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., 11th 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 migration pathways were not scored in this Hazard 

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

the overall site score. 
HAZARD RANKING SYSTEM (HRS) DOCUMENTATION RECORD

Name of Site: Continental Cleaners 

EPA Region: 4 

Date Prepared: September 2011 

Street Address of Site*: 798 Northwest 62nd 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 contaminant locations presented in this HRS documentation 

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

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

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

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

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

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

may need to be addressed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act (CERCLA). Accordingly, EPA contemplates 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

1
WORKSHEET FOR COMPUTING HRS SITE SCORE 

S Pathway S2 Pathway 

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

Surface Water Migration Pathway Score (Ssw) NS NS 

Soil Exposure Pathway Score (Ss) NS NS 

Air Migration Pathway Score (Sa) NS NS 

S2

gw + S2sw + S2s + S2a 10,000 

(S2

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

√ (S2

gw + S2sw + S2s + S2a) / 4 50.00 

Note: 

NS = Not scored

2
3

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 (higher 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 (Sgw), (highest value from line 12 for all 

aquifers valuated)c

100 100.00 

Notes: 

NS = Not scored 

a

 = Maximum value applies to waste characteristics category 

b

 = Maximum value not applicable 

c

 = Do not round to nearest integer
CONTINENTAL CLEANERS

MIAMI, FL
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

NW 62ND STREET

N

W

8

T

H

S

TR

E

E

T

ALLEY

Parking Lot

Parking

Lot

Grassy Area

Dispenser Pad

Canopy

Store

Area

Generator

Room

Canopy

Chemical

Catch Storage Bucket

Dry Cleaning

Machine

BoilerRoom

Hazardous Waste

Storage Area
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

"* )*

"** "* ") *

")

"**

NW 62ND STREET

N

W

8

T

H

S

TR

E

E

T

ALLEY

Parking Lot

Parking

Lot

Dispenser Pad

Canopy

Store

Area

Generator

Room

Canopy

Chemical

Catch Storage Bucket

Dry Cleaning

Machine

BoilerRoom

Hazardous 

Waste Storage

Area

TCCF008

TCCF004

TCCF007 TCCF006 TCCF003

TCCF001
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 @(AA@ A@ A@ A@ A@

NW 62ND STREET

N

W

8

T

H

S

TR

E

E

T

ALLEY

Parking Lot

Parking

Lot

Dispenser Pad

Canopy

Store

Area

Generator

Room

Canopy

Chemical

Catch Storage Bucket

Dry Cleaning

Machine

BoilerRoom

Hazardous Waste

Storage Area

TCCF005

TCCF002

TCCF001

TCCF008

TCCF007

TCCF003
8

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/sites/npl/hrsres/tools/scdm.htm.

3. Tetra Tech EM Inc. (Tetra Tech). 4-Mile Radius. 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 Name: Continental Cleaners. Accessed on February 

7, 2011. 2 Pages. Accessed on-line at: 

http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/cerclis_web.report?pgm_sys_id=FLD982130098. 

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

for Continental Cleaners. Attachment: Parcel Map and Property Information. June 13, 2011. 13 

Pages. 

7. AskNumbers.com. Acres to Square Feet Conversion Chart. 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 Protection (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. Technical 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 Investigation 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 Natural Resources. Supporting Information for 20 

Proposed Groundwater Interim Maximum Allowable Concentrations (IMACs), March 9, 2011. 

Accessed June 13, 2011. 20 Pages. Accessed on-line at: 

http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=9a3833dd-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 Ground and/or Groundwaters of Dade County Located 

At, Near, or In the Vicinity of Continental Cleaners Inc. To: R. L. Satchell, Metropolitan Service 

and Sales Corp., and Gloria Jackson, President, Continental Cleaners, Inc. August 4, 1994. 2 Pages. 

19. FDEP. Electronic Mail Correspondence with Attachment. Subject: Additional Information. From: 

Chuck Ziegmont, Tallahassee. To: Leslie A. Smith, West Palm Beach, and Jane Gregory, West 

Palm Beach. August 6, 1996. 4 Pages. 

20. Miami-Dade DERM. Inspection Report. Facility Name: 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, Professional Engineer III, FDEP. July 29, 2002. 2 

Pages. 

22. Miami-Dade DERM. Final Notice Prior to Court Action. Regarding Continental Cleaners, Inc. 

From: Francisco Verrire, Code Enforcement Officer. To: Gloria Jackson, President, Continental 

Cleaners, Inc., and Daisy C. Caudell, Personal Representative, 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 the Continental Cleaners, Inc. 

Facility. From: Diana M. Cutt, P.G., Manager, Hazardous Waste Remediation Program, Pollution 

Prevention Division. To: R. L. Satchell, Metropolitan 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 Field 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. Facility 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 11th Judicial Circuit, General Jurisdiction Division. 

Temporary Injunction. Plaintiff: John W. Renfrow, as Director of the Department of Environmental 

Resources Management. Defendant: Continental Cleaners, 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 11th Judicial Circuit, General Jurisdiction Division. Order 

Granting Motion for Contempt. Plaintiff: John W. Renfrow, as Director of the Department of 
10

Environmental Resources Management. Defendant: Continental Cleaners, Inc., a Florida 

Corporation, Gloria Jackson, etc., et al. Case No. 97-15350 CA 05. September 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, Order to Cease and Desist and Permit Revocation. 

Regarding Discharge of Industrial Waste and/or Wastewater 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. Regarding: 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 Inspection 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 Inspection 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 Division of Administrative Affairs. EPA Hazardous 

Waste Codes. Accessed February 9, 2011. 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. Regarding: 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 Investigation 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 Ecosystem 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 Quantitation Limit, and Sample Quantitation Limit. 

Between Shanna Davis, Environmental Scientist, and Charlie Appleby, 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 Counties, 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 Series 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 Topics. Miami Limestone. Accessed March 9, 2011. 

1 Page. Accessed on-line at: 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/geology/geologictopics/rocks/miami_limestone.htm 

56. Cunningham, Kevin J, and Lee J. Florea. The Biscayne Aquifer of Southeastern Florida. Western 

Kentucky University Geology/Geography Faculty Publications, 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, 2011. 6 Pages. Accessed On-line at: 

http://www.epa.gov/region4/water/groundwater/r4ssa.html. 

59. USGS. Hydrogeology of the Surficial Aquifer System, 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 Continental 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. Revision 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 System and Technical Procedure for Groundwater 

Sampling, Number SESDPROC-301-R1. Effective Date: 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 Dry 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 Biscayne 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 Florida Water Management District Application and 

Permit Information. February 28, 2011. 96 Pages. 

78. FDEP. Ground Water, Wellhead Protection. Accessed July 7, 2010. 2 Pages. Accessed on-line at: 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/groundwater/wellhead.htm. 

79. Congressional Research Service. Summaries of Environmental Laws Administered by the EPA. 

CRS Report RL30022. By: Mary Tiemann, Specialist in Environmental Policy, Environmental 

Protection Section, Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division. Accessed July 7, 2010. 4 

Pages. Accessed on-line at: http://ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports/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. Published: August 23, 2008. 16 Pages. 

82. Tetra Tech. Project Note to File with Attachment. 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 May 24, 2010. Accessed March 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.detail_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 Conversation. Between Sandra Harrigan, Environmental 

Scientist, Tetra Tech and Jim McCarthy, Professional 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.detail_plt_view?p_state_county_compliance_src=12025013

16&p_plant_id=. 

93. Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. Electronic Mail Correspondence. 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 62nd 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 62nd Street followed by Construction and Craft Workers’ Union 

1652 to the north, a vacant lot followed by a post office and retail businesses to the east, a dirt road alley 

followed by an apartment building to the south, and NW 8th 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, indicating 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. About 53,333 people are served by eight municipal 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 cleaning 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 previous 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, Miami-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). DERM 
16

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 Contamination Assessment Plan (CAP) (Ref. 18). 

On August 24, 1994, DERM visited Continental Cleaners 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 contents. 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, the 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 basin 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 internal PCE storage tanks (Ref. 11, p. 1). A 55-gallon 

drum of PCE was located directly behind the dry cleaning machine. An extruding 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 floor 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 containing waste PCE, waste PCE sludge, and used filters 

adjacent to the drain (Refs. 11, p. 2; 27). Dark stains 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 (Refs. 15; 21, p. 1; 24). The following month, DERM 

issued a Final Notice Prior to Court Action for failure 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 Continental 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 injunction was issued, ordering implementation of the CAP 

and submittal of an Industrial 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. 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 collected 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 the public sanitary sewer (Ref. 32, p. 1). In addition, 

the facility’s permit was revoked, and it was noted that 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 building. 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, chromium, 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 operations 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 investigation 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 water 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 collection 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 permanent 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 background levels (Refs. 8, p. 4-6; 30). The highest concentrations of these 

constituents were detected in sample TCCF008GW (MW-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 the vicinity of the hazardous waste storage area and 

underground structure (see Figures 2 and 3 of this HRS 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 outside 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 August 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 consisted 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 and 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) (see Figure 3 of this HRS documentation record). The 

samples contained PCE, TCE, and cis-1,2-DCE at concentrations above background levels (Ref. 8, pp. 4-

3, 4-4, 4-5) (see Table 1 of this HRS documentation record). 

 
Source No: 1 

19 Source Characterization 

2.2.2 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ASSOCIATED WITH THE SOURCE

March 2010 SI – Soil Samples 

TtNUS collected the surface and subsurface soil samples 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 conditions because (1) based on soil boring logs, the soil 

type at the location of TCCF001 was similar to the soil 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 the 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 sampling 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 Quality 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 guidelines (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 any 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. 3 
Source No: 1 

20 Source Characterization 

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. 

3 
Source No: 1 

21 Source Characterization 

Notes: 

( ) Concentration was adjusted in accordance with References 49, 50, and 82. Although not required, estimated 

 data were adjusted to show relative increase in contaminant levels over background. 

DCE Dichloroethylene 

ID Identification 

J Estimated value. Recommended holding time exceeded. Sample results should be considered estimated with 

a potential low bias (Refs. 8 Appendix 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 concentration 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 vicinity 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). Therefore, 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 scored
Source No: 1 

22 Source Characterization 

2.4.2.1 HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITY

2.4.2.1.1 Hazardous Constituent Quantity

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

by Reference 1, Section 2.4.2.1.1. 

 Hazardous Constituent Quantity Assigned Value: NS 

2.4.2.1.2 Hazardous Wastestream Quantity

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

by Reference 1, Section 2.4.2.1.2. 

 Hazardous Wastestream Quantity Assigned Value: NS 

2.4.2.1.3 Volume

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

Reference 1, Section 2.4.2.1.3. 

 Volume Assigned Value: 0 

2.4.2.1.4 Area

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 (ft2

): >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: >0 
23 Source Characterization 

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 site; 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). 

 
24 GW-Likelihood of Release 

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-Dade County, Florida, within the 

Sandy Flatlands physiographic province and, more specifically, 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, Tamiami 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 blanket of late Pleistocene-age terrace deposits of 

marine origin (Refs. 51, p. 24; 59, p. 35). These sediments are white to black or red, very fine to coarse, 

mostly medium-grained quartz sand with varying amounts of iron oxide (Ref. 51, p. 24). This deposit 

unconformably overlies and fills cavities in the Miami Oolite, Fort Thompson Formation, and Anastasia 

Formation and ranges in thickness from 0 to 40 feet (Ref. 51, pp. 9, 24). According to the lithologic log 

of well G-3300, located near Miami Shores, the Pamlico 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 within 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 sequence of three Pleistocene formations: the Anastasia 

Formation, the Key Largo Limestone, and the Fort Thompson 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 Formation 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). The 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 water resulting in a cavity-riddled mass of permeable 
25 GW-Likelihood of Release 

rock. Solution cavities are as much as several feet in diameter 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 Thompson 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 and hydrologically into two units: a moderately to wellindurated, slightly phosphatic, variably sandy, fossiliferous limestone and a poorly indurated to 

unindurated, slightly phosphatic, variably sandy, fossiliferous 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 (Hawthorn 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 (Refs. 59, pp. 11, 12, 37, 57; 62; 63, pp. 55, 56). 

Regional Aquifer Description:

The Biscayne aquifer system is the only source of freshwater supplies for Miami-Dade County (Refs. 51, 

p. 1). The Biscayne aquifer is composed of limestone, 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 (Ref. 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 Formation (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 the 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 land surface, and ranges in thickness 

from 100 to 400 feet in eastern Miami-Dade County to only a few feet thick in the west (Refs. 31, p. 49; 

53; 51, p. 4). The base of the Biscayne aquifer is encountered at about 120 feet below msl in Miami (Ref. 

51, p. 6). 

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 percolating 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 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 the 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 aquifer is local rainfall; however, the extensive canal 

system in Miami-Dade County provides a significant source of recharge during periods of low rainfall. 

Discharge from the aquifer occurs by pumping and ground water flow into Biscayne Bay, the Atlantic 

Ocean, and canals during the wet season (Ref. 51, pp. 36, 37). Although regional ground water flow in 
26 GW-Likelihood of Release 

Miami-Dade County is generally easterly or southeasterly 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 Continental 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 believed 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 wells 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 characterized 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 and 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 limit
27 GW-Likelihood of Release 

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 and in the vicinity of Source No. 1 (Ref. 8, p. 4-

10) (see Figures 3 and 4 of this HRS 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 monitoring wells are screened in the Biscayne aquifer at 

similar depths (Refs. 8, pp. 3-6, 3-8, 4-9, Appendix B, pp. B-12, B-13, B-14, Appendix C, p. C-104; 14, 

p. 6; 30). Specifically, the depths of wells installed 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 diagram for monitoring well TCCF001GW is provided in 

Reference 8, Appendix B, pages B-12 and B-32. Based 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 collected during the same investigation, in 

accordance with the same sampling procedures, and from wells 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 accordance 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. 5 
28 GW-Likelihood of Release 

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 Table 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 Region 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 limit
29 GW-Likelihood of Release 

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 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, 3-8, Appendix B, pp. B-13, B-14; 30; 67). All ground water 

samples were 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 the FDEP SOP for 

Groundwater Sampling, FS2200 (Refs. 8, p. 3-6; 30; 65; 68). 

The contaminated ground water samples and their corresponding 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 monitoring 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 samples 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 Facility 
30 GW-Likelihood of Release 

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 with 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 limit
31 GW-Likelihood of Release 

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 (Ref. 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 Continental 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 (Refs. 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 civil 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 Industrial 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 collected 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 the 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 resumed 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 Section 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 products at concentrations above background 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. Specifically, 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 concentration of 0.91J μg/kg (Ref. 8, pp. 4-3, 4-4, 4-5) (see 

Section 2.2.2 of this HRS documentation record). 
32 GW-Likelihood of Release 

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 concentrations 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) underlying and in the vicinity of Source No. 1, indicating that a release 

has occurred or is occurring at Continental Cleaners (see Section 3.1.1 of this HRS documentation 

record). The Biscayne aquifer, which underlies Source No. 1, is characterized by pore spaces, solution 

cavities, and sinkholes, which represent karst topography and karst ground water flow (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 the Continental Cleaners property (see Tables 1, 6, and 

8 of this HRS documentation record). Continental 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 degradation 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 reportedly filled with sand and capped with concrete 

(Ref. 14, p. 4). Surface and subsurface soil samples collected during the 2010 FDEP SI contained 

cyclohexane, methyl cyclohexane, and 4-isopropyltoluene (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 xylenes, 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). Spotless 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 northeast 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 southeast of Continental Cleaners (Ref. 72). In 1992, 

International Cleaners submitted an initial notification 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). 
33 GW-Likelihood of Release 

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 and November 2003 indicated that the facility was in 

compliance with applicable air regulations (Ref. 85). 

PCE, a dry cleaning solvent, was used at Continental Cleaners (Refs. 11, p. 1; 40, pp. 1, 2). During 

operations, the facility released PCE into the environment through a floor drain 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). 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 documentation record). PCE and its degradation 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 subsurface 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 underlying 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: 550 
34 GW-Waste Characteristics 

3.1.2 POTENTIAL TO RELEASE

Potential to release was not evaluated for the Biscayne 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 hazardous substances detected in the source samples with 

containment factor values of greater than 0 are summarized in Table 9. In addition, the breakdown 

products of PCE present in the source and/or ground water 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) 
35 GW-Waste Characteristics 

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 obtained by multiplying the toxicity, mobility, and HWQ 

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

. Based on this product, a value was assigned in 

accordance with Reference 1, Table 2-7. 

Toxicity/Mobility Factor Value: 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) 
36 GW-Targets 

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 treatment 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 completed at depths from 56 to 124 feet bls (Ref. 74, 

pp. 25, 26). None of the City of North Miami wells 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 per 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 distance 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 contamination (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 reasonably likely to move toward and reach the well. The 

Wellhead Protection Rule establishes a 500-foot radius 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). 
37 

TABLE 11: Municipal Drinking Water Wells within A 4-Mile Radius of Continental Cleaner

Biscayne Aquifer 

Distance 

Ring 

Miles Water System Name 

Number 

of Wells 

Well No. and 

Depth of Wells 

(feet bls) 

Level I 

Cont. 

(Y/N) 

Level II 

Cont. 

(Y/N) 

Potential 

Cont. 

(Y/N) 

Pop

S

0 to 0.25 NA 0 NA NA NA NA > 0.25 to 0.5 NA 0 NA NA NA NA > 0.5 to 1 NA 0 NA NA NA NA > 1 to 2 NA 0 NA NA NA NA > 2 to 3 NA 0 NA NA NA NA > 3 to 4 City of North Miami 8 

Winson 1 – 124 Winson 2 – 104 Winson 3 – 60 Winson 4 – 65 Winson 5 – 107 Winson 6 – 56 Winson 7 – 60 Winson 8 – 62 

No No Yes 5

Notes: 

 > Greater than  bls Below land surface 

Cont. Contamination  ID Identification number  N No NA Not applicable No. Number  Y Yes
38 GW -Targets 

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 percolating 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 characterized 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 and 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, the 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: 0 
39 GW -Targets 

3.3.2.4 Potential Contamination

Distance-weighted population values for potential contamination 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 water 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 contamination (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 and subsurface area surrounding a public water supply 

well, through which contaminants are reasonably likely 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