.041249

-82.509627

40.94

41.19

59

49

59

2



DW3

28.039451

-82.510551

36.29

36.50

44

34

44

2



DW5

28 040033

-82 510990



60

50

60

2

Reported as abandoned

EPA01

28.040648

-82.509877

40.85

41.06

15

5

15

2



EPA02

28.040575

-82.510075

39.96

40.32

15

5

15

2



EPA03

28.040506

-82.510020

40.13

40.35

15

5

15

2

Located in building

EPA04

28.040351

-82.510417

40.94

41.18

15

5

15

2

Located in mulch in parking island, recommend metal detector to fine

EPA10

28.040633

-82.509878

40.66

40.86

36.5

26

36

2



EPA11

28.040511

-82.510004

40.22

40.39

36.5

26

36

2

Located in building

EPA12

28 039965

-82 510580



22

5

15

2

May still exist, paved over in dog groomer parking lot

EPA13

28.039923

-82.509935

39.27

39.54

29

18

28

2



EPA14

28.039576

-82.510639

35.98

36.56

15.5

5

15

2

Found 18" N of fence, 2-4"BGS, metal detector recommended to find

EPA20

28039923

-82.509902

39.06

39.31

58

47.5

57.5

2



EPA21

28.039575

-82.510659

36.09

36.67

40

30

40

2



EPA22

28.040780

-82.510287

40.03

40.26

55

45

55

2



EPA34

28.040364

-82.509909

39.31

39.87

74

54

74

2



EPA35

28.040314

-82.510309

40.58.

40.79

110

90

110

2



EPA36

28.040312

-82.510355

40.42

40.62

70

50

70

2



EPA37

28.040772

-82.509593

40.19

40.46

70

50

70

2



EPA38

28.040777

-82.509569

40.22

40.46

110

90

110

2



EPA39

28 040855

¦82.510185



110

90

110

2

-

1
-
co

I
I

i

s

i

EPA40

28.041320

-82.510452

38.75

39.04

70

50

70

2





28.040996

-82.510746

40.20

40.36

70

50

70

2



EPA42

28.041339

-82.510490

38.48

38.77

30

20

30

2



EPA43

28.041322

-82.510514

38.46

38.69

30

27

30

2



EPA44

28 039849

-82 510572



70

50

70

2

May still east, paved over like EPA-12. but diff metal locatina nr fence

__ EPA45

28.040502

-82.511019

39.20

39.63

70

50

70

2

1

EPA46

28.039603

-82.510597

36.20

36.54

110

90

110

2

Found, 12' N. of fence, need metal detector to find

EPA47

28.039920

-82.509879

38.90

39.21

110

90

110

2



EPA48

28.039962

-82.509479

40.05

40.31

70

50

70

2



EPA49

28.039385

-B2.509858

38.57

38.87

70

50

70

2



EPA50

28.039653

-82.510655

36.31

36.94

70

50

70

2

21' SW of power pole, 6"BGS, need metal detector to find

EPA51

28.039538

-82.511151

36.38

36.51

70

50

70

2



EPA52

28.040362

-82.512315

39.61

39.83

70

50

70

2



EPA53

28.040402

-82.511274

39.78

40.11

110

90

110

2



EPA54

28.039384

-82.509832

38.54

38.94

110

90

110

2





28.040621

-82.509983

40.09

40.41

ISO

130

150

2



EPA56

28.039384

-82.509930

38.26

38.66

150

130

150

2





28 040973

-82 510969



150

130

150

2

Believed to be destroyed under building

EPA58

28.040600

-82.509999

39.74

40.20

210

200

210

2



EPA59

28.040620

-82.510029

39.97

40.22

11

9.5

10.5

1.25



EPA60

28.040565

-82.510067

39.77

40.30

33.5

32.14

33.14

1.25



EPA61

28.040537

-82.510033

40.10

40.30

33.5

32.25

33.25

1.25



EPA62

28.040590

-82.509998

40.04

40.26

10

8.8

9.8

1



EPA63

28.040591

-82.509968

39.98

40.32

10

8.4

9.4

1.25



EPA64

28.040594

-82.509968

39.98

40.31

40

32.5

33.5

1.25



EPA65

28.038773

-82.510230

35.64

40.31

152

130

150

2



P EPA66

28.040359

-82.512304

39.61

39.95

150

130

150

2



EPA67

28.039828

-82.511946

38.45

38.88

150

130

150

2



EPA68

28.039824

-82.511971

38.78

39.01

120

97

117

2



EPA69

28.041126

-82.512382

37.51

37.94

70

50

70

2

Access through mini-warehouse office on Gunn Hwy

EPA70

28.041166

-82.512382

37.22

37.65

110

87

110

2

Access through mini-warehouse office on Gunn Hwy



28 039986

-81512750



70

50

70

2

Believed to be destroyed in parking lot construction

UEPA72

28 039986

-82.512779



110

85

105

2

Believed to be destroyed m parking lot construction



28.040502

-82.514399

34.49

34.54

150

135

150

2



MW01

28.040673

-82.509837

40.34

41.00

15

5

15

2



MW02R

28.040424

-82.509801

39.91

41.00

15.5

5

15

2

n pavement, 1' W of pavement edge

MW03R

28.040620

-82.510011

40.00

41.00

15.5

5

15

2



MW04

28.040244

-82.510080

39.21

39.53

15

5

15

2

2' SE of PP

MW05

28.040508

-82.509926

39.84

40.04

15

5

15

2





28.040233

-82.510041

39.52

39.84

30

20

30

2

3' N of sidewalk, mid-window line

MW07

28.040560

-82.510074

39.71

40.26

35

25

35

2



MW08

28.040708

-82.509980

40.34

41.07

40

30

40

2

-ound 12' S of fence and 30' W of corner, 2-4"BGS, need metal detector to fine

MW09

28 040595

-82.509786



35

25

35

2

Oould not be located despite extensive search

MW10

28.040363

-82.509791

40.19

40.55

35

25

35

2

Found 4' W of fence, 2-4" BGS, need metal detector to find

MW11R

28.040480

-82.509914

39.65

40.01

15.2

5

15

2



MW12

28.040604

-82.509988

39.75

40.41

35

25

35

2

¦tad been reported as destroyed, but found at specified loction

MW13R

28.040343

-82.510417

40,88

41.20

25

15

25

2

.ocated in mulch in parking island, recommend metal detector to fine

MW14

28.040942

-82.509922

39.75

39.99

32

22

32

2

iehind Aff. Catering. In Pavement nr Handicap space

MW15

28.040215

-82 509540



33

23

33

2

Reported as abandoned



28 040067

-82.510191



25

15

25

2

Reported as abandoned

MW17

28.039818

-82.508843

39.44

39.77

30

20

30

2

n sidewalk

MW18R

28.040278

-82.511225

39.73

39.90

30

20

30

2



MW19

28.039406

-82.510531

36.27

36.46

20

10

20

2



MW20

28.040724

-82.509580

40.57

40.79

35

25

35

2



MW21

28.040839

-82.510291

40.22

40.38

35

25

35

2



MW22

28.039771

-82.510430

36.38

37.47

20

10

20

2

ound 15' S and 12' E of fence, 6"BGS. need metal detector to find

MW23

28.040761

-82.510693

41.05

41.15

35

25

35

2

M Patio Pools



28 040051

-82 509761



35

25

35

2

Reported as abandoned

MW25

28.040897

-82.509214

41.75

42.08

23

13

23

2



MW26

28.039806

-82.510882

37.18

37.49

23

13

23

2



MW27

28.041035

-82.510918

40.00

40.19

34

24

34

2



PMW01A

28.040608

-82.510027

40.09

40.22

15.3

15

15.3

~3/8"

Vlulti-Lumen well, only ohe lumen sampled

PMW01B

28.040607

-82.510032

39.80

40.22

28

23

28

-3/8"

Vlulti-Lumen well, only one lumen sampled

PMW01C

28.040606

-82.510035

39.85

40.22

33

28

33

1



PMW02A

28.040579

-82.510000

40.01

40.22

15.3

15

15.3

1



PMW02B

28.040579

-82.510006

40.00

40.22

28

23

28

1



PMW02C

28.040579

-82.510011

40.02

40.22

33

28

33

1



PMW03

28.040626

-82.510076

39.67

40.22

20

10

20

1



PMW04

28.040556

-82.509974

40.18

40.31

20

10

20

1



PTW01

28.041321

-82.510490

38.67

38.86

70

50

70

2



VEW1

28.040588

-82.510068

40.14

40.35

106

96

106

2



Floridan Wells Sampled In This Project (15-0058)

Shallow Wells Sampled in Earlier Project (14-0199)

Shallow Wells Not Sampled in Either Project (14-0199 or 15-0058)
Not available to survey, possibly destroyed or abandoned

SESD Project ID#: 15-0058

Page 33 of 230


-------
T»We 3. Volatile Or jink: Compound Results.

SESD Project ID#: 154)058

Page 35 of 230


-------
SESD Project ID#: 15-0058

Page 37 of 230


-------
SESD Project 10#: 15-0058


-------

-------
Table 5, Water Quality Parameters.



Station ID

DW1
DW1-1214
12/18/2014

DW2
DW2-1214
12/16/2014

EPA22
EPA22-1214
12/16/2014

EPA34
EPA34-1214
12/17/2014

EPA35
EPA35-1214
12/17/2014

EPA36
EPA36-1214
12/17/2014

EPA37
EPA37-1214
12/18/2014

EPA38
EPA38-1214
12/16/2014

EPA40
EPA40-1214
12/18/2014

EPA41
EPA41-1214
12/18/2014

EPA45
EPA45-1214
12/18/2014

Sample ID



Sample Date

Parameter

Units





















Dissolved Oxygen

mg/l

0.8

0-56

026

0.14

0.32

0.22

0.29

0.46

0.26

0.39

0.16

Oxidation Reduction Potential

mV Aq/AqCI ref

-280

-270

-300

-290

-270

-260

-140

-250

-210

-260

-260

PH

pH Units

7.8

7.1

7.1

72

7.2

7.0

5.6

7.2

7.3

7.1

7.1

Specific Conductivity

us/an

334.6

360.2

512.5

417.2

468.8

543.6

176.8

368.5

386.2

477.6

526.1

Temperature

DeqC

23.3

25.1

24.9

25.6

26.3

26.8

24.4

25.3

25.8

24.7

24.5

Turbidity

NTU

7.45

7.09

8.77

29.1

19.6

0.69

9.58

7.17

5.32

957

9.63

PH

Specific Conductivity-

mV Aq/AoCI ref

7-9

-12—

-?oo

7,0

Temperature
B Turbidity B

548

_i5L§_

741.6

599.8

27,1

_2L§_

_2LZ_

_216_

#9

19.3

9.3S

m

921

15-1

8,74



Station ID
Sample ID

1 EPA5S 1

EPA58-1214
12/18/2014

EPA65
EPA65-1214
12/17/2014

1 EPa& I

EPA66-1214
12/16/2014

1 EM57 1

EPA67-1214
17/16/2014

1 EPASfi 1

EPA68-1214
17/16/7014

EPA69
EPA69-1214
i?/i7/?ni4

EPA70-1214

mn

EPA73-1214

WWOl

PTW01-1214

VEW1
VEW1-1214

Parameter

Units





















Dissolved Oxygen

mq/l

0.19

0.65

0.28

0.49

0.66

0.22

0.19

0.28





Oxidation Reduction Potential

mV Aa/AqCI ref

-250

-140

-290

-230

-200

-270

-250







pH

pH Units

7.3

7.5

7.3

7.3

7.3

7.5









Specific Conductivity

us/cm

768.9

322.6

379.9

464

430.8

323.6

373.8







temperature

DeqC

24.2

21.7

25.2

23.4

23.2

24.3

24.1

23.7





Turbidity

NTU

15.6

49,?

12?





1>?5

11.6

15.5

30.8

7.88

SESD Project ID#: 15-0058

Page 43 of 230


-------
Table 6, Water Level Elevations.

Sorted by Station ID





Water Level















Top of Casing

Measured

Water Level

Total Wei

Top of

Bottom

Middle of

Length of



Elevation

12/19/14

Elevation (ft

Depth

Screen (ft

of Screen

Screen

Screen

Station ID

(ft NAVD88)

(ft BTOC)

NAVD88)

(ft BGS)

BGS)

(ft BGS)

(ft BGS)

(ft)

DW1

40.08

15.22

24.86

65

55

65

60

10

DW2

40.94

15.06

25.88

59

49

59

54

10

EPA22

40.03

15.26

24.77

55

45

55

50

10

EPA34

39.31

14.50

24.81

74

54

74

64

20

EPA35

40.58

15.79

24.79

110

90

110

100



EPA36

40.42

13.51

26.91

70

50

70

60

20

EPA37

40.19

15.24

24.95

70

50

70

60

20

EPA38

40.22

15.44

24.78

110

90

110

100

20

EPA40

38.75

13.90

24.85

70

50

70

60

20

EPA41

40.20

15.34

24.86

70

50

70

60

20

EPA45

39.20

14.39

24.81

70

50

70

60

20

EPA46

36.20

11.46

24.74

110

90

110

100

20

EPA47

38.90

14.07

24.83

110

90

110

100

20

EPA48

40.05

15.23

24.82

70

50

70

60

20

EPA49

38.57

10.12

28.45

70

50

70

60

20

EPA50

36.31

7.52

28.79

70

50

70

60

20

EPA51

36.38

8.60

27.78

70

50

70

60

20

EPA52

39.61

14.92

24.69

70

50

70

60

20

EPA53

39.78

15.04

24.74

110

90

110

100

20

EPA54

38.54

13.78

24.76

110

90

110

100

20

EPA55

40.09

15.45

24.64

150

130

150

140

20

EPA56

38.26

13.50

24.76

150

130

150

140

20

EPA58

39.74

15.48

24.26

210

200

210

205

10

EPA65

35.64

11.04

24.60

152

130

150

140

20

EPA66

39.61

14.93

24.68

150

130

150

140

20

EPA67

38.45

13.79

24.66

150

130

150

140

20

EPA68

38.78

14.11

24.67

120

97

117

107

20

EPA69

37.51

12.83

24.68

70

50

70

60

20

EPA70

37.22

12.54

24.68

110

87

110

98.5

23

EPA73

34.49

9.98

24.51

150

135

150

142.5

15

PTW01

38.67

13.81

24.86

70

50

70

60

20

VEW1

40.14

15.39

24.75

106 y

96

106

101

10 i

Sorted by Water Level Elevation





Top of Casing



Water Level

Total Well

Top of

Bottom

Middle of

Length of



Elevation

Water Level

Elevation (ft

Depth

Screen (ft

of Screen

Screen

Screen

Station ID

(ft NAVD88)

(ft BTOC)

NAVD88)

(ft BGS)

BGS)

(ft BGS)

(ft BGS)

(ft)

EPA50

36.31

7.52

28.79

70

50

70

60

20

EPA49

38.57

10.12

28.45

70

50

70

60

20 |

EPA51

36.38

8.60

27.78

70

50

70

60

20

EPA36

40.42

13.51

26.91

70

50

70

60

20

DW2

40.94

15.06

25.88

59

49

59

54

10

EPA37

40.19

15.24

24.95

70

50

70

60

20

PTW01

38.67

13.81

24.86

70

50

70

60

20

EPA41

40.20

15.34

24.86

70

50

70

60

20

DW1

40.08

15.22

24.86

65

55

65

60

10

EPA40

38.75

13.90

24.85

70

50

70

60

20

EPA47

38.90

14.07

24.83

110

90

110

100

20

EPA48

40.05

15.23

24.82

70

50

70

60

20

EPA34

39.31

14.50

24.81

74

54

74

64

20

EPA45

39.20

14.39

24.81

70

50

70

60

2° I

EPA35

40.58

15.79

24.79

110

90

110

100

20

EPA38

40.22

15.44

24.78

110

90

110

100

20

EPA22

40.03

15.26

24.77

55

45

55

50

10

EPA54

38.54

13.78

24.76

110

90

110

100

20

EPA56

38.26

13.50

24.76

150

130

150

140

20

VEW1

40.14

15.39

24.75

106

96

106

101

10

EPA53

39.78

15.04

24.74

110

90

110

100

20

EPA46

36.20

11.46

24.74

110

90

110

100

20 1

EPA52

39.61

14.92

24.69

70

50

70

60

20

EPA66

39.61

14.93

24.68

150

130

150

140

20

EPA69

37.51

12.83

24.68

70

50

70

60

20

EPA70

37.22

12.54

24.68

110

87

110

98.5

23

EPA68

38.78

14.11

24.67

120

97

117

107

20

EPA67

38.45

13.79

24.66

150

130

150

140

20

EPA55

40.09

15.45

24.64

150

130

150

140

20

EPA65

35.64

11.04

24.60

152

130

150

140

20

EPA73

34.49

9.98

24.51

150

135

150

142.5

15

EPA58

39.74

15.48

24.26

210

200

210

205

io ;I

SESD Project ID#: 15-0058

Page 45 of 230


-------
Table 7, Split Sample Comparison.



Station ID

EPA35

EPA35



EPASO

EPA50



EPA58

EPA58





Sample 10

EPA35-1214

EPA35-1214S

Relative

EPA50-1214

EPA50-1214S

Relative

EPA58-1214

EPA58-12145

Relative



Matrix

Groundwater

Groundwater

Percent

Groundwater

Groundwater

Percent

Groundwater

Groundwater

Percent



Sample Date

12/17/2014 10:21

12/17/2014 10:26

Difference

12/17/2014 13:20

12/17/2014 13:20

Difference

12/18/2014 12:10

12/18/2014 12:15

Difference

Analyte

Units



















1,1 Dlchloroethane

ug/l

<25 0

<0.50 (J



0.22 J,0

0.20

-9.5%

<0.504/

<0.50 U



1,1 -Dichloroethene {1,1 -D ichloroethylene)

ucA

<2SO

5.2

-191.1%

<0500

<0,50 II



<0 . 50 O

<0.50U



1,2-Dichlorobenzene

ufA

<25 0

<0 501/



0.29 J,0

0.2510

-14.9%

<0.501/

<0.501/



Carbon disulfide

ugA

<250

0.32 J.O

194 9%

<0.500

<0.50 0



<0.50 0

<0.50 0



Chlorobenzene

ug/L

<25U

0.16 J.O

-197.5*

< 0.500

<0.501/



<0.501/

<0.501/



Chloroform

ugA

<25 0

<0.501/



<0.50 U

<0.50 U



2.7

0.99

-99.5%

Methyl T-Butyl Ether (MTBE)

ug/L

<251/

0.19 IjO




-------
Table 8, VOC Trip Blank Results.



Sample ID

TB01-1214

TB02-1214



Matrix

Trip Blank - Water

Trip Blank - Water



Sample Date

12/18/2014 15:45

12/19/2014 14:20

Analyte

Units





(m- and/or p-)Xylene

Ug/L

0.50 U

0.50 U

1,1,1-T richloroethane

ug/L

0.50 U

0.50 U

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane

ug/L

0.50 U

0.50 U

l.l^-Trichloro-l^^-Trifluoroethane (Freon 113)

ug/L

0.50 U

0.50 U

1,1,2-Trichloroethane

ug/L

0.50 U

O.SOU

1,1-Dichloroethane

ug/L

0.50 U

0.50 U

1,1-Dichloroethene (1,1-Dichloroethylene)

ug/L

0.50 U

0.50 U

1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene

ug/L

0.50 U

0.50 U

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene

ug/L

0.50 U

0.50 U

l,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane (DBCP)

ug/L

0.50 U

0.50 U

1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)

ug/L

0.50 U

0.50 U

1,2-Dichlorobenzene

ug/L

0.50 U

0.50 U

1,2-Oichloroethane

ug/L

0.50 U

0.50 U

1,2-Dichloropropane

ug/L

0.50 U

O.SOU

1,3-Dichlorobenzene

ug/L

0.50 U

0.50 U

1,4-Dichlorobenzene

ug/L

0.50 U

-0.50 U

Acetone

ug/L

5.0 U.R.O

5.0 U,R,0

Benzene

ug/L

0.50 U

0.50 U

Bromochloromethane

ug/L

0.50 U

0.50 U

Bromodichloromethane

ug/L

0.50 U

0.50 U

Bromoform

ug/L

0.50 IUO

0.50 U,J,0

Bromomethane

ug/L

0.50 U

0.50 U

Carbon Tetrachloride

ug/L

O.SOU

O.SOU

Carbon disulfide

ug/L

0.50 U

0.50 U

Chlorobenzene

ug/L

0.50 U

0.50 U

Chloroethane

ug/L

0.50 U

0.50 U

Chloroform

ug/L

0.50 U

0.50 U

Chloromethane

ug/L

0.50 U

0.50 U

Cydohexane

ug/L

0.50 U

0.50 U

Dibromochlorometha ne

ug/L

0.S0U

O.SOU

Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12)

ug/L

0.50 U

O.SOU

Ethyl Benzene

ug/L

0.50 U

0.50 U

Isopropylbenzene

ug/L

0.50 U

O.SOU

Methyl Acetate

ug/L

0.50 U

0.50 UAO

Methyl Butyl Ketone

ug/L

5.0 U

5.0 U

Methyl Ethyl Ketone

ug/L

5.0 U

5.0 U,R,0

Methyl Isobutyl Ketone

ug/L

5.0 U

5.0 U

Methyl T-Butyl Ether (MTBE)

ug/L

0.50 U

0.50 U

Methylcydohexane

ug/L

0.50 U

O.SOU

Methylene Chloride

ug/L

0.50 U

0.50 U

Styrene

ug/L

0.50 U

0.50 U

Tetrachloroethene (Tetrachloroethylene)

ug/L

0.50 U

0.50 U

Toluene

Ug/L

0.50 U

0.50 U

Trichloroethene (Trichloroethylene)

ug/L

0.50 U

0.50 U

Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11)

ug/L

0.50 U

0.50 U

Vinyl chloride

ug/L

O.SOU

O.SOU

cis-l,2-Dichloroethene

ug/L

0.50 U

0.50 U

cis-l,3-Dichloropropene

ug/L

0.50 U

0.50 U

o-Xylene

ug/L

O.SOU

O.SOU

trans-l,2-Dichloroethene

ug/L

O.SOU

O.SOU

trans-l,3-Dichloropropene

ug/L

O.SOU

0.50 U

Qualifiers: U - nondetect, J - estimated, 0 - other-refer to lab data sheets, R - Rejected

Legend:|~ n [Rejected Data

SESD Project ID#: 15-0058

Page 49 of 230


-------
End Of Report

SESD Project ID#: 15-0058

Page 230 of 230


-------
2014 Soil Samplinf, Results


-------
Legend

~ Soil Boring Locations
Property Boundary

Feet
1 inch = 20 feet

Soil Boring Location Map
southern Solvents Superfund Site
Tampa, Florida

I Figure: 2-1

Hp||nMw *****

ewnjjitfg
S Esn, HERE DeLofme,
PR ^Uaprnylndia. ©
i_ iOpenStreetMap contributors,
and the GIS user community

Figure 2-1

N

Br


-------
Table 4-1 Soil Sample Analytical Results
Southern Solvents Superfund Site
Tampa Florida, April 2014 to February 2015







SOS-B1

SOS-B2

SOS-B3

Sample ID:

Florida

Florida

ROD

SOS-B1-1

SOS-81-2

SOS-B1-3

SOS-B1-4I

SOS-B1-£

SOS-B2-1

DUP-1

SOS-B2-2

SOS-B2-3

SOS-B2-4

SOS-B2-5

SOS-B3-1

SOS-B3-2

SOS-B3-3

SOS-B3-4

SOS-B3-5

Data:

Industrial



Cleanup
Goal

4/1/2014

4/1/2014

4/1/2014

4/1/2014

4/1/2014

472/2014

4/2/2014

4/2/2014

4/2/2014

4/2/2014

4/2/2014

4/2/2014

4/2/2014

4/2/2014

4/2/2014

4/2/2014

Depth:



8-9

10-11

20-21

35-36

38-40

7-8

7-8

11-12

28-29

33-34

38-39

6-7

15-16

25-26

35-36

39-40

Chloroform

0.6

0.4

N/A

ND

0.0081

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

cis-1.2-Dichloroethene

180

33

0.4

ND

0.046

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND



ND

ND

ND

ND

0.27 J

ND

ND

ND

Tetrachloroethene (PCE)

18

8.8

0.08



0190 J

0033









0.200 J

0.03















Trichtoroethene (TCE)

S.3

6.4

0.03

ND

0.03

0.0008 J

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

0 052 J



0 34 J

0.49 J

Toluene

60,000

7,500

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

Acetone

68.000

11,000

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

Carbon Tetrachloride

0.7

0.5

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

1.1-OtcMoroethene

S10

95

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

Carbon disulfide

1,500

270

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

Methyl Acetate

38.000

6.800

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

NO

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

trans-1.2-Oichtofoethene

280

63

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

Vinyl Chloride

0.8

0.2

N/A

NO

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

cis-1,3-Dictitoropropene

N/A

N/A

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

NO

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

trans-1.3-Dichloropropene

N/A

N/A

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

NO

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND











SOS-B4





SOS-B5



S0S-B6

SOS-B7 |

Sample ID:

Florida
SCTL,
Industrial

Florida
SCTL,
Residential

ROD
Cleanup
Ooal

SOS-B4-1

SOS-B4-2

ipmnyp
ililiflili





SOS-B5-2

SOS-B5-3

SOS-B5-4

SOS-66-1

SOS-B6-2

SOS-B6-3

SOS-B6-4

SOS-87-1

DUP-2

SOS-87-2

SOS-B7-3

SOS-B7-4

Date:

4/2/2014

4/2/2014

4/2/2014

4/2/2014

4/3/2014

4/3/2014

4/3/2014

4/3/2014

4/4/2014

4/4/2014

4/4/2014

4/4/2014

4/5/2014

4/5/2014

4/5/2014

4/5/2014

4/5/2014

Depth:

8-9

10-11

26-27

33-34

1-2

12-13

28-29

31-32

0-1

16-17

27-28

33-34

7-8

7-8

13-14

25-26

35-36

Chloroform

0.6

0.4

N/A

ND

ND

NO

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

NO

ND

cis-1.2-Dichloroethene

180

33

0.4

ND

0 025 J

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

0 0017 J

0.15 J

ND

ND

0.05 J

ND

ND

Tetrachloroethene (PCE)

1B

8.8

0.05

00096

0 0033 J

0 097 J

Tfi~

0.015 J

ND

ND

0.0019 J

0110J

0.014 J

0.24 J

0 13 J

260 J

190 J

76 J

"1.3 J

1.500 J

Trichtoroethene (TCE)

•4

6.4

0.03

0.011

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND



ND



0 058 J-1

ND

ND

ND

NO

ND

Toluene

60,000

7,800

N/A

ND

0.00076 J

0.00086 J

ND

0.0024 J

0.0011 J

0.001 J

0.0008 J

0 00097 J

000089 J

ND

0 003 J

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

Acetone

68.000

11.000

N/A

ND

ND

ND

NO

ND

0.012 J

ND

0.0094 J

ND

ND

ND

0.043 J

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

Carbon Tetrachloride

0.7

0.5

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

NO

ND

0.0033 J

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND.

ND

ND .

1,1-Dtchloroethene

510

95

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

0.001 J

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

Carbon disulfide

1.500

270

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

NO

0 0045 J

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

Methyl Acetate

38.000

6.800

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

0.11 J

0.09 J

ND

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene

290

53

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

Vinyl Chloride

0.8

0.2

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

cts-1,3-Dichloropropene

N/A

N/A

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

trans-1,3-Dichtoropropene

N/A

N/A

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

units mg/kg


-------
Table 4-1 Soil Sample Analytical Results (Cont.)
Southern Solvents Superfund Site
Tampa Florida, April 2014 to February 2015





















SOS-B9



SOS-BIO

S0S-B11

Sample ID:

Florida
SCTL.

Florida
SCTL,
Residential

ROD
Cleanup
Goal

SOS-88-1







SOS-B9-1

SOS-89-2

DUP-3

SOS-89-3

SOS-89-4

SOS-B10-1

SOS-810-2

3OS-B10-3

SOS-810-4

SOS-B11-1

sos-an-2

SOS-811-3

SOS-B11-4

Data:

4/5/2014

4/5/2014

4/5/2014

4/5/2014

4/5/2014

4/5/2014

4/5/2014

4/5/2014

4/5/2014

4/6/2014

4/6/2014

4/6/2014

4/6/2014

4/6/2014

4/6/2014

4/6/2014

4/6/2014

Depth:



0-1

11-12

25-26

33-34

5-6

10-11

20-21

20-21

32-33

1-2

12-13

21-22

34-35

7-6

10-11

26-27

32-33

Chloroform

o.«

0.4

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

0 038 J

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

1.1 J

ets-1.2-Oichtoroethene

180

33

0.4

ND

8 8 J

ND

ND

ND

ND





ND

ND

1.0 J

1.8 J

ND

ND

0.057 J

ND

ND

Tnchtoroethene (TCE)

8.3

6.4

0.03

NO

0 98 J

ND

ND

ND

ND

045 J

0.49 J

ND

ND

1.5 J

0,062 J

ND

0.074 J

0056 J

0 049 J

ND

Toluene

60.000

7,500

N/A

AID

ND

0.051 J

ND

ND

ND

0.05 J

ND

ND

0 056 J

ND

ND

ND

ND

NO

NO

ND

Acetone

88.000

11.000

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

0 098 J

ND

ND

0.061 J

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

Carbon Tetrachtonde

0.7

0.5

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

NO

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

NO

ND

ND

ND

ND

1.1-Dichtoroethene

610

95

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

NO

ND

NO

ND

ND

ND

ND

NO

ND

ND

ND

ND

Carbon disulfide

1,500

270

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

NO

ND

ND

NO

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

Methyl Acetate

38.000

6.800

N/A

0.15 J

ND

ND

1.8 J

ND

ND

0.13 J

NO

ND

ND

ND

ND

0.13 J

ND

0.063 J

0.063 J

0.11 J

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene

290

53

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

Vinyl Chloride

0.8

0.2

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

NO

ND

cis-1.3-Dichloropropene

N/A

N/A

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

trans-1,3-Oichloropropene

N/A

N/A

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

NO

ND

ND

ND

NO

ND

units mg/kg











Sample ID:
Data:

Florida
SCTL.
Industrial

Florida
SCTL,

ROD
Cleanup



Depth:

Chloroform

0.8

0.4

N/A

S5



W-WiM

miM

5f5

91



25-26

ND







25-26
ND

33-34

ND

BB



23-24

ND

35-36

ND

cis-1,2-Dlchloroethene
Tetrachloroethene (PCE)

180
18

33
8.8

0.4

0.05

ND

ND

ND

ND

NO

ND

NO

ND

ND

NO

0.0034 J

ND

ND

NO

ND

ND

NO

Tnchtoroethene (TCE)

9.3

6.4

0.03

ND



ND

ND

ND

ND"

ND

¦MM

ND

ND

0.0012 J

ND

ND

ND

ND

NO

ND

Toluene

60,000

7,600

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

NO

ND

ND

ND

0.0012 J

ND

ND

0 00095 J

ND

ND

Acetone

68,000

11,000

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

Carbon Tetrachloride

0.7

0.5

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

1,1-Dichloroethene

810

95

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

Carbon disulfide

1,500

270

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

Methyl Acetate

38,000

6,800

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

NO

ND

trans-1,2-Oichtoroethene

290

53

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

0.0049 J

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

Vinyl Chloride

0.0

0.2

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

0 038 J

NO

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

cis-1.3-Dichloropropene

N/A

N/A

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

18 J

trans-1,3-Dichloropropene

N/A

N/A

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

units mg/kg


-------
Tabic 4-1 Soil Sample Analytical Results (Cont)
Southern Solvents Superfund Site
Tampa Florida, April 2014 to February 2015









SOS-B16

SOS-B17

SOS-B18

SOS-B19

Sample ID:

Florida

Florida
SCTL,
Residential

ROD
Cleanup
Goal

SOS-B16-1

DUP-5



SOS-B16-
3

SOS-B16
4

SOS-B17-1

SOS-617-2

SOS-B17-3

SOS-B18-1

SOS-B18-2

SOS-B18-3

SOS-B18-4

SOS-619-1

DUP-6

SOS-B19-2

SOS-B19-3

SOS-B19-4

Date:

Industrial

4/10/2014

4/10/2014

4/10/201-

4/10/2014

4/10/201'

4/10/2014

4/10/2014

4/10/2014

4/12/2014

4/12/2014

4/12/2014

4/12/2014

4/13/2014

4/13/2014

4/13/2014

4/13/2014

4/13/2014

Depth:

6-7

6-7

12-13

23-24

34-35

1-2

10-11

25-26

1-2

15-18

29-30

35-36

2-3

2-3

11-12

28-29

35-34

Chloroform

o.«

0.4

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ds-1.2-0ichloroethene

180

33

0.4

ND

ND

ND

ND

0 0016 J

ND

ND

ND

ND

NO

0.041 J

NO

ND

ND

ND

ND

retrachloroethene (PCE)

18

8.8

0.05









48 J



ND

0 021 J



0.0019 J

ND

28 J

ND

ND

0 0014 J

ND

0 031 J

Trichloroethene (TCE)

8.1

6.4

0.03

ND

ND

ND

ND

WO

0 0013 J

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

NO

ND

Toluene

60,000

7,500

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

0 0017 J

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

Acetone

68,000

11.000

N/A

ND

2.0 J

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

0.018 J

0.023 J

ND

ND

ND

ND

NO

ND

ND

Carbon Tetrachloride

0.7

0.5

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

NO

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

1.1-0ichloroethene

510

95

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

Carbon disulfide

1,500

270

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

NO

ND .

ND

Methyl Acetate

38.000

6,800

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

NO

NO

ND

ND

ND

NO

trans-1,2-Oichloroethene

290

53

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

NO

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

NO

ND

ND

ND

ND

Vinyl Chloride

0.8

0.2

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

NO

NO

ND

cis-1,3-Dichloropropene

N/A

N/A

N/A

0.17 J

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

NO

ND

ND

trans-1,3-Dtchtoropropene

N/A

N/A

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

0.0048 J

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

NO

units mg/kg





























SOS-E

20

SOS-B21

SOS-B31



SOS-B36



Sample 10:

Florida
SCTU.

Florida
SCTU
Residential

ROD

SOS-B20-1

SOS-B20-:



SOS-Q20
4

SOS-B21
1

DUP-7

SOS-B21-2

SOS-B21-3

SOS-B21-4

SOS-831 -1

SOS-631 -2

SOS-B31 -:

SOS-B36-1



Date:

Cleanup

4/13/2014

4/13/2014

4/13/201'

4/13/201'

4/13/201-

4/13/2014

4/13/2014

4/13/2014

4/13/2014

2/25/2015

2/25/2015

2/25/2015

2/24/2015

2/24/2015

2/24/2015



Depth:





1-2

13-14

20-21

33-34

1-2

1-2

18-19

26-27

31-32

14-15

nu

3i-34

m 1



33-i4

Chloroform

0.6

0.4

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

NO

ND

NO

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene

180

33

0.4

ND

ND

ND

0.084 J

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

NO

NO

0.027

NO

ND

0.190 J

Trichloroethene (TCE)

9.3

6.4

0.03

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

0.21

ND

ND

0 .150 J

Toluene

80,000

7.500

N/A

ND

ND

0.00089.

ND

ND

0 00091 J

0 0011 J

0 00087 J

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

Acetone

68,000

11.000

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

0.011 J

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

Cattion Tetrachloride

0.7

0.5

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

1.1-Oichtoroethene

510

95

N/A

ND

ND

¦ ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

Carbon disulfide

1,500

270

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

Methyl Acetate

38.000

6.800

N/A

ND

ND

ND

0 22 J

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

NO

ND

NO

NO

ND

Vinyl Chloride

0.8

0.2

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

cis-1,3-Dichloropropene

N/A

N/A

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

NO

ND

ND

NO

ND

trans-1,3-Dichloropropene

N/A

N/A

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

units mg/kg


-------
Table 4-1 Soil Sample Analytical Results (Cont.)
Southern Solvents Superfund Site
Tampa Florida, April 2014 to February 2015













SOS

B32





SOS-B33

SOS-B34

SOS-B37

SOS-B38

Sample ID:

Florida

Florida
SCTL,
Residential

ROD
Goal

(B32A)

Dup-3

2(B32B)

3

Dup-1

SOS-832-^

SOS-B33-1

SOS-B33-2

SOS-B33-3

(B34A)

(B34B)

SOS-834-3

SOS-B37-1

SOS-837-2

SOS-B37-3

SOS-B3B-1

Date:

SCTL,

2/25/2015

2/25/2015

2/25/201J

2/23/2015

2/23/201

2/23/2015

2/25/2015

2/25/2015

2/25/2015

2/25/2015

2/25/2015

2/23/2015

2/24/2015

2/24/2015

2/24/2015

2/24/2015

Depth:



10-11

10-11

15-16

25-26

25-2€

30-31

10-11

28-29

34-34

11-12

15-1€

31-32

1-2

29-3C

34-3E

2-3

Chloroform

06

0.4

N/A





ND

0.45 J











ND





ND

ND



ND

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene

180

33

0.4

0 370 J

0 200 J

1.3

ND

0079 J

	~g	

ND

	2sT~

ND

ND



ND







ND

0.390 J

ND

Trichloroethene (TCE)

9.3

6.4

0.03

0.240 J

0150 J

0 730 J

ND

ND

ND

ND

36J

12 J

0 062 J

ND

ND



ND

ND

0 .150 J



Toluene

60.000

7.500

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND



ND

ND

ND

ND





Acetone

68.000

11,000

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND



ND

ND





ND

ND

ND

ND



ND

Carbon Tetrachloride

0.7

0.6

N/A



ND

ND

ND

ND

ND



ND





m



ND

ND

ND

ND

1.1-Dichtoroethene

510

95

N/A

ND



0190 J

WD

ND

ND



0.034 J



ND

ND

ND





ND



Carbon disulfide

1.500

270

N/A

ND

ND

NO

ND

ND

ND



ND

ND



ND

ND

ND

ND

ND



Methyl Acetate

38,000

6.800

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND







NO

ND

ND



ND

ND

ND



trans-1 ,2-Dichloroethene

290

53

N/A

ND





ND

ND

ND

ND



NO

NO

ND

NO

ND



ND



Vinyl Chloride

08

0.2

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND



ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND



ND

cis-1.3-Otchloropropene

N/A

N/A

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

NO

ND

ND

ND

ND



trans-1,3-Dichloropropene

N/A

N/A

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND



ND

ND

ND

ND

ND



units mg/kg

























sos-

B39

SO5-B40



SO

S-B42





SOS-B43

SOS-B44

SOS-B45



Sample ID:

Florida
SCTL.
Industrial

Florida
SCTL,
Residential

ROD
Goal

SOS-B39-1

Dup-2

1

1

Dup-4

SOS-642-2

SOS-842-3

SOS-B43-1

SOS-B43-2

SOS-843-3

SOS-844-1

(B44A)

(B44A)

SOS-B45-1

(B45A)

Date:

2/24/2015

2/24/201!

2/24/201!

2/25/201!

2/25/201!

2/25/2015

2/25/2015

2/25/2015

2/25/2015

2/25/2015

2/23/2015

2/24/2015

2/24/2015

2/24/2015

2/24/2015

Depth:



33-34

33-34

14-1 £

14-15

26-27

32-33

14-15

28-26

32-33

14-1 £

29-3C

31-32

2-3

37-38

Chloroform

0.8

0.4

N/A











ND

ND













ND



cis-1,2-Dichloroethene

180

33

0.4

ND

ND

ND





ND

ND

ND

ND

0 0017 J

0.190 J

ND

ND

ND

ND

Tetrachloroethene (PCE)

18

88

0.05



ND

ND

ND

NO

0.0065

»j

0 0021 J

27 J

05

12

48

3.3

ND

0005 J

Trichloroethene (TCE)

9.3

6.4

0.03

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

1.9 J

ND



0.02

0.230 J

0.140 J

0 260 J

ND

ND

Toluene

60.000

7,500

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND



ND



ND



ND

ND

ND

ND

Acetone

68.000

11,000

N/A

ND

ND

ND



ND

ND

ND

ND



ND



ND

ND

ND

ND

Carbon Tetrachloride

0.7

0.5

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND



ND

ND

ND

ND



ND

ND

ND

1.1-Dichloroetherve

510

95

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND



ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

Carbon disulfide

1.500

270

N/A

ND



ND

ND

ND



NO

NO





ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

Methyl Acetate

38.000

6.800

N/A



ND

ND

ND

NO



ND

NO



ND

ND

ND



NO

ND

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene

290

53

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND



NO

ND



NO

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

Vinyl Chloride

0.8

0.2

N/A





ND

ND

ND

ND

NO

ND



ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

cis-1,3-Dlchloropropene

N/A

N/A

N/A

ND

ND

ND

ND

NO

ND

ND

ND

NO

NO

ND

ND

ND

ND

0.001 J

trans-1.3-Dichloropropene

N/A

N/A

N/A











ND

ND

NO





ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

untts	BoJdtype and the color black indicates (he exceedance of the Residential SCTl	rod Cleanup Goal: From OU1 ROD. EPA. 2007

Compound Not Detected	Bold type and the color red Indicates an exceedance of the Industrial SCTL

i ¦ Analyte was positively Identified, the quantitation is an estimation	SCTl - Florida SoH Cleanup Target Levels. 2005


-------