'• - i IS"" t •)

iL •

First Flve-\ ejir Review Repoit for

BrowiFs Diuiip Superfuiul Aiternsitive Approach Site 4330 Pejiive Sti-eet

JsicksomiUe Duvsil Coiuity, Florldsi

List of Acronyms 3

Executive Sujiinmiy 5

I.0 Introduction 8

2.0 Site C'limnology 9

3.0 Bnckground 9

3.1 PHYSII.'AL CHARAI.TERISTII.'S 9 3.2 LAND AND RESI.'IJRI.'E USE 10 3.3 HISTI.'RY i.'F Ci.'NTAMINATIi.'N 13 3.4 INITIAL RESPIYNSE 13 3.5 BASIS FIYR TAKING .AI TLYN 14

4.0 Reinedhil .Actions 14

4.1 REMEDY SELEI.TIIYN 14 4.2 REMEDY iMPLEMENTAihYN 16 4.3 OPERAIhYN AND M AINTENANi.'E (0

Appendix A: List of Documents Reviewed \-l

Appendix B: Press Notice B-1

Appendix C: Intenlew Forms C'-l Appendix D: City of JncksonvUle Ordmmices D-1

Appendix E: C'OJ Annuni Notlflcntlon Letters E-1

Appendix F: InstltutlonnI Controls Implemented nt the Site F-1

Appendix G: Site Inspection Checklist G-1

Appendix H: Photogniphs from Site Inspection \'lslt H-1

Appendix I: Toxicity Evniuntlon of Clemiup Gonis I-l

Tnbles Table 1: Clu'onology of Site E\ ents 9 Table 2: Human Health Soil COC RGs 16 Tabled: Suniniar\ of Remedy Implementation Progress 17 Table 4: Summary of Ground water Standards 23 Table 5: Institutional Controls (ICs) Summary Table 25 Table 6: Cadmium Concentrations in Well BDMW()()5 28 Table 1-1 Table 1-2 Table 1-3

Fijsures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Fieure 4

Comparison of Soil RGs to Cuirent Screening Le\ els 1-1 Risk E\aluation ofGround waterCleanup Le\els 1-2 Comparison of Human Health-based and Ecological-based Soil Cleanup Le\ els 1-3

Site Location Map 11 Detailed Map of the Fonner Brown's Dump .\rea 12 Brown's Dump Remediation Parcel Status Map as of July 2014 18 Monitoring Wells Located at the Former Brown's Dump .\rea 27

Figure F-1: Cuirent status of parcels ret|uiring institutional controls F-3

List of Acronyms

A(.)C Adniinistrati\e Order on Consent ARAR Applicable or Rele\ant and Appropriate Ret|uirenient BHHRA Baseline Hunian Health Risk Assessment CAR Contamination Assessment Repoil CD Consent Decree CERCLA Compreliensi\e En\ironmental Response. Compensation and Liability Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CIC Community hn oh ement Coordinator COC Contaminant of Concern CO.l City of Jacksom ille cPAHs Carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons EPA United States En\ iroiuiiental Protection Agency ERA Ecological Risk Assessment ESI Expanded Site hnestigation EAC Florida Administrati\e Code EDEP Florida Depailment of En\ironmental Protection FDOH Florida DepaiUnent of Health FS Feasibility Study F^"R Fi\e-^"ear Re\ie\\ GCTL Ground water Cleanup Target Le\els GIS Geographic Information System IC Institutional Control mg kg Milligrams per Kilogram mg L Milligrams per Liter MCL Maximum Contaminant Le\ el NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan NPL National Priorities List O&M Operation and Maintenance Of Operable Unit PAH Polynuclear .\romatic Hydrocarbons PCB Polychloriiiated Biphenyls PNG Project New Ground PRP Potentially Responsible Party QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan RA Remedial Action RAP Remedial Action Plan RAO Remedial Action Objecti\e RBCA Risk-based CoiTecti\e Action RD Remedial Design RG Remedial Goal RI Remedial In\ estigation ROD Record of Decision RPM Remedial Project Manager RSL Regional Screening Le\el SAP Sampling and Analysis Plan SAA Superfund Alteniati\ e Approach

SCTL Soil Cleanup Target Le\ el TBC To-Be-Considered TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure 2.3.7.S-TCDD 2.3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dio\in I'SACE United States .\niiy Coips of Engineers XRF X-rav tluorescence

Executi\ e Summarx

Tlie 25()-acre Brown's Dump Superfund Alteniati\e Approach (SAA) site (the Site) is located in a residential and industrial area noilhwest of the City of Jacksom ille. Du\ al County. Florida. From the late 194()s until the mid-195()s. the City of Jacksomille (CO.I) operated a landtlll to deposit ash from the City's municipal incinerators. Tlie deposited ash contaminated the soil with metals, primarily lead and arsenic, and se\eral organic contaminants, such as dioxin. and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (P.AHs). Contaminants of concern (C(.)Cs) were not identiHed in surface water, sediment or ground water. The United States Fin ironmental Protection .Agency designated the Site as a single operable unit (OU) to address on-site soils and olT-site soil contamination. Selected remedies included e\ca\ ating and disposing of the contaminated soil olTsite. replacing the e\ca\ ated areas w ith clean soil, applying soil and gra\ el co\ers where needed to eliminate or significantly reduce potential human exposure, temporaiy relocation of residents, stabilizing Moncrief Creek banks and installing erosion controls, ground water monitoring, and institutional controls. Tlie remediation is ongoing and is not expected to be completed for se\ eral years.

EP.A did not list the Site on the Superfund program's National Priorities List (NPL). but considers it an NPL-caliber site. Pursuant to the 1999 .Administrati\e Order on Consent (.AOC) the ret|uired imestigation and cleanup acti\ities at the Site follows the National Contingency Plan (NCP). EP.A is the lead agency for de\ eloping and implementing the remedy for the potentially responsible paily (PRP)-tnianced cleanup at the Site. The Florida Depailment of En\ ironmental Protection (EDEP) is the suppoil agency representing the State of Florida.

Tlie remedy is expected to be protecti\ e of human health and the em ironment upon completion. In the interim, remedial acti\ ities completed to date ha\e adet|uately addressed all exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks.

Fi>e-Year Re> ie>v Suniniar\ Form

SITE IDENTIFICATION

Site Name: Brown's Dump

EPA ID: FLD980847016

Region: 4 State: FL City/County: Duval County

NFL Status: Non-NPL

Multiple CDs? No

Has the site achieved construction completion? No

Lead agency: EPA

Author name: Claire Marcussen (Reviewed by EPA)

Author affiliation: Skeo Solutions

Review period: 7/2014- 1/2015

Date of site inspection: July 29, 2014

Type of review: Statutory

Review number: 1

Triggering action date: January 25, 2010

Due date (five years after triggering action date): January 25, 2015

Five-Year Review Summary Form (continued)

Issues/Recommendations

OU(s) without Issues/Recommendations Identified in the Five-Year Review:

0U1-This five-year review did not identify any issues/recommendations at the Site.

Sitewide Protectiveness Statement

Protectiveness Determination: Will be Protective

Addendum Due Date (if applicable):

Protectiveness Statement: The remedy is expected to be protective of human health and the environment upon completion. In the interim, remedial activities completed to date have adequately addressed all exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks.

Environmental Indicators - Current human exposures at the Site are under control. - Current ground water migration is under control.

Are Necessary Institutional Controls in Place? • All ^ Some • None The remedy is ongoing. The COJ plans to implement institutional controls to prevent exposure at parcels that have not yet been remediated or have been remediated with contamination left in place above levels that permit unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. The anticipated institutional controls include a combination of proprietary controls, government controls, enforcement and permit tools, and informational tools.

Has EPA Designated the Site as Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use?

Has the Site Been Put into Reuse?

13 Yes • No The Site is in continued residential and commercial use.

First Fi\e-Year Re\ ie^ Report for

Brown's Dump Superfund Alternati\e Approach Site

1.0 Introduction

Tlie puipose ofa fi\e-yearre\iew (F^'R) is to e\aluate the iniplenientation and perfoniiance ofa remedy in orderto deteniiine if the remedy will continue to be protecti\e oflumian health and the emironment. F^'R reports document F^'R methods, tnidings and conclusions. In addition. F^'R reports identify issues found during the re\ iew. if any. and document recommendations to address them.

Tlie United States Fin ironmental Protection .Agency prepares F^'Rs pursuant to the Comprehensi\e En\ironmental Response. Compensation and Liability .Act (CERCL.A) Section 121 and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). CERCL.A Section 121 states:

If the President selects a remedial action that results in any hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site, the President shall re\ iew such remedial action no less often than each 5 years after the initiation of such remedial action to assure that human health and the en\ ironment are being protected by the remedial action being implemented. In addition, if upon such re\ iew it is the judgment of the President that action is appropriate at such site in accordance with section [104] or [106]. the President shall take or retpiire such action. Tlie President shall report to the Congress a list of facilities for which such re\iew is ret|uired. the results of all such re\iews. and any actions taken as a result of such re\ iews.

EP.A inteipreted this ret|uirement further in the NCP. 40 Code of federal Regulations (CER) Section d00.4d0(f)(4)(ii). which states:

If a remedial action is selected that results in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site abo\ e le\els that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, the lead agency shall re\ iew such action no less often than e\ er\ t1\ e years after initiation of the selected remedial action.

Skeo Solutions, an EP.A Region 4 contractor, conducted the E^'R and prepared this report regarding the remedy implemented at the Brown's Dump Superfund .Alteniati\e .Approach (S.A.A) site (the Site) in Jacksom ille. Du\al County. Florida. EP.A's contractor conducted this E^'R from July 2014 to Januarx 2015. EP.A is the lead agency for de\ eloping and implementing the remedy for the potentially responsible party (PRP)-tnianced cleanup at the Site. Tlie Florida Department of En\ ironmental Protection (EDEP). as the support agency representing the State of Florida, has re\ iewed all supporting documentation and pro\ ided input to EP.A during the E^'R process.

This is the first FYR for the Site. The triggering action for this statutory FYR was the on-site remedial action with a construction start date of January 25,2010. The FYR is required because hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants remain at the Site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. The Site consists of a single operable unit (OU) that adchesses soil contamination.

2.0 Site Chronology

Table 1 lists the dates of important events for the Site.

Table 1; Chronology of Site Events Event Date

Initial site discovery; EPA completed the preliminary assessment September 17, 1985 EPA completed the site inspection June 24, 1986 EPA completed an emergency response and removal branch site investigation

May 22, 1995

PRP completed a corrective action investigation and corrective action report (CAR)

November 9, 1995

PRP conducted interim remedial action at the school properly December 1995 PRP completed a CAR addendum January 1996 PRP completed a second CAR addendum April 1996 PRP completed a human health risk assessment July 9, 1996 EPA initiated an expanded site investigation (ESI) July 8, 1997 EPA completed an ESI March 10, 1998 EPA and PRP signed an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) and PRP initiated a phased remedial investigation (RI) and feasibility study (FS)

September 1, 1999

PRP completed the baseline human health risk assessment (BHHRA) October 23, 2002 PRP completed the ecological risk assessment (ERA) November 8, 2002 PRP completed the Rl/FS and EPA issued the Record of Decision (ROD) August 24, 2006 PRP initiated the remedial design (RD) December 21, 2007 EPA and PRP entered into a consent decree (CD) July 17, 2008 PRP completed the RD and initiated the remedial action (RA) September 29, 2009 PRP began RA to address Part 1 site parcels January 25, 2010 PRP completed RA to address Part 1 site parcels November 5, 2010 PRP began RA to address Part 2 site parcels June 25, 2011 PRP completed RA to address Part 2 site parcels February 17, 2012 PRP began ground water monitoring October 2012 PRP began RA to address Part 3 site parcels April 1, 2013 PRP completed RA to address Part 3 site parcels November 22, 2013

3.0 Background

3.1 Physical Characteristics

The Site is located north of West 33rd Street, west of Pearce Street, and south and east of Moncrief Creek in the northwest portion of the City of Jacksonville (COJ) in Duval County, Florida (Figure 1). The Site boundaries are delineated by the ash contamination

9

resulting from ash contaminated soils being used as till material in areas suiTounding the foniierdump site. The Site encompasses about 250 acres and includes the foniier Mar\ McLeod Bethune Elementar\ School (cuiTently used as a church) and surrounding residential areas east, south, west and noilh of the school propeily (Figure 1). Tlie foniier dump poilion of the Site consists ofa 14-acre parcel where CO.I deposited ash from municipal incinerators (Figure 2). Noilheast of the foniierdump area is a 2-acre area occupied by a Jacksomille Electric .Authority electrical substation which is included as pail of the Site.

Tlie Site topography is mostly Hat. but slopes slightly toward the banks of Moncrief Creek. The creek banks \ ai'\ from nearly Hat to nearly \eilical. Tlie predominant soil type at the Site is silty sand underlain by silty. clayey sand. Surface drainage and ground water beneath the Site How toward Moncrief Creek in a noilh-noilhwesterly direction. Tlie ground water table is 5 to 15 feet below ground surface. Surface drainage Hows along streets in stoniiwater collection systems and in swales that discharge into Moncrief Creek, which Hows noilheastward into the Trout Ri\er. located about 2.5 miles noilheast of the Site, and then e\ entually into the St. Johns Ri\ er.

3.2 Land and Resource Use

From the 194()s until 1953. the COJ used the Site as a landfill to deposit ash from its municipal incinerators. .After closure of the landHII in 1953. the Du\ al County School Board obtained the property in 1955 for construction of the Mary McLeod Bethune Flenientar\ School. .At about the same time, residential de\elopnient began on the land suiTOunding the original landHII. In 2001. the COJ's local oHIcials decided to close the school for economic reasons. Tlie Du\ al County School Board sold the school property to Mt. Sinai Holiness Church, on December 7. 2012. Remediation of the soils on the church property w as completed during October 2013 and December 2013 after which the church began reno\ ating the foniier school buildings to ser\e as a community church and community center. The southern half of the church property parcel is secured with an 8-foot chain-link fence to pre\ent exposure to areas north of the church property that ha\e not yet been remediated.

Tlie COJ's municipal system supplies water to the Site and suiTounding area. .According to the public health assessment completed in 2000 by the Florida Department of Health (FDOH). people in the site area do not use pri\ate drinking water wells. Tlie Site is mostly disturbed habitat: undisturbed \egetati\e communities are limited to urban-adapted wild species such as small mammals and birds. Tlie areas of the greatest ecological \alue are associated with Moncrief Creek, a Class III surface water body (recreational use and maiiitenance propagation of Hsh). and its \egetated coiridor. where habitat is suitable for a larger \ ariety of mammals and birds in the forested area and \ arious atpiatic plants. Hsh and iin ertebrates in the creek. Based on general habitat ret|uirenients. three listed protected species could exist in the Site's \ icinity primarily near Moncrief Creek: .American alligator, little blue heron and snowv eeret.

Figure 1: Site Location Map

0 375 750 1,500 I Feet

Brown's Dump Superfund Alternative Approach Site Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida

Disclaimer: This map and any boimdary lines within the map are ^proximate and subject to change. The map is not a survey. The map is for informational purposes only regarding EPA's response actions at the Site.

11

Figure 2: Detailed Map of the Former Brown's Dump Area

125 250 500 H Feet

Legend ^3 Former Brown's Dump Area

Brown's Dump Superfund Alternative Approach Site Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida

Disclaimer: This map and any boimdary lines within the map are ^proximate and subject to change. The map is not a survey. The map is for informational purposes only regarding EPA's response actions at the Site.

12

3.3 Histon of C'oiitsiiiunsition

Historical infoniiation does not indicate that the landtlll was tbniially closed to include construction of a cap and a ground water monitoring system. In\estigations indicate that the contaminated soil (and ash) is present within the Site at depths \ar\ing from the surface to greater than 20 feet below land surface. Subset|uent sampling of the ash and ash-contaminated soil indicated that the main contaminant of concern (C(.)C) in soil is lead, but other inorganic C(.)Cs also exist (e.g.. arsenic,dioxins and polynuclear hydrocarbons (P.A Hs).

3.4 Initial Response

In 1985. EP.A conducted a preliminaiy assessment and concluded that the Site should be prioritized as a low priority for possible federal cleanup. In 1994. EP.A re-e\ aluated the site infoniiation and deteniiined that the Site should ha\ e a higher priority for possible federal cleanup. EP.A met with EDEP follow ing completion of a site in\estigation in 1995 and concluded that EDEP would take the prime enforcement role for the Site, with EP.A pro\ iding teclmical assistance.

In 1995. EDEP completed a contamination assessment repoil (C.AR) and concluded that se\eral interim remedial measures were wairanted for the Site. Tlie CO.I conducted interim remedial actions in 1995. including installation offences to restrict access to exposed soils at the school propeily. placement of soil and grass in \ arious locations throughout the Site, continuation of a public education program, and remo\al of school propeily surtlcial soils with lead concentrations abo\e 78.800 milligrams per kilogram (mg kg). In December 1995. the CO.I placed a sandy soil material capable of sustaining a grass co\ er in the area of the foniier school playground and around the basketball couils. In addition, six inches of soil were spread o\erthe area where exposed ash was obser\ed. In .lanuaiy 1996. a peniianent six-foot high chain link fence was also installed to control pedestrian access during and after school hours.

In 1998. EP.A completed an expanded site in\estigation (ESI) to deteniiine ifthe Site ranked on the Superfund Program's National Priorities List (NPL). Tlie ESI deteniiined that fuilher action was recommended for the Site.

In September 1999. the CO.I entered into an .Adniinistrati\e Order on Consent (.AOC) to conduct a three-pail remedial imestigation feasibility study (R1 ES) on the Site. EP.A has not listed the Site on the NPLi rather. EPA has designated the Site as a SAA Site. Part 1 of the R1 focused on the most contaminated areas of the Site. Part 2 focused on the peripheiy of the foniier landtlll. including residential parcel-by-parcel (i.e.. lot-by-lot) soil sampling. EP.A completed a baseline human health risk assessment (BHHR.A) and ecological risk assessment (ER.A) in 2002 and completed the R1 ES repoil in 2005. which included the Part 1 and 2 data.

3.5 Bsisis for TsikiJig Action

Based on the BHHRA and ERA. EPA concluded that uiiaeeeptable risk existed for COCs in soil. EP.A detennined that the Site had not signitlcantly contaminated ground water. EPA retliied the list of soil COCs to lead, eareiiiogeiiie PAHs. and 2.3.7.S-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dio\in (2.3.7.8-TCDD) (dio\in).The ER.A concluded that surface water and sediment were not identified as media ofconceni. Howe\ er. EP.A made a risk management decision that cleanup to protect human health will also address the ecological risk to teiTcstrial ecological communities in residential settings, since ecological setting at the Site is not of high ecological \alue (i.e.. it is an urban residential setting). In addition. EP.A detennined that creek banks may ret|uire stabilization to pre\ent erosion of ash and soil with lead concentrations abo\e 400 mg kg.

4.0 Remedial Actions

In accordance w ith CERCL.A and the NCP. the o\eiTiding goals for any remedial action are protection of human health and the emironment and compliance with applicable or rele\ant and appropriate ret|uirements (.AR.ARs). .A number of remedial alteniati\es were considered for the Site, and tnial selection was made based on an e\aluation of each alteniati\e against nine e\aluation criteria that are specitled in Section 300.430(e)(9)(iii) of the NCP. The nine criteria are:

1. 0\ erall Protection of Human Health and the En\iroiunent 2. Compliance with .AR.ARs 3. Long-Tenn EtTecti\eness and Pennanence 4. Reduction of Toxicity. Mobility or X'olume through Treatment 5. Shoil-Tenn EtTecti\eness 6. Implementability 7. Cost 8. State .Acceptance 9. Community .Acceptance

4.1 Remedy Selection

EPA selected the Site's remedy in the August 2006 Record of Decision (ROD). The ROD defined the follow ing Remedial .Action Objecti\es (R.AOs) for site cleanup:

• Pre\ ent human exposure to COCs through contact, ingestion or inhalation of surface soil and ingestion of \egetables contaminated abo\e remedial goals (RGs) from incinerator ash or other wastes disposed of at the Site with a carcinogenic risk greater than 1 X 10"''. a noncarcinogenic hazard index greater than 1. or lead concentrations abo\ e 400 mg kg.

• Pre\ent impacts to teiTcstrial biota from exposure to surface soils contaminated abo\e RGs from incinerator ash or other wastes disposed of at the Site and containing

14

contaminants of potential ecological concem at concentrations above preliminary ecological RGs.^

• Control erosion and transport of soils containing visible ash, lead above 400 mg/kg, or contaminants of potential ecological concern in excess of preliminary ecological RGs along the banks of Moncrief Creek to prevent possible unacceptable risks to human health or ecological impacts.

• Place geotextile (or other membrane) topped with gravel under houses with open crawlspaces that have soil concentrations above human health RGs to further prevent direct contact with the soil.

• Institute ground water monitoring to verify the No Action decision for ground water.

The major components of the selected remedy in the ROD included:

• Excavation of contaminated surface soil above RGs as needed to allow for installation of a two-foot-thick soil cover.

• Temporary relocation for eligible residents upon their request. • Site restoration (e.g., backfilling with clean soil, replacement of flower beds, trees,

shrubs, grass, etc.). • Stabilization of the Moncrief Creek banks (e.g., clear banks, excavate soil to achieve

acceptable side slopes, dispose of excavated soil/material properly, install erosion controls to prevent erosion of ash/contamination into creek, etc.).

• Placement of geotextile (or other membrane) topped with gravel under houses that have open crawlspaces with soil concentrations above human health RGs.

• Ground water monitoring to verify the No Action decision for ground water. • Solidification/stabilization of excavated soil exceeding Toxicity Characteristic

Leaching Procedures (TCLP) limits prior to off-site disposal. • Imposition of institutional controls to control exposure to remaining soil

contamination (e.g., soil contamination under the soil cover and buildings, roads, etc.).

Table 2 presents a summary of soil RGs established in the ROD for residential and commercial/industrial parcels. The ROD stated that cleanup to satisfy the human health RGs in soil will also provide adequate protection to ecological receptors because the residential RGs are equal to or more stringent than the ecological RGs. Therefore, separate actions to adchess ecological risk in soil were not needed. In addition, during remedial design, EPA determined that remediating a subset of chemicals from the original COC list would also result in the remediation of other COCs that were less prevalent at the Site. Thus, EPA refined the COC list to the major RG (hivers lead, arsenic, PAHs and dioxin as minor RG exceedances of the other COCs also included the major RG chivers.

' The 2006 ROD stated that cleanup to satisfy the human health RGs will provide adequate cleanup to protect ecological receptors (i.e., separate actions to address ecological risk in soil were not needed).

15

The ground water COCs in the ROD were evaluated and a No-Action remedy was selected for this medium.

Table 2: Human Health SoU COC RGs

Soil COC Residential RG^ (mg/kg) Industrial RG^

(mg/kg)

Antimony 27 370

Arsenic 2.1 12

Barium 4,960' 130,000

Cadmium 82 1,700

Copper 2,810' 89,000

Lead 400 1,400

Manganese 3,500 43,000

Zinc 26,000 630,000

Aroclor 1260 0.5 2.6 (as Aroclor mixture)

Carcinogenic PAHs 0.1' 0.7

TEQ of2,4,7,8-TCDD (dioxin)

0.000007' 0.00003

Notes: a. The source for the cleanup goals is Florida Administrative Code (FAG) Chapter 62-777 (Table 2). If the

background mean concentration for a specific constituent is above the RGs identified above, then cleanup will be to the background concentration. This only occurs with two COCs: carcinogenic PAHs and dioxin.

b. The residential cleanup goals for barium and copper are site-specific risk-based values. c. The surface soil backgroimd for carcinogenic PAHs is 0.69 mg/kg. The subsurface soil background for

carcinogenic PAHs is 0.22 mg/kg. The surface soil background for dioxin is 0.00000882 mg/kg. The subsurface soil backgroimd for dioxin is 0.00000882 rr^/kg. TEQ = Toxicity Equivalents which are used to report the toxicity-weighted masses of mixtures of dioxins, whereby each dioxin compound is assigned a Toxic Equivalency Factor (TEF) which denotes a given dioxin compound's toxicity relative to 2,3,7,8-TCDD.

4.2 Remedy Implementation

EPA and the COJ voluntarily entered into a consent decree (CD) with an effective date of July 17, 2008, which provides for construction of the remedy stipulated in the ROD. The Remedial Design Report for Jacksonville Ash and Brown's Dump Ash Sites, dated September 17, 2009 (RD Report), identified RG divers for remediation at the Site; lead is the main RG driver followed by arsenic, PAHs and dioxins. According to the RD Report an association of lead with ash was recognized in the RI, and ash is a visible indicator of contamination. The RD Report explained that any minor RG exceedances also included the major RG drivers (lead, arsenic, PAHs and dioxins).

The COJ is conducting the cleanup in phases due to the number of parcels requiring remediation. EPA approved a Remedial Action Work Plan for the Site in January 2010. The COJ implemented cleanup in multiple phases (Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3 so far), as summarized in Table 3.

16

Table 3: Summary of Remedy Implementation Progress

Remediation Phase

Remediation Start

Remediation End Parcels Remediated

Part 1 January 25, 2010 November 5, 2010 Removal of about 38,900 cubic yards of contaminated soil from 97 parcels

Part 2 June 25, 2011 February 17, 2012 Removal of 47,940 cubic yards of contaminated soil from 111 parcels

Parts April 1,2013 November 22, 2013 Removal of 13,900 cubic yards of contaminated soil from Mary McLeod Bethune School parcel and eight residential properties. Installation of a fence around the historic cemetery.

Remediation of soil/ash at residential and commercial parcels, conducted to date, involves excavating the upper two feet of soil and installation of a soil cover. Prevention of human exposure to subsurface soil below two feet is provided by installation of a two-foot thick soil cover and institutional controls. Where practical, excavation occurs below two feet to reduce or eliminate the need for institutional controls. To further prevent direct contact with the soil, a synthetic cover topped with gravel is installed under houses with open crawlspaces that have soil contaminant concentrations above human health cleanup goals. Finally, institutional controls prevent potential human exposure to contaminated soil under existing buildings, asphalt or concrete roadways, (hiveways and sidewalks (see Section 6.3, subsection Institutional Control Review).

The ash remediation of each parcel at which access was granted included a pre-excavation survey; excavation of up to two feet of surface soil in the pervious areas contaminated above the RGs; staging of the excavated material in 500-cubic-yard increments for TCLP sampling; transportation and disposal of the stockpiled material at the Trail Ridge Landfill, where it was to be re-used for initial cover; placement of certified clean backfill; compaction of clean backfill in 12-inch lifts; re-grading; sod placement over the backfill material; and completion of a post-excavation survey. Hazardous stockpiles were treated with a stabilizing reagent prior to shipment to the landfill. Figure 3 summarizes the status of parcel remediation at the Site as of July 2014. Note that parcels identified as "No Remediation Required" are those that have been sampled and do not require remediation. However, the status of these parcels could change because they are next to parcels that have either not been sampled or require remediation. The parcels identified as "No Remediation — EPA Approved" do not require remediation, as approved by EPA.

Informational institutional controls have been provided to parcel owners who have not granted, or who have refused, access to their property to inform them of the potential presence of soil contamination and encourage them to sign access agreements so that COJ can adchess the contamination. The COJ has offered to assist individual property owners with the development of restrictive covenant language for their property, should they desire. All properties owned by the COJ that are located within the Site's boundaries shall contain a notice to successors in title. At least 30 days prior to the conveyance of

17

Figure 3: Brown's Dump Remediation Parcel Status Map as of July 2014

250 500 1,000 I Feet

LEGEND

BSITE BOUNDARY r REMEDIATION PART 1 {JANUARY 2010 TO NOVEMBER 2010) | REMEOIATIONPART2{JUNE2011TOFEBRUARY2012) r

I J REMEDIATIONPART3{APRIL2013TONOVEMBER2013) •

REMEOIATIONREQUIREDW/ACCESSAGREEMENT I

•I REMEDIATION REQUIRED, NO ACCESS AGREEMENT' J 'INCLUDES PARCEL WITH ACCESS ISSUES [ NO REMEDIATION REQUIRED ] SAMPLING REQUIRED

I RESTRICTIVE COVENANT IC REQUIRED

1 NO REMEDIATION - EPA APPROVED

0 s

any interest in propeily located within the site boundaries, the COJ will gi\e the grantee written notice and shall also gi\e written notice to EPA and FDEP.

Institutional controls were reconiniended for properties with building slabs. dri\eways. parking lots and sidewalks right next to the e\ca\ation limits and with cleanup goal exceedances at the bottom of the tw o-foot exca\ ations. Prior to backillling these exca\ations. \ isible boundary markers were placed as an engineering control to indicate kjiown contamination.

.A licensed asbestos abatement contractor remediates parcels that ha\ e asbestos co-mingled with ash-laden soil. Tlie co-mingled ash and asbestos-contaminated soil is disposed of in accordance with asbestos regulations by bagging and burial at Trail Ridge LaiidtHI.

.As the COJ recei\es access agreements, it will remediate additional parcels and perfonii bank stabilization of Moncrief Creek, if wairanted. For parcels at which remediation has not yet occuired. some institutional controls are already in place to pre\ent or minimize exposure: these controls are discussed in section 6.3 of this F^'R. .As buildings with institutional controls are demolished in the future, the area under the building footprints will be sampled.

Tlie COJ sends FP.A a CertiUcation of Completion for properties at which remediation has been completed. Tlie COJ maintains a database that tracks remediation progress at e\er\ parcel located within the soil ash delineation zone. .Any remediation subset|uent to Completion would be subject to the .Ash Management Plan. Tlie .Ash Management Plan details the minimum procedures necessaiy for handling encountered ash material to include procedures for identity ing ash: notifying City and regulatoiy otHcialsi handling, storing, and characterizing the ash for proper disposal: and transporting the ash to an appro\ ed facility for disposal.

4.3 Opemtion and Mamtenance (O&M)

Site remediation is ongoing, so post-remedial action O&M acti\ities ha\e not been initiated by the COJ. Howe\er. for remediated parcels, the COJ is pro\ iding owners with instructions on the proper care and maintenance of new landscaping. Tlie COJ began ground water monitoring in October 2012 and completed the second round of monitoring in Februaiy March 2014. .As speciHed in the ROD. tlu'ee more ground water monitoring e\ents are planned to \erify the No .Action decision for ground water.

Tlie O&M plan is cuiTently in the process of being tnialized. Based on re\iew of the Draft O&M plan (COJ. 2009). once remediation is complete, the COJ will be responsible for post-remedial action O&M acti\ ities. including the proper care, inspection and maintenance of new landscaping, soil co\ er and creek stabilization. .Annual inspections are planned for the two-foot soil co\er at the former Mar\ McLeod Bethune Elementaiy School property and the Moncrief Creek banks. The school soil co\er will be inspected

for cracLs. bare spots, erosion and other potential problems that can cause exposure to underlying asli-contaniinated soils. If remediation is warranted for the Moncrief Creek hanks, inspections will occur to identify erosion and damage to the creek hank retaining wall. Inspections will he perfoniied by the COJ's En\ironjiiental and Compliance Department. Site In\estigation and Remediation Program. Inspections will document damaged or eroded areas of the soil co\ er and creek hanks. .A log of inspections and repairs will he maintained by the CO.I. Tlie inspection log will recommend replacement of sod that has been damaged or destroyed. Copies of all inspection logs will he forwarded to the EP.A and EDEP annually. If problems are noted prior to formal initiation of the annual inspections or at any other time during the year, repairs will he scheduled and implemented by the CO.I as soon as practical. If maintenance acti\ ities expose the underlying asli-contaminated soil, the CO.I will inform workers of direct contact exposure hazards and pro\ide appropriate personal protecti\e et|uipment. Tlie CO.I will also sample any soil exca\ ated from the Site prior to disposal to deteniiine if contamination remains. .All soil must he treated, stored and disposed of by the CO.I in accordance with the CO.Es .Ash Management Plan and all applicable local, state and federal law.

5.0 Progress Since the Last Fi\ e-Year Re\ ie^

Tliis is the Site's t1rst F^"R.

6.0 Fi\ e-Year Re\ ie^ Process

6.1 .Adnumstrative Components

EP.A Region 4 initiated the E^'R in .luly 2014 and scheduled its completion for .lanuaiy 2015. The EP.A remedial project manager (RPM) .loe .Alfano led the EP.A site re\ iew team, which also included the EP.A community imohement coordinator (CIC) L'Tonya Spencer and contractor support pro\ ided to EP.A by Skeo Solutions. In .luly 2014. EP.A held a scoping call with the re\iew team to discuss the Site and items of interest as they related to the protecti\eness of the remedy cuiTently in place. Tlie re\ iew schedule established consisted of the following acti\ities:

• Community notiUcation. • Document re\ iew. • Data collection and re\ iew. • Site inspection. • Local inter\ iews. • E^'R Report de\elopment and re\ iew.

6.2 Conuiiumty Involvement

On .August 22. 2014. EP.A published a public notice in the Florida Times L 'nion new spaper announcing the commencement of the E^'R process for the Site. pro\ iding contact infoniiation for EP.A RPM .loe .Alfano and EP.A Comnumitv hnohement

Coordinator L'Tonya Spencer and in\ iting coninuinity pailicipation. Tlie press notice is a\ailable in Appendix B. No one contacted the EPA as a result of the ad\eilisenient.

Upon completion of the F^'R. EPA will place copies of the document in the designated site repositoiy at the Clanzel T. Brown Community Center. 4575 Moncrief Road. Jacksomille. Florida 52209.

6.3 Dociuiient Re>ie>v

Tliis E^'R included a re\ iew of rele\ant site-related documents, including ROD. remedial action reports and recent monitoring data. .Appendix .A pro\ ides a complete list of the documents re\ iewed.

•AR.ARs Re\ iew

CERCL.A Section 121(d)( 1) ret|uires that Superfund remedial actions attain "a degree of cleanup of hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants released into the einironment and of control of further release at a minimum which assures protection of human health and the en\ iroiuiient." The remedial action must acliie\ e a le\ el of cleanup that at least attains those ret|uirements that are legally applicable or rele\ ant and appropriate.

• .Applicable ret|uirements are those cleanup standards, standards of control and other suhstanti\ e ret|uirements. criteria or limitations promulgated under federal en\ironmental or state en\ iroiuiiental or facility siting laws that speciUcally address a hazardous substance, remedial action, location or other circumstance found at a CERCL.A site.

• Rele\ant and appropriate ret|uirements are those standards that, while not "applicable." address problems or situations sulUciently similar to those encountered at the CERCL.A site that their use is well suited to the particular site. Only those state standards more stringent than federal ret|uirements may he applicable or rele\ant and appropriate.

• To-Be-Considered (TBC) criteria are non-promulgated ad\ isories and guidance that are not legally binding, hut should he considered in deteniiining the necessaiy remedial action. For example. TBC criteria may he particularly useful in deteniiining liealtli-hased le\els where no .AR.ARs exist or in de\eloping the appropriate method for conducting a remedial action.

Chemical-specific .AR.ARs are health- or risk-based numerical \alues or methodologies which, when applied to site-specit1c conditions, result in the estahlislinient of numerical \ allies. Tliese \alues establish an acceptable amount or concentration of a chemical that may remain in. or he discharged to. the ambient ein ironment. Examples of clieniical-speciHc .AR.ARs include maximum contaminant le\els (MCLs) under the federal Safe

Drinking Water Act and ambient water t|uality criteria enumerated under the tederal Clean Water Act.

.Action-specitic .AR.ARs are tecluiology- or acti\ ity-based ret|uirements or limits on actions taken with respect to a pailicular hazardous substance. Tliese ret|uirements are triggered by a pailicular remedial acti\ity. such as discharge of contaminated ground water or in-situ remediation.

Location-speciHc .AR.ARs are restrictions on hazardous substances or the conduct of the response acti\ ities solely based on their location in a special geographic area. Examples include restrictions on acti\ities in wetlands. sensiti\e habitats and historic places.

Remedial actions are ret|uired to comply with the cliemical-speciHc .AR.ARs identiHed in the ROD. In perfonning the F^'R for compliance w ith .AR.ARs. only those .AR.ARs that address the protecti\eness of the remedy are re\ iew ed.

(.jroiifh/ Wilier AR-lRs

Ground water did not ret|uire remediation based on the results of the BHHR.A and the relhiement of the COC list. Tlierefore. chemical-speciHc .AR.ARs were not identified for ground water. Howe\ er. to contirm the No .Action decision for ground water, and demonstrate that ash contaminants in soil are not leaching, ground water monitoring has been initiated and ground water RGs were established for the soil COCs in the Ground water Monitoring Sampling and .Analysis Plan Quality .Assurance Project Plan (S.AP Q.APP). Tliese RGs coirespoiid to federal MCLs or health-based \ alues in the absence of MCLs. .As shown in Table 4. the standards ha\e not changed for any of the ground water C(.)Cs.

SoilARARs

Except for PCBs. federal .AR.ARs ha\ e not been established for the soil C(.)Cs. Howe\ er. state .AR.ARs ha\ e been established for soil COCs under F.AC Chapter 62-777 based on residential and industrial exposure and are refeired to as EDEP's health-based soil cleanup target le\els (SCTLs) as were pre\ iously presented in Table 2.

Table 4: Summary of Ground water Standards

Chemical 2006 RGs (mg/Ly

2014" Ground water

Standards (mg/L)

MCL Changed?

Antimony 0.006 0.006 No Arsenic 0.010 0.010 No Barium 2.0 2.0 No Cadmium 0.005 0.005 No Copper 1.3 1.3 No Lead 0.015 0.015 No Manganese — — No Nickel — — No Thalliiun 0.002 0.002 No Vanadium — — No Zinc — — No Carbazole — — No Carbon disulfide — — No Cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.07 0.07 No Vinyl chloride 0.002 0.002 No Aroclor 1254 0.0005 0.0005 No Aroclor 1260 0.0005 0.0005 No Endosulfan 1 — — No Benzo(a)anthracene ~ — No Benzo(a)pyrene 0.0002 0.0002 No Benzo(b)fluoranthene — — No Benzo(k)fluoranthene — — No Chrysene — — No Dibenz(a,h)anthracene — — No lndeno(l,2,3 cd)pyrene — — No Dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) 0.00000003 0.00000003 No a) RGs listed in the March 31, 2011 Ground water SAP/QAPP. b) Current ARARs are based on Federal (40 CFR 141-143) and Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Drinking Water Standards, Monitoring and Reporting (62 F.A.C 550.310). Federal standards are based on National Primarv and Secondary Drinldna Water MCLs nittt)://www.eDa.eov/safewater/contamiTiants/index.htmll. accessed 9/5/2014).

— = no standard identified.

Institutional Control Review

EPA and the COJ are finalizing an Institutional Control Plan and some institutional controls are in place at remediated parcels. The COJ flags areas that need institutional controls within each remediated parcel. In addition, COJ permitting departments invoke the special requirements of the Ash Management Plan for work performed in the Soil Delineation Zone (all parcels located within the Site boundary). The current status of parcels requiring institutional controls is presented in Appendix F. While the Institutional Control Plan is being finalized, the Ash Management Plan is in place and the COJ ensures that parcels located within the ash/delineation zone are entered into the COJ database. The database contains the institutional controls for each remediated parcel. The COJ is planning on using a combination of proprietary controls, government controls.

23

http://www.eDa.eov/safewater/contamiTiants/index.htmll

enforcement and peniiit tools, and infoniiational tools in accordance with the CD and suniniarized below.

1. Direct the Du\ al County Propeily Appraiser to aiuiotate the property record card (or its et|ui\alent) of all properties within the site boundaries that there are or may be hazardous substances on the property.

2. Establish a geographic infoniiation system (CIS) that displays pertinent contaminated property infoniiation.

3. Create a re\iew program for any construction on parcels within the site boundaries.

4. Incoiporate the EP.A-appro\ed .Ash Management Plan into the county land de\elopnient regulations for construction within the site boundaries.

5. .Amend the county well drilling ordinance (.Appendix D) to retpiire special peniiits for any well drilled within the site boundaries.

6. Establish a system to mail annual letters to the "Current Occupant" of all properties within the site boundaries infoniiing them of residual soil contamination or potential soil contamination (.Appendix E).

7. .At their ret|uest. assist indi\idual property owners with the de\elopnient of restricti\ e co\ enant language for their property.

8. Pro\ ide the retpiired notice to successors in title for all city-ow ned properties within the site boundaries.

Table 5 lists the institutional controls that the CO.l has implemented that pertain to and limit acti\ities within the ash sites. .Additional detail on EP.A's and the COJ's plan to implementing the ditTerent layers of institutional controls is presented in .Appendix E.

24

Table 5: Institutional Controls (ICs) Summary Table

Area of Interest - Soils withm the Site Boundary/SoU Delmeation Zone

Media ICs Needed

ICs Called for in the Decision

Documents

Impacted Parcel{s)

IC Objective Instrument in Place

Soil Yes Yes

Multiple parcels within the site boundary

Prevent and/or manage potential human exposure to subsurface soil contamination remaining above RGs (e.g., under buildings, or asphalt or concrete roadways, driveways and sidewalks that maintain a break in the exposure pathway), or at depths greater than 2 feet in residential yards.

Keep properties remediated to industrial RGs from reverting to another use designation (e.g., residential) without proper remediation to meet the proposed non-industrial use.

Section 320.403 (Ordinance Code) requires that all building permits issued within the Soil Delineation Zone comply with the Ash Management Plan.

Section 654.118 (Ordinance Code) requires all land development within the Soil Delineation Zone be developed in compliance with the Ash Management Plan.

Chapter 366 (Ordinance Code), Environmental Protection Board Rule 8 requires all water wells constructed within the Soil Delineation Zone meet minimum construction standards and that all cuttings from the construction shall be containerized and properly disposed.

6.4 Data Review

Soil During Parts 1, 2 and 3 of cleanup, the COJ has remediated more than 200 parcels. Due to the large number of parcels being addressed and the ongoing status of cleanup, data for each parcel were not reviewed. However, these data are available in the individual Parcel Completion Reports included in the Construction Completion Report for the Ash Remediation Brown's Dump Site.

Confirmation sampling at each excavation included collection of soil samples along excavation walls at 20-foot intervals, screening for visible ash and evaluating lead concentrations using field x-ray fluorescence (XRF) analyzer. In addition, the bottom of each excavation was screened for visible ash and lead using the XRF device. Samples with a XRF lead reading between 200 mg/kg and 400 mg/kg were saved for further laboratory analyses. The confirmation sample locations and associated laboratory analyses are included in the corresponding Parcel Completion Reports.

Ground water

25

Tlie ROD ret|uires ground water monitoring to \erit\ the No Action decision tor this niediuni. In October 2012 and Februar\ March 2014. COJ contractors collected water le\el nieasurenients and ground water samples from monitoring wells BKBDMW'OOl. BDMWOOl. BDM\V004^ BDM\V005. BDMWOOS. BDM\V009. BDMWOlO and BDM\\'014 (Figure 4) (AerostarSES. 2014). Sampling was conducted concuiTently with sampling for the Jacksoin ille .Ash S.A.A site. Ground water tlow direction at the Site was estimated to be to the noilh-noilhwest.

Samples were analyzed for select metals (arsenic, lead, barium, cadmium, copper, manganese, zinc, antimony, nickel, thallium and \anadium). Some samples were also analyzed for carcinogenic P.AHs (cP.AHs). dioxins furans and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Ground water sampling was conducted in accordance w ith the guidelines established in the March 31. 2011 Ground water Monitoring SAP QAPP. Re\ ision 2 (Ground water Monitoring S.AP Q.APP). Results were compared to RGs de\eloped in the Ground water Monitoring S.AP Q.APP. which coirespond to the federal MCLs. FDEP's ground water cleanup target le\ els (GCTL) established in F.AC Chapter 62-777. or in the absence of an MCL or GCTL. EP.A's Regional Screening Le\els (RSL) for tap water.

Tliree cP.AHs and one metal (cadmium) exceeded RGs in ground water during the October 2012 and Februaiy March 2014 sampling e\ ents. No other parameters were detected abo\ e RGs.

Benzo(b)11uoranthene. dibenz(a.h )antliracene and indeno( 1.2.3-cd)pyrene exceeded their RGs in well BDM\\'()()4 during the October 2012 sampling e\ent. Howe\er. none of these constituents was detected abo\e laboratoiy method detection limits in the Februaiy March 2014 sampling e\ ent or during prior RI sampling e\ents in 2000 and 2002. The detections abo\ e RGs appear anomalous and do not suggest a contaminant plume.

Cadmium exceeded its RG of 0.005 milligrams per liter (mg L) in only one well (BDM\\'()()5) during the October 2012 and Februaiy March 2014 sampling e\ents. Cadmium was not detected in well BDM\\'()()5 during the May 2000 sampling e\ent. but it was detected at the RG in September 2002. Detected le\els of cadmium at this location ha\e ranged from less than 0.00071 mg L to ().()()S5 mg L (Table 6). The area of well BDM\\'()()5 has not been disturbed or remediated. Cadmium is not listed as a ground water COC in the ROD. Tlie concentrations of cadmium in samples e\aluated from monitoring well BDM\\'()()5 appears to be stable at or just abo\ e the RG o\ er the last 12-year period. Tlie COJ w ill continue to monitor for cadmium for tliree more monitoring e\ents to determine if the No .Action remedy for eround water remains \alid.

Figure 4: Monitoring Weils Located at the Former Brown's Dump Area

250 500 1,000 ^•Feet

Legend Monitoring Wells Moncrief Creek

^3 Former Brown's Dump Area

(iskeo SOLUTIONS

Brown's Dump Superfund Alternative Approach Site Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida

Disclaimer: This map and any boimdary lines within the map are approximate and subject to change. The map is not a survey. The map is for informational purposes only regarding EPA's response actions at the Site.

27

Table 6: Cadmium Concentrations in Well BDMW005

Sample Date Cadmium Remedial GoaP (mg/L) (mg/L)

May 2000 0.00071 U 0.005 September 2002 0.0053 0.005 October 2012^ 0.0079/0.0085 0.005 February 2014^ 0.005/0.0048 0.005

Notes: 1 -RG established in the March 20tt Ground water Monitoring SAP/QAPP 2 - Results presented are the primary/duplicate sample results U - Undetected at stated laboratory method detection limit Bold - Result is equal to or exceeds the RG

6.5 Site Inspection

A site inspection was conducted on July 29, 2014. Parties in attendance included: Joe Alfano (EPA), L'Tonya Spencer (EPA), .John Phillips (FDEP), Ashleigh Fountain (FDEP), Richard Rachal (FDEP), Jeff Foster (COJ), Howard Conner (COJ), Ann Newland (England, Thims and Miller), Jose Toro (United States Army Corps of Engineers, USACE), Logan Garcia, (USACE), Treat Suomi (Skeo Solutions) and Claire Marcussen (Skeo Solutions). For a full list of site inspection activities, see the Site Inspection Checklist in Appendix G. For photographs of the Site, see Appendix H.

All participants met in the parking lot of the former Mary McLeod Bethune Elementary School (currently being renovated into a church/community center) prior to the site inspection to go over the itinerary and discuss the current status of activities at the Site.

Following the meeting, the site inspection started in the parking lot (southeast portion of the Site) to view areas where remediation has been completed, including the revegetated areas at the entrance of the school and between the school buildings. From there, the site inspection participants walked south and viewed the eastern property behind the school, which was hydroseeded. Inspection participants noted barren areas where hydroseeding was not effective. Inspection participants drove through the residential area to the east of the former dump area to observe remediated residential yards and monitoring wells. Yards appeared in good condition; sod was in place where remediation had been completed. A monitoring well in the residential area was not secured with a lock; however, the well was located within a fenced area.

Skeo Solutions staff also visited the designated site repository, the Clanzel T. Brown Community Center (community center) at 4575 Moncrief Road, Jacksonville, Florida 32209. Although community center employees were not aware of a document repository for the Site, Mr. Benedict of the COJ's Parks and Recreation Department indicated that in 2010, the community center was renovated and all the building contents were removed. He indicated that site documents are stored with the City and can be reviewed through a public record request system called the "care system." EPA is working with the COJ's

28

Parks and Recreation Depailnient to ensure that documents are a\ailable to the coniniunitv.

6.6 Iiiten iews

Tlie F^'R process included inter\ ie\\s with parties atTected by the Site, including a current landowner, coniniunitv leader, public outreach contractor and regulatoiy agencies iinohed in site acti\ities. Tlie puipose was to document the percei\ed status of the Site and any percei\ed problems or successes with the phases of the remedy implemented to date. .All of the inter\iews took place following the site inspection. Se\eral area residents were contacted but did not wish to participate in an inter\ iew for the F^'R. Tlie inter\iews are summarized below. .Appendix C pro\ides the complete inter\iews.

Owner of the Church Property: The property owner is aware of the en\ ironniental issues and cleanup acti\ities at the Site. The owner indicated that the Site has had a \er\ negati\e etTect on the suiTounding community because they cannot trust the CO.I. Tlie owner reported that there has been significant \ andalisni and thetl. Tlie fence surrounding the property has been damaged and windows ha\e been broken to steal items that belong to the church, including yard et|uipnient. air conditioning units and building materials. Tlie owner has not recei\ed any infoniiation from EP.A on the Site in the last se\eral years. Tlie owner also expressed disappointment that the CO.I has not maintained the large open Held behind the school: the CO.I applied grass seed after remediation of this area but did not water the seed. Tliis resulted in large exposed bairen areas.

Paul Tutw iler: Mr. Tutw iler is a community leader for the Brown's and .lacksoin ille .Ash Sites. He is aware of the en\ironniental issues at the Site and the cleanup acti\ities that ha\e occuired and stated that the project is progressing as planned. He was unaware of any elTects that the Site may ha\ e on the suiTounding community and stated that he has been adet|uately infoniied of the Site's acti\ ities and progress.

.lolui Phillips: Mr. Phillips of FDEP stated that the remedy is progressing etHciently and RGs are being met. Mr. Phillips is comfortable with the status of institutional controls: howe\ er. he has recei\ ed complaints from the public that the controls may impact their property \ alue. He indicated that EDEP has attended se\ eral site \ isits and public meetings and recei\ ed adet|uate infoniiation about the Site and Held notiHcations.

Sam Hohiian: Mr. Holnian is a public outreach coordinator with the Hestor Group's Project New Ground (PNG) oH1ce in .lacksoin ille. Elorida. His o\erall impression of the Brown's Dump Site remediation is good. He stated that some aspects of the project could ha\ e been better and that some, but not all. of the contractors ha\ e done well at some homes locations and not good at othel^. He indicated that maintenance of some of the communities' yards has not been consistent regarding watering, in addition, he indicated that some of the maintenance could not be helped because of the poor c|uality of the grass that was planted. Nb*. Holnian stated that the grass at Brown's Dump originally gi"ew well until it was i-eplaced with the clean fill and now it won't grow. He also expressed the concern that

the contrnctors were not nggressi\ e enough in contacting people where sampling was to occur: howe\ er. PNG was able to resoK e these issues.

7.0 Technical Assessment

7.1 Question A: Is the cemedy functionuig as mtended by the decision documents?

^'es. Tlie remedy is functioning as intended for residential and coniniercial parcels where remediation has been completed. During remediation, soil ash is e\ca\ated from the upper two feet at residential and commercial parcels, followed by installation of a soil co\er. Human exposure to subsurface soil is pre\ented by installation of a two-foot thick soil co\ er and institutional controls. Where practical. e\ca\ation occurs to depths greater than two feet to reduce or eliminate the need for institutional controls. .A co\er is installed in residential crawlspaces to fuillier pre\ent direct contact with contaminated soil. Finally, potential human exposure to the contaminated soil footprint under existing buildings, asphalt or concrete roadways. dri\eways and sidewalks is pre\ented by institutional controls. Some institutional controls are in place to pre\ ent direct exposure to soils at parcels that lia\e not been remediated.

Tlie CO.I is remediating parcels to meet residential cleanup goals for properties w itii the follow ing zoning designations: Residential. Public. Commercial Residential. Commercial Residential OfUce. and Commercial Residential Otl1ce-Springt1eld. .Also, commercially zoned parcels used for day care, churches, schools, playgrounds and food ser\ ice are remediated to residential RGs. Subsurface soil abo\ e industrial RGs in conuiiercial areas will be marked by a warning mesh or fabric (i.e.. orange construction fencing, etc.).

Institutional controls in the fonii of proprietaiy controls. go\eniment controls, enforcement and peniiit tools, and informational tools are in place to pre\ ent or minimize exposure to contamination letl in place. Further, remedial acti\ities began at parcels with the highest priority based on the prioritization process outlined in the remedial design report (ETM. 2009). Parcels that lia\e residences with young children and high soil lead le\els were gi\en the highest priority for cleanup. f'nde\eloped parcels were gi\en the lowest priority. For the Site's remedy to remain protecti\ e in the long tenii. all institutional controls must be in place when remediation is completed. Tlie O&M contractor will maintain the soil co\er at the foniier school area and along Moncrief Creek through annual inspections. Portions of the school yard are cuiTently bairen where liydroseeding was not etrecti\ei liowe\er. the CO.I is addressing this concern. In addition, the CO.I will pro\ide landscape maintenance education materials and infoniiational workshops to property owners during the remediation time frame.

During the site inspection. se\eral monitoringwells were not secured. Howe\er. Mr. Scott of the CO.I is ret|uiring a contractor to address all unsecured wells.

7.2 Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity dntn, clennup levels niul reinedinl nction objectives (R.\Os) used nt the time of remedy selection stilJ vnlid?

^'es. the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup le\els and RAOs remain \alid. The 2006 soil cleanup goals were established based on residential and industrial land uses. Since 2006. EP.A has re\ised some of the default exposure factors associated with residential and industrial exposure: in addition, toxicity \ alues ha\ e changed for some of the soil COCs. Tlie ROD cleanup goals were compared to EPA's May 2014 RSLs for soils to e\aluate whether any changes in toxicity and exposure \ alues since the ROD could impact cuirent remediation le\els (.Appendix I). The e\aluation demonstrated ROD cleanup goals remain \ alid.

Remediation has not yet occuired on a poilion of the church parcel noilh of the existing buildings: howe\er. exposure to this area is pre\ented by installation of an 8-foot chain link fence. Remediation has not yet occuired nexl to Moncrief Creek because most of the creek banks cuirently ha\e adet|uate stability and erosion protection (e.g.. \ egetated and portions with retaining walls), which reduces exposure to ash that may ha\e deposited in creek sediments. In addition. EP.A has e\aluated risk from children's inteniiittent exposures to contaminated creek sediments and issued new site-specit1c guidance in 2013. The concentrations of lead in creek sediments at the Site do not pose unacceptable risks to recreational children based on the new site-specit1c guidance. In addition, the ER.A did not identify surface water and sediment as media of concern.

EP.A selected a No .Action remedy for ground water. EP.A has completed two rounds of ground water sampling and results indicate ground water does not appear to ha\ e been signiUcantly alTected by the incinerator ash deposited at any of sites e\ aluated during the ground water sampling e\ents. One slight exceedance of the Ground water Monitoring S.AP Q.APP RG for cadmium was noted in only one well in 2012 and the concentration was et|ual to the MCL in 2014. EP.A will continue to monitor ground water to deteniiine if the No .Action remedy for ground water remains \ alid. Tlie ground water RGs were re\iewed and it was deteniiined they remain \alid (.Appendix I).

.According to the ROD. cleanup to human health cleanup goals will also pro\ ide adet|uate protection to ecological receptors.

7.3 Question C: Has any other uifoiinntlon come to Light that could cull uito question the protectiveness of the remedy?

No other infoniiation has come to light that could call into t|uestion remedy protecti\eness.

7.4 Teclmicnl .Assessment Smnnmiy

Tlie remedy continues to be implemented and where complete, functions as intended. Remediation of soil ash is ongoing to pre\ ent exposure to contaminated surface soils by

e\ca\ating the upper two teet of soil and installing a soil co\er. Institutional controls are being inipleniented to restrict access to remaining contamination. Historically, only cadmium slightly exceeded the ground water RGi howe\er. the most recent sampling conducted in 2014 indicates that cadmium meets the ground water RG. EP.A will continue to monitor ground water to deteniiine if the No .Action remedy for ground water remains \alid. The exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup le\ els and R.AOs remain \alid.

8.0 Issues

Tliis F^'R did not identify any issues at the Site.

9.0 Recommendations and Follow-up Actions

Because this F^'R did not identify any issues at the Site, no recommendations are ret|uired under CERCL.A. The following items, though not expected to atTect protecti\eness. warrant additional follow-up:

• .All necessarx institutional controls are not yet in place as remediation is ongoing. Howe\er. to allow for future F^'Rs to e\aluate long-tenii protecti\eness of the remedy, the institutional control plan should be tnialized and implemented, as appropriate.

• Poilions of the former school yard propeily are barren where hydroseed was not etTecti\e. These areas should be re-seeded and watered until \egetation is properly established.

• Tlie location of the site document repositoiy should be updated on FP.A's website to the Clanzel T. Brown Community Center 4575 Moncrief Road. Jacksom ille. Florida 32209.

• To ensure FP.A documents are a\ailable in the document repositoiy . FP.A should send the documents to the CO.l. which in tuni will ensure the documents are a\ailable to the public at the repositoiy.

10.0 Protecti\ eness Statements

Tlie remedy is expected to be protecti\ e of human health and the em ironment upon completion. In the interim, remedial acti\ ities completed to date ha\e adet|uately addressed all exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks.

11.0 Next Re\ iexv

Tlie nexl F^'R will be due within t1\e years of the signature appro\al date of this F^'R.

Appendix A: List of Documents Reviewed

Ash Management Plan. Prepared by City of Jacksonville, Florida. 2009.

Ash Remediation Institutional Control Plan, Revision 0. Prepared by the City of Jacksonville. June 4, 2009.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Information System (CERCLIS) Site Information accessed from Web site http ://www.epa. gov/region4/superfund/sites/npEflorida/brwndpfl.htmIl

Construction Completion Report for the Ash Remediation — Brown's Dump Site, Revision I Prepared by ETM. May 23, 2011.

Construction Completion Report for the Ash Remediation — Brown's Dump Site, Revision 1.1 Prepared by ETM. October 18,2011.

Construction Completion Report for the Ash Remediation — Brown's Dump Site, Revision 2 Prepared by ETM. February 8, 2013.

Construction Completion Report for the Ash Remediation — Brown's Dump Site, Revision 3 Prepared by ETM. May 27, 2014.

EPA Record of Decision: Brown's Dump. EPA ID: FLD9808470I6 Jacksonville, Florida. August 24, 2006.

Draft Ash Remediation Operations and Maintenance Plan, Revision 0. Prepared by the City of Jacksonville. May 2009.

Intermittent exposure to creek sediment. Memorandum from Kevin Koporec, EPA Toxicologist to Joe Alfano, EPA Remedial Project Manager. July 1, 2013.

Public Health Assessment for Brown's Dump, Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida. Prepared by the Florida Department of Health, Bureau of Enviommental Toxicology. June 26, 2000 http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/pha/PHA.asp?docid=159&pg=0

Remedial Design Work Plan for Jacksonville Ash and Brown's Dump Sites, Revision 1. Prepared by England-Thims and Miller, Inc. for the City of Jacksonville. August 29, 2008.

Remedial Design/Remedial Action Consent Decree for Jacksonville Ash and Brown's Dump Sites Administered under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act. July 17, 2008. http://www.epa.gov/region4/foiapgs/readingroom/ atoin order on consent/browns dump 26.pdf

Remedial Design Report. Final. Prepared by England-Thims and Miller, Inc. for the City of Jacksonville. September 17,2009.

A-1

http://www.epa

Appendix B: Press Notice

T1i«lU.S, EnWenmNNl Pnlectlen AMI^. 4 AjMUffcw ttt« Flrtt.FWt-YMW fonlw

Srewn'a Dump 01^9 JocfciMViflfJUli SvMrtui^'Altar»a»{v« $9ttt j{x|uanvti|«< Du^ C»unW« FforMa

I Superlund Aller nottvt stts (Brails I'^pbrpoH e4 Ihfl Fiva-Yudr Rtvltw Is to

Slt*Beci(Brooi>d: TM BroWii'sslt»isk>cot«d ina.raskient|q1 and Indcislrlal oraa norttr ol JocKsonvlll* In Duval Countv< Florida. From ttw f»f«1WPto 1153, site owodrsopthjtad.a loodflllittiatLCTcelvaclfBili frodiTJoc|^vll(»'s"rnUnlclpcl inclrwrnfars. TKs sits cbniiifi of three tarmf ash Mmlt arms: the'ftitort AfcLedaiBemur>e_BlYrr5ntorY S^tiodl prdpertv, witircti )• ftf>ced end vacant, iTJaciuid^ille El^rlc Authbrlfv tiedtrlcfll tubstatka, vw surraundlpg stnsle 0(^ mulll-famllY hemes.

t^'ptoce en area ttkit lotw t^com* Lwnle C. ItAlller, Sr. Fori:. EPA, ttue Florida Deoprtment of Bnvjfofln>snlal Brdtsctrbn tiw sites. Ttie remedles.for.both sites Include excavation and off'SUe disposal of contomlncted soli, fiitlng In ekcnvoted crsds Wjtfi cleon soil, using so|l ond orove[[coVera

iHJiflpji OMoiure, temporarily relocating residents,stobUliIno creek banks and Instollfng eraslon controlsi monllorlng site ground yrater, and putting Instltiiiiofyil confroli In ptgce.

Scheduitt The NotlongI Continoencv Plonreaolrts r^tevy of remedial octfons that result In ony hozordous substances, pffllutanta or contomJnonts remclnlngrot a site above le^ls that olfaW tor unilmltdd useond onreatrfded exposure every fivi yeora to ensure the protectlolfbf humon heblth ond the enVlronmedt. Tho flW FiVe-'Year Review for the BroWn'a site will be cdmpfefed bv Jonu^ 3015 ofKi the^Ash site y^lll be comeleted fay'Morch 2015. ^A Invites Commdnliy Partlcfpollon rq the pive-Year Review Pr«ess: ERA la corductlng this Five-Year Review to evoluote the d^Eyentas of the aites' remedies and Jo moka.sore the rem^fe* cetfilln Rrotedlv# of fwal^ andithemylriyirnent. Aa pprl of tft

r- u,- ..r. _ .. -~)mtnunltY meiriWr^ wd'kw " ' interview, ore diked to cad

wi un < •> i Rw iv> uji Ki ju MiwM.auT.e Mw ivrrwjm cvTTain iTorecTive or rwman rw Flv^^r RevjeWjxocesa, EPA staff la oveirob|e to ansifter'ciny,guiest(ona aSbut the sites. ComtnunltY members #Miibq^w l|d«tlona oboUtthe sltesr^pthe FtVe-Yeor Review proceta, or w1*o would IfkeiO'pohtferedte In a commUnltY

/M Alftwg, EPA Rem*

Appendix C: Inten ie^ Forms

Brow n's Dump Superfund Alternati\ e Fi\ e-Year Re\ ie^ Inten ie^ Form Approach Site Site Niime: Bi-own's Duiiin EPA ID No.: FLD980847016 Iiiteniewer Name: Claire Marcusseii AfTiijation: Skeo Solutions Subject Name: Church Chviier AfTiliation: Mt. Suiai Holiness Church Subject Contact Information: Tune: 9:30 AM Date: .July 29. 2014 Inteniew Location: Former Man McLeocI Bethmie Elenientan School

Inten iov Format (circle one): In PeiNon Phone Mall Other:

I ntei*\ ie>v C ategoiTk: Resid ents 1. .Aj*e you aware of the en\ ironniental issues at the Site and what cleanup acti\ities ha\e

occuiTed? ^'es

2. What etTect has this site had on the suiTounding coniniunity. if any? \'er\ negati\ e etTect on the conuiiunity. The coniniunity does not trust the City of Jacksom ille (the City). Tlie City does not care about our coniniunity.

3. Ha\e there been any problems with unusual or unexpected acti\ities at the Site, such as emergency response, \ andalisni or trespassing? ^'es. \'andalisni and theft has occuired se\eral times. Tlie fence has been damaged to access the propeilyi windows broken to steal items in the church and thetl of air conditioning units, building materials, yard et|uipnient. .A police chase occuired which resulted in the fence being damaged.

4. Has EP.A kept iin oh ed parties and suirounding neighbors infoniied of acti\ ities at the Site? How can EP.A best pro\ ide site-related information in the future? Nothing has been sent to us in the last se\eral years. Prefer infoniiation to be sent \ ia email and to a home address.

5. Do you own a pri\ate well in addition to accessing municipal water supplies? If so. for what puipose(s) is your pri\ate well used? Tliere is a pri\ate well on the property but it is not being used and there is no intention to use it since there is a City supply.

6. Has your pri\ate well been sampled recently? No

7. Do you ha\ e any comments, suggestions or recommendations regarding any aspects of the project? .Asbestos is in the buildings and needs to be addressed. There are large bairen areas behind the school where the grass seeds ha\e not grown because the City has not watered the area. .Also the fence has been \ andalized and the City has not made the proper repairs.

C-1

Brown's Dump Superfund Alternati\e Approach Site

Fi>e-Year Re> ie>v Inten iov Form

site Name: Brnwii's Duiiin Site Iiiten lewer Name: L'Tonva Sneiicer Subject Name: Paui Tut>vUer Subject Contact liifoniiatloii: 904-483-0138 Tune: 4:20 PM Intenlew Location: Phone Inter\ le>v Format (circle one): In Person

EPA ID No.: FLD980847016 Affiliation: EPA C IC Afffliation: Coinmunitv Leader

Date: .Julv28.2014

Phone \ Mail Other:

Inteniew Categon: Affected Residents

1. .Aj*e you aware of the en\ ironniental issues at the Site and what cleanup acti\ities ha\e occuiTed? ^'es

2. What is your o\ erall impression of the project? Tlie project has been great and has nio\ ed along accordingly.

3. What effect has this site had on the suiTounding coniniunity. if any? None that he is cuiTently aware of at this time.

4. Ha\e there been any problems with unusual or unexpected acti\ity at the site, such as emergency response, \ andalism. or trespassing? Not that he is aware of.

5. Do you feel you recei\e adet|uate infoniiation about the site's acti\ ities and progress? ^'es. thinks it has been adetpiate.

6. Do you ha\ e any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the project? No.

C-2

Brow n's Dump Superfund Alternative FIveA ear Review Inteniew Form Approach Site Site Name: Bi-own's Dumn Site EPA ID No.: FLD980847016 Iiiteniewer Name: L'Tonva Sneiicer AfTiijation: EPA C'lC Subject Name: Sam Hobiiaii AfTiJiation: Hestor Group PNG Subject Contact Information: Hester Group — Proiect New GromicE Jacksomille. EL Tune: Date: .Julv 28. 2014 Inten iew Location: PNG. Jacksomille. FL

Inten iov Format (circle one): InPeiNonX Phone Mail Other:

Inten iew Categon : PRP Outreach Contractor / Hester Group

1. What is your o\ erall impression of the project: including cleanup, maintenance, and reuse acti\ ities (as appropriate)? 0\erall. it's been good. There are some underlying things that could ha\e been better. Some, not all. of the contractors ha\e done well at some homes locations and not good at others. It's been a hassle tr\ ing to get the issues resoh ed.

2. What is your assessment of the current perfoniiance of the remedy in place at the Site? It's been real, but you will always ha\e people that are not satisHed.

3. Ha\ e there been any significant changes in site O&M ret|uirements. maintenance schedules or sampling routines since stai1-up or in the last t1\ e years? If so. do they atTect the protecti\eness or etTecti\eness of the remedy? Please describe changes and impacts. Sampling routines and clean-up has not been atTected in the last t1\ e years. Maintenance of the yards for the community has been contlicting as far as watering and some of the maintenance could not be helped because the grass was bad in the begiiuiing. (Brown's Dump, the grass originally grew well until it was replaced with the clean till and now it won't grow.)

4. Ha\ e there been unexpected O&M ditHculties or costs at the Site since stai1-up or in the last t1\ e years? If so. please pro\ ide details. No. not sure about this pail.

5. Ha\ e there been oppoilunities to optimize O&M acti\ ities or sampling elToils? Please describe changes and any resulting or desired cost sa\ ings or impro\ ed etHciencies. Sometimes the sampling team has not made as big of an elToil to make contacts with those people that they are sampling. PNG outreach has been a\ ailable to soil out the problems. Tliey were not as aggressi\e as they should ha\e been in getting the sampling done. Where they would say there are locked fences, there were lots: sometimes they would say no one was home, but they were. (Tliis has been the sampling team that is subcontracted by the Contractors). Contractors usually make it possible once notiHed by PNG. Tliere may be a cultural awareness issue because of the E.l community. PNG has been able to resohe all issues and get things done when the Contractors and or sampling team could not.

6. Do you ha\ e any comments, suggestions or recommendations regarding O&M acti\ ities and schedules at the Site? We stalled this process in 2009 and there are people that ha\ e been on hold that were sampled and gi\en access years ago. CuiTently. parcels on streets are being

C-3

partially done and people are now getting cleaned up years later when others were done within a three or tbiiilh month time period of signing access to be cleaned. It's mostly Senior Citizens that ha\e this complaint and rightfully so.

C-4

Brown's Dump Superfund Alternative Five-Year Review Interview Form Approach Site Site Name: Brown's Dump EPA ID No.: FLD980847016 Interviewer Name: Ashleigh Fountain Affiliation: Florida DEP Subject Name: John Phillips AfBliation: Florida DEP Subject Contact Information: John.D.Phillins@deD.state.fl.us or 904.256.1549 Time: 1045 Date: 9/5/2014 Interview Location: FDEP NortjieastDig^ict Office Interview Format (circle one): Qn PersoQ Phone Mail Other:

Interview Category: State Agency

1. What is your overall impression of the project? The Department's overall impression of the project is that it is moving along efficiently and remaining remedial actions are almost finished at approximately 95% project completion.

2. How well do you believe the remedy currently in place is performing? The remedial strategies used are currently meeting their expectations and will continue to sustain effectiveness with proper operation and maintenance.

3. Are you comfortable with the institutional controls required for the Site and their current status of implementation? Although the Department has received feedback on the institutional controls placed on affected properties, specifically property value concerns, the institutional controls are necessary safety mechanisms which meet applicable requirements for posterity.

4. Are you aware of any complaints or inquiries regarding environmental issues or the remedial action from residents in the last five years? Yes, the Department has received inquiries regarding environmental concerns.

5. Has your office conducted any site-related activities or communications in the last five years? If so, please give purpose and results of these activities. Yes, the Department has been present on several site visits and attended public meetings.

6. Are you aware of any changes to state laws that might affect the protectiveness of the remedy? Are you aware of any changes in projected land use at the Site? The Department is not aware of any changes to state laws that may affect the effectiveness of the protection mechanisms for the remedial strategies selected. Furthermore, the Department is not aware of any projected land use changes at this site in the foreseeable future, however there are always possibilities for land use changes.

7. Do you feel well informed about the site's activities and progress? Yes, the Department receives adequate information and field notifications.

8. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the Site's management or operation? No, the Department feels we have cooperative working relationships with all involved parties.

C-5

Appendix D: City of Jacksonville Ordinances

TITLE X - ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS Chapter 366 - GROUND WATER AND SURFACE WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

PART 3. WATER WEELS, DRILLERS AND CONTRACTORS

PART 3. WATER WEELS, DRILLERS AND CONTRACTORS

Sec. 366.302. Required permits and permitting standards and procedures.

(a) No water well shall be constructed, repaired and/or abandoned without a permit from the Environmental Quality Division or the SJRWMD. However, an individual permit from the Environmental Quality Division is required before constructing any well within the Brown's Dump and Jacksonville Ash Sites areas.

(b) The well permits herein required, except for those permits issued pursuant to a delegation of authority from SJRWMD are independent of all other permits required.

(c) The Board shall, by rule, establish construction standards and procedures for processing permit applications for the construction, repair or abandonment of a water well not located within a F.A.C. Chapter 62-524, delineated area.

(d) Copies of applications, permits, drillers' logs, water well completion logs and certifications may be required to be submitted to the Department pursuant to the rules of the Board, and Section 366.306 herein.

(e) Permits shall be issued or denied within the timeframes allowed by F.S. Ch. 120. The Department shall request additional information within 30 days after receipt of a permit application.

(f) A permit for well construction shall be valid one year from the date of issuance.

(g) A permit for the construction of a shallow well shall not be required from the Environmental Quality Division where an Urban Services District has established and administers a local shallow well construction program. All other Urban Services Districts shallow well permitting programs, established after the effective date of this act, must:

(1) Be approved by the Environmental Quality Division as adequate to meet the requirements of this act and any applicable rules and regulations pursuant thereto.

(2) Provide by ordinance, regulation, or local law for requirements compatible with, or stricter or more extensive than those imposed by this ordinance and regulations issued thereunder.

(3) Provide for the enforcement of such requirements by appropriate achninistrative and judicial process.

(4) Provide for administrative organization, staff, financial and other resources necessary to effectively and efficiently carry out its program.

(Ord. 2008-346-E, § 2)

D-1

TITLE \ III CONSTRUCTION REGULATIONS AND BUILDING CODES PART4. PERMITS

Sec. 320.403. .Appro\ al of other authorities. In addition to \ erifying compliance with this building code, the Building OtHcial shall

ret|uire that the laws, rules and regulations of any other regulatoiy authority ha\ing jurisdiction, where the laws, rules and regulations are applicable and are kjiown to hini. shall be satisHed before a peniiit is issued. He shall retpiire such e\ idence as in his opinion is reasonable to show the other appro\ als. The Building OfUcial shall not thereby be held responsible for enforcement of the other regulations he is not speciUcally authorized to enforce. Eollow ing are some, but not necessarily all. of the other agencies ha\ing jurisdiction:

(a) Tlie Public Works Depailment and SherilTs OtHce for the mo\ ing of buildings, structures and hea\'\ et|uipment o\ er. temporary construction o\ er. storage of material on. construction operations o\ er. or temporaiy blocking of streets or other public spaces.

(b) Tlie Eire Operations Di\ ision for the burning of construction or demolition waste or the use or storage of e\plosi\ es.

(c) Tlie Public Works Depailment for the discharge of rainwater or other water runolTon streets or into stonii sewers, for compliance w ith subdi\ ision regulations and for other regulations as may be established from time to time.

(d) Tlie Regulatoiy Compliance Depailment for: (1) Tlie adet|uacy of waste treatment plants recei\ing waste from a building or premises

where the waste discharges through a pri\ately-owned sewerage system. (2) Waste treatment and disposal systems, including septic tanks. (3) Places where food or drink is prepared or ser\ ed to the public. (4) Pri\ ate water supply and supply or disposal wells. (5) Commercial swininiing pools. (6) .Air pollution. (7) Trailer parks. (8) Chemical toilets. (9) Tlie ash iiianagement re\ iew program for compliance with the .Ash Management Plan

prepared by the Regulatoiy Compliance Depailment and appro\ed by the U.S. En\ironniental Protection .Agency ("EP.A") for those properties located within those areas assigned EP.A Site Identillcation Numbers ELD98()847()16 (Brown's Dump) and FLSFN()4()7()()2 (Jacksom ille Ash Sites, i.e.. Forest Street Incinerator Site. 5"' 6^ Cle\eland Streets Incinerator Site, and Lonnie C. Miller. Jr.. Park) (the "Brown's Dump" and "Jacksomille .Ash Sites").

(e) Tlie State Di\ ision of Hotels and Restaurants forthe construction, alteration or addition to multiple-residential rental units or places where food or drink is prepared or ser\ ed to the public.

(f) Federal regulations limiting construction during periods of national emergency. (g) Tlie Public Works Department. Coips of Engineers and the state for bulkJieads. docks,

similar construction or 1111 along waterfront property. Tlie Building OtHcial is responsible to peniiit all structures abo\ e the waterline not co\ ered by a Coips of Engineers permit.

(h) Tlie Planning and De\elopnient Department or Planning Commission for those projects ret|uired by the Zoning Code to contain their appro\ al.

D-2

(i) No permit for a hospital or nursing home project that involves the addition of beds by new construction, expansion or conversion to new uses of existing facilities, which addition will increase bed capacity of the facility by five percent or more, shall be issued until a certificate of need has been issued approving the issuance of the permit,

(j) The Public Works Department for the purpose of floodplain regulation permitted under Chapter 652

(Ord. 2001-1160-E, § 1; Ord. 2008-513-E. § E Ord. 2011-230-E, § E Ord. 2011-732-E; Ord. 2013-209-E, § 40)

TITLE XVII - LANDUSE ZONING SECTION Chapter 654 CODE OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS

Sec. 654.118. Design Standards: Ash Management Plan for Brown's Dump and Jacksonville Ash Sites.

All lands located within those areas assigned U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") Site Identification Numbers FED9808470I6 (Brown's Dump) and FESFN0407002 (Jacksonville Ash Sites, i.e.. Forest Street Incinerator Site, 5 & Cleveland Streets Incinerator Site, and Lonnie C. Miller, Jr., Park) ('Brown's Dump" and "Jacksonville Ash Sites") shall be developed in compliance with the Ash Management Plan prepared by the Regulatory Compliance Department and approved by the EPA and set forth in the Land Development Procedures Manual. Additionally, all construction that occurs within Brown's Dump and the Jacksonville Ash Sites shall be subject to review as set forth in Section 320.403.

(Ord. 2011-230-E, § 2; Ord. 2011-732-E; Ord. 2013-209-E, § 40)

D-3

Appendix E: COJ Annual Notification Letters

PROJECT NEW GROUND

Where Fkwida fiegm.

(Needs rem/sampling with AA)

Name Address Real Estate (RE) #:

RE: Annual Notice Letter for RE# referenced above

Dear Current Owner or Occupant:

The referenc ed property is part of a remediation area known as Project New Ground, which is a cooperative effort between the City of Jacksonville ("City") and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") to sample and remove municipal incinerator ash, lead and other ash-related constituents ("Ash Constituents") from properties in the north and west sides of Jacksonville. The referenced property has either been sampled and requires remediation or needs to be sampled in accordance with EPA approved plans.

The City entered into a Remedial Design/Remedial Action Consent Decree for Jacksonville Ash and Brown's Dump Sites Administered under the Comprehensive Environmental, Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("Consent Decree") with EPA. This Consent Decree sets forth the terms and legal requirements for cleaning up the Ash Constituents and has been approved and entered by the U. S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Civil Action # 3:08-CV-257-20-TEM. The express terms of the Consent Decree require the City to provide the