^ c p ^ Explanation of Significant Differences united states Hafris Coro. (Palm Bay Plant) Environmental Protection ' » ^ '

Superfund Site

Site Name: Harris Corp. (Palm Bay Plant) Superfund Site

CERCLA ID #: FLD000602334

Site Location: 2400 Palm Bay, Palm Bay, FL

Lead Agency: EPA, Region 4

Suppoil: Agency: Florida Department of Environmental Protection

^

Palm Bay, Florida

I. Introduction This decision document presents an Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) for the Harris Corp. (Palm Bay Plant) Superfund Site (Site), located in Palm Bay, Florida. The Records of Decision (RODs) addressed by this ESD are:

ROD for Operable Unit (OU) 1, signed on June 28, 1990 ROD for 0U2, signed on Februrary 15, 1995

The Administrative Record is available for review at the Franklin Degroodt Memorial Library, 6475 Minton Road, Palm Bay, Florida, 32909; Monday-Thursday, 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.; Friday and Saturday, 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.; and Sunday, 1:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m., and at U.S. EPA Region 4, 11th Floor Library, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303, Monday - Friday, 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

The ESD is issued in accordance with § 117(c) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq., as amended by the Superfiind Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), § 300.435(c)(2)(i). The Director of the Superfiind Division has been delegated the authority to sign this ESD.

II. Statement of Purpose Since the ROD finalization date, issues conceming institutional controls have been identified at the Site.

The purpose of this ESD is to document a final decision to include institutional controls in the form of a Florida Ground Water Delineated Area as part ofthe ground water remedy for the Site.

This ESD will become part of the Administrative Record for the Harris Corp. (Palm Bay Plant) Superfiind Site (NCP 300.825(a)(2)), which has been developed in accordance with § 113 (k) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9613 (k).

EPA prepares an ESD when it is determined by the Agency that changes to the original selected remedy are significant, but do not fiindamentally alter the remedy selected in the ROD with respect to scope, performance, or cost.

10535675

III. Site History and Contamination

Site History

The Site occupies approximately 310 acres in Palm Bay, Florida, three miles fi-om the Atlantic Ocean. The Harris Corporation manufactures electronic components as well as communication and information processing equipment. OUl, Harris Govemment Communications Systems Division, is located south of Palm Bay Road, and 0U2, the Intersil Corporation property, is located north of Palm Bay Road. Harris Corporation has been manufacturing electronic parts, communication, or information processing equipment on the Site since 1967. The Site remains in continued use; the Harris and Intersil Corporations continue to manufacture equipment on Site. Two previous manufacturing firms operated on a portion ofthe property and used the Site for painting operations, a chromium plating operation, a machine shop, and dmm storage area.

In 1980, EPA sampled some of the public water supply wells that lie south of the Harris Corporation facility as part of a nationwide survey of ground water quality. In March 1982, EPA reported to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER, now Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP)) that numerous volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were detected in six of the water supply wells. Harris Corporation confirmed the presence of VOCs in monitoring wells on its property in 1982. Plumes of contaminated ground water were identified beneath the Harris Corporation facility and the adjacent well field ovmed by Palm Bay Utilities (PBU). Harris Corporation entered into a Consent Order with FDER (OGC Case No. 82-0582) in December 1983, with amendments in January 1984 and October 1984. Harris Corporation agreed to conduct a ground water investigation to determine the extent of chemical impacts and to develop and implement a ground water restoration program.

The Site was proposed for the National Priorities List (NPL) on April 10, 1985, and became a final

NPL site on July 22, 1987. EPA issued a general notice letter to the Harris Corporation on April 6, 1989, notifying the company of its potential liability under CERCLA. This notice letter was issued pursuant to Section 104 and other provisions of CERCLA as amended by SARA. In this notice letter, EPA recognized the remedial efforts taken by Harris Corporation at the Site in compliance with the Consent Order executed between the company and the State of Florida.

Site Contamination

The contaminants found in the ground water at the Site were vinyl chloride, trichloroethylene, 1,1-dichloroethylene,cis-l ,2-dichlorethylene, methylene chloride, 1,1-dichloroethane, chlorobenzene, t-1,2-dichloroethylene, 1,2-dichlorobenzene, ethyl benzene, toluene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, trichlorobenzene, tetrachloroethene, trichloroethene, benzene, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate manganese, lead, mercury, chromium, copper, and fluoride. Some or all of the contaminants identified are hazardous substances as defined in § 104(14) of CERCLA, 42, U.S.C. § 9601(14), and 40 C.F.R. § 302.4.

IV. Selected Remedy Records of Decision (RODs) for OUl and 0U2 were signed on June 28, 1990 and Febmary 15, 1995, respectively. ESDs for OUl and 0U2 were signed on December 1, 1992 and December 8, 1995, respectively.

OUl addresses the ground water contamination associated with the Harris Govemment Communications Systems Division facility of Harris Corporation. The selected remedy for OUl in the 1990 ROD required modification to the Site's existing ground water extraction and treatment system and consisted of the following remedial components:

• continued operation of the existing extraction, treatment, and disposal system;

• a design analysis for plume containment and treatment;

• modification of the ground water extraction and treatment system based on results ofthe design analysis;

• continued sampling and monitoring of the cleanup; and

• a review of the ground water extraction and treatment system by EPA and FDER within five years after the onset of the remedial action.

The subsequent 1991 Consent Agreement, 1992 OUl ESD, and correspondence between the Harris Corporation and EPA updated the Site's contaminants of concem (COCs) and cleanup goals. Based on the decreased contaminant concentrations in monitoring well samples at OUl, EPA approved the deactivation ofthe OUl ground water treatment system as of October 2002. The OUl system was then placed on standby mode with continued monitoring of the Site's ground water. Ground water remediation at OUl is currently being addressed by monitored natural attenuation (MNA).

0U2 addresses the ground water contamination associated with the Intersil Corporation property. The major components of the selected remedy for 0U2 in the 1995 ROD included the following remedial components:

• continued operation of the existing extraction, treatment, and disposal system;

• extraction of contaminated ground water from the surficial aquifer;

• treatment of the extracted ground water by air stripping;

• injection ofthe treated ground water into the Floridan Aquifer;

• elimination of recovery well SC-TS4; and

• groundwater monitoring.

The 1995 0U2 ESD changed the COCs and cleanup goals. Based on decreased contaminant concentrations in monitoring well samples and the

relatively small amount of mass being removed from the ground water at 0U2, EPA approved the deactivation of the 0U2 ground water treatment system on June 5, 2000. On June 13, 2000, the 0U2 system was placed on standby mode with continued monitoring of the ground water. Ground water remediation at 0U2 is currently being addressed by MNA.

V. Description of Significant Differences and Basis for the ESD Institutional controls in the form of a Florida Ground Water Delineated Area have been implemented at the Site because the remedial action has not yet been completed and hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at the Site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure to ground water. However, the remedial action provided in the 1990 and 1995 RODs does not include institutional confrols for ground water. As a result, an ESD is needed to include institutional controls in the form of a Florida Ground Water Delineated Area as part ofthe ground water remedy for the Site.

VI. Support Agency Comments EPA consulted with the FDEP and provided it the opportunity to comment on this ESD in accordance with NCP § 300.435 (c)(2) and § 300.435 (c)(2)(i) and CERCLA § 121(f).

VII. Statutory Determinations EPA has determined that these significant changes comply with the statutory requirements of CERCLA § 121, 42 U.S.C. § 9621, are protective of human health and the environment, comply with federal and state requirements that are applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial action, are cost-effective, and utilize permanent solutions and altemative freatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable.

Because this remedy is not yet complete and hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain on Site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, a policy review will be conducted no less often than each five years after the initiation of the remedial action to ensure that the remedy is, or will be, protective of human health and the environment.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

din iSTHi Director Superfiind Division

Date:

Vlll. Public Participation The public participation requirements set out in the NCP § 300.435(c)(2) have been met by publishing this ESD, making it available to the public in the Administrative Record, and publishing a notice summarizing the ESD in a major local newspaper.

IX. Authorizing Signature I have determined that the remedy for the Site, as modified by this ESD, is protective of human health and the environment, and will remain so provided that the actions presented in this report are implemented as described above.

This ESD documents the significant changes related to the remedy at the Site. U.S. EPA selected these changes after consultation with the FDEP.

CONCURRENCE PAGE FOR THE HARRIS CORP. (PALM BAY PLANT) SUPERFUND SITE

EXPLANATION OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES

Document Prepared By: EPA Region 4 Remedial Project Manager: Michael Taylor

2-r-<='r Date

Concur By: EPA Region 4 Site Attomey: Stedman Southall Date

Concur By: EPA Region 4 Chief, CERCLA Office of Environmental Accountability:

^ l P 7 c David Clay Date

Concur By: EPA Region 4 Section Chief Superfiind Division: Derek Matory

Vll/o^ Date

Concur By: EPA Region 4 Branch Chief Superfiind Division:

Concur By: EPA Region 4 Director Superfund Division: