The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2014-115 8-I�izo)4 WORK ORDER NUMBER 10 11,5-e Former South Gifford Road Landfill This Work Order Number 10 is entered into as of this 1g_ day of�qust 20 14 pursuant to that certain Continuing Contract Agreement for Professional Services entered into as of November 15, 2011 (the "Agreement"), by and between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida ("COUNTY") and Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. ("Consultant"). The COUNTY has selected the Consultant to perform the professional services set forth on Exhibit 1 (Scope of Work), attached to this Work Order and made part hereof by this reference. The professional services will be performed by the Consultant for the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit 1 (Fee Schedule), attached to this Work Order and made a part hereof by this reference. The Consultant will perform the professional services within the timeframe more particularly set forth in Exhibit 1 (Time Schedule), attached to this Work Order and made a part hereof by this reference all in accordance with the terms and provisions set forth in the Agreement. Pursuant to paragraph 1.4 of the Agreement, nothing contained in any Work Order shall conflict with the terms of the Agreement and the terms of the Agreement shall be deemed to be incorporated in each individual Work Order as if fully set forth herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Work Order as of the date first written above. CONSULTANT: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ejl; Ropf9s Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 1.k ti* By: By: } :9 :e`j Title: Principal Peter D. O'Bryan, Chairman F ........... '�eyRVE BCCApprovedDate: August 19, 2014 Attest:Jeffrey R. Smith, Cle,06f Court and ptroller uty Clerk Approved: OLA J ";W gird, County Administr for Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: 4 Dylan T. Reingold, County Attorney EXHIBIT 1 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES engineers I scientists I innovators Geosyntec ° 6770 South Washington Avenue,Suite 3 Titusville,Florida 32780 PH 321269.5880 consultants FAX 321.269.58t3 w wgeosyntec.com 7 July 2014 Mr. Himanshu H. Mehta, P.E. Managing Director Solid Waste Disposal District Indian River County 1325 74b Avenue SW Vero Beach, Florida 32968 Subject: Proposal for Additional Site Redevelopment Assessment Activities Former South Gifford Road Landfill Vero Beach,Indian River County,Florida Dear Mr. Mehta: Geosyntec Consultants (Geosyntec) is pleased to submit this letter proposal to the Indian River County (IRC) Solid Waste Disposal District (SWDD) to provide professional services for additional assessment activities associated with the ongoing redevelopment evaluation of the Former South Gifford Road Landfill located in Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida (Site). The scope is intended to expand and build on the preliminary activities completed through the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC) under the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Brownfields Coalition Assessment Grant. The assessment activities are focused on evaluation of direct exposure/human health concerns in support of planning for redevelopment of the Site. As requested by IRC, this fee proposal includes budget to prepare for and attend meetings, complete assessment activities on the County-owned portion of the Site (southwestern 25 acres) that was not assessed as part of the preliminary work, and prepare a report of the findings. This 25-acre portion of the property is described herein as the assessment area. Geosyntec has prepared this proposal (professional services as Exhibit 1) as Work Order No. 10 for the Continuing Contract Agreement for Professional Services between IRC SWDD and Geosyntec, dated 18 June 2013. The remainder of this letter provides an overview of the project background, a description of the proposed scope of work, a budget estimate, and a discussion of the schedule for accomplishment of the work described herein. PROJECT BACKGROUND Geosyntec conducted brownfields site assessment activities for the Site in March through June 2014. TCRPC funded these activities with a USEPA Brownfields Coalition Assessment Grant for evaluation of eligible properties within areas that may ultimately be designated for brownfields redevelopment. The overall former landfill property is a 115-acre former trench- and-fill landfill. The northern portion (approximately 55 acres) of the property is owned by Indian River County (IRC) and the southern portion (approximately 60 acres) is owned by the City of Vero Beach. The 30 acres adjacent to 41St Street within the IRC-owned portion of the XR 14094VXR14053-REV.docx engineers I scientists I innovators Mr. Himanshu H. Mehta,P.E. 7 July 2014 Page 2 Site were identified by TCRPC for potential brownfields redevelopment to provide enhancement to the surrounding Vero Beach community, and therefore; the preliminary assessment activities were focused on this area. The preliminary assessment activities focused on: (i) identification of contaminant concentrations in shallow soil above applicable regulatory criteria; (ii) presence of landfill cover thickness of at least two feet (ft); and (iii) composition of soil gas in subsurface soil, including the presence of methane, which is found in landfill gas (LFG) and can be attributable to other sources as well. When this assessment was originally contemplated, IRC planned to fund additional assessment activities based on the initial results to further the evaluation of the Site for future redevelopment/reuse purposes. The additional assessment activities, which are described herein, are designed with the same objectives as the preliminary TCRPC-funded work and focused on the remaining 25 acres of IRC-owned portion of the property(southwestern wooded area). PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK The proposed scope of work consists of additional assessment activities to be performed within the 25 acre assessment area on behalf of IRC SWDD at the Former South Gifford Road Landfill. For the purpose of budgeting, the scope of work has been divided into the following tasks: • Task I —Project Management; • Task 2—Meetings/Regulatory Negotiation • Task 3 —Field Activities; and • Task 4—Data Evaluation and Reporting. The remainder of this section presents a general description of the activities to be performed in each task. Task 1 — Project Manaeement: Under this task, Geosyntec will perform project planning and management responsibilities, such as correspondence with IRC SWDD and FDEP, invoice review, project coordination, and project administration. Task 2 — Meetines/Reeulatory Interaction: Under this task, Geosyntec will prepare for and attend up to three meetings, with IRC SWDD, FDEP, local community organizations and/or the IRC Board of County Commission (BOCC), as necessary. It is anticipated that one of these meetings will include preparation for and attendance at a Gifford Progressive Civic League to present an update on the redevelopment assessment activities and results conducted to date with the TCRPC. The budget assumes that Nandra Weeks, PE (Geosyntec principal that has historical knowledge of the assessment work completed to date at the Site and has been involved for some time with IRC SWDD and the BOCC with exploring redevelopment options for the Site) and Keith Tolson, PhD (Geosyntec toxicologist). Also, under this task, four hours has been included for the project manager to provide ongoing support to IRC SWDD related to interaction and negotiation with FDEP. XR14096}XR 14053-RE V.docx engineers I scientists I innovators Mr. Himanshu H. Mehta, P.E. 7 July 2014 Page 3 Task 3 — Field Activities: Field activities will include: shallow soil sampling and a LFG investigation. The sampling activities will be designed to focus on the 25 acres in the southwestern part of the County-owned portion of the Site. The general sampling plan will be designed on a grid pattern and final sampling locations may be selected in the field based on observations. The sampling plan is designed to extend the assessment that was completed on the other 30 acres of the Site such that the same assessment scope will be completed across the entire IRC-owned portion of the Site. The 25 acre assessment area is wooded with limited access. It has been assumed that some land clearing will be necessary prior to completion of the activities described below and that IRC personnel will complete the clearing work. No budget for land clearing (other than limited hand clearing and limited budget for field personnel to mark areas that need clearing) has been included and it has been assumed (based on site-specific experience) that proposed fieldwork can be performed in level D personal protective equipment(PPE). Subtask A. Shallow Soil Sampling This subtask includes the performance of hand auger soil borings to 2 ft below land surface (BLS) on an approximate 200-ft grid, focusing on specific areas of the Site as outlined previously. Shallow soil samples will be collected from 0 to 0.5 ft BLS and 0.5 to 2 ft BLS at up to 19 locations. If waste is encountered at a depth shallower than 2 ft BLS, sampling will be discontinued (i.e., samples of waste material will not be collected for analysis). The collected soil samples will be submitted for laboratory analysis of semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) by USEPA Method 8270 or similar and Resource Conservation Recovery Act(RCRA) Metals by USEPA Method 6010. In addition, a subset (approximately 25% of the total samples analyzed) of the soil samples will be analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by USEPA Method 8260, organochlorine pesticides by USEPA Method 8081, organophosphorus pesticides by USEPA Method 8141, and herbicides by USEPA Method 8151. Three equipment blanks will be collected for QA purposes with laboratory analyses for VOCs and metals. Budget has been included for analysis of up to a total of 38 samples for this portion of the sampling work, plus the three QA samples (total of 41 soil samples). In addition, budget has been included for collecting confirmation and delineation samples at the three locations that exhibited concentrations above state regulatory criteria during the first phase of work (SB100, SB109, and SB111). At each of these three locations, soil samples will be collected at 0 to 0.5 ft BLS and 0.5 to 2 ft BLS adjacent to the previous sample location. Also at each location, soil samples will be collected in those same depth intervals at 5 ft and 10 ft stepouts in each cardinal direction (three confirmation samples and 24 delineation samples). The soil samples will be analyzed only for the constituents that were observed above state regulatory criteria during the previous assessment work. The samples around SBI 11 will be analyzed only for arsenic and all of these proposed soil samples will be analyzed for PAHs by USEPA 8270 or similar. The samples will be collected during a single mobilization but will be analyzed by the laboratory in phases. Confirmation samples will be analyzed by the laboratory first and if the XR14096AR14053-REV.doex engineers I scientists I innovators Mr. Himanshu H.Mehta,P.E. 7 July 2014 Page 4 original concentration is confirmed then the stepout samples will be analyzed in two steps (5 ft stepouts,then 10 ft stepouts, if needed). Budget has been included for analysis of up to a total of 68 samples. Each soil sampling location will be surveyed for northing and casting using a Global Positioning System (GPS) unit with sub-meter accuracy. Soil samples will be collected in accordance with FDEP SOPs. It has been assumed that this effort can be completed within five days with a two-person field team. Subtask B: LFG Investigation This subtask includes the completion of a LFG investigation at the Site. Based on the observed depth to groundwater at the Site over the past two years, it has been assumed that the water table is present at approximately 3 to 5 ft BLS. The LFG investigation will be focused on the interval from land surface to the water table (i.e., vadose zone). Temporary LFG monitoring wells will be constructed of 3/4-in diameter pre-packed poly-vinyl chloride (PVC) wells with 5 ft or less of slotted screen and installed with a track direct-push technology (DPT) rig. This proposal includes installation of up to eight LFG monitoring wells at locations based on results of the historical records review, previous observations, and observations from the soil sampling, cover thickness, presence of waste evaluation results, and areas of potential development. The wells will be completed at the surface as a stickup with a sampling port at the top of the well. Tubing will be attached to the sampling port and a gas analyzer (such as a GA-2000) will be attached to the tubing to measure the concentrations of methane, oxygen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and hydrogen sulfide in the soil gas. The concentration of VOCs in the soil gas will be measured using a PID. Since there are historical VOC groundwater impacts at the Site, if VOCs in the soil gas are observed, up to three samples will be collected for submittal to the analytical laboratory for analysis of VOCs. Each LFG well location will be surveyed for northing and easting using a GPS unit with sub-meter accuracy. It is anticipated that this effort will take two days with one person in the field. Task 4 — Reporting: Under this task, Geosyntec will perform data evaluation activities and prepare an assessment report. Data evaluation activities will include database management, screening results against applicable regulatory criteria, and GIS figure preparation. The results of assessment activities will be discussed and supported by attachments containing field notes and observations, photographs, analytical results, and other applicable materials. The report will incorporate the preliminary assessment results and the results collected as part of the activities described herein. An evaluation of the human health risk related to the potential site end-uses will be included in the report. The draft report will be submitted to IRC SWDD for review. SCHEDULE Geosyntec will begin planning the assessment activities upon authorization of this proposal and should be able to initiate the fieldwork within approximately four to six weeks based on subcontractor availability. The field activities are anticipated to take seven days (five days with XR14096\XR 14053-RE V.docx engineers I scientists I innovators Mr. Himanshu H. Mehta, P.E. 7 July 2014 Page 5 two people for soil sampling and two days with one person for LFG evaluation). The draft report will be provided to IRC for review approximately eight weeks after receipt of analytical results from the laboratory. BUDGET ESTIMATE A budget estimate for the scope of work outlined in Tasks 1 through 4 of this proposal is summarized in the following table, and a detailed budget estimate is provided as Attachment A. The budget estimate presented in this proposal is based on Geosyntec's understanding of the project requirements, our experience gained from executing similar tasks for SWDD since 2002 at the Site, and experience with groundwater monitoring and reporting activities at similar facilities. Geosyntec will not exceed the budget estimate without prior approval and written authorization from IRC SWDD. Task 1 —Project Management $7,093 Task 2 — Meetings/Regulatory Interaction $15,363 Task 3—Field Activities $43,237 Task 4 — Reporting $15,386 TOTAL $81,079 CLOSURE Geosyntec appreciates this opportunity to offer our services. If this proposal is acceptable, please indicate your agreement by signing the attached work authorization, which references this proposal. Please return one signed work authorization to Ms. Johnson's attention. Please call either of the undersigned with questions you may have as you review this proposal. Sincerely, W) trt,tiO.n— Jill Johnson. Y.G. Senior Hydrogeologist dra Weeks, P.E. Principal Attachments XR I40WXR 14053-RL V Apex engineers I scientists I innovators WORK ORDER NUMBER 10 Former South Gifford Road Landfill This Work Order Number 10 is entered into as of this _ day of . 20_ pursuant to that certain Continuing Contract Agreement for Professional Services entered into as of November 15, 2011 (the "Agreement"), by and between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida ("COUNTY") and Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. ("Consultant"), The COUNTY has selected the Consultant to perform the professional services set forth on Exhibit 1 (Scope of Work), attached to this Work Order and made part hereof by this reference. The professional services will be performed by the Consultant for the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit 1 (Fee Schedule), attached to this Work Order and made a part hereof by this reference, The Consultant will perform the professional services within the timeframe more particularly set forth in Exhibit 1 (Time Schedule), attached to this Work Order and made a part hereof by this reference all in accordance with the terms and provisions set forth in the Agreement. Pursuant to paragraph 1.4 of the Agreement, nothing contained in any Work Order shall conflict with the terms of the Agreement and the terms of the Agreement shall be deemed to be incorporated in each individual Work Order as if fully set forth herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Work Order as of the date first written above. CONSULTANT: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY By: � By: Peter D. O'Bryan, Chairman Title: Principal BCC Approved Date: Attest:Jeffrey R. Smith,Clerk of Court and Comptroller By: Deputy Clerk Approved: Joseph A. Baird,County Administrator 11VA ."//� Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: J f'= Dylan T. Reingold,County Attorney ATTACHMENT A BUDGET ESTIMATE engineers I scientists I innovators Table 1 JULY 2014 BUDGET ESTIMATE SOUTH GIFFORD ROAD LANDFILL Task 1:Project Management ITEM BASIS RATE QUANTITY ESTIMATED BUDGET Principal hr $216 4 $864 Associate hr $204 0 $0 Senior Project Geologist hr $179 26 $4,654 Project Engineer hr $147 0 $o Engineer hr $128 0 $0 Senior Staff Geologist hr $113 0 $0 Staff Engineer hr $96 12 $1152 Subtotal Professional Services $6,670 Site Manager/Construction Manager hr $109 0 $0 Senior Engineering Technician hr $81 0 $0 Designer/GIS hr $129 0 $0 Drafter/CADD Operator hr $80 0 $o Technical/Administrative Assistant hr $90 0 $0 Technical Word Processor hr $92 0 $0 Clerical hr $54 4 $216 Subtotal TechnicaVAdministrative Service $216 Lodging day $89 0 $0 Per Diem day $51 0 $0 Communications Fee 3%labor 0.03 6,886 $207 CADD Computer System hr $15 0 $0 Vehicle Rental day $97 0 $0 8.5"x1I"Photocopies each $0.12 0 $0 Second Day Letter Teach $6 0 $o Subtotal Reimbursable, $207 XR14053-REV.x1sx Geosyntec Consultants Table 2 JULY 2014 BUDGET ESTIMATE SOUTH GIFFORD ROAD LANDFILL Task 2:Meetings/Re2ulatory Interaction ITEMBASIS RATE QUANTITY ESTIMATED BUDGET Principal hr $216 22 $4,752 Associate hr $204 0 $0 Senior Project Geologist hr $179 30 $5,370 Project Engineer hr $147 0 $0 Engineerhr $128 0 $0 Senior Staff Geologist hr $113 24 $2,712 Staff Engineer hr $96 0 $0 Subtotal Professional Services $12,834 Site Manager/Construction Manager hr $109 0 $0 Senior Engineering Technician hr $81 0 $0 Designer/GIS hr $129 8 $1,032 Drafter/CADD Operator hr $80 0 $0 Technical/Administrative Assistant hr $90 0 $0 Technical Word Processor hr $92 0 $0 Technical/Administrative Assistant hr $54 0 $0 111 11111�11111111g� Subtotal Technical/Administrative Services $1,032 Lodging day $89 4 $356 Per Diem day $51 0 $o Communications Fee 3%labor 0.03 13,866 $416 CADD Computer System hr $15 8 $120 Vehicle Rental day $97 5 $485 8.5"xll"Photocopies each $0.12 1,000 $120 Second Day Letter each $6 0 $0 Subtotal 11 eimbursablesl $1,497 XR14053-REV.x1sx Gewyntec Consultants Table 3 JULY 2014 BUDGET ESTIMATE SOUTH GIFFORD ROAD LANDFILL Task 3A:Field Activities-Soil Sampling ITEM BASIS RATE QUANTITY ESTIMATED BUDGET Principal hr $216 0 $0 Associate hir $204 0 $0 Senior Project Geologist hr $179 8 $1,432 Project Engineer hr $147 0 $0 Geologist hr tbto 10tS5,3'189 0 Senior Staff Geologist hr 655 Staff Geologist hr 0 Suessional Se7 Site Manager/Construction Manager hr 0Senior Engineering Technician hr 655Designer/GIS hr 0Drafter/CADD Operator hr 0Technical/Administrative Assistant hr 0Technical Word Processor hr 0Clericalhr 1Subtotal Techniistrative Se VOC Analysis each $73 10 $728 SVOC Analysis (ine 3 Ebs) each $139 41 $5,703 RCRA Metals Analysis line 3 Ebs) each $70 41 $2,852 PAHs Analysis each $139 27 $3,756 Arsenic Analysis each $t9 9 $173 EPA 8141 Analysis each $102 10 $1,017 EPA 8081 Analysis each $75 t0 $749 EPA 8151 Analysis each 1 $91 10 $910 Subtotal Subcontractor Services $15,886 Lodging day $101 10 $1,010 Per Diem day $51 10 $510 Communications Fee 3%labor 0.03 $15,376 $461 CADD Computer System hr $15 0 $0 Field Vehicle day $97 5 $485 8.5'x1P Photocopies each $0.12 60 $7 Field Kit day $150 5 $750 Equipment Shipping each $75 2 $150 Subtotal Reimbursables $3,373 Notts: I. Lodging and per diem rales were taken from the GSA website far the Vero Beach area(wwwasa gov). 2. Monitoring Well Installation Kit includes:PID,water level indicawq GPS can,Feld geology kit,and multi-meter(pB,lempenanx, conductivity,nubidity,dissolved oxygen,and oxidation reduction potential),and miscellaneoua supplies. XR1405]-RBVxlax Gewyntee Coraultants Table 4 JULY 2014 BUDGET ESTIMATE SOUTH GIFFORD ROAD LANDFILL Task 3B:Field Activities-LFG ITEM BASIS RATE QUANTITY ESTIMATED BUDGET EM Principal hr $216 1 $216 Associate In $204 0 $0 Senior Project Geologist hr $179 2 $358 Project Engineer In $147 0 $0 Geologisthr $128 6 $768 Senior Staff Geologist hr $]1 3 0 $0 Staff Geologist hr $96 0 $0 Subtotal Professional Services $1,342 Site Manager/Construction Manager hr $109 21 $2,289 Senior Engineering Technician hr $81 0 $0 Designer/GIS hr $129 0 $0 Drafter/CADD Operator hr $80 0 $0 Technical/Administrative Assistant hr $90 0 $0 Technical Word Processor hr $92 0 $0 Clerical hr 1 $54 1 $54 Subtotal Technical/Administrative Services $2,343 Bar Punch each $144 0 $0 Prepacked wells each $99 8 $792 Cas well drilling daily $1,350 1 $1,350 Surface Completions each $185 0 $0 Per Diem each $220 1 $220 Lab VOC air analysis each $350 3 $1,050 Gas meters(PID and GEM) day $250 2 $500 Decon each $165 1 $165 Subtotal Subcontractor Services $4,077 Lodging day $101 1 $101 Per Diem day $51 1 $51 Communications Fee 3%labor 0.03 $3,685 $Ill Field Vehicle day $97 2 $194 8.5'x1 l"Photocopies each $0.12 60 $7 Field Kit day $150 2 $300 Equipment Shipping each $75 1 $75 Subtotal Reimbursables $839 Notes: 1, Lodging and per diem rates were taken from the GSA website for the Vero Beach a ea(www.gsa.gov). 2. Monitoring Well Installation Kit includes'.PID,water level indicator,GPS unit,field geology kit,and multi-mcter(pH,temperature, conductivity,turbidity,dissolved oxygen,and oxidation reduction potential),and miscellaneous supplies. XR14053-REV.xlsx Geosyntee Consultants Table 5 JULY 2014 BUDGET ESTIMATE SOUTH GIFFORD ROAD LANDFILL Task 4:Report ITEM BASIS RATE QUAN rry ESTIMATED BUDGET Principal hr $216 8 $1,728 Associate hr $204 0 s0 Senior Project Geologist hr $179 14 $2,506 Project Engineer hr $147 0 $0 Engineer hr $128 16 $2,048 Senior Staff Geologist hr $113 40 $4,520 StafTEngineer hr $96 0 $0 Subtotal Professional Services $10,802 Site Manager/Construction Manager hr $109 0 $0 Senior Engineering Technician hr $81 0 so Designer/GIS hr $129 28 $3,612 Dm4er/CADD Operator hr $80 0 $0 Technical/Administrative Assistant hr $90 0 so Technical Word Processor hr $92 0 $o Technical/Administrative Assistant hr $54 0 s0 Subtotal Technical/Administrative Semices $3,612 Lodging day $89 0 s0 Per Diem day $51 0 $0 Communications Fee 3%labor 0.03 14,414 $432 CADD Computer System hr $15 28 $420 Vehicle Rental day $75 0 $0 8.5"x11"Photocopies each $0.12 1,000 $120 Second Day Letter each $6 0 $0 Subtotal Reimbursables $972 XR14053-REV.xlsx Gemyntm Consultants Prepared for: Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council 421 SW Camden Avenue Stuart, Florida 34994 BROWNFIELDS SITE ASSESSMENT SOUTH GIFFORD ROAD LANDFILL 4701 41ST STREET VERO BEACH, FLORIDA Prepared by: Geosyntec consultants I IgInFY•r, I I1111(walors 316 South Baylen Street, Suite 201 Pensacola, FL 32502 Geosyntec Consultants Project NumberFR0766H June 2014 Brownfields Site Assessment June 1014 South Gilford Road Landfill Vero Beach Florida TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................1 1.1 Terms of Reference...........................................................................................l 1.2 Purpose.............................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Report Organization..........................................................................................2 2. SITE SETTING AND BACKGROUND..................................................................3 2.1 Site Location and Description...........................................................................3 2.2 Site Background................................................................................................3 2.3 Summary of Previous Investigations and Remedial Actions............................3 2.4 Site-Specific Lithology,.....................................................................................4 2.5 Aquifer Properties and Groundwater Flow.......................................................5 3. ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES......................................................................6 3.1 Overview...........................................................................................................6 3.2 Soil Sampling....................................................................................................6 3.3 Landfill Cover Evaluation.................................................................................7 3.4 Soil Gas Probe Installation and Sampling.........................................................7 3.5 Management of Investigation-Derived Waste ..................................................8 4. ASSESSMENT RESULTS.......................................................................................9 4.1 Overview...........................................................................................................9 4.2 Soil Results .......................................................................................................9 4.3 Landfill Cover Evaluation Results..................................................................10 4.4 Soil Gas Results.............................................................................................. 10 4.5 Quality Assurance/Quality Control.................................................................1 l 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................12 6. REFERENCES........................................................................................................14 FR0966H Jul-14 Brownfields Site Assessment June 2014 South Gifford Road landfill, Vero Beach,Florida TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Summary of Soil Results Table 2 Summary of Soil Gas Detections LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Site Vicinity Topographic Map Figure 2 Assessment Area Figure 3 Parcel/Surrounding Land Use Figure 4 Assessment Area Sample Locations Figure 5 Soil Sampling Analytical Results Figure 6 Approximate Cover Thickness Figure 7 Soil Gas Analysis Results LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Field Forms Appendix B Laboratory Reports Appendix C Summary of Detected Constituents in Soil Appendix D Benzo(a)pyrene Toxicity Equivalence Quotient Calculations Appendix E Select Photographs from Cover Thickness Evaluation FR0766H 11 Jul-14 Brownfields Site Assessment June 2014 South Gifford Road Landfill, Vero Beach,Florida TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) List of Acronyms and Abbreviations % Percent Accutest Accutest Southeast Laboratory BaP Benzo(a)pyrene BLS Below Land Surface Cis-1,2-DCE Cis-1,2-dichloroethene COC Constituent of Concern C/I Commercial/Industrial CVOC Chlorinated Volatile Organic Compound F.A.C. Florida Administrative Code FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection FDOH Florida Department of Health tt feet ft2 square feet Geosyntec Geosyntec Consultants GPS Global Positioning System IDW Investigation Derived Waste IP&T Interim Pump and Treat IRC Indian River County K Hydraulic Conductivity lbs pounds mg/kg milligrams per kilogram LFG Landfill Gas NELAC National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference OCP Organochlorine Pesticides OPP Organophosphorous Pesticides PCE Tetrachloroethene PID Photoionization Detector PPM parts per million PVC Polyvinyl Chloride QA Quality Assurance QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan QC Quality Control R- Residential RAP Remedial Action Plan RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act SIM Select Ion Monitoring FRO766H Jul-14 Brownfields Site Assessment June 7014 South Gifford Road Landfill. Vero Beach,Florida TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) List of Acronyms and Abbreviations (continued) Site South Gifford Road Landfill SOP Standard Operating Procedure SCTL Soil Cleanup Target Level SVOC Semi-Volatile Organic Compound SWDD Solid Waste Disposal District TCE Trichloroethene TCRPC Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council TEQ Toxicity Equivalence Quotient USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency VOC Volatile Organic Compound FRO766H iv Jul-14 Brownfields Site Assessment June 2014 South Gifford Road Landfill, Vero Beach,Florida 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Terms of Reference Geosyntec Consultants (Geosyntec) conducted brownfields site assessment activities for the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC) at the South Gifford Road Landfill (Site) located at 4701 41" Street in Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida (Figure 1). TCRPC received a United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Brownfields Coalition Assessment Grant for evaluation of eligible properties within areas that may ultimately be designated for brownfields redevelopment. The overall former landfill property, a 115-acre former trench and fill landfill, is under evaluation to assess eligibility for brownfields redevelopment. The northern portion (approximately 55 acres) of the property is owned by Indian River County (IRC) and the southern portion (approximately 60 acres) is owned by the City of Vero Beach. The 30 acres adjacent to 41'` Street within the 55 acres owned by IRC were identified by TCRPC for potential brownfields redevelopment to provide enhancement to the surrounding Vero Beach community. TCRPC provided targeted funds to conduct the initial assessment activities described herein. 1.2 Purpose There are several potential redevelopment options (and/or combination of options) being considered for the Site (e.g., community market, recreational uses), but no specific plans are currently in place. Assessment activities were designed to assess potential human health/direct exposure-related concerns at the landfill in areas that: (i) are most likely to be redeveloped; (ii) will be the most accessible to the public; and/or (iii) are likely to be within the former landfill footprint (i.e., the northern 30 acres owned by IRC adjacent to 41st Street). The landfill and the area of assessment are identified on Figure 2. Specifically, the assessment activities focused on: (i) identification of contaminant concentrations in shallow soil; (ii) evaluation of the thickness of the existing soil cover over waste material; and (iii) evaluation of the composition of soil gas in subsurface soil, including the presence of methane, which is typically found in landfill gas (LFG). It should be noted that this Brownfields assessment work for TCRPC was completed pursuant to a separate contract from the ongoing groundwater monitoring and remediation work that Geosyntec is assisting IRC Solid Waste Disposal District (SWDD)with at the Site. The ongoing groundwater monitoring and remediation work differs from the Brownfields assessment described herein in several key aspects. The ongoing monitoring and remediation work is: (i) funded by IRC rather than the Brownfields grant through TCRPC; (ii) focused on groundwater rather than the shallow soil and LFG; and (iii) regulatory driven through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) rather than under a voluntary Brownfields program FR0766H 1 7/8/2014 Brownfields Site Assessment June 2014 South Gifford Road Landfill, Vero Beach.Florida (USEPA) consistent with FDEP guidance (Guidance for Disturbance and Use of Old Closed Landfills or Waste Disposal Areas in Florida). Although these key aspects vary, the concurrent activities are collectively focused on the common purpose of meeting environmental regulatory requirements with respect to public health and safety and returning the landfill to a beneficial use for the local Gifford community and the community at large. 1.3 Report Oreanization The remainder of this report is organized as follows: • Section 2 — Site Setting and Background describes the Site location and description, Site background, summary of previous investigations and remedial actions, Site- specific lithology, and aquifer properties and groundwater flow; • Section 3 — Assessment Methodologies describes the field activities completed during the assessment activities, including soil sampling, landfill cover evaluation, soil gas probe installation and sampling, and management of investigation-derived waste (IDW); • Section 4 — Assessment Results summarizes the soil and soil gas analytical results, results of the landfill cover thickness evaluation, soil gas results, and quality assurance (QA)/quality control (QC) results for field and laboratory data during assessment activities; • Section S — Conclusions and Recommendations presents conclusions from the assessment activities and recommended next steps; and • Section 6—References provides a list of references cited within the document. Tables, figures, and appendices are provided at the end of the report. FR0766H 2 7/8/2014 Brownfields Site Assessment June 2014 South Gifford Road Landfill, Vero Beach,Florida 2. SITE SETTING AND BACKGROUND 2.1 Site Location and Description The Site is located in east-central IRC in Section 28, Township 32S, Range 39E (Figure 1). Various commercial, industrial, and undeveloped areas border the Site to the south, east, and west, with 41st Street bordering the Site to the north. A Surrounding Land Use Map including parcel boundaries is included as Figure 3. 2.2 Site Background Based on historical documents, commercial, industrial, residential, and agricultural wastes were disposed of in the landfill from approximately 1960 until 1977. Records indicate that the waste cells were excavated to approximately 8 ft below the original land surface grade; however, interviews with onsite workers indicate that, in some areas, the waste cells may have extended more than 10 ft below land surface (BLS), below the water table. The waste cells varied in length from approximately 200 to 500 ft. Waste disposal activities were terminated in August 1977, and the final landfill cover, which was comprised of approximately 2 ft of clean fill material pursuant to the permit, was constructed in 1978. Pine foliage was planted in various areas of the site in 1979. A 2008 aerial view showing the Site boundaries is provided on Figure 2. The Site is currently vacant with the exception of the use of the northern portion of the Site as a laydown yard by IRC and a residential convenience center where residents can drop off waste materials. 2.3 Summary of Previous Investigations and Remedial Actions A source investigation was initiated by Geosyntec in 1999, after volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were discovered in groundwater. The results of the source assessment activities indicated a VOC contamination source in the waste material approximately 12 ft BLS and identified a chlorinated VOC groundwater plume approximately 1-mile in length extending downgradient in the direction of groundwater flow. An Interim Pump and Treat (IP&T) system was installed to provide hydraulic containment of the high concentration area of the dissolved groundwater plume and groundwater monitoring activities were initiated in December 2002. A Remedial Action Plan (RAP) was developed in July 2003, concurrent with the groundwater monitoring activities and IP&T system operation. The RAP outlined a proposed remedy for the VOC-impacted area of the Site, including aggressive source removal, expansion of the existing IP&T system, construction of an infiltration gallery for effluent re-injection, and monitored natural attenuation for the downgradient FR07661i 3 7/6/2014 Rrownfields Site Assessment June 2014 South Gifford Road Landfill, Vero Reach,Florida dissolved plume. The boundary of the excavation footprint for the aggressive source removal, recovery wells and infiltration gallery injection wells associated with the IP&T system, and VOC groundwater monitoring network are shown on Figure 2. A refined source assessment was conducted in May 2003. Soil cores were screened using a photoionization detector (PID) to evaluate total VOC concentrations in soil. PID responses were generally elevated within the organic interval identified at approximately 12 to 13 ft BLS, which ranged in thickness from about 4.5 to 6 ft thick (zone of maximum PID response typically encountered within a 1.5 to 2.0 ft thick interval). High VOC field screening results in soil were observed in the organic-rich layer. Based on the results of the refined source assessment, source removal activities were conducted from May through October 2004, and resulted in the removal of approximately 800 to 1,200 pounds (lbs) of trichloroethene (TCE) from the source area via the excavation, and an additional 80 lbs of TCE, 73 lbs of cis-l,2-dichloroethene (cis-1,2-DCE), and 2 lbs of vinyl chloride via the dewatering system. Enhanced bioremediation injection activities were completed in 2008 and 2012 in the excavation footprint, along the eastern landfill property boundary, and east of the landfill property in conjunction with long-term groundwater monitoring to monitor the progress of ongoing biodegradation and natural attenuation at the Site. The current remedial strategy for the Site is a passive solution, which relies on the in situ biological degradation of VOCs. While the time to ultimately achieve cleanup standards using this approach is extended, the approach avoids the considerable costs associated with a more aggressive treatment system with mechanical components (such as plume-wide air sparging or pump and treat). Additionally, as part of separate work performed for IRC, in December 2008, test pits were excavated at the Site to assess the nature and extent of landfill material in the subsurface for purposes of potential redevelopment as a Senior Resource Center. Test pits were excavated at 17 locations (TP-01 through TP-17) in the northeast portion of the IRC-owned parcel at the former Humane Society building site (formerly located along 41s` Street east of GR-MW30 and west of GR-MW09) and the Road and Bridge laydown yard. Test pit locations are shown on Figure 2. 2.4 Site-Specific LitholoQv The subsurface lithology at the Site has been characterized as part of assessment activities at the Site. The shallow sediments at the Site consist of 10 to 18 ft of fill where waste is present, along with organic rich native sands in unfilled areas. The underlying soil material consists of loose to medium dense sand with varying amounts of silt, to depths of approximately 30 to 40 ft BLS. Below this zone, fragmented shells intermixed with phosphatic sand, can be found to depths of approximately 65 to 75 ft BLS. The shell and sand layers are underlain by a zone consisting of FR0766H 4 71812014 Brownfields Site Assessment June 2014 South Gifford Road LamfflIL Vero Beach,Florida thin layers of clay, sand and clay, and clayey sand, which comprise a semi-confining zone overlying the Tamiami Formation. 2.5 Aquifer Properties and Groundwater Flow Geosyntec performed aquifer testing in March 2001 to evaluate the hydraulic properties of the shallow unconsolidated sands within the surficial aquifer system (20 to 55 It BLS). Aquifer testing activities were summarized in the June 2001 report titled: "Interim Pump and Treat System Supporting Activities, Construction, and Start-Up Report". The aquifer testing activities which included groundwater pumping from recovery well RW-1, yielded the following results: (i) mean hydraulic conductivity (K) was estimated to be 142 ft/day; (ii) mean transmissivity was estimated to be 6,400 ft squared (ft2)/day; and(iii)mean storativity was estimated to be 0.001. Based on depth to water measurements collected sitewide as part of the semi-annual groundwater monitoring activities ongoing at the Site since 2002, groundwater flow is generally toward the southeast in the vicinity of the Site. FR076611 5 7!8/2014 Brownfields Site Assessment June 2014 South Gifford Road Landfill, Vero Beach,Florida 3. ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES 3.1 Overview Our understanding of conditions and potential exposure pathways that may impact health and safety of the community guided development of the assessment activities described herein. These exposure pathways included: • Surface soils—it is important to evaluate the thickness of the landfill cover soils to ensure sufficient cover to prevent direct exposure to the waste. It is also important to evaluate the chemical compositions of the soil cover to verify that the cover soils are"clean". • Landfill Gas — waste materials decompose as they age and typically generate methane. Methane can be an explosion hazard under certain conditions. For an explosive condition to exist, landfill gas must accumulate in a confined space. If buildings or other potential confined spaces are a part of the development plan, a properly designed and constructed control system should be in place to minimize potential hazards. • Groundwater — groundwater is being investigated, remediated, and monitored separate from this assessment under the purview and with oversight from the FDEP. Much of the groundwater has been cleaned up; however, there are residual levels of certain contaminants above cleanup target levels. Limiting groundwater use until it is cleaned up to levels that allow unrestricted use will minimize potential exposure to contamination in the groundwater. The sampling strategy was designed to screen for potential constituents of concern (CDCs) typical of sites with similar historical uses, including: semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs); Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) metals; VOCs; organochlorinated pesticides (OCPs); organophosphorous pesticides (OPP); and herbicides. The assessment area and sampling locations completed as part of the activities described herein are shown on Figure 4. Soil and soil gas samples were collected pursuant to the EPA Region 4-approved Site- Specific Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). Field forms are included in Appendix A. 3.2 Soil Sampling The soil sampling methodology was designed to characterize surface soils from the ground surface to 2 ft BLS. Soil samples were collected on an approximate 225 ft-spaced grid (between points) from 29 locations using a decontaminated hand auger (locations provided on Figure 4). Prior to mobilizing, Sunshine State One Call of Florida, Inc. was notified of the proposed subsurface activities to locate utilities in the vicinity of proposed soil boring locations. Two soil samples were collected at each soil boring location at depth intervals of 0 to 0.5 and 0.5 to 2 ft FR0766H 6 7/8/2014 Brownfeelds Site Assessment June 2014 South Gifford Road Landfill, Vero Beach,Florida BLS. Soils were lithologically logged and visual observations were noted in field logs. Four proposed sample locations were not sampled: (i) two locations were not sampled because waste was encountered within the proposed sample interval (i.e., shallower than 2 ft BLS); and (ii) two locations were not sampled because they were inaccessible. Soil samples were collected in general accordance with FDEP Standard Operating Procedures (SOPS). A global positioning system (GPS) unit with sub-meter accuracy was used to navigate to each proposed soil boring location prior to sampling activities. Soil samples were couriered to Accutest Southeast Laboratory (Accutest) in Orlando, Florida under chain of custody protocol for laboratory analysis of RCRA metals by USEPA Method 6010 and SVOCs by USEPA Method 8270 and Method 8270 select ion monitoring (SIM). A subset of the soil samples (18 locations) were also analyzed for VOCs by USEPA Method 8260, OCPs by USEPA Method 8081, OPPs by USEPA Method 8141, and chlorinated herbicides by USEPA Method 8151. 3.3 Landfill Cover Evaluation An evaluation of the existing landfill cover was conducted on 4 April 2014. A mini-excavator operated by IRC personnel was used to excavate test pits to approximately 4 ft BLS to evaluate cover thickness at ten locations (TP-101 through TP-I 10 shown on Figure 4) in the assessment area. Observations recorded from each soil boring location completed as part of the activities described in Section 3.2 and test pits completed in 2008 were used to select the test pit locations for TP-101 through TP-110. Waste material encountered was segregated from cover soil by the IRC mini-excavator operator. Excavated materials were temporarily staged on plastic sheeting to prevent contact of the waste materials with undisturbed cover. The cover thickness and presence or absence of waste to 4 ft BLS was documented in field notes and photographs at each test pit location. Test pits were backfilled by the IRC mini-excavator operator using excavated material, placing cover material on top of the waste. A GPS unit with sub-meter accuracy was used to navigate to each test pit location prior to excavation. 3.4 Soil Gas Probe Installation and Samnlina Eight temporary soil gas probes (LFGO1 through LFG08) were installed in the assessment area (Figure 4) on 10 April 2014, to evaluate the composition of soil gas. Soil gas probes were constructed of 3/4-inch diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and 0.010-inch slotted screen. Probes were screened from 1 ft BLS to the water table, and screen intervals ranged from three to five ft. A 20/30 sand filter pack was placed in the annular space from the base of the screen to approximately six inches BLS. Hydrated bentonite was placed in the annular space above the sand filter pack flush with the ground surface. Probes were installed using a decontaminated hand auger. Probe locations were selected based on observations recorded from soil boring FR076611 7 7/8/2014 Brownfields Site Assessment June 2014 South Gifford Road Landfill, Vero Beach,Florida locations in 2014, the excavation footprint from the aggressive source removal, historical Site knowledge, and test pits excavations completed in 2008 and 2014. The probes were completed at the surface as a stickup with an expansion cap equipped with a quick-connect sampling port at the top of the well. Tubing was affixed to the quick-connect port and subsurface soil gas was field screened for approximately 60 seconds for methane, oxygen, and carbon dioxide concentrations using a GEM2000 LFG analyzer. Since there are historical VOC groundwater impacts at the Site, subsurface soil gas was also field screened for VOCs using a MiniRae 3000 PID. Three air samples were collected using a flow controller and summa canister and submitted to Accutest for analysis of VOCs using USEPA Method TO-15. Each soil gas probe location was surveyed for northing and casting using a GPS unit with sub-meter accuracy. 3.5 Management of Investieation-Derived Waste Soil IDW generated during soil gas probe installation activities was containerized in 55-gallon drums. The drums were labeled and have been temporarily stored on-site pending laboratory analysis and waste characterization. FRO766H 8 7/8/2014 Brownfields Site Assessment June 2014 South Gifford Road Landfill, Vero Beach,Florida 4. ASSESSMENT RESULTS 4.1 Overview During the assessment activities, soil and soil gas samples were analyzed pursuant to the EPA Region 4-approved Site-Specific QAPP. A summary of the assessment results is provided in the section below. Analytical laboratory reports are provided in Appendix B. 4.2 Soil Results The results of the soil analyses were compared to FDEP Residential (R-) and Commercial/Industrial (C/I-) Soil Cleanup Target Levels (SCTLs) per Chapter 62-777 Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Comparison of the data to R-SCTLs was included as a conservative approach as future redevelopment options for the Site continue to be evaluated. Based on the current understanding of potential future Site uses (i.e., greenspace/recreational, municipal, and/or commercial/light industrial), C/I-SCTLs, or alternative cleanup levels based on proposed site use (e.g., recreational)will likely be more applicable than R-SCTLs. A summary of soil results is tabulated in Table 1 and presented on Figure 5. A summary of constituents detected in soil is tabulated in Appendix C and Benzo(a)pyrene (BaP) Toxicity Equivalence Quotient(TEQ) calculations are tabulated in Appendix D. Concentrations of arsenic, BaP and/or total BaP TEQ were observed in three soil sampling locations, SB100, SB109, and SBI 11, above default regulatory guidance, as follows: • arsenic was observed in SBIII from 0 to 0.5 ft BLS 3.9 milligrams per kilogram [mg/kgl), above the R-SCTL of 2.1 mg/kg; • BaP was detected in SB 100 from 0 to 0.5 ft BLS (0.6 mg/kg) above the R-SCTL of 0.1 mg/kg; • total calculated BaP TEQs were above the R-SCTL (0.1 mg/kg) in SB109 from 0 to 0.5 ft BLS (0.2 mg/kg) and SBI I1 from 0 to 0.5 ft BLS (0.2 mg/kg); and • total calculated BaP TEQ in SB 100 from 0 to 0.5 ft BLS (0.9 mg/kg) was above the C/I- SCTL of 0.7 mg/kg. Overall, the soil analytical results collected as part of this effort indicate three locations of elevated concentrations above conservative regulatory guidance at SB 100, SB 109, and SB111. Further evaluation of shallow soil impacts at each of these locations is warranted. FR0766H 9 7/812014 Brownfields Site Assessment June 2014 South Gifford Road Landfill, Vero Beach,Florida 4.3 Landfill Cover Evaluation Results Typical soil cover required for redevelopment of a landfill, such as Gifford Road Landfill, is two ft; however, alternative cover systems have been approved by FDEP (e.g., a geonet or geotextile overlain by one ft of cover soil). Approximate landfill cover thickness observed in the assessment area is presented on Figure 6. Data collected during the 2008 test pit excavation activities were used to supplement the data collected from TP-101 through TP-I 10. Two It of landfill cover was observed at all but three test pit locations (TP-101, TP-102, and TP-103). In addition, less than two ft of landfill cover was observed at soil boring locations between TP-106 and TP-107 and near TP-102. Selected photographs from the cover thickness evaluation fieldwork are included in Appendix E. Improvements to the existing cap can easily be completed during grading operations when construction is underway for site development. The design of the final cover system for the landfill will need to be approved by FDEP prior to construction. 4.4 Soil Gas Results Field screening results from the soil gas probes are presented on Figure 7. The results indicated that methane, which is found in LFG, is present in soil gas in the subsurface within the assessment area. LFG is created when organic materials decompose under anaerobic conditions. LFG is typically composed of methane (50 to 55%), carbon dioxide (45 to 50%), and trace amounts of other gases (e.g., oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen sulfide). Field screening results were found to generally be within the typical ranges for landfills, with observed carbon dioxide concentrations being slightly less and methane being slightly higher. In addition to waste decomposition, naturally- occurring organic material in the subsurface and natural attenuation of VOCs present in groundwater at the Site (through ongoing bioremediation activities) may also contribute to methane soil gas concentrations. PID measurements ranged from non-detect in LFG06 to 18.5 parts per million (ppm) in LFG04. Soil gas samples were collected from LFGO1, LFG04, and LFG06 on I1 April 2014. The soil gas results are tabulated in Table 2. Soil gas results were compared to Default Concentrations for LFG Constituents found in Table 2.4-1 of the 1998 USEPA AP 42, Fifth Edition, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources. Of the 67 constituents analyzed, 33 were detected in one or more soil gas probes. None were above the USEPA default concentrations, suggesting that the soil gas concentrations measured as part of this effort are indicative of conditions at typical closed/former landfills. There are currently no state regulatory drivers in Florida to evaluate the chemical composition of soil gas; however, any construction projects should consider potential impacts from combustible gas. FR076611 10 7/8/2014 Brownfields Site Assessment June 1014 South Gifford Road Landfill, Vero Beach,Florida Any structures located on the landfill must be designed with proper ventilation and with explosion proof electrical wiring. Enclosed ground level and underground structures should be avoided unless designed with adequate protection against landfill gas intrusion and accumulation. 4.5 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Field activities, including sample collection, were performed in general compliance with the USEPA-approved QAPP, the most current version of the Florida QA Rule, Chapter 62-160, F.A.C., and the associated FDEP SOPS. Accutest is certified by the Florida Department of Health (FDOH) Bureau of Laboratories under the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference (NELAC) Certification Number E83510. Fixed-based laboratory samples (soil and soil gas) were analyzed within the established hold times for each analyte. No significant QA/QC issues were noted in Accutest laboratory reports and the results of the QA/QC review show that the data set is of adequate quality for its intended purpose with no limitations to its use. FR0766H ll 7/8/2014 Brownfields Site Assessment June 2014 South(mord Road Landfill, Vero Beach,Florida 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following conclusions are made based on the assessment activities completed at the Gifford Road Landfill during March and April 2014: • Concentrations of arsenic, BaP and/or total Bal? TEQ were observed in soil samples collected from soil sampling locations SB 100, SB 109, and SBII I from 0 to 2 ft BLS, with the highest concentrations observed from 0 to 0.5 ft BLS. • Soil cover over the landfilled waste was observed to be less than 2 ft thick at test pit locations TP-101, TP-102, TP-103, and at the soil boring locations between TP-106 and TP-107 and near TP-102. In all other locations, the cover soil thickness was greater than two ft. • Field screening results indicate the composition of soil gas in the assessment area of the Site is typical of closed/former landfill conditions. This initial assessment effort focused on the northern 30 acres of the Gifford Road Landfill owned by IRC, located adjacent to 41st Street. Overall, the data collected as part of this initial assessment effort described herein indicates that the conditions within the assessment area of the Site are typical of conditions expected at a closed/former landfill, such as the South Gifford Road Landfill. None of the site conditions identified as part of this initial assessment effort preclude redevelopment of the landfill; however, the data will be useful to identify areas where additional assessment and improvements need to be considered prior to and during the planning of redevelopment activities, as described further in the recommendations below. The following recommendations are made for the assessment area investigated during this study completed at the Site during March and April 2014: • Conduct additional assessment of surface soils where arsenic, BaP, and/or total BAP TEQ were observed above default regulatory guidance. • Once redevelopment plans have been furthered and grading plans developed, conduct additional assessment to further delineate areas with less than 2 ft of cover soils. The landfill cover must be constructed and maintained to prevent human contact with the underlying waste materials. As discussed earlier, the cover system required by FDEP usually consists of two ft of soils graded to prevent ponding; however, alternative cover system have been approved (e.g., one ft of soil cover underlain by a geotextile or geogrid FR0766H 12 7/8/2014 Brownfields Site Assessment June 2014 South Gifford Road Landfill, Vero Beach,Florida or alternatively, a low-permeability surface cap such as asphalt for a parking lot or other use). • In areas of focused redevelopment, conduct a combustible gas survey to assist in design of landfill gas mitigation measures. FRO766H 13 7/8/2014 Brownfields Site Assessment June 2014 South Gifford Road Landfill, Vero Beach,Florida 6. REFERENCES Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Guidance for Disturbance and Use of Old Closed Landfills or Waste Disposal Areas in Florida, Version 2.1 (Final). February 2011. Geosyntec Consultants, Interim Pump and Treat System Supporting Activities, Construction, and Start-Up Report. June 2001. Geosyntec Consultants,South Gifford Road Landfill Remedial Action Plan. July 2003. Geosyntec Consultants, December 2013 Semi-Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report for the Plume Monitoring Network, South Gifford Road Landfill. January 2014. Geosyntec Consultants, Site-Specific Quality Assurance Project Plan, Addendum 8A for Brownfields Site Assessment in Vero Beach, Florida, Revision 0. January 2014. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. AP 42, Fifth Edition, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources, Section 2.4 Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. November 1998. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans. EPA QA/R-5. EPA 240-B-01-003. Reissued May 2006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4, Brownfields Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs) Interim Guidance Document Generic and Site-Specific QAPPs for Brownfields Site Assessments and/or Cleanups. January 2009. FR0766H 14 7/8/2014 TABLES Table I Summary of Soil Exceedances South Gifford Road Landfill,Indian River County,Florida Sam le ID Sample Interval(ft BLS) Constituent Result R-SCTL C/I-SCTL SB-111 0-0.5 Arsenic 3.9 2.1 12 SB too 0-0.5 Benzo(a)pyrene 636 100 700 Total BaP TEQ 100 700 SB-109 0-0.5 Total Bal'TEQ 208 100 700 SB-111 0-0.5 Benzo(a)pyrene 1121 100 700 Total BaP TEQ 155 100 700 SB-111 0.5-2 Total BaP TEQ 1 110 100 700 Notes: I. It BLS indicates feet below land surface. 2. R-SCTL indicates Residential Soil Cleanup Target(SCTL)Level defined in Chapter 62-777,Florida Administrative Code(F.A.C.). 3. CommerciaFlndustrial(CII)SCTL defined in Chapter 62-777,F.A.C. 4. mg/kg indicates milligrams per kilogram. S. pgtkg indicates micrograms per kilogram. 6. PAH indicates polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon. 7. 8270D indicates semi-volatile organic compound(SVOC)analysis by EPA Method 8270D. 8. SIM indicates selective ion monitoring mode for PAH. 9. BaP TEQ indicates Benzo(a)pyrene Toxicity Equivalent Quotients for BaP using the approach described in the February 2005 'Final Technical Report.Development of Cleanup Target Levels(CTLs)for Chapter 62-777,F.AC.' 10. Bold,shaded values indicate a concentration above the C/1-SCTL. 11. 1 indicates the result is greater than the laboratory method detection limit and less than the practical quantitation limit. Table l FR0766H l of I May 2014 Table 2 Summary of Soil Gas Detections South Gifford Road Landfill,Indian River County,Florida Default Concentrations Sample►D Analyte for LNG Constituents I.FG-Ol LFG-04 LFG-06 1,2,4-Ttimethylbenzene NA 16.2 11.5 3.0 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene NA 3.7 2.7 1.0 2,2,4-Trimeth I entane NA 3.1 2.5 28.7 4-Bromofluorobenzene NA 116 77 87 4-Eth ltoluene NA 5.1 7.2 0.751 Acetone 7 010 44.4 35.5 155 Benzene NA 0.731 1.21 11.3 Carbon disulfide 580 24.1 10.1 3.9 Chlorobenzene 250 26.5 0.2 U 0.1 U Chloroform 30 0.074 U 0.15 U 0.721 cis-l2-Dichlomethene NA 0.11U 0.22U 3.3 Cyclohexane NA 22.9 9.7 5.3 Dichlorodifluoromethane 15,700 5.8 235 0.062 U Ethanol 27,200 8.6 24.1 300 Ethyl Acetate NA 11.3 0.46 U 023 U Eth (benzene 4 610 27.4 72.8 66.6 Freon 114 NA 22.5 556 0.085 U He lane NA 7.7 9.7 241 Hexane 6,570 6.6 29.8 53.3 Isopropyl Alcohol NA 1.6 2.6 5.8 Methyl ethyl ketone 7,090 4.1 1.8 28.0 Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 1,870 0.12 U 0.23 U 38.9 Methylene chloride NA 1.7 3.0 2.1 Propylene NA 24.9 0.25 U 26.7 Styrene NA 8.8 9.4 0.079 U Tertiary Butyl Alcohol NA 3.2 2.1 0.18 U Tetrachlorcethene 3 730 26.8 30.4 0.22 Tetralrdrofuran NA 1.2 0.36 U 0.18 U Toluene NA 27.9 28.7 14.9 trans-1 2-Dichloroethene 2,940 0.059 U 0.12 U 2.8 Trichloroethene 2,820 1.8 8.5 1.5 Trichlorofluoromethane NA 0.055 U 3.5 0.055 U Vinyl chloride 7,340 0.068 U 0.14 U 9.3 xylenes total 12,100 44.1 37.9 21.1 Notes: 1.Default Concentrations for landfill gas(LEG)constituents default Concentrations for LEG Constituents found in Table 2.4-1 of the 1998 USEPA AP 42,Fifth Edition,Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors,Volume I:Stationary Point and Area Sources. 2. Results are in parts per billion by volume(ppbv) 3. U indicates the constituent is less than the laboratory method detection limit(MDL). 4. 1 indicates the result is greater than the laboratory MDL and less than the practical quantitation limit. 5. 1 indicates surrogate recovery was outside of the limit. 6. NA indicates not applicable. Table 2 FR0766H 1 of 1 May 2014 FIGURES N ---------- ---------- X 23 R2 L P FS, W. -wl op n a Y -j" J IS-4 32 "—"3 34 .4 Gait Goatee /z/ ;4V T L 11hi P711 0 2,D00 1,000 0 2,000 Feet VERO BEACH,FLA. ct 27080-F4-TF-024 1949 99 PHOTO REVISED 1983 DMA 4 Site Vicinity Topographic Map Legend South Gifford Road Landfill Approximate Site Location Approximate Landfill Prop"Boundary Geosyntec"' Figure Note: consultants Source of USGS Vero Beach,FL Quadrangle:FDEP Land Boundary information System Website. Pensacola,FL May 2014 N r.. Legend wz .ram`tai�wrK,..eir aee..wrr. ® Recovery Well location ® Biobarrier and Infiltration Gall" Injection Welk 0 Monitoring Weft Cluster Location 0 Test Pit Location Completed in 2008 Q Boundary of Excavation Foogrim(2004) Sita Assessment Are(30 Acres) k• Apprwtlmate Landfill Property,Boundary P2rce4s owned by Indian River County Parcels owned by the City of Vero Beach _ Runway Protection Zone odea: t.�ur»dzotz rwrret Foam oepwmm�d Treiagoimyor.Sereyfnt wq r4eePee prxe. Asaeaament Are Soon Gifford Road LaM6ll GeQSmFeO' FlGURE NO. 2 consultants PROJECTNO. FR0766 N ram Legend APPMANnate Land®Property Boundary Approximate Parcel Boundary •Site Assessment Area(30 Aries) One-Mile Radius LDP(Low Density Residential) - MDR(Medium Density Residential) - HDR(High Denary Residential) — CGC(Community/General Commemial) - Ll(Light Industrial) RPI(ResidentiaWrofessionaFlnshtutionel) ROS(Recreation and Open Space) - Water - RC(Regional Commercial) noes: t.Pam eeo twee euorraeuon were mint Item me clMer rA+ea Pitpaly Apnreaers q&e aritl GIS bpd maul. z�azotz Aaiel:Rouda oepvmaemarraapmanon. Suwylne entl McOaM once. Parcel(Surmunding land Use South Word Road Landfill Geosyntec° FM''URE NO. 3 consultants PROIECTNO. FROM N >. rr 1 r. Legend Test Pd Location gf R Soil Boring Location (Samples collected from 0 to 2 It BLS) f Not Sampled Due m Limited Access 0 Sol Boring Location Ezbibmng Waste (no sample collected) Soil Gas Probe Location Boundary of Excavation Fwtpnm(2004) Site Assessment Area(30 Acres) Approximate Lamm Property anood ry Parcels owned by Indian River County i Y. LJ Percale owned by the Cay of Vem Beach Soil Sampling Grid �CTCr.Ex.liuyµp.MayYIPx.GV NYr�uwcunnx4 j Assessment Area Semple Locations South Gilford Road LarMlill Geosyntec° FN'URE NO. 4 it ri CORSLlIYBRYS PRCWECT NO. FR0786 N t a�� v LsgeM fJ Not Sampled Due Po Limiletl Access • Soil Boring Location blhibihig Wade (no sample colWCPod) • $oil Boring LocaCon' '�.. i x (Sample mllecled hom D Po 0.5 and 0.5 to 2.0 h BLS) • Soil Boring Loraaon� � snp � ( _- (Sample mllecled from 0 ro 0.5 end as pn+ 0.5 Po 2.0 O BLS) ou ® Boundary of Excavation Foolprim(2064) �`^ Sde Assessment Area l30 Anes) �f 4" imm..W..f Appmxinale Landfi PmpMY Bauntlary rvr A a+. {+ Pamels awned f>y IrMian River County oes sv - m� uz� ' �] Pamels owned oY the City of Vem Beach Ix Soe Sampling Gritl tr ou — tarw comrnwrY par MIyY apneprviplaCrl YYu+rMl9alL Bap ' PLS � ABBric f�9'pal 2t t2 epP lln'pal rm tm eeP TEO iWre1 tW ioo �MaMee wif.Fa�wvMa ogrc mwr11S'KK&rd amee curwr 'WrymrrblpCppl^exp LMe1pw✓m SNICe TXR�'U<wWYnM��rN+W I'N'y:. PpvxHH W C f�ICC W.ap�rdmNnu IOFNI. Y BPJ°Ira Yiwr'LAX W'a+IwYiy EW Oxl O VILt rem f V tti acw++.wa nawn..�rcrn lm..nwm lrr iw+b��wua^^+ aca..w*w�p. 46RI�i�s REP SJ fy�pi�px Iwp itdSie\elr✓✓x Yawb. e N aii1'�ia.�B.e.TrEv�^. 84wVLrtlolnmWmmamo�n Sve Est�.fuerP.�uM.�61N.16S.W. pfomRrV b'9NWC6 KCI.PS.vtl MGb W'mewy. Summary of Exceedances in Soil South Glgartl Road Landfill OSyRCPC� F GORE NO. 5 �— xrw C0RSLIIt2R25 PROJECT NO. FRDy N m r Legend TOF Cover thicinten lase than 2 fl BLS fit ,c t �+ �. • � twt 4 i Cover thickness batvreen 2 h and 4 k BLS Cover thickness greater than 4 k BLS -- Site Assessment Ama(30 Acres) C Boundary of Excavation Footprint(2061) ApproArneia Landrd Propedy Boundary Parcels owned by Indian River County Parcels avmed by the City of Vem Beach ° Soil Sampling Grid Test Pk Location Compkfled in 2008 Test Pit Location Completed in 2014 Soil Boning Location Eahuiling Warta • �F4. Ino sample collected) wa�sx�.�mo••..�a r.ra.na.asuY can...r- r Appmdmete Cover Thickness Scull Gifford Road Landrill Geosyntec° FIGURE NO. 6 COnsudtants PROJECT NL=7 N LPG0.r Ha ) fit0 LPCD"I l.fial[ PID R+ C14 M) 01 CW l% 51).2 grw xn9 cu tv.> li¢ mom 1.6 LFcw r em s] Pan oo c w w3 11 �h r=) Soil Gas Probe Location o.rwl Ia¢ IS4V1 � . Site Assessment Area(30 Acres) ca lYe) 2s CW pti ms Pro '° o,rya oa Q Boundary W Expvation Footprint(2004) ca rvsl 1�° Approximate Lantlfill Progeny Bountlary M PID LI Parcels ovmed by Indian River County 3.FCa3 _ cu,rv1 0¢ nFoon _1 Parcels ovmetl by the City of Vero Beach y EMM CIL(Yl IB —2 c41m a¢ �" o,1v.1 Ixs ,.e Sofl Sampling Gntl PID 18" 1Y..1 111tr��+++�� wap+Meemuc�wn e.l.un.. el 3;�I ) uses�u�er�wm �cw+ro[xa.rube usmwar. I av x m mom 30 co.l_wl 191 Pro 1.3 Summary of Field Screening Results in Soil Gas Probes SouN Gifford Roetl Landfill eosylltec° FIGURE NO. � COIISUICBIlTS PROJECT NO. FR0�86 x®