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
------- |