HAZARD RANKING SYSTEM (HRS) DOCUMENTATION RECORD COVER SHEET 

Name of Site: General Dynamics Longwood 

EPA ID No.: FLR000091322 

Contact Persons

Documentation Record: Barbara Alfano, Remedial Project Manager 

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 

 61 Forsyth Street, S.W., 11th Floor 

 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 

 (404) 562-8923 

 Jennifer Wendel, National Priorities List Coordinator 

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 

 61 Forsyth Street, S.W., 11th Floor 

 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 

 (404) 562-8799 

Pathways, Components, or Threats Not Scored

The surface water migration, soil exposure, and air migration pathways were not scored in this Hazard 

Ranking System (HRS) documentation record because they are not expected to significantly contribute to 

the overall site score. 

Surface Water Migration Pathway: Between 1988 and 2005, surface water and sediment samples have 

been collected from the drainage channel (unnamed ditch) located between the General Dynamics 

property and the Sprague Electric Company (SEC) property, as well as Soldier Creek located downstream 

of the drainage ditch. Surface water and/or sediment samples collected from the drainage ditch contained 

trichloroethylene (TCE) and 1,1-dichloroethylene (DCE). No constituents were detected in the surface 

water and sediment sample collected from Soldier Creek (Ref. 8, Tables 4-1 and 4-2, Figure 2-2). 

Surface water runoff from the General Dynamics property drains into the east-west trending drainage 

ditch on the northern boundary of the SEC property. The ditch then flows about 0.5 mile east and 

northeast, where it discharges into Soldier Creek. Soldier Creek flows about 1.7 miles southeast into 

Lake Jesup which ultimately drains into the St. Johns River (Ref. 8, p. 3-1, Figure 2-2). 

Soil Exposure and Air Migration Pathways: Site-related contaminants have not been detected in 

surface soil samples collected from 0 to 2 feet below land surface (Refs. 8, pp. 4-11, 4-12; 10, pp. 24, 25; 

46, Table 1, Figure 1; 49, Figure 3; 65; 77, p. 15; 89). Residential areas are located in the vicinity of the 

General Dynamics property (Refs. 10, p. 18; 11). Air and residential surface soil contamination has not 

been documented (Refs. 8, pp. 4-11, 4-12; 10, pp. 24, 25; 46, Table 1, Figure 1; 49, Figure 3; 65). As of 

June 2007, five people work at the Gould (referred to as General Dynamics in this HRS documentation 

record) property (Ref. 10, p. 35). The property consists of three buildings, paved parking and unpaved 

grass areas (Ref. 10, pp. 35, 51). The population within one mile is about 5,353 people (Ref. 14, pp. 1, 4). 

No air samples were collected at the General Dynamics property during the site inspection (Ref. 10, p. 

37). The residential population within 4 radial miles of the property is about 94,432 people (Ref. 14, pp. 

1, 7). 
 1 

HAZARD RANKING SYSTEM (HRS) DOCUMENTATION RECORD

Name of Site: General Dynamics Longwood 

EPA Region: 4 

Date Prepared: March 2009 

Date Revised: September 2010 

Street Address of Site*: 1333 North US Highway 17/92 

City, County, State, Zip: Longwood, Seminole County, Florida, 32750 

General Location in the State: Central portion of state, along the eastern coast 

Topographic Map: Casselberry, Florida, 1981 

Latitude: 28.71662< North 

Longitude: -81.32122< West 

The coordinates above for General Dynamics were measured at the southeastern corner of Building 3 

(Refs. 8, Figure 1-2; 13). 

* The street address, coordinates, and contaminant locations presented in this HRS documentation 

record identify the general area in which the site is located. They represent one or more locations EPA 

considers to be part of the site based on the screening information EPA used to evaluate the site for NPL 

listing. EPA lists its national priorities among the known “releases or threatened releases” of hazardous 

substances; thus, the focus is on the release, not precisely delineated boundaries. A site is defined where 

a hazardous substance has been “deposited, stored, placed, or otherwise come to be located.” Generally, 

HRS scoring and the subsequent listing of a release represent the initial determination that a certain area 

may need to be addressed under CERCLA. Accordingly, EPA contemplates that the preliminary 

description of facility boundaries at the time of scoring will be defined as more information is developed 

as to where the contamination has come to be located. 

Migration Pathway Pathway Score 

Ground Water Migration Pathway 100.00 

Surface Water Pathway NS 

Soil Exposure Pathway NS 

Air Migration Pathway NS 

HRS SITE SCORE 50.00

Note: 

NS Not scored 
 2 

WORKSHEET FOR COMPUTING HRS SITE SCORE 

S pathway S2 pathway 

Ground Water Migration Pathway Score (Sgw) 100 10,000 

Surface Water Migration Pathway Score (Ssw) NS NS 

Soil Exposure Pathway Score (Ss) NS NS 

Air Migration Score (Sa) NS NS 

S2

gw + S2sw + S2s + S2a 10,000 

(S2

gw + S2sw + S2s + S2a)/4 2,500 

 / (S2

gw + S2sw + S2s + S2a)/4 50.00 

Note: 

NS = Not scored 
 3 

Table 3-1 --Ground Water Migration Pathway Scoresheet 

Aquifer Evaluated: Interconnected Surficial and Upper Floridan Aquifers 

Factor Categories and Factors Maximum Value Value Assigned 

Likelihood of Release to an Aquifer: 

1. Observed Release 550 550 

2. Potential to Release: 

2a. Containment 10 NS 

2b. Net Precipitation 10 NS 

2c. Depth to Aquifer 5 NS 

2d. Travel Time 35 NS 

2e. Potential to Release [lines 2a(2b + 2c + 2d)] 500 NS 

3. Likelihood of Release (higher of lines 1 and 2e) 550 550 

Waste Characteristics: 

4. Toxicity/Mobility (a) 100 

5. Hazardous Waste Quantity (a) 10 

6. Waste Characteristics 100 6 

Targets: 

7. Nearest Well 50 20 

8. Population: 

8a. Level I Concentrations (b) 0.00 

8b. Level II Concentrations (b) 0.00 

8c. Potential Contamination (b) 6,613.9 

8d. Population (lines 8a + 8b + 8c) (b) 6,613.9 

9. Resources 5 0 

10. Wellhead Protection Area 20 5.00 

11. Targets (lines 7 + 8d + 9 + 10) (b) 6,638.9 

Ground Water Migration Score for an Aquifer: 

12. Aquifer Score [(lines 3 x 6 x 11)/82,500]c 100 100.00 

Ground Water Migration Pathway Score: 

13. Pathway Score (Sgw), (highest value from line 12 for all aquifers 

valuated)c

100 100.00 

Notes: 

NS = Not scored 

a

 = Maximum value applies to waste characteristics category 

b

 = Maximum value not applicable 

c

 = Do not round to nearest integer 
0 

Un

GEN

T

SEM

GENERAL DYNAMICS 

LE
17 /9 2 FORMER PAINT AND 

N

US

HIG HWAY

BUILDING 1 

PLATING BUILDING 

MAINTENANCE 

BUILDING 

BUILDING 2 BUILDING 3 

!.

FORMER SHED 

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF 

FORMER AST 

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF

SOURCE #2

 FORMER VAPOR

 DEGREASER 

CONTAMINATED SOIL 
Former general 

location of 

Source 1 and 

associated 

Observed Release 

Legend

General Dynamics 

Longwood Site 

SEC Superfund 

Alternative Site 

Bldg 1 

Bldg 2 Bldg 3 General location of 

Source 2 and 

associated 

Observed Release 

General Dynamics 

Longwood Site 

SEC Superfund 

Alternative Site 
Legend 

GENERAL DYNAMICS 

FACILITY AREA 

SEC FACILITY AREA 

MAXIMUM POSSIBLE 

BACKGROUND 

UPGRADIENT AREA 

REVIEWED UPGRADIENT 

SAMPLE LOCATION BLDG 1 

BLDG 2 BLDG 3 

MW-5B 

1,700 μg/L of 1,1-DCE 

SEC FACILITY 

AREA 

SOURCE 2 

GENERAL DYNAMICS 

FACILITY AREA 

SOURCE 2 

OBSERVED RELEASE 

SAMPLE LOCATION 

(DPGW-34 

26,500 μg/L of 1,1-DCE) 

SOURCE 2 

OBSERVED RELEASE 

BACKGROUND 

SAMPLE LOCATION 

(DPGW-23) 

OBSERVED RELEASE BACKGROUND

SAMPLE LOCATION 

(DPGW-26) 
 8 

REFERENCES

1. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Hazard Ranking System, 40 Code of Federal 

Regulations Part 300, Appendix A, 55 Federal Register 51532. December 14, 1990. 138 Pages. 

2. EPA. Superfund Chemical Data Matrix. January 2004. 53 pages. A complete copy of SCDM is 

available at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsres/tools/scdm.htm. 

3. Shanna Davis, Environmental Scientist, Tetra Tech. Project Note. Subject: Layout of Stromberg 

Carlson. October 13, 2008. 2 Pages. 

4. Seminole County, Public Works, Trails and Greenways. Accessed on November 5, 2008. Online 

Address: http://visitseminole.com/pw/trails/trails.asp. 3 Pages. 

5. Douglas Grant, Staff Scientist, Geraghty & Miller, Inc. Contamination Assessment Plan, Sprague 

Electric Company, Longwood, Florida. January 22, 1988. 28 Pages. 

6. Geraghty & Miller, Inc. Contamination Assessment Report, Sprague Electric Company, 

Longwood, Florida. February 1990. 46 Pages. 

7. Willard Harms, Project Coordinator, URS Corporation. Project Note. Subject: Standard 

Operating Procedures Followed During the 2001 Contamination Assessment Addendum and the 

2005 and 2006 Remedial Investigation. October 9, 2008. 2 Pages. 

 

8. Tom Lewis, EPA Project Manager, URS Corporation. Letter with Attachments to Jordan 

Garrard, EPA Remedial Project Manager. Subject: Submittal of Draft Remedial Investigation 

Report. February 8, 2007. 1,472 Pages. 

8a. Will Harms, URS Corporation. E-mail to Sandra Harrigan, Tetra Tech. Subject: Final RI for 

Sprague Electric. February 19, 2009. 1 page. 

9. Miller, James. Hydrogeologic Framework of the Floridan Aquifer System in Florida and in Parts 

of Georgia, Alabama, and South Carolina. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1403-B. 

1986. 134 Pages. 

10. MACTEC Engineering and Consulting. Site Inspection Report for Gould Property Site, 

Longwood, Seminole County, Florida, FLR000091322. January 2008. 343 Pages. 

11. Shanna Davis, Environmental Scientist, Tetra Tech. Project Note. Subject: Parcel 28-20-30-

5DL-0C01-000 Detail. October 9, 2008. 2 Pages. 

12. Shanna Davis, Environmental Scientist, Tetra Tech. Project Note with Attachments. Subject: 

Facility Registry System. December 16, 2008. 11 Pages. 

 

13. Shanna Davis, Environmental Scientist, Tetra Tech. Project Note with Attachment. Subject: 

Coordinates at Southeast Corner of Building Number 3 on the General Dynamics Property. 

January 12, 2009. 2 Pages. 

14. L.S. Zimnicki, Information Specialist, Tetra Tech. Project Note. Subject: Population within 

distance rings for General Dynamics, Longwood, Florida. July 8, 2008. 7 Pages. 

15. Shanna Davis, Environmental Scientist, Tetra Tech. Project Note. Subject: Area of General 

Dynamics Property. August 25, 2008. 20 Pages. 
 9 

16. Gould Publication of Florida, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Plaintiff, vs. Sprague Electric 

Company, et al., Defendant, Deposition of Cecil Carter, Case Number 02-CA-1250-11-G. 

October 5, 2004. 50 Pages. 

17. Gould Publication of Florida, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Plaintiff, vs. Sprague Electric 

Company, et al., Defendant, Deposition of John Ford, Case Number 02-CA-1250-11-G. October 

5, 2004. 44 Pages. 

18. Shanna Davis, Environmental Scientist, Tetra Tech. Project Note. Subject: Gould Site Owner 

and Lessee Timeline. October 9, 2008. 6 Pages. 

19. Shanna Davis, Environmental Scientist, Tetra Tech. Project Note. Subject: Area of Parcel 28-

20-30-501-0000-013A. August 25, 2008. 5 Pages. 

20. Shanna Davis, Environmental Scientist, Tetra Tech. Project Note. Subject: Area of General 

Dynamics Property. August 25, 2008. 1 Page. 

21. Shanna Davis, Environmental Scientist, Tetra Tech. Project Note. Subject: MACTEC Logbook 

Notes from the 2007 Site Inspection. October 9, 2008. 24 Pages. 

22. Ken Busen, J. Michael Wilson, and E. Randy Merchant, ORT III – Ground water Section. 

Ground water Investigation, Sprague Electric, Seminole County. January 1985. 32 Pages. 

23. E.C. Jordan. Preliminary Assessment. October 14, 1985. 9 Pages. 

24. Geraghty & Miller, Inc. Contamination Assessment Report, Sprague Electric Company, Volume 

I, 1221 North Highway 17 & 92, Longwood, Florida, OGC Case No. 87-1007. May 1992. 113 

Pages. 

25. Geraghty & Miller, Inc. Preliminary Contamination Assessment Report, Sprague Electric 

Company, Longwood, Florida. July 2, 1986. 22 Pages. 

26. EPA, Region IV. Sprague Electric Company Superfund Site, Longwood, Seminole County, 

Florida, Administrative Order by Consent for Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study. June 

19, 2004. 69 Pages. 

27. Geraghty & Miller, Inc. Letter Regarding Monitoring Well Installation and Ground-Water 

Investigation. From Joseph Mizerany, Staff Scientist. To Mr. James L. McWhorter. June 22, 

1991. 12 Pages. 

28. Jessica Vickers, Quality Assurance Manager, Tetra Tech. Project Note. Subject: Review of URS 

Data Validation Reports for the 2005 Remedial Investigation Samples. January 9, 2008. 3 Pages. 

29. James McCarthy, Professional Geologist I, Program and Technical Support Section, Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). Subject: Missing Hawthorn Group at Gould 

Property site. January 7, 2009. 1 Page. 

30. Tetra Tech. Four-Mile Radius Map. Source of Map: U.S. Geological Survey Topographic 

Quadrangles of Sanford SW, Florida 1967; Sanford, Florida 1981; Forest City, Florida 1981; and 

Casselberry, Florida 1981. 1 Map (Revised January 20, 2010). 

31. Shanna Davis, Environmental Scientist, Tetra Tech. Record of Telephone Conversation with 

Chris Reeves, Water Operations Manager, Seminole County Water Department with 

Attachments. Subject: Seminole County Water Department. August 19, 2008 and September 1, 

2008. 9 Pages. 
 10 

32. Shanna Davis, Environmental Scientist, Tetra Tech. Record of Telephone Conversation with 

Bruce Paster, Public Works Director, City of Lake Mary Public Works Department with 

Attachments. Subject: City of Lake Mary Water Department. August 13, 2008. 3 Pages. 

33. Shanna Davis, Environmental Scientist, Tetra Tech. Project Note with Attachments. Subject: 

City of Longwood Record of Telephone Conversations and Attachments. January 8, 2009. 11 

Pages. 

34. Shanna Davis, Environmental Scientist, Tetra Tech. Record of Telephone Conversation with 

Migdalia Hernandez, Water Resources Engineer, City of Sanford Department of Water and Sewer 

Utilities with Attachments. Subject: City of Sanford Department of Water and Sewer Utilities. 

August 13, 2008. 4 Pages. 

35. Shanna Davis, Environmental Scientist, Tetra Tech. Record of Telephone Conversation with 

Scotty Haws, Compliance Manager, Utilities Incorporated with Attachments. Subject: Sanlando 

Utilities Corporation. August 14, 2008. 8 Pages. 

36. Shanna Davis, Environmental Scientist, Tetra Tech. Record of Telephone Conversation with 

Alan Ambler, Utilities Manager, City of Casselberry Water Department with Attachments. 

Subject: City of Casselberry Water Department. September 25, 2008. 4 Pages. 

37. Shanna Davis, Environmental Scientist, Tetra Tech. Record of Telephone Conversation with 

Doug Taylor, Utility Superintendent, City of Winter Springs Utility Department with 

Attachments. Subject: City of Winter Springs Utility Department. August 26, 2008. 11 Pages. 

38. St. Johns River Water Management District. Public Water Supplier Report, City of Sanford 

Consumptive Use Permit 162. August 12, 2008. 6 Pages. 

39. St. Johns River Water Management District. Public Water Supplier Report, Seminole County 

Consumptive Use Permit 8213. August 12, 2008. 10 Pages. 

40. St. Johns River Water Management District. Public Water Supplier Report, City of Lake Mary 

Consumptive Use Permit 8282. August 12, 2008. 6 Pages. 

41. Gould Publication of Florida, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Plaintiff, vs. Sprague Electric 

Company, et al., Defendant, Deposition of Ralph Leo Spotts, Jr., Case Number 02-CA-1250-11-

G. July 7, 2004. 52 Pages. 

42. EPA/SEMARNAP Pollution Prevention Work Group. Pollution Prevention in the Electronics 

Industry. May 1996. 118 Pages. 

43. EPA, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory Center for Environmental Research Information. 

Guides to Pollution Prevention, The Printed Circuit Board Manufacturing Industry. June 1990. 

83 Pages. 

44. Shanna Davis, Environmental Scientist, Tetra Tech. Project Note with Attachments. Subject: 

Regulatory Information Available Regarding the General Dynamics Property. September 5, 

2008. 5 Pages. 

45. Nancy McKee, Environmental Specialist, FDEP. Seminole County-HW, Gould Publications, Inc. 

– FLR000091322, Case Closed. May 20, 2003. 26 Pages. 

46. URS Corporation. Contamination Assessment Report Addendum, Former Sprague Site, 

Longwood, Florida. June 2001. 30 Pages. 
 11 

47. Gould Publication of Florida, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Plaintiff, vs. Sprague Electric 

Company, et al., Defendant, Deposition of George F. Anderson, Case Number 02-CA-1250-11-G. 

October 5, 2004. 7 Pages. 

48. EPA, Office of Water. National Primary Drinking Water Standards. June 2003. 6 Pages. 

49. Tom Lewis, P.G., Project Geologist, and Thomas Kwader, PhD, P.G., Senior Consulting 

Geologist, URS Corporation. Former Sprague Electric Preliminary Site Characterization 

Summary, Former Sprague Facility, Longwood, Seminole County, Florida. November 22, 2005. 

171 pages. 

50. Southeast Accutest Laboratories. Technical Report for URS Corporation, Sampling Date June 8, 

2005. February 7, 2007. 102 Pages. 

51. Shanna Davis, Environmental Scientist, Tetra Tech. Project Note with Attachments. Subject: 

URS Data Validation Reports. October 9, 2008. 67 Pages. 

52. EPA, Office of Research and Development. Technical Protocol for Evaluating Natural 

Attenuation of Chlorinated Solvents in Ground Water. September 1998. 248 Pages. 

53. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic 

Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological Profile for Tetrachloroethylene. September 

1997. 318 Pages. 

54. Shanna Davis, Environmental Scientist, Tetra Tech. Project Note with Attachments. Subject: 

URS August 2005 Logbook. November 11, 2008. 15 Pages. 

55. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey of Seminole County, 

Florida. March 1990. 179 Pages. 

56. Willard Harms, Project Coordinator, URS Corporation. Project Note. Subject: Absence of Liner 

on the General Dynamics Property. October 9, 2008. 1 Page. 

57. Shanna Davis, Environmental Scientist, Tetra Tech. Project Note with Attachments. Subject: 

Logbook for the August 2005 Remedial Investigation Conducted by URS Corporation. October 

13, 2008. 26 Pages. 

58. KB Labs, Inc. From Michael Winslow, Quality Assurance Officer. To Kristin Taylor, URS. 

March 20, 2001. 15 Pages. 

59. EPA. Hazardous Waste Test Methods, SW-846. September 10, 2008. Excerpt, 36 Pages. 

60. Florida NPL/NPL Caliber Cleanup Site Summaries. Sprague Electric. Accessed on November 

12, 2008. Online Address: http://www.epa.gov/Region 4/waste/npl/nplfln/hipprdfl.htm. 1 Page. 

61. Shanna Davis, Environmental Scientist, Tetra Tech. Project Note. Subject: Seminole County 

Water Department. January 9, 2009. 1 Page. 

62. Shanna Davis, Environmental Scientist, Tetra Tech. Project Note with Attachment. Subject: 

Information Request from City of Lake Mary Water Department. January 9, 2009. 3 Pages. 

63. Quinn Kelley, Environmental Scientist, Tetra Tech. Record of Telephone Conversation with 

Charlie Turner, Operations Manager, City of Sanford Department of Water and Sewer Utilities. 

Subject: City of Department of Water and Sewer Utilities – Confirmation of Information. 

January 20, 2009. 1 Page. 
 12 

64. FDEP. Florida Geological Survey Data and Maps. Accessed on October 9, 2006. Internet 

Address: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/geology/gisdatamaps/litholog.htm. 14 Pages. 

65. Quinn Kelley, Environmental Scientist, Tetra Tech. Project Note with Attachments. Subject: 

Request for Information from URS Corporation. January 19, 2009. 2 Pages. 

66. Quinn Kelley, Environmental Scientist, Tetra Tech. Project Note with Attachments. Subject: 

Request for Mobile Lab Data Reporting Limits. January 19, 2009. 3 Pages. 

67. Coastal Services Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Beach 

Nourishment: A Guide for Local Government Officials, Geologic Regimes of the Atlantic and 

Gulf Coasts. September 12, 2008. 5 Pages. 

68. United States Geologic Survey (USGS). Hydrogeology, Water Quality, and Simulated Effects of 

Ground-Water Withdrawals from the Floridan Aquifer System, Seminole County and Vicinity, 

Florida. 2001. 125 Pages. 

69. Florida Geological Survey Special Publication. Florida’s Ground Water Quality Monitoring 

Program, Background Hydrogeochemistry. Special Publication No. 32. 44 Pages. 

70. Florida Geological Survey. Ground-Water Resources of Seminole County, Florida. Report of 

Investigations No. 27. 1962. 39 Pages. 

71. Brenda Shaw, TN & Associates, Inc. Project Note with Attachments. Subject: FDEP/well 

construction and lithology for SEC. February 19, 2003. 48 Pages. 

72. Southeast Accutest Laboratories. Technical Report for URS Corporation, Sampling Date June 20 

and 21, 2005. February 7, 2007. 152 Pages. 

73. URS Corporation. Gould Property Supplemental Site Investigation. February 2, 2004. 73 Pages. 

74. URS Corporation. Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Work Plan, Former Sprague Electric 

Facility, Longwood, Florida. March 2005. 1,574 Pages. 

75. Shanna Davis, Environmental Scientist, Tetra Tech. Project Note with Attachments. Subject: 

URS May to July 2005 Logbooks. October 9, 2008. 68 Pages. 

76. Southeast Accutest Laboratories. Technical Report for URS Corporation, Sampling Date June 9, 

2005. February 7, 2007. 94 Pages. 

77. Southeast Accutest Laboratories. Technical Report for URS Corporation, Sampling Date 

September 16, 2005. February 8, 2007. 104 Pages. 

78. James McCarthy, Professional Geologist I, Program and Technical Support Section, FDEP. 

Subject: Seminole County, Florida Karst Terrain and Karst Aquifer. December 16, 2008. 4 

Pages. 

79. Comprehensive Quality Assurance Plan for KB Labs, Inc. Prepared by KB Labs, Inc. March 10, 

2000. 45 Pages. 

80. Shanna Davis, Environmental Scientist, Tetra Tech. Project Note with Attachments. Subject: 

Logbook for the September 2005 Remedial Investigation Conducted by URS Corporation. 

October 13, 2008. 7 Pages. 
 13 

81. Southeast Accutest Laboratories. Technical Report for URS Corporation, Sampling Dates 

August 1 and 2, 2005. February 7, 2007. 207 Pages. 

82. Shanna Davis, Environmental Scientist, Tetra Tech. Project Note with Attachments. Subject: 

URS August 2005 Logbooks. October 9, 2008. 12 Pages. 

83. Southeast Accutest Laboratories. Technical Report for URS Corporation, Sampling Dates 

August 2 through 4, 2005. February 7, 2007. 243 Pages. 

84. Todd Romero, Director of Operations, KB Labs, Inc. Sprague Superfund, Longwood, FL – Final 

Data Report, KB Labs Project #05-121. June 21, 2005. 18 Pages. 

85. FDEP. Letter Regarding Quality Assurance Review; KB Labs, Inc. QA Plan #980029 Revision 

3; Amendment to an Approved Document. From Deborah S. Koren, Environmental Assessment 

Section. To. Michael G. Winslow, KB Labs, Inc. June 30, 2000. 7 Pages. 

86. Jessica Vickers, Quality Assurance Manger, Tetra Tech. Project Note. Subject: Review of KB 

Labs Project Number 0106 Mobile Laboratory Data. December 16, 2008. 3 Pages. 

87. EPA, Region 4, Environmental Investigations Standard Operating Procedures and Quality 

Assurance Manual, November 2001. 413 Pages. 

88. Gould Publication of Florida, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Plaintiff, vs. Sprague Electric 

Company, et al., Defendant, Deposition of Quentin Glenn, Case Number 02-CA-1250-11-G. July 

7, 2004. 46 Pages. 

89. Quinn Kelley, Environmental Scientist, Tetra Tech. Project Note with Attachment. Subject: KB 

Labs, Inc. Definition of Less Than Symbol. January 19, 2009. 3 Pages. 

90. Shanna Davis, Environmental Scientist, Tetra Tech. Project Note with Attachments. Subject: 

Well Construction Details. September 24, 2008. 3 Pages. 

91. Jessica Vickers, Quality Assurance Manager, Tetra Tech. Project Note. Subject: Review of KB 

Labs Project Number 05-121 Mobile Laboratory Data. December 16, 2008. 1 Page. 

92. Southeast Accutest Laboratories. Technical Report for URS Corporation, Sampling Dates 

September 14 and 15, 2005. February 8, 2007. 143 Pages. 

93. Shanna Davis, Environmental Scientist, Tetra Tech. Project Note with Attachments. Subject: 

Logbooks for the 2001 Contamination Assessment Conducted by URS Corporation. October 13, 

2008. 31 Pages. 

94. Shanna Davis, Environmental Scientist, Tetra Tech. Record of Telephone Conversation with 

Doug Taylor, Utility Superintendent, City of Winter Springs Utility Department. Subject: City 

of Winter Springs Utility Department. September 29, 2008. 1 Page. 

95. Shanna Davis, Environmental Scientist, Tetra Tech. Project Note with Attachments. Subject: 

Sinkhole Database. September 29, 2008. 6 Pages. 

96. Handex of Florida, Inc. Site Assessment and Interim Remediation Evaluation, Former Sprague 

Electric Facility, Longwood, Seminole County, Florida. March 2002. 122 Pages. 

97. Quinn Kelley, Environmental Scientist, Tetra Tech. Record of Telephone Conversation with 

Scotty Haws, Regional Compliance Manager, Utilities Incorporated. Subject: Sanlando Utilities 
 14 

Corporation (subsidiary of Utilities Incorporated) – Confirmation of Information. January 20, 

2009. 1 Page. 

98. USGS. Hydrogeology and Water-Quality Characteristics of the Lower Floridan Aquifer in EastCentral Florida, Water Resources Investigations Report 02–4193. 67 pages. 

99. Quinn Kelley, Environmental Scientist, Tetra Tech. Project Note with Attachments. Subject: 

Aquifer Information for Sanlando Utilities Municipal Wells. February 25, 2009. 10 pages. 
 15 

SITE DESCRIPTION

The General Dynamics Longwood site consists of a contaminated soil source on the eastern portion of the 

General Dynamics property (Source No. 2) and a release of a hazardous substance (1,1-DCE) to ground 

water (see Figures 2 and 3 of this HRS documentation record). A significant increase of 1,1-DCE has 

been documented underlying and downgradient of the contaminated soil source (Source No. 2) at the site 

(see Section 3.1.1 Observed Release of this HRS documentation record). 

The General Dynamics Longwood site is located within the General Dynamics property (also known as 

the Gould property) (Ref. 10, p. 3) (see Figures 2 and 3 of this HRS documentation record). The General 

Dynamics property is located at 1333 North US Highway 17/92 in Longwood, Seminole County, Florida 

(Ref. 12, pp. 5, 6) (see Figure 1 of this Hazard Ranking System [HRS] documentation record). More 

specifically, the geographic coordinates as measured from the southeastern corner of Building 3 are 

latitude 28.71662o north and longitude -81.32122o west (Refs. 3; 13). The General Dynamics property 

consists of four parcels covering an area of about 10.42 acres (Refs. 15, pp. 1 through 9; 19, p. 1 through 

5; 20). Located on the eastern portion of this property is the scored source (Source No. 2). The western 

part of this property contains what was originally established as Source 1, and is part of the Sprauge 

Electric Company (SEC) Superfund Alternative Approach (SAA) site (see Figure 3 of this HRS 

documentation record). 

Land uses surrounding the property are predominately vacant, residential, industrial, and mixed 

commercial (Refs. 10, pp. 49, 50; 11; 15, pp. 10 through 19; 26, p. 2). The General Dynamics property is 

bounded by vacant land to the north, Sprague Electric Company (SEC) to the south, vacant commercial 

land to the east, and Highway 17-92 to the west (Ref. 15, pp. 10 through 19). The neighboring SEC 

property is about 12-acres and contains office and production buildings that contain capacitor 

manufacturing and assembly areas and a machine shop; a loading dock; storage areas; a fire protection 

well; septic tanks and associated drain fields; a retention pond, and one side of a drainage ditch located 

along the northern property boundary (Ref. 26, pp. 2, 3). A day care center is located to the east and 

adjacent to SEC (Ref. 21, p. 23). 

The General Dynamics property consists mostly of paved parking and unpaved grass areas. Access to the 

back of the property is restricted by a locked chain link fence (Ref. 10, p. 35). Structures on the General 

Dynamics property include three large manufacture buildings (Building Nos. 1, 2, and 3) among smaller 

buildings (Refs. 3; 10, p. 51; 16, pp. 9 through 13, Exhibit 1) (see Figure 2 of this HRS documentation 

record). Building Nos. 1, 2, and 3 were built at separate times between 1959 and 1965 (Refs. 3; 47, p. 4). 

Building 1 contained the lobby, plant manager’s office, and personnel (Refs. 3; 16, p. 12, Exhibit 1). 

Building 2 contained an engineering drafting and test area (Refs. 3; 16, p. 11, Exhibit 1). Building 3 

contained the manufacturing area, PC soldering, storage area, and a vapor degreaser (Refs. 3; 16, pp. 9, 

10, 11, 14, 15, Exhibit 1). A building which contained a maintenance shop is located to the northeast of 

Building 1 (Refs. 3; 10, p. 51). A shed was located to the east of Building 3 which held 55 gallon 

containers of TCE (Ref. 17, pp. 18, 26, Exhibit 1). Painting and plating occurred east of Building 1 (Ref. 

3). 

From about 1961 to December 1979, the General Dynamics facility (and its predecessors) operated on a 

larger parcel of land. In December 1979, SEC acquired a strip of east-west trending land to the south and 

a rectangular portion to the east (Ref. 8, p. 1-5, Figure 1-2). 
 16 

OPERATIONAL AND REGULATORY HISTORY 

Limited information exists on the operational history at General Dynamics. According to depositions of 

former General Dynamics’ employees, General Dynamics (and its predecessors) manufactured printed 

circuit boards (Ref. 16, pp. 6, 7). 

Tenets at the General Dynamics property included Dynatronics (1959 to 1965); General Dynamics Corp. 

(1966 to 1978); Stromberg-Carlson, a subsidiary of General Dynamics Corp. (1979 to 1982); General 

Dynamics Land Systems, a subsidiary of General Dynamics Corp. (1983); Lexar Corporation and United 

Technologies Comm. Co. (1984 to 1985); and Lexar Corporation, UTCC, and Telex Computer Products 

(1986 to 1988). Gould Publications purchased the property in 1993 (Ref. 18). Gould Publications 

conducted printing and publication operations and, as of 2007, conducts wholesaling and warehouse 

activities (Ref. 10, p. 3). 

General Dynamics manufactured printed circuit boards (Refs. 16, pp. 6, 7; 41, p. 5). Printed circuit 

boards are metal clad dielectrics with conductors imprinted onto one or both sides of the board. The 

general assembly process of the printed circuit boards includes placing electrical components on the 

boards, the boards are then fluxed and components are affixed and soldered to the boards. General 

contaminants include: water insoluble or oily materials; water soluble materials including rosin flux 

activators, sodium chloride, and plating and etching salts; and particulates, such as dust, and machining, 

drilling, and punching fragments. A cleaning process is needed to remove residues from the board. 

Chemicals used in the cleaning process include chlorinated solvents such as trichloroethylene (TCE), 

1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA), perchloroethylene (PCE), and 1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2-trifluorethane, as well as 

various non-chlorinated solvents, such as acetone and alcohol (Refs. 42, p. II-9; 43, p. 5). According to a 

previous employee at General Dynamics, the manufacture of printed circuit boards included the use of a 

liquid resist (KPR). The panels would be placed in a copper roller coder material that would deposit a 

photo resist on to the boards. The boards would then be baked for several minutes followed by exposure 

to ultraviolet light. The boards were then placed in a degreaser (Ref. 41, p. 9). The vapor degreaser was 

about 4 feet wide by 4 feet deep by 5 feet high. The chemical used in the vapor degreaser was TCE (Ref. 

41, pp. 10, 11). About 25 to 30 gallons of TCE were placed into the vapor degreaser a couple times a 

week (Ref. 41, pp. 11, 12, 13). TCE was stored in 55-gallon drums in a shed located to the east of 

Building 3 (Ref. 17, pp. 18, 26, Exhibit 1) (see Figure 2 of this HRS documentation record). At an 

unspecified time, TCE was stored in an above ground storage tank (AST) located outside Building 3 near 

the vapor degreaser (Ref. 88, pp. 10, 11, 14, 15) (see Figure 2 in this HRS documentation record). 

Additional vapor degreasers were located throughout the facility; however, the location of all the 

degreasers, as well as the solvents used in them, are unknown (Ref. 41, p. 8). Also, an underground 

storage tank is located near Source No. 2 (Ref. 8, pp. 1-4, 2-2, Figure 1-2) 

According to Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) personnel, no regulatory file 

information exists concerning operations at the General Dynamics property (Ref. 44, p. 1). However, a 

hazardous waste compliance inspection was conducted by FDEP in 2003 (Ref. 45, p. 2). Waste found on 

the property included acetic acid, ammonium thiosulfate, silver chloride, benzyl alcohol, paint, and ink, 

among others (Ref. 45, pp. 2, 6 through 13). 

The adjacent SEC facility manufactured film capacitors on the property from 1959 to 1992. From 

approximately 1959 to December 1964, a portion of the SEC property was owned by Dearborn 

Electronics of Delaware, Inc. (Dearborn). Both SEC and Dearborn manufactured film capacitors at the 

SEC property. Film capacitors were assembled, soldered, impregnated with wax mineral oil or silicon oil 

in a pressurized chamber, and then cleaned in a vapor degreaser (Ref. 26, p. 3). The chemicals TCA and 

TCE were used as cleaning agents in the vapor degreaser (Ref. 8, p. 1-5). 

The breakdown products of TCE include 1,1-dichloroethylene (DCE), cis-1,2-DCE, trans-1,2-DCE, and 

vinyl chloride. The breakdown products of PCE include TCE, 1,1-DCE, cis-1,2-DCE, trans-1,2-DCE, 

and vinyl chloride (Ref. 52, p. 24). The breakdown products of 1,1,1-TCA include 1,1-DCE (Ref. 52, p. 
 17 

B4-63). Deposition testimony of former General Dynamics employees indicates that TCE and 1,1,1-TCA 

(referred to in the testimony as “1,1,1-Tric”) were used at the General Dynamics facility (Ref. 41, pp. 9 

through 13; 88, pp. 7, 8). Solvents such as TCE, PCE, and 1,1,1-TCA are commonly used in printed 

circuit board manufacturing processes for metal cleaning and vapor degreasing (Refs. 43, p. 5; 53, p. 

177). 1,1-DCE has been detected in the contaminated soil source and in ground water underlying and 

downgradient of the source (see sections 2.2.2 Hazardous Substances Associated with the Source and 

3.1.1 Observed Release of this HRS documentation record). 

PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS 

The majority of investigations which include the General Dynamics property have been performed in 

conjunction with the SEC property. As a result of contaminant delineation efforts, many of the sampling 

investigations have included the General Dynamics property (Ref. 8, pp. 4-4 through 4-15). 

As a result of a former employee’s allegation that SEC disposed solvents into the septic system located on 

the SEC property, FDEP’s (then known as Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, henceforth 

referred to as FDEP) Operations Response Team conducted a preliminary ground water investigation at 

SEC in July and October 1984. Six shallow sandpoint well ground water samples were collected and 

analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOC) (Ref. 22, pp. 3, 6; 26, p. 3). No VOCs were detected in 

an upgradient designated background sample. One or more of the following compounds were detected in 

the downgradient sandpoint wells: chloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethane (DCA), 1,1-DCE, 1,2-DCE, 1,1,1-

TCA, and TCE (Ref. 22, p. 9). 

In October 1985, E.C. Jordan conducted a preliminary assessment (PA) on behalf of FDEP. The PA 

noted that FDEP had issued a Warning Notice to SEC on January 11, 1985, regarding the high 

concentration of TCE, 1,1-DCE, and TCE in the ground water underlying the SEC property. During a 

windshield survey conducted on August 22, 1985, effluent was seen flowing from a polyvinyl chloride 

(PVC) pipe into the drainage ditch located on the SEC property. It was recommended that the facility be 

inspected to ensure that illegal discharges to the septic system were no longer occurring and to sample the 

discharge to the ditch to ensure that it was not negatively impacting surface water quality (Ref. 23, pp. 1, 

2). 

FDEP issued a consent order (CO) on January 9, 1986 (Ref. 24, Appendix A, p. 1). On February 10, 

1986, SEC submitted a preliminary contamination assessment plan (PCAP) to FDEP; the plan was 

approved by FDEP on April 23, 1986 (Ref. 24, Appendix A, p. 2). During the PCAP review period, SEC 

located an underground storage tank (UST) on the southern portion of the property, and analyzed its 

contents (Ref. 25, p. 1, Figure 1). The UST contained the following VOCs: 1,1-DCA; 1,1-DCE; 1,1,1-

TCA; and TCE (Ref. 25, pp. 11, B-1). In May 1986, sixteen ground water samples were collected on the 

SEC property. The following hazardous substances were detected in the ground water samples collected: 

1,1-DCA; 1,1-DCE; cis-1,2-DCE; methylene chloride; PCE; 1,1,1-TCA; and TCE (Ref. 25, pp. 3, 4, 10). 

The greatest concentrations of total VOCs, 6,617 milligrams per liter (mg/L), were detected in the north 

central portion of the SEC property. No samples were collected on the General Dynamics property (Ref. 

25, pp. 9, 10). The UST and underlying contaminated soil (from ground surface to 10 feet below land 

surface [bls]) were removed in 1987, and the excavation was filled with soil transported from off site. 

Approximately 5,500 pounds of soil were removed from the property (Ref. 24, pp. 2, 3, 104 through 107). 

Geraghty & Miller, Inc. collected ground water samples from newly installed monitoring wells in 1988 

and 1989 (Ref. 6, pp. 1, 5, 7, 8). Three monitoring wells were installed on the General Dynamics 

property, MW-13, MW-14, and FL-3, with total depths of 40, 15, and 156 feet, respectively. These wells 

are located on the eastern portion of the General Dynamics property (Refs. 6, Figures 8, 9, and 10; 71, pp. 

18, 19, 33). The greatest concentrations of TCE discovered in monitoring wells were detected in sample 

MW-5 (total depth of 44 feet bls) in August 1988 and again in November 1989. MW-5 is located on the 

north central portion of the SEC property (Refs. 6, Tables 6 and 7, Figure 6; 71, p. 10). 
 18 

In March 1991, Geraghty & Miller installed two wells on the western portion of the General Dynamics 

property (Refs. 27, p. i, Figure 1; 71, pp. 21, 34). Monitoring well MW-16 (MW-16A) was installed to a 

depth of 16 feet bls and FL-4 (FL-4C) was installed to a depth of 130 feet bls (Refs. 8, Table 2-4; 71, pp. 

21, 34). Samples collected in March 1991 from monitoring well MW-16 (MW-16A) contained TCE at a 

concentration of 380 μg/L. Constituents related to the General Dynamics and/or SEC properties were not 

detected in the sample collected from FL-4 (Ref. 27, Attachment A, pp. 3, 5). 

In October 1995, Great American Financial Resources, Inc. (GAFRI) (successor in interest to SEC) 

retained Woodward-Clyde Consultants (now URS Corporation [URS]) to conduct remediation activities 

at the SEC property (Ref. 8, pp. ES-1, 4-8). In January 1996, URS submitted a revised interim remedial 

action plan to FDEP. Three horizontal wells were installed in the upper surficial aquifer along the north 

boundary of the SEC property to capture impacted shallow ground water and prevent the movement of the 

shallow volatile organic hydrocarbon (VOH) plume to the north (Ref. 8, p. 4-8). One recovery well was 

installed in the lower surficial aquifer to provide some hydraulic control, recover contaminants from the 

B-zone (lower surficial aquifer), and to create additional upward pressure to further reduce the possibility 

of vertical migration of contaminants into the Floridan aquifer (Ref. 8, pp. 1-9, 4-8). The ground water 

treatment system began operation in July 1997. Six additional A-zone (upper surficial aquifer) wells, one 

B-zone well, and one Floridan aquifer well were installed in 1996 to support performance monitoring 

(Ref. 8, pp. 1-9, 4-8). 

In 2001, URS, on behalf of GAFRI, conducted additional contamination assessment activities at the SEC 

and General Dynamics properties (Refs. 8, pp. 4-10, 7-2; 8a; 46, p. 1; 79). The additional assessment 

activities were conducted to investigate the cause of increasing levels of halogenated compounds in the 

A-zone (about 12 to 17 feet bls) and the B-zone (about 20 to 46 feet bls) of the surficial aquifer (Ref. 46, 

p. 1, Figure 3). Field logbooks from these activities are presented in Reference 93. The “A” zone and 

“B” zone are separated by a clay layer (A/B) that exists at depths ranging from 11 feet to 32 feet bls 

across the SEC and General Dynamics properties; however, the A/B clay layer is absent in certain areas 

of both properties (Ref. 8, p. 2-4, Figure 2-3). Soil and direct push ground water samples were collected 

during the investigation and analyzed for eight halogenated compounds (Ref. 46, p. 1; 58). TCE and its 

degradation products were detected in subsurface soil samples collected from the western section of the 

General Dynamics property (Ref. 46, Table 1, Figure 1; Ref. 52. p. 24; 65). 

In November 2003, URS conducted a supplemental site investigation at the General Dynamics and SEC 

properties (Ref. 73, pp. Cover-1, 1-1). URS investigated the septic tanks in the areas west of Buildings 1 

and 2 on the General Dynamics property (Ref. 73, p. 2-1). 

In 2005, URS, on behalf of GAFRI, conducted preliminary site characterization activities at the SEC and 

General Dynamics properties. Activities included the collection of soil samples, direct push ground water 

sampling, monitoring well network installation and sampling, as well as septic tank sampling (Refs. 54; 

57; 75; 80; 82; 90). All samples were analyzed for chlorinated solvents (Ref. 49, pp. 1 through 4; 66; 81; 

83; 84; 85; 86; 91). A soil sample was collected in the vicinity of the former vapor degreaser at a depth of 

3 feet bls on the General Dynamics property (Refs. 16, pp. 14, 15, Exhibit 1; 49, Figure 3). This sample 

contained 1,1-DCE at a concentration of 19.2 μg/kg. PCE was also detected in the soil sample, but at a 

concentration greater than the method detection limit but less than the reporting limit (Refs. 49, Table 1; 

77, p. 15). Ground water sampled from a direct-push sampling location underlying and downgradient of 

the contaminated soil contained a significant increase of 1,1-DCE (greater than 3 times background) (See 

Section 3.1, Likelihood of Release, of this HRS documentation record). 

In 2007, MACTEC conducted a site inspection (SI) at the General Dynamics property on behalf of FDEP. 

SI activities included the collection of soil and ground water samples from eight areas of concern to 

identify possible source areas on the General Dynamics property (Ref. 10, pp. 19, 20, 21, 22). The 

samples were analyzed for VOCs and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) metals (Ref. 10, 

p. 20). Surface and subsurface soil samples collected in the vicinity of the paint and plating building 

contained cadmium, chromium, lead, and silver at elevated concentrations (Refs. 3; 10, p. 53, Tables 7 

and 9). Surface and subsurface soil samples did not contain site-related organic hazardous substances 
 19 

(Ref. 10, p. 52, Tables 6 and 8). One ground water sample collected in the vicinity of the paint and 

plating building contained chromium at 52 μg/L (Ref. 10, p. 51, Table 11). 

Ground water samples were collected from direct push sample locations and newly installed micro wells 

located near Source 2 (DPGW03, MW-AOC-1, MW-AOC-A2) at depths ranging from 10 to 42 feet bls 

(Ref. 10, pp. 21, 22, 56, Tables 3 and 4). The samples contained PCE, TCE, cis-1,2-DCE, 1,1-DCE, and 

vinyl chloride (Ref. 10, p. 56, Table 10). The concentrations of PCE, TCE, 1,1-DCE, and vinyl chloride 

detected in the samples exceeded their respective EPA MCLs (Refs. 10, p. 56, Table 10; 48, pp. 2, 4, 5). 

The greatest concentration of 1,1-DCE was detected at a depth of 20 to 24 feet bls with concentrations of 

3,400 μg/L. The greatest concentration of TCE, 8.2 μg/L, was detected at a depth of 38 to 42 feet bls, and 

the greatest concentration of vinyl chloride, 8.5 μg/L, was detected at a depth of 15 to 25 feet bls (Ref. 10, 

p. 56, Table 10). 
Source No: 2 

 20 Source Characterization 

2.2 SOURCE CHARACTERIZATION

2.2.1 SOURCE IDENTIFICATION

Number of source: 2 

Name of source: Contaminated soil in the southeastern corner of Building 3 

Source Type: Contaminated soil 

Description and Location of Source (with reference to a map of site): 

Source No. 2 is contaminated soil containing 1,1-DCE located beneath the southeastern corner of 

Building 3 (see Figure 2 of this HRS documentation record). In 2005, URS collected a subsurface soil 

sample (SB-038-03) in the southeast corner of Building 3 (Ref. 80, p. 29; 49, Figure 3). The sample 

contained 1,1-DCE at an elevated concentration (Ref. 77, p. 15) (see Table 3 of this HRS documentation 

record). 1,1-DCE is a breakdown product of 1,1,1-TCA and TCE (Ref. 52, p. 24, B4-63). Solvents such 

as 1,1,1-TCA and TCE are indicated to have been used at the General Dynamics facility (Ref. 41, pp. 11, 

12, 13; 88, pp. 7 through 11, 14, 15). Solvents were stored in an above ground storage tank located 

outside Building 3, and used in a vapor degreaser located near Source No. 2 (Ref. 41, pp. 11, 12, 13; 88, 

pp. 7 through 11, 14, 15). Additionally, an underground storage tank is located near Source 2 (Ref. 8, pp. 

1-4, 2-2, Figure 1-2) 
Source No: 2 

 21 Source Characterization 

2.2.2 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ASSOCIATED WITH THE SOURCE

The subsurface soil samples listed in Table 3 were collected by URS during the June through September 

2005 RI (Refs. 8, p. 2-5; 50, p. 44; 75, pp. 13, 20; 76, p. 46; 77, p. 34; 80, pp. 27, 29; 92, p. 43). The 

subsurface soil samples were collected at 3 feet bls. Subsurface soil samples, SB-006-3, SB-017-3, and 

SB-037-3, were collected from the General Dynamics and SEC properties at the same depth (3 feet bls) 

and were used to establish background concentrations (Refs. 49, Figure 3; 75, pp. 13, 20; 80, pp. 27, 29). 

The contaminated subsurface soil sample, SB-038-03, was collected in the southeastern corner of 

Building 3 at a depth of 3 feet below the building floor. The sample was collected inside the building by 

coring through the concrete using a direct push rig. (Refs. 16, pp. 14, 15, Exhibit 1; 49, Figure 3; 80, pp. 

29, 30). The background subsurface soil samples and contaminated subsurface soil samples were 

collected from the same soil type (urban land, 0 to 12 percent slopes), at the same depth, during the same 

sampling event, and in accordance with the same sampling procedures (Refs. 7; 8, p. 2-5; 49, Figure 3; 

55, pp. 167, 168, 169; 74, Appendix E, p. E-30; 75, pp. 13, 20; 80, pp. 27, 29; 87, Section 12). 

 

The subsurface soil samples were collected in accordance with the EPA Region 4, Science and Ecosystem 

Support Division (SESD) Environmental Investigations Standard Operating Procedures and Quality 

Assurance Manual (EISOPQAM) (Refs. 7; 8, pp. 2-5; 74, Appendix E, p. E-30; 87, Section 12). The 

samples were analyzed for VOHs (volatile organic hydrocarbons) using EPA SW846 Method 8260B 

(Refs. 8, p. 2-5; 50, p. 7; 59, p. 1, FOUR-15; 76, p. 13; 77, p. 15; 92, p. 18). Data validation was 

conducted by URS and the data validation reports are contained in Reference 51. The URS data 

validation reports were reviewed to ensure that the National Functional Guidelines were followed. 

Analytical data sheets and chain of custody records are contained in References 50, 76, 77, and 92. 

Logbook notes are provided in References 75 and 80. The locations of the subsurface soil samples listed 

in Table 3 are provided in Figure 3 of Reference 49. 

TABLE 3: Analytical Results for Source No. 2 – June through September 2005 

Sample ID 

/Station ID

Hazardous 

Substance

Hazardous 

Substance 

Concentration MDL References

Background Subsurface Soil Sample 

SB-006-3 1,1-DCE 4.5U μg/kg 4.5 μg/kg 28, pp. 1-3; 50, pp. 7, 44; 51, pp. 57 

through 61; 75, p. 13 

SB-017-3 1,1-DCE 4.7U μg/kg 4.7 μg/kg 28, pp. 1-3; 51, pp. 62 through 66; 

75, p. 20; 76, pp. 13, 46 

SB-037-3 1,1-DCE 3.2U μg/kg 3.2 μg/kg 28, pp. 1-3; 51, pp. 47 through 51; 

80, p. 27; 92, pp. 18, 43 

Contaminated Subsurface Soil Sample 

SB-038-03 1,1-DCE 19.2 μg/kg 2.5 μg/kg 28, pp. 1-3; 77, pp. 15, 34; 51, pp. 2 

through 6; 80, p. 29 

Notes: 

1,1-DCE 1,1-Dichloroethlyene 

ID Identification number 

μg/kg Microgram per kilogram 

MDL Method detection limit 

SB Subsurface soil sample 

U Material not detected at or above reporting limit
Source No: 2 

 22 Source Characterization 

2.2.3 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AVAILABLE TO A PATHWAY

The subsurface soil sample collected from Source No. 2 contained an elevated concentration of 1,1-DCE 

(Refs. 49, Figure 3; 77, pp. 15, 34) (also see Table 5 of this HRS documentation record). Source No. 2 

consists of an area of contaminated soil located in the southeastern portion of Building 3 on the General 

Dynamics property (Ref. 16, pp. 14, 15, Exhibit 1). Analytical results for ground water collected in the 

vicinity of Source No. 2 indicate that a release of hazardous substances has occurred to the ground water 

migration pathway as documented in Section 3.0 of this HRS documentation record. During the 2005 RI, 

a liner was not observed during sampling activities (Ref. 56). Therefore, a containment factor value of 10 

was assigned for the ground water migration pathway (Ref. 1, Section 3.1.2.1, Table 3-2). 

TABLE 4: Containment Factors for Source No. 2 

Containment Description Containment 

Factor Value

References

Gas release to air NS NA 

Particulate release to air NS NA 

Release to ground water: No liner 10 1, Section 3.1.2.1, Table 3-2; 56 

Release via overland migration and/or flood NS NA 

Notes: 

NA Not applicable 

NS Not scored 
Source No: 2 

 23 Source Characterization 

2.4.2.1 HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITY

2.4.2.1.1 Hazardous Constituent Quantity

The information available is not sufficient to evaluate Tier A, hazardous constituent quantity, as required 

by Reference 1, Section 2.4.2.1.1. 

 Hazardous Constituent Quantity Assigned Value: NS 

2.4.2.1.2 Hazardous Wastestream Quantity

The information available is not sufficient to evaluate Tier B, hazardous wastestream quantity, as required 

by Reference 1, Section 2.4.2.1.2. 

 Hazardous Wastestream Quantity Assigned Value: NS 

2.4.2.1.3 Volume

The information available is not sufficient to evaluate Tier C, hazardous volume quantity, as required by 

Reference 1, Section 2.4.2.1.3. 

 Volume Assigned Value: 0 

2.4.2.1.4 Area

Only one sample was collected from Source No. 2 in the vicinity of the former vapor degreaser (Refs. 16, 

pp. 14, 15, Exhibit 1; 49, Figure 3). As a result, it is not known whether contamination in Source No. 2 is 

continuous throughout and the extent of contamination is not defined. The area of Source No. 2 is 

undetermined, but greater than zero (Ref. 1, Section 2.4.2.1.4). 

 Sum (ft2

): >0 

Equation for Assigning Value (Table 2-5): Area (A)/34,000 

Area Assigned Value: >0 

2.4.2.1.5 Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value

The source hazardous waste quantity (HWQ) value for Source No. 2 is assigned a source HWQ value of 

greater than zero, but unknown (Ref. 1, Sec. 2.4.2.1.5). 

Source HWQ Value: >0 
 24 Source Characterization 

SUMMARY OF SOURCE DESCRIPTIONS

TABLE 5: Summary of Source Descriptions 

Containment Factor Value by Pathway

Air

Source 

No.

Source 

Hazardous 

Waste 

Quantity 

Value

Source 

Hazardous 

Constituent 

Quantity 

Complete? 

(Yes/No)

Ground 

Water 

(Ref. 1, 

Table 3-2)

Surface 

Water 

Overland/ 

Flood 

(Ref. 1, 

Table 4-2)

Gas 

(Ref. 1, 

Table 6-3)

Particulate 

(Ref. 1, 

Table 6-9)

2 >0 No 10 NS NS NS 

Notes: 

 > Greater than 

NS Not scored 

Description of Other Possible Sources

During the 2007 SI conducted by MACTEC, surface and subsurface soil samples were collected from 

various locations throughout the property surrounding the paint and plating building located in the 

northeastern portion of the property (Refs. 3; 10, pp. 1, 3, 51, 52, 53, Tables 3, 7, and 9) (see Figure 2 of 

this HRS documentation record). Sediment samples have also been collected from the drainage ditch that 

runs between the General Dynamics and SEC properties and were found to contain TCE and DCE (Ref. 

8, Tables 4-1 and 4-2, Figure 2-2). Surface and subsurface soil samples collected during the SI contained 

cadmium, chromium, lead, and silver at elevated concentrations (Ref. 10, pp. 52, 53, Tables 7 and 9). 

One ground water sample collected in the vicinity of the paint and plating building contained chromium at 

52 μg/L (Ref. 10, p. 51, Table 11). 
 25 GW-Likelihood of Release 

3.0 GROUND WATER MIGRATION PATHWAY

3.0.1 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

Ground Water Migration Pathway Description

The General Dynamics property is located in the western section of Seminole County on the Florida 

Platform section of the Atlantic Coastal Plain province (Refs. 4, p. 3; 10, p. 48; 67, pp. 2, 3; 69, p. 4). 

The topography in Seminole County is divided into two types: a flat lowland and hilly uplands (Refs. 68, 

p. 6; 70, pp. 6, 7). Elevation at the General Dynamics property is about 35 feet above sea level (asl) (see 

Figure 1 of this HRS documentation record) (Ref. 30). The General Dynamics property is underlain in 

descending stratigraphic order by undifferentiated deposits of the Holocene, Pleistocene, and Pliocene 

age; the Hawthorn Group of the Miocene age; the Ocala Limestone, Avon Park Formation, and Oldsmar 

Formation of the Eocene age; and the Cedar Keys Formation of the Paleocene age (Ref. 68, pp. 10, 13). 

The undifferentiated deposits of Pliocene to Holocene age consist of alluvium, freshwater marl, peats and 

muds in stream and lake bottoms, quartz, sand, shell fragments and sandy clay. The deposits range from 

0 to 150 feet bls in the vicinity of the General Dynamics property (Ref. 68, p. 13). 

Underlying the undifferentiated deposits is the Hawthorn Group. The Hawthorn Group consists of beds 

of blue to gray, calcareous clay, altering with beds of cream to gray sandy limestone containing numerous 

grains of black to cream phosphate rack and fragments of chert. The deposits range from 0 to 200 feet in 

thickness (Refs. 68, p. 13; 70, p. 15). 

The Ocala Limestone underlies the Hawthorn Group and is characterized by white-cream to tan-gray soft 

to hard, granular, porous foraminiferal marine limestones (Refs. 68, p. 13; 70, p. 15). The Ocala 

Limestone is about 0 to 200 feet thick and overlies the Avon Park Formation, which consists of light to 

brown, soft to hard, porous to dense, granular to chalky, fossiliferous limestone and brown, crystalline 

dolomite (Refs. 68, p. 13; 70, pp. 13, 14). The Avon Park Formation is about 600 to 1,600 feet thick. 

Underlying the Avon Park Formation is the Oldsmar Formation which has a thickness of 300 to 1,350 

feet. This formation consists of alternating beds of light brown to white, chalky, porous, fossiliferous 

limestone and porous crystalline dolomite. The Avon Park Formation is underlain by the Cedar Keys 

Formation, which consists of dolomite with anhydrite and gypsum and some limestone. The Cedar Keys 

formation is about 500 to 2,200 feet thick (Ref. 68, p. 13). 

Ground water in the Seminole County, Florida area exists in two distinct units: the surficial aquifer and 

the Floridan aquifer. These aquifers are separated by a discontinuous intermediate confining unit 

(Hawthorn Group). The surficial aquifer has limited use due to low yields to wells and the potential for 

contamination. Water withdrawn from the surficial aquifer is used mainly for lawn irrigation (Refs. 8, 

Figure 4-40; 29; 68, pp. 2, 13; 71, p. 32). The Floridan aquifer system is the principal source of ground 

water in east-central Florida and is divided into two aquifers of relatively high permeability, the Upper 

Floridan and the Lower Floridan aquifers. These aquifers are separated by a less permeable unit that 

restricts the downward movement of water (Ref. 68, p. 19). 

The surficial aquifer consists of undifferentiated sediments of the Holocene, Pleistocene, and Pliocene 

ages; the intermediate confining unit consists of part of the Hawthorn Group; and the Floridan aquifer 

consists of portions of the Hawthorn Group, Ocala Limestone, the Avon Park Formation, the Oldsmar 

Formation, and the upper part of the Cedar Keys Formation (Ref. 68, pp. 13, 19). In Seminole County, 

the surficial aquifer is separated from the Floridan aquifer by the confining bed of the Hawthorn Group; 

however, the Hawthorn Group is not continuous; and is not present directly north (about 240 feet) of the 

General Dynamics property (Refs. 8, Figure 4-40; 29; 71, p. 32). 

The surficial aquifer is the upper most water bearing unit in Seminole County. The system is unconfined 

and consists mainly of lenses of fine to medium quartz sand with varying amounts of shell and clay. The 

deposits are discontinuous and their lithology and texture can vary over short distances. The top of the 
 26 GW-Likelihood of Release 

surficial aquifer is defined by the water table (Ref. 68, p. 14). The base of the surficial aquifer system is 

characterized by the first persistent beds of Miocene or Pliocene age containing a significant increase in 

clay or silt. The altitude at the base of the surficial aquifer system ranges from about 75 feet asl to more 

than 75 feet below sea level in Seminole County (Ref. 68, p. 16). 

Underlying the surficial aquifer is the intermediate confining unit (Hawthorn Group) containing 

interbedded quartz, locally highly phosphatic clay, silt, sand, and limestone (Ref. 68, pp. 13, 18). The 

thickness of the confining unit is variable due to past erosional processes and sinkhole formation. In 

Seminole County, the thickness of the Hawthorne Group ranges from 25 to greater than 100 feet (Ref. 68, 

p. 18). However, the Hawthorn Group is not continuous in the vicinity of the General Dynamics 

property. Specifically, the group is absent directly north (about 240 feet) of Source No. 2 on the General 

Dynamics property; therefore, the surficial and Upper Floridan aquifers are interconnected (Refs. 8, 

Figure 4-40; 29; 71, p. 32). 

The Upper Floridan aquifer is composed of the Ocala Limestone and the dolomitic limestones of the 

upper one-third of the Avon Park Formation (Ref. 68, p. 19). In the vicinity of the General Dynamics 

property, the top of the Upper Floridan aquifer is encountered at about 50 feet below sea level (about 85 

feet bls) (Refs. 30; 68, p. 22). However, according to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) well datacollection sites, the depths of wells installed in the Upper Floridan aquifer in Seminole County range from 

90 to 925 feet bls. (Refs. 9, Plates 28 and 29; 30; 68, pp.102 through 107). Also, the depths of municipal 

wells installed in the Upper Floridan aquifer in Seminole County range from 162 to 925 feet bls (Refs. 

31, pp. 1, 2; 32, p.1; 33, pp. 1, 2; 34; 35, pp. 1, 22; 36, p.1; 37, p. 1; 61; 62, p. 2; 63; 94; 97) (see Table 17 

of this HRS documentation record). Well logs of monitoring wells installed in the Upper Floridan aquifer 

on the SEC and General Dynamics properties display water levels indicating that ground water flow is to 

the north-northeast (Ref. 8, p. 3-4, Figure 3-10). 

Ground water flow in the Upper Floridan aquifer system is mostly through porous limestone, and is 

enhanced by networks of small fractures or solution openings that occur along joints or bedding planes. 

In some areas, flow may be through large cavernous features of paleokarst, resulting in a dual-porosity 

flow system (Ref. 68, pp. 19, 21, 23). In addition, Florida Geological Survey well logs to the north and 

south of the General Dynamics property indicate pin point voids in the limestone units of the Upper 

Floridan aquifer. Karstic ground water flow occurs in the Upper Floridan aquifer (Refs. 64, pp. 4, 14; 

78). 

Recharge in the Upper Floridan aquifer is by downward leakage from the surficial aquifer system, 

through breaches in the intermediate confining unit caused by sinkholes or where the confining unit is 

thin or missing, by lateral inflow, and through drainage wells (Ref. 68, p. 29). The highest rates of 

recharge from the surficial aquifer to the Upper Floridan aquifer occur in western Seminole County, 

which is characterized by karstic sand ridges with relatively deep water tables or an intermediate 

confining unit that is relatively thin (Ref. 68, p. 29). Karst terrain is also exhibited in Longwood, Florida 

by numerous sinkholes of various sizes (Refs. 78; 95, pp. 1 through 6). 

The middle semiconfining unit separates the Upper and Lower Floridan aquifers and consists of soft 

micritic limestone and fine-grained dolomitic limestone, both of low porosity (Refs. 9, p. B56; 68, p. 23). 

The middle semiconfining unit is the leakiest confining unit in the Floridan aquifer system (Ref. 9, pp. 

B3, B56). In Seminole County the middle semiconfining unit ranges in thickness from about 400 to 550 

feet (Refs. 9, p. B57; 68, p. 23). 

The Lower Floridan aquifer includes the lower one-third of the Avon Park Formation and all of the 

Oldsmar Formation. The aquifer is very productive and is composed of altering beds of limestone and 

fractured dolomite (Ref. 68, p. 23). The top of the Lower Floridan aquifer is encountered at about 900 to 

1,000 feet below sea level (which corresponds to about 935 to 1,035 feet bls at the site) (Refs. 30; 98, pp. 

20, 21; 99, pp. 1, 5, 6). The Lower Floridan aquifer is about 910 to 1,180 feet thick. Therefore, the base 

of the Lower Floridan Aquifer is estimated to be between 1,810 and 2,180 feet below sea level (which 

corresponds to about 1,845 to 2,215 feet bls at the site) (Refs. 9, Plates 31 and 33; 30; 98, pp. 20 through 
 27 GW-Likelihood of Release 

23). According to USGS well data-collection sites, the depths of wells installed in the Lower Floridan 

aquifer in Seminole County range from 984 to 1,506 feet bls (Ref. 68, pp. 102 through 107). 

Previous investigations at the General Dynamics and SEC properties divide the surficial aquifer into two 

water bearing zones, A-zone and B-zone, and refer to the Upper Floridan aquifer as the C-zone. The Azone (upper surficial aquifer) and B-zone (lower surficial aquifer), are separated by a discontinuous clay 

layer (A/B clay) (Ref. 8, pp. 3-3, 3-4, Figure 2-3). The A/B clay layer ranges in depth from 13.5 bls to 32 

feet bls across the General Dynamics property and is absent in the northwestern portion of the property 

(Ref. 8, p. 2-4, Figure 2-3, Appendix C, pp. 27 through 49). The ground water flow direction in the A and 

B zones is north to northeast across the General Dynamics property (Refs. 8, Figures 3-6 and 3-7; 10, p. 

57). 

Three horizontal wells were installed in the upper surficial aquifer along the north boundary of the SEC 

property to capture impacted shallow ground water and prevent the movement of the shallow volatile 

organic hydrocarbon (VOH) plume to the north (Ref. 8, p. 4-8; 74, Appendix H, Figure 2, Figure 4). One 

recovery well was installed in the lower surficial aquifer to provide some hydraulic control, recover 

contaminants from the B-zone (lower surficial aquifer), and to create additional upward pressure to 

further reduce the possibility of vertical migration of contaminants into the Floridan aquifer (Ref. 8, pp. 1-

9, 4-8). The operation of this system does not alter the general northerly movement of ground water in 

the surficial aquifer (Ref. 8, Figs. 3-6, 3-7, Appendix D, p. D-105; 10, Fig. 10; 74, Appendix H, Figs. 4, 

5). 

SUMMARY OF AQUIFERS BEING EVALUATED

TABLE 6: Summary of Aquifers Being Evaluated 

Aquifer Name

Is Aquifer 

Interconnected with 

Upper Aquifer within 2 

Miles? (Yes/No/NA)

Is Aquifer 

Continuous within 

4-mile TDL? 

(Yes/No)

Is Aquifer 

Karst? 

(Yes/No) 

References

Surficial Aquifer NA Yes No 78, p. 3 

Upper Floridan 

Aquifer Yes Yes Yes 29; 78, p. 1 

Notes: 

NA Not applicable 

TDL Target distance limit 
 28 GW-Likelihood of Release 

3.1 LIKELIHOOD OF RELEASE

3.1.1 OBSERVED RELEASE

Aquifer Being Evaluated: Interconnected Surficial and Upper Floridan Aquifer 

- Hazardous Substance in Release: 1,1-DCE 

Chemical Analysis

Analysis of ground water underlying and downgradient of Source No. 2 shows a significant increase of 

1,1-DCE (greater than 3 times) over background level (see Table 12 and 14 of this HRS documentation 

record). 

Background Samples 

Direct push ground water samples collected from direct push locations 23 and 26 (DPGW-23 and DPGW26) were collected on the northeastern and south central portion of the SEC property. These locations are 

upgradient of Source No. 2 and ground water underlying Source No. 2 (Ref. 8, Figures 3-6 and 3-7) (see 

Figure 2 of this HRS documentation record). Therefore, ground water samples collected from DPGW-23 

and DPGW-26 are used to represent background concentrations for the observed release to the surficial 

aquifer underlying and downgradient of Source No. 2 at the General Dynamics property (Refs. 8, Figures 

4-30 and 4-32; 72, p. 74; 75, pp. 55, 56). Background direct push ground water samples listed in Table 

11 were collected at 22 feet bls and are compared to downgradient direct push ground water samples 

collected at corresponding depths (Ref. 8, Figures 4-30 and 4-32) (see Tables 11 and 13 of this HRS 

documentation record). 

The direct push ground water samples were collected using a truck-mounted direct push rig and smaller 

track mounted direct push rig to advance stainless steel rods using hydraulic pressure and a hammer 

technique (Ref. 8, p. 2-7). The background direct push ground water samples were collected in 

accordance with the EPA Region 4 SESD EISOPQAM, dated November 2001 (Refs. 7; 74, Appendix E, 

p. E-29; 87, Section 7). 

The locations of the direct push background ground water samples are provided in Table 11 and depicted 

in Reference 8, Figures 4-29 through 4-32. Chain of custody records are provided in Reference 72, pp. 

74, 76. Logbook notes are contained in Reference 75. 

The background direct push and downgradient direct push ground water samples were collected from 

surficial aquifer wells with similar construction details, at similar depths, during the same sampling event, 

and in accordance with the same sampling procedures (Refs. 7; 8, p. 2-7; 72, pp. 74, 76; 74, Appendix E, 

p. E-29; 77, p. 34; 80, p. 29; 87, Section 7) (see Tables 11 and 13 of this HRS documentation record). 

TABLE 11: Background for June through September 2005 

Sample ID Depth 

(feet bls)

Screened 

Interval 

(feet bls) 

Date 

Sampled Location References

Background Samples for Ground Water Underlying and Downgradient of Source No. 2 

Direct Push Ground Water Sample Collected at 22 Feet bls 

DPGW-23(22′) 22 NA 6/21/2005 Northeastern portion 

of SEC property 

8, Figure 4-30; 75, pp. 

55, 56; 72, p. 76 

DPGW-26(22′) 22 NA 6/21/2005 South central portion 

of SEC property 

8, Figure 4-30; 72, p. 74
 29 GW-Likelihood of Release 

Notes: 

bls Below land surface 

DP Direct push 

GW Ground water 

ID Identification 

NA Not applicable 

No. Number 

′ Feet 

(#) Depth of direct push ground water sample in feet 
 30 GW-Likelihood of Release 

Background Level 

The ground water samples listed in Table 12 were collected by URS during the 2005 RI (Refs. 8, Figures 

4-30; 72, pp. 74, 76; 75, pp. 55, 56). 

These direct push samples were analyzed for VOHs using EPA SW846 Method 8260B (Refs. 8, pp. 4-12; 

59, p. 1, FOUR-15; 72, pp. 33, 65). As seen in Table 12 below, 9.2 μg/L was the highest background 

concentration of 1,1-DCE, and is used as the background level for this evaluation. 

Data validation was conducted by URS and the data validation reports are contained in Reference 51. 

The data validation reports were reviewed to ensure that the National Functional Guidelines were 

followed (Ref. 28, pp. 1, 2, 3). Method detection limits, reporting limits, and analytical data sheets for the 

background ground water samples are contained in Reference 72. 

TABLE 12: Analytical Results for June through September 2005 RI 

Sample ID Hazardous 

Substance Concentration RL References

Background Samples For Ground Water Underlying and Downgradient of Source No. 2

Direct Push Ground Water Sample Collected at 22 Feet bls 

DPGW-23(22′) 1,1-DCE 9.2 μg/L 0.50 μg/L 28, p. 1; 51, pp. 7 through 

11; 72, p. 33 

DPGW-26(22′) 1,1-DCE 0.50U μg/L 0.50 μg/L 28, p. 1; 51, pp. 7 through 

11; 72, p. 65 

Notes: 

DCE Dichloroethylene 

DP Direct push 

ID Identification number 

GW Ground water 

MDL Method detection limit 

μg/L Microgram per liter 

No. Number 

RI Remedial Investigation 

RL Reporting limit 

U Analyte was not detected at or above the detection limit 

′ Feet 

(#) Depth of direct push ground water sample in feet 
 31 GW-Likelihood of Release 

Contaminated Sample 

The contaminated direct push samples listed in Table 13 were collected from direct push borings during 

the 2005 RI conducted by URS (Refs. 8, pp. 2-7). The contaminated ground water sample was collected 

from ground water underlying and downgradient of Source No. 2 (Refs. 8, pp. 4-12, Figures 4-29 through 

4-32; 77, p. 34; 80, p. 29) (see Figure 2 of this HRS documentation record). 

The contaminated ground water sample and its corresponding depth is provided in Table 13. The 

contaminated ground water sample underlying and downgradient of Source No. 2 was compared to 

upgradient ground water samples at corresponding depths (Ref. 8, Figures 4-29 through 4-32) (see Tables 

11 and 13 of the HRS documentation record). 

The direct push ground water samples were collected using a truck-mounted direct push rig and smaller 

track mounted direct push rig to advance stainless steel rods using hydraulic pressure and a hammer 

technique (Ref. 8, p. 2-7). 

The contaminated ground water sample was collected in accordance with the EPA Region 4 SESD 

EISOPQAM, dated November 2001 (Refs. 7; 74, Appendix E, p. E-29; 87, Section 7). The location of 

the ground water sample listed in Table 13 is depicted on Figures 4-30 in Reference 8. Chain of custody 

records are provided in References 72 and 77. Logbook notes are provided in Reference 80. 

TABLE 13: June through September 2005 RI 

Sample ID Depth 

(feet bls)

Screened 

Interval 

(feet bls) 

Date 

Sampled Location References

Ground Water Underlying or Downgradient of Source No. 2

Direct Push Ground Water Samples Collected at 22 Feet bls 

DPGW-34(22′) 22 NA 9/16/2005

Southeastern Corner 

of Building No. 3 on 

General Dynamics 

property 

3; 8, Figure 4-30; 77, p. 

34; 80, p. 29 

Notes: 

bls Below land surface 

DP Direct push 

GW Ground water 

ID Identification 

NA Not applicable 

No. Number 

′ Feet 

(#) Depth of direct push ground water sample in feet 
 32 GW-Likelihood of Release 

Contaminated Concentration 

The direct push ground water sample listed in Table 14 was collected from the General Dynamics 

property during the June through September 2005 RI conducted by URS (Refs. 8, pp. 4-12, Figures 4-29 

through 4-32; 72, p. 75; 77, p. 34; 80, p. 29). 

The direct push sample presented in Table 14 was analyzed for VOH analysis using EPA SW846 Method 

8260B (Refs. 8, p. 4-12; 59, p. 1, FOUR-15; 77, pp. 9, 10). Data validation was conducted by URS and 

the data validation reports are contained in Reference 51. The URS data validation reports were reviewed 

to ensure that the National Functional Guidelines were followed (Ref. 28, pp. 1, 2, 3). 

The method detection limits and reporting limits are contained on the analytical data sheets in Reference 

77. 

TABLE 14: Analytical Results for June through September 2005 RI 

Sample ID Hazardous 

Substance Concentration RL References

Ground Water Underlying and Downgradient of Source No. 2 

Direct Push Ground Water Samples Collected at 22 Feet bls 

DPGW-34(22′) 1,1-DCE 26,500a μg/L 500 μg/L 28, pp. 1-3; 51, pp. 2 through 

6; 77, pp. 9, 10 

Notes: 

a Result is from Run# 2 

DCE Dichloroethylene 

DP Direct push 

μg/L Microgram per liter 

MDL Method detection limit 

RL Reporting limit 

′ Feet 

(#) Depth of direct push ground water sample in feet 
 33 GW-Likelihood of Release 

Attribution

The significant increase of 1,1-DCE can be attributed to the General Dynamics Longwood site. 1,1-DCE 

is associated with Source No. 2, and a significant increase of 1,1-DCE is detected in ground water 

underlying and downgradient of Source No. 2 (see sections 2.2.2 Hazardous Substances Associated with 

the Source and 3.1.1 Observed Release of this HRS documentation record). Additionally, upgradient 

background concentrations of 1,1-DCE indicate that releases from the SEC SAA site did not contribute 

significantly to the increase in the concentration of 1,1-DCE in the General Dynamics Longwood site 

observed release sample (see section 3.1.1 Observed Release of this HRS documentation record). 

According to depositions of former General Dynamics’ employees, General Dynamics (and its 

predecessors) manufactured printed circuit boards (Refs. 10, pp. 3, 4; 16, pp. 6, 7). Gould Publications 

purchased the property in 1993 and conducted printing and publication assembly operations. Currently, 

the property is used for wholesaling and warehouse activities (Refs. 10, p. 3; 18). Solvents such as 1,1,1-

TCA and TCE (whose degradation products include 1,1-DCE) are indicated to have been used at the 

General Dynamics facility (Ref. 41, pp. 11, 12, 13; 52, p. 24, B4-63; 88, pp. 7 through 11, 14, 15). 

Solvents were stored in an above ground storage tank located outside Building 3, and used in a vapor 

degreaser located near Source No. 2 (Ref. 41, pp. 11, 12, 13; 88, pp. 7 through 11, 14, 15). 

The adjacent SEC facility manufactured film capacitors on the property from 1959 to 1992. From about 

1959 to December 1964, a portion of the SEC property was owned by Dearborn. Both SEC and Dearborn 

manufactured film capacitors at the SEC property. Film capacitors were assembled, soldered, 

impregnated with wax mineral oil or silicon oil in a pressurized chamber, and then cleaned in a vapor 

degreaser (Ref. 26, p. 3). The chemicals TCA and TCE were used as cleaning agents in the vapor 

degreaser, and contamination has been documented in SEC sources and ground water in the surficial and 

Floridan aquifers underlying the SEC property (Refs. 5, pp. 15, 18; 8, p. 1-5; 22, p. 3; 60). In January 

1986 and December 1987, the SEC property entered into a State of Florida Consent Order that was 

approved and monitored by FDEP. Site assessments have been conducted at the SEC property for over 

20 years and have included numerous investigations. In 2003, the lead agency for cleanup activities was 

transferred to EPA (Refs. 8, p. ES-1). The AOC signed and approved by EPA in June 2004 also included 

the General Dynamics property (Refs. 8, p. 1-1, Figure 1-4; 26, p. 3; 60). 

In 2005, URS conducted an RI at the SEC property. During the 2005 RI, 1,1-DCE (a degradation product 

of TCE and 1,1,1-TCA) was detected in a subsurface soil sample (Source No. 2) as well as ground water 

on the General Dynamics property. (sample DPGW-34(22’) (Refs. 8, Figure 4-30; 49, Figure 3; 52, p. 24, 

B4-63; 77, p. 15) (see Figure 2 of the HRS documentation record). Due to this finding, EPA removed the 

eastern portion of the General Dynamics property from the AOC (Ref. 8, pp. 1-1, 1-2). 

Although the SEC SAA site located hydraulically upgradient (south of) of the General Dynamics property 

is a known source of ground water contamination (Ref. 10, p. 4, 5), upgradient background concentrations 

of 1,1-DCE indicate that releases from the SEC site did not contribute significantly to the increase of the 

concentration of 1,1-DCE in the General Dynamics Longwood site observed release sample (see section 

3.1.1 Observed Release of this HRS documentation record) Additionally, analytical results from 1989 to 

2005 indicate that the concentration of 1,1-DCE detected in direct push ground water sample, DPGW34(22′), collected from ground water underlying Source No. 2 on the General Dynamics property 

contained the highest concentration of 1,1-DCE (26,500 μg/L) detected during ground water 

investigations conducted at the General Dynamics and SEC properties (Refs. 8, Figures 4-29 through 4-

32, 4-38, 4-39; 51, pp. 1 through 6; 77, p. 9; 96, Tables 1 through 4). 

To highlight this, the analytical and sampling data from 1988 to 2006 available in the references to the 

HRS documentation record have been reviewed to characterize the contamination levels in the ground 

water hydraulically upgradient of the release sample (see references cited on Figure 4 of this HRS 

documentation record); these data include historical results for monitoring well samples from the A-zone 

and B-zone of the surficial aquifer and direct push ground water samples. The sample locations selected 

for review are from the area depicted in Figure 4 of this HRS documentation record, which presents the 
 34 GW-Likelihood of Release 

extent of the area considered hydraulically upgradient of the release sample, including approximate 

locations of the reviewed upgradient samples. As discussed in section 3.0.1 General Considerations, 

Ground Water Migration Pathway Description, of this HRS documentation record, a generally northern 

flow direction of ground water has been documented from various investigations at the site. The westernmost extent of the upgradient area in Figure 4 was selected to be as inclusive as reasonably possible based 

upon analysis of the ground water flow direction maps provided in the references to the HRS 

documentation record (see references cited on Figure 4 of this HRS documentation record). No 

upgradient occurrence of 1,1-DCE or possible parent compound were found at levels sufficient to explain 

the concentration found in observed release sample DPGW-34(22’). 

In addition to SEC, another source of potential contamination may exist in the area. Continental Circuits, 

Inc. is located about 1.5 miles northwest of the General Dynamics property (Ref. 12, pp. 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10). 

However, Continental Circuits, Inc. is located hydraulically side gradient to the General Dynamics 

property and is not expected to impact contamination or releases at the General Dynamics property (Refs. 

8, Figures 3-6, 3-7 and 3-10; 12, pp. 9, 10). 

Hazardous Substance in the Release

1,1-dichloroethylene 

Ground Water Observed Release Factor Value: 550.00 
 35 GW-Likelihood of Release 

3.1.2 POTENTIAL TO RELEASE

Potential to release was not evaluated for the upper and lower surficial aquifers because an observed 

release has been documented (see Section 3.1.1 of this HRS documentation record). The Hawthorne 

Formation, which underlies the surficial aquifer, is not continuous in the vicinity of the General Dynamics 

property. Specifically, the formation is absent about 240 feet north of the General Dynamics property; 

therefore, the surficial and upper Floridan aquifers are interconnected (Refs. 8, Figure 4-40; 29; 68, p. 18; 

71, p. 32). 

3.2 WASTE CHARACTERISTICS

3.2.1 TOXICITY/MOBILITY

The toxicity and mobility factor values for the hazardous substance detected in the source sample with a 

containment factor value of greater than 0 are summarized in Table 15. The combined toxicity and 

mobility factor value is assigned in accordance with Reference 1, Section 3.2.1. The hazardous substance 

detected in the observed release to ground water is assigned a mobility factor value of 1 (Ref. 1, Section 

3.2.1.2). 

TABLE 15: Ground Water Toxicity/Mobility 

Hazardous 

Substance

Source 

No.

Toxicity 

Factor 

Value

Mobility

Factor 

Value

Does Hazardous 

Substance Meet 

Observed 

Release? 

(Yes/No)

Toxicity/ 

Mobility 

(Table 3-9) Reference

1,1-DCE 2 100 1A Yes 100 2, p. BI-5 

Notes: 

A Documented in the observed release to ground water. A mobility factor value of 1 is assigned 

(Ref. 1, Section 3.2.1.2). 

DCE Dichloroethylene 

No. Number 

 Toxicity/Mobility Factor Value: 10,000.00 

(Reference 1, Table 3-9) 
 36 GW-Waste Characteristics 

3.2.2 HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITY

TABLE 16: Hazardous Waste Quantity 

Source No. Source Type Source Hazardous Waste Quantity

2 Contaminated soil Undetermined, but greater than zero 

The hazardous constituent quantity for Source No.2 is not adequately determined. The HWQ is 

undetermined, but greater than zero. As specified in Reference 1, Section 2.4.2.2, a HWQ factor value of 

10 was assigned. 

Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 10 

(Reference 1, Sec. 2.4.2.2) 

3.2.3 WASTE CHARACTERISTICS FACTOR CATEGORY VALUE

The waste characteristics factor category value was obtained by multiplying the toxicity/mobility and 

HWQ factor values, subject to a maximum product of 1 × 108

. Based on this product, a value was 

assigned in accordance with Reference 1, Table 2-7. 

Toxicity/Mobility Factor Value: 100.00 

Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 10 

Toxicity/Mobility Factor Value × 

Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 1,000.00 

 

Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value: 6

(Reference 1, Table 2-7) 
 37 GW-Targets 

3.3 TARGETS

Residents in the vicinity of the General Dynamics property are provided drinking water from one of seven 

municipal systems: Seminole County, Casselberry, Lake Mary, Longwood, Winter Springs, Sanford, and 

Sanlando Utilities (Ref. 30). 

Seminole County operates three water treatment plants (WTP) served by 19 municipal wells, 9 of which 

are in two distribution systems within a 4-mile radius of the General Dynamics property. The Greenwood 

Lakes WTP (five wells) and Country Club WTP (two wells) make up one distribution system and the 

Heathrow WTP (two wells) makes up the second distribution system. Of the nine wells, four are located 

within 1 to 2 miles (Greenwood Lakes and Country Club WTPs), three are located within 2 to 3 miles 

(Greenwood Lakes WTP), and two (Heathrow WTP) are located within 3 to 4 miles of the General 

Dynamics property (Refs. 30; 31, pp. 1, 2, 3, 5, 7). The depths of the Greenwood Lakes WTP wells range 

from 480 to 900 feet, the depths of the Country Club WTP wells are 350 feet, and the depths of the 

Heathrow WTP wells are 325 and 390 feet (Refs. 31, pp. 1, 2; 61). All wells obtain water from the Upper 

Floridan aquifer (Ref. 31, pp. 1, 2). Water from the Greenwood Lakes and Country Club WTPs is 

combined into one distribution system and is mixed in the distribution lines. These two WTPs 

collectively serve about 18,094 people (18,094 ÷ 7 wells = 2,584.86 people served per well) (Ref. 31, pp. 

1, 2). The second distribution system includes the Heathrow WTP along with three other WTPs. The 

Heathrow WTP operates five wells, two of which are located within 3-4 miles of the General Dynamics 

property (Ref. 30; 31, pp. 1, 2). The three other WTPs and their seven wells are not located within a 4-

mile radius of the General Dynamics property. Water from the four WTPs is mixed in distribution lines 

and serves about 24,439 people collectively (24,439 people ÷ 12 wells = 2,036.58 people served per 

well). None of the Seminole County wells produces more than 40 percent of the total water supply in the 

distribution systems (Refs. 30; 31, pp. 1, 2). Water from the two distribution systems does not mix in the 

distribution lines to form one blended system (Ref. 31, p. 9). 

The City of Casselberry maintains nine municipal wells and three (N-1, N-2, and N-3) are located within 

2 to 3 miles of the General Dynamics property (Refs. 30; 36, pp. 1, 2, 3). Of these three wells, one well 

obtains water from the Lower Floridan aquifer and two wells obtain water from the Upper Floridan 

aquifer. The depths of the wells range from 377 to 1,200 feet (Ref. 36, pp. 1, 2, 3). None of the City of 

Casselberry wells produce more than 40 percent of the total water supply. The water from the wells can 

be mixed in distribution lines. The City of Casselberry collectively serves 54,800 people or 6,088.89 

people per well (54,800 people ÷ 9 wells) (Ref. 36, p. 1). 

The City of Lake Mary maintains five municipal wells located within 3 to 4 miles of the General 

Dynamics property (Refs. 30; 32, p. 1). None of the Lake Mary wells produce more than 40 percent of 

the total water supply. All wells obtain water from the Upper Floridan aquifer and the depths range from 

500 to 695 feet. The water from all five wells is mixed prior to distribution to customers. The City of 

Lake Mary wells collectively serve 13,496 people (13,496 ÷ 5 = 2,699.20 people served per well) (Ref. 

32, pp. 1, 2; 62, pp. i, 1, 2). 

The City of Longwood maintains five municipal wells; two of the wells are located within 1 to 2 miles 

and 3 are located within 2 to 3 miles of the General Dynamics property (Refs. 30; 33, pp. 1, 4 through 9). 

None of the City of Longwood wells produce more than 40 percent of the total water supply. All wells 

obtain water from the Upper Floridan aquifer and the depths range from 300 to 500 feet. The water from 

all five wells is mixed prior to distribution to customers. The City of Longwood wells collectively serve 

20,223 people (20,223 people ÷ 5 wells = 4,044.60 people served per well) (Ref. 33, pp. 1 through 10). 

The City of Sanford operates 19 municipal wells; six of the wells are located within 3 to 4 miles of the 

General Dynamics property (Refs. 30; 34, pp. 1, 2, 3). The wells located within the 4-mile radius of the 

General Dynamics property obtain water from the Upper Floridan aquifer and the depths range from 162 

to 350 feet. None of the City of Sanford wells produce more than 40 percent of the total water supply. 

The water from all 19 wells is mixed prior to distribution to customers. The City of Sanford wells 
 38 GW-Targets 

collectively serve 61,975 people (61,975 people ÷ 19 wells = 3,261.84 people served per well) (Refs. 34, 

pp. 1, 2, 3; 63, pp. 3, 5, 6). 

The City of Winter Springs operates eight municipal wells; four of the wells are located within a 4-mile 

radius of the General Dynamics property. The wells are distributed as follows: 0.25 to 0.5 mile, one 

well; 0.5 to 1 mile, 1 well; and 2 to 3 miles, two wells (Refs. 30; 37, p. i). None of the City of Winter 

Springs wells produce more than 40 percent of the total water supply. The depths of the wells range from 

290 to 491 feet deep and obtain water from the Upper Floridan aquifer. The water from all eight wells is 

mixed in distribution lines. The City of Winter Springs wells collectively serve 35,983 people (35,983 

people ÷ 8 wells = 4,497.88 people served per well) (Refs. 37, p. i, 1, 2; 94). 

Sanlando Utilities maintains 11 municipal wells; six are located within 3 to 4 miles of the General 

Dynamics property (Refs. 30; 35, p. 1; 97). Well No. 8, located outside the 4-mile radius, supplies 50 

percent of the total water supply (Ref. 35, p. 1). All wells obtain water from the Upper Floridan aquifer 

and the depths of the wells range from 420 to 925 feet deep (Ref. 97). The water from all 11 wells is 

mixed prior to distribution to customers. Sanlando Utilities collectively serves 35,700 people (Refs. 35, 

pp. 1 through 8). Therefore, the amount of people served by Well No. 8 is 17,850 (35,700 ÷ 2) and the 

remaining 10 wells, which each contribute equally to the remaining 50 percent of the total water supply, 

serve 1,785 people served per well (17,850 ÷ 10) (Refs. 35, p. 1; 97). 

The service areas for Sanlando Utilities, City of Longwood, and City of Winter Springs were obtained 

from their respective contact person (Refs. 33, p. 1; 35, pp. 1, 2; 37, pp. 2, 3). The service areas for the 

City of Sanford, Seminole County, and the City of Lake Mary were obtained from the St. Johns River 

Management District Consumptive Use Permits 162, 8213, and 8284, respectively (Refs. 38, p. 6; 39, pp. 

7 through 10; 40, p. 6). 

Municipal wells located within a 4-mile radius of the General Dynamics property provide drinking water 

to about 116,336.52 people. The population served by these wells per distance ring is distributed as 

follows: > 0 to 0.25 mile, 0 people; > 0.25 to 0.50 mile, 4,497.88 people; > 0.50 to 1 mile, 4,497.88 

people; > 1 to 2 miles, 18,428.64 people; > 2 to 3 miles, 41,061.92 people; > 3 to 4 miles, 47,850.20 

people (Refs. 30; 31, pp. 1 through 8; 32, pp. 1, 2; 33, pp. 1 through 8; 34; 35, pp. 1 through 8; 36, pp. 1, 

2, 3; 37, pp. i through 11) (also see Table 17 of this HRS documentation record). All of the wells in the 

area are screened in the Upper Floridan aquifer at a maximum depth of 925 feet (Refs. 31, pp. 1, 2, 9; 32, 

p. 1; 33, pp. 1, 2; 34; 35, p. 1; 36, p. 1; 37, p. 1; 94; 97). Seminole County, Sanlando Utilities, and the 

cities of Lake Mary, Sanford, and Casselberry have wellhead protection areas (Refs. 31, p. 2; 32, p. 1; 33, 

p. 1; 34, p. 1; 35, p. 1; 36). Therefore, wellhead protection areas are located within the 4-mile radius of 

the source at General Dynamics (Ref. 30). 
39 

TABLE 17: Municipal Drinking Water Wells Within A 4-Mile Radius Of General Dynamics 

Upper Floridan Aquifer 

Distance 

Ring 

Miles Water System Name 

Number 

of Wells 

Well No. and 

Depth of Wells 

(feet bls) 

Level I 

Cont. 

(Y/N) 

Level II 

Cont. 

(Y/N) 

Potential 

Cont. 

(Y/N) 

Pop

S

> 0.25 to 0.5 City of Winter Springs 1 Well No. 3 – 491 N N Y 4,4>0.5 to 1 City of Winter Springs 1 Well No. 6 – 400 N N Y 4,4> 1 to 2 

Seminole County (Greenwood Lakes and Country Club WTPs) 

4 

Well No. 1 – 350 Well No. 2 – 350 Well No. 5 – 500 Well No. 4 – 700 

N N Y 10

> 1 to 2 City of Longwood 2 Well No. 1 – 372 Well No. 2 – 390 N N Y 8,> 2 to 3 

Seminole County (Greenwood Lakes WTP) 

3 

Well No. 1 – 480 Well No. 2 – 900 Well No. 3 – 607 

N N Y 7,

> 2 to 3 City of Longwood 3 

Well No. 3 – 427 Well No. 4 – 400 Well No. 5 – 400 

N N Y 12

> 2 to 3 City of Casselberry 2 Well No. N-2 – 377 Well No. N-1 – 388 N N Y 12> 2 to 3 City of Winter Springs 2 Well No. 4 – 423 Well No. 5 – 440 N N Y 8,> 3 to 4 Seminole County (Heathrow WTP) 2 Well No. 1 – 390 Well No. 4 – 325 N N Y 4,> 3 to 4 City of Lake Mary 5 

Well No. 1 – 500 Well No. 2 – 500 Well No. 4 – 695 Well No. 5 – 560 Well No. 6 – 552 

N N Y 13

> 3 to 4 City of Sanford 6 Well L – 300 N N Y 19
40 

TABLE 17: Municipal Drinking Water Wells Within A 4-Mile Radius Of General Dynamics 

Upper Floridan Aquifer 

Distance 

Ring 

Miles Water System Name 

Number 

of Wells 

Well No. and 

Depth of Wells 

(feet bls) 

Level I 

Cont. 

(Y/N) 

Level II 

Cont. 

(Y/N) 

Potential 

Cont. 

(Y/N) 

Pop

S

Well K – 328 Well J – 302 Well I – 303 Well H – 350 Well G – 162 

> 3 to 4 Sanlando Utilities 6 

Well No. 1 – 925 Well No. 1A – 500 Well No. 2 – 420 Well No. 2A – 420 Well No. 3 – 830 Well No. 4 – 550 

N N Y 10

 Notes:  > Greater than  bls Below land surface 

Cont. Contamination  ID Identification number  N No WTP Water treatment plant  Y Yes See Section 3.3, Targets of this HRS documentation record for the method by which the population for the water systems l
 41 GW -Targets 

3.3.1 NEAREST WELL

Well ID: The City of Winter Springs has one well located within 0.25 to 0.5 mile southeast from the 

source at the General Dynamics Longwood site (Refs. 30; 37, p. 1). 

Level of Contamination (I, II, or potential): Potential 

If potential contamination, distance from source in miles: 0.25 to 0.5 

The nearest well value is also based on karst ground water flow documented in Section 3.0.1 of this HRS 

documentation record. 

 Nearest Well Factor Value: 20.0 

(Ref. 1, Section 3.2.1.3) 

3.3.2 POPULATION

3.3.2.1 Level of Contamination

3.3.2.2 Level I Concentrations

No Level I wells have been identified. 

Level I Concentrations Factor Value: 0.00 

3.3.2.3 Level II Concentrations

No Level II wells have been identified. 

Level II Concentrations Factor Value: 0.00 
 42 GW -Targets 

3.3.2.4 Potential Contamination

Distance-weighted population values for potential contamination ground water targets for the Upper and 

Lower Floridan aquifer are presented in Table 18. Ground water flow in the Floridan aquifer system is 

mostly through porous limestone, and is enhanced by networks of small fractures or solution openings 

that occur along joints or bedding planes. In some areas, flow may be through large cavernous features of 

paleokarst, resulting in a dual-porosity flow system (Ref. 68, pp. 19, 21, 23). Karstic ground water flow 

occurs in the Floridan aquifer within the entire 4-mile radius of the source at the General Dynamics 

Longwood site (Ref. 78). 

TABLE 18: Distance-Weighted Population Values - Karst 

Distance Category 

(Miles) Population

Distance-Weighted 

Population Value 

(Ref. 1, Table 3-12) References

Greater than 0 to 1/4 0 0 30 

Greater than 1/4 to 1/2 4,497.88 3,233 30; 37, pp. i through 11 

Greater than 1/2 to 1 4,497.88 2,607 30; 37, pp. i through 11 

Greater than 1 to 2 18,428.64 8,163 30; 31, pp. 1 through 8; 33, pp. 1 

through 10 

Greater than 2 to 3 41,061.92 26,068 30; 31, pp. 1 through 8; 33, pp. 1 

through 10; 36, pp. 1, 2; 37, pp. i 

through 11 

Greater than 3 to 4 47,850.20 26,068 30; 31, pp. 1 through 8; 32, pp. 

1, 2; 34, pp. 1, 2, 3; 35, pp. 1 

through 8 

Calculations: 

Sum of Distance - Weighted Population Values: 66,139 

Sum of Distance - Weighted Population Values ÷ 10: 6,613.9 

Potential Contamination Factor Value: 6,613.9 

3.3.3 RESOURCES

Wells used for resources were not identified within a 4-mile radius of the General Dynamics property. 

Resources Factor Value: 0.00 

3.3.4 WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREA

Seminole County, Sanlando Utilities, and the cities of Lake Mary, Sanford, and Casselberry have 

wellhead protection areas (Refs. 31, p. 2; 32, p. 1; 33, p. 1; 34, p. 1; 35, p. 1; 36, pp. 1, 2). Therefore, 

wellhead protection areas are located within the 4-mile radius of the source at General Dynamics (Ref. 

30). 

The closest wells with wellhead protection areas are operated by the Seminole County and are located 

between 1 and 2 miles of the source at the General Dynamics Longwood site (Refs. 30; 31, pp. 1, 2). 

Wellhead Protection Area Factor Value: 5.00