HAZARD RANKING SYSTEM (HRS) DOCUMENTATION RECORD COVER SHEET

Name of Site : Continental Cleaners

EPA ID No. : FLD982130098

Contact Persons

Documentation Record : Cathy Amoroso, National Priorities List Coordinator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 61 Forsyth Street, S.W., 11 th Floor Atlanta, Georgia 30303 (404) 562-8637

HRS Documentation Record: Shanna Davis, Site Manager Tetra Tech EM, Inc. 1955 Evergreen Boulevard, Ste. 300 Duluth, Georgia 30096 (678) 775-3109

Pathways, Components, or Threats Not Scored

The surface water migration, soil exposure, and air mi gration 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.HAZARD RANKING SYSTEM (HRS) DOCUMENTATION RECORD

Name of Site: Continental Cleaners

EPA Region: 4

Date Prepared: September 2011

Street Address of Site*: 798 Northwest 62 nd Street

City, County, State, Zip: Miami, Miami-Dade County, Florida, 33150

General Location in the State: Southern portion of state

Topographic Map: Miami, Florida 1971

Latitude: 25o 49' 54.63" North

Longitude: 80o 12' 36.64" West

The coordinates above for Continental Cleaners were measured from soil sampling location TCCF003 located in the southeastern portion of the property, about 35 feet south of the existing building on the property (Ref. 4).

* The street address, coordinates, and contamin ant 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 screeni ng information EPA used to evaluate the site for NPL listing. EPA lists national priorities among the know n “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 re present the initial determination that a certain area may need to be addressed under the Comprehensiv e Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Accordingly, EPA contempl ates that the preliminary description of facility boundaries at the time of scoring will be refined as more information is developed as to where the

contamination has come to be located.

Pathway Pathway Score
Ground Water Migration 100.00
Surface Water Migration NS
Soil Exposure NS
Air Migration NS

HRS SITE SCORE 50.00

Note:

NS Not scored

1WORKSHEET FOR COMPUTING HRS SITE SCORE

S Pathway S 2 Pathway

Ground Water Migration Pathway Score (S gw ) 100 10,000

Surface Water Migration Pathway Score (S

sw ) NS NS

Soil Exposure Pathway Score (S

s ) NS NS

Air Migration Pathway Score (S

a ) NS NS

S 2

gw + S 2

sw + S 2

s + S 2

a 10,000

(S 2

gw + S 2

sw + S 2

s + S 2

a ) / 4 2,500 √

(S 2

gw + S 2

sw + S 2

s + S 2

a ) / 4 50.00

Note:

NS = Not scored

23 Table 3-1 --Ground Water Migration Pathway Scoresheet Aquifer Evaluated: Biscayne Aquifer

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 (hi gher of lines 1 and 2e) 550 550

Waste Characteristics: 4. Toxicity/Mobility (a) 10,000 5. Hazardous Waste Quantity (a) 10

6. Waste Characteristics 100 18 Targets:

7. Nearest Well 50 20 8. Population:

8a. Level I Concentrations (b) 0

8b. Level II Concentrations (b) 0

8c. Potential Contamination (b) 2,607 8d. Population (lines 8a + 8b + 8c) (b) 2,607

9. Resources 5 NS

10. Wellhead Protection Area 20 5 11. Targets (lines 7 + 8d + 9 + 10) (b) 2,632 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 (S gw ), (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 integerFIGURE 1PROPERTY LOCATIONCONTINENTAL CLEANERSMIAMI,MIAMI-DADE COUNTY,FLORIDATDD No. TTEMI-05-003-0112GAALFLORIDA 2011-3-15 \GIS_Workspace\TTEMI-05-003-0112_Continental_Cleaners\GIS\MXD\Site Location Maps\CONT CLEANERS SITE LOC 8.5x11 3-15-11.mxd TTEMI-ky dale.vonbuschMap Sources:Reference 5, p. 4.USGS Topographic Quadrangles,Miami, Florida 1973.CONTINENTAL CLEANERSMIAMI, FL/0500 1,000FeetUnited StatesEnvironmental Protection AgencyMiami-DadeCountyFIGURE 2PROPERTY LAYOUTCONTINENTAL CLEANERSMIAMI,MIAMI-DADE COUNTY,FLORIDATDD No. TTEMI-05-003-0112 2011-3-28 \GIS_Workspace\TTEMI-05-003-0112_Continental_Cleaners\GIS\MXD\Site Layout Maps\CONT CLEANERS SITE LAYOUT 8.5x11 3-28-11.mxd TTEMI-ky dale.vonbusch

D D

D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D

D

D

D

D

D$#$#$#!c!+!+!+"6"6

N W 6 2 N D S T R E E T

N W 8 T H S T R E E T A L L E YParking LotParkingLotGrassy AreaDispenser PadCanopyStoreAreaGeneratorRoomCanopyChemicalStorageCatchBucketDry CleaningMachineBoilerRoomHazardous WasteStorage AreaLegend!+Hazardous Waste Drum"6Equipment!cManhole$#Capped USTsD DFenceRoad EdgeAwningInterior WallApproximate Property BoundaryFloor DrainStructureApproximate Location ofUnderground StructureNote:UST - Underground Storage TankMap Sources:References 10, p. 7; 14, p. 16.ESRI Imagery Prime, 2009/0 15 30FeetUnited StatesEnvironmental Protection AgencyFIGURE 3SOURCE LOCATIONCONTINENTAL CLEANERSMIAMI,MIAMI-DADE COUNTY,FLORIDATDD No. TTEMI-05-003-0112 2011-3-29 \GIS_Workspace\TTEMI-05-003-0112_Continental_Cleaners\GIS\MXD\Source Location Maps\CONT CLEANERS SO URCE MAP 8.5x11 3-29-11.mxd TTEMI-ky dale.vonbusch

D D

D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D

D

D

D

D

D$#$#$#!c!+!+!+"6"6"**)"**"**")")"**

N W 6 2 N D S T R E E T

N W 8 T H S T R E E T A L L E YParking LotParkingLotDispenser PadCanopyStoreAreaGeneratorRoomCanopyChemicalStorageCatchBucketDry CleaningMachineBoilerRoomHazardousWaste StorageAreaTCCF008TCCF004TCCF007TCCF006TCCF003TCCF001LegendSource No. 1 Samples"**Surface and Subsurface Soil Sample")Subsurface Soil Sample"**)Background Surface andSubsurface Soil SampleSource No. 1!+Hazardous Waste Drum"6Equipment!cManhole$#Capped USTDFenceRoad EdgeAwningInterior WallApproximate Property BoundaryFloor DrainStructureApproximate Location ofUnderground StructureNote:UST - Underground Storage TankMap Sources:References 8, pp. 3-2, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4; 10, p. 7;14, p. 16.ESRI Imagery Prime, 2009/0 15 30FeetUnited StatesEnvironmental Protection AgencyFIGURE 4GROUND WATEROBSERVED RELEASECONTINENTAL CLEANERSMIAMI,MIAMI-DADE COUNTY,FLORIDATDD No. TTEMI-05-003-0112 Path: C:\GIS_Workspace\TTEMI-05-003-0112_Continental_Cleaners\GIS\MXD\Groundwater Observed Release\CONT CLEANERS OBSERV REL EASE 8.5x11 6-29-11.mxd Date Saved: 6/29/2011 4:07:30 PM User: dale.vonbusch

D D

D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D

D

D

D

D

D$#$#$#!c!+!+!+"6"6@A(@A@A@A@A@A

N W 6 2 N D S T R E E T

N W 8 T H S T R E E T A L L E YParking LotParkingLotDispenser PadCanopyStoreAreaGeneratorRoomCanopyChemicalStorageCatchBucketDry CleaningMachineBoilerRoomHazardous WasteStorage AreaTCCF005TCCF002TCCF001TCCF008TCCF007TCCF003LegendObserved Release Locations@AGround Water Sample@A(Backround Ground Water Sample!+Hazardous Waste Drum"6Equipment!cManhole$#Capped USTDFenceRoad EdgeAwningInterior WallApproximate Property BoundaryFloor DrainStructureApproximate Location ofUnderground StructureNote:UST - Underground Storage TankMap Sources:References 8, pp. 3-6, 4-5; 10, p. 7; 14, p. 16.ESRI Imagery Prime, 2009/0 15 30FeetUnited StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency8 REFERENCES

1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Hazard Ranking System, Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 300, 55 Federal Register 51532. December 14, 1990. 138 Pages.

2. EPA. Superfund Chemical Data Matrix (SCDM). January 2004 and October 2006. Excerpt, 56 Pages. A complete 

### copy of SCDM is available at: http://epa.gov/superfund/site s/npl/hrsres/tools/scdm.htm

.

3. Tetra Tech EM Inc. (Tetra Tech). 4-Mile Ra dius. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Quadrangle Maps of Florida: Opa Locka 1984, North Miami 1975, Hialeah 1973, Miami 1973. Scale 1:24,000. 1 Map.

4. Tetra Tech. Project Note to File with Attachment. Subject: Coordinates for Continental Cleaners. Attachment: Google Earth Map. February 7, 2011. 2 Pages.

5. EPA. Envirofacts Warehouse. Superfund. Site Na me: Continental Cleaners. Accessed on February 7, 2011. 2 Pages. Accessed on-line at: http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/cerclis_w eb.report?pgm_sys_id=FLD982130098

.

6. Tetra Tech. Project Note to File with Attachme nt. Subject: Property Information and Parcel Map

for Continental Cleaners. Attachment: Parcel Ma p and Property Information. June 13, 2011. 13 Pages.

7. AskNumbers.com. Acres to Square Feet Conversion Ch art. Accessed February 7, 2011. 2 Pages.

Accessed on-line at: http://www.asknumbers.com/AcresToSquarefeetConversion.aspx

.

8. Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. Site Inspection Report for Continental Cleaners Site, Revision 1. Prepared for the Florida Department of Environmental Prot ection (FDEP). March 29, 2011. 250 Pages.

9. Miami-Dade County. General Facility Inspection Report. Inspector: Lizet Torres and Ana Diaz. July 19, 2005. 2 Pages.

10. FDEP. Site Screening Report Form. Facility Name: Continental Cleaners, Inc. Effective Date: March 13, 1996. 7 Pages.

11. Miami-Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management (Miami-Dade DERM). Inspection Report for Continental Cleaners. Inspector: Tom Kux. October 18, 1995. 9 Pages.

12. Miami-Dade DERM. IW Facility Inspection Report. Facility Name: Continental Cleaners, Inc. August 18, 1993. 8 Pages.

13. EPA, Office of Research and Development. Techni cal Protocol for Evaluating Natural Attenuation of Chlorinated Solvents in Ground Water, EPA /600/R-98/128. September 1998. 248 Pages.

14. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. – AECOM. Site Investigati on Report for Continental Cleaners. Prepared for FDEP. May 2006. 30 Pages.

15. FDEP. Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program Application. Site Name: Continental Cleaners, Inc. April 23, 1996. 6 Pages.

16. Miami-Dade DERM. Pollution Prevention Field Notice. Applying for IW-5 Permit. Issued by: Ana Diaz. July 19, 2005. 1 Page.9 17. North Carolina Department of Environment and Na tural Resources. Supporting Information for 20 Proposed Groundwater Interim Maximum Allowabl e Concentrations (IMACs), March 9, 2011. Accessed June 13, 2011. 20 Pages. Accessed on-line at: http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_libra ry/get_file?uuid=9a 3833dd-def5-45e2-9d35- a079bf345be1&groupId=61581

.

18. Miami-Dade DERM. Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action. Regarding: Discharge

of Industrial Waste and/or Wastewater to the Gr ound and/or Groundwaters of Dade County Located At, Near, or In the Vicinity of Continental Cleaner s Inc. To: R. L. Satchell, Metropolitan Service and Sales Corp., and Gloria Jackson, President, Continen tal Cleaners, Inc. August 4, 1994. 2 Pages.

19. FDEP. Electronic Mail Correspondence with Attachment . Subject: Additional Information. From: Chuck Ziegmont, Tallahassee. To: Leslie A. Sm ith, West Palm Beach, and Jane Gregory, West Palm Beach. August 6, 1996. 4 Pages.

20. Miami-Dade DERM. Inspection Report. Facility Na me: Continental Cleaners, Inc. Inspector: Stanley Edouard. August 24, 1994. 5 Pages.

21. Miami-Dade DERM. Letter Regarding Continental Cleaners, Inc. From: Francisco Verrire, Code Enforcement Officer. To: Paul Wierzbicki, Prof essional Engineer III, FDEP. July 29, 2002. 2 Pages.

22. Miami-Dade DERM. Final Notice Prior to Court Ac tion. Regarding Continental Cleaners, Inc. From: Francisco Verrire, Code Enforcement Officer. To: Gloria Jackson, President, Continental Cleaners, Inc., and Daisy C. Caudell, Personal Represent ative, Estate of Richard L. Satchell. May 8, 1996. 1 Page.

23. Miami-Dade DERM. Letter Regarding: Contamination Assessment Plan (CAP) Dated December 5, 1995 and Submitted by Environmental Site Assessments, Inc. for th e Continental Cleaners, Inc. Facility. From: Diana M. Cutt, P.G., Manager, Hazardous Waste Remediation Program, Pollution Prevention Division. To: R. L. Satchell, Metr opolitan Service and Sales Corp., and Gloria Jackson, President, Continental Cleaners, Inc. December 28, 1994. 3 Pages.

24. FDEP. Letter Regarding Continental Cleaners. From: John M. Ruddell, Director, Division of Waste Management. To: Ms. Gloria Jackson. January 10, 1997. 3 Pages.

25. FDEP. Standard Operating Procedures for Fi eld Activities, DEP-SOP-001/01. FS 1000 General Sampling Procedures. Effective Date: December 3, 2008. Revision Date: March 31, 2008. 47 Pages.

26. FDEP. Hazardous Waste Inspection Report. Facilit y Name: Continental Cleaners. November 19, 1998. 6 Pages.

27. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). ToxFAQs for Tetrachloroethylene. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. September 1997. 2 Pages.

28. Dade County, Florida Circuit Court of the 11 th Judicial Circuit, General Jurisdiction Division. Temporary Injunction. Plaintiff: John W. Renfro w, as Director of the Department of Environmental Resources Management. Defendant: Continental Cl eaners, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Gloria Jackson, Individually and as President of Continental Cleaners, Inc. Case No. 97-15350 CA 05. March 22, 1999. 3 Pages.

29. Dade County, Florida Circuit Court of the 11 th Judicial Circuit, General Jurisdiction Division. Order Granting Motion for Contempt. Plaintiff: John W. Renfrow, as Director of the Department of10 Environmental Resources Management. Defenda nt: Continental Cleaners, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Gloria Jackson, etc., et al. Case No. 97-15350 CA 05. Septem ber 22, 2000. 1 Page.

30. Tetra Tech. Project Note to File. Subject: Tetra Tech NUS Site Inspection Sampling Event as Continental Cleaners in Miami, Florida. March 8, 2011. 1 Page.

31. USGS. Biscayne Aquifer, Southeast Florida. Water-Resources Investigations Report 78-107. By: H. Klein, and J.E. Hull. September 1978. 62 Pages.

32. Miami-Dade DERM. Notice of Violation, Orde r to Cease and Desist and Permit Revocation. Regarding Discharge of Industrial Waste and/or W astewater to the Public Sanitary Sewer System from Continental Cleaners, Inc. From: Francisco Verrire, Code Enforcement Officer. To: Lillie Mae Whitehead, Property Owner, and Gloria Jackson, President, Continental Cleaners, Inc. August 12, 2002. 5 Pages.

33. USGS. Ground Water Atlas of the United States. Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina. Biscayne Aquifer. HA730-G. Accessed March 9, 2011. 9 pages. Accessed on-line at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch_g/G-text4.html

.

34. FDEP. Warning Letter #WL03-0201HW13SED. Rega rding: Compliance Evaluation Inspection at Continental Cleaners. From: John F. Moulton, III, Assistant Director of District Management, FDEP, Southeast District. To: Unknown Tenant in Possession of Continental Cleaners. November 14, 2003. 6 Pages.

35. Miami-Dade DERM. Dry Cleaning Facility Insp ection Report. Facility Name: Continental Cleaners, Inc. Inspector: Luis O. Perez. December 16, 2004. 9 Pages.

36. Miami-Dade County. Transit History. Accessed March 9, 2011. 1 Page. Accessed on-line at: http://www.miamidade.gov/transit/about_history.asp

.

37. Miami-Dade County. Dry Cleaning Facility Insp ection Report. Facility Name: Continental Cleaners, Inc. Inspector: Georgia Bryce. February 7, 2006. 7 Pages.

38. FDEP, Waste Program, Southeast District. Documentation of Site Activities at Continental Cleaners. Prepared by Leslie Smith. February 17, 2006. 2 Pages.

39. University of Maryland, Environmental Safety Di vision of Administrative Affairs. EPA Hazardous Waste Codes. Accessed February 9, 201 1. 24 Pages. Accessed on-line at: http://www.des.umd.edu/hw/rest/manual/codes.html

.

40. Miami-Dade DERM. Application for IW5 Permit, to Operate Industrial and Commercial Potential Sources of Pollution. Name of Company: Continental Cleaners, LLC. April 15, 2008. 5 Pages.

41. FDEP. Warning Letter #WL09-0064HW13SED. Rega rding: Compliance Evaluation Inspection at Continental Cleaners, LLC. From: Jack Long, District Director, Southeast District. To: Ira Whitehead, Jr., Owner and Manager, Continental Cleaners LLC. July 1, 2009. 10 Pages.

42. Miami-Dade DERM, Enforcement Section. Telephone Communication. Subject: Continental Cleaners. Between Leslie Smith, FDEP and F. Verrire, DERM. April 2, 2010. 1 Page.

43. SED, Hazardous Waste Section. Site Investigati on Section Request for Assistance. Site Name:

Continental Cleaners. From: Leslie Smith. To: William Martin, P.G., Administrator, Site Investigation Section. July 21, 2005. 4 Pages.11 44. EPA, Region 4 Science and Ecosys tem Support Division (SESD). Field Branches Quality System and Technical Procedures, Operating Procedure for Soil Sampling, Number SESDPROC-300-R1. Effective Date: November 1, 2007. 22 Pages. Accessed on-line at: http://www.epa.gov/region4/sesd/fbqstp/Soil-Sampling.pdf

.

45. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. Letter Regarding International Cleaners. From: Michael X. Redig, Environmental Supervisor II, Hazardous Waste Management Section. To: Derival Edner, Owner, International Cleaners. September 23, 1992. 3 Pages.

46. EPA, Region 4 SESD. Analytical Support Branch Laboratory Operations and Quality Assurance Manual. January 6, 2011. 205 Pages.

47. Tetra Tech. Project Note to File. Subject: Data Review, Validation, and Verification Conducted at the SESD, Analytical Support Branch. January 6, 2009. 1 Page.

48. Tetra Tech. Record of Telephone Conversation. Subject: Definitions of Minimum Reporting Limit, Minimum Quantitation Limit, Contract Required Quan titation Limit, and Sample Quantitation Limit. Between Shanna Davis, Environmen tal Scientist, and Charlie Appleb y, Quality Assurance Section, Management and Technical Services Branch, EPA Region 4 SESD. July 9, 2008. 1 Page.

49. Tetra Tech. Project Note to File with Attachment . Subject: Rationales for Data Qualifiers. March 26, 2008. 4 Pages.

50. EPA Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination. Quick Reference Fact Sheet EPA-540-F-94-028. November 1996. 18 Pages.

51. USGS. Biscayne Aquifer of Dade and Broward Counti es, Florida. Report of Investigations No. 17. By: Melvin C. Schroeder, Howard Klein, and Nevin D. Hoy. 1958. 64 Pages.

52. State Coalition for Remediation of Dry Cleaners. Conducting Contamination Assessment Work at Dry Cleaning Sites. Revised October 2010. 74 Pages.

53. USGS. Principal Aquifers in Florida. Map Seri es No. 16 Revised. By: Luther W. Hyde. 1965. Revised 1975. 1 Map.

54. Florida Geological Survey. Florida’s Ground Water Quality Monitoring Program Hydrogeologic Framework. Special Publication No. 32. 1992. 104 Pages.

55. FDEP. Florida Geological Survey – Geology Topi cs. Miami Limestone. Accessed March 9, 2011. 1 Page. Accessed on-line at: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/geology/ge ologictopics/rocks/miami_limestone.htm

56. Cunningham, Kevin J, and Lee J. Florea. The Biscayne Aquifer of Southeastern Florida. Western Kentucky University Geology/Geography Faculty Pub lications, Paper 20. January 1, 2009. 5 Pages.

57. Reference reserved.

58. EPA. Region 4: Ground Water Protection, Sole Source Aquifer Program. Sole Source Aquifers in the Southeast. Accessed February 16, 2 011. 6 Pages. Accessed On-line at: http://www.epa.gov/region4/water/groundwater/r4ssa.html

.

59. USGS. Hydrogeology of the Surficial Aquifer Sy stem, Dade County, Florida. Water Resources Investigations Report 90-4108. By: Johnnie E. Fish and Mark Stewart. 1991. 73 Pages.12 60. Greater Miami Convention & Visitors Bureau. Greater Miami and the Beaches, Miami-Dade County Major Streets and Thoroughfares. 2005. 1 Map.

61. Google Earth. Map of Area Surrounding Continenta l Cleaners. Imagery Date April 1, 2010. 1 Map.

62. Google Earth. Location of Well G-3300. Imagery Date April 1, 2010. 1 Map.

63. USGS. Geology of the Surficial Aquifer System, Dade County, Florida – Lithologic Logs. WaterResources Investigations Report 86-4126. By: Carmen R. Causaras. 1986. 241 Pages.

64. Reference reserved.

65. FDEP. Standard Operating Procedures for Field Activities, DEP-SOP-001/01. FS 2200 Groundwater Sampling. Effective Date: December 3, 2008. Revision Date: March 31, 2008. 35 Pages.

66. FDEP. Standard Operating Procedures for Field Activities, DEP-SOP-001/01. FS 3000 Soil. Effective Date: December 3, 2008. Re vision Date: March 31, 2008. 9 Pages.

67. EPA Region 4 SESD. Field Branch’s Quality System and Technical Procedure Guidance Document for Design and Installation of Monitoring Wells , Number SESDGUID-101-R0. Effective Date: February 18, 2008. 33 Pages. Accessed on-line at: http://www.epa.gov/region4/sesd/fbqstp/Designand-Installation-of-Monitoring-Wells.pdf

.

68. EPA Region 4 SESD. Field Branch’s Quality Sy stem and Technical Procedure for Groundwater Sampling, Number SESDPROC-301-R1. Effective Da te: November 1, 2007. 30 Pages. Accessed

on-line at: http://www.epa.gov/region4/sesd/fbqstp/Groundwater-Sampling.pdf

.

69. EPA, Contract Laboratory Program. Continental Cleaners LLC/FL Chain of Custody Records. March 2010. 5 Pages.

70. EPA Envirofacts Warehouse. Spotless Cleaners. Facility Detail Report. Accessed February 28, 2011. 2 Pages. Accessed on-line at: http://iaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_detail.disp_program_facility? p_registry_id=110008323661

.

71. EPA Envirofacts Warehouse. Best 4 Less Cleaners Corp. Facility Detail Report. Accessed February 28, 2011. 1 Page. Accessed on-line at: http://iaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_detail.disp_program_facility? p_registry_id=110039608314

.

72. EPA Envirofacts Warehouse. International Cleaners. Facility Detail Report. Accessed February 28, 2011. 2 Pages. Accessed on-line at: http://iaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_detail.disp_program_facility? p_registry_id=110007461576

.

73. EPA Envirofacts Warehouse. Mr. Muhammad’s Dr y Cleaners Inc. Facility Detail Report. Accessed February 28, 2011. 1 Page. Accessed on-line at: http://iaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_detail.disp_program_facility? p_registry_id=110038658173

.

74. South Florida Water Management District. Water Use Permit No. Re-Issue 13-00059-W. Authorizing: The Use of Ground Water from the Bis cayne Aquifer and Floridan Aquifer System for Public Water Supply Use with an Annual Allocation of 6303.55 Million Gallons. Issued To: City of North Miami. Date Issued: August 23, 2010. 60 Pages.

75. City of North Miami, Florida. Water Quality Report 2009. 16 Pages.13 76. Tetra Tech. Project Note to File. Subject: City of North Miami. February 28, 2011. 1 Page.

77. Tetra Tech. Project Note to File with Attachments. Subject: City of North Miami – Water Source and Water Use Type. Attachments: South Flor ida Water Management District Application and Permit Information. February 28, 2011. 96 Pages.

78. FDEP. Ground Water, Wellhead Protection. Accessed Ju ly 7, 2010. 2 Pages. Accessed on-line at: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/groundwater/wellhead.htm

.

79. Congressional Research Service. Summaries of Envi ronmental Laws Administered by the EPA. CRS Report RL30022. By: Mary Tiemann, Specia list in Environmental Policy, Environmental Protection Section, Environment and Natural Res ources Policy Division. Accessed July 7, 2010. 4 Pages. Accessed on-line at: http://ncseonline.org/nle/crsr eports/briefingbooks/laws/g.cfm

.

80. Miami-Dade County. Wellfield Protection Areas. Map Created: September 23, 2006. 1 Map.

81. Robert A. Renken, Kevin J. Cunningham, Allen M. Shapiro, Ronald W. Harvey, Michael R. Zygnerski, David W. Metge, and Michael J. Wacker. Pathogen and Chemical Transport in the Karst Limestone of the Biscayne Aquifer: 1. Revised Conceptualization of Groundwater Flow. Water Resources Research, Volume 44, W08429. P ublished: August 23, 2008. 16 Pages.

82. Tetra Tech. Project Note to File with Attach ment. Subject: Summary of J-Qualified Data. Attachment: Table. February 14, 2011. 3 Pages.

83. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Chemical Summary for Cyclohexane. EPA 749-F94-011a. September 1994. 10 Pages. Accessed on-line at: http://www.epa.gov/chemfact/s_cycloh.txt

.

84. Indiamart. Methyl Cyclohexane (MCH). Posted Ma y 24, 2010. Accessed Marc h 1, 2011. 3 Pages.

Accessed on-line at: http://trade.indiamart.com/details.mp?offer=1776574891

.

85. EPA Envirofacts. Mr. Muhammad’s Dry Cleaners Inc. Air Facility System Search Results. Accessed June 8, 2011. 2 Pages. Accessed on-line at: http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/afs_reports.deta il_plt_view?p_state_county_compliance_src=12025010 95&p_plant_id =.

86. EPA. Clarification for Reporting the Air Facility System High Priority Violator Discovery Date. October 27, 2005. 4 Pages.

87. Tetra Tech. Record of Telephone Conversati on. Between Sandra Harrigan, Environmental Scientist, Tetra Tech and Jim McCarthy, Professi onal Geologist, FDEP. Subject: Karst Biscayne Aquifer in Dade County, Florida. March 28, 2011. 1 Page.

88. USGS. Sinkhole Type, Development, and Distribution in Florida. Map Series No. 110. By: William C. Sinclair and J.W. Stewart. 1985. 1 Page.

89. Tetra Tech. Project Note to File with Attachments. Subject: 2006 Site Investigation Report. Attachments: Sampling Logs and Figure. April 4, 2011. 5 Pages.

90. EPA. Notification of Hazardous Waste Activity. Chalom Corporation doing business as Metropolitan Cleaners and Laundry. July 9, 1985. 2 Pages.

91. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. Letter Regarding Facility ID # FLD032531881. From: Michael X. Redig, Environmental Supervisor II, Hazardous Waste Management Section. To: Bruce Rosenblatt, General Manager, Spotless Cleaners. April 13, 1989. 1 Page.14 92. EPA Envirofacts. Best 4 Less Cleaners Corp. Air Facility System Search Results. Accessed June 8, 2011. 2 Pages. Accessed on-line at: http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/afs_reports.deta il_plt_view?p_state_county_compliance_src=12025013 16&p_plant_id =.

93. Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. Electronic Mail Corresponden ce. Subject: Continental Cleaners. From: Gerry Walker, Program Manager. To: Shanna Davis, Environmental Scientist Tetra Tech EM Inc. July 27, 2011. 1 Page.15 

### SITE DESCRIPTION

Continental Cleaners is located at 798 NW 62 nd Street in Miami, Miami-Dade County, Florida (Ref. 5) (see Figure 1 of this HRS documentation record). More specifically, the geographic coordinates as measured from sampling location TCCF003 located near the southeastern corner of the property are latitude 25o 49' 54.63" north and longitude 80o 12' 36. 64" west (Ref. 4). The EPA identification number, as recorded in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) database, is FLD982130098 (Ref. 5). The property consists of one parcel of land covering an area of about 13,364 square feet (0.306 acre) (Refs. 6, p. 2; 7). Land uses surrounding the property are predominately commercial and residential (Refs. 6, pp. 4, 9 through 13; 8, pp. 2-1, 2-3). Continental Cleaners is bounded by NW 62 nd Street followed by Construction and Craft Workers’ Union 1652 to the north, a vacant lot followed by a post o ffice and retail businesses to the east, a dirt road alley followed by an apartment building to the south, and NW 8 th Avenue followed by Belefonte Tacolcy Center to the west (Refs. 6, pp. 2 through 8; 8, pp. 2-1, 2-3) (see Figure 2 of this HRS documentation record).

The Continental Cleaners property includes a single- story 2,361-square-foot building that was built in 1938 and a back lot, which is enclosed by a fence with locked gates (Refs. 6; 8, p. 2-1, 2-3). A hazardous waste storage area is located at the rear of the building under an overhang roof (Refs. 11, pp. 1, 2; 14, p. 16; 34, p. 4; 37, p. 5). A floor drain is located in the hazardous waste storage area (Refs. 8, Appendix A, p. A-9; 11, pp. 1, 2). The floor drain discharged to an underground structure resembling an oil/water separator (Refs. 12, pp. 2, 3; 43, p. 1).

The property is privately owned (Ref. 41, pp. 1, 3). The facility is currently being used as a drop-off location for outsourced dry cleaning operations (Ref. 42).

One source has been identified on the Continental Cleaners property. Source No. 1 consists of contaminated soil in the vicinity of the hazardous waste storage area and underground structure (Refs. 8, pp. 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5; 10, p. 7; 11, pp. 1, 2; 12 , pp. 2, 3) (see Figure 3 of this HRS documentation record). Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) and its breakdown products have been documented in Source No. 1 (see Section 2.2.2, Source No. 1, and Figure 3 of this HRS documentation record). Ground water underlying and in the vicinity of Source No . 1 contains PCE and its breakdown products at concentrations greater than background levels, i ndicating that a release of hazardous substances has occurred to the ground water migration pathway as docu mented in Section 3.0 of this HRS documentation record. About 53,333 people are served by eight muni cipal drinking water wells that are located within a 4-mile radius of Source No. 1; these wells are evaluated as potential contamination targets (see Section 3.3 of this HRS documentation record).

OPERATIONAL AND REGULATORY HISTORY

Continental Cleaners was used for laundry and dry cleaning services from 1966 until about 2008 (Refs. 15, p. 1; 40, pp. 1 through 4). However, dry clean ing operations did not occur on the property between 2005 and 2008 (Ref. 41, p. 3). PCE , also known as perchloroethylene, was used as the dry cleaning solvent (Refs. 10, p. 2; 11, p. 1; 27; 40, p. 1). The facility is currently used as a drop-off location for outsourced dry cleaning operations (Ref. 42). A prev ious owner may have used the property as a gas station or repair shop (Refs. 11, p. 1; 14, p. 2). In 1968, three underground storage tanks located in the northwestern corner of the property were abandoned in place and reportedly filled with sand and capped with concrete (Ref. 14, pp. 4, 16).

On August 18, 1993 and February 23, 1994, Miam i-Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management (DERM) conducted inspections at the facility (Ref. 18, p. 1). DERM personnel identified the presence of industrial waste discharge to the ground or ground water (Refs. 12, pp. 1, 2, 4, 5; 18, p. 1). Specifically, condensate water from the dry cleaning machine was being disposed of into a floor drain located in a rear outdoor storage area (Ref. 12, pp. 2, 3). PCE was detected at 16,035.4 micrograms per liter (μg/L) in a liquid sample collected from the floor drain (Ref. 12, pp. 5, 6). DERM16 issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) and Orders for Corrective Action on August 4, 1994. The NOV

ordered Continental Cleaners to cease and desist from any unauthorized discharges to the ground and/or ground water and to submit a Contamina tion Assessment Plan (CAP) (Ref. 18).

On August 24, 1994, DERM visited Continental Clean ers to conduct an inspection of an underground drainage structure at the southern end of the property (Ref. 20, p. 1). Wastes from the drycleaning operation were allowed to discharge through the floor drain to the underground structure (Refs. 11, p. 1; 15, p. 4; 20, p. 1). The structure was 4 feet by 4 feet, resembled an oil/water separator, and may have been installed by the service station previously located on the property (Ref. 43, p. 1). The structure was full of liquid and was subsequently pumped of its co ntents. At that time, DERM observed the structure had an effluent pipe leading out to the south (Ref. 20, p. 1).

Continental Cleaners submitted a CAP on December 5, 1994 (Ref. 15, p. 5). The CAP was approved and DERM directed Continental Cleaners to implement the CAP and submit a Contamination Assessment Report/Remedial Action Plan (Ref. 23). However, th e CAP was not implemented (Ref. 19, p. 3). The facility’s plans to install berms, seal the floor drain, connect a pipe from the dry cleaning machine to a drum, and discontinue discharges to the catch basi n were disapproved by DERM on February 22, 1995, and revised plans were not submitted (Ref. 19, p. 3).

In October 1995, DERM conducted another inspection at the facility. At the time of the inspection, the main dry cleaning area, located in the eastern portion of the building, contained seven steam presses and a dry cleaning machine that housed two 45-gallon intern al PCE storage tanks (Ref. 11, p. 1). A 55-gallon drum of PCE was located directly behind the dry cleaning machine. An ex truding machine was located near the rear of the building (Ref. 11, p. 1). The machine was used to dry clothes that had been dipped into fresh PCE or sizing solution. The floor drain in the rear outdoor roofed storage area received effluent from the extruding machine (Ref. 11, p. 1). The fl oor drain led to the underground storage structure, which was once full of liquid, now appearing sudsy. A sample collected from the liquid contained PCE (1,604.7 μg/L) and trichloroethylene (TCE) (more than 43.86 μg/L) (Ref. 11, pp. 1, 2, 5). DERM personnel also noted the presence of drums containi ng waste PCE, waste PCE sludge, and used filters adjacent to the drain (Refs. 11, p. 2; 27). Dark stai ns were observed leading from the drum storage area to the drain (Ref. 11, p. 2).

In April 1996, the owner of Continental Cleaners submitted an application for participation in the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s (FDEP) Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program; however, the application was denied based on gross negligence (Ref s. 15; 21, p. 1; 24). The following month, DERM

issued a Final Notice Prior to Court Action for failu re to comply with the NOV issued on August 4, 1994 (Ref. 22). On July 10, 1997, Miami-Dade County filed a civil complaint in circuit court against Continental Cleaners and the president of C ontinental Cleaners (Refs. 21, p. 1).

In November 1998, FDEP conducted a routine inspection at the facility noting numerous violations (Ref. 26, pp. 1, 5). In March 1999, a temporary injunc tion was issued, ordering implementation of the CAP and submittal of an Industrial Facility Plan to bring th e facility into compliance (Ref. 28, pp. 1, 2, 3). On September 22, 2000, the facility was found to be in contempt of court for failure to comply with the temporary injunction. Continental Cleaners was ordered to cease all dry cleaning, laundry, or any other commercial operations or activity at the facility (Ref. 29).

DERM inspected the facility in October 2001 and July 2002. Samples coll ected from the facility’s industrial waste discharge contained PCE and TCE above allowable sewer discharge limits. DERM issued a NOV on August 12, 2002 (Ref. 32, p. 1). The NOV ordered Continental Cleaners to cease and desist from further discharges of industrial waste to th e public sanitary sewer (Ref. 32, p. 1). In addition, the facility’s permit was revoked, and it was noted th at Continental Cleaners had not complied with the order issued by the court on September 22, 2000 to “cease all dry cleaning, laundry, or any other commercial operations or activity at the facility” (Ref. 32, pp. 2, 3, 4).17 During an inspection in December 2004, DERM collected a sample from the floor drain. The sample contained PCE at 23.5 μg/L (Ref. 35, pp. 1, 3, 9). In July 2005, Continental Cleaners was found to be operating without a permit (Refs. 9; 16). DERM inspected the facility in February 2006. The building was locked and appeared abandoned. Several containers were located at the back of the building (Ref. 37, pp. 1, 3, 5). Later that month, FDEP returned to the facility to remove hazardous waste drums located beneath the roof overhang at the rear of the buildi ng. The drums were removed because of the precarious condition of the roof and the facility representative’s lack of resources (Ref. 38). Three 15-gallon drums of waste containing spent halogenated solvents, chromi um, PCE, and TCE, and two squat drums of filters were removed from the property (Refs. 38; 39, pp. 2, 3).

In April 2008, Continental Cleaners applied for and received a permit to operate a PCE dry cleaner on the property (Ref. 40, pp. 1 through 5). The facility resumed PCE dry cleaning ope rations around June 2008 after not operating for approximately 3 years (Ref. 41, p. 3). The facility is currently used as a drop-off location for outsourced dry cleaning operations (Ref. 42).

PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS

In 2006, Metcalf & Eddy (M&E) conducted a site i nvestigation at Continental Cleaners on behalf of FDEP (Ref. 14, pp. i, 1). During the investigation, temporary and permanent monitoring wells were installed on the property (Ref. 14, p. 6). Ground wate r samples collected using direct-push technology at depths ranging from 13 to 35 feet below land surface (bls) were analyzed using an on-site mobile laboratory (Ref. 14, p. 6). Ground water sample DP-1 , collected near the hazardous waste storage area, contained the highest concentrations of PCE (3,800 μg/L), TCE (13,000 μg/L), cis-1,2-dichloroethylene (DCE) (23,000 μg/L), and trans-1,2-DCE (680 μg/L) (Ref. 14, pp. 11, 16, 18). Three permanent monitoring wells were installed on the property in the vicinity of DP-1 (Ref. 14, pp. 6, 11, 16, 18). Ground water samples collected from the permanent monitoring wells contained PCE (up to 7,130D [diluted] μg/L), TCE (up to 15,100D μg/L), cis-1, 2-DCE (25,900D μg/L), and trans-1,2-DCE (636D μg/L) (Ref. 14, p. 13).

In 2010, Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. (TtNUS) conducted a site inspection (SI) at Continental Cleaners on behalf of FDEP (Ref. 8, p. 1-1). SI activities included co llection of surface soil, subsurface soil, and ground water samples from permanent monitoring wells (Refs. 8, pp. 3-1, 3-2, 3-4, 3-6; 30). All samples were analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOC) (Ref. 8, pp. 3-2, 3-6). Soil samples were collected from 0 to 2 feet bls and 2 to 4 feet bls (Ref. 8, p. 3-2). Soil samples contained PCE (up to 7,500J [estimated] micrograms per kilogram [μg/kg]), TCE (up to 2.2J μg/kg), and cis-1,2-DCE (up to 0.91J μg/kg) at concentrations greater than background levels (Ref. 8, pp. 4-3, 4-4, 4-5). Ground water samples were collected at depths ranging from 18 to 24.53 feet below the top of casing of the monitoring wells (Ref. 8, p. 4-9). Ground water samples collected from perm anent monitoring wells contained PCE (up to 1,200 μg/L), TCE (up to 150 μg/L), cis-1,2-DCE (up to 950 μg/L), and trans-1,2-DCE (up to 20 μg/L) at concentrations above backgr ound levels (Refs. 8, p. 4-6; 30). The highest concentrations of these constituents were detected in sample TCCF008GW (M W-3) located adjacent to the underground structure and hazardous waste storage area (Refs. 8, pp. 3-8, 4-6; 14, p. 16).Source No. 1

18 2.2 SOURCE CHARACTERIZATION

2.2.1 SOURCE IDENTIFICATION

Number of source : 1

Name of source : Contaminated soil

Source Type : Contaminated soil

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

Source No. 1 is an area of contaminated soil in th e vicinity of the hazardous waste storage area and underground structure (see Figures 2 and 3 of this HR S documentation record). The Continental Cleaners property was used for laundry and dry cleaning services from 1966 until about 2008 (Refs. 15, p. 1; 40, pp. 1 through 4). PCE was used as the dry cleaning solvent (Refs. 10, p. 2; 11, p. 1; 40, pp. 1, 2; 27). Breakdown products of PCE include TCE, cis-1,2-DCE, and trans-1,2-DCE (Ref. 13, p. 24). Wastes from dry cleaning operations were allowed to discharge to a floor drain through a drain pipe from the extruding machine located in the outsid e storage area at the back of the building (Refs. 11, pp. 1, 2; 43, p. 1). The floor drain led to an underground structure that resembled an oil/water separator (Ref. 43, p. 1).

The underground structure contained one influent pipe , leading from the floor drain, and one effluent pipe, leading to the south (Ref. 20, p. 1). In A ugust 1994, the underground structure’s contents were removed. While pumping out the structure, a detectable PCE odor was observed (Ref. 20, p. 1). During a 1995 inspection, it was noted that house keeping and waste storage practices were poor at the facility (Ref. 11, p. 2). The hazardous waste storage area cons isted of a concrete pad where waste PCE and filters and waste PCE sludge were stored (Ref. 11, p. 2). No barrier is located between the concrete pad and adjacent soil (Refs. 11, p. 2; 37, p. 5). Prior to the regulation of dry cleaning facilities, it was common practice to discard waste dry cleaning solvents outside the service door of the facility (Ref. 52, pp. 12, 28). Based on poor housekeeping and waste storage practices at the facility, specifically in the hazardous waste storage area, and the location of the underground structure and effluent pipe leading to the south of the property, Source No. 1 consists of contaminated soil in the vicinity of the hazardous waste storage area and underground structure (see Figures 2 a nd 3 of this HRS documentation record).

In 2010, TtNUS, on behalf of FDEP, collected soil samples (1 foot bls and 3 feet bls) from Source No. 1 (Ref. 8, p. 3-3, Appendix B, pp. B-27, B-28; 30) (s ee Figure 3 of this HRS documentation record). The samples contained PCE, TCE, and cis-1,2-DCE at con centrations above backgro und levels (Ref. 8, pp. 4- 3, 4-4, 4-5) (see Table 1 of this HRS documentation record).Source No: 1

Source Characterization 19 2.2.2 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ASSOCIATED WITH THE SOURCE

March 2010 SI – Soil Samples

TtNUS collected the surface and subsurface soil sampl es listed in Table 1 on behalf of FDEP during the March 2010 SI (Refs. 8, p. 1-1, Appendix C, p. C- 4 ). Surface and subsurface soil samples collected at sampling location TCCF001 were chosen to represent background conditions (Ref . 8, p. 3-3). This location was chosen to represent background conditi ons because (1) based on soil boring logs, the soil type at the location of TCCF001 was similar to the so il types at the locations of samples collected from Source No. 1 and (2) this sampling location appeared to have been minimally affected by past facility operations (Refs. 8, Appendix B, pp. B-2, B-4, B-5, B-7, B-9, B-11; 10, p. 7; 14, p. 16). The Source No. 1 samples were collected in the vicinity of th e hazardous waste storage area and underground structure located in the southeastern portion of the Continental Cleaners property (Ref. 8, p. 3-3, Appendix B, pp. B-27, B-28). The samples were collected using a stainless steel hand auger (Ref. 8, p. 3-2). The background and contaminated surface soil samples were collected at a depth of 1 foot bls. The background and contaminated subsurface soil samples were collected at a depth of 3 feet bls (Refs. 8, Appendix B, pp. B-27, B-28; 30).

The background surface and subsurface soil samples and the surface and subsurface soil samples from Source No. 1 were collected during the same samp ling event, in accordance with the same sampling procedures, and from similar soil types (Refs. 8, p. 3- 4, Appendix B, pp. B-2, B-4, B-5, B-7, B-9, B-11, Appendix C, p. C-4; 25; 30; 44; 66) (see Table 1 of this HRS documentation record).

The surface and subsurface soil samples were collected in accordance with the EPA Region 4 Science and Ecosystem Support Division (SESD) Field Branch Qua lity System and Technical Procedures for Soil Sampling, SESDPROC-300-R1, November 2007 as well as the FDEP Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) 001/01: General Sampling FS1000 and Soil Sampling FS3000 (Refs. 8, p. 3-4; 25; 30; 44; 66). The samples were analyzed for VOCs (EPA Method 8260C) by the EPA Region 4 SESD Analytical Support Branch (ASB) in accordance with the ASB Laboratory Operations and Quality Assurance Manual (LOQAM) (Refs. 8, Appendix C, p. C-2; 46 ). EPA Region 4 SESD reviewed all data in accordance with the ASB LOQAM, EPA method and guidelin es (Refs. 8, Appendix C, p. C-2; 47). The minimum reporting limits (MRLs) are listed on the analytical data sheets in Reference 8, Appendix C. Each MRL is sample-specific and corresponds to the lowest quantitative point on the calibration curve; it is adjusted for the amount of sample prepared and a ny dilutions performed. The MRLs are equivalent to sample quantitation limits (SQL) (Ref. 48). The chain- of-custody forms are provided in Reference 69. The logbook notes are provided in Reference 8, Appendix B. The locations of the background and Source No. 1 samples are provided on page 3-3 of Reference 8.

TABLE 1: Analytical Results for Source No. 1 – March 2010

Sample ID Hazardous

Substance Hazardous

Substance

Concentration MRL References

Background Surface Soil Sample (1 foot bls)

TCCF001SF PCE 1.1 μg/kg 0.57 μg/kg 8, Appendix B, pp. B-7, B-27, B-28, Appendix C, p. C-16; 69, p. 4

TCCF001SF TCE 0.57U μg/kg 0.57 μg/kg 8, Appendix B, pp. B-7, B-27, B-28, Appendix C, p. C-16; 69, p. 4

Background Subsurface Soil Sample (3 feet bls)

TCCF001SB PCE 0.61U μg/kg 0.61 μg/kg 8, Appendix B, pp. B-7, B-27, B-28, Appendix C, p. C-12; 69, p. 3Source No: 1

Source Characterization 20 TABLE 1: Analytical Results for Source No. 1 – March 2010

Sample ID Hazardous

Substance Hazardous

Substance

Concentration MRL References

TCCF001SB TCE 0.61U μg/kg 0.61 μg/kg 8, Appendix B, pp. B-7, B-27, B-28, Appendix C, p. C-12; 69, p. 3

TCCF001SB cis-1,2-DCE 0.61U μg/kg 0.61 μg/kg 8, Appendix B, pp. B-7, B-27, B-28, Appendix C, p. C-11; 69, p. 3

Contaminated Surface Soil Samples (1 foot bls)

TCCF003SF PCE 300J (300) μg/kg 32 μg/kg 8, Appendix B, pp. B-11, B-27, Appendix C, p. C-32; 69, p. 3; 82, p.

2

TCCF006SF PCE 560J (560) μg/kg 31 μg/kg 8, Appendix B, pp. B-5, B-28, Appendix C, p. C-64; 69, p. 4; 82, p.

2

TCCF008SF PCE 3,300J (3,300) μg/kg 31 μg/kg 8, Appendix B, pp. B-4, B-28, Appendix C, p. C-84; 69, p. 2; 82, p.

2

TCCF008SF TCE 2.2J (2.2) μg/kg 0.59 μg/kg 8, Appendix B, pp. B-4, B-28, Appendix C, p. C-84; 69, p. 2; 82, p.

2

Contaminated Subsurface Soil Samples (3 feet bls)

TCCF003SB PCE 3.0 μg/kg 0.61 μg/kg 8, Appendix B, pp. B-11, B-27, B-28, Appendix C, p. C-28; 69, p. 3

TCCF004SB PCE 7,500J (7,500) μg/kg 37 μg/kg 8, Appendix B, pp. B-9, B-27, B-28, Appendix C, p. C-40; 69, p. 3; 82, p.

2

TCCF004SB TCE 1.4J (1.4) μg/kg 0.73 μg/kg 8, Appendix B, pp. B-9, B-27, B-28, Appendix C, p. C-40; 69, p. 3; 82, p.

2

TCCF006SB PCE 590J (590) μg/kg 36 μg/kg 8, Appendix B, pp. B-5, B-28, Appendix C, p. C-60; 69, p. 4; 82, p.

3

TCCF007SB PCE 2.7J (2.7) μg/kg 0.65 μg/kg 8, Appendix B, pp. B-2, B-28, Appendix C, p. C-72; 69, p. 1; 82, p.

3

TCCF008SB PCE 3,600J (3,600) μg/kg 32 μg/kg 8, Appendix B, pp. B-4, B-28, Appendix C, p. C-80; 69, p. 1; 82, p.

3

TCCF008SB cis-1,2-DCE 0.91J (0.91) μg/kg 0.62 μg/kg 8, Appendix B, pp. B-4, B-28, Appendix C, p. C-79; 69, p. 1; 82, p.

3Source No: 1

Source Characterization 21 Notes:

( ) Concentration was adjusted in accordance with Refe rences 49, 50, and 82. Although not required, estimated data were adjusted to show relative in crease in contaminant levels over background. DCE Dichloroethylene

ID Identification J Estimated value. Recommended holding time exceeded. Sample results s hould be considered estimated with a potential low bias (Refs. 8 Appendi x C, pp.C-5, C-32, C-40, C-60, C-64, C-72, C-79, C-80, C-84; 82). The value presented parenthetically is the concen tration obtained by applying EPA fact sheet Using Qualified

Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination (November 1996) (Ref. 50, p. 8). μg/kg Micrograms per kilogram MRL Minimum reporting limit PCE Tetrachloroethylene

SB Subsurface soil

SF Surface soil TCCF The Continental Cleaners Facility TCE Trichloroethylene U The analyte was not detected at or above the reporting limit

2.2.3 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AVAILABLE TO A PATHWAY

Samples collected from Source No. 1 contained PCE, TCE, and cis-1,2-DCE at concentrations greater than background levels (see Table 1 of this HRS documentation record). Source No. 1 consists of an area of contaminated soil in the vicinity of the hazardous waste storage area and underground structure (Refs. 8, pp. 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 3-4, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5; 10, p. 7; 11, pp. 1, 2; 12, pp. 2, 3). Analytical results for ground water samples collected underlying and in the vicini ty of Source No. 1 indicated 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 2010 SI, FDEP did not observe a liner during sampling (Refs. 8, Appendix B, pp. B-2 through B-11; 30). Ther efore, a containment factor value of 10, as noted in Table 2, was assigned for the ground water migration pathway (Ref. 1, Section 3.1.2.1, Table 3-2).

TABLE 2: Containment Factors for Source No. 1

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; 8, Appendix B, pp. B-2 through B-11;

30

Release via overland migration and/or flood NS NA

Notes:

NA Not applicable

NS Not scoredSource No: 1

Source Characterization 22 2.4.2.1 HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITY

2.4.2.1.1 Hazardous Constituent Quantity

The information available is not sufficient to evalua te 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 evalua te 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 evalua te 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

It is not known whether contamination in Source No. 1 is continuous between sampling points. The area of Source No. 1 is undetermined, but greater than zero (Ref. 1, Section 2.4.2.1.4).

Sum (ft 2 ): >0 Equation for Assigning Value (Ref. 1, 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. 1 is assigned a source HWQ value of greater than zero, but undetermined (Ref. 1, Section 2.4.2.1.5).

Source HWQ Value: >0Source Characterization 23 SUMMARY OF SOURCE DESCRIPTIONS

TABLE 3: 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)

1 >0 No 10 NS NS NS

Notes:

> Greater than

NS Not scored

Description of Other Possible On-Site Sources

No other possible sources were identified at the s ite; however, during the 2010 SI conducted by TtNUS, on behalf of FDEP, three to four empty drums were located in the drum storage area (Refs. 8, Appendix A, p. A-5; 93).GW-Likelihood of Release 24 3.0 GROUND WATER MIGRATION PATHWAY

3.0.1 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

Ground Water Migration Pathway Description

Regional Geology

Continental Cleaners is located in the northeastern portion of Miami-Da de County, Florida, within the Sandy Flatlands physiographic province and, more sp ecifically, in the southern or distal geomorphologic area of the state (Refs. 54, p. 22; 59, p. 8; 60; 61). Surface topography in the area is very flat with an average elevation of between 8 and 10 feet above mean sea level (msl) (Ref. 51, p. 1). The Continental Cleaners property is located at about 10 feet above msl (see Figure 1 of this HRS documentation record). The geology in the vicinity of Source No. 1 at Continental Cleaners may include, in descending stratigraphic order, some or all of the following units: Pamlico Sand, Miami Oolite, Anastasia Formation, Key Largo Limestone, Fort Thompson Formation, Ta miami Formation, and Hawthorn Formation (Refs. 51, p. 7; 59, pp. 7, 35, 36, 37, 57). Dade County is used in regional geology publications; however, the name of the county was changed to Miami-Dade in 1997 (Ref. 36). Therefore, from this point forward Miami-Dade County will be used.

The uppermost sediments (Pamlico Sand) are a thin bl anket of late Pleistocene-age terrace deposits of marine origin (Refs. 51, p. 24; 59, p. 35). These sedimen ts are white to black or red, very fine to coarse, mostly medium-grained quartz sand with varying am ounts of iron oxide (Ref. 51, p. 24). This deposit unconformably overlies and fills cavities in the Miam i Oolite, Fort Thompson Formation, and Anastasia Formation and ranges in thickness from 0 to 40 feet (R ef. 51, pp. 9, 24). According to the lithologic log of well G-3300, located near Miami Shores, the Pamlic o Sand is encountered at 10 feet above msl and is about 10 feet thick (Refs. 59, p. 57; 60; 62; 63, p. 46). Well G-3300 is about 2.8 miles northeast of Continental Cleaners and is the deepest logged well w ithin a 4-mile radius of the Continental Cleaners source (Refs. 59, pp. 7, 57; 62; 63, pp. 37 to 56, 96 to 104).

The Miami Oolite (Miami Limestone) is a Pleistocene formation consisting of oolitic facies (Refs. 51, p. 9; 55). The oolitic facies is soft, white to yellowish, containing streaks or thin layers of calcite, massive to crossbedded and stratified (Ref. 51, p. 9). The Miami Oolite in eastern Miami-Dade County is riddled with secondary solution holes that commonly are partly to completely filled with lime mud and sand (Ref. 59, p. 36). The formation is about 10 feet thick or less, except along the Atlantic Coastal Ridge where thickness may exceed 30 feet (Ref. 59, p. 36). In well G-3300, the Miami Oolite is encountered between 0 to 6 feet below msl (Refs. 59, p. 57; 62; 63, p. 46).

Underlying the Miami Oolite is an interfingering seque nce of three Pleistocene formations: the Anastasia Formation, the Key Largo Limestone, and the Fort T hompson Formation (Refs. 51, p. 9; 59, p. 36).

The Anastasia Formation consists of porous to very porous, sandy, shelly limestone and nodular and shelly sandstone interbedded with sand (Ref. 59, p. 36). The formation ranges in thickness from 0 to 120 feet (Ref. 51, p. 9). In well G-3300, the Anastasia Form ation is encountered at 6 to 44 feet below msl and 60 to 107 feet below msl (Refs. 59, p. 57; 62; 63, p. 47, 48).

The Key Largo Limestone appears as localized lenses that interfinger primarily with the Anastasia and Fort Thompson Formations (Ref. 59, p. 36). Th e limestone is a crystalline very porous coralline limestone (Ref. 59, p. 36). The Key Largo Limestone regionally ranges in thickness from 0 to 60 feet (Ref. 51, pp. 9, 20). In well G-3300, the Key Largo Limestone is encountered between 44 and 60 feet below msl (Refs. 59, p. 57; 62; 63, p. 48).

The Fort Thompson Formation consists of a series of marine, brackish-water and fresh-water marls, limestones, and sandstone ranging from slightly to very porous (Refs. 51, p. 9; 59, pp. 36, 37). The entire section has been subjected to solution by ground wa ter resulting in a cavity-riddled mass of permeableGW-Likelihood of Release 25 rock. Solution cavities are as much as several feet in di ameter and may be filled or partially filled with fine and medium quartz sand (Ref. 51, p. 12). The thickness of the Fort Thompson Formation ranges from 0 to 150 feet (Ref. 51, p. 9). The Fort Thom pson Formation is not present in well G-3300 (Refs. 59, p. 57; 62; 63, pp. 46 to 56).

The Tamiami Formation of Miocene age underlies the Fort Thompson Formation, where present (Ref. 51, p. 9). The formation is divisible lithologically a nd hydrologically into two units: a moderately to wellindurated, slightly phosphatic, variably sandy, fo ssiliferous limestone and a poorly indurated to unindurated, slightly phosphatic, variably sandy, fossilif erous limestone (Refs. 51, pp. 9, 10; 54, p. 9). Regionally, the formation ranges in thickness from 0 to 100 feet (Ref. 51, p. 9). In well G-3300, the

Tamiami Formation is encountered between 107 and 210 feet below msl (Refs. 59, p. 57; 62; 63, pp. 51 to 55).

Underlying the Tamiami Formation is the intermediate confining unit (H awthorn Formation) (Ref. 59, p. 57). The Hawthorn Formation is principally composed of interbedded siltstone, claystone, and sand. In well G-3300, the formation is composed of a green, sandy limestone, is encountered at about 210 feet below msl, and is about 550 to 800 feet thick (Ref s. 59, pp. 11, 12, 37, 57; 62; 63, pp. 55, 56).

Regional Aquifer Description:

The Biscayne aquifer system is the only source of fre shwater supplies for Miami-Dade County (Refs. 51, p. 1). The Biscayne aquifer is composed of limes tone, sandstone, and sand; however, in north MiamiDade County, the aquifer is primarily composed of sand. underlain by limestone (Refs. 31, p. 3; 51, p. 8; 59 pp. 35, 36). The Biscayne aquifer is an unconfined single hydrologic unit of permeable materials ranging in age from late Miocene through Pleistocene (R ef. 51, pp. 4, 9). The formations that comprise the aquifer include the Pamlico Sand, Miami Oolite , Anastasia Formation, Key Largo Limestone, Fort Thompson Formation, and the upper part of the Tamiami Fo rmation (Refs. 33, pp. 1, 8, 9; 51, p. 7). The

Pamlico Sand is the surficial unit in northeastern Miami- Dade County (Ref. 33, p. 9). The lower part of the Tamiami Formation forms the upper part of th e aquiclude that separates the Biscayne from the underlying confined Floridan aquifer system (Ref. 51, p. 10).

The Biscayne aquifer is unconfined , generally found close to the la nd surface, and ranges in thickness from 100 to 400 feet in eastern Miami-Dade County to onl y a few feet thick in the west (Refs. 31, p. 49; 53; 51, p. 4). The base of the Biscayne aquifer is en countered at about 120 feet below msl in Miami (Ref. 51, p. 6).

The Biscayne aquifer is a highly transmissive kars t limestone (Ref. 81, p. 1). Ground water in the Biscayne aquifer is stored in joints, pore spaces, and solution cavities in the rock which greatly facilitate ground water movement. The major portion of the ground water is stored in cavities formed by the dissolving action of percolating ground water. Ground water moves laterally and vertically under gravitational influence to points of discharge in stre ams, canals, lakes, and the ocean, and carries, in both solution and suspension, materials removed from the rock (Ref. 51, pp. 37, 38).

The Biscayne aquifer was designated as a sole-source aquifer by EPA (Ref. 58, pp. 1, 3). Because the aquifer is highly permeable and lies at shallow depths everywhere, it is readily susceptible to contamination (Ref. 33, p. 1). Pollutants enter th e aquifer by direct infiltration from land surface or controlled canals, septic tanks and other drain fields, drainage wells, and solid waste dumps (Ref. 31, p. 1). Most of the pollutants that enter the aquifer are concentrated in the upper 20 to 30 feet. The ultimate fate of pollutants in the aquifer is the ocean, although some may be adsorbed by the aquifer materials en route to the ocean, and some are diverted to pumping wells (Ref. 31, p. 1).

The principal source of recharge for the Biscayne a quifer is local rainfall; however, the extensive canal system in Miami-Dade County provides a significant s ource of recharge during periods of low rainfall. Discharge from the aquifer occurs by pumping and gr ound water flow into Biscayne Bay, the Atlantic Ocean, and canals during the wet sea son (Ref. 51, pp. 36, 37). Although regional ground water flow inGW-Likelihood of Release 26 Miami-Dade County is generally easterly or southeast erly toward the Atlantic Ocean, active well fields, surface water control canals, and tidal fluctuations commonly cause local deviations in the regional flow pattern (Ref. 51, pp. 25, 26).

Site Geology/Hydrogeology:

The deepest boring advanced at Con tinental Cleaners was advanced to a depth of 30 feet bls during the 2006 site investigation conducted by FDEP (Refs. 14, pp. 6, 21, 22; 89, p. 5). Therefore, verified geology underlying Source No. 1 at Continental Cleaners is limited to this depth.

The 30-foot boring indicated that Continental Cleaners is underlain by 2 to 3 feet of sand (Pamlico Sand) followed by fractured oolitic sands and broken shell be lieved to be of the Miami Oolite (Refs. 14, pp. 20, 21; 55). Soil characterized as “wet” was encountered at 12 feet bls and saturated soil was found at 15 feet bls (Ref. 14, p. 22). The top of the Biscayne aquifer was encountered at 15 feet bls (5 feet below msl) at Continental Cleaners (see Figure 1 of this HRS documentation record).

During the 2010 FDEP SI, four permanent monitoring we lls were installed; subsequent potentiometric mapping revealed that ground water was flowing toward the southwest at the time of sampling (Ref. 8, pp. 4-7, 4-9, 4-10).

The Biscayne aquifer underlying Source No. 1 is ch aracterized by pore spaces, solution cavities, and sinkholes and exhibits conduit flow (Refs. 30; 51, pp. 37, 38; 56, p. 196; 81, pp. 1, 5; 87; 88). The Biscayne aquifer is composed of karst limestone a nd karst ground water flow occurs in the Biscayne aquifer underlying and throughout the 4-mile radius of Source No. 1 (Ref. 87).

Aquifer Interconnectivity and Discontinuity:

The Biscayne aquifer is composed of the Pamlico Sand, Miami Oolite, Anastasia Formation, Key Largo Limestone, Fort Thompson Formation, and the upper part of the Tamiami Formation (Refs. 51, p. 7; 59, pp. 14, 15, 16).

The Biscayne aquifer is a sole-source aquifer and is the only source of fresh ground water in Miami-Dade County (Refs. 51, pp. 1, 2; 58, pp. 1, 3). The Biscayne aquifer is continuous within a 4-mile radius of Source No. 1 at the Continental Cleaners property (Refs. 51, pp. 5, 8; 59, p. 15).

SUMMARY OF AQUIFERS BEING EVALUATED

TABLE 4: 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

Biscayne NA Yes Yes 51, p. 5; 30; 59, pp. 14, 15, 57; 62; 63, pp. 46 to 56; 81, pp. 1, 5

Notes:

NA Not applicable TDL Target distance limitGW-Likelihood of Release 27 3.1 LIKELIHOOD OF RELEASE

3.1.1 OBSERVED RELEASE

Aquifer Being Evaluated: Biscayne Aquifer

Chemical Analysis

March 2010

Background Sample

The background sample listed in Table 5 was collected by TtNUS, on behalf of FDEP, during the March 2010 SI sampling event (Ref. 8, p. 1-1, Appendix C, p. C-104). Permanent monitoring well TCCF001 is

located in the northeastern corner of the Continental Cleaners property (Ref. 8, p. 3-8). This location is upgradient of Source No. 1 and ground water underlying a nd in the vicinity of Source No. 1 (Ref. 8, p. 4- 10) (see Figures 3 and 4 of this HR S documentation record). The background sample listed in Table 5 was collected from the Biscayne aquifer and is used to represent background conditions for observed releases to the Biscayne aquifer underlying and in the vicinity of Source No. 1 at Continental Cleaners (Refs. 8, p. 4-10; 30).

Both background and contaminated permanent monito ring wells are screened in the Biscayne aquifer at similar depths (Refs. 8, pp. 3-6, 3-8, 4-9, Appendi x B, pp. B-12, B-13, B-14, Appendix C, p. C-104; 14, p. 6; 30). Specifically, the depths of wells installe d in the Biscayne aquifer listed in Tables 5 and 7 range from 18 to 23 feet bls (Refs. 8, Appendix B, pp. B-12, B-13, B-14, B-18, B-19, B-21, B-31, B-32; 30; 89, pp. 2, 3, 4). The monitoring well construction di agram for monitoring well TCCF001GW is provided in Reference 8, Appendix B, pages B-12 and B-32. B ased on the monitoring well construction diagram for TCCF001GW, the total well depth is equivalent to the bottom of the screen interval (Ref. 8, Appendix B, pp. B-12, B-32).

Background and release ground water samples were co llected during the same investigation, in accordance with the same sampling procedures, and from we lls screened in the same aquifer (Refs. 8, pp. 3-6, 3-7, 3-8, 4-9, Appendix B, pp. B-12, B-13, B-14, Appendix C, p. C-104; 14, p. 6; 30). The background monitoring well was installed in accord ance with the EPA Region 4 SESD Field Branches Quality System and Technical Procedures guidance document for Design and Installation of Monitoring Wells, SESDGUID-101-R0 (Refs. 8, pp. 3-6, 3-7; 30 ; 67). The background ground water sample was collected in accordance with the EPA Region 4 SESD Field Branches Quality System and Technical Procedures for Groundwater Sampling, SESDPROC-301-R1 as well as FDEP SOP 01/001 for Groundwater Sampling, FS2200 (Refs. 8, pp. 3-6, 3-7; 30; 65; 68).

The location of the background ground water sample is depicted on page 3-8 in Reference 8. Logbook notes are contained in Reference 8, Appendix B. The chain-of-custody record is contained in Reference

69.

TABLE 5: Background Ground Water Sample – Biscayne Aquifer

Sample ID Well Depth (feet bls) Screened

Interval (feet bls) Date Sampled Location References

TCCF001GW 18.4 8.4 to 18.4 3/31/2010 Northeastern corner

of the Continental Cleaners property 8, pp. 3-8, Appendix B, pp. B-12, B-21, B-32, B-33; 30; 69, p. 5GW-Likelihood of Release 28 Notes:

bls Below land surface

GW Ground water

ID Identification number TCCF The Continental Cleaners Facility

Background Concentrations

The background ground water sample listed in Ta ble 6 was collected from a permanent monitoring well installed in the Biscayne aquifer (Refs. 8, pp. 3-8, 4-9; 30). The sample was analyzed for VOCs (EPA Method 8260C) by the EPA Regi on 4 SESD ASB in accordance with the ASB LOQAM (Refs. 8, Appendix C, p. C-10 2; 46; 69, p. 5). EPA Region 4 SESD reviewed all data in accordance with the ASB LOQAM, EPA method and guidelines (Refs. 8, Appendix C, p. C-102; 47). The MRLs are listed on the analytical data sheets in Reference 8, Appendix C. Each MRL is sample-specific and corresponds to the lowest quantitative point on the calibration curve; it is adjusted for the amount of sample prepared and any dilutions performed. The MRLs are equivalent to SQLs (Ref. 48). Analytical data sheets are contained in Appendix C of Reference 8.

TABLE 6: Analytical Results for March 2010 SI – Biscayne Aquifer

Sample ID Hazardous

Substance Concentration MRL References

TCCF001GW PCE 1.0U μg/L 1.0 μg/L 8, Appendix C, p. C-132

TCCF001GW TCE 1.0U μg/L 1.0 μg/L 8, Appendix C, p. C-132

TCCF001GW cis-1,2-DCE 1.0U μg/L 1.0 μg/L 8, Appendix C, p. C-131

TCCF001GW trans-1,2-DCE 1.0U μg/L 1.0 μg/L 8, Appendix C, p. C-132

Notes:

DCE Dichloroethylene

GW Ground water

ID Identification number μg/L Micrograms per liter MRL Minimum reporting limit PCE Tetrachloroethylene SI Site Inspection TCCF The Continental Cleaners Facility TCE Trichloroethylene U The analyte was not detected at or above the reporting limitGW-Likelihood of Release 29 Contaminated Samples

Ground water samples listed in Table 7 were collected from permanent monitoring wells completed in the Biscayne aquifer underlying and in the vicinity of Source No. 1 during the March 2010 SI sampling event conducted by TtNUS on behalf of FDEP (Refs. 8, pp. 1-1, 3-8, 4-9, Appendix C, p. C-104; 30) (see Figures 3 and 4 of this HRS documentation record). Newly installed monitoring wells (TCCF002MW and TCCF005MW) were installed in accordance wi th the EPA Region 4 SESD Field Branches Quality System and Technical Procedures guidance document for Design and Installation of Monitoring Wells, SESDGUID-101-R0 (Refs. 8, pp. 3-6, 3-7, 3-8, Appendix B, pp. B-13, B-14; 30; 67). All ground water samples were collected in accord ance with the EPA Region 4 SESD Field Branches Quality System and Technical Procedures for Groundwater Sampling, SESDPROC-301-R1 as well as the FDEP SOP for Groundwater Sampling, FS2200 (Refs. 8, p. 3-6; 30; 65; 68).

The contaminated ground water samples and their corr esponding depths are provided in Table 7. Results for contaminated ground water samples underlying and in the vicinity of Source No. 1 were compared with background water sample collected from monito ring well TCCF001GW, which is completed in the same aquifer at a corresponding depth (Refs. 8, p. 4-9; 30) (see Tables 5 and 7 of this HRS documentation record).

The location of the contaminated ground water sample s are depicted in Reference 8, page 3-8. Logbook notes are contained in Appendix B of Reference 8. The monitoring well construction diagram for TCCF002MW and TCCF005MW are contained in Appendix B of Reference 8. Chain-of-custody records

are contained in Reference 69.

TABLE 7: Ground Water Samples – Biscayne Aquifer

Sample ID Well Depth (feet bls) Screened

Interval (feet bls) Date Sampled Location References

TCCF002GW 18.4 8.4 to 18.4 3/31/2010 East of the on-site building 8, pp. 3-8, Appendix B, pp. B-13, B-18, B-32; 30; 69, p. 5

TCCF003GW (MW-1) 23 13 to 23 3/30/2010 Southeastern corner

of the Continental Cleaners property 8, pp. 3-8, Appendix B, pp. B-16, B-33; 69, p. 1; 89, p. 2

TCCF005GW 18 8 to 18 3/31/2010 Northwestern corner

of the Continental Cleaners property 8, pp. 3-8, Appendix B, pp. B-14, B-19, B-33; 30; 69, p. 5

TCCF007GW (MW-2) 23 13 to 23 3/30/2010 Southwestern corner

of the Continental Cleaners property 8, pp. 3-8, Appendix B, p. B-17; 69, p. 1; 89, p. 3

TCCF008GW (MW-3) 20 10 to 20 3/30/2010 Adjacent to the

former hazardous

waste storage area and underground

structure 8, pp. 3-8, Appendix B, pp. B-22, B-33; 14, p. 16; 69, p. 1; 89, p. 4

Notes:

bls Below land surface

GW Ground water

ID Identification TCCF The Continental Cleaners FacilityGW-Likelihood of Release 30 Contaminated Concentrations

Ground water samples listed in Table 8 were collected from permanent monitoring wells completed in the Biscayne aquifer (Refs. 8, pp. 3-8, 4-9; 14, p. 6; 30). The samples were analyzed for VOCs (EPA Method 8260C) by the EPA Region 4 SESD ASB in accordance w ith the ASB LOQAM (Refs. 8, Appendix C, p. C-102; 46; 47; 69, pp. 1, 5). EPA Region 4 SESD reviewed all data in accordance with the ASB LOQAM, EPA method and guidelines (Refs. 8, Appendix C, p. C-102; 47). The MRLs are listed on the analytical data sheets in Reference 8, Appendix C. Each MRL is sample-specific and corresponds to the lowest quantitative point on the calibration curve; it is adjusted for the amount of sample prepared and any dilutions performed. The MRLs are equivalent to SQLs (Ref. 48). Analytical data sheets are contained in Appendix C of Reference 8.

TABLE 8: Analytical Results for March 2010 SI – Biscayne Aquifer

Sample ID Hazardous

Substance Concentration MRL References

TCCF002GW PCE 8.4 μg/L 0.50 μg/L 8, Appendix C, p. C-135

TCCF003GW PCE 56 μg/L 0.50 μg/L 8, Appendix C, p. C-111

TCCF003GW TCE 0.86 μg/L 0.50 μg/L 8, Appendix C, p. C-111

TCCF005GW TCE 2.1 μg/L 1.0 μg/L 8, Appendix C, p. C-138

TCCF007GW PCE 31 μg/L 0.50 μg/L 8, Appendix C, p. C-114

TCCF008GW PCE 1,200 μg/L 12 μg/L 8, Appendix C, p. C-123

TCCF008GW TCE 150 μg/L 12 μg/L 8, Appendix C, p. C-123

TCCF008GW cis-1,2-DCE 950 μg/L 12 μg/L 8, Appendix C, p. C-122

TCCF008GW trans-1,2-DCE 20 μg/L 12 μg/L 8, Appendix C, p. C-123

Notes:

DCE Dichloroethylene

GW Ground water

ID Identification number μg/L Micrograms per liter MRL Minimum reporting limit PCE Tetrachloroethylene SI Site Inspection TCCF The Continental Cleaners Facility TCE Trichloroethylene U The analyte was not detected at or above the reporting limitGW-Likelihood of Release 31 Attribution

Continental Cleaners was used for laundry and dry cleaning services from 1966 until about 2008 (Refs. 15, p. 1; 40, pp. 1 through 4). Dry cleaning operations did not occur on the property between 2005 and 2008 (Ref. 41, p. 3). PCE, a dry cleaning solvent, was used at Continental Cleaners (Refs. 10, p. 2; 11, p. 1; 27; 40, pp. 1, 2). The facility is currently used as a drop-off location for outsourced dry cleaning operations (Ref. 42).

During operations, wastes from dry cleaning were allowed to discharge through a floor drain (catch basin) that led to an underground structure. The floor drain is located in an outside storage area at the back of the building (Refs. 10, p. 7; 11, p. 1; 12, pp. 2, 3; 15, p. 4; 20, p. 1). A sample collected during a 1993 inspection by DERM from the liquid in the floor drain contained PCE (16,035.4 μg/L) (Ref. 12, pp. 2, 4, 5, 6). When DERM inspected the facility in 1995, drums containing waste PCE, waste PCE sludge, and used filters were stored adjacent to the floor drain (R ef. 11, p. 2). Dark stains were observed leading from the drum storage area to the drain (Ref. 11, p. 2). A sample collected from the liquid in the underground structure contained PCE (1,604.7 μg/L) and trichloroethylene (TCE) (more than 43.86 μg/L) (Ref. 11, pp. 1, 2, 5).

A NOV was issued to Continental Cleaners on August 4, 1994 for discharging industrial waste to the ground or ground water. The NOV ordered Contin ental Cleaners to cease and desist from further discharges and to submit a CAP (Ref. 18). However, during an October 1995 inspection, drycleaning wastes were still being discharged into the floor drain (R efs. 11, pp. 1, 2, 5). In May 1996, DERM issued a Final Notice Prior to Court Action for failing to comply with the NOV issued on August 4, 1994 (Ref. 22). On July 10, 1997, Miami-Dade County filed a ci vil complaint in circuit court against Continental Cleaners and the president of Continental Cleaners (Ref . 21, p. 1). In March 1999, a temporary injunction was issued by the court ordering implementation of a CAP and submittal of an I ndustrial Facility Plan to bring the facility into compliance (Ref. 28, pp. 1, 2, 3). On September 22, 2000, the facility was found to be in contempt of court for failure to comply with the temporary injunction. The facility was ordered to cease all dry cleaning, laundry, or any other commercial operations or activity at the facility (Ref. 29).

DERM inspected the facility in October 2001 and July 2002. Samples coll ected from the facility’s industrial waste discharge contained PCE and TCE above allowable sewer discharge limits. DERM issued a NOV on August 12, 2002 (Ref. 32, p. 1). The NOV ordered Continental Cleaners to cease and desist from further discharges of industrial waste to th e public sanitary sewer (Ref. 32, p. 1). In addition, the facility’s permit was revoked, and it was noted that it had not complied with the order issued by the court on September 22, 2000 to “cease all dry cleaning, laundry, or any other commercial operations or activity at the facility” (Ref. 32, pp. 2, 3, 4).

In April 2008, Continental Cleaners applied for and received a permit to operate a PCE dry cleaner on the property (Ref. 40, pp. 1 through 4). The facility r esumed PCE dry cleaning operations in June 2008 after not operating for approximately 3 years (Ref. 41, p. 3).

PCE and its breakdown products have been documented in soil located in the vicinity of the hazardous waste storage area and underground structure (see Sec tion 2.2.2 of this HRS documentation record). Analytical results of ground water samples collected underlying and in the vicinity of Source No. 1 contain PCE and its breakdown produc ts at concentrations above bac kground levels (see Section 3.1.1, Observed Release, of this HRS documentation record). The breakdown products of PCE include TCE, cis-1,2-DCE, and trans-1,2-DCE (Ref. 13, p. 24).

Surface and subsurface soil samples collected from Source No. 1 contained PCE, TCE, and cis-1,2-DCE at concentrations above background levels. Specifi cally, PCE was detected at concentrations ranging from 2.7J μg/kg to 7,500J μg/kg; TCE was detected at concentrations ranging from 1.4J μg/kg to 2.2J μg/kg; and cis-1,2-DCE was detected at a concentrati on of 0.91J μg/kg (Ref. 8, pp. 4-3, 4-4, 4-5) (see Section 2.2.2 of this HRS documentation record).GW-Likelihood of Release 32 Ground water samples collected from the Biscayne aquifer underlying and in the vicinity of Source No. 1 contained PCE (up to 1,200 μg/L), TCE (up to 150 μg/L), cis-1,2-DCE (950 μg/L), and trans-1,2-DCE (20 μg/L) at concentrations above background levels (Ref . 8, pp. 2-14, 4-6, 4-10; 30) (see Section 3.1.1 of this HRS documentation record). The highest concen trations of these constituents were detected in ground water sample TCCF008GW (MW-3) collected from a permanent monitoring well located adjacent to the underground structure and hazardous waste storage area (Refs. 8, pp. 3-8, 4-6; 14, p. 16). In addition, during the FDEP 2006 site investigation, ground water samples collected from the Biscayne aquifer at Continental Cleaners contained PCE (up to 7,130 μg/L), TCE (up to 15,100 μg/L), cis-1,2-DCE (up to 25,900 μg/L), and trans-1,2-DCE (636 μg/L) (Ref . 14, p. 19). These concentrations were detected in the ground water sample collected from permanent monitoring well MW-3 (Ref. 14, pp. 16, 19).

PCE and its degradation products have been detected at concentrations above background levels in ground water (Biscayne aquifer) underlyi ng and in the vicinity of Source No. 1, indicating that a release has occurred or is occurring at Continental Clean ers (see Section 3.1.1 of this HRS documentation record). The Biscayne aquifer, which underlies S ource No. 1, is characterized by pore spaces, solution cavities, and sinkholes, which represent karst topography and karst ground water fl ow (Refs. 30; 51, pp. 37, 38; 81, pp. 1, 5).

The hazardous substances listed below have been documented in Source No. 1 and in ground water underlying and in the vicinity of Source No. 1 on th e Continental Cleaners property (see Tables 1, 6, and 8 of this HRS documentation record). Continenta l Cleaners operated a PCE dry cleaning facility on the property (Refs. 10, p. 2; 11, p. 1; 40, pp. 1, 2). During the 2010 FDEP SI, the ground water sample

collected closest to the hazardous waste storage area and underground structure contained the highest concentrations of PCE and its degrada tion products (Refs. 8, p. 4-12; 10, p. 7; 13, p. 24; 14, p. 16).

Other possible sources of ground water contamination may exist in the vicinity of Continental Cleaners. A gas station or repair shop may have operated on the northern portion of the Continental Cleaners property (Refs. 11, p. 1; 14, p. 2). In 1968, three underground storage tanks located in the northwestern corner of the property were abandoned in place and re portedly filled with sand a nd capped with concrete (Ref. 14, p. 4). Surface and subsurface soil samples collected during the 2010 FDEP SI contained cyclohexane, methyl cyclohexane, and 4-isopropyltolu ene (Ref. 8, pp. 4-3, 4-4, 4-5). The presence of these constituents may be attributed to the property’s use as an auto repair shop or service station in the past (Refs. 17, p. 17; 83, p. 2; 84, p. 1). Ground water samples collected during the 2010 FDEP SI contained 2-butanone, acetone, ethylbenzene, m and p xy lenes, and o-xylene, among others (Ref. 8, p. 4- 6). Some of these analytes may be present in the ground water underlying Continental Cleaners as a result of the property’s past use as a service station (Ref. 8, pp. 5-1, 5-2).

According to the EPA Facility Registry System, four dry cleaners are located within 0.7 mile of the Continental Cleaners property (Refs. 70; 71; 72; 73).

Spotless Cleaners is located about 0.25 mile west of Continental Cleaners (Ref. 70). According to a 1985 notification of waste activity form (first notification), Spotless Cleaners handles F002 waste (spent halogenated solvents) (Refs. 39, p. 2; 90; 91). Spo tless Cleaners, previously Metropolitan Cleaners, is a small quantity generator and was still active as of June 2010 (Refs. 70; 91).

Best 4 Less Cleaners is located about 0.18 mile north east of Continental Cleaners (Ref. 71). The facility is listed in EPA’s Air Facility System database, is described as a PCE dry cleaner, and was still active as of May 2010 (Refs. 71; 92).

International Cleaners is located about 0.68 mile sout heast of Continental Cleaners (Ref. 72). In 1992,

International Cleaners submitted an initial notificati on of hazardous waste activity form and received an EPA identification number as a generator of F002 waste (spent halogenated solvents) (Refs. 39, p. 2; 45, pp. 1, 2, 3). As of June 2010, the facility has been listed as inactive in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information System database (Ref. 72).GW-Likelihood of Release 33 Mr. Muhammad’s Dry Cleaners Inc. is located about 0.33 mile southeast of Continental Cleaners and is listed in EPA’s Air Facility System database (Ref. 73) . The facility is permanently closed (Ref. 85). Between 2002 and 2005, FDEP conducted partial compliance evaluations at the facility (Refs. 85; 86, pp. 1, 2). Inspections conducted in September 2002 an d November 2003 indicated that the facility was in compliance with applicable air regulations (Ref. 85).

PCE, a dry cleaning solvent, was u sed at Continental Cleaners (Refs. 11, p. 1; 40, pp. 1, 2). During operations, the facility released PCE into the environm ent through a floor drain that led to an underground

structure. The floor drain is located in an outside st orage area at the back of the building (Refs. 10, p. 7; 11, p. 1; 12, pp. 2, 3; 15, p. 4; 20, p. 1). PCE ( 16,035.4 μg/L) was detected in samples collected from the floor drain and PCE (1,604.7 μg/L) and TCE (more than 43.86 μg/L) were detected in samples collected from the underground structure (Refs. 11, pp. 1, 2, 5; 12, pp. 2, 4, 5, 6). PCE and its degradation products have been documented in surface and subsurface soil up to 3 feet bls (lowest depth sampled) (Refs. 8, pp. 4-3, 4-4; 30) (see Table 1 of this HRS documentati on record). PCE and its de gradation products have also been detected in shallow ground water at depths from 11.21 to 14.03 feet bls (Refs. 8, pp. 4-6, Appendix B, pp. B-16 through B-25; 89, pp. 2, 3, 4) (see Tables 7 and 8 of this HRS documentation record). The vertical distance between the subs urface soil contamination and shallow ground water contamination is about 8 feet (Refs. 8, pp. 4-3, 4-4 , Appendix B, pp. B-16 through B-25; 30; 89, pp. 2, 3, 4). Based on this information, the observed release u nderlying and in the immediate vicinity of Source 1 at the Continental Cleaners site is considered at least partially attributable to Continental Cleaners.

Hazardous Substances in the Release

Tetrachloroethylene Trichloroethylene cis-1,2-dichloroethylene trans-1,2-dichloroethylene

Ground Water Observed Release Factor Value: 550GW-Waste Characteristics 34 3.1.2 POTENTIAL TO RELEASE

Potential to release was not evaluated for the Bi scayne aquifer because an observed release has been documented (see Section 3.1.1 of this HRS documentation record).

3.2 WASTE CHARACTERISTICS

3.2.1 TOXICITY/MOBILITY

The toxicity and mobility factor values for the hazar dous substances detected in the source samples with containment factor values of greater than 0 are su mmarized in Table 9. In addition, the breakdown products of PCE present in the source and/or ground wa ter are also included in Table 9 (Ref. 13, p. 24). The combined toxicity and mobility factor values are assigned in accordance with Reference 1, Section

3.2.1.

TABLE 9: 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

PCE 1 100 1 Yes 100 2, p. BI-10

TCE 1 10,000 1 Yes 10,000 2, p. BI,B2-1

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

trans-1,2-DCE NA 100 1 Yes 100 2, p. BI-5

Notes:

DCE Dichloroethylene NA Not applicable - trans-1,2-DCE is a breakdown product of PCE (Ref. 13, p. 24) and was found in the Observed

Release.

No. Number PCE Tetrachloroethylene TCE Trichloroethylene

Toxicity/Mobility Factor Value: 10,000 (Ref. 1, Table 3-9)GW-Waste Characteristics 35 3.2.2 HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITY

TABLE 10: Hazardous Waste Quantity

Source No. Source Type Source Hazardous Waste Quantity

1 Contaminated soil Undetermined, but greater than zero

The hazardous constituent quantity for Source No. 1 is not adequately determined. The HWQ is undetermined, but greater than zero. As specified in Reference 1, Section 2.4.2.2, an HWQ factor value of 10 was assigned.

Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 10 (Ref. 1, Sec. 2.4.2.2)

3.2.3 WASTE CHARACTERISTICS FACTOR CATEGORY VALUE

The waste characteristics factor category was obtai ned by multiplying the toxicity, mobility, and HWQ factor values, subject to a maximum product of 1 × 10 8 . Based on this product, a value was assigned in accordance with Reference 1, Table 2-7.

Toxicity/Mobility Factor Value: 10,000 Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 10

Toxicity/Mobility Factor Value × Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 100,000

Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value: 18 (Ref. 1, Table 2-7)GW-Targets 36 3.3 TARGETS

Residents in the area are provided drinking water from the City of North Miami (Refs. 3; 74, p. 24; 75, pp. 2, 3; 76; 77, pp. 3, 4; 80).

The City of North Miami operates one water treat ment plant (WTP) served by eight municipal wells within a 3- to 4-mile radius of Source No. 1 (Refs. 3; 74, p. 24; 75, p. 2; 76; 77, p. 3, 4). The wells withdraw water from the Biscayne aquifer and are comp leted at depths from 56 to 124 feet bls (Ref. 74, pp. 25, 26). None of the City of North Miami we lls produces more than 40 percent of the total water supply. The water is mixed at the WTP before it is distributed to customers. The City of North Miami serves 53,333 people or 6,666.625 people pe r well (53,333 people ÷ 8 wells) (Ref. 76).

Municipal wells located within a 4-mile radius of Source No. 1 provide drinking water to about 53,333 people. The population served by these wells per distan ce ring is distributed as follows: > 0 to 0.25 mile, 0 people; > 0.25 to 0.50 mile, 0 people; > 0.50 to 1 mile , 0 people; > 1 to 2 miles, 0 people; > 2 to 3 miles, 0 people; > 3 to 4 miles, 53,333 people (Refs. 3; 74, pp. 23, 24; 76; 77, pp. 3, 4). All of the wells within a 4-mile radius withdraw water from the Biscayne aquifer (Refs. 74, pp. 25, 26; 75, p. 2; 76).

The FDEP Wellhead Protection Program is a pollution prevention and management program that is designed to protect underground sources of drinking water from contaminati on (Refs. 78, p. 1; 79, pp. 2, 4). A wellhead protection area is defined as the surface and subsurface area surrounding a public water supply well, through which contaminants are reasonabl y likely to move toward and reach the well. The

Wellhead Protection Rule establishes a 500-foot ra dius around all wells that serve community and nontransient, noncommunity public water systems. The Florida Wellhead Protection Program was approved by EPA on August 18, 1998 (Ref. 78, p. 1). The City of North Miami municipal wells and their wellhead protection areas are located within the 4-mile radius of Source No. 1 at Continental Cleaners (Refs. 3; 74, pp. 23, 24; 76; 77, pp. 3, 4; 80).GW -Targets37TABLE 11: Municipal Drinking Water Wells within A 4-Mile Radius of Continental CleanersBiscayne AquiferDistanceRingMilesWater System NameNumberof WellsWell No. andDepth of Wells(feet bls)Level ICont.(Y/N)Level IICont.(Y/N)PotentialCont.(Y/N)PopulationServedReferences0 to 0.25NA0NANANANANA3> 0.25 to 0.5NA0NANANANANA3> 0.5 to 1NA0NANANANANA3> 1 to 2NA0NANANANANA3> 2 to 3NA0NANANANANA3> 3 to 4City of North Miami8Winson 1 – 124Winson 2 – 104Winson 3 – 60Winson 4 – 65Winson 5 – 107Winson 6 – 56Winson 7 – 60Winson 8 – 62NoNoYes53,3333; 74, pp. 24,25, 26; 76;77, pp. 3, 4Notes:> Greater thanbls Below land surfaceCont. ContaminationID Identification numberN NoNA Not applicableNo. NumberY YesGW -Targets 38 3.3.1 NEAREST WELL

The Biscayne aquifer is continuous within the 4-mile radius of Source No. 1 at Continental Cleaners (Refs. 3; 51, p. 5; 59, p. 15). The Biscayne aquifer is a highly transmissive karst limestone (Ref. 81, p. 1). Ground water in the Biscayne aquifer is stored in joints, pore spaces, and solution cavities in the rock, which greatly facilitate ground water movement. The major portion of the ground water is stored in cavities formed by the dissolving action of percolatin g ground water. Ground water moves laterally and vertically under gravitational influence to points of discharge in streams, canals, lakes, and the ocean, and carries, in both solution and suspension, materials removed from the rock (Ref. 51, pp. 37, 38).

The Biscayne aquifer underlying Source No. 1 is ch aracterized by pore spaces, solution cavities, and sinkholes and exhibits conduit flow (Refs. 30; 51, pp. 37, 38; 56, p.196; 81, pp. 1, 5; 87; 88). The Biscayne aquifer is composed of karst limestone a nd karst ground water flow occurs in the Biscayne aquifer underlying and throughout the 4-mile radius of Source No. 1 (Ref. 87).

In accordance with Reference 1, Section 3.3.1, th e nearest well value was assigned based on karst ground water flow in the Biscayne aquifer.

Nearest Well Factor Value: 20 (Ref. 1, Section 3.3.1)

3.3.2 POPULATION

3.3.2.1 Level of Contamination

3.3.2.2 Level I Concentrations

No Level I concentrations have been identified.

Level I Concentrations Factor Value: 0

3.3.2.3 Level II Concentrations

No Level II concentrations have been identified.

Level II Concentrations Factor Value: 0GW -Targets 39 3.3.2.4 Potential Contamination

Distance-weighted population values for potential co ntamination ground water targets for the Biscayne aquifer are presented in Table 12. The Biscayne aquifer is a highly transmissive karst limestone (Ref. 81, p. 1). The limestone underlying Source No. 1 is characterized by pore spaces, solution cavities, and sinkholes and exhibits conduit flow (Refs. 30; 51, pp. 37, 38; 81, pp. 1, 5; 87; 88). The Biscayne aquifer is composed of karst limestone and karst ground wate r flow occurs in the Biscayne aquifer underlying and throughout a 4-mile radius of Source No. 1 (Ref. 87).

TABLE 12: 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 3

Greater than 1/4 to 1/2 0 0 3

Greater than 1/2 to 1 0 0 3

Greater than 1 to 2 0 0 3

Greater than 2 to 3 0 0 3

Greater than 3 to 4 53,333 26,068 3; 76; 77, pp. 3, 4

Calculations:

Sum of Distance - Weighted Population Values: 26,068 Sum of Distance - Weighted Population Values ÷ 10: 2, 606.8, rounded to 2,607 (Ref. 1, Section 3.3.2.4)

Potential Contamination Factor Value: 2,607

3.3.3 RESOURCES

Resources were not evaluated because they do not significantly contribute to the overall site score.

Resources Factor Value: NS

3.3.4 WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREA

The Wellhead Protection Program is a pollution prevention and management program that is designed to protect underground sources of drinking water from cont amination (Refs. 78, p. 1; 79, pp. 2, 4). The federal Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended in 1986, established a program for the States to delineate and manage Wellhead Protection Areas for protection of ground water supplies from contamination. A wellhead protection area is defined as the surface a nd subsurface area surrounding a public water supply well, through which contaminants are reasonably like ly to move toward and reach the well. The FDEP Wellhead Protection Program incorporates the Wellhead Protection Rule that establishes a 500-foot radius around all wells that serve community and nontransient , noncommunity public water systems. Florida’s Wellhead Protection Program was approved by EPA on August 18, 1998 (Ref. 78, p. 1). All local governments in Florida have addressed wellhead protection. The City of North Miami municipal wells and their wellhead protection areas are located within the 4-mile radius of Source No. 1 at Continental Cleaners (Refs. 3; 76; 77, pp. 3, 4; 78, p. 1; 80).

Wellhead Protection Area Factor Value: 5.00