![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Peak Oil Co./Bay Drum Co.
Peak Oil Co./Bay Drum Co. Contact Information Scott M. Martin, Remedial Project Manager
Site Background The Peak Oil/Bay Drum site located in Hillsborough County, Florida is approximately 10-acres in size and consists of two adjacent properties. The 4-acre Peak Oil facility began operation as a waste oil refiner in August 1954. After 1979, operations reportedly were limited to blending and filtering of waste oil and resale of waste oils for fuel and flotation oil. The 6-acre Bay Drums facility is a former drum reconditioning facility. The soils, sludge, surface water, and sediments on site are contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), volatile organic compounds, and heavy metals including arsenic and lead from former process wastes. In addition, the groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds and heavy metals. Before EPA got involved, potential health threats in the area included contact with contaminated onsite soils and/or surface water runoff. Cleanup Progress Soil (OU 1 and OU 3): Remedial designs addressing OU 1 and OU 3 were finalized in September 2000. The remedial action construction activities designed to address OU 1 and OU 3 were completed during the summer/fall of 2001. The major components of the OU 1 remedy were as follows: The major components of the OU 3 remedy were as follows: Groundwater (OU 2): Implementation of the cleanup option for the area-wide impacted groundwater (i.e., pump and treat) was delayed until after completion of the soil cleanup. Based on information gained during the late 1990s and early 2000s, the viability and need for implementing the remedy selected in the 1993 ROD for OU 2 was in need of re-examination. In order to evaluate possible cleanup alternatives for OU 2, a Feasibility Study (FS) was initiated in 2003 and completed in 2004. Specifically, a focused Feasibility Study and a Pre-Design were submitted and reviewed. This re-analysis lead to the generation of a Proposed Plan in the fall of 2004. The Proposed Plan summarized for the public the preferred cleanup strategy, rationale for the preference, alternatives presented in the detailed analysis of the Feasibility Study/Pre-Design. Public comment on the Proposed Plan ran from September 22, 2004 to October 22, 2004. The preferred alternative for the Floridan Aquifer was Monitored Natural Attenuation. The preferred alternative for the Surficial Aquifer was Enhanced In-Situ Bioremediation with Air Sparging and Monitored Natural Attenuation. The preferred alternatives were made official in the ROD Amendment signed by the EPA Waste Division Director on January 7, 2005. The Remedial Design was completed in January 2005, and the expectation is that groundwater cleanup approach will be installed and operational in 2005. Wetlands (OU 4): As required in the ROD, sampling of the Wetland (OU 4) occurred before construction activities at OU 1 and OU 3 began (i.e., pre-OU 1 and OU 3 construction sampling). Post-OU 1 and OU 3 construction sampling of the Wetland occurred in late 2002 with a report of the results submitted in March 2003. Discussions are ongoing as to what should be the next step(s) with regard to the Wetland. All Remedial Action construction activities were completed in 2005. The groundwater data indicates that the vegetable oil remedy is performing as expected. In the surficial aquifer, the vegetable oil injection appears to be reducing concentrations and will be in place as part of the remedy for a considerable period of time. Reductive dechlorination in the vicinity of the vegetable oil ‘wall’, as indicated by the methane concentrations, is obvious in parts of the site and an additional vegetable oil injection ‘wall’ is proposed further down gradient. Air sparging was selected as the remedial technology to address volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and BTEX in the surficial aquifer in the area near the central wetlands. EPA achieved the construction completion milestone on September 26, 2006. The next five-year review is due in 2010.
|
