PB99-964001
EPA541-R99-019
1999
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Homestead Air Force Base
OUs 18,26, 28, & 29
Homestead, FL
3/15/1999
-------
-------
"OF
Homestead Air Force Base,
Florida
Prepared/or
Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence
Brooks Air Force Base, Texas
Preliminary Assessment/Remedial Design
Contract
Final
Record of Decision
OU 18, OU 26, OU 28, and OU 29
Contract F41624-97-D-8017
October 1998
MONTGOMERY WATSON
-------
-------
FINAL
RECORD OF DECISION
FOR
OU 18, OU 26, OU 28, and OU 29
Homestead Air Force Base, Florida
October 1998
Prepared for:
Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence
Brooks Air Force Base, Texas
Contract F41624-97-D-8017
Delivery Order 010
Prepared by:
Montgomery Watson
3501 N. Causeway Blvd., Suite 400
Metairie, Louisiana 70002
-------
-------
.HW 1 5
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
4WD-FFB
•»
Albert Lowas • ' ~ •
Director of Air Force Base Conversion Agency
1400 North Moore Street, Suite 2300
Arlington, VA 22209-2802
SUBJ: Record Of Decision - Operable Units 18,26,28, and 29; Homestead Air Force Base NPL
Site; Homestead, Florida
Dear Mr. Lowas:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region IV has reviewed the subject
decision document and concurs with the selected remedies for the remedial actions at Operable
Units (OU) 18, 26,28, and 29 at the former Homestead Air Force Base (HAFB). These
remedies are supported by the previously completed Remedial Investigation, Feasibility Study,
and Baseline Risk Assessment Reports. The selected remedies consist of:
OU-18
Remove existing asphalt-containing sediments and some above grade fill along the Boundary
Canal, place them on top of OU-18, regrade the site, and install a vegetated cover over the site.
Install fence and warning signs. Restrict land access and use. Long-term management and
groundwater monitoring.
Remove contaminated soils. Dispose in RCRA Subtitle D landfill. Backfill excavated area.
Regrade and revegetate.
OU-28
Remove contaminated soils. Dispose in RCRA Subtitle D landfill. Backfill excavated area.
Regrade and revegetate.
QU-29
Remove contaminated soils. Dispose hi RCRA Subtitle D landfill. Backfill excavated area.
Regrade and revegetate.
-------
The determination to implement these courses of action at these sites are consistent with the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as
amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) and the National
Contingency Plan (40 CFR 300).
One point on OU-18 merits clarification. On April 21,1998, EPA Region IV issued a
Memorandum titled "Assuring Land Use Controls at Federal Facilities." The content of that
memorandum deals with land use controls for properties which are not imminently being
transferred to a non-federal entity. To date, our focus in implementing this policy at Homestead
Air Force Base has been on that part which will remain as Homestead Air Reserve Station.
However, because of the indefinite length of tune before OU-18 and other similar areas outside
of the cantonment area that rely on land use controls are transferred by deed to a non-federal
entity, EPA believes that our April 21,1998, policy on land use controls should apply until such
transfer occurs. Therefore, we are concurring with the subject OU-18 Record Of Decision
(ROD) conditioned upon the development of a Land Use Control Assurance Plan (LUCAP) for
the non-cantonment portion of Homestead Air Force Base and a Land Use Control
Implementation Plan (LUCIP) for OU-18. To expedite this process, we suggest development of
a LUCAP similar to the one which has been negotiated between the Homestead Air Reserve
Station, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and EPA.
Thus, EPA's concurrence with the Record of Decision (ROD) for OU-18 is conditioned
on the express understanding that the Air Force is committed to reaching an agreement with
EPA Region IV and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) that complies
with EPA's April 21,1998 Memorandum titled "Assuring Land Use Controls at Federal
Facilities." We reiterate, as we advised Air Force Regional Environmental Office
representatives in our meeting on May 21, 1998, our concurrence with this particular ROD is
based on the understanding that the Air Force is committed to entering a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) consistent with the above-referenced Land Use Control (LUC) Policy.
Furthermore, once such an MOA is in place, the Homestead Air Force Base BRAG Cleanup
Team (BCT) will be expected to craft specific provisions for Land Use Controls as part of the
resulting Land Use Control Implementation Plan for OU- 18, that will prohibit unrestricted
property reuse.
As agreed upon at the May 21,1998, meeting with the Homestead Air Reserve Station,
we continue to hold the expectation that final details will be worked out within 90 days after the
date of this concurrence, resulting in an MOA that fully complies with the LUC policy. As
emphasized at that meeting, and counter to the statement in the Air Force Regional
Environmental Office's letter dated June 1,1998, we remain steadfast hi our position that hi the
event an MOA is not reached within 90 days, we reserve the right to reconsider this remedy, and
will not be willing to concur on future Homestead RODs that rely in whole or in part on Land
Use Controls unless and until an agreement is in effect.
-------
EPA appreciates the level of effort that was put forth in the documents leading to this
decision. EPA looks forward to working with HAFB as we move towards final cleanup of the
National Priorities List (NPL) site.
If you have any questions, please call me at (404) 562-8651, or Doyle T. Brittain at
(404)562-8549.
Sincerely,
Richard D. Green, Director
Waste Management Division
cc: Thomas J. Bartol, HAFB/AFBCA
John Mitchell, HAFB/AFRES
Jim Woolford, EPA/FFRO
Jorge Caspary, FDEP
Hugh Vick, Gannett Fleming
D.Brittain/dtb:4WD-FFB:28549:02-ll-99:HAFB991-OU18ETAL.ROD
D.BRITT.
E.BOZEMAN
JJOHNSTON
DODRS
R.GREEN
FFB
-------
V ,JC
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE BASE CONVERSION AGENCY
Decembers, 1998
AFBCA/DD Homestead
29050 Coral Sea Blvd., Box 36
Homestead ARB, Florida 33039-1299
US EPA, Region 4, 4WD-FFB
Atlanta Federal Center
61 ForsythSt
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
ATTN: Mr. Doyle Brittain
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Twin Towers Office Building
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
ATTN: Mr. Jorge Caspary
Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management
Industrial Waste Section
33 SW 2nd Avenue, Suite 800
Miami, Florida 33130-1540
ATTN: Mr. James Carter
RE: Final Record of Decision (ROD) signature page, Operable Units 18, 26, 28, and
29, Former Homestead AFB, Florida
Attached for insertion into the final referenced ROD is a signature page signed by
our director. Please process the final document for your agency's concurrence/approval.
If you need new documents, please let me know and I will send them. The final document
we sent on October 22, 1998 is valid except for the signature page that goes before page
1-1. If possible, your expedited processing will be appreciated. As you know, we want to
begin the remedial action as soon as possible. I will be forwarding a remedial action work
plan for this work soon. We greatly appreciate all the hard work that has gone into
making this four site ROD a reality. Your concurrence is requested by January 13, 1999.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (305) 224-7233.
THOMAS J. BARTOL
BRAC Environmental Coordinator
Homestead Operating Location
-------
Attachment:
Signature page for OU 18,26,28,29 ROD
cc:
AFBCA/DD, Andrew Mendoza
HQ AFRC/CEW, Carlton Crenshaw
HQ AFCEE/ERB, Greg Keefe
Gannett Fleming, Hugh Vick (2)
482 SPTG/CEV, John Mitchell
BAH, Phil Lee
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Date
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Date
Director, Air Force .Base Conversion Agency
L/
» Jfe
Date
F:\AFCEE\HOMESTEAD\DO-0010DEUVERABLE\DRAFTRNALOU-I8.. ROD\ROD13TOC.DOC/ml/jdgfcnd
Homestead AFB - OUs 18. 26. 28. and 29 Record of Decision
8/21/98
Rev. I
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION 1 _ i
1.1 SITE NAMES 1_!
1.2 LOCATION AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION 1 -1
1.3 SITE DESCRIPTIONS 1_2
1.3.1 OU 18 - Old Contractor Storage Area and Former Construction
Debris Landfill 1_3
1.3.2 OU26- Building 745, Aircraft Fabrication Facility 1-3
1.3.3 OU28 - Building 750, Propulsion (Engine) Maintenance
Facility 1_4
1.3.4 OU29 - Building 760, Avionics Aerospace Ground Equipment
Shop and Tactical Electronic Warfare System Shop 1 -4
2.0 SITE AND REGULATORY HISTORY 2-1
2.1 REGULATORY HISTORY 2-1
2.2 SITE HISTORY 2-3
3.0 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION HISTORY 3-1
4.0 SCOPE AND ROLES OF THE RESPONSE ACTION 4-1
5.0 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 5-1
5.1 INVESTIGATION SUMMARY 5-1
5.1.1 OU 18 - Old Contractor Storage Area and Former Construction
Debris Landfill 5-1
5.1.1.1 Confirmation Sampling 5-1
5.1.1.2 Remedial Investigation 5-2
5.1.1.3 Contamination Summary 5-2
5.1.2 OU26 - Building 745, Aircraft Fabrication 5-3
5.1.2.1 Confirmation Sampling 5-4
5.1.2.2 UST Investigation 5-4
5.1.2.3 Interim Removal Action Activities 5-4
5.1.2.4 Remedial Investigation 5-5
5.1.2.5 Contamination Summary 5-6
Q:tfMI UBB\RODI8\RODIS70C.DOC/md'jdg • 4'-JO'98
Homcsiead AFB -OUs IS.26.28. and 29 Record of Decision * Rev 0
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
5.1.3 OU28 - Building 750, Propulsion (Engine) Maintenance
Facility 5_g
5.1.3.1 UST/0 WS Investigations 5.8
5.1.3.2 Remedial Investigation 5.9
5.1.3.3 Contamination Summary 5.9
5.1.4 OU29 - Building 760, Avionics Aerospace Ground Equipment
Shop and Tactical Electronic Warfare System Shop 5.10
5.1.4.1 UST/OWS Investigations 5.!0
5.1.4.2 Remedial Investigation 5_j]
5.1.4.3 Contamination Summary 5.]]
5.2 CONTAMINANT FATE AND TRANSPORT 5 ]2
5.3 BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT(BRA) 5]13
5.3.1 Human Health 5_13
5.3.1.1 Selection of Contaminants of Potential Concern
(COPCs) 5_14
5.3.1.2 Exposure Assessment 5_15
5.3.1.3 Exposure Point Concentrations 5-17
5.3.1.4 Estimating Chemical Intakes 5-18
5.3.1.5 Toxicity Assessment 5_19
5.3.1.6 Risk Characterization 5.19
5.3.2 Ecological Risk Assessment 5_2i
5.3.2.1 Ecological Habitat Review 5_22
5.3.2.2 Chemicals of Potential Ecological Concern
(COPECs) 5.24
5.3.2.3 Exposure Assessment 5_25
5.3.2.4 Risk Evaluation 5_25
5.3.3 Summary of Human Health and Ecological Risks 5-28
5.4 PRELIMINARY REMEDIATION GOALS 5.29
5.4.1 Human Health and Environmental Risks Identified by BRA 5.^0
5.4.2 PRGs Based on FDEP Cleanup Goals ' 5,3]
O.JtMl l\BB\RODI8\ROD)STOC.DOC/md/jdg
Hdmeslcad AFB - OUi IS. 26,28. and 29 Record of Decision J1 4/50/98
Rev. 0
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
5.4.3 PRGs Based on Site-Specific Risk Assessment 5-32
5.4.4 Summary of PRGs 5.33
6.0 REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES 6_1
6.1 REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES 6-1
6.1.1 Identification of Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARARs) 6-1
6.1.1.1 Chemical-Specific ARARs 6-3
6.1.1.2 Location-Specific ARARs 6-4
6.1.1.3 Action-Specific ARARs 6-6
6.1.1.4 Identification of Remedial Objectives 6-6
6.2 ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING PROCESS 6-8
6.2.1 Detailed Analysis Criteria 6-9
6.2.1.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the
Environment 6-10
6.2.1.2 Compliance with ARARs 6-10
6.2.1.3 Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence 6-10
6.2.1.4 Reduction of TMV Through Treatment 6-10
6.2.1.5 Short-Term Effectiveness 6-11
6.2.1.6 Implementability 6-11
6.2.1.7 Cost 6-11
6.3 ALTERNATIVES ADDRESSING OU18 SOILS AND SEDIMENTS 6-12
6.3.1 Description of Alternatives 6-12
6.3.2 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives Addressing OU18 Soils and
Sediment 6-15
6.3.3 Comparative Analysis Of Alternatives Addressing OU18 Soils
and Sediments 6-16
6.3.3.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the
Environment 6-16
6.3.3.2 Compliance with ARARs 6-16
6.3.3.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence 6-17
6.3,3.4 Reduction of TMV through Treatment 6-17
Q:\3M1 nBB\RODI8',RODI8TOC.DOC/md'jdg -•• 4'30'98
Homestead AFB-OUs IS. 26,28, and 29 Record of Decision *" i> ' n
KCV. U
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
6.4
6.3.3.5 Short-Term Effectiveness
6.3.3.6 Implementability
6.3.3.7 Cost
6.3.4 Proposed Alternative for OU18 Soils and Sediments
ALTERNATIVES ADDRESSING OU26 SOILS
6.4.1 Description of Alternatives
6.4.2 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives Addressing OU26 Soils
6.4.3 Comparative Analysis Of Alternatives Addressing OU26 Soils
6.4.3.1
6.4.3.2
6.4.3.3
6.4.3.4
6.4.3.5
6.4.3.6
6.4.3.7
Overall Protection of Human Health and the
Environment
Compliance with ARARs
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Reduction of TMV through Treatment
Short-Term Effectiveness
Implementability
Cost
6.5
6.4.4 Proposed Alternative for OU26 Soils
ALTERNATIVES ADDRESSING OU26 GROUNDWATER
6.5.1 Description of Alternatives
6.5.2 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives Addressing OU26
Ground-water
6.5.3 Comparative Analysis Of Alternatives Addressing OU26
Groundwater
6.5.3.1
6.5.3.2
6.5.3.3
6.5.3.4
6.5.3.5
6.5.3.6
6.5.3.7
Overall Protection of Human Health and the
Environment
Compliance with ARARs
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Reduction of TMV through Treatment
Short-Term Effectiveness
Implementability
Cost
Page
6-18
6-18
6-18
6-19
6-19
6-19
6-21
6-21
6-21
6-21
6-22
6-22
6-22
6-23
6-23
6-23
6-24
6-24
6-26
6-26
6-26
6-27
6-27
6-28
6-28
6-28
6-29
Q;\3M I I \HB\RODI S ROD! 8TOC.DOC /md/jdg
Unincvc.id AFB - OUs 18,26.28, and 29 Record of Decision
IV
4/30/98
Rev. 0
-------
TABLE OF
Section
6.5.4 Proposed Alternative for OU26 Groundwater
6.6 ALTERNATIVES ADDRESSING OU28 SOILS
6.6.1 Description of Alternatives
6.6.2 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives Addressing OU28 Soils
6.6.3 Comparative Analysis Of Alternatives Addressing OU28
6.6.3. 1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the
Environment
6.6.3.2 Compliance with ARARs
6.6.3.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
6.6.3.4 Reduction of TMV through Treatment
6.6.3.5 Short-Term Effectiveness
6.6.3.6 Implementability
6.6.3.7 Cost
6.6.4 Proposed Alternative for OU28 Soils
6.7 ALTERNATIVES ADDRESSING OU29 SOILS
CONTENTS
Page
6-30
6-30
6-30
6-32
Soils 6-32
6-32
6-33
6-33
6-33
6-33
6-34
6-34
6-35
6-35
6.7.1 Description of Alternatives 6-35
6.7.2 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives Addressing OU29 Soils 6-36
6.7.3 Comparative Analysis Of Alternatives Addressing OU29 Soils 6-37
6.7.3.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the
Environment
6.7.3.2 Compliance with ARARs
6.7.3.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
6.7.3.4 Reduction of TMV through Treatment
6.7.3.5 Short-Term Effectiveness
6.7.3.6 Implementability
6.7.3.7 Cost
6.7.4 Proposed Alternative for OU29 Soils
6.8 SELECTED REMEDIES SUMMARY
6.9 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
6-37
6-37
6-37
6-38
6-38
6-38
6-38
6-39
6-39
6-40
Q:\3M1 l\BBvRODI8\RODlSTOC.DOC/md/jdg .„.„,
Homestead AFB-OUs 18,26.28, and 29 Record of Decision V „, „
i Kcv. U
-------
Section
7.0 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
8.0 REFERENCES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
7-1
8-1
CJ 3MI IJBts-RUD!8\RODlSTOC.DOC/md/jdg
Homestcjd AFB - OUs IS, 26,28, and 29 Record of Decision
VI
4/30/98
Rev. 0
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 5-1
TABLE 5-2
TABLE 5-3
TABLE 5-4
TABLE 6-1
TABLE 6-2
TABLE 6-3
TABLE 6-4
TABLE 6-5
TABLE 6-6
TABLE 6-7
TABLE 6-8
TABLE 6-9
SUMMARY OF COPCs IDENTIFIED IN THE HUMAN HEALTH
RISK ASSESSMENT AT OUs 18, 26,28, AND 29
SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS OF THE BASELINE RISK
ASSESSMENT
SUMMARY OF COPECs IDENTIFIED IN THE ECOLOGICAL
HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AT OUs 18, 26,28, AND 29
PRELIMINARY REMEDIATION GOALS FOR CONTAMINANTS OF
CONCERN AT HOMESTEAD AFB
SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARs/TBCs
HOMESTEAD AFB
SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL LOCATION-SPECIFIC ARARs
HOMESTEAD AFB
POTENTIAL ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARs/TBCs, HOMESTEAD AFB
DETAILED ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES ADDRESSING OU18
SOILS AND SEDIMENTS, HOMESTEAD AFB, FEASIBILITY
STUDY
ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARs/TBCs HOMESTEAD AFB
DETAILED ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES ADDRESSING OU26
SOILS AND SEDIMENTS, HOMESTEAD AFB, FEASIBILITY
STUDY
DETAILED ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES ADDRESSING OU26
GROUNDWATER, HOMESTEAD AFB, FEASIBILITY STUDY
DETAILED ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES ADDRESSING OU28
SOILS, HOMESTEAD AFB, FEASIBILITY STUDY
DETAILED ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES ADDRESSING OU29
SOILS, HOMESTEAD AFB, FEASIBILITY STUDY
Q:\3M 11 \BB\ROD 18\ROD 1 SToC.DOC /md'jdg
Homestead AFB - OUs IS. 26. 2S, and 29 Record of Decision
Vll
4/30'98
Rev.O
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1-1
FIGURE 1-2
FIGURE 1-3
FIGURE 1-4
FIGURE 1-5
FIGURE 1-6
FIGURE 1-7
FIGURE 5-1
FIGURE 5-2
FIGURE 5-3
FIGURE 5-4
FIGURE 5-5
FIGURE 5-6
FIGURE 5-7
FIGURE 5-8
FIGURE 5-9
FIGURE 5-10
LOCATION MAP
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF HOMESTEAD AFB AND
SURROUNDING AREA, HOMESTEAD AFB, FLORIDA
LOCATIONS OF OU SITES
OU18 SITE DIAGRAM
OU26 SITE DIAGRAM
OU28 SITE DIAGRAM
OU29 SITE DIAGRAM
OU18 CONFIRMATION SAMPLING LOCATIONS AND
RESULTS
OU18 RI SAMPLING LOCATIONS
OU18 CONTAMINANTS EXCEEDING FDEP INDUSTRIAL
CLEAN-UP GOALS/CRITERIA IN SITE MEDIA
OU26 CONFIRMATION SAMPLING LOCATIONS AND
RESULTS
OU26 RI SAMPLING LOCATIONS
OU26 CONTAMINANTS EXCEEDING FDEP INDUSTRIAL
CLEAN-UP GOALS/CRITERIA IN SITE MEDIA
OU28 (FORMERLY BUILDING 750): RI SAMPLING
LOCATIONS
OU28 (FORMERLY BUILDING 750): CONTAMINANTS
EXCEEDING FDEP INDUSTRIAL CLEAN-UP
GOALS/CRITERIA IN SITE MEDIA
OU29 (FORMERLY BUILDING 760): RI SAMPLING
LOCATIONS
OU29 (FORMERLY BUILDING 760): CONTAMINANTS
EXCEEDING FDEP INDUSTRIAL CLEAN-UP
GOALS/CRITERIA IN SITE MEDIA
Q:\3M11\BB\ROD1S\RODISTOC.DOC /md/jdg
Homestead AFB - OUs 18. 26.28, and 29 Record ofDecision
Vlll
4/30/98
Rev. 0
-------
ACRONYM LIST
ACC
AFB
AFRC
AOC
ARARs
ARB
AST
BCT
BRA
BRAC
BTEX
CERCLA
COI
COPC
COPEC
DCAD
DCB
DCE
ODD
DDE
DDT
DERM
DERP
DOD
EPA
FAC
FDEP
FDER
FFA
FS
HI
HQ
HRS
IF
IRA
IRP
LTTD
MCL
mg/kg
Air Combat Command
Air Force Base
Air Force Reserve Command
Area of Concern
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Air Reserve Base
Aboveground Storage Tank
BRAC Cleanup Team
Baseline Risk Assessment
Base Realignment and Closure
Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylenes
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act
Chemical of Interest
Chemicals of Potential Concern
Chemical of Potential Ecological Concern
Dade County Aviation Department
Dichlorobenzene
Dichloroethene
Dichloro-Diphenyl-Dichloroethane
Dichloro-Diphenyl-Dichloroethylene
Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane
Metropolitan Dade County Department of Environmental
Resources Management
Defense Environmental Restoration Program
Department of Defense
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Florida Administrative Code
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
Federal Facilities Agreement
Feasibility Study
Hazard Index
Hazard Quotient
Hazard Ranking System
Intake Factor
Interim Removal Action
Installation Restoration Program
Low Temperature Thermal Desorption
Maximum Contaminant Level
milligrams/kilogram
Q:\3M 11 'BB\ROD18 >ROD18TOC.DOC /md/jdg
Homestead AFB - OUs IS. 26,28. and 29 Record of Decision
ix
4/30/98
Rev. 0
-------
ACRONYM LIST
mg/1
NCP
NFA
NPDES
NPL
OU
OHM
OWS
PAH
PCB
PCE
ppb
ppm
PRO
PSC
RAB
RAO
RBC
RCRA
RFA
RI
RfD
RL
RME
ROD
SAC
SARA
SF
SI
SVOC
TAG
TCE
TEFs
TFW
TMV
TRPH
TTW
UCL
ug/L
USAGE
milligrams/liter
National Oil and Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
No Further Action
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
National Priorities List
Operable Unit
OH Materials
Oil/Water Separator
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon
Polychlorinated Biphenyl
Tetrachloroethene
parts per billion
parts per million
Preliminary Remedial Goal
Potential Source of Contamination
Restoration Advisory Board
Remedial Action Objectives
Risk-Based Concentration
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCRA Facility Assessment
Remedial Investigation
Reference Dose
Reporting Limit
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Record of Decision
Strategic Air Command
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
Slope Factor
Site Inspection
Semivolatile Organic Compound
Tactical Air Command
Trichloroethene
Toxicity Equivalency Factors
Tactical Training Wing
Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume
Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbon
Tactical Training Wing
Upper Confidence Limit
micrograms/kilogram
micrograms/liter
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
QA3MI1 \B8\ROD 18\RODlSTOC.DOC/md/jds
Homestead AF3 - OUs IS. 26.28. and 29 Record of Decision
4/30/98
Rev. 0
-------
ACRONYM LIST
USAF United States Air Force
UST Underground Storage Tank
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
W-C Woodward-Clyde
Q:\3MI 1\BB\ROD18\ROD1STOC.DOC /md/jdg
Homeslcad AFB - OUs 18.26.28, and 29 Record of Decision X1 4/30/98
Rev. 0
-------
-------
DECLARATION STATEMENT
FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
FOR OPERABLE UNIT NOs. 18, 26, 28 AND 29
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Operable Unit Nos. 18,26, 28, and 29
Homestead Air Force Base, Florida
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial actions for the Operable Units (OUs)
18, 26, 28, and 29 at Homestead Air Force Base (AFB), Florida. The remedial actions were
chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended by Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA), and to the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). This decision is based on the administrative record for this site.
The State of Florida, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the U.S. Air
Force (USAF) concur with the selected remedy presented in this Record of Decision (ROD).
ASSESSMENT OF SITES
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the OU sites, if not addressed by
implementing the response actions selected in this ROD, may present an imminent and
substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment. The risks identified
in the Remedial Investigation (RI) for OUs 18, 26, 28, and 29 are presented below:
Operable Unit Human Risk Environmental Risk
OU18
OU26
OU28
OU29
EF
EF
F
F
E
—
E
—
— = Risk values did not exceed EPA criteria
E = Risk values exceed EPA criteria
F = Contaminant concentrations exceeded risk-based Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP)
industrial soil cleanup goals.
Q:\3M1 l\BB\RODI8\ROD18TOC.DOC/md/jdg 4<30<9S
Homcslcad AFB - OUs 18, 26, 28, and 29 Record of Decision j{ev 0
-------
DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED REMEDIES
Remedies have been selected which address the principal risks identified at each OU site
The selected remedies will allow for Homestead AFB to meet its overall objective of
protecting human health and the environment through the process of identifying
investigating, cleaning up, and closing contaminated sites.
The remedial alternatives selected for each site are summarized below:
Operable Unit
OU18
OU26
OU28
OU29
Media
Soil/Sediment
Soil
Groundwater
Soil
Soil
Remedial Alternative
OU18-3: Soil Cover
OU26-4S: Remove and Landfill
OU26-3G: Intrinsic Remediation
OU28-4: Remove and Landfill
OU29-4: Remove and Landfill
The selected alternative to address soil risks at OUs 26, 28 and 29 is to "remove and landfill"
the contamination. This alternative includes:
• Excavation and removal of contaminated soils
0 Backfilling excavated areas with uncontaminated fill
» Transporting contaminated soils to a solid waste landfill for disposal
<» Lead-contaminated soils at site OU28 that are determined to be
characteristically hazardous will be encapsulated/stabilized prior to disposal in
a solid waste landfill
At OU18, the "soil cover" alternative has been selected to address risks associated with soil
and sediment contamination. This alternative includes:
• Removing existing asphaltic sediments and the site fill material along the
canal
• Placing removed sediments and fill material on top of the site
• Re-grading the site
• Placing a vegetated soil cover over the site
Q.UMl!\BB-,RODlS\ROD1870C.L>OC/md/jdg
Homestead AFB - OUs IS, 26,28. and 29 Record of Decision
4/30/98
Rev. 0
-------
The "intrinsic remediation" alternative has been selected to address risks associated with
groundwater contamination at OU26. Intrinsic remediation includes:
• Evaluation of biodegradation/reduction of contaminants over time
• Long-term groundwater monitoring for chemicals of concern
• Restriction of groundwater use at the site
• Long-term management and health and safety oversight for construction
projects in the area
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedies are protective of human health and the environment, comply with
Federal and State requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the
remedial action, and are cost effective. These remedies utilize permanent solutions and
alternative treatment or resource recovery technologies, to the maximum extent practicable.
However, because treatment of the principal threats at the OUs was not found to be
practicable, these remedies do not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a principal
element.
Because the remedies for OUs 18 soils/sediments and 26 groundwater will result in
hazardous substances remaining on site above health-based levels, a review will be conducted
within five years of commencement of remedial action to ensure that the remedies continue
to provide adequate protection of human health and the environment.
Because the selected remedy for soil at OUs 26, 28 and 29 will not result in hazardous
substances remaining on site above health-based levels, the five-year review will not apply to
these actions for OUs 26, 28, and 29.
Q:s3Mll\BB\ROL>1S\RODISTOC.DOC /md/jdg
Homestead AFB -OUs 18, 26. 28, and 29 Record of Decision o n
KCv, U
-------
-------
1.0
SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION
The following sections provide descriptions of OUs 18, 26, 28, and 29.
1.1 SITE NAMES
This ROD is for the following Homestead AFB OUs:
• OU1 8 - Old Contractor Storage Area and Former Construction Debris Landfill
•
OU26 - Building 745, Aircraft Fabrication Facility
• OU28 - Building 750, Propulsion (Engine) Maintenance Facility
OU29 - Building 760, Avionics Aerospace Ground Equipment Shop and
Tactical Electronic Warfare System Shop
Section 1.3 provides site specific descriptions of the OUs.
1.2 LOCATION AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The four OUs are located at Homestead APB, which is located in southern Dade County,
Florida, approximately 25 miles southwest of Miami and 7 miles east of the town of
Homestead (Figure 1-1). The main Base covers approximately 2,916 acres. There are
approximately 700 personnel currently working at the Base; about half are military personnel
and half are civilian employees. An Additional 200 to 300 Reservists are at the Base for
training, but are not full-time employees. The nearby city of Homestead has an approximate
population of 18,700. Florida City is home to approximately 5,500 residents (Homestead
Chamber of Commerce 1994). The population for the greater Miami area is reported to be
1 .9 million (Miami Chamber of Commerce 1 994).
The topography at Homestead AFB and associated OUs is relatively flat. Many of the trees
and buildings previously on the Base- were destroyed in 1992 by Hurricane Andrew. The
Q:\3MU\BB\ROD18\RODI8SOi.DOC/m(l/jdg 1 .
Homestead AFB-OUs 18.26.28. and 29 Record of Decision *~1 429/98
Rev. 0
-------
flightline, support buildings and hangars, and several office-type buildings have been
repaired or rebuilt since the hurricane. The Base is surrounded by a security fence.
A series of canals form the Boundary Canal system that drains most of the Base. The
Boundary Canal empties into the storm water reservoir at the southeast corner of the Base.
Water in the Boundary Canal and reservoir consists of storm water and is not used as a
potable water source. The Boundary Canal has essentially two major elements, the West-
South and North-East segments. A dike is present along the outside bank of the Boundary
Canal to minimize off-Base runoff from entering the canal.
The Outfall Canal flows straight east from the storm water reservoir and empties into
Biscayne Bay. The total length of the Outfall Canal is approximately 10,400 feet (2.0 miles).
In addition to the excavated canal, an earthen bank is constructed on both sides. Control
structure S20G is located along Outfall Canal, approximately 1.4 miles east of the reservoir.
According to the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), this structure
controls the flow of the Outfall Canal to minimize salt water intrusion from Biscayne Bay.
Water movement through the structure is controlled by a vertical lift gate. The gate is 25 feet
wide and can be lifted to provide a maximum opening of at least 10 feet in height (USAGE
1963). The width of the Outfall Canal ranges from approximately 35 to 50 feet. The total
depth of the canal including the bank ranges from 10 to 20 feet.
The Base is surrounded by residential areas to the north and southwest, and farmland and
plant nurseries on the other boundaries. Figure 1-2 shows Homestead AFB and surrounding
area.
1.3 SITE DESCRIPTIONS
The following sections provide site specific descriptions for the four OUs discussed in this
ROD. Figure 1-3 shows the locations of the OUs within Homestead AFB.
Q:V3MinBB\RODlSiROD18SOI.DOC/md'jdg , «
Homestead AFB-OUs 18.26. 28. and 29 Record of Decision * "^
Rev. 0
-------
1.3.1 OU18 - Old Contractor Storage Area and Former Construction
Debris Landfill
OU18 consists of the former Old Contractor Storage Area and Former Construction Debris
Landfill. OU18 occupies an area of approximately 2.5 acres near the corner of Bikini
Boulevard and Schweinfurt Road at the northeastern edge of the Base (Figure 1-4).
According to Homestead personnel, OU18 had been used by contractors since the early
1980s for storage of various materials (including pipes, equipment, paint cans, and tools) and
for the disposal of crushed asphalt. The surface consists of crushed asphalt with some sand
and gravel.
Surface drainage flows to a swale located along the site's southeast edge. The swale drains to
the southwest. The southern and southwest edge of the OU is bounded by grass, brush, and
small trees, while the north and west sides are bounded by canals. The west edge is bounded
by a canal between the site and the former Family Camp Grounds access road. The north
edge of the site runs up against the Boundary Canal.
Although there have been no reported spills for this area, housekeeping had been poor, and
contractors appeared to have routinely left unusable debris when leaving the site. Areas of
oil staining and paint spillage were noted throughout the area during a June 1993 visual
inspection. Beginning in 1995, piles of excavation material have been placed onto the site by
Base contractors.
1.3.2 OU26 - Building 745, Aircraft Fabrication Facility
OU26, which includes Building 745 - Aircraft Fabrication Facility, occupies about 1.5 acres
in the east-central portion of the Base (Figure 1-5). According to Homestead AFB personnel,
the building had been used for maintenance of aircraft skin and hydraulics. Building 745 has
been partially repaired since Hurricane Andrew. The building is unoccupied and will likely
be demolished as part of reuse activities. There are currently no plans to occupy the facility.
Asphalt parking and driveways are located to the northwest, southwest, and southeast.
Grassy areas and a drainage canal are located to the northeast. Three transformers were
Q:\3MmBB\ROD18'.ROD18S01.DOC/md/jdg -. -j n
Homestead AFB - OUs ! 8.26,28. and 29 Record of Decision * "^ „, „
Kcv. 0
-------
reportedly stored in a fenced area on the east side of Building 745. No leaks were reported
around the transformers.
A covered concrete slab labeled Building 746 is located southeast of Building 745. Building
746 was used to store contained gas cylinders. Two flammable materials storage cabinets
were located south of Building 746 and contained paints, solvents, and driveway sealer
during a 1993 visual inspection.
1.3.3
OU28 - Building 750, Propulsion (Engine) Maintenance Facility
OU28, which includes Building 750 - Propulsion (Engine) Maintenance Facility, occupies
approximately 4 acres immediately northeast of OU26 (Figure 1-6). OU28 had been used for
jet engine tear-down, rebuilding, inspection and repair since approximately 1950. The site
topography gently slopes to the north to a drainage swale at the northwest portion of the site
and to the southeast towards a drainage swale at the southeast portion of the building. The
site driveways and parking areas are covered with asphalt. Small areas to the sides and rear
of the building are grass covered.
An oil water separator (OWS) and sump were located in the southwest portion of the site, and
five underground storage tanks (USTs) associated with electroplating operations at' the
facility were located at the northwest corner of the building by Bikini Boulevard. Building
744, an aboveground storage tank (AST), and Building 743, an emergency electrical
generation building, are located at the south side of the site.
1.3.4
OU29 - Building 760, Avionics Aerospace Ground Equipment Shop
and Tactical Electronic Warfare System Shop
OU29, which consists of former Building 760 and surrounding area, is located northeast of
the intersection of Bikini and St. Nazaire Boulevards (Figure 1-7). Building 760 was
demolished due to damage from Hurricane Andrew. The site currently consists of a mixture
of asphalt or concrete paved areas and a grassy area covering the former building footprint.
Nearby OU28 is located southwest and across St. Nazaire Blvd. from OU29.
Q:\3M 11\BB\ROD1 SvRODl 8SC1 .DOC /md/jdg
Homestead AFB - OUs 18.26.28. and 29 Record of Decision
1-4
4,29/98
Rev. 0
-------
Building 760 was used as an Avionics Aerospace Ground Equipment shop, a Tactical
Electronic Warfare System shop, and housed various associated testing shops based on
available records. An OWS had been located at the southeast corner of Building 760.
Effluent from the OWS discharged to the north into the sanitary sewer that runs along Bikini
Boulevard. A 2,000-gallon steel UST was also located adjacent to the southwest side of
Building 760. The tank was reportedly used to store diesel fuel used to power a generator or
boiler that was located inside Building 760.
Q:\3M1 KBBvROD]8\ROD18S01.DOC/nid/jdg
Il.imesiead AFB - OUs 18.26.28. and 29 Record of Decision * "-> 4-29/98
Rev. 0
-------
-------
HOMESTEAD AFB
0 10 20 40 60 BO MILES
III I I I
April 23, 1998 9:13:41 a.m.
Drawing: T:\HOMESTED\C3M11BB\TSKM22\F1-1TMZ2.DWG (TSSM)
Homestead Air Force Base
1TTLE
LOCATION MAP
1-1
-------
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF HOMESTEAD AFB
AND SURROUNDING AREA
-------
r
LEGEND
outs
OU SITES
Old Contractor Storage Arrj
and Former Construction
Debris Landfill
x\ OU26 = Bldg. 745, Aircraft Fabrication
OU28 = Bldg. 750, Propulsion (Engine)
Maintenance Facility
OU29 = Bldg. 760, Avionics Aerospoo
Ground Equipment Shop,
Tactical Electronic Warfare
System Shop
N
1500 750 0
SCALE IN FEET
1500
Home»te«
-------
''fCev Mop
120
120
SCALE IN FEET
r LEGEND-
»—— DRAINAGE SWALE
.— SUE BOUNDARY FOR Rl PURPOSES
REMOVED BUILDING
— SLOPE
4§j^ HISTORIC PAINT STAINS
"0" MANHOLE (UNMARKED)
jrll 29, 1999 12:«:OI p.m.
rawing: T:\HOHESIEO\CJM1 IB8\ROOI\n-«ODt.OWG (ISSU)
•fi: GEOPHYSC.OWG OB-MR.DWO V=SIIE
AGRICULTURAL (NORSERY) FIELD
CANAL
_FORMER CONSTRUCTIOMv
TT\ DEBRIS LANDFILL
Hotnesteid Air Force Base
OU1B
SITE DIAGRAM
1-4
-------
SIDEWALK, '\
EXCAVATION \
LIMITS \ >
3 REMOVED
i^oa-Mkowo
Homestead Air Force B«se
-------
"** '*' '* ' I
uonu AST (79* ruu)
(REMOVED)
DRAINAGE SWALE
_— SITE BOUNDARY
— SLOPE
llomeiLexl Air Fotc< B>n
-------
SITE BOUNDARY FOR Rl PURPOSES
REMOVED BUILDING
SLOPE
FORMER EXCAVATION AREA
83 FORMER OIL/WATER SEPARATOR
n FORMER UNDERGROUND
U STORAGE TANK LOCATION
I \ CULVERT LOCATION
inrll 29. 1998 2: (8:04 p.m.
rfo.lng: T:\HOUCSTED\C3U1IBB\ROD1\FI-7ROB1.0WO (TSSM
,,.f.- OB-UM.DWC V=SIIE
Homcalead Air Force B»»o
-------
-------
2.0
SITE AND REGULATORY HISTORY
The following sections describe the regulatory and site history related to Homestead AFB
and associated OUs.
2.1 REGULATORY HISTORY
The Installation Restoration Program (IRP) is the USAF's vehicle for implementing the
Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP). The DERP was developed by the
Department of Defense (DOD) to meet the requirements of CERCLA in accordance with the
NCP. In 1986, DERP was expanded to incorporate the requirements of SARA. The program
goals of the IRP are consistent with the program goals of DERP: to identify, investigate,
clean up and close contaminated sites.
In 1987, Executive Order 12580 delegated the lead agency responsibilities for
CERCLA/SARA to the Secretary of Defense to carry out environment restoration at military
facilities. Under DERP, the activities are carried out consistent with CERCLA §120 and in
consultation with the EPA. DERP also gives DOD the authority to enter into agreements
with federal and state agencies and local governments for assistance in carrying out
environmental restoration programs.
The IRP was initiated at Homestead AFB in 1983 and a Records Search was completed for
the Base. Beginning in 1986, a series of more detailed investigations were completed at
various locations on the Base. In accordance with SARA, the EPA prepared a final Hazard
Ranking System (HRS) scoring package for Homestead AFB. This led to the final listing of
Homestead AFB on the National Priorities List (NPL) on August 30, 1990.
As a result of the NPL listing, the USAF entered into a Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA)
with the EPA and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP, formerly the
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, or FDER) on May 25, 1990. The FFA
required the identified OUs to be investigated under the FFA. OUs 18, 26, 28 and 29 were
identified as potential sources of contamination (PSC) and are included in this ROD.
Q:\5M1 I\BB\ROD18\RODISS02.DOC /rad'jdg
Homestead AFB - OUs 1 8, 26, 2S, and 29 Record of Decision ~ *
" -9/'8
Rev. 0
-------
In 1992, due to damage caused by Hurricane Andrew, sixty-two (62) on-Base sites and four
(4) off-Base sites were designated as units/areas of concern (AOCs) by the USAF. the EPA,
the FDER (now the FDEP), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE). Subsequent to
this listing, two more on-Base units (Munitions Storage Area and Jet Engine Test Cell) were
added. These units were identified to be evaluated for the potential of a release that would
have resulted from Hurricane Andrew or specific waste handling activities at the sites. In
July 1993, a Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Facility Assessment (RFA)
was conducted by W-C at the 68 sites/AOCs (W-C 1994). The RFA included record
searches, personal interviews, and site inspections. As a result of the RFA and transference
of certain sites to the Base UST/OWS Program, 31 sites were eliminated from further
consideration. The remaining 37 units were recommended for Confirmation Sampling due to
their potential for a release of hazardous constituents to the environment identified in the
RFA.
Sampling for the 37 units was conducted from April 1994 through July 1994, which included
the sampling of the surface soil, subsurface limestone, and groundwater. As a result of
Confirmation Sampling and agreements reached during subsequent Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC) Cleanup Team (BCT) meetings, of the 37 sites, 15 sites required no further
action, 10 sites were reassigned to be addressed in other programs, 6 sites were recommended
for an RI, and 6 were recommended for further investigation as expanded Site Investigation
(SI) sites in accordance with CERCLA/SARA.
Concurrent to the Confirmation Sampling Program, investigations in conjunction with the
Base UST/OWS Remediation Program were completed at Building 750 and Building 760,
and at OWS 206 (near Building 200). As a result of the presence of chlorinated Volatile
Organic Compounds (VOCs) detected during the investigations at Buildings 750 and 760,
these sites were designated as OU28 and OU29, respectively, to be investigated under
CERCLA. OWS 206 was designated to be addressed as an expanded SI specific to the OWS
effluent.
The RI sites addressed in this ROD have had work completed in conjunction with the Base
UST/OWS Remediation program. As a result of data generated from the Confirmation
QA?Mll\BB\ROD1S\ROD18S02.DOC/md'jdg O O
Itancstead AFB - OUs 18.26.28. and 29 Record of Decision ^"^ 4 79/9S
Rev. 0
-------
Sampling Program, Interim Removal Actions (IRAs) were planned and executed for OU22,
OU26, and OU27 in conjunction with the RI.
2.2 SITE HISTORY
The land now occupied by Homestead AFB was originally developed by Pan American Air
Ferries, Inc., and used for pilot training. In September 1942, the Caribbean Wing
Headquarters took over the air field, and Homestead Air Field was activated. Homestead
Army Air Field was initially used by the Army Transport Command for dispatching aircraft
overseas. However, in 1943, the Second Operational Training Unit began using the airfield
to train the transport pilots and crews.
In October 1945, the base was placed on inactive status due to extensive damage caused by a
hurricane in the previous month and anticipated post-war reductions in military activities.
The Base property was turned over to Dade County. Crop dusters used the runways and a
few small industrial and commercial industries used the buildings. The Dade County Port
Authority managed the Base until 1953, when the federal government reacquired it along
with the surrounding property.
By 1955, the Homestead facility had been rebuilt as a Strategic Air Command (SAC) Base,
Homestead AFB, and in February, the first operational squadron arrived. The Base was
formally reactivated in November of the same year. During 1960, modifications were made
to the facility to accommodate B-52 aircraft.
A Base command change from SAC to the Tactical Air Command (TAG) occurred in July
1968. The 4351st Tactical Fighter Wing (TFW), which flew F-lOOs, was the new host unit
until October 1970. In October 1970, the 31st TFW, which flew F-4s, returned from
Southeast Asia became the host unit for Homestead AFB. In 1981, the 31st TFW was
renamed the 31st Tactical Training Wing (TTW), but was changed back to the 31st TFW in
October 1984. The 31st TFW was re-designated again in 1991 to the 31st Fighter Wing. In
1993, Homestead AFB was reassigned under the newly formed Air Combat Command
(ACC).
Q:\3M11\RB\ROD1S.RODI8S02.DOC/md/jdg ~ .,
Homeslend AFB - OUs 18.26.28, and 29 Record of Decision --> 4'-9/98
Rev. 0
-------
On August 24, 1992, Homestead AFB was struck by Hurricane Andrew. Approximately 97
percent of the Base facilities were rendered unusable. As a result of the hurricane, most of
the previous 33 tenants vacated the Base, and many of the damaged buildings were
demolished and removed. Following Hurricane Andrew, the Base was operated by a small
contingent of Base personnel from September 1992 until April 1994. During this period, the
administration of environmental programs at Homestead AFB changed to reflect a change in
Base command structure from ACC to the Air Force Base Conversion Agency (AFBCA).
On April 1, 1994, approximately one-third of the Base officially became Homestead Air
Reserve Base (ARE). Currently, the 482nd Fighter Wing of the AFRC utilizes
approximately this portion of the Base for daily operations and training. Most of the
remainder of the Base is currently under an interim short-term lease to Dade County and is
being considered for property transfer to the Metropolitan Dade County Aviation Department
(DCAD) in accordance with the USAF BRAG program. Some parcels have been transferred
to governmental and private agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Labor for a job training
program, Dade County for a homeless assistance shelter, Florida Power and Light, a credit
union, and a bank. Sites OU18, OU26, OU28, and OU29 are intended to be transferred to
Dade County for industrial/commercial use.
Q^Ml]\BIViRODlS,RODI8S02.DOC/md/jdB
HomcslcadAFB-OUs IS. 26.23, and 29 Record ofDecision
Rev. 0
-------
3.0
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION HISTORY
The Air Force has a public participation program at Homestead AFB to promote public
understanding of the cleanup process and its results, and ensure that the community's
concerns are solicited, considered, and thoroughly addressed. The backbone of this program
is the Community Relations Plan which assessed the public's level of knowledge, interest,
and information needs by conducting community interviews and researching of the local
social, demographic, economic, and political information. The Community Relations Plan
recommended compatible public involvement strategies that include a Restoration Advisory
Board (RAB), newsletters and fact sheets, Information Repositories, and public meetings at
project milestones.
RABs are a joint creation of the DOD and the EPA and are a vehicle for community input
during environmental restoration. A RAB was formed for the Homestead AFB in October
1993 and meets routinely. Community members of the RAB exchange information and
discuss restoration issues with the BCT which includes representatives from the USAF, EPA,
and the FDEP. Currently, there are seven community members on the Homestead AFB
RAB.
RAB meetings provide opportunities for direct public participation. Presentation topics
include current investigations, results, plans for the environmental restoration program, and
the current issues and decisions facing the BCT. All RAB meetings are open to the public
and include a public comment period for the audience members to ask questions and express
opinions and concerns.
Newsletters and Fact sheets update the community members on the current issues and
environmental investigation and/or remediation activities. Newsletters are published four
times a year, and fact sheets are published when needed to provide more detail on specific
activities and at major milestones in the environmental restoration process at Homestead
AFB.
Q:\.iMn\BB\RODIS\RODISS03.DOC/md/jdg - 1
Homestead AFB - OUs 18.26.28, and 29 Record of Decision J" * n n
KCV. U
-------
The public has access to current and historical information about environmental restoration
activities at Homestead AFB through the Information Repository located at Homestead AFB
Included m the repository are technical documents such as investigation and remedial action
reports, work plans, and RAB meeting minutes and handouts.
The USAF has kept the public informed of and involved in the decision-making process for
environmental restoration activities at OUs 18, 26, 28, and 29 through the RAB newsletters
and fact sheets. Additionally, a Proposed Plan was distributed in (to be completed) thai
detailed site investigations and the preferred remedial alternatives for the OUs There was a
thirty-day public comment period during which the public had the opportunity to review the
decisions and submit comments and concerns. A public meeting was also held on (to be
completed) to present the site investigation and preferred remedial alternatives. Submitted
comments from the Proposed Plan public comment period and public meeting are addressed
m the Responsiveness Summary, Section 7.0 of this ROD.
Q:\3M I IvBB'iRODI 8VROD18S03.DOC /md'jdg
Homcsicad AFB - OUs 18.26.28, and 29 Record of Decision
3-2
Rev. 0
-------
4.0
SCOPE AND ROLES OF THE RESPONSE ACTION
An RFA was completed in 1994 which identified the four sites discussed in this ROD for
investigation either as part of the Confirmation Sampling Program and/or Base UST/OWS
Remediation Program. Based on the initial investigation, these sites were designated as OUs
and an RI and Feasibility Study (FS) was completed for OU18, OU26, OU28 and OU29
under CERCLA. To date, 31 OUs and 2 areas of concern have been designated as PSCs to
be investigated. In general, the investigation of the sites have been conducted independently
of each other.
This ROD addresses remedial actions for four OUs:
• OU 18 - (Soil/Sediment Contamination)
• OU 26 - (Groundwater and Soil Contamination)
OU 28 - (Soil Contamination)
• OU 29 - (Soil Contamination)
Contaminated soils at OUs 18, 26, 28 and 29 pose the principal threat to human health and
the environment due to potential risks from ingestion or dermal contact with contaminants in
the soils. In addition, there is a potential threat of soil contamination migrating into the
underlying groundwater.
Contaminated groundwater at OU26 also poses a principal threat to human health. The
identified potential risk is associated with construction worker dermal contact with
trichloroethene (TCE) in groundwater.
The purpose of this response (e.g., the proposed remedial actions described in Section 6.0) is
to prevent risks associated with current or future exposure to the contaminated soils and
groundwater, and to be protective of human health and the environment.
Q:oMI I •.BB'.RODIS.RODI 8SW.DOC /md/jdg
Homestead AFB - OUs 18.26. 28. and 29 Record of Decision
4-1 4/29/98
Rev. 0
-------
-------
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The following sections describe known or suspected contamination, locations) of potential
contamination, and potential routes of contaminant migration for OUs 18, 26, 28, and 29.
5.1 INVESTIGATION SUMMARY
5.1.1 OU18 - Old Contractor Storage Area and Former Construction Debris
Landfill
Conflation Sampling and an RI were completed at OU1S. Tte following sections
summarize the results of each activity.
5-!-l-l Confirmation Sampling
A preliminary investigation was completed at OU18 as part of the Confirmation Sampling
Program m 1994 (W-C 1996a). Investigative activities included collection of surface soil
samples, subsurface soil samples, and groundwater samples (Figure 5-1).
Sampling at OU18 indicated no significant VOC contamination in the groundwater, surface
sod or subsurface. Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were, however, detected at
significant levels in the surface soils, and at less significant concentrations in the subsurface
and groundwater. Total PAH concentrations ranged from 1,074 mg/kg to 2,291 mg/kg in the
surface soil, with detections in the subsurface samples generally being one to two orders of
magnitude lower. Total PAHs concentrations in the groundwater were reported at 17 ag/L
and 42 ug^L. Pesticides and various inorganic compounds (including cyanide and metals)
were also detected in the surface soil, subsurface and groundwater samples. In particular
arsenic was detected above the FDEP industrial soil cleanup goal (10 mg/kg) in thJ
subsurface at a concentration of 26 mg/kg.
Q:\3M1 1\BB\ROD18\ROD1SS05.DOC /md/idg
Homestead AFB - OUs 18,26,28. and 29 Record of Decision 5-1 A/29f9g
Rev. 0
-------
5.1.1.2 Remedial Investigation
Surface soil samples collected during the RI confirmed that relatively high concentrations of
total PAHs (up to 567.2 mg/kg) are present in areas most likely to receive site runoff.
Subsurface soil samples collected during the Confirmation Sampling indicated that relatively
high concentrations of total PAHs and individual pesticides are present in the site
subsurface, mainly in the northeastern portion of the site where the thickness of crushed
asphalt, mixed with fill soils, was observed to be greatest. Subsurface samples from RI soil
borings showed relatively low concentrations of VOCs, total PAHs, individual semivolatile
organic compounds (SVOCs) and pesticides in subsurface throughout the site (see Figures
5-2 and 5-3). Sixteen metals were detected above the background concentrations.
Groundwater sampling from wells installed during Confirmation Sampling and the RI
indicated that relatively low concentrations of total PAHs, individual SVOCs, and pesticides
are present in site groundwater. Benzo(a)pyrene was detected above the FDEP groundwater
guidance criteria in one RI groundwater sample. All other analytes were reported below
FDEP groundwater guidance criteria.
RI surface water and sediment sampling upstream, adjacent to, and downstream of the site in
the Boundary Canal indicated no contamination above the FDEP Class III freshwater
guidance criteria for the surface water. In sediment, PAHs, SVOCs, and pesticides were
detected with the highest concentrations in samples adjacent to the site. The detections of
PAHs in the sediment adjacent to the site are expected since crushed asphalt from the site
surface was observed to be sloughing into the canal along the western portion of the site.
Relatively high concentrations of arsenic, up to 21.4 mg/kg, were also reported in sediment
samples.
5.1.1.3 Contamination Summary
The following discussion summarizes media impacted by contaminants potentially associated
with OU18:
0 ,>MM\BB.RODI8\RODISS05.DOC/md/jdg
Homestead AFB-OUs 18.26,28. and 29 Record of Decision 5"2 4/29'<98
Rev.O
-------
• Surface Soils - Surface soils, primarily along the southern edge of the site,
contain concentrations of several individual PAH compounds that exceed the
FDEP industrial soil cleanup goals. These samples are located in areas most
likely to receive runoff from the site and are considered to be accumulation
areas. Two pesticides, aldrin and heptachlor epoxide, exceeded their
respective FDEP industrial soil cleanup goals in four surface soil samples.
• Subsurface Samples - Subsurface samples had reported concentrations of
PAH compounds that exceeded their respective FDEP industrial soil cleanup
goals. The PAH detections at depth are consistent with the presence of
crushed asphalt, mixed with sand and gravel, observed to a depth of 11-feet in
this area of the site. Beryllium marginally exceeded its FDEP industrial soil
cleanup goal in one of the subsurface samples.
• Groundwater - Benzo(a)pyrene was detected above the FDEP groundwater
criteria in one RI sample. All other detected analytes were reported at
concentrations below the groundwater guidance criteria.
Sediment - PAHs and arsenic were detected in sediment. The PAHs are
likely due to crushed asphalt, a source of PAHs, observed in the sediment.
Sediment samples collected downgradient of the site had reported
concentrations of contaminants that were one to two orders of magnitude
lower than samples adjacent to the site.
• Surface Water - Contaminants detected in surface water did not exceed the
FDEP Class III freshwater guidance criteria.
5.1.2 OU26 - Building 745, Aircraft Fabrication
Confirmation Sampling, a UST investigation, Interim Removal Actions (IRAs), and an RI
were completed at OU26. The following sections summarize the results of each activity.
Q:'3MIl\BB\ROD18,RODlSS05.DOC/ind.'jdg
Hom«teadAFB-OUsl8.26,28,and29RccordofDecision 5~3 4'-9/98
Rev. 0
-------
5.1.2.1 Confirmation Sampling
Confirmation Sampling groundwater and subsurface samples (W-C 1996a) indicated the
presence of significant levels of halogenated VOCs (cis-DCE, 1,2-DCE, PCE, TCE, and
vinyl chloride) as shown on Figure 5-4. In surface soil samples, PAHs, pesticides,' and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were detected. The total PAH concentrations ranged from
2.02 mg/kg to 24.62 mg/kg. Aroclor-1254 was detected at 1,400 ug/kg, and 4,4'-DDD,
4,4'-DDE, 4,4'-DDT, aldrin, endrin ketone, and heptachlor epoxide were detected at
concentrations ranging from 0.5 ug/kg to 25 ug/kg. Eleven metals were detected above
background concentrations including: arsenic at 123 mg/kg, chromium at 86 mg/kg, and lead
at 506 mg/kg.
5.1.2.2 UST Investigation
The two steel USTs northeast of Building 746 were removed by OHM Corp. in 1994. The
soils were excavated, with sidewall samples being field-screened for organic vapors, until all
field-screening results were below 10 parts per million (ppm). Five monitoring wells
sampled in the area showed low concentrations of cis/trans-1,2-DCE and TCE.
5.1.2.3 Interim Removal Action Activities
IRAs were completed concurrently with the RI activities to remove arsenic and PCB surface
soil contamination detected at the southeast corner of Building 745, and at the location of the
flammable locker immediately southwest of Building 746. Concentrations of arsenic which
exceed the FDEP industrial soil cleanup goal were left in the excavation sidewalls due to the
inability to excavate under the building foundation. Monitoring wells were also installed and
sampled in the center of the excavations. PCBs were nondetect in the groundwater. For the
monitoring well installed in the excavation area near the corner of Building 745, arsenic was
detected at a concentration of 190 ug/L. OHM reported that the IRAs were complete and no
further action was required.
Tracer studies were also done to determine the discharge points of floor drains located within
Building 745. The tracer study indicated that pipes within the building were discharging
i
QittMl 1\BB»ROD18«RODI8S05.DOC /md/jdg
Homestead AFB-OUs 18.26,28. and 29 Record of Decision *-4 4/29/98
Rev. 0
-------
directly to the canal northeast of Building 745, and also indicated the location of a sump
discharge at the southeast corner of the building. Sediment and soil samples (collected above
the water line) in the canal were collected at each discharge point, and the contents of the
sump were sampled. Relatively high levels of VOCs were detected in the canal' sediments
collected where the floor drains discharged to the canal. Additionally, PAHs were detected
in the sediment at the discharge points and in the sample of sludge collected from the sump
within the piping system. The floor drain system was subsequently plugged and is no longer
in use.
5.1.2.4 Remedial Investigation
Surface soil samples collected from RI soil borings showed low concentrations of benzene,
toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX) compounds in some samples, in addition to total
PAHs, individual SVOCs, and individual pesticides. Fourteen metals were detected above
background concentrations in the RI surface soil samples. Mercury and lead were detected
above FDEP industrial soil cleanup goals in an isolated area south of Building 745 near the
former lead-acid battery storage room (Figures 5-5 and 5-6).
Subsurface samples from RI soil borings west of Building 745 showed low concentrations of
the same chlorinated VOCs which were detected in the same area during Confirmation
Sampling. Nine metals were detected above background concentrations in the RI subsurface
samples. However, all detections from the subsurface samples were below FDEP industrial
soil cleanup goals.
Groundwater screening throughout the site during Confirmation Sampling and the RI
indicated that significant concentrations of chlorinated VOCs are present in site groundwater,
particularly west of Building 745. Groundwater sampling from monitoring wells in this area
indicated that relatively high maximum concentrations of TCE (1,600 ug/L), PCE (3 ug/L),
1,2-DCE (470 ug/L), and vinyl chloride (7 ug/L) are present in the area of maximum
detections from the groundwater screening. These maximum concentrations occur in shallow
well SM60-MW1. The most likely source of the VOCs is historic leakage from the
underground pipe connected to the floor drain system. The groundwater screening results
indicated that the VOC plume does not extend to the canal adjacent to the site.
V
Q:\3MI 1\BB\ROD18',ROD1SS05.DOC /md/jdg
Homestead AFB-OUs 18,26.28. and 29 Record of Decision ->-5 4/29/98
Rev. 0
-------
A deep monitoring well was installed adjacent to the shallow well with the hi chest
chlorinated VOC concentrations. This deep well was sampled during the RI and showed a
reported TCE concentration of 5 ug/L. The groundwater contaminants that were reported
above the FDEP groundwater guidance criteria are shown on Figure 5-6.
Surface water and sediment samples were collected in the adjacent canal upstream, adjacent
to, and downstream of the floor drain and sump discharge points. The highest concentrations
of contaminants were in sediment and surface water at the industrial floor drain discharge
point. Elevated concentrations of chlorobenzene and BTEX were the primary contaminants
found in sediment at this location. Low concentrations of these compounds were detected in
surface water at this location and the sampling location immediately downstream. Elevated
concentrations of SVOCs were also detected in this sample and in upstream and downstream
sediment samples. Several pesticides were detected in all sediment samples at relatively high
concentrations. Several metals were detected above background concentrations in sediment
and surface water samples. However, all contaminants reported in surface water were below
the FDEP Class III freshwater guidance criteria.
5.1.2.5 Contamination Summary
The following discussion summarizes media impacted by contaminant releases associated
with OU 26:
•
Surface Soils - Surface soils near the southwestern and eastern portions of
Building 745, and at the southern corner of Building 746, contain
concentrations of one PAH and three metals that exceed the FDEP industrial
soil cleanup goals. One sample had reported concentrations of lead and
mercury that exceeded their respective FDEP industrial soil cleanup goals.
This area is located adjacent to a part of Building 745 that was used for lead-
acid battery storage, which may explain the presence of these metals.
Concentrations of arsenic from two soil boring surface soil samples exceeded
the 10 mg/kg FDEP industrial soil cleanup goal. These samples were located
in the area where the IRA was completed to remove arsenic reported during
Q:aMn\BB'.ROD]8,ROD]8SOj.DOC/md/jdg
Homeslcad AFD - Otis 18,26.28. and 29 Record of Decision ->-6
Rev. 0
-------
Confirmation Sampling. Benzo(a)pyrene marginally exceeded the FDEP
industrial soil cleanup goal in two surface soil samples.
Subsurface - No contaminants were detected in subsurface samples above
respective FDEP industrial soil cleanup goals.
Groundwater - Chlorinated VOCs were reported at concentrations exceeding
FDEP groundwater guidance criteria and/or federal maximum contaminant
limits (MCLs) in three of the site monitoring wells sampled during the RI.
TCE, 1,2-DCE, and PCE were reported in monitoring wells SM60-MW1 and
OU26-MW1D at elevated concentrations. Vinyl chloride was also detected in
monitoring well SM60-MW1. The high concentrations of chlorinated VOCs
reported in shallow monitoring well SM60-MW1 are consistent with leakage
from the floor drain discharge line which exits Building 745 near the
monitoring well location.
Sediment - Contaminants in sediment included: 1,4-dichlorobenzene, PAHs
(benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene5 benzo(b)fluoranthene, dibenzo(a,h)
anthracene, and indeno(l,2,3)pyrene), arsenic, and lead. 1,4-Dichlorobenzene
was reported only in the sediment sample at the discharge point for the floor
drain discharge line (SD-04). The highest concentration of arsenic was
reported at the furthest downgradient location (SD-01). Lead was reported at
relatively high concentrations in three of six samples. All three samples are
located adjacent to Building 745 in the area where the floor drain and sump
discharged to the canal.
Surface Water - Lead was reported at a maximum concentration of 44.7 ug/L
in the surface water at the site. None of the contaminants reported in surface
water exceeded the FDEP Class III freshwater guidance criteria.
Q:\3M1 !VBB\ROD18\ROD18S05.DOC /md/jdg
Homestead AFB - OUs 18.26,28. and 29 Record of Decision ->-/ 4/29/98
Rev. 0
-------
5.1.3 OU28 - Building 750, Propulsion (Engine) Maintenance Facility
An OWS and sump investigation, UST investigation, and an RI were completed at OU28.
The following sections summarize the results of each activity.
5.1.3.1 UST/OWS Investigations
Preliminary investigations at OU28 were completed as part of the Base UST/OWS
Remediation Program. The five electroplating USTs northwest of Building 750 and the
OWS and sump southeast of Building 750 were removed.
OWS and Sump Investigation
The OWS and sump were removed in 1994. At this time the floor drains in the building and
on the concrete pad were grouted. The sump and separator were removed and were found to
be constructed of concrete. A groundwater and subsurface investigation was completed at
the sump/separator area in 1994 based on the results of the excavation work. PCE, TCE,
PAHs, and metals were detected in the groundwater during the investigation.
Additionally, an effluent discharge investigation was completed to confirm the separator and
sump discharge points. The results of the investigation confirmed that the buried pipe
between the separator and sump did discharge to a drainage swale to the southeast. Sampling
at the discharge point showed detections of PAHs, TRPH, arsenic, and cadmium.
Underground Storage Tanks 750-1. 2.3. and 4 Investigation
Four concrete USTs formerly located at the northwest corner of Building 750 were removed
in 1994. Influent piping was grouted in-place at the excavation boundary. Excavation
sidewall and soil boring samples were collected for analysis. No VOCs were detected and
metals concentrations were below the established cleanup standard. The borings were
completed as shallow monitoring wells.
Sampling of the monitoring wells indicated no VOC or cyanide contamination in
groundwater. Additionally, detected metals, except for lead, were below their respective'
i
Q;3MiraB',RODI8\ROD18S05.DOC/md/jdg o
Homestead AFB - OUs 18,26,28, and 29 Record of Decision ->~° 4/29/98
Rev. 0
-------
maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). From the investigation it was concluded that there
was no evidence of a discharge from the USTs to surrounding site media.
5-1-3.2 Remedial Investigation
In the southern, eastern, and northern portions of Site OU28, PAHs, pesticides, and metals
(lead and arsenic) were reported as concentrations that exceed the FDEP industrial soil
cleanup goals (Figures 5-7 and 5-8). PAH exceedances were reported primarily in surface
soil samples near the eastern and northern portions of Building 750. However some
marginal exceedances of benzo(a)pyrene and benzo(a) anthracene were reported in surface
soil samples south of Building 750 near the AST (Building 744). Lead and arsenic were
detected above FDEP soil cleanup goals in surface soil surrounding the AST (Building 744).
Maximum concentrations detected were 20,200 mg/kg and 23.6 mg/kg, respectively A
possible explanation for the high lead concentrations is lead-based paint flaking from the
AST. Lead also exceeded the FDEP industrial soil cleanup goal in one surface soil sample
near the eastern corner of Building 750. One pesticide, heptachlor epoxide, was reported at a
concentration marginally exceeding the FDEP industrial soil cleanup goal in a surface soil
sample collected east of Building 750.
%
Subsurface sampling indicated low levels of VOCs, PAHs, and metals. However, reported
concentrations were below the FDEP soil cleanup goals.
Groundwater sampling indicated chlorinated VOCs (TCE, PCE, and 1,2-DCE) are present
above FDEP groundwater guidance criteria and/or federal MCLs. The groundwater sampling
indicates that the extent of contamination is confined to the former OWS area. Additionally,
metals were detected below FDEP groundwater guidance criteria and federal MCLs. Iron
did, however, exceed the FDEP secondary water quality standard.
5.1.3.3 Contamination Summary
The following discussion summarizes media impacted by contaminant releases associated
with OU 28:
Q^Mll\BB\ROD18,RODl8S05.DOC/md/jdg .- n
I lomcstead AFB - OUs 18,26,28. and 29 Record of Decision 5 ~*
Rev. 0
-------
Surface Soils - PAHs exceeded FDEP industrial soil cleanup goals near the
southern, eastern and northern portions of Building 750. Additionally, lead
and arsenic exceeded the FDEP industrial soil cleanup goals in die surface
soils surrounding the large upright AST. Lead also exceeded the FDEP
industrial soil cleanup goals in surface soil near the eastern corner of
Building 750.
Subsurface Samples - Subsurface sampling indicated low levels of VOCs,
PAHs, and metals. Concentrations of the contaminants were below FDEP
industrial soil cleanup goals.
Groundwater - Chlorinated VOCs (including TCE) were reported at
concentrations exceeding the FDEP groundwater guidance criteria and/or
federal MCLs. Groundwater samples with VOC concentrations that exceeded
applicable criteria were located in the area of the removed OWS.
5.1.4 OU29 - Building 760, Avionics Aerospace Ground Equipment Shop and
Tactical Electronic Warfare System Shop
6
An OWS removal and investigation, UST investigation, and an RI were completed at OU29.
The following sections summarize the results of each activity.
5.1-4.1 UST/OWS Investigations
Preliminary investigations at site OU29 included investigation and removal of the USTs and
OWSsatthesite.
QWS Removal and Investigation
The OWS was removed in 1994, and the influent and effluent piping were sealed at the
excavation boundaries. Subsurface samples of target compounds were reported as either
nondetect or below FDEP industrial soil cleanup goals. Groundwater sampling indicated
contamination with TCE, PCE, and vinyl chloride.
Q\3MllVBB'.ROD18«OD18S05.DOC/md,'jdK
Homestead AFB - OUs 18.26.28. and 29 Record ofDecision ->-10 4'29/98
Rev. 0
-------
UST No. 760- T Investigation
In 1994, the UST was excavated and removed. Subsurface investigation of the UST area
showed detections of total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPH) and lead TRPH
was reported at concentrations below the acceptable FDEP clean soil criteria Results of the
subsequent groundwater investigation indicated the presence of chlorobenzene benzene
1,4-dichlorobenzene, and naphthalenes. Concentrations of benzene and chlorobenzene
exceeded the FDEP groundwater guidance criteria and/or the federal MCL. Resampling in
1 996 indicated that these contaminants no longer exceeded the stated criteria.
5.1.4.2 Remedial Investigation
Surface soils near the southern, eastern, and northern portions of former Building 760
contained concentrations of PAHs and one pesticide (heptachlor epoxide) that exceeded the
FDEP mdustrial soil cleanup goals (Figures 5-9 and 5-10). Additionally a marginal
exceedance of benzo(a)Pyrene was reported in the surface soil sample north of former
Binldmg 760. The locations of the surface soils with PAH concentrations that exceeded
cleanup goals are consistent with areas that would have received runoff from the site.
Subsurface samples collected from borings near the former OWS excavation indicated that
relatively low concentrations of BTEX, PAHs, and pesticides are present. Thirteen metals
were reported above background concentrations in the subsurface samples However
detected analytes were reported below the FDEP industrial soil cleanup goals.
The groundwater screening indicated that significant concentrations of BTEX and chlorinated
VOCs were present in the area of the former OWS. Groundwater samples from existing
monitoring wells near the center of the former OWS excavation area contained
concentrations of TCE, 1,2-DCE, and vinyl chloride which exceeded the FDEP groundwater
guidance criteria and/or federal MCLs.
5-1-4.3 Contamination Summary
impaCted by Contaminant releases associated
i
Q:UMll\BB\ROD18\kJL.:!!''05.1XC/md/jdg
Homestead AFB-OUs 18. 26. 28, and 29 Record of Decision 5-11 4/29/98
Rev.O
-------
Surface Soils - PAHs and heptachlor epoxide exceeded FDEP industrial soil
cleanup goals near the eastern, southern, and northern portions of former
Building 760. The locations of the surface soil with PAH concentrations
exceeding FDEP industrial soil cleanup goals are consistent with areas that
would have received runoff from the site.
• Subsurface Samples - Contaminants detected in the subsurface were reported
below the FDEP industrial soil cleanup goals.
Groundwater - Chlorinated VOCs (including TCE) were reported at
concentrations exceeding the FDEP groundwater guidance criteria and/or
federal MCLs. Groundwater sampling results indicated that contamination is
concentrated in the area of the removed OWS and has not migrated from this
area.
5.2 CONTAMINANT FATE AND TRANSPORT
Contaminant fate and transport modeling was completed as part of the RI to evaluate the
potential for site-related COPCs in groundwater to be transported to nearby surface water in
the Base canal system. This activity included evaluating contaminant migration mechanisms;
characteristics of the contaminant; and the relationship between groundwater and surface
water in the canal system.
Volatilization to the atmosphere and adsorption to soil are the dominant fate processes for
organic compounds detected in soils. VOCs are highly volatile, while PAHs and pesticides
are moderately mobile. Metals are not volatile and are expected to remain absorbed to soil.
Volatile organic compounds detected in groundwater are generally considered mobile and are
susceptible to movement through the groundwater. PAHs and pesticides are generally not
mobile in groundwater. Additionally, metals are not considered to be mobile in groundwater.
Modeling of fate and transport of contaminants in the groundwater indicated that
contaminants will not travel the estimated 30 to 1,000 feet to the nearest canals at
Q:\3MI l'£B\ROD18\ROD!SSOi.DOC/md/jdg
Homeslcad AFB - OUs IS. 26.28, and 29 Record of Decision 5-12
ion - "- 4/29/98
" Rev.O
-------
concentrations above the EPA Region III Risk-Based Concentrations (RBCs) or FDEP
groundwater guidance concentrations at any of the sites (W-C 1997a).
5.3 BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT(BRA)
A BRA was completed to assess the potential impacts to human health and the environment
associated with current or future exposures to chemicals of potential concern (COPCs)
present at the sites. The results of the risk assessment were used to:
Estimate the magnitude of potential human health and environmental risk
associated with site-related chemicals
• Identify the primary contaminants contributing to the risk
• Assess whether corrective action was warranted at the site
Help support the decision whether to remediate and, if necessary, select a
remedial alternative
5.3.1 Human Health
The steps in the BRA process are:
1. Selection of COPCs
2. Exposure assessment
3. Calculation of exposure point concentrations
4. Estimating chemical intakes
5. Toxicity assessment
6. Risk characterization
Q: 3M11 '.BBXRODl 8\ROD18S05.DOC /md/jdg
Homestead AFB - OUs 18,26, 28, and 29 Record of Decision 5-13
4.19/98
Rev. 0
-------
5-3'1-1 Selection of Contaminants of Potential Concern fCOFfs)
COPCs considered for the OUs were chemicals that may have been released from waste
sources at the site; were detected in surface soil, subsurface rock/fill, sediment, surface water,
and/or groundwater at the sites; and may be significant contributors to human health risks.
COPCs for each site were selected using the following screening criteria:
Chemical data evaluation: Data were considered usable for risk assessment
purposes if the data were unqualified or were estimated ("J" qualifier).
Rejected data were not used in the risk assessment. Chemicals that can be
attributed to laboratory or field contamination were not considered COPCs.
Detection frequency: Chemicals that were detected infrequently (e.g.,
approximately 5 percent or less) and did not exceed human health screening
values were not considered COPCs.
Essential nutrients: Essential nutrients (i.e., calcium, iron, magnesium,
potassium, and sodium) which did not exceed recommended daily allowances
(RDAs) were not considered COPCs.
Background: Chemicals that were detected at concentrations within
background levels were not considered COPCs. Site chemicals (i.e., inorganic
chemicals in all media and PAHs and pesticides in surface soil and surface
water) were considered to be significantly above background if the maximum
concentration detected at the site exceeded two times the mean of the
background concentrations.
Comparison to human health screening values: Chemicals that were detected
at concentrations below human health-based screening levels for residential
exposures at target risk levels of 1 x 10'6 for carcinogens and 0.1 for
noncarcinogens were not considered COPCs in accordance with EPA Region
IV guidance (EPA 1995b). Maximum detected concentrations at a site were
compared to EPA RBCs (EPA 1995a), FDEP cleanup goals (FDEP 1994,
Q-tfMM\BB\ROD18\ROD18S05.DOC/ir,d/jdg ,- , ,,
Homestead AFB - OUs 18.26.28. and 29 Record of Decision 5~ * 4
4/29/98
Rev. 0
-------
1995), and DERM cleanup goals (DERM 1995), where available. If the
maximum detected concentration exceeded the lowest (i.e., most conservative)
screening value, the chemical was considered to be a COPC.
Other considerations: According to EPA Region IV guidance (EPA 1995b),
any chemical eliminated as a COPC by any of the above criteria should be
included in the BRA if it is a parent compound or transformation product of
any other chemical that was retained as a COPC. Any chemicals with
detection limits above RBCs should be retained as COPCs. Also, any member
of a chemical class (e.g.,,carcinogenic PAHs) that has other members selected
as COPCs should be retained in the BRA.
• Availability of EPA toxicity criteria: Chemicals that do not have EPA-
established toxicity factors, but that could potentially contribute to risks (e.g.,
lead) were considered COPCs. These chemicals could not be evaluated
quantitatively in the risk assessment; however, their potential impacts to site
risks were evaluated qualitatively.
The COPCs identified in the human health risk assessment for OUs 18, 26, 28, and 29 are
summarized in Table 5-1. It should be noted that in previous sections of this ROD, site
media have been referred to as surface soil and subsurface soil and subsurface limestone
rock. In the human health BRA, exposure media were surface soil and total soils (which
includes surface soil and subsurface limestone rock). The total soils designation is applicable
for potential exposure patterns of construction workers, who are assumed to come in contact
with the entire soil column during excavation activities. Therefore, the term total soils was
used for the selection of COPCs and the human health BRA.
5.3.1.2 Exposure Assessment
For this risk assessment, the exposure assessment involved determining intake factors for
each respective receptor which resulted in estimates of both average and the reasonable
maximum exposure (RME). Average exposure variables represent the most likely estimates
Q:uM 11 \BB\ROD I g\ROD 18S05 .DOC /md/jdg
Homestead AFB - OUs 18.26.28. and 29 Record of Decision ->-15 4/29/98
Rev. 0
-------
of exposure for an individual with normal activity patterns. RME exposure variables
represent the highest exposure that would reasonably be expected to occur at a site.
Potentially Exposed Populations
Potential health risks were evaluated for all present and potential future on-site receptors
based on present and reasonable future land uses. Receptors evaluated for each site included
occupational workers, nonresident recreational adults/trespassers, and hypothetical future
construction workers.
Potential receptors for site-related chemicals and the potentially complete pathways through
which they might be exposed are summarized below:
Occupational Receptors
• Incidental ingestion of surface soil and surface water
• Dermal contact with surface soil and surface water
Inhalation of airborne particulate matter from surface soil and volatile
emissions from surface water
Hypothetical Future Construction Workers
Incidental ingestion of total soil, sediment, groundwater, and surface water
Dermal contact with total soil, sediment, groundwater, and surface water
Inhalation of airborne particulate matter from total soil and sediments-
inhalation of volatile emissions from sediments, groundwater, and surface
water
Q:'.3M I I>BB\ROD1 SWOD1 SS05.DOC /md'jdg
Homestead AFB-OUs 18.26.28, and 29 Record of Decision 5~^ 4/29/98
Rev. 0
-------
Nonresident Adult Recreational Receptor/Trespasser
• Incidental ingestion of surface soil and surface water
• Dermal contact with surface soil and surface water
• Inhalation of airborne paniculate matter from surface soil and volatile
emissions from surface water
5.3.1.3 Exposure Point Concentrations
Soil. Sediment. Surface Water, and Groundwater
For each COPC detected in surface soil, total soil, sediment, surface water, and groundwater
samples, the arithmetic mean and 95 percent upper confidence limit (UCL) of the mean
concentrations (based on assumed lognormal distribution) were calculated using analytical
results. In accordance with EPA guidance (EPA 1989), the RME concentration is either the
95 percent upper confidence limit on the mean or the maximum detected concentration,
whichever is lower. If the data set was composed of six or fewer samples, the maximum
detected concentration was used as the RME value.
*
In calculating exposure point concentrations in the risk assessment, one-half the sample
reporting limits (RLs) were' used to represent the concentration of COPCs that were not
detected (ND) in a particular sample, but that were detected in at least one other sample in the
set. However, according to EPA guidance (EPA 1989), one-half the RL for a given
nondetect sample was not used if it caused the calculated average concentration to exceed the
maximum detected concentration in that sample set.
In accordance with EPA Region IV guidance (EPA, 1995b), the exposure point
concentrations of carcinogenic PAHs in each medium were adjusted by their respective
toxicity equivalency factors (TEFs) relative to benzo(a)pyrene. Calculated average and RME
concentrations of the carcinogenic PAHs were converted to equivalent concentrations of
benzo(a)pyrene by multiplying by the appropriate TEFs.
Q:\3MU\BB\RODI8\ROD18S05.DOC/md/jdE c 1-7
Homestead AFB-OUs 18,26,28, and 29 Record of Decision •>-•*' 4/29/98
Rev. 0
-------
Exposure point concentrations used to evaluate dermal soil, sediment, surface water and
groundwater contact were adjusted to account for the percentage of dermal absorption ' The
dermal adjusted concentrations were calculated by multiplying the average -and RME
concentrations by the absorbed fraction (surface soil, total soils, and sediments) or the
permeability coefficient (surface water and groundwater).
Air
Screening-level air emissions and dispersion models recommended in EPA's Soil Screening
Guidance (EPA 1996) were used to estimate concentrations of airborne volatile and
particiilate emissions of COPCs from surface soil, total soil, and sediments. The modeled air
concentrations were used to estimate occupational worker, construction worker, and
recreational/trespasser exposures to these media via inhalation.
An EPA box model (EPA 1988) was used to estimate volatile emissions from groundwater to
evaluate construction worker exposures to shallow groundwater (in excavation trenches) if
hypothetical future excavations intercept the water table. Volatile emissions from surface
water were also estimated, using the same model, for occupational worker, construction
worker, and recreational/trespasser exposures.
5.3.1.4 Estimating Chemical Tnfak^
Using the exposure point concentrations of COPCs in soils', sediment, surface water and
groundwater, the potential human intake of those chemicals via each exposure pathway was
estimated. Intakes are expressed in terms of milligrams of chemical per kilogram of body
weight per day (mg/kg-day). Intakes were estimated using reasonable estimates of body size
inhalation rates, ingestion rates, dermal absorption rates, soil matrix effects, and frequency
and duration of exposure. Intakes were estimated for both average and RME conditions.
The general equation for calculating intake in terms of mg/(kg-day) is (EPA 1989):
intake = chemical CO»C- * contact rate * exposure frequency * exposure duration
body weight * averaging time
Q:3Mn\BB\ROD18\ROD1SStj.DOC/md/idc
Homcslcad AFB - OUs 18.26. 28. and 29 Record of Decision
5-18
4/29/98
Rev. 0
-------
Omitting chemical concentrations from the intake equation yields a pathway-specific "intake
factor (in mg/kg-day per unit media concentrations)". Since the exposure pattern resulting in
exposure to various COPCs is the same, the intake factor (IF) can be calculated°by
multiplying it by the concentration of each chemical to obtain the pathway-specific intake of
that chemical. Intake factors were calculated separately for each receptor and exposure
pathway.
5.3.1.5 Toxicitv Assessment
EPA toxicity factors were used to assess potential health risks resulting from the estimated
chemical intakes. Toxicity factors are expressed either as a reference dose (RfD) or a slope
factor (SF). The RfD is the daily dose of a noncarcinogen that is unlikely to result in toxic
effects to humans over a lifetime of exposure. SFs and the EPA weight-of-evidence
classification are used to estimate potential carcinogenic risks. The SF is used to estimate the
upper-bound probability of an individual developing cancer as a result of exposure to a
potential carcinogen. The weight-of-evidence classification is an evaluation of the quality
and quantity of carcinogenic potency data for a given chemical.
5.3.1.6 Risk Characterization
Risk characterization combines the outputs of the exposure and toxicity assessments to
develop quantitative estimates of risks associated with assumed exposures to noncarcinogenic
and carcinogenic COPCs released from the site. Both average and RME risks were
calculated for each site.
Noncarcinogenic Risks
The potential for noncarcinogenic effects was characterized by comparing estimated chemical
intakes with chemical-specific RfDs. Chemical intake is the chemical concentration in the
exposure medium multiplied by the pathway-specific intake factor. The ratio of the
estimated intake to the RfD is called a hazard quotient (HQ), which was calculated as follows
(EPA 1989):
Q:\3MI l\BB\RODlf\KODlSS05.DOC/md/jd£ <- 1Q
Homestead AFB - OUs ] 8, 26,28, and 29 Record ofDecision ^ " A "
4/29/98
Rev. 0
-------
Noncancer Hazard Quotient = Chemlcal Inlake (mg /kg- dayj
RJD(mg/kg-day)
For each receptor category (i.e., occupational workers, future construction workers and
recreattonal receptors/trespasser), HQs were summed for all chemical intakes and all relevant
exposure pathways to yield a total hazard index (HI). An HI equal to or ,ess ,han 1 indicates
that adverse noncarcinogenic health effects are not expected to occur even to sensitive
md.v.duals over a lifetime of exposure. An HI above , indicates a potemia, cause for
concern for noncarcinogenic health effects and the need for further evaluation of assumptions
about exposure and toxicity (for example, effects of several different chemicah are no,
necessarily additive, although the HI approach assumes additivity).
The HI provides a rough measure of potential toxicity, bu, it is conservative and dependent
on the qualify of the experimental evidence. Since tie HI does no, define dose-response
£Tp^o,rrerical value camwt be ***"*"a direct -*— °f *e ™^<* *
nsk (EPA 1986a). The His calculated for receptors at sites OU18 through OU29 are
summarized in Table 5-2.
Carcinogenic Risks
Potential carcinogenic effects are characterized in terms of the excess probability of an
mdnadual developing cancer over a lifetime as a result of exposure to a potential carcinogen
Excess probability means the increased probability over and above the normal probability of
getting cancer (i.e., background risk), which in the United States is 1 in 3 (American Cancer
Society 1990).' Excess lifetime cancer risks were calculated by multiplying the average daily
chemical intake by the cancer SF (EPA 1989), which is the risk per unit chemical intake:
Risk = chemical intake (mg / kg - day) x SF (mg / kg - day) '<
For each receptor category at each site, cancer risks were calculated separately for each
carcmogen and each exposure pathway, and the resulting risks were summed to yield a total
upper-bound estimate of cancer risk due to multiple exposures. This is a conservative
0;V3Mll\BBVRODI8\ROD18SOS.DOC/md/jdE
Homestead AFB. OUt 18.26.28. and 29 Record of Decision 5-20 4/30,9g
Rev.O
-------
approach that can result in an artificially elevated estimate of cancer risk, especially if several
carcinogens are present (EPA 1986b).
The following guidance was considered in order to interpret the significance of the cancer
risk estimates. In the NCP (EPA 1990), EPA states that: "For known or suspected
carcinogens, acceptable exposure levels are generally concentration levels that represent an
excess upper-bound lifetime cancer risk to an individual of between 1 x 10"4 and 1 x 10"6 "
These values are equivalent to a 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 1,000,000 chance of getting cancer from
the exposure. DERM however strives to attain risk levels at or below the 10'6 level. These
risk levels are extremely low and would not be measurable or discernible (compared to the
background cancer risk of 1 in 3) in individuals or even in a large population. For example a
risk level of 1 in 10,000 (1 x IV4) would increase an individual's chance of getting cancer
from the background risk of 1 in 3 to 1.0001 in 3. The excess cancer risks (average and
RME) for the various receptors at OU18 through OU29 are summarized in Table 5-2.
Qualitative Assessment of Exposures to Lead
Lead exposures were not addressed in the quantitative risk assessment because EPA
withdrew the RfD for lead in 1989, primarily due to the lack of a discernible threshold dose
and the numerous sources of lead in the environment. Current EPA guidance (EPA, 1994b)
recommends an interim soil lead concentration of 400 mg/kg for sites characterized as
residential. Additionally, FDEP has a soil cleanup goal of 1,000 mg/kg for industrial sites
(FDEP 1995).
Lead was detected at OU26 and OU28 at concentrations that exceeded the FDEP cleanup
goal of 1,000 mg/kg for industrial exposures. At OU26, lead was detected in the surface soil
hot spot sample at a concentration of 2,210 mg/kg. At OU28, lead was detected in five
surface soil concentrations ranging from 1,230 mg/kg to 20, 200 mg/kg.
5.3.2 Ecological Risk Assessment
The objective of the ecological risk assessment component of the BRA is to estimate the
potential ecological risk associated with the exposure of identified receptor populations and
QA3M i I\BB\ROD18\RODI 8S05.DOC /md/jdg
I tanestead AFB - OUs 1S. 26,2S. and 29 Record of Decision 5-21 4/30/98
Rev.O
t
-------
communities to COPCs. Procedures and the methods used for the performance of the
ecological evaluation of the OUs are provided in the Final RI Report (W-C 1997a). The
focus for the evaluations is on those ecological receptors identified as potentially utilizing the
unit (transients) and not necessarily those restricted to the unit (residents).
The scope of the ecological risk assessment included:
Evaluation of the ecological habitat and identification of receptor species
including any rare, threatened or endangered species or critical habitats
Identification of the chemicals of potential ecological concern and existing
exposure pathways
Estimation of the ecological effects (i.e., toxicity) of the COPCs and
qualitative characterization of the nature and extent of ecological risk or threat
5.3.2.1 Ecological Habitat Review
Thick stands of cane-elephant grass and silk reed canes (Pennisetum purpureum and
Neyraudia reynaudiand) cover the perimeter of the site and heavy infestations of Brazilian
Pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) are located along the northeast perimeter. The interior of
the site contains a mixed pattern of cane, overgrown weedy areas, and barren, crushed asphalt
areas. This unit has been characterized as Cane Brake/Thicket based on the vegetative cover
present and appears to be capable of supporting a viable ecological community (i.e., the unit
contains exploitable habitat). Both aquatic and terrestrial communities were identified for
OU18.
OU26
This unit has been characterized as Urban Grassland based on the vegetative cover present
and appears to be incapable of supporting even a small viable terrestrial community.
Although OU26 contains no exploitable terrestrial habitat, the small drainage canal (a
Q:\3Mil\BB'.RODI8\RODlSS05.DOC/md/jdg
Homestead AFB-OUs IS. 26.28. and 29 Record of Decision 5-22
4/30/98
Rev. 0
-------
100-foot length within OU26) may provide forage for ecological receptors. Wading birds
were observed as were small fish within the canal. Thus, semi-aquatic and aquatic ecological
communities are identified as potentially present within OU26. Potential ecological
receptors were identified based on the character of the canal community and on the potential
trophic relationship among those organisms either predicted or observed within the OU26
drainage canal
Except for birds (loggerhead shrikes, mockingbirds, and doves) roosting on powerlines at the
site and insects, no other animal groups were observed in the unit during the activities in
January and February, 1996. However, wading birds (great blue heron, little blue heron, and
yellow-crowned night heron), turtles (unidentified), and small fish (unidentified) were
observed in the drainage canal along the northeast edge of OU26.
OU28
This unit has been characterized as Urban Grassland based on the vegetative cover present
and appears to be capable of supporting a small but viable ecological community; i.e.,
contains exploitable habitat. Although OU28 is in close proximity to Boundary Canal, there
is no waterway for access to the terrestrial grassland sections, and overland migrations are
highly unlikely due to the barrier Bikini Boulevard presents. Thus, only a terrestrial
ecological community was identified as being present within OU28. Potential terrestrial
ecological receptors were identified based on the character of the vegetative community, the
unavailability of water, and the potential trophic relationship among those organisms either
predicted or observed within the unit. Fauna observed at OU28 during RI/SI activities in
January and February 1996 were limited to birds (doves, loggerhead shrikes, kestrels, and
meadowlarks), anoles (lizards), and insects.
OU29
OU29 is classified as an Urban Grassland, but it differs from the other Urban Grassland units
by containing ornamental trees and shrubs and not having an abandoned building. Given the
presence of trees and shrubbery, arboreal community components (e.g., the tree frogs, exotic
anoles, squirrels, birds) could be found within the tree line less than 50 feet from the canal.
\
Q:\3 M11 '.BB\ROD 18\RODI BS05 .DOC /md'jdg
HomesicadAFB-OUsl8,26.2S,and29RccordorDccision J-2.5 4/30/98
Rev. 0
-------
OU29 appears to be capable of supporting a small but viable ecological community; i.e.,
contains exploitable habitat.
Only a terrestrial ecological community was identified as being present within OU29
Potential terrestrial ecological receptors were identified based on the character of the
vegetative community, the availability of water, and on the potential trophic relationship
among those organisms either predicted or observed within the unit.
Summary of Ecological Habitats
In the ecolog,Cal risk assessment, habitats at each site were observed to determine potential
receptors that could be exposed to site contaminants. The table below summarizes the habitat
and ecological receptors identified at each site which could potentially be impacted directly
through mhalation, ingestion, skin contact, or directly through ingestion of contaminants
the food chain.
in
Ecological Habitat
Operable Unit
OU18
OU26
Characterization
Cane Brake/Thicket with a viable ecological
community
Urban Grassland incaoable of sunnnrtino =>
Receptors
Terrestrial and Aquatic (e.g. alligators, coot,
marsh wren, small fish, turtles, raccoon)
OU28
OU29
viable terrestrial community. Able though to
support an aquatic community based on the
location of canals at the site
Urban Grassland capable of supporting a small
but viable terrestrial community
Urban Grassland with ornamental trees capable
of supporting a small but viable terrestrial
community
» X
raccoon)
Terrestrial (e.g. American robin, dove, mouse,
shrew, opossum)
Terrestrial (e.g. American robin, dove, mouse,
shrew, opossum)
5.3.2.2
Chemicals of Potential Ecological Concern (COPECs)
Chemicals of interest (COI) were identified based on consideration of unit-specific analytical
data, analytical data from adjacent areas and background for the chemicals, unit-specific
waste management activity information, and waste management activity information from
-------
adjacent areas. Chemicals detected in surface soil, surface water, and sediments were
screened against ecotoxicological benchmarks.
If a COI exceeded both the background concentration and the applicable screening criteria, it
was classified as a chemical of potential ecological concern (COPEC). If no screening
criteria was identified and its concentration exceeds 2 times background, it was considered a
COPEC but evaluated in qualitative terms.
An additional screening of the chemicals was performed considering the ingestion exposure
pathway. This involved an evaluation of potential consequences of vertebrates ingesting
contaminated media (soil, sediment, or water) to determine if chemical concentrations
warrant inclusion as ingestion pathway COPECs. Furthermore, chemicals whose
concentrations increase along the food chain, or more concisely, with increasing trophic
levels of the foodweb were also selected as COPECs.
Table 5-3 summarizes the COPECs selected.
5.3.2.3 Exposure Assessment
Exposure assessment consists of defining exposure factors and assumptions used to estimate
the potential ecological risks. Two exposure scenarios were considered, direct and indirect.
Direct exposure consists of contact between the contaminated media and an organism (e.g.,
dermal, respiratory, and/or ingestion of the contaminated media) while indirect exposure
results from the ingestion of contaminant that has accumulated in biological tissues of the
receptor's forage (e.g., plants, fish, insects, or small mammals). Exposure scenarios to
ecologically relevant receptors of concern were developed based on the receptor's potential
for exposure and its relevance within the ecological community.
5.3.2.4 Risk Evaluation
Based on the ecological evaluation, the following conclusions were made:
Q:\3Mn\BB',ROD18\ROD18S05.DOC/radAdE r ->C
Homestead AFB - OUs 18.26,28. and 29 Record of Decision J-2j 4.30/98
Rev. 0
-------
A potential risk due to direct exposure of high molecular weight PAHs was
identified for sensitive, rare, or endangered species of plants within OU18.
No other significant ecologically relevant direct exposure risks were identified
within the soils or sediments of OU18.
Soil concentrations of the chemicals of potential ecological concern were not
found to pose any unacceptable risks to the ecological receptors of concern.
Sediment concentrations of the chemicals of potential ecological concern were
not found to pose any unacceptable risks to the relevant ecological receptors
of concern.
Groundwater transport of the chemicals of interest within OU18 is predicted
to have no significant ecologically relevant effects on the canal system biota
or ecology as none of the concentrations exceed ecotoxicological screening
concentrations.
While there is insufficient ecotoxicological data available for a quantitative
assessment of the potential risk to the ecologically relevant amphibians and
reptilian receptors of concern utilizing OU18, there does not appear to be any
observable impact on these populations, based on site-specific observations.
Potential direct exposure risks are identified for strictly aquatic receptors.
These risks are not considered ecologically relevant due to limited utilization
of the drainage canal by Base-wide biota.
No indirect exposure risks were identified for ecologically relevant receptors
of concern utilizing the drainage canal within OU26.
Q:\3M11\BB\ROD18VROD18SOS.DOC .md/jdg
Homestead AFB-OUs 18,26.28. and 29 Record of Decision 5-26 4/29/98
Rev. 0
OU26
-------
OU28
Groundwater transport of the chemicals of interest within OU26 is predicted
to have no significant ecologically relevant effects on the canal system biota
or ecology as none of the concentrations exceed ecotoxicological screening
concentrations.
While there is insufficient ecotoxicological data available for a quantitative
assessment of the potential risk to the ecologically relevant amphibians and
reptilian receptors of concern utilizing OU26, there does not appear to be any
observable impact on these populations, based on site-specific observations.
No direct-exposure ecologically relevant risks were identified for chemicals
detected within surface soil of OU28.
Elevated soil concentrations of cadmium may pose an ecologically relevant
risk to transient omnivorous mammals. This risk, however, is present under
background conditions and, therefore, is considered to be overestimated.
Soil concentrations of lead may pose an ecologically relevant risk to transient
herbivorous birds. The lead is highly localized in extent.
Groundwater transport of the chemicals of interest within OU28 is predicted
to have no significant ecologically relevant effects on the canal system biota
or ecology as none of the concentrations exceed ecotoxicological screening
concentrations.
While there is insufficient ecotoxicological data available for a quantitative
assessment of the potential risk to the ecologically relevant amphibians and
reptilian receptors of concern utilizing OU28, there does not appear to be any
observable impact on these populations, based on site-specific observations.
Q:\3M 11 \BB',ROD18\ROD18S05.DOC /md/jdg C T7
Homestead AFB-Otis 18.26,28, and 29 Record of Decision J-2.1 4-9/98
Rev. 0
-------
OU29
No direct-exposure ecologically relevant risks were identified for chemicals
detected within surface soil of OU29.
Elevated soil concentrations of cadmium may pose an ecologically relevant
risk to transient omnivorous mammals. This risk, however, is present under
background conditions and, therefore, is considered to be overestimated.
Groundwater transport of the chemicals of interest within OU29 is predicted
to have no significant ecologically relevant effects on the canal system biota
or ecology as none of the concentrations exceed ecotoxicological screening
concentrations.
While there is insufficient ecotoxicological data available for a quantitative
assessment of the potential risk to the ecologically relevant amphibians and
reptilian receptors of concern utilizing OU29, there does not appear to be any
observable impact on these populations, based on site-specific observations.
5.3.3 Summary of Human Health and Ecological Risks
The results of the human health risk assessment indicate that there are potential unacceptable
nsks at three of the OU sites. The following table and Table 5-2 summarize the results of the
BRA for human health. For OU18, potential unacceptable human health risk was identified
due to ingestion and dermal contact with PAHs detected in the surface soil. The PAHs were
also identified as a potential ecological risk to sensitive plants. Site OU26 showed a potential
for unacceptable human health effects due to construction worker dermal exposure to TCE in
groundwater and construction worker ingestion of lead and mercury in surface soil. OU28
showed a potential unacceptable ecological risk due to high concentrations of lead in surface
soil. At site OU29, although no potential unacceptable human health or ecological risks were
.dentified, several PAHs were detected in surface soil samples of concentrations above the
FDEP mdustrial soil cleanup goals. Additionally, concentrations of PAHs, lead, and arsenic
that also exceeded the FDEP industrial soil cleanup goals were detected in surface soils at
QittMl rOJB.RODI8ttOD1SS05.DOC/md/jdD
Homestead AFB-OUs IE.26.28,and39RecordofDccision 5'28 4/25.98
Rev. 0
-------
sites OU26 and OU28, although no unacceptable human or ecological risks were associated
with these detections. Since FDEP considers the industrial soil cleanup goals as risk based
(1 x ID'6 excess cancer risk), all areas at the sites with FDEP industrial soil cleanup goal
exceedances were included in the FS for consideration of remedial alternatives.
SUMMARY OF HUMAN HEALTH RISKS
Site
OU18
OU26
OU263 Hot-Spot
OU28
OU29
Risk Type
Hazard Index"
Cancer Risk2
Hazard Index
Cancer Risk
Hazard Index
Cancer Risk
Hazard Index
Cancer Risk
Hazard Index
Cancer Risk
Occupational
Worker
0.3
4x10-*
0.1
2 x 10'5
1.3
Ix IO"6
0.2
2 x W5
0.1
5 x 1Q-5
Construction
Worker
2.1
4 x 10'5
3.8
2X10"6
3.4
2xlO'8
0.4
3 x 10'7
0.3
8 x IQ'7
=========
Recreational User/
Trespasser
0.1
2 x 10'4
0.04
6X10"6
0.5
5xlO'7
0.09
I x 10"5
0.04
2xlO'5
^The acceptable EPA hazard index is less than 1.0
'The acceptable EPA risk range is 1 x 10-4 (j in 10,000) to I x ICH? (1 in 1,000,000)
Risk calculated for a "hot-spot" of mercury in surface soils at site OU26.
Numbers in bold exceed the acceptable hazard index or carcinogenic risk range.
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the OUs, if not addressed by
implementing the response action selected in this ROD, may present an imminent and
substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment.
5.4 PRELIMINARY REMEDIATION GOALS
Preliminary remediation goals (PRGs) are recommended concentrations of individual
chemicals for specific medium and land use combinations at CERCLA sites. There are two
primary sources of chemical-specific PRGs:
• Concentrations based on chemical-specific ARARs
• Concentrations based on risk assessment
Q:\3M! :iU>'PGD18\RODlSSO$.DOCAnd/jdg - _n
Homestead A1'3 - OUs 18,26.28. and 29 Record of Decision J-2y 4/29/98
, Rev. 0
-------
Risk-based PRGs are concentration limits that are calculated using carcinogenic and/or
noncarcinogenic toxicity values under specific exposure conditions. PRGs provide long-term
targets to use during development, evaluation, and selection of remedial action alternatives.
The methodology used to derive risk-based PRGs is taken from EPA's Risk Assessment
Guidance for Superfund. Part B fEPA 1991).
5.4.1 Human Health and Environmental Risks Identified by BRA
The BRA identified potential risks to human health or the environment from specific
contaminants and exposure scenarios. The identified potential risks at the four OUs are
summarized below:
• Site OU18
Hypothetical occupational worker exposure through ingestion or
dermal contact with surface soils containing PAHs (Excess Lifetime
Cancer Risk [ELCR] = 4x10"4).
Hypothetical adult recreational receptor/trespasser exposure through
ingestion or dermal contact with surface soils containing PAHs (ELCR
= 2xl(T4).
Hypothetical construction worker exposure through dermal contact
with groundwater containing pesticides and metals (Hazard Index [HI]
= 2.1). However, the highest concentrations of the respective
contaminants of concern are at different monitoring wells, resulting in
an unlikely exposure scenario.
- Potential environmental risk to sensitive plant species due to PAHs in
surface soils, and potential risk to avian and mammalian receptors due
to lead and arsenic in sediments. However, the bioavailability of the
metals is uncertain and the potential for risk is likely overstated.
QUMM\BB\ROD18\ROD18SP5.DOC/md'jdg - ~~
Homestead AFB- OUs 18.26,28. and 29 Record of Decision •*'*" ' 4'-9'98
Rev. 0
-------
Site OU26
Hypothetical occupational worker exposure through ingestion of
surface soils containing lead and mercury (HI = 1.3).
Hypothetical construction worker exposure through dermal contact
with groundwater containing TCE (HI = 3.8).
Although no unacceptable human health or environmental risks were
identified for PAHs or arsenic in surface soils, these chemicals were
detected in surface soils at concentrations that exceed FDEP industrial
soil cleanup goals (FDEP 1995).
Site OU28
No unacceptable human health risks were identified at OU28.
However, PAHs and lead were detected in surface soils at
concentrations that exceed FDEP industrial soil cleanup goals (FDEP
1995).
There is a potential ecological risk to herbivorous birds due to lead in
surface soils found near the large upright storage tank.
• Site OU29
No unacceptable human health or environmental risks were identified
at OU29. However, PAHs were detected in surface soils at
concentrations that exceed FDEP industrial soil cleanup goals (FDEP
1995).
5.4.2 PRGs Based on FDEP Cleanup Goals
Potential unacceptable human carcinogenic and ecological risks were identified at OU18
under hypothetical occupational worker or recreational receptor/trespasser exposures to
Q:\.1M! r-Bi3',ROD18\RODl 8S05.DOC/md/jdg ^ -3 ,
Homestead AFB-OUs 18,26,28. and 29 Record of Decision ->-J 1 4/29/98
Rev. 0
-------
PAHs in surface soils. A potential but unlikely ecological risk was identified for avian and
mammalian receptors due to lead and arsenic in sediments at OU18.
Potential unacceptable human health risks were identified at OU26 under hypothetical
occupational worker exposures to lead and mercury in surface soils. PAHs and arsenic were
detected in OU26 surface soils at levels that exceed FDEP industrial soil cleanup levels
(FDEP 1995).
Although the BRA did not identify potential unacceptable human risks at OU28 and OU29, a
potential ecological risk to herbivorous birds was identified under potential exposures to lead
in surface soils at OU28. Further, individual concentrations of lead, arsenic, and PAHs (at
OU28) and PAHs (at OU29) were detected in surface soils at levels that exceed FDEP
industrial soil cleanup goals (FDEP 1995).
The FDEP industrial soil cleanup goals are based on achieving an ELCR of 1 x 10"6 for
carcinogens, or achieving an HI equal to or less than 1.0 for noncarcinogens (FDEP 1995).
For certain PAHs (i.e., benzo(a)pyrene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene) and
arsenic, the general FDEP industrial soil cleanup goals (FDEP 1995) have been adjusted to
be site-specific goals that the BCT developed by considering the unique local conditions
existing at Homestead AFB. These site-specific goals are considered to be protective of
human health and the environment at Homestead AFB.
The FDEP industrial soil cleanup goals will be used as PRGs for the PAHs, lead, arsenic and
mercury in surface soils at the four OUs. The use of FDEP soil cleanup goals will be
protective of human health and the environment, maintain consistency with previously
completed remedial actions at other Homestead AFB sites, and comply with ARARs and
TBCs.
5.4.3 PRGs Based on Site-Specific Risk Assessment
Risk-based PRGs were developed by first identifying and defining media of concern,
chemicals of concern, present and future land use, exposure pathways, and target risk levels'
QtfMI rUB-RODIS\RODlSSOS.DOC /a.ujdfi
Homcsicad AFB - OUs 18,26.28. and 29 Record of Decision 5-32 4/29/98
Rev. 0
-------
Chemical concentrations that would result in the prescribed target risk levels in the
environmental media of concern were then calculated.
A potential unacceptable noncarcinogenic human health risk was identified at OU18 under a
hypothetical dermal exposure of construction workers to pesticides and metals in
groundwater. The highest concentrations of the respective contaminants of concern that were
found to be the primary risk drivers were detected in different monitoring wells with a large
lateral separation (up to 500 feet). Therefore, the calculated health risk (HI = 2.1) is
considered to be highly conservative because the exposure scenario is not likely to be a
completed pathway. Further remedial action to address the pesticides and metals in
groundwater at OU18 is not considered to be justified.
A potential noncarcinogenic human health risk was identified at OU26 from hypothetical
construction worker dermal exposures to TCE in shallow groundwater. The PRO calculated
for this exposure scenario is 580 ug/L. Although this PRO for TCE in groundwater exceeds
the federal and state MCL for TCE, the surficial aquifer at the Base is not currently, nor is it
planned to be, used for a potable water supply because of saltwater intrusion. Therefore,
remediation of groundwater, to MCLs is not necessary to protect human health. Recent
sampling of the wells at site OU26 indicate that chlorinated VOC concentrations are steadily
decreasing, and may already have decreased to levels below the PRO. Subsequent sampling
in support of the selected alternative at the site will provide more information on site
conditions.
5.4.4 Summary of PRGs
PRGs for the contaminants of concern at the four OUs are listed in Table 5-4.
Q:\3M1 I\BD\ROD18\ROD18S05.DOC /md/jdg
Homcslcad AFB - OUs 18, 26, 28, and 29 Record of Decision ->~33
4'29.'9g
Rev. 0
-------
-------
TABLE 5-1
SUMMARY OF COPCs IDENTIFIED IN THE HUMAN HEALTH
RISK ASSESSMENT AT OUs 18, 26, 28, AND 29
OL'18 Surface SoO
PAHs (non and care)
AJdrin
Heplachtor epoxide
Aluminum,
Arsenic,
Barium,
Chromium,
Copper
(Site-Wide, PAHs (non and care)
Excluding Soil Arsenic, Cadmium
Hoi Spot) Chromium, Iron
Lead*, Manganese,
Zinc
(Sod Hot Spot) PAHs (non and care)
Cadmium, Chromium
Iron, Lead*
Manganese
Mercury
PAHs (non and care)
Aldrin, Dieldrin
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Aluminum, Antimony
Arsenic, Barium
Cadmium, Chromium,
Iron, Lead*
Mercury
PAHs (non and care)
Heptachlor epoxide
Aluminum, Arsenic
Cadmium, Chromium
Lead*, Manganese
*Lead does not have EPA-estahlishsd tovi.-iiv t
Total Soil
3,3 '-Di chlorobenzi dene
PAHs (non and care)
Aldrin, Dieldrin
Heptachlor epoxide
Aluminum, Antimony,
Arsenic, Barium,
Beryllium, Chromium,
Copper, Iron
Total Soil
PAHs (non and care)
Antimony, Arsenic,
Beryllium, Cadmium,
Chromium, Iron,
Lead*, Manganese,
Mercury, Zinc
PAHs (non and care)
Cadmium, Chromium
Iron, Lead'
Manganese
Mercury
PAHs (non and care)
Aldrin, Dieldrin
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Aluminum, Antimony
Arsenic, Barium
Cadmium, Chromium,
Iron, Lead*
Manganese, Mercury
UI-DCE
PAHs (non and care)
Heptachlor epoxide
Aluminum, Arsenic
Beryllium, Cadmium,
Chromium, Iron
PAHs (non and care)
Aldrin, Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Antimony, Arsenic,
Beryllium, Iron,
Manganese, Thallium,
Vanadium
Chloromethane
cis-l,2-DCE
lrans-l,2-DCE,PCE
TCE, Vinyl Chloride
Heptachlor
Antimony, Manganese
1,2 DCE (total)
PCE.TCE
Beryllium, Iron
1,2-DCE (total)
TCE
Vinyl chloride
_
PAHs (non and care) Arsenic
Heptachlor
Hcptachlor epoxide
Antimony, Arsenic,
Beryllium, Cadmium,
Chromium, Iron,
Mercury, Vanadium,
Zinc
Sediment Surface Mater
1,2-DCE (total), Bsnzene, Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzene, Chloromethane Arsenic
1,2-DCB, 1,3-DCB, 1,4-DCB Lead*
PAHs (non and care)
Heptachlor epoxide
Antimony, Arsenic,
Beryllium, Cadmium
Chromium, Copper
Iron, Lead*
Mercury
i«:rey. therefore, it could not be evaluated in the quamiJai-vt risk a^essmeni
3M1 IMmvRODlKIRODl* TBL.XLS]YrABLE 5-1/md'jg
Homestead AFB - OUs 1 8, 26, 28. and 29 Record of Decision
4-29/98
Rev 0
-------
TABLE 5-2
SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS OF THE BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT
'"
SITE
OU18
OU26
Total
Exposures
OU26
Hot Spot
'" ^ i Hi i ii •
Nuncarcinugcnic HI
The highest noncarcinogenic ris
was 2.1 for future construction
workers. Dermal contact with
pesticides and metals in the
groundwater was the major
contributor to the HI. However,
the HI is very likely overstated
due to the fact that the highest
concentrations of these COPCs
occur in different monitoring
wells.
The highest noiicarcinogenic risk
or total exposures (excluding the
hot spot) was 3.8 for future
construction workers. Dermal
contact with TCE in groundwater
was the major contributor to the
ii. However, the HI is very
ikely overstated due to the
ocalized nature of the TCE
lume.
The highest noncarcinogenic risk
or exposures to the soil hot spot
as 3.4 for future construction
orkers. Incidental ingestion of
ercury was the major
ontributor to the HI. This
dicates the potential for adverse
oncarcinogem'c health effects.
HUMAN HEALTH RISK
Carcinogenic Risk
The highest carcinogenic risk was
4 x 10'4 for occupational workers.
Risk is driven by the incidental
ingestion of and dermal contact
with PAHs in surface soils.
The highest carcinogenic risk for
total exposures (excluding the hot
spot) was 2 x 10'5 for occupational
workers. This risk docs not exceed
USEPA's acceptable range of 1 x
04tolxlO'J. Therefore, no
acceptable carcinogenic risks are
The highest carcinogenic risk for
xposures to the soil hot spot was 1
10" for occupational workers.
"his risk does not exceed USEPA's
cccptable range ofl x 10'a to 1 x
0" , Therefore, no unacceptable
arcinogenic risks arc expected.
Lead"
Lead was not identified as a
COPC in the human health ris
assessment.
,ead was detected in two
surface soil samples at
concentrations (506 ing/kg and
SSlmg/kg) that exceeded the
creeniiig values of 400mg/kg
and 500 nig/kg.
cad was detected in the
urfacc soil hot spot sample at a
oncentratiou of 2210 mg/kg;
is concentration exceeded the
reening values of 400mg/kg
id 500 mg/kg, and exceeds the
DEP cleanup goal of 1 ,000
fiftg.
ECOLOGICAT RKk"
A potential risk was identified to
sensitive plant species due to PAHs
detected in the surface soils. Also,
metals detected in the sediment may
pose a risk to avian and mammalian
receptors. However, the bioavailability
of the metals is uncertain.
No potential risks were identified for
ecologically-relevant receptors at the
site.
o potential risks were identified for
cologically-relevant receptors at the
te.
3M) l\WI\RODI8\|rodOl03HTAnt,E 5-2/dalftiil/jg
11. IP "lead AFB - OUs 18, 26, 28, and 39 Record of Decision
Sheet I of 2
4/29/98
Rcv.O
-------
TABLE 5-2
SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS OF THE BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT
SITE
OU28
OU29
Nnncarcinugenlc HI
The highest noncarcinogcnic risk
was 0.4 for future construction
workers. This in is below the
EPA target level of 1 . Therefore,
no unacceptable noncarcinogenic
effects are expected.
The highest noncarcinogenic risk
was 0.3 for future construction
workers. This HI is below the
no unacceptable noncarcinogenic
effects are expected.
Carcinogenic Rink
file highest carcinogenic risk was
2 x 10'5 for occupational workers.
This risk is within USEPA's
acceptable risk range of 1 x lO"' to
1 x 10'4. Therefore, no
unacceptable carcinogenic risks
arc expected.
the highest carcinogenic risk was
5 x 10"5 for occupational workers
due to the PAHs in surface soil.
This risk is within USEPA's
acceptable risk range of 1 x 1 (V* to
1 x IO"1. Therefore, no
unacceptable carcinogenic risks arc
expected. However, several PAHs
exceeded FDEP soil cleaimn eoals.
Lead-
Lead was detected in six
surface soil samples at
concentrations ranging from
469 ing/kg to 20,200 mgflcg tlia
exceeded the screening values
of 400mg/kg and 500 mg/kg.
Several concentrations also
exceeded the FDEP cleanup
goal of 1,000 ing/kg.
Lead was detected in two
surface soil samples at
concentrations (520 mg/kg and
760 mg/kg) that exceeded the
screening values of 400mg/kg
and 500 ing/kg, However, no
concentrations exceeded the
,000 ing/kg FDEP cleanup
goal.
ECOLOGICAL R[SK
An unacceptable risk from lead is
present in the surface soils located at
Building 744. Also, a potential risk
from cadmium in the surface soils was
identified; however, the cadmium
concentrations were below background
and the risk is likely overstated.
A potential risk for cadmium in the
surface soils was identified; however,
the cadmium concentrations were
below background concentrations and
tile risk is likely overstated.
•Lead Joes not hive a USEPA established toxicity fader; therefore, il was not evaluated quantitatively in the human heallh risk assessment
HI-HazardIndex
l!.t IIM1UWUD18i[roJOl03|\TADI.|! J-2/Jjl/mJ/jB
llonmlcail AFB • OUs IS. 26, 21, «nii 39 Reeotil of Decision
Sheet 2 of2
•V2M
Rev. 0
-------
TABLE 5-3
SUMMARY OF COPECs IDENTIFIED IN THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH RISK
ASSESSMENT AT OUs 18, 26, 28, AND 29
PAHs (non and care), Carbazole
4,4'-DDD, 4,4'-DDE
alpha-Chlordane, Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide, MethoxycWor
Aluminum, Antimony, Arsenic,
Barium, Beryllium, Cadmium,
Chromium, Cobalt, Copper
Lead, Mercury, Selenium
Vanadium, Zinc
Soil
PAHs (non and care)
Carbazole, Dibenzofuran
4,4'-DDD, 4,4'-DDE
Aldrin, delta-BHC
Endosulfan I, Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin ketone, Heptachlor epoxide
Methoxychlor
Aluminum, Antimony, Barium
Chromium, Copper, Iron
Lead, Mercury, Vanadium, Zinc
1,2-DCE, 2-Butanone, Benzene
Chlorobenzene, Chloromethane
PAHs (non and care)
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
1,2-DCB, 1,3-DCB, 1,4-DCB
4,41-DDD, 4,4'-DDE, 4,4'-DDT
alpha-Chlordane
Heptachlor epoxide
Aluminum, Antimony, Arsenic,
Barium, Beryllium, Cadmium,
Chromium, Cobalt, Copper
Lead, Mercury, Nickel
Selenium, Vanadium, Zinc
Barium
Lead
Mercury
Ingcstion
PAHs (non and care)
4,4'-DDD, 4,4'-DDE, 4,4'-DDT
Aldrin, alpha-Chlordane
delta-BHC, Endosulfan I
Endosulfan sulfate, Endrin ketone
Heptachlor, Heptachlor epoxide
Methoxychlor
Antimony, Arsenic, Barium
Cadmium, Lead, Mercury
Selenium, Zinc
PAHs (non and care)
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
4,4'-DDD, 4,4'-DDE, 4,4'-DDT
alpha-Chlordane
Heptachlor epoxide
Antimony, Arsenic
Cadmium, Chromium
Lead, Mercury, Vanadium
OU28 DIRECT EXPOSURE1
Soil
PAHs (non and care)
Carbazole, Dibenzofuran
4,4'-DDD, 4,4'-DDE, 4,4'-DDT
Aldrin, delta-BHC, gamma-BHC
alpha-Chlordane, gamma-Chlordane
Endosulfan I, Endrin
Endrin aldehyde, Endrin ketone
Heptachlor, Heptachlor epoxide
Methoxychlor
Aluminum, Antimony, Arsenic,
Barium, Cadmium, Chromium
Copper, Iron, Lead
Manganese, Mercury, Silver
Vanadium, Zinc
INDIRECT EXPOSURE*
Incestion
PAHs (non and care)
4,4'-DDD, 4,4'-DDE, 4,4'-DDT
Aldrin, delta-BHC, gamma-BHC
alpha-Chlordane, gamma-Chlordane
Dieldrin, Endosulfan I
Endrin, Endrin aldehyde
Endrin ketone, Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide, Methoxychlor
Antimony, Arsenic
Cadmium, Lead, Mercury
3M1 l'.BB*od]Si|ROD!STBl.XLSf,TABLE 5-3/md
HomeMe,d AFB - OUl 11.26.28. wd 29 Record of Decision
Sheet 1 of2
-t/29/98
Rev. 0
-------
TABLE 5-3
SUMMARY OF COPECs IDENTIFIED IN THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH RISK
ASSESSMENT AT OUs 18, 26, 28, AND 29
OU2!> DIRECT EXPOSURE1
. Soil
1,1-DCE
PAHs (non and care)
4,4'-DDD, 4,4'-DDE, 4,4'-DDT
alpha-Chlordane, delta-BHC
Endrin ketone, Heptachlor epoxide
Methoxychlor
Aluminum, Antimony, Arsenic,
Cadmium, Chromium, Copper
Iron, Lead, Manganese, Mercury
Silver, Vanadium, Zinc
INDIRECT EXPOSURE1
Ingestion
PAHs (non and care), Carbazole
4,4'-DDD, 4,4'-DDE, 4,4'-DDT
alpha-Chlordane, delta-BHC
Endrin ketone, Heptachlor epoxide
Methoxychlor
Aluminum, Antimony, Arsenic,
Cadmium, Lead, Mercury
I These media are listed to indicate COPECs considered through direct exposure (i.e., dermal contact)
The ingestum pathway is included to illustrate COPECs considered through indirect exposure (i.e., incidental ingestion).
3MI l'vBB'TOdIK\[RODlSTBL.XLS]\TABLE 5-3/md
Homestead AFB - OUs IS, 26, 28, and 29 Record of Decision
Sheet 2 of 2
479'98
Rev. 0
-------
TABLE 5-4
PRELIMINARY REMEDIATION GOALS FOR CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
AT HOMESTEAD AFB FS SITES
:,!ii.s
X
OU26
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
OU28
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
OU29
X
X
X
X
X
Contaminant
Benzo{a)amhraccnc
Benzo(a)pyrcne
Bcnzo{b)nuoranlhcni!
Bcnzo(g,hli)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranilien«:
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
ndeno( I,2,3-cd)pyrene
Trichloroelhenc(TCli)
Arsenic
ead
Mercury
PRO1
(ragfltg»soil, ug/L-walcr
4.9 mg/kg
1.5 mg/kg:
5 mg/kg
50mg/kg
48mg/kg
!.5mg/kgJ
1.5mg/kg3
580 ug/L
10mg/kg!
1,000 mg/kg
480 mg/kg
=»=====
FDEP Goal/Guidance4
(mg/kg-soil. (ig/L=water)
4.9 mg/kg
0.5 nig/kg
5 mg/kg
50 mg/kg
48 mg/kg
0 .5 mg/kg
5 mg/kg
3 ug/L
3.1 mg/kg
l.OOOmg/kg
480 mg/kg
==:^^==M=ffi=^=_^_s_,_===:_:=_^_=:=
"- "•
PRO > MCL; however, PRO is protective of Jiuman
icalth and environment. Not potable water source
No unacceptable EPA risk identified.
Use FDEP soil cleanup goal.
No unacceptable EPA risk identified.
Use FDEP soil cleanup goal.
(GO calculated from BRA at HI = 1 was 221 mg/kg.
lowever, mercury occurs in only one sample and
FDEP soil cleanup goal is considered protective.
' Preliminary Remediation Goal
1 Acceptable concentration based on Jccision by the BCT.
' Concentration adjusted from FDEP soil cleanup goal based on toxicily equivalency factor lo bci«o(a)pyrenc.
. Taken from FDEP Soil Cleanup Goals for Florida (FDEP 1995) or FDEP Groundwattr Guidance Concentrations (PDEP 1994).
3MII nn\ROD18>|ROD18TBLXLSHTAULE5*jdg
I IniKsieid AFB - OUs 18. 26,2 J, and 29 Record of Decision
RODISTEL.XLS
Rev. 0
-------
L.
AGRICULTURAL (NURSERY) FIELD
120
•:• 'BOUNDARY CANAL
FAMILY CAMP GROUNDS AND RV HOOKUPS
SCALE IN FE£T
LEGEND•
DRAINACC SWALE
._._ SITE BOUNDARY FOR Rl PURPOSES
REMOVED BUILDING
SLOPE
HISTORIC PAINT STAINS
MANHOLE (UNMARKED)
COMflRMATIOH SAMPLING LOCATIONS;
® CEOPROBE
A SURFACE SOIL
% MONITORING WELL Sc
SUBSURFACE SAMPLE
-04/ ^
fit 55-03
\
\
X
/
PAH
MO
HE
Pb
Zn
CH
JM
2200
43.4
421
0.49
MA,
mj/k]
mj/kj
mj/kj
SITE BOUNDARY
CHEMICAL LEGEND —
LEGEND
A = Ac«lon«
MEK = 2-Bulononi
CDis or CS « Carbon DiiuUid*
B = Btnztnl
T = Tolutnf
X = Xyltnn (total)
PM( = Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocorbont (mo/ka>
DBF = Dibtntoturan
DOD = 4,4-DOO
ODE = 4,4-ODE
ALO = Aldrin
a-CO = olpho-Chlordan*
EK = Endrin Ktlon*
HE = Hiplochlor Eponidt
g-CD - gamma-Chlorduu*
MC = Milhox/chlor
NOTE: All conLiiilialloni <"• "S/^fl «»ctpl whirl
Ai = Artinic (ma/kg)
Bo = Barium (mg/kg)
Bi ~ Birylllum (mg/kg)
CN = Cyanldi
Cr = Chromium (mg/kg)
Cu = Coppir (mg/kg)
Mn B MongoniM
Pb ^ Liod (mg/kg)
Sb = Antimony (mg/kg)
V a Vanadium
2n = Zinc (mg/kg)
DM = Olitolvid Milalt
SB * Subcurlaci Sail
SS = Surlact Soil
MW > Monitoring Will
nolid.
Jfoll'g'; T!\"yH*t«\(5uilH\»001\f5-lllflOI.Bwa (ISSU)
*,.<,: OB-U».OWI! VtCOHflBM
OUIB
Unr UUIO
lloiixitHd Ai- Force Uoic CONF1KMATION SAMI'UNG LOCATIONS AND
-------
'^OV MOP
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
._> DRAINAGE SWALE
_.—.— SITE BOUNDARY FOR Rl PURPOSES
REMOVED BUILDING
— SLOPE
3g£g> HISTORIC PAINT STAINS
Rl SAUPUNC LOCATIONS;
® GEOPROBE
A SURFACE SOIL
B SURFACE WATER ANO SEDIMENT
Q SOIL BORING
9 MONITORING WELL &
SUBSURFACE SAMPLE
.j! T^HOMESItO\fiui'tBB\RODI\r3-2RODI.DWG (ISSM)
Xrtli: GCOPHYSC.OWB 08-MR.DWO V.R1-SAMP
120
Q SD-04/SW-04 ' n SO-05/5W-05
\ ^f^^T^pniT!—•vr7-_-.==r,';=1=r.\ ... •••
FAMILY CAMP GROUNDS AND RV HOOKUPS
Homestead Air Force Baoe
OU1B
Rl SAMPLING LOCATIONS
-------
7B
(mg/kq) (mg/kq)
'URAL (NURSERY) FIELD
FAMILY CAMP GROUNDS AND RV HOO
_mia, SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
j> DRAINAGE SWALE
__._.__ SITE BOUNDARY FOR Rl PURPOSES
REMOVED BUILDING
~- SLOPE
HISTORIC PAINT STAINS
Resull FOEP ml.
SM02-SS04 (mo/ko) (mi/,-.!
Aid
BoA
BoP
BbF
.._BohiP
BkF
DahA
II23P
0.35
II 00.0
100.0
120.0
92.0
88.0
28.0
93.0
03
< •
i ,
.
;,r
4!-..
1.5
l.s
± SURFACE SOIL
B SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT
9 SOIL BORING
9 MONITORING WELL &
SUBSURFACE SAMPLE
Chftmicol L«g«nd
BaA = Qanzofajanlhracano
BaP = BBnlo(o)pyr«n«
BbF = B«nzii(b)fluoranlh>nt
OahA = dibenzo(a,h)anlhroc«ne
M23P = lndsno(1,2,3-cd)pyr«n»
HE = Htplochlor «poxide
As = Arsenic
Bfl = Beryllium
J = Eslimoted concanlolion
FP = Potential falsa positlva
FOEP crll. = FOEP Industrial soil
cleanup goal (mg/kg) or
primary groundwoter guidance
concentration (M9/1)
Contlrmollon = Results from
1993 confirmation sampling
program.
Confirmation}
SMI
Ai
Ruull FOEP crll.
(nw/ko) (msAal
| U.O | 10.0
Confirmation
SUOI-SSOI
BoA
BoP
BbF
BkF
II23P
R«ull FOtP nil.
fma/ka) fma/ka)
45.0
55.0
59.0
53.0
49.0
4.9
1.5
5.0
1.5
5.0
"; T:\HOMK?i40\c'>3'ui1BB\RODI\F5-JROO..OWI! (TSSU)
r\
BbF 35.0
OohA 1.41
II23P 20.0
HE 2.0fP
^
Ruull FDCP crll.
SS-10 (mo/ka) (mn/ka)
BoA
BaP
Bbf
OohA
I123P
HE
U.O
14.0
15.0
1.11
8.3J
0.47FP
4.9
1.5
5.0
1.5
5.0
0.3
\Confirmolloiv
SW2-SS03
Aid
floA
8aP
1 BbF
BahiP
8kF
OahA
II23P
Reiull
{mo/ko)
0.22
9E.O
'100.0
130.0
90.0
62.0
25.0
91.0
FOfi' ir.l.
(mq/Vq)
02
it
!.J
«; "
Sp •»
'.....
1 •-
SK02-SSOI
BghiP
flilull FDIP .-.:•'.
fmo/kol
Jit
0.25
130.0
120.0
1.5
_ 5J)._
bU.O
Rtlull FOEP cril,
5UOI-SS03 ImaAa) (ma/kol
BaA
BaP
Sbr
B9hiP
BkF
DahA
II23P
73.0
94.0
99.0
to.o
78.0
2.2
78.0
4.9
1.5
5.0
50.0
48.0
1.5
5.0
Cohfirmotion /^ /
Resull FDCP cril.
SW01-SS02 fmo/lo) (mo/ko)
Aid
BaA
6oP
BbF
OohA
II23P
0.26
28.0
28.0
3J.O
8.6
27.0
0.2
4.9
1.5
5.0
1.5
5.0
Homestead Air Force Dase
OUIB
CONTAMINANTS EXCEEDING FDEP INDUSTRIAL CLEAN-UP GOALS / CRITERIA IN SITE MEDIA
-------
SUMP EFFLUENT
.^DISCHARGE
\
IJST745-J/MW-1
FORMER UST 745
FORMER
EXCAVATION UMITS
LEGEND •
m
• DRAINAGE SWALE
' SITE BOUNDARY
AIR CONDITIONER
SLOPE
CONFIRMATION SAMPLINfJ
® GF.OPROBE
A SURFACE SOIL
« MONITORING WELL & SUBSURFACE SOIL
•$• EXISTING OHM MONITORING WELLS
p CHEMICAL LEGEND
T = Toluena
E = Ethylbenzene
X = Xylenes
P*« = Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocorbons (mg/kg)
DOE = M-DDE
DDT = 4,4-DOT
PCE = Telrachloroelhene (ug/L)
1,1 OCE = l,l-0lchlgro«lh«n« (ug/L)
1,2 DCE = 1,2-Dichloroelhene (ug/L)
TCE = Trlchloroelheni (ug/L)
1,1,1 TCA = Trtchloroelhone (ug/L)
ALD = Aldrln
EK = Endrln K«lon«
HE = Heplchlor Epoxide
A-1254 = Aroclor 1254
NO = Nondelecl
As = Arsenic (ug/L)
Bt = Beryllium (mg/kg)
Co = Cobgll (mg/kg)
Cr = Chromium (mg/kg)
Cu = Copper (mg/kg)
Mn = Manganasa (ug/L)
Nl = Nickel (mg/kg)
Pb = L«ad (mg/kg)
Sb = Antimony (ug/L)
Se = Salonium (ug/L)
V = Vanadium (ug/L)
Zn = zinc (mg/kg)
SB = Subsurface Soil
SS = Surface Soil
MW = Monitoring Well
DM = Dissolved Metals
GP = Geoprobe
NOTE: all concentrations ore ug/kg except where ceted.
-k«v Mao
prll 29, 1998 1:31:55 p.m.
lowlnj:" T:\HOUESTFJ1\C3UI IBB\RODI\FS-4ROOI.OWO (TSSM)
r«li: 03-MM.DWC V-COHPIBM
Homesteid Air Force B»e
OU26
CONFIRMATION SAMPLING LOCATIONS AND RESULTS
-------
April 29, 1998 1:11:13 p.m.
Drawing: T:\HOMESTEO\C3UKB8\ROD1\F5-5R001.DWG fTSSU)
''•IK OB-MU.DWG V=RI-SAMP
Hon'.«:j'.eurt Air Force BBSP
OU20
Rl SAMPLINO LOCATIONS
-------
RttiXt FDEP crit. 1
S3-0002 «rt [mo/koJ (mo/tel 1
fb
Hg
22IO.OJ
751.0
1000.0 I
28.0 1
SS-04
RuuH
fmo/ka}
FOEP cril.
(ma/ka)
BoP | 1.1 | 1.5
se-oa
y_ EXCAV
LIMITS
sa-ooot «rt
8oP |
RtJuH
(mg/ko)
1.9J
FDEP cril.
fmo/ka)
1 1-5
GRASSY AREA
ASPHALT ROADWAY
(S3
i^-
Rl S
e
A
AIR CONDITIONER
- SLOPE
SOIL BORING
MONITORING WELL
SURFACE SOIL
Chemical Legend
CB s Chlorobenzene
1.4DCB = 1.4-OlchIorobenzene
1.20CE = 1,2-OIchloro«th*n*
PCE = Tttrachtoro*thene
TCE = Trlchloroelhene
VC = VInyJ chloridt
BoA — Benzo(a)anthracen«
BoP = Benzofalpyrene
BbF = Benzo(b)fluoranthene
BkF = Banzo(kJ(luaranthenfl
OahA = Dlbenzo(a,h)anthractine
M23P = lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrena
As =: Arsenic
Hg = Mercury
Pb = Lead
J = Estimated result
D = Diluted
FOEP erlt. = FDEP Industrial
soil cleanup goal (mg/kg) or
groundwator guidance
concontration (^ig/L)
Confirmation = Results from
1993 confirmation sampling
program.
-key Map
Homeslca • Air Force Base
ouas
CONTAMINANTS E.VCEEniNG FDEP INDUSTRIAL Cl.EAN-UP GOALS
CRITERIA IN SITE MEDIA
-------
a
z
£]
1
1
w
o
i !
1
I
LOCATION
j u
3 1
n o
1 L
UZ
ss
wi
I
g
g
E
3
Cfl
KU
S£
Xtr
^-3
S~V)
_ ta
8 S«
UJ S^>
m ui £9
g o gl
S o 60
o in viw
® ^ 3
UI
0
1
z
o
3
I'
63
ii
-------
Rtlull FDEP ml.
fmn/ko) fma/kai
Rliutl FDEP cril
<
-------
GP-19 < (9JGP-22
DRAINAGE SWALE
SITE BOUNDARY FOR Rl PURPOSES
REMOVED BUILDING
SLOPE
EXCAVATION AREA
FORMER OIL/WATER SEPARATOR
m SAMPLING LOCATIONS;
® CEOPROBE
SURFACE SOIL
SOIL BORING WITH SUBSURFACE SAMPLE
MONITORING WELL
April 23, i»»o ^;UD:UU p.m.
0°o.lng: T:\HOUE5TED\C3M1IBB\R001\F5-9ROD1.DWC (ISSU
«,.(.. nn-uu nwc v=BI-S*up
OU29 (FORMER BUILDING 760)
RI SAMPLING LOCATIONS
Homealead Air Force Base
-------
-Kav Moo
rLEGEND
DRAINAGE SWALE
SITE BOUNDARY FOR Rl PURPOSES
REMOVED BUILDING
SLOPE
EXCAVATION AREA
FORMER OIL/WATER SEPARATOR
-------
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
This section describes the development of remedial alternatives for each OU site Tie
alternatives are designed to satisfy the remedial action objectives discussed in Section 6.1 .
6.1 REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) specify the contaminants and media of interest
exposure pathways, and preliminary remediation goa,s (PROs) that' permit a range of
remedial actton alternatives to be developed. The RAOs can be developed on a media
spectfic or operable unit-specific basis and resu.t in goa,S for the protection of human health
(WBPA 1988a)-
• A review of federal and state environmental regulations and standards to help
refine remediation criteria that address human health and environmental risks
posed by site contamination
• Calculation of PRGs for contaminants and media of interest where established
regulations and standards do not exist or where site-specific, risk-related
factors should be considered to protect human health or the environment
6.1.1 Identification of Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
(ARARs)
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) are federal, state and
regional environmental and facility siting requirements with which a remedial action at a
Superfund site must comply. The CERCLA of 1980 as amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 (collectively, CERCLA), and the
NCP reqture compliance with ARARs. Only those state requirements that are more stringent
than federal ARARs and are legally enforceable and consistently enforced statewide may be
Q:OM1! BB\RODI S'JIODI8S06.DOC /mrWDG
Hom«,eadAFB-OU5 18.26,28. and 29 Record of Decision 6'1 4/29/98
Rev. 0
-------
Pursuant to Section 121(d) of CERCLA, the on-site portion of a remedial action selected for a
Superrund site must comply with all ARARs. Off-site, all requirements legally applicable at
the time the action is carried out must be met. In addition to ARARs, guidance and other
nonpromulgated criteria can be considered in evaluating remedial alternatives. These
nonpromulgated guidance or criteria are referred to as TBCs (to-be-considered).
As part of the FS process, remedial alternatives, including the no-action alternative, were
evaluated to assess the degree to which they attain or exceed ARARs, including federal and
state public health and environmental standards. ARAR identification continues throughout
the RI/FS as a better understanding is gained of site conditions, site contaminants, exposure
pathways, and remedial action alternatives. A preliminary identification and discussion of
ARARs for the four OUs at Homestead AFB is presented below.
Cleanup standards for remedial actions must attain a general standard of cleanup that assures
protection of human health and the environment, is cost-effective, and uses permanent
solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the
maximum extent practicable. In addition, SARA requires that any hazardous substance or
pollutant remaining on site meet the level or standard of control established by standards,
requirements, criteria, or limitations that have been established under any federal
environmental law, or any more stringent standards, requirements, criteria, or limitations
promulgated in accordance with a state environmental statute.
A requirement may be applicable or relevant and appropriate to remedial activities at a site,
but not necessarily both. Applicable requirements are those cleanup standards, standards of
control, and other substantive environmental protection requirements, criteria, or limitations
promulgated under federal or state law that specifically address a hazardous substance,
pollutant, contaminant, remedial action, location, or other circumstances at a site.
If a regulation is not applicable, it may still be relevant and appropriate. The basic
considerations are whether the requirement (1) regulates or addresses problems or situations
sufficiently similar to those encountered at the subject site (i.e., relevance), and (2) is
appropriate to the circumstances of the release or threatened release, such that its use is well
suited to the particular site. Determining whether a requirement is relevant and appropriate is
Qv?Ml i '3\ROD1S-.ROD18S06.DOC/md/JDG
Hoiw Ml AFB - OUs 18.26,28, and 29 Record ofDecision "'2 4WI9*
Rev. 0
-------
site-specific and must be based on best professional judgment. This judgment is based on a
number of factors, including the characteristics of the remedial action, the hazardous
substances present at the site, and the physical circumstances of the site and of the release as
compared to the statutory or regulatory requirement. Compliance with all requirements
found to be applicable or relevant and appropriate is mandatory under SARA unless a waiver
is obtained from the USEPA.
"To-be-considered" materials (TBCs) are nonpromulgated advisories, proposed rules,
criteria, or guidance documents issued by federal or state governments that do not have the
status of potential ARARs. However, these advisories and guidance are to be considered
when determining protective cleanup levels where no ARARs exists, or where ARARs are
not sufficiently protective of human health and the environment. In these circumstances,
TBC values are used to establish cleanup targets.
The ARARs presented herein are chemical-specific, location-specific, and action-specific
requirements. Although some action-specific requirements are presented, applicability of
these ARARs can only be addressed once detailed remedial alternatives are developed for
each location.
6.1.1.1 Chemical-Specific ARARs
Chemical-specific requirements are based on health or risk-based concentration limits of
discharge limitations in environmental media (i.e., water, soil) for specific hazardous
chemicals. These requirements may be used to set cleanup levels for the chemicals of
concern in the designated media, or to set a safe level of discharge (e.g., water, air, etc.) that
may occur as part of the remedial activity.
Sources for potential target cleanup levels included selected standards, criteria, and
guidelines that are typically considered as ARARs for remedial actions conducted under
CERCLA, as well as some recently published guidance and proposed action levels provided
by state and county agencies that are typically considered as TBCs. A summary of the
chemical-specific ARARs is presented in Table 6-1. Each citation in Table 6-1 is described
0:UMII\BB\RODI8\RODI8S06.DOC/md/JDG
Homestead AFB - OUs 18,26,28, and 29 Record of Decision «~-> 4/29/98
Rev. 0
-------
along with an explanation as to whether the citation is applicable or relevant and appropriate,
followed by an identification of which of the four OU sites the citation may be pertinent to.
For groundwater, maximum contaminant limits (MCLs) established under the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA) are often accepted by regulatory agencies as cleanup levels for
groundwater remedial activities, especially if the groundwater is or could be a drinking water
source. At Homestead AFB, shallow groundwater is not used now and is not likely to be
used in the future as a drinking water source because of problems associated with saltwater
intrusion. For this reason, attainment of MCLs within the shallow groundwater is not
necessary to be protective of human health. Nonzero maximum contaminant level goals
(MCLGs) are also established under the SDWA. However, MCLGs are not federally
enforceable and should only be used if site-specific health risk conditions warrant their use.
Although the shallow aquifer at Homestead AFB is not used and is not planned for use as a
source of potable water due to salt water intrusion, groundwater in the vicinity of Homestead
AFB, specifically the Biscayne Aquifer, is classified as a sole source of drinking water (Class
G-l). Therefore, the identification of potential target cleanup levels for groundwater at
Homestead AFB includes standards, criteria, and guidelines primarily for drinking water.
These standards include MCLs and MCLGs, as Well as the Florida drinking water standards.
Also included are hazardous constituent concentration limits under RCRA Subpart F, which
are applicable to releases from RCRA-regulated units.
State and federal standards and criteria for surface water quality are considered applicable or
relevant and appropriate as long as there is the possibility of remedial activities impacting
surface water bodies. Homestead AFB canal system was considered as site surface waters.
Should any remedial activities at Homestead AFB impact these surface waters, compliance
with both state and federal surface water quality standards and criteria may be required.
6.1.1.2 Location-Specific ARARs
Location-specific ARARs are restrictions placed on the types of activities that may occur in
particular locations. The location of a site may be an important characteristic in determining
its impact on human health and the environment; therefore, individual states may establish
Q;V»MI1 nB',RODI8\ROD18S06,DOC/n1J/JDG f
Homestead AFB - OUs 18,26.28. and 29 Record ofDccision "~^ 4''29/9S
Rev. 0
-------
location-specific ARARs. These ARARs may restrict or preclude certain remedial actions or
may apply only to certain portions of a site. Examples of location-specific ARARs include
federal and state requirements for preservation of historic landmarks, endangered species and
wetlands protection, and the restrictions on management of hazardous waste in floodplain
areas.
Potential location-specific ARARs for Homestead AFB are presented in Table 6-2. Each
citation in Table 6-2 is described along with an explanation as to whether the citation is
applicable or relevant and appropriate, followed by an identification of which of the four OU
sites the citation may be pertinent to. Although the universe of location-specific ARARs is
identified in Table 6-2, only those regulations that are deemed ARARs for the Homestead
site are discussed below.
Due to the possible presence of both federal and state-listed threatened/endangered (T/E)
species at the sites, the federal and state Endangered Species Acts are both considered
"potentially" applicable. If T/E species are found at the sites, these acts would be applicable.
In addition, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act is considered applicable if any migratory bird
species (i.e., waterfowl) protected by this Act or their habitat is impacted by remedial actions.
Homestead AFB does have waters at the southwest end of the runways that fall under the
current definition of wetland areas under federal wetland delineation guidance. The federal
regulations governing wetlands, however, are not considered ARARs as long as the project
does not impact the wetland areas. If remedial activities impact these wetland areas
southwest of the runway at Homestead AFB, then the regulations concerning protection and
preservation of wetlands will be considered applicable or relevant and appropriate and
coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will need to be initiated prior to any
remedial activity. The State of Florida also has its own wetlands regulations, and any
remediation activity impacting these wetlands will require prior coordination with the state
agency.
Q-\3M11\BB\RODI8\ROD18S! a r>OC.'md/JDG
Homestead AFB - OUs 18.26.28. and 29 Record of Decision "~-> 4/29/98
Rev. 0
-------
6.1.1.3 Action-Specific ARARs
Action-specific ARARs are usually technology- or activity-based requirements or limitations
on remediation actions with respect to hazardous and nonhazardous wastes. These action-
specific requirements do not in themselves determine the remedial alternative; rather they
indicate how a selected remedial alternative must be achieved.
The action-specific ARARs are intended to cover the potential remedial alternatives that may
be apphed. A summary of the action-specific ARARs is presented in Table 6-3 Each
citation in Table 6-3 is described along with an explanation as to whether the citation is
applicable or relevant and appropriate, followed by an identification of which of the four OU
sites the citation may be pertinent to. Compliance with action-specific ARARs was
evaluated for each alternative that was analyzed in detail.
6-1.1.4 Identification of Remedial Ohjertivpg
The RAOs proposed for the four OUs were used as guidelines during the development of
remedial action alternatives. The proposed RAOs focus on the exposure setting for which
protection of human health and the environment will be provided. Exposure settings take
into consideration the chemicals of concern, contaminated media, and exposure pathways
The consideration of exposure pathways is important since protection may be achieved by
reducing the likelihood of exposure and/or by reducing contamination levels.
The specific media and contaminants of concern at the four OUs include:
Contaminant of
: Concern .: .;
Media of Concern
=====
Surface Soil
Q:«M,!\BB\RODI8vROD18S(W.noC,nid/OG
Homestead AFB - OUs 18.26,28, and 29 Record ofDeeision
6-6
4.29/V8
Rev. 0
-------
Sediments in the canal next to OU18 were found to contain crushed asphalt that apparently
eroded or washed into the canal from the OU18 site. Although no contaminant-specific
cleanup criteria are available for the sediments and the BRA did not identify potential human
health or environmental risks associated with the sediments, the USAF has committed to
removing sediments that contain crushed asphalt at OU18. This removal will be done to
eliminate the crushed asphalt as a potential future contaminant source.
RAOs have been developed for each of the four OUs, as follows:
• OU18:
Prevent human and ecological exposure to surface soils at OU18 that
contain PAHs at concentrations above the FDEP industrial soil cleanup
goals listed in Table 5-4.
Remove sediments containing crushed asphalt from the canal adjacent
to OU18 to eliminate the crushed asphalt as a potential future
contaminant source.
OU26:
Prevent human and ecological exposure to surface soils at OU26 that
contain PAHs, lead, mercury, and arsenic at concentrations above the
FDEP industrial soil cleanup goals listed in Table 5-4.
Prevent construction worker dermal contact with groundwater at OU26
that contains TCE at concentrations above the risk-based concentration
of 580 u^/L.
• OU28:
Prevent human and ecological exposure to surface soils at OU28 that
contain PAHs, lead, and arsenic at concentrations above the FDEP
industrial soil cleanup goals listed in Table 5-4.
•"3MI1\BB.ROD)f nODI8SOf.J50C/md/JDG
Homestead AFB - OUs IS, 26,26. r-nd V Record of Decision ""' 4/:9.«98
Rev. 0
-------
• OU29:
Prevent human and ecological exposure to surface soils at OU29 that
contain PAHs at concentrations above the FDEP industrial soil cleanup
goals listed in Table 5-4.
The RAOs listed above are consistent with the goals of the BCT and the USEPA to protect
human health and the environment for all contaminated media to the target risk levels of:
• ELCR of 1 x 1O*6 for carcinogens
• HI equal to or less than 1.0 for noncarcinogens
6.2 ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING PROCESS
Alternatives for the OUs were developed in the FS by assembling combinations of
representative process options that survived the technology screening. The alternatives were
assembled to provide a range from no further action (NFA) to alternatives that use treatment
to reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume (TMV). The screening was done to eliminate
alternatives that achieved the same remedial action objectives but were considered less
feasible. The screening criteria for alternatives include:
« Effectiveness - This criterion focuses on the alternative's ability to protect
human health and the environment, reduce TMV, and minimize negative
short-term impacts. Alternatives providing significantly less effectiveness
compared to other alternatives may be eliminated.
• Implementability - This criterion focuses on the technical feasibility and
availability of the technologies, as well as the administrative feasibility of
implementing the alternative. Technical feasibility refers to the ability to
construct, operate, and maintain an alternative. Administrative feasibility
refers to the ability to obtain approvals to implement an alternative.
Alternatives that are technically or administratively not feasible will be
eliminated.
Q:W.!I l\BB\ROD18vRODI8S06.DOCIm&teG ^ o
Homestead AFB - OUs 18.26.28. and 2C Rsc.rd of Decision "~° 4/29/98
Rev. 0
-------
Cost - This criterion focuses on capital and operation and maintenance
(O&M) costs expected for each alternative relative to other alternatives under
consideration. At this stage of screening, cost is used only to eliminate
alternatives that are clearly more costly than other alternatives with relatively
equal effectiveness and implementability.
Subsequent to the alternatives screening process, the alternatives that were carried forward
were evaluated in the detailed analysis of alternatives. A description of the criteria used for
the detailed analysis is as follows:
6.2.1 Detailed Analysis Criteria
The USEPA has developed nine criteria that encompass evaluation of statutory requirements
and technical, cost, and institutional considerations (USEPA 1988). These nine criteria are:
• Overall protection of human health and the environment
• Compliance with ARARs
• Long-term effectiveness and permanence
• Reduction of toxicity, mobility, and volume (TMV) through treatment
• Short-term effectiveness
• Implementability
• Cost
• State acceptance
• Community acceptance
The last two criteria will be evaluated in the Record of Decision following a review of the
public comments received on the RI/FS reports and the proposed plan. State acceptance by
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) will indicate whether the State
agrees with the preferred alternative in the proposed plan. Following is a brief description of
each of the remaining seven criteria.
Q:\3MI r.PB\RODI8JlODI8SOo.DOCte,:.'JDG ,- n
Homestead AFB - OUs 18,26,28, and 23 Record of Decision "~° 4.79/98
Rev. 0
-------
6-2.1.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
This criterion provides a final check to assess whether each alternative provides adequate
protection of human health and the environment, focusing on how each risk and associated
pathway are eliminated, reduced, or controlled. The assessment on overall protection draws
from the assessments done under other criteria, especially long-term effectiveness and
permanence, short-term effectiveness, and compliance with ARARs. This evaluation allows
for consideration of whether an alternative poses any unacceptable short-term or cross-media
impacts resulting from remediation.
6.2.1.2 Compliance with ARARs
This criterion is used to determine whether each alternative will meet federal and state
ARARs. A description of ARARs is provided in Section 6.1. If an identified ARAR is not
met by an alternative, then an evaluation on the appropriateness of a waiver should be made.
Waivers could be applied in any of six circumstances identified by CERCLA (USEPA 1988).
6.2.1.3 Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
This criterion addresses the risk remaining at the site associated with each alternative after
remedial action has taken place and objectives have been met. The focus is on risk posed by
residuals and/or untreated wastes after the cleanup criteria have been reached. The primary
components of this criterion include consideration of the magnitude of residual risk and the
adequacy and reliability of controls.
6-2.1.4 Reduction of TMV Through Treatment
This criterion addresses the statutory preference of CERCLA for remedial actions involving
treatment technologies that permanently and significantly reduces toxicity, mobility and
volume (TMV) of the principal hazardous substances at a site. This preference is satisfied
when treatment is used to reduce the principal threats at a site by destroying toxic
contaminants, irreversibly reducing contaminant mobility, or reducing the total volume of
contaminated media.
Q.OMJ 1VBBVROD! ?'.RODI RS06.DOC .rad/JDG
Home»e.i.i AFB - OUs 18. 26. 28. and 29 Record ofDecision °" * 0
4/29/98
Rev. 0
-------
6.2.1.5 Short-Term Effectiveness
This criterion assesses the short-term effectiveness of each alternative by assessing the risk to
the community, workers, and environment during the construction and implementation of the
remedial action, and the time required to achieve the remedial action objectives.
6.2.1.6 Implementabilitv
Implementability is evaluated in terms of technical feasibility, administrative feasibility, and
availability of services and materials. Technical feasibility assesses the ability to construct,
operate, monitor and, if needed, expand an alternative. Administrative feasibility assesses the
activities needed to coordinate with other agencies or obtain permits. Availability of services
and materials considers locally available resources and available of technologies.
6.2.1.7 Cost
The cost of each alternative is evaluated by considering the capital cost, operations and
maintenance cost, and total present worth cost. The present worth costs provide a common
basis for comparing alternatives.
Feasibility-level cost estimates are intended to provide an accuracy range of +50 to -30
percent of actual cost. The final project cost will depend on actual labor and material cost,
productivity, competitive market conditions, final project scope and schedule, and other
variable factors.
As a result of these factors, the final project cost is likely to vary from the estimates provided
in this FS. Funding needs should be carefully reviewed before final remedial action budgets
are established. The selected alternative and corresponding cost estimates should be further
refined in the remedial design stage.
A description of each alternative considered in the detailed analysis, on a site-by-site basis, is
provided in the following discussion. Following the description of all alternatives evaluated
for each site, by media, the results of the detailed analysis are summarized with the
Q:\3Mll\BB\ROD18\RODI8S06.DOC/md/JDG £11
Homcsiead AFB-OUs 18,26, IS. and 29 Record of Decision O-1I 4/29/98
Rev.O
-------
recommendation for the preferred alternative. In.general, the following alternatives were
evaluated for site soils and/or sediments at Sites OU18, OU26, OU28, and OU29.
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED FOR SITE SOILS/SEDIMENTS
Alternatives
No Further Action
Institutional Controls
Soil Cover
Remove and Treat
Using Thermal
Desorption
Remove and Landfill
Land Treatment
OU18
X
X
X
X
X
X
OU26 OU28 OU29
x x x
X X X
X X Y
x x x
For groundwater at site OU26, the alternatives evaluated included No Further Action,
groundwater monitoring, intrinsic remediation (natural attenuation), and groundwater
collection and treatment.
6.3 ALTERNATIVES ADDRESSING OU18 SOILS AND SEDIMENTS
6.3.1 Description of Alternatives
Alternative OU18-1 - No Further Action
Alternative OU18-1 assumes that no remedial action would be implemented at OU18.
Alternative OU18-2 Institutional Contrnls
Alternative OU18-2 would consist of institutional controls including land use restrictions,
long-term management, and a health and safety plan for all future intrusive work at the site!
Additionally, fencing would be installed around OU18 to control and limit human access to
the sites.
Q:OMll\BB\ROD18\ROD!8M)6.DOC/nid/JDG /-
Homestead AFB - OUs 18.26.28, and 29 Record of Decision O-12
4/29 '98
Rev. 0
-------
Alternative OU18-3 - Soil Cover
Alternative OU18-3 involves removing the existing asphalt-containing sediments and some
abovegrade fill along the canal, placing them on top of OU18, regrading the site, and
installing a vegetated soil cover over the site. This alternative would be implemented by:
Removal of asphalt-containing sediments from the canal (estimated at about
800 bank cubic yards) and removal of existing site fill materials within 15 feet
of the canal (estimated at about 8,000 bank cubic yards).. Removal would be
done using appropriately-sized, conventional earthmoving equipment. Wet
sediments would be dewatered at the excavation site.
• Excavated materials would be placed over OU18 to help establish grades of 2
percent. Additional grading would be done as needed to achieve a 2 percent
grade over the surface of OU18 and a maximum slope of 1 vertical to 3
horizontal along the sideslopes.
• Installation of a 24-inch soil cover, the upper 6 inches of which are capable of
supporting vegetation, in accordance with State of Florida regulations for
construction debris landfills (FAC, Title 12, Chapter 62-701). The perimeter
slopes along the canal would be protected using erosion control matting and
vegetation.
• Two existing monitoring wells located near the edge of OU18 will be
abandoned and replaced within the 15-foot-wide buffer strip made between
the landfill and the canal.
• Installation of a perimeter fence and warning signs around OU18.
Alternative OU18-3 would include a restriction on land access and use and would have the
requirement for long-term management and groundwater monitoring.
Q:\3M1 ]\BB\ROD18\RODl8S06.DOC/md/JDG t , -,
Homestead AFB-OUs 18. 26, 28, and 29 Record of Decision D-lj 4/29/98
Rev. 0
-------
Alternative OU18-4 - Remove and Treat TT.inp Low Tempgratn^
Desorption (LTTD)
Alternative OU18-4 involves removal of asphaltic soils and sediments followed by treatment
in a low temperature thermal destruction (LTTD) unit. This alternative would be
implemented by:
Removal of the upper 2 feet of contaminated surface soils (estimated at about
19,000 bank cubic yards) and asphaltic sediments (about 800 cubic yards) at
OU18. Removal would be done using appropriately-sized, conventional
earthmoving equipment.
Backfilling the soil excavations with 6 inches of uncontaminated fill followed
by regrading and revegetation of the ground surface.
Transportation and treatment of excavated soils at a local LTTD incinerator,
and subsequent beneficial reuse of the by-products in pavement materials.
Alternative QU18-5 - Remove and Landfill
Alternative OU18-5 involves removal of contaminated soils and asphalt-containing
sediments for disposal in a solid waste (RCRA Subtitle D) landfill. This alternative would be
implemented by:
Removal of the upper 2 feet of contaminated surface soils (estimated at about
19,000 bank cubic yards) and the upper 1 foot of asphaltic sediments
(estimated at about 800 bank cubic yards) at OU18. Removal would be done
using appropriately sized, conventional earthmoving equipment. Wet
sediments would be dewatered at the excavation site.
• Backfilling the soil excavations with 6 inches of uncontaminated fill followed
by regrading and revegetation of the ground surface.
Q:WM I ttRWRODISWODl 8S06.DOC /md/JDG
HoiiWMdAFB-OUs I8.26.28.and29R=cordorD«cision
4 '29/9&
Rev. 0
-------
• Transportation and disposal of excavated soils and sediments at a local solid
waste (RCRA Subtitle D) landfill.
Alternative OU18-6 - Land Treatment
Alternative OU18-6 involves removal of contaminated soils followed by land treatment of
the material. The land treatment would include addition of nutrients and possibly microbes
to enhance Wodegradation of the contaminants. The land treatment alternative would be
implemented by:
• Removal of the upper 2 feet of contaminated surface soils (estimated at about
19,000 bank cubic yards) at OU18. Removal would be done using
appropriately-sized, conventional earthmoving equipment.
• Backfilling the excavations with 6 inches of uncontarninated fill followed by
regrading and revegetation of the ground surface.
• Construction of a lined land treatment cell for treatment of the contaminated
soils. Treatment would consist of biodegradation of organic constituents,
which would be implemented by nutrient addition, moisture control, and
possibly microbe addition.
Contaminated soils would be treated in thin (12 inches or less) lifts inside the treatment cell
to allow for tilling/aerating the soil during treatment. The treatment cell would need to cover
about 12 acres to simultaneously treat the entire estimated 18,800 cubic yards of
contaminated soils. Alternatively, the excavations could be staged over a period of several
years or the excavated materials could be temporarily stockpiled until space was available
within the treatment cell. Because of the high amount of precipitation at Homestead AFB, it
would likely be necessary to cover and not operate the treatment cell during the rainy season.
6.3.2 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives Addressing OU18 Soils and Sediment
Five alternatives that address OU18 soils and sediments were carried forward to detailed
analysis, as follows:
Q:\3MI ]\BBVRODlS\RODlSSCi.DOC/md'JOu f i r
Homesicad AFB - OUs 18, 26, 2S, and 29 Record of Decision O-i 3
Rev. 0
-------
• Alternative OU18-1: No Further Action (NFA)
• Alternative OU18-2: Institutional Controls
• AlternativeOU18-3: Soil Cover
Alternative OU 18-4: Remove and Treat using LTTD
• Alternative OU18-5: Remove and Landfill
A detailed analysis of each alternative was completed using the criteria described in Section
6.2.1. Table 6-4 presents the results of this analysis.
6.3.3 Comparative Analysis Of Alternatives Addressing OU18 Soils and
Sediments
6'3-3-1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Fnv
ironment
NFA (Alternative OU18-1) would not provide any protection and would not mitigate the
potential unacceptable risks to human health and the environment from contaminants in
surface soil as determined by the baseline risk assessment. Institutional controls (Alternative
OU18-2) provides protection of human health by limiting access and thereby restricting an
exposure pathway; however, no environmental protection is provided by institutional
controls. A soil cover (Alternative OU18-3) provides both human health and environmental
protection by eliminating exposure pathways. Removal and treatment using LTTD and
disposal in a landfill (Alternatives OU18-4 and OU18-5) provides for complete removal of
contaminated surface soils from OU18, thereby protecting human health and the
environment.
6.3.3.2 Compliance with ARARs
Table 6-5 summarizes the action-specific ARARs applicable to the alternatives under
consideration, and indicates if compliance is attainable.
NFA (Alternative OU18-1) and institutional controls (Alternative OU18-2) would not meet
the chemical-specific ARAR - "Soil Cleanup Goals for Florida" (Technical Memorandum
Q-\.>MirBB\ROD18\RODlPS06.DOC/ind'JDG ,-
Homestead AFB-OUs IE. 26.28. and 29 Record of Decision O-16 4/29/9S
Rev. 0
-------
dated September 29,1995). A waiver to this requirement may not be appropriate based on the
six circumstances for a waiver identified by CERCLA (USEPA 1988).
The soil cover alternative (Alternative OU18-3) would meet the action-specific ARARs for
closure of a construction debris landfill (FAC, Title 62, Chapter 62-701.730 and 40 CFR
Part 257).
The other alternatives (Alternatives OU18-4 and OU18-5) are expected to meet ARARs and
waivers would not be required.
6-3-3.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
NFA (Alternative OU18-1) does not provide long-term protection of human health and the
environment and would leave a residual risk equal to that identified in the baseline risk
assessment. All other alternatives provide effective protection from human exposure through
institutional controls. The permanence of institutional controls depends on long-term site
management by the USAF.
The soil cover alternative (Alternative OU18-3) provides for permanent containment at
OU18. The long-term effectiveness of containment at OU18 will be ensured by annual
inspections, repairs as needed, and groundwater monitoring.
The LTTD alternative (Alternative OU18-4) provides for permanent irreversible treatment of
PAHs. The landfill alternative (Alternative OU18-5) provides for relocation of contaminated
soils and asphalt-containing sediments at a licensed solid waste facility, where long-term
effectiveness is ensured through routine monitoring and maintenance.
6.3.3.4 Reduction of TMV through Treatment
NFA, institutional controls, soil cover, and landfilling (Alternatives OU18-1, OU18-2,
OU18-3, and OU18-5) provide no reduction in TMV through treatment. LTTD (Alternative
GUI 8-4) will reduce the toxicity of PAHs in the surface soil.
Q:13M11\BB',RODI8\ROD18SO£.DOC/md/JDG -- ,-
Homestead AFB-OUs! 8. 26, 28. and 29 Record of Decision "'*' 4'-9/9S
Rev. 0
-------
6-3.3.5 Short-Term Effectiveness
NFA (Alternative OU18-1) does not have any short-term impacts because no remedial action
is implemented. For all the other alternatives under consideration, workers can be protected
through implementation of a site-specific Health and Safety Plan. Homestead AFB personnel
can be protected during construction through the use of appropriate traffic and access
controls, as well as dust control measures for earthwork activities. Although general public
access to the noncantonment area of Homestead AFB is less restricted than in the past, the
site is located in a relatively remote portion of the Base near fenced and secured areas,'and
protection of the general public during construction of any alternative is not expected to be an
issue.
6.3.3.6 Implementabilitv
NFA, institutional controls, and soil cover (Alternatives OU18-1, OU18-2, and OU18-3) are
technically feasible but may not be administratively feasible unless ARAR waivers are
granted. LTTD and landfilling (Alternatives OU18-3, OU18-4, and OU18-5) are technically
and administratively feasible.
6.3.3.7 Cost
The estimated capital cost, O&M cost, and present worth cost for all the OU18 alternatives
are presented in Table 6-4. No capital or O&M costs are associated with NFA (Alternative
OU18-1). For the other alternatives, capital costs range from a low of about $37,000 for
Alternative OU18-2 to a high of about $2,200,000 for Alternative OU18-4. Annual O&M
costs range from $0 (Alternatives OU-18-4, and OU-18-5) to about $11,000 for Alternative
OU18-3.
The estimated present worth costs are sensitive to the length of time assumed for each
alternative and to the actual quantity of contaminated materials that will be handled and/or
treated. The OU18 alternatives, ranked from low to high present worth cost, along with the
estimated or assumed remedial action life, are:
Q:\3Mi IW-hKOD18\RODI8S06.nOC/md/JDG r
Homestead AFB-OUs 18.26.28. and 29 Record of Decision ®~l° 4/29/98
Rev. 0
-------
Alternative Present Worth Cost at 5%
OUI8-2 Institutional Controls
OU 18-3 Soil Cover
OU18-5 Remove and Landfill
OU18-4 Remove and Treat using LTTD
$60,000
$800,000
$1,900,000
$2,200,000
Remedial Action Life
30 years
30 years
I year
1 year
6.3.4 Proposed Alternative for OU18 Soils and Sediments
The proposed alternative for OU18 is Alternative OU18-3 Soil Cover. This alternative
consists of removal and consolidation of asphaltic sediments, which are a potential source of
PAHs, from the Boundary Canal. Additionally, the edge of existing fill materials will be
excavated to be at least 15 feet from the edge of the canal and the slopes will be graded.
After consolidation of these materials on top of the existing OU18 site, a vegetated soil cover
will be placed over the entire site, with erosion protection for slopes along the canal.
Alternative OU18-3 includes land use restrictions and long-term groundwater monitoring.
This alternative complies with State of Florida closure rules for construction debris landfills.
The estimated present worth cost of Alternative OU18-3 is $800,000.
6.4 ALTERNATIVES ADDRESSING OU26 SOILS
6.4.1 Description of Alternatives
Alternative OU26-1S - No Further Action
Alternative OU26-1S assumes that no remedial action would be implemented at OU26.
Alternative OU26-2S - Institutional Controls
Alternative OU26-2S would consist of institutional controls including land use restrictions,
long-term management, and a health and safety plan for all future intrusive work at the site.
QA3Mll,BB\RODI&\ROD18S06.DOC/md/JDG £ 1O
Homestead AFB-OUs 18,26,28, and 29 Record of Decision O-ly „ !
Rev. 0
-------
Additionally, fencing would be installed around OU26 to control and limit human access to
the sites.
Alternative OU26-3S - Remove and Treat Using Low Temperature Thermal
Desorption fL
Alternative OU26-3S involves removal of contaminated soils followed by treatment in a low
temperature thermal destruction (LTTD) unit. This alternative would be implemented by:
Removal of the upper 1 foot of contaminated surface soils (estimated at about
120 bank cubic yards) at OU26. Removal would be done using appropriately-
sized, conventional earthmoving equipment.
Backfilling the excavations with uncontaminated fill followed by regrading
and revegetation of the ground surface.
Transportation and treatment of excavated soils at a local LTTD incinerator,
and subsequent beneficial reuse of the by-products in pavement materials.
Alternative OU26-4S - Remove and Landfill
Alternative OU26-4S involves removal of contaminated soils for disposal in a solid waste
(RCRA Subtitle D) landfill. This alternative would be implemented by:
Removal of the upper 1 foot of contaminated surface soils (estimated at about
120 bank cubic yards) at OU26. Removal would be done using appropriately-
sized, conventional earthmoving equipment.
• Backfilling the excavations with uncontaminated fill followed by regrading
and revegetation of the ground surface.
• Transportation and disposal of excavated soils at a local solid waste (RCRA
Subtitle D) landfill.
Q:\3M)l1BB\ROr>|gVRODI8S06.DOC/md/JDG f ~~
Homestead AFB-OUs 18.26.28. and 29 Record of Decision "~20 4/29/98
Rev. 0
-------
6.4.2 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives Addressing OU26 Soils
Four alternatives that address OU26 soils were carried forward to detailed analysis, as
follows:
• AlternativeOU26-lS: NFA
• Alternative OU26-2S: Institutional Controls
• Alternative OU26-3S: Remove and Treat using LTTD
• Alternative OU26-4S: Remove and Landfill
A detailed analysis of each alternative was completed using the criteria described in Section
6.2.1. Table 6-6 presents the results of this analysis.
6.4.3 Comparative Analysis Of Alternatives Addressing OU26 Soils
6.4.3.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
NFA (Alternative OU26-1S) would not provide any protection and would not mitigate the
potential unacceptable risks to human health as determined by the baseline risk assessment.
Institutional controls (Alternative OU26-2S) provides protection of human health by limiting
access and thereby restricting an exposure pathway. Removal and treatment using a LTTD
and disposal in a landfill (Alternatives OU26-3S and OU26-4S) provide for complete
removal of contaminated surface soils from OU26, thereby protecting human health and the
environment.
6.4.3.2 Compliance with ARARs
Table 6-5 summarizes the action-specific ARARs applicable to the alternatives under
consideration, and indicates if compliance is attainable.
NFA (Alternative OU26-1S) and Institutional Controls (Alternative OU26-2S) would not
meet the chemical-specific ARAR - "Soil Cleanup Goals for Florida" (Technical
Memorandum dated September 29,1995). A waiver to this requirement may not be
Q:V1Mll\BB\ROD18\ROD18S06.DO.::.!T-.d'JDG /COI
Homestead AFB-OUs 18,26,28, and M Record of Decision O-Zl 4R9/9n
-------
NFA (Alternative OU26-1S) and Institutional Controls (Alternative OU26-2S) would not
meet the chemical-specific ARAR - "Soil Cleanup Goals for Florida" (Technical
Memorandum dated September 29,1995). However, a waiver to these chemical-specific
ARARs is appropriate because Alternative OU26-2S will attain the standard of performance
that is equivalent to the standard of performance for the chemical-specific ARARs. The
standard of performance considered is the protection of human health and the environment as
determined by the site-specific risk assessment. Alternative OU26-2S attains this standard of
performance by eliminating exposure pathways.
The other alternatives (Alternatives OU26-3S and OU26-4S) are expected to meet ARARs
and waivers would not be required.
6.4.3.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
NFA (Alternative OU26-1S) does not provide long-term protection of human health and
would leave a residual risk equal to that identified in the baseline risk assessment. All other
alternatives provide effective protection from human exposure through institutional controls.
The permanence of institutional controls depends on long-term site management by the
USAF.
The LTTD alternative (Alternative OU26-3S) provides for permanent irreversible treatment
of PAHs. The landfill alternative (Alternative OU26-4S) provides for relocation of
contaminated soils at a licensed solid waste facility, where long-term effectiveness is ensured
through routine monitoring and maintenance.
6.4.3.4 Reduction of TMV through Treatment
NFA, institutional controls, and landfilling (Alternatives OU26-1S, OU26-2S, and OU26-4S)
provide no reduction in TMV through treatment. LTTD (Alternative OU26-3S) will reduce
the toxicity of PAHs in the surface soil.
FiVATCEEMOMESTEADVDO-OOlOVDEUVi-rvABLEu-iNAi. OU IS. 26. 28. AND 29 ROD\ROD18S06 DOC /md/JDG
Homestead AFB - OUs 18. 26.28. and 29 Record of Decision
6-22
-------
6.4.3.6 Implementabilitv
NFA and institutional controls (Alternatives OU26-1S and OU26-2S) are technically feasible
but may not be administratively feasible unless ARAR waivers are granted. LTTD and
landfilling (Alternatives OU26-3S and OU26-4S) are technically and administratively
feasible.
6.4.3.7 Cost
The estimated capital cost, O&M cost, and present worth cost for all the OU26 alternatives
are presented in Table 6-6. No capital or O&M costs are associated with NFA (Alternative
OU26-1S). For the other alternatives, capital costs range from a low of about $20,000 for
Alternative OU26-4S to a high of about $31,000 for Alternative OU26-2S. Annual O&M
costs range from $0 (Alternatives OU-18-4S, and OU-18-5S) to about $1,500 for Alternative
OU26-2S.
The estimated present worth costs are sensitive to the length of time assumed for each
alternative and to the actual quantity of contaminated materials that will be handled and/or
treated. The OU26 soil alternatives, ranked from low present worth cost to high present
worth cost, along with the estimated or assumed remedial action life, are:
Alternative
OU26-4S Remove and Landfill
OU26-3S Remove and Treat using LTTD
OU26-2S Institutional Controls
Present Worth Cost at 5%
$20,000
$23,000
$54,000
Remedial Action Life
1 year
1 year
30 years
6.4.4 Proposed Alternative for OU26 Soils
The proposed alternative for OU26 soils is Alternative OU26-4S Remove and Landfill.
This alternative consists of removal of surface soils with PAHs, arsenic, lead, or mercury at
concentrations that exceed FDEP industrial soil clean-up goals. These materials will be
;:.oMll\BB\RODI8\ROD18S06.DOC/md/JDG r
lomestead AFB - OUs 18.26,28. and 29 Record of Decision O-
Rev. 0
-------
solid ™K landri"' "• estimated
6.5 ALTERNATIVES ADDRESSING OU26 GROUNDWATER
6.5.1 Description of Alternatives
Alternative OU26-1G - Nn Further
Alternative OU26-1O assumes tha, no remedial action would be imp.emented for the
groundwater at OU26.
Alternative Omfi-?n _
Alternative OU26-2G includes groundwater monitoring of the TCE plume and
implementation of institutional controls. The groundwater monitoring alternative includes:
Long-term groundwater monitoring of TCE concentrations to document and
quant,fy the concentrations of TCE and associated risk to human health and
the environment
Placing restrictions on current and future land and groundwater use in the
contaminated area (e.g., restrict operation of base supply wells and future
groundwater users)
Long-term management and health and safety oversight by USAF personnel
for any new construction projects in the contaminated area
Alternative OU26-3G - Intrinsic RemBHigfi»»
Alternative OU26-3G includes monitoring for natural attenuation of the TCE plume and
implementation of institutional controls. Natural attenuation involves all naturally-occurring
^7 f T -"tT T^1113114 C°nCentrati0nS °Ver time- ^ <« *» P-esses (intrinsic
remed^on) mclude b^degradation, abiotic transformation, dispersion, adsorption, and
Q:VMl'.\BnvROn]8\RODI8S06.DOC/md/JDG
Homestead AFB-OUs 18.26.28. and 29 Record of Decision 6~24 4,29/9g
Rev. 0
-------
• Placing restrictions on current and future land and groundwater use in the
contaminated area (e.g., restrict operation of base supply wells and future
groundwater users)
• Long-term management and health and safety oversight by USAF personnel
for any new construction projects in the contaminated area
Alternative OU26-3G - Intrinsic Remediation
Alternative OU26-3G includes monitoring for natural attenuation of the TCE plume and
implementation of institutional controls. Natural attenuation involves all naturally-occurring
processes that reduce contaminant concentrations over time. These in situ processes (intrinsic
remediation) include biodegradation, abiotic transformation, dispersion, adsorption, and
volatilization. This alternative differs from the groundwater monitoring alternative by the
consideration of the completed preliminary natural attenuation evaluation and the ongoing
natural attenuation pilot study at site OU26.
The intrinsic remediation alternative would be implemented by:
• Long-term groundwater monitoring (for TCE and daughter products) to
document, quantify, and confirm the natural attenuation processes indicated in
the initial screening study and the pilot study
• Placing restrictions on current and future land and groundwater use in the
contaminated area (e.g., restrict operation of base supply wells and future
groundwater users)
• Long-term management and health and safety oversight by USAF personnel
for any new construction projects in the contaminated area
• Evaluation of the long-term monitoring to determine if natural attenuation is
occurring as predicted. The evaluation will be part of the annual groundwater
monitoring report.
F:\AFCEE\HOMESTEAD\DO-0010\DEUVERABLE\FINAL OU 18. 26. 28. AND 29 RODVRODI8S06 DOC /md/JDG 10PJ/98
Homestead AFB - OUs 18. 26. 28. and 29 Record of Decision RCV ,
6-25
-------
Discharge of treated groundwater to a nearby canal under a National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.
A NPDES permit will be required because the treated groundwater will be discharged to a
canal, a body of water of the State of Florida. Although discharge requirements have not
been established, it is assumed that treatment of groundwater to FDEP's Class III freshwater
standard of 80.7 ug/L (annual average) will be adequate. General groundwater chemistry
may require the need for pretreatment to eliminate fouling and scaling of the air stripper. Use
of a sequestering agent to control scaling is assumed at this time. No air emissions control
equipment should be needed because the total VOC emissions are estimated to be well below
regulatory thresholds and risk levels.
»
6.5.2 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives Addressing OU26 Groundwater
Four alternatives that address OU26 groundwater were carried forward to detailed analysis,
as follows: ' ^^
• Alternative OU26-1G: NFA
• Alternative OU26-2G: Groundwater Monitoring
» Alternative OU26-3G: Intrinsic Remediation
» Alternative OU26-4G: Groundwater Collection and Treatment
A detailed analysis of each alternative was completed using the criteria described in Section
6.2.1. Table 6-7 presents the results of this analysis.
6.5.3 Comparative Analysis Of Alternatives Addressing OU26 Groundwater
6.5.3.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The baseline risk assessment identified potential health risks for hypothetical construction
workers who may be exposed to contaminated shallow groundwater at OU26. NFA
(Alternative OU26-1G) would not provide any protection and would not mitigate the
potential unacceptable risks to human health as determined by the baseline risk assessment.
Q:\3Mll\BB'KOD1B\ROD18SO;;.DOC/md/JDG
Homestead AFB-Oils 18,26,28, and 29 Record of Decision ""^O 4-9/98
Rev. 0
-------
Groundwater monitoring (Alternative OU26-2G), intrinsic remediation (Alternative OU26-
3G), and groundwater collection and treatment (Alternative OU26-4G) provide protection
against health risks to hypothetical construction workers through institutional controls. The
key institutional control for this protection involves long-term management and health and
safety oversight of potential future construction projects. Groundwater collection and
treatment (Alternative OU26-4G) is expected to provide protection through treatment after an
estimated 5 years of active remediation.
6.5.3.2 Compliance with ARARs
Table 6-5 summarizes the action-specific ARARs applicable to the alternatives under
consideration, and indicates if compliance is attainable.
NFA, groundwater monitoring, and intrinsic remediation (Alternatives OU26-1G, OU26-2G,
and OU26-3G) would not meet the chemical-specific ARARs applying to TCE in
groundwater. A waiver to these requirements may be appropriate for Alternatives OU26-2G
and OU26-3G since risks are controlled through monitoring and long-term management. The
groundwater collection and treatment alternative (Alternative OU26-4G) is expected to
comply with all ARARs and waivers would not be required.
6.5.3.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
NFA (Alternative OU26-1G) does not provide long-term protection of human health and
would leave a residual risk equal to that identified in the baseline risk assessment. The other
groundwater alternatives provide effective protection from human exposure through
institutional controls. The permanence of institutional controls depends on long-term site
management by the USAF.
Intrinsic remediation (Alternative OU26-3G) processes appear to be occurring at the site;
however, these processes by themselves do not appear to be effective in the short term at
preventing contaminants from persisting in the aquifer. Natural attenuation processes will
likely provide permanent long-term risk reduction of TCE contamination. The results of
Q:\3MI 1\BB\RODI?\ROD18S06.D'' • 'md/JDG c O7
Homestead AFB - Oils 1 g. 26.28. rnd 29 Record of Decision O-Z / Rev 0
-------
6.5.3.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
NFA (Alternative OU26-1G) does not provide long-term protection of human health and
would leave a residual risk equal to that identified in the baseline risk assessment. The other
groundwater alternatives provide effective protection from human exposure through
institutional controls. The permanence of institutional controls depends on long-term site
management by the US AF.
Intrinsic remediation (Alternative OU26-3G) processes appear to be occurring at the site;
however, these processes by themselves do not appear to be effective in the short term at
preventing contaminants from persisting in the aquifer. Natural attenuation processes will
likely provide permanent long-term risk reduction of TCE contamination. The results of
recent groundwater sampling at site OU26 indicate that the TCE concentration in site
monitoring well SM60-MW1 may already have decreased to a concentration below the PRO.
The effectiveness of this trend will be evaluated during the annual groundwater monitoring
program.
Groundwater collection and treatment (Alternative OU26-4G) is a proven and reliable
technology to hydraulically control the migration and remove contaminants from
groundwater. Although pump-and-treat remediation has a poor record at remediating
chlorinated solvent sites to maximum contaminant levels (MCLs), the PRGs for this
remediation are considerably higher than MCLs (i.e., 580 Hg/L) and are expected to be
achievable in 5 years or less. The permanence of Alternative OU26-4G requires periodic
monitoring and continuous operation of the pumping wells until contaminant concentrations
are at levels that allow the processes of natural attenuation to effectively treat the plume.
6-5.3.4 Reduction of TMV through Treatment
NFA, groundwater monitoring, and intrinsic remediation (Alternatives OU26-1G, OU26-2G,
and OU26-3G) will not reduce TMV through active treatment; however, in the' long term,'
natural attenuation (primarily biodegradation) will likely reduce the volume and toxicity of
site contaminants. Groundwater collection and treatment (Alternative OU26-4G) will reduce
the volume of dissolved-phase contaminants through treatment on site.
6-28
10/21/98
Rev. 2
-------
(Alternatives OU26-2G, OU26-3G, and OU26-4G) are technically and administratively
feasible. The collection and treatment alternative (Alternative OU26-4G) requires an aquifer
stress test to more accurately define the radius of influence and pumping rate of an extraction
well. This 'alternative also requires groundwater quality testing and bench testing to
demonstrate reliability of process with respect to scaling due to precipitation. This
alternative includes an NPDES-permitted discharge to the adjacent canal; if discharge to
surface water is not allowed, surface irrigation or re-injection may be required. However, re-
injection may not be feasible because of scaling and associated plugging. The monitoring
alternatives require planning by qualified individuals to develop appropriate monitoring
strategies and procedures.
6.5.3.7 Cost
The estimated capital cost, O&M cost, and present worth cost for all the alternatives are
presented in Table 6-7. No capital or O&M costs are associated with Alternative OU26-1G.
Capital costs range from a low of about $57,000 for Alternative OU26-2G to a high of about
$370,000 for Alternative OU26-4G. Annual O&M costs range from about $12,000 for
Alternative OU26-2G to about $79,000 for Alternative OU26-4G.
The estimated present worth costs are sensitive to the length of time assumed for each
alternative and to the actual quantity of contaminated materials that will be handled and/or
treated. The OU26 groundwater alternatives, ranked from low present worth cost to high
present worth cost, along with the estimated or assumed remedial action life, are:
Alternative Present Worth Cost at 5%
OU26-2G Groundwater Monitoring
OU26-3G Intrinsic Remediation
OU26-4G Collection and Treatment
$250,000
$360,000
$530,000
Remedial Action Life
30 year
30 years
8 years
Q-.\3Mll\BBOlOD]8\ROD18SM.DOC/md/JDG r oo
Homestead AFB-OUs 18,26,28, and 29 Record of Decision "'•*" 4/29/98
Rev.O
-------
6.5.4 Proposed Alternative for OU26 Groundwater
The proposed alternative for OU26 groundwater is Alternative OU26-3G Intrinsic
Remediation. This alternative consists of deed restrictions, a natural attenuation evaluation
and long-term groundwater monitoring. The estimated present worth cost of Alternative
OU26-3G is $360,000.
6.6 ALTERNATIVES ADDRESSING OU28 SOILS
6.6.1 Description of Alternatives
Alternative OU28-1 - Nn Further Actlnn
Alternative OU28-1 assumes that no remedial action would be implemented at OU28.
Alternative OU28-2 - Institutional rnntrnl«
Alternative OU28-2 would consist of institutional controls including land use restrictions
long-term management, and a health and safety plan for all future intrusive work at the site'
Additionally, fencing would be installed around OU28 to control and limit human access to
the sites.
Alternative OU28-3 - Remove and Treat Using Low Temperature Thermal
Desorntion HLTTD)
Alternative OU28-3 involves removal of contaminated soils followed by treatment in a low
temperature thermal destruction (LTTD) unit. This alternative would be implemented by:
Removal of the upper 2 feet of contaminated surface soils (estimated at about
1,500 bank cubic yards) at OU28. Removal would be done using
appropriately-sized, conventional earthmoving equipment.
Backfilling the excavations with uncontaminated fill followed by regrading
and revegetation of the ground surface.
0 -OMl 1\BB\ROD18VROD18SO-5.DOC /md/JDG
HomeslcadAFB-OUsl 8.26.28, and 29 Record of Decision 6~30 4/29/98
Rev. 0
-------
• Encapsulation/stabilization of any excavated soils determined to be
characteristically hazardous based on TCLP testing. To be conservative for
this FS, it was assumed that about 460 bank cubic yards of soil containing
lead around the tank at OU28 are characteristically hazardous; however, only
one out of four analytical tests for total lead indicated a level that could
potentially exceed the TCLP standard for lead. Encapsulation/stabilization
would be done using pozzolonic or proprietary agents, and treatability testing
would be needed to design the mix. Following successful stabilization, the
stabilized soils would be transported to a local solid waste landfill for
disposal.
• Transportation and treatment of excavated soils at a local LTTD incinerator,
and subsequent beneficial reuse of the by-products in pavement materials.
Alternative OU28-4 Remove and Landfill
Alternative OU28-4 involves removal of contaminated soils for disposal in a solid waste
(RCRA Subtitle D) landfill. This alternative would be implemented by:
• Removal of the upper 2 feet of contaminated surface soils (estimated at about
1,500 bank cubic yards) at OU28. Removal would be done using
appropriately-sized, conventional earthmoving equipment.
• Backfilling the excavations with uncontaminated fill followed by regrading
and revegetation of the ground surface.
• Encapsulation/stabilization of any excavated soils determined to be
characteristically hazardous based on TCLP testing. To be conservative for
this FS, it was assumed that about 460 bank cubic yards of soil containing
lead around the tank at OU28 are characteristically hazardous; however, only
one out of four analytical tests for total lead indicated a level that could
potentially exceed the TCLP standard for lead. Encapsulation/stabilization
would be done using pozzolonic or proprietary agents, and treatability testing
QA3Mn\BB\ROD18\RODlSS06.DOC/md.'J!X; *• i->
Homcslead AFB - OUs 18.26.28. and 29 Record of Decision °'-j 1 ' 4/29/9S
Rev. 0
-------
• Backfilling the excavations with uncontaminated fill followed by regrading
and revegetation of the ground surface.
• Encapsulation/stabilization of any excavated soils determined to be
characteristically hazardous based on TCLP testing. To be conservative for
this FS, it was assumed that about 460 bank cubic yards of soil containing lead
around the tank at OU28 are characteristically hazardous; however, only one
out of four analytical tests for total lead indicated a level that could potentially
exceed the TCLP standard for lead. Encapsulation/stabilization would be
done using pozzolonic or proprietary agents, and treatability testing would be
needed to design the mix. Following successful stabilization, the stabilized
soils would be transported to a local solid waste landfill for disposal.
• Transportation and disposal of excavated soils at a local solid waste (RCRA
Subtitle D) landfill.
• In addition, this alternative would include a groundwater assessment to
determine if lead is present in the groundwater above action levels adjacent to
the Building 744 Fuel Tank.
6.6.2 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives Addressing OU28 Soils
Four alternatives that address OU28 soils were carried forward to detailed analysis, as
follows:
• Alternative OU28-1: NFA
• Alternative OU28-2: Institutional Controls
• Alternative OU28-3: Remove and Treat using LTTD
• Alternative OU28-4: Remove and Landfill
A detailed analysis of each alternative was completed using the criteria described in Section
6.2.1. Table 6-8 presents the results of this analysis.
F:\ATCEE\HOMESTEAD\DO-0010\DEUVERABLE\FINALOIJ IS. 26. 28. AND 29 RODVROD1SS06 DOC/md/JDG 10AM/98
Home«e»d AFB - OUs 18. 26. 28. and 29 Record of Decision Rev 1
6-32
-------
6.6.3.2 Compliance with ARARs
Table 6-5 summarizes the action-specific ARARs applicable to the alternatives under
consideration, and indicates if compliance is attainable.
NFA (Alternative OU28-1) and Institutional Controls (Alternative OU28-2) would not meet
the chemical-specific ARAR - "Soil Cleanup Goals for Florida" (Technical Memorandum
dated September 29,1995). A waiver to this requirement may not be appropriate based on the
six circumstances for a waiver identified by CERCLA (USEPA 1988). The other alternatives
(Alternatives OU28-3 and OU28-4) are expected to meet ARARs and waivers would not be
required.
6.6.3.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
NFA and institutional controls (Alternatives OU28-1 and OU28-2) do not provide long-term
environmental protection and would leave a residual environmental risk equal to that
identified in the baseline risk assessment. The LTTD alternative (Alternative OU28-3
provides for permanent irreversible treatment of PAHs. The landfill alternative (Alternative
OU28-4) provides for relocation of contaminated soils at a licensed solid waste facility,
where long-term effectiveness is ensured through routine monitoring and maintenance.
6.6.3.4 Reduction of TMV through Treatment
NFA, institutional controls, and landfilling alternatives (Alternatives OU28-1, OU28-2, and
OU28-4) provide no reduction in TMV through treatment. LTTD (Alternative OU28-3) will
also reduce the toxicity of PAHs and other organic constituents in the surface soil.
6.6.3.5 Short-Term Effectiveness
NFA (Alternative OU28-1) does not have any short-term impacts because no remedial action
is implemented. For all the other alternatives under consideration, workers can be protected
through implementation of a site-specific Health and Safety Plan. Homestead AFB personnel
can be protected during construction through the use of appropriate traffic and access
controls, as well as dust control measures for earthwork activities. Since general public
Q:tfMn\BB\RODI8\RODI8S06.DOC/irid/JDG (• -,
Homestead AFB -OUs 18, 26, 28, and 29 Record ofDecision DO
Rev. 0
-------
access to Homestead AFB is restricted, protection of the general public during construction
of any alternative is not expected to be an issue.
6.6.3.6 Imnlementabilitv
NFA and institutional controls (Alternatives OU28-1 and OU28-2) are technically feasible
but may not be administratively feasible unless ARAR waivers are granted LTTD and
landfilling (Alternatives OU28-3 and OU28-4) are technically and administratively feasible.
6.6.3.7 Cost
The estimated capital cost, O&M cost, and present worth cost for all the OU28 alternatives
are presented in Table 6-8. No capital or O&M costs are associated with NFA (Alternative
OU28-1). For the other alternatives, capital costs range from a low of about $30 000 for
Alternative OU28-2 to a high of about $370,000 for Alternative OU28-3. Annual O&M
costs range from $0 (Alternatives OU-18-4, and OU-18-5) to about $1,500 for Alternative
OU28-2.
The estimated present worth costs are sensitive to the length of time assumed for each
alternative and to the actual quantity of contaminated materials that will be handled and/or
treated. The OU28 alternatives, ranked from low present worth cost to high present worth
cost, along with the estimated or assumed remedial action life, are:
Alternative Present Worth Cost at 5%
OU28-2 Institutional Controls
OU28-5 Remove and Landfill
OU28-4 Remove and Treat using LTTD
$53,000
$340,000
$370,000
Remedial Action Life
30 years
1 year
1 year
Qi'3MII\BB\RODI8\ROD18S06.DOCAnd/JDG
Homo.cad AFB - OUs ] 8. 26.28. and 29 Record of Decision
6-34
4/29/98
Rev. 0
-------
Alternative
OU28-2 Institutional Controls
OU28-4 Remove and Landfill
OU28-3 Remove and Treat using LTTD
Present Worth Cost at 5%
S53.000
$340,000
$370,000
Remedial Action Life
30 years
1 year
1 year
6.6.4 Proposed Alternative for OU28
The proposed alternative for OU28 is Alternative OU28-4 Remove and Landfill. This
alternative consists of removal of surface soils with PAHs, arsenic, or lead at concentrations
that exceed FDEP industrial soil clean-up goals. These materials will be hauled to a
permitted solid waste landfill. Any soils determined to be characteristically hazardous
because of lead will be stabilized and then hauled off site to the permitted solid waste
landfill. This alternative also includes a groundwater assessment to determine if lead above
action levels is present around Building 744. Appropriate access restrictions and
groundwater monitoring will be included in the transfer documents, as necessary. The
estimated present worth cost of Alternative OU28-4 is $340,000.
6.7 ALTERNATIVES ADDRESSING OU29 SOILS
6.7.1 Description of Alternatives
Alternative OU29-1 - No Further Action
Alternative OU29-1 assumes that no remedial action would be implemented at OU29.
Alternative OU29-2 - Institutional Controls
Alternative OU29-2 would consist of institutional controls including land use restrictions,
long-term management, and a health and safety plan for all future intrusive work at the site.
Additionally, fencing would be installed around OU29 to control and limit human access to
the sites.
F:\ATCEE\HOMESTEADVDO-OOIO\DEUVERABLE\FINALOU 18, 26. 28. AND 29 ROD\RODI8S06.DOC /tnd/JDG 10/21/98
Homestead AFB - OUs 18.26, 28, and 29 Record of Decision Rev ~>
6-35
-------
Backfilling the excavations with uncontaminated fill followed by regrading
and revegetation of the ground surface.
Transportation and treatment of excavated soils at a local LTTD incinerator,
and subsequent beneficial reuse of the by-products in pavement materials.
Alternative OU29^4 - Remove and T.andfill
Alternative OU29-4 involves removal of contaminated soils for disposal in a solid waste
(RCRA Subtitle D) landfill. This alternative would be implemented by:
Removal of the upper 2 feet of contaminated surface soils (estimated at about
920 bank cubic yards) at OU29. Removal would be done using appropriately-
sized, conventional earthmoving equipment.
Backfilling the excavations with uncontaminated fill followed by regrading
and revegetation of the ground surface.
Transportation and disposal of excavated soils at a local solid waste (RCRA
Subtitle D) landfill.
6.7.2 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives Addressing OU29 Soils
Four alternatives that address OU29 soils were carried forward to detailed analysis, as
follows:
• Alternative OU29-1: NFA
• Alternative OU29-2: Institutional Controls
• Alternative OU29-3: Remove and Treat using LTTD
• Alternative OU29-4: Remove and Landfill
A detailed analysis of each alternative was completed using the criteria described in Section
6.2.1. Table 6-9 presents the results of this analysis. 4fc
QS3MI I\BBVRODI8\RODI8S'I6 DOC /md/JDG
Homestead AFB-OUs IS. 26.28. and 29 Record of Decision 6'36 4/29/98
Rev. 0
-------
6.7.3 Comparative Analysis Of Alternatives Addressing OU29 Soils
6-7.3.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
No potential unacceptable human health or environmental risks were identified by the
baseline risk assessment. Therefore, NFA (Alternative OU29-1) would provide adequate
protection of human health and the environment. Removal and treatment using a LTTD and
disposal in a landfill (Alternatives OU29-3 and OU29-4) provide for complete removal of
contaminated surface soils from OU29, thereby meeting the FDEP cleanup levels for PAHs
in soil.
6.7.3.2 Compliance with ARARs
Table 6-5 summarizes the action-specific ARARs applicable to the alternatives under
consideration, and indicates if compliance is attainable.
NFA (Alternative OU29-1) and Institutional Controls (Alternative OU29-2) would not meet
the chemical-specific ARAR - "Soil Cleanup Goals for Florida" (Technical Memorandum
dated September 29,1995). A waiver to this requirement may not be appropriate based on the
six circumstances for a waiver identified by CERCLA (USEPA 1988). The other alternatives
(Alternatives OU29-3 and OU29-4) are expected to meet ARARs and waivers would not be
required.
6.7.3.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
All the alternatives provide protection since the baseline risk assessment did not identify any
unacceptable risks to human health or the environment. However, PAHs have been found at
levels that exceed FDEP industrial soil clean-up goals. NFA and institutional controls
(Alternatives OU29-1 and OU29-2) would not remove the soils that exceed these FDEP
criteria, whereas LTTD and landfilling (Alternatives OU29-3 and OU29-4) would remove all
soils that exceed the FDEP criteria. The LTTD alternative (Alternative OU29-3 provides for
permanent irreversible treatment of PAHs. The landfill alternative (Alternative OU29-4)
provides for relocation of contaminated soils at a licensed solid waste facility, where long-
term effectiveness is ensured through routine monitoring and maintenance.
Q:\3Mll\BB\ROD18\ROD!8S06.DOC/ind/roG /- -57 4->9/98
Homeslead AFB - OUs 18.26,28. and 29 Record of Decision °"J ' J, „
KCv. \J
-------
6.7.3.4 Reduction of TMV through Treatment
NFA, institutional controls, and landfilling alternatives (Alternatives OU29-1, OU29-2, and
OU29-4) provide no reduction in TMV through treatment. LTTD (Alternative OU29-3) will
also reduce the toxicity of PAHs and other organic constituents in the surface soil.
6.7.3.5 Short-Term Effectiveness
NFA (Alternative OU29-1) does not have any short-term impacts because no remedial action
is implemented. For all the other alternatives under consideration, workers can be protected
through implementation of a site-specific Health and Safety Plan. Homestead AFB personnel
can be protected during construction through the use of appropriate traffic and access
controls, as well as dust control measures for earthwork activities. Since general public
access to Homestead AFB is restricted, protection of the general public during construction
of any alternative is not expected to be an issue.
6.7.3.6 Implementabilitv
NFA and institutional controls (Alternatives OU29-1 and OU29-2) are technically feasible
but may not be administratively feasible unless ARAR waivers are granted. LTTD and
landfilling (Alternatives OU29-3 and OU29-4) are technically and administratively feasible.
6.7.3.7 Cost
The estimated capital cost, O&M cost, and present worth cost for all the OU29 alternatives
are presented in Table 6-9. No capital or O&M costs are associated with NFA (Alternative
OU29-1). For the other alternatives, capital costs range from a low of about $26,000 for
Alternative OU29-2 to a high of about $160,000 for Alternative OU29-3. Annual O&M
costs range from $0 (Alternatives OU29-3 and OU29-4) to about $1,500 for Alternative
OU29-2.
The estimated present worth costs are sensitive to the length of time assumed for each
alternative and to the actual quantity of contaminated materials that will be handled and/or
Q:tfMll\BB\RODIS\ROD18S06.DOC.'md'JDG f 10
Homesicad AFB -OUsJ 8.26.28. and 29 Record of Decision °°° 4/29/98
Rev. 0
-------
treated. The OU29 alternatives, ranked from low present worth cost to high present worth
cost, along with the estimated or assumed remedial action life, are:
Alternative
OU29-2 Institutional Controls
OU29-4 Remove and Landfill
OU29-3 Remove and Treat using LTTD
Present Worth Cost at 5%
$49,000
$140,000
$160,000
Remedial Action Life
30 years
1 year
1 year
6.7.4 Proposed Alternative for OU29 Soils
The proposed alternative for OU29 is Alternative OU29-4 Remove and Landfill. This
alternative consists of removal of surface soils with PAHs at concentrations that exceed
FDEP industrial soil clean-up goals. These materials will be hauled to a permitted solid
waste landfill. The estimated present worth cost of Alternative OU29-4 is $140,000.
6.8 SELECTED REMEDIES SUMMARY
The Feasibility Study (W-C, 1997b) evaluated several remedial alternatives using the EPA
evaluation criteria. The following table identifies the remedial alternatives selected for each
OU based on the EPA criteria:
Site
OU18
OU26
OU26
OU28
OU29
Selected Alternative
Soil Cover (soils and sediment)
Remove and Landfill (soils)
Intrinsic Remediation (groundwater)
Remove and Landfill (soils)
Remove and landfill (soils)
Total Present Worth Cost
$800,000
$20,000
$360,000
$340,000
$140,000
Q:\3M! I \BB\ROD18\ROD18S06.DOC/md/JDG s -,o
Homestead AFB - OUs 18,26.28, and 29 Record of Decision ""•'"
-------
6.9 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedies are protective of human health and the environment, comply with
Federal and State requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the
remedial action, and are cost effective. These remedies utilize permanent solutions and
alternative treatment or resource recovery technologies, to the maximum extent practicable.
However, because treatment of the principal threats of the OUs was not found to be
practicable, these remedies do not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a principal
element.
»
Because the remedies for soil at OU18 and groundwater at OU26 will result in hazardous
substances still remaining on site above health-based levels, a review will be conducted
within five years of commencement of remedial action to ensure that the remedies continue
to provide adequate protection of human health and the environment.
Because the remedies for soil at OUs 28, 26, and 29 will not result in hazardous substances
on site above health-based levels, the five-year review will not apply to these actions.
Q:\3M1 l\BB\RODI8,RODI8SOf. DOC /md/JDG <• ,A
I lomcsteadAFB-OUs 18,26,28. and 29 Record of Decision O-4U 4/29/98
Rev. 0
-------
TABLE 6-1
SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARs/TBCs
HOMESTEAD AFB
Standard, Requirement, or Criteria
Description
Comment
OU18 OU26 OU28 OU29
STATE/COUNTY
Florida Air and Water Pollution Conlrol Acts (Florida
Statutes, Title 29, Chapter 403, Section 403)
Florida Surface Water Standards (FAC, Title
62, Chapter 62-302.530)
Florida Safe Drinking Water Act (Florida Statutes, Title
29, Chapter 403, Sections 403.850 - 403.864)
Florida Primary Drinking Water Standards
(FAC, Title 62, Chapter 62 - 550.310)
Florida Secondary Drinking Water Standards
(FAC, Title 62, Chapter 62 - 550.320)
Florida Dcnartmcnt of Environmental Protection (FDEP1
Cleanup Goals for the Military Sites in Florida,
Technical Memorandum dated July 5,1994,
Soil Cleanup Goals for Florida, Technical
^Memorandum dated September 29,1995
Petroleum Contamination Site Cleanup Criteria
(FAC, Title 62, Chapter 62-770)
Dade County Deportment of Environmental Resources
Management (DERM)
Soil Clcan-Up Goals for Homestead Air
•Reserve Base, letter to Air Force Base
Conversion Agency, March 2,1995
Establishes surface water quality criteria based on
use classification of the waters.
Establishes maximum contaminant levels (MCLs)
and standards for sources ofdrinking water. These
arc health based standards for specific
contaminants.
Establishes secondary MCLs which arc
noncnforceable guidelines for public drinking water
systems to protect the aesthetic quality of the water.
Lists carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic soil clean-
up goals for military installations in Florida.
Soil cleanup goals based on human loxicity using
generalized exposure assumptions.
Applicable if remedial activities result in the
discharge of contaminant to surface waters.
Slate MCLs are more stringent than federal MCLs
and therefore are applicable requirements.
Secondary MCLs may be "(o be considered" if
groundwater is used as a drinking water source.
Not an AKAR. Clean-up goals are only applicable
to sites within the cantonment area that is
contaminated with any of the listed contaminants.
Cleanup goals are applicable if site is contaminated
with any of the listed contaminants.
Lists requirements for cleanup of contaminated Not an ARAR. Site is not contaminated with
soils, including procedures for determining cleanup petroleum products.
levels.
Lists carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic soil clean-
up goals, specifically for sites at Homestead ARO.
Not an ARAR. The DCT decided that the
industrial cleanup goals outlined in the September
1995 Soil Cleanup Goals for Florida would be
used.
XXX
XXX
QttMinnBWODI8\RODI8T6I.DOC/djl/md/JB
llomesltail AHJ - OUs 18,26,28, and 29 Record of Decision
Sheet I of 3
-------
TABLE 6-1
SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL CIIEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARs/TBCs
HOMESTEAD AFB
slOAa (40 V.S.C. Sect. 300 ct scq.)
National Primary Drinking Water Standards
(40 CFR Parts 14 1. 142, (1990. 1991)
National Secondary Drinking Water Standards
(•10 CFR Part 143)
Maximum Conlnmlnanls Level Coals
(MCLGs) |PL No, 99-339.100 Slat. 642
(1986), (1990,199I);40CFR |4|lM2J
Resource, £onservalion. nnd Recovery Ad 141 rj.s C
Sect. 690IH scq.)
Releases from Solid Waste Management Units
(40CTRI'arl264)
KCRA Facility Investigation
Guidance (EPA, 1989)
Establishes maximum contaminant levels (MCLs)
for specific contaminants which are talUi-bascd
standards for public drinking water systems.
Establishes secondary maximum contaminant
levels (SMCLs) which are noncnforccable
guidelines for public drinking water systems to
protect the aesthetic quality of the water.
Eslablishes drinking water quality goals at a level at
which no adverse health effects may occur with an
adequate margin of safely.
Not an ARAR. The slate MCLs are more stringent
Him Ihe fcdernl MCLj and therefore are applicable.
SMCLs may be "to be considered" ifgroundvvatcr
Is used ns a drinking water source.
Not nn ARAR. There arc no MCLGs for chemicals
ofconccm set above zero levels for existing or
potential sources of drinking water
Proposed RCRA Action Levels (55 FR 30798
27 July 1990)
Subpnrt F (264.94) gives concentration limits in
groundivatcr for hazardous constituents from a
regulated unit.
Guidance levels for cleanup ofconlaminatcd soils
based on EPA-dcrivcd chronic exposure
assumptions; Intended as screening levels at RCRA
facilities to determine ifn more detailed health-risk
evaluation is warranted.
Risk-based action levels for contaminants in soil
which. If exceeded, would trigger the need for a
Corrective Measures Study.
Not an ARAR. No limits set forth for chemicals of
concern at these sites.
Not an ARAR. The conccntralion limits nrc
superseded by the FDEP industrial cleanup goals
outlined in Ihe September 1995 Soil Cleanup Goals
for Florida.
Not an ARAR. The conccntralion limits arc
superseded by the FDEP induslrial cleanup goals
outlined in the September 1995 Soil Cleanup Goals
for Florida.
<} MMIIV" II .ROD ISMIOIJII It I .IJOCVil jl/md/je
I limimra I,\I [I. OUi I«. 16, M, ffi J 29 Rttcml or Dcclsta
. Sheet 2 oH
-------
TABLE 6-1
SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARs/TBCs
HOMESTEAD AFB
Standard. Requirement, or Criteria
Description
Comment
OU18 OU26 OU28 OU29
Water Pollmion Control Act (33 U.S.C. Sect. 1251)
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System Regulations (40 CFR 125)
Toxic Pollutant Effluent Standards (40 CFR
129)
Ambient Water Quality Standards (40 CFR
131)
Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the
Analysis of Pollutants (40 CFR 136)
Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. Sect. 7401 - 7642)
National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air
Quality Standards (40 CFR 50)
Establish procedures for determination of effluent
limitations for discharges of pollutants to navigable
waters.
Establishes effluent standards for certain toxic
pollutants (as designated by 40 CFR 401):
aldrin/dieldrin, DDT, cndrin, toxaphene, benzidinc,
PCBs.
Requires states to develop water quality criteria for
surface waters based on tlieir use and the criteria
provided under Section 304(a) ofthe Clean Water
Act.
Specific analytical procedures forNPDES
applicants and reports.
Establishes ambient air quality standards to protect
public health and welfare.
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Establishes emission standards for certain industrial
Pollutants (40 CFR 61) pollutants and sources.
Relevant and appropriate if contaminants are
released to surface waters or if treated groundwalcr
is discharged to surface waters.
NotanARAR. None of Ihe toxic pollutants are
chemicals of concern at these sites.
Relevant and appropriate if contaminants are
released to surface waters or if treated groundwater
is discharged to surface waters.
Applicable if contaminants are released to surface
waters or if treated groundwater is discharged to
surface waters.
Applicable if contaminants are discharged to the
atmosphere during waste handling or a treatment
process.
Will be an ARAR if the remedial action involves a
specific industrial category for which NESHAPs
have been established.
MCLs -• Maximum Contaminant Level
SMCLs - Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level
MCl.Os - Maximum Contaminanl Level Goals
RCRA -• Hf source Conservation and Recovery Acl
I'CU = I'd;, chlorinated Biphenyls
ARAKs - Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
THC-To be considered
NPDES >• National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRSHAl's = Nntional Emission Standards for the Hazardous Air Pollutant:
Note: An X means that Ilic ARAR/T DC is potentially applicable to the site.
Sheet 3 of 3
IlomcMcad AFB - OUs 18.26, 28. «nd 25 Record of Decision
wins
Rcv.O
-------
TABLE 6-2
SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL LOCATION-SPECIFIC ARARs
HOMESTEAD AFU
Standard, Requirement, or Criteria
Description
Comments
OUI8 OU26 OU28 OU29
FEDF.IU1,
Resource (.'iinscrvnllon and Recovery Act
(42US.C:.S«:l.ti90lclscq.)
Fault Areas [40 CrR2d4.l8(i>)J
Flomlplnin [40 CFR 264,lg(b)]
Salt Domes, Underground Mines,
rimlCr.ves[40CFR264.l8(c)
E.O. 11988 Protection of Floodplnins
E.0.11990 Protection of Wetlands
Clean Wnlcr Act Section 404
(33 D.S.C. Sect. 1251 ctscq.)
Dredge or Fill Material (33 U.S.C. 1251;
40 Cllt 230; 33 CPR 320-330]
Wullnml Protection
New facilities where treatment, storage or disposal or
hazardous waste will be conducted Is prohibited within 61
meters (200 fed) of Q (null displaced In lloloccnc lime,
New facilities where treatment, storage or disposal of
hazardous waste will be conducted Is prohibited within the
100-year floodplain.
Prohibit! noncontnlncrlzed or bulk liquid hazardous waste
placement In sail domes, sail bed formations, and
underground mines or caves.
Limits activities in floodplain, Floodplaln Is defined as "the
lowland and relatively Pot areas adjoining inland and coastal
waters including flood prone trcas of off-shore islands,
including at a minimum, that area subject to a one percent or
greater chance of flooding in any given year." [40 CFR 6,
Appendix A and 40 CFR 6,302]
Minimizes impacts on areas designated as wcllnnds,
[40 CFR 6, Appendix A]
Not an ARAR, Treatment, storage and disposal of
waste will nol be conducted within 61 meters of a
fault displaced in lloloccne lime.
Not an ARAR. Treatment, storage and disposal of
waste will nol he conducted within the 100-year
floodplnin of ndjnccnt rivers. There ore no 100-year
flood plains at 1 lomcstead ARB.
Nol an ARAR, No action which would place waste
In a salt dome or sail bed formation, underground
.mine or cave is anticipated at this site.
Nol an ARAR. As staled above, Ihcre arc no 100-
year flood plains at Homestead ARD.
Not an ARAR, No remedial activities will occur on
or ncnr listed wetland areas and no remedial activities
will impact wetland areas.
Action lo prohibit discharge of dredged or fill material into
waters of U.S. without permit.
Nol an ARAR. Dredge and fill pcrmil requirements
apply if waters of the U.S. ore impacted by remedial
acliviiics «n the site. No dredge or nil material will be'
placed In wnlcts oflhc U.S.
Requires Federal agencies lo avoid, lo the extent possible. Nut an ARAR. As described above, regulations arc
adverse impacts associated wilh destruction or loss of wetlands, applicable only If the remedial acliviiics impacl Hie
wetland area.
Q:UMI IMIIMlttllflMlODIITU DOCMil/md/it
llnmtsle*.' A"l. DUi II. 26.21. nnd 29 Retold of Dicislon
Sheet 1 of 3
4OT.93
Rev. 0
-------
TABLE 6-2
SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL LOCATION-SPECIFIC ARARs
HOMESTEAD AFB
Standard, Requirement, or Criteria
Description
Comments
OUI8 OU26 OU28 OU29
Safe Drinking Waler Act
(40 U.S.C. Sett. 300eiseq.)
Drinking Water [40 CFR 149]
Wellhead Protection Program [42 USCA
300h-7)
Endangered Species Act
(16US.C.SecLl531etseq.)
(50CFR200, 50 CFR 402)
Paid Eagle Prolcclion Act
(16 U.S.C. Sect. 688 etseq.)
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(16 U.S.C. Sect. 703 etseq.)
Wilderness Act
(16U.S.C. Sect. 1311 etseq.)
(50CFR53.1 etseq.)
Wildlife Refuge
[ 16 U.S.C. 668 et scq.; 50 CFR Part 27]
Fisli and Wildlife Coordination Act
(If) U.S.C. Sect. 661 etseq.)
(33 CFR Parts 320-330; 40 CFR 6.302)
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
(16U.S.C. Sect. 1271 etseq.)
(40CFR6.302(c))
National Historic Preservation Acl fNHPAl
(16 U.S.C. Sect. 470 etseq.)
(7 CPU 650, 36 CFR Part 65, Part 800)
Includes regulations for defining sole source or principal
drinking water source aquifers.
Directs stales to implement protection programs for wells and
recharge areas for drinking water.
Protects endangered species and threatened specie: and
preserves their habitat.
Protects all eagle species and restricts activities that may
threaten or adversely affect their habitat.
Protects migratory, resident, or range habitat of migratory birds
including raptors and waterfowl.
Limits activities within an area designed as a wilderness area.
Limits the type of activities permitted in an area designated as a
National Wildlife Refuge System.
Prohibits activities affecting/modifying streams or bodies of
water if the activity has a negative impact on fish or wildlife.
Protects rivers (hat are designated as wild, scenic or recreational.
The Biscayne Aquifer is identified as a sole source of
potable water in the area.
Wellhead protection areas exist at Homestead ARB.
Although (here are no known critical habitats in the
immediate vicinity of the site or any known listed
endangered species, if any are identified during the
remedial activities this regulation would be applicable.
Not an ARAR. Bald eagles are not known to inhabit
Homestead ARB or tile-surrounding area and are not
expected to in the future.
Remedial actions cannot threaten or adversely affect
the habitats of migratory waterfowl or raptors.
Not an ARAR. The site is not within a federally-
owned area designated as a wilderness area.
Not an ARAR. The site is not in an area designated as
part of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Not an ARAR. Remedial activities will not modify a
stream, river, or canal.
Not an ARAR. No rivers designated as wild, scenic or
recreational will be affected by remedial activities.
Requires the preservation of historic properties included in or
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and to
minimize harm to National 1 listoric Landmarks.
Not an ARAR. No historical place or landmark
identified at the site.
X
X
X
XXX
XXX
XXX
Sheet 2 of 3
Homestead Aid • Oils 18,26,28, ondJCReeoid of Decision
4/M/9S
Ksv. 0
-------
TABLE 6-2
SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL LOCATION-SPECIF1C ARARs
HOMESTEAD AFB
Standard. Requirement, or Criteria
Description
Comments
OUIS OU26 OU2S
The I lisloi ic and Archaeological Data
PrvservnlioiiAclofl974
(16 U.S.C. Sect. 469 etseq.)
(40CI:R6.301(c)
The Archaeological Resource Protection Act of Requires a permit for any excavation or removal of
Establishes procedures to provide for preservation of historical
and archaeological dala which might be destroyed through
alteration of terrain as a result ofa federal construction project
or a federally licensed activity program.
(l6U.S.C.Scct.470aa.4701Ictscq.)
Consul Zone Mnnneement Ad
(16 U.S.C. Sect 1451 etseq.)
STATE
Florida Rules on Hazardous Waste Warning
(FAC, Title 63. Chapter 62-736)
archaeological resources form public or Indian lands.
Limits activities affecting the coastal zone, including lands
thereunder and adjacent shorelands.
Establishes requirements for warning signs to protect citizens
from unknowingly becoming exposed to hazardous wastes.
Nol an ARAR. No historic site located on site.
NolanARAR. No removal of archaeological
resources is expected from remedial activities.
Not an ARAR. Homestead ARB is not located within
the coastal zone management area.
These requirements arc applicable because sites arc
suspected to contain hazardous substances.
Nate: An X means that the ARAR is potentially applicable to the site.
Q«MII\BB\Re.'l>]8\ROD IST62.DOC /JaItel/jB
HoincslMd AFB - OUs 18,26,28, and 29 Record or Decision
Sheet 3 of 3
-------
TABLE 6-3
POTENTIAL ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARs/TBCs
HOMESTEAD AFB
Standard, Requirement, or Criteria
Description
Comment
OU18 OU26 OU28 OU29
Federal
Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA), as
amended by Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA)
(42 U.S.C. Sect. 6901-6987)
Criteria for Classification of Solid
Waste Disposal Facilities and
Practices (Subtitle D)
(40 CFR Part 257)
Criteria for Municipal Waste
Landfills (Subtitle D)
(40 CFR Part 258)
Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Wastes (Subtitle C)
(40 CFR Part 261)
Standards Applicable to Generators
of I lazardous Waste (Subtitle C)
(40 CFR Part 262)
Standards Applicable to
Transporters of Hazardous Waste
(Subtitle C)
(40 CFR Part 263)
Standards for Owners and Operators
ofl tardous Waste Treatment,
Storage, and Disposal Facilities
(Subtitle C)
(40 CFR Part 264)
Establishes criteria for use in determining which
solid waste disposal facilities and practices pose a
reasonable probability of adverse effects on health.
Prohibits open dumps.
Sets forth minimum criteria for municipal solid waste
landfills, including closure and postclosurc care
requirements.
Defines those solid wastes which are subject to
regulation as hazardous wastes under 40 CFR Parts
262-265,268, and Parts 124,270, and 271.
Establishes standards for generators of hazardous
waste.
Establishes standards which apply to persons
transporting hazardous waste within the U.S. if the
transportation requires a manifest under 40 CFR Part
262.
Establishes minimum national standards which
define the acceptable management of hazardous
waste for owners and operators of facilities which
treat, store, or dispose hazardous waste.
Applicable to land disposal of nonhazardous solid waste.
May be relevant and appropriate to stockpiling,
treatment and disposal of nonhazardous solid waste and
landfill closure actions.
Not an ARAR. No municipal solid waste landfills exist
at the site.
Applicable if remedial action involves generation,
storage, treatment, and/or disposal of hazardous waste.
Applicable if remedial action involves off-site disposal
or treatment of hazardous waste. On-sitc generation
triggers selected provisions (i.e., waste determination,
accumulation time).
Applicable if remedial action involves off-site
transportation of hazardous waste.
Not ail ARAR. Remedial action will not involve
stockpiling, treatment, or disposal of hazardous waste.
X X
OMMI I\BB\RODIB\RODI8TO.DOC/dal/moVJ8
1 lumestead AFB - OUs 18,26,28,29 Record of Decision
Sheet I of 5
4/29/98
Rcv.O
-------
TABLE 6-3
POTENTIAL ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARs/TBCs
HOMESTEAD AFB
Standard. Requirement, orCrilciia
Description
Comment
OUI8
OU28 OU29
Operators of Hazardous Waste
Treatment Storage, and Disposal
Facilities (Subtitle C)
(40 CFR Part 265)
Standards for the Management or
Specific Hazardous Wastes and
Specific Types of Hazardous Waste
Management Facilities
(40 CFR Part 266)
Land Disposal
(40 CFR Part 268)
the acceptable management of hazardous waste
during the period orinterim status and until
certification of final closure or if the facility is
subject to post-closure requirements, until post-
closure requirements, until post-closure
responsibilities are fulfilled.
Establishes requirements which apply to recyclable
materials that are claimed to recover economically
significant amounts of precious metals, including
gold and silver. Also establishes requirements which
apply to disposal of recyclable materials, burning of
used oil for energy recovery, and burning of
hazardous waste in boilers and industrial furnaces.
Establishes a timetable for restriction of burial of
hazardous wastes, contaminated soil, and debris.
Prohibits the land disposal unless the waste has been
treated to prescribed treatment standards. Land
disposal restrictions (LDRs) do not apply to a
specific hazardous waste until EPA has developed
treatment standards for that waste. Treatment
variances are typically needed for contaminated soils
at CERCLA sites.
Not an ARAK. Remedial action will not involve
stockpiling, treatment, or disposal ofhazardous waste.
Not an ARAR. No significant quantities of metals or
other recyclable materials occur at the sites, and no
burning or incineration of wastes for energy recovery
will occur.
Applicable if the remedial action involves land disposal
of regulated waste. LDRs and treatment standards apply
to hazardous waste that has been removed from a land
disposal unit or area of contamination.
Resource, Conservation, and Recovery
Act (RCRA)
(42 U.S.C. Sect. 6901 etscq.)
Subtitle 1
F,PA Technical Standards and
Corrective Action Requirements for
Owners and Operators of
Underground Storage Tanks (40 CFR
Part 280)
Subpart F requires that the corrective action plan
consider the "physical and chemical characteristics of
the regulated substance, including its toxicity,
persistence, and potential for migration."
Not an ARAR. No Underground Storage Tanks (USTs)
and UST systems, as defined at 40 CFR 280.12, exist at
these sites.
V UMI raiB\ROD18WODI8T63.DOC AbUnd/jg
Homestead AFB - OUs 18,26,28, 29 Record of Decision
Sheet 2 of 5
4/2OT8
Rev. 0
-------
TABLE 6-3
POTENTIAL ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARs/TBCs
HOMESTEAD AFB
Standard, Requirement, or Criteria
Description
GUIS OU26 OU28 OU29
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
(42 U.S.C Sect. 300(1) el. seq.)
Standards Tor Owners and Operators
of Public Water Supply System (40
CFR 141)
Underground Injection Control
Regulation (40 CFR Parts 144-147)
Federal Wnter Pollution Conlrol Act
(FWPCA), us amended by the Clean
Water Act (CWA) of 1977
(33 U.S.C. Sect. I25I-I376)
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
(40 CFR Parts 122-125)
National Frctrealment Standards
(40 CFR Part 403)
Toxic Substances Control Act
(15 U.S.C, Suet. 2601-2629)
PCB Requirements
Standards for I landling PCBs
(40 CFR 761)
Provides treatment (water quality) requirements for
public water supply systems.
Provides for protection of underground sources of
drinking water.
Requires peimils for the discharge of pollutants from
any point source into waters of the United States.
Not an ARAR. Florida Drinking Water Standards will be
used to determine cleanup goals for groundwalcr
contamination.
Not an ARAR. Remedial action will not involve
underground injection.
Potentially applicable to discharges to on-site or off-site
surface water.
Sets pretrcatmcnt standards to control pollutants which Potentially applicable to discharges of treated groundwalcr
pass through or interfere with treatment processes in to a local POTW.
publicly owned treatment works (POTW) or which
may contaminate sewage sludge.
Establishes storage and disposal requirements for
I'CUs.
Establishes prohibitions of and requirements for the
manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce,
use, disposal, storage, and marketing of PCBs and PCB
items.
Not an ARAR. Remedial action docs not involve storage
or disposal of PCBs or PCB-conlaminatcd soils.
Not an ARAR. Remedial action docs not involve storage
or disposal of PCBs or PCB-contaminatcd soils.
Q.UMI I\BB\RODI8\RODI8T63.DOC /ilal/ind/jg
I lomeslsad AFB - OUs 18,26,28, 2° Record of Decision
Sheet 3 of 5
-------
TABLE 6-3
POTENTIAL ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARs/TBCs
HOMESTEAD AFB
:qu
Comment
OUI8 OU26 OU28 OUM
Air Act
(-12 U.S.C. Sect 7401-7642)
New Source Performance Standards
(-10CFR60)
I'icvcniion ofSignificonl
Dclcrlornllon (I'SD) program
(•1l)CFR5lnndJ2)
HmMrdain Mitlcrlnls Transportation Art
(•19 U.S.C. Seel. 1801-1813)
I la7Jirdous Materials Transportation
Regulations
(49 CM Paris 107, 171-177)
Stale
Florida I Inznrdous Substance Release
Nulificalion Rules
(FAC. Title 62, Chapter 62-1 50)
Florida Solid Waste Disposal Facilities
Regulations
(FAC, Title 62, Chnplcr 62-701)
Florida Solid Waste CombustorAsh
Rcgulnlions
(FAC1, Title 62, Chapter 62-702)
Florida I Irmrdous Waste Rules
(FAC. Title 62, Chaplcr 62-730)
f'ctrolcuin Contamination Site Cleanup
Criteria (FAC, Title 62, Chapter 62-
770)
Establishes emission standards for ccrtoin categories of Not on ARAR. No remedial nclions will he regulated by
Industrial sMtionary sources. these standards.
implements and sels rules for a regional air pollulion Nol mi ARAR. Remedial action will not create emissions
control program. thai will trigger these standards.
Regulate] Imnsportntion ofhazardoui materials.
Establishes notification requirements for releases of
hazardous substances.
Applicable If Iho remedial action Involves transportation of
hazardous materials.
Requirements arc applicable If a release is discovered nl a
site. Would apply to potential releases that could occur
during remedial action.
Establishes requirements for solid waste management Requirements ore applicable if Inndfilling is used to
facilities. dispose of contaminated materials.
Establishes requirements for the management ofosli
that results from the combustion of solid wastes.
Establishes procedures for notification of hazardous
waste activity, Identification and listing of hazardous
wastes, generators, and operators oflrcatmcnl, storage,
and disposal Ikllllics.
Lists requirements for cleanup of contaminated soils,
including procedures for determining cleanup levels.
Nol an ARAR. Solid waste cornbuslor will not be used lo
thermally breakdown any solid wastes at a site.
Requirements nrc applicable if remedial actions involve
on-silc hazardous waste management, storage, treatment,
and/or disposal.
Not on ARAR. Site is nol contaminated with petroleum
products.
- OUi III. 26,21,» Record or Decision
Sheet 4 of 5
J/29/9R
Kcv.O
-------
TABLE 6-3
POTENTIAL ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARs/TBCs
HOMESTEAD AFB
Standard, Requirement, or Criteria
Description
OUI8 OU26 OU2S OU29
Florida Soil Thermal Treatment Facilities Establishes requirements for cleanup criteria of thermal Not an ARAK. Site has no petroleum contaminated soils
Regulations treated, petroleum contaminated soils, that will be thermally treated.
(FAC, Tide 62, Chapter 62-775)
SDWA - Safe Drinking Water Act
RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
SWDA - Solid Waste Disposal Act
UST - Underground Storage Tank
CERCLA « Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
LDRs = Land Disposal Restrictions
POTW = Publicly Owned Treatment Works
PCBs = Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Q:\JMI IVl)B\RODI8*ODI8T6.1.00C/dai;ina/jg
Homestead AFB - OUs IS. 26,28,11 Record of Decision
SllCCt 5 of 5
•1/29/98
Rev. 0
-------
TABLE 6-4
DETAILED ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES ADDRESSING OU18 SOILS AND SEDIMENTS
HOMESTEAD AFB, FEASIBILITY STUDY
EVALUATION CRITERION
llumitt Health Protection
Environmental Protection
Compliance with ARARs
pprtipriafeness of waivers
Magnitude of residual risk
Adequacy and reliability of control*
ALT.OUIM
No Fsrtlicr Action
to proteclion.
Nopioltclion.
Would not met 1 cfitmici] specific
requirements.
o( appropriate. None of the six
rcumslances identified by CERCLA
ould be mel.
o reduction in risk associated with
xposure to PAI Is in surface soils or
arsenic in sediments. PAIls in surface
its and P Alls/arsenic in sediments
main at levels above PRGs.
ot applicable.
ALT.OUI8-3
IniMutiotuI Controls
Some protection through access
reslrictions and long-terra
management.
No protection. Allows contamination
to persist under Influence ofnaluntl
degradation processes.
Would not meet chemical specific
requirements.
ol appropriate. None of the six
rcunsanccs identified by CERCLA
ould be met.
ome reduction in risk to potential
man receptors; no reduction in risk
0 potential environmental receptors.
'Alls in surface soils and
'Alls/arsenic in sediments remain at
•els above PROs.
ed and access restrictions and long-
em oversight can be adequate and
iable with proper management.
ALT.OUU-J
Soil Cover
• Kemoie asphaMc sediments fratn
canil and pbcc on surface of OUI8
• Breawle edje of nil 10 feel away
from canal
• Recnde slopes and surface
• Install 1 S" soil cover and 6" vegetaiiv
layer
• Fence sile and monitor groundivatcr
Significant protection at site by
eliminating potential pathways through
consolidating contaminated soils and
sediments beneath cover.
tolcction by removal of contaminated
sediment from canal, grading and
erosion protection of debris Till along
canal, and consolidating contaminated
ttiliSJlJinlimcntl.tenealh cover.
Would not meet action specific
requirements for solid waste disposal.
Considered to be appropriate because a
soil cover will attain an equivalent
andard of performance required for
Consolidation ofPAHs and arsenic
nder cover reduces risks to potential
urnan and environmental receptors by
minating pathway.
soil cover with long-term 04M is
equate and reliable method to
nimize exposures and control
gration.
.
ALT.OUIW
Remove and Treat ming L.TID
Zftclorasptillicsoil
•Haul and treat at LTIB
• PI ace 6' vegetative layer over site
Permanent protection at site by removui
contaminated soil: and sedimenli.
'ermancnl protection off-site by
estroying PAHs «d immobilizing
Permanent protection by eliminating
contamination sources at site, destroying
PAHs. and immobilizing arsenic by re-
use in pavement.
Meets all ARARs.
Not required.
oils containing PAIls and sediments
ontainini PAHs/arsenic permanently
moved from site. PAHs destroyed and
senic immobilized. No residual risk.
moral of contaminated soils and
ediments is adequate and reliable.
cineration is adequate and reliable
Ihod to destroy PAHs. Arsenic will
be destroyed, but ie-use of material in
1 ii i
ALT.OUIS-5
Remove and landfill
• Remove asphaliic sediments and upper
2 feet of ai phallic wil
•Haul and idspose at landfill
• Place 6' vegetative layer over sile
Permanent protection at site by
removing contaminated soils and
sediments. Adequate proteclion off-site
>y containing waste in permitted
Permanent proteclion at sile by
removing contaminated soils and
sediments. Adequate future off-site
protection by containing waste in
Meets all ARARs.
Not required.
oils containing PAHs and sediments
ontaining PAHs/arsenic permanently
moved from site and contained in
rmirted landfill. No residual risk.
SAP retains long-term liability of
aate disposed at landfill.
emoval of contaminated soils and
diluents is adequate and reliable.
isposal at pet-milled landfill is adequate
d reliable method to contain wastes.
OMMI l\nn\RODMltodl!tab97JTAm.Efj-4 /dal
Homestead API) - OUs 18,26.28, and 29 Record of Decision
Shed 1 of 3
•1/29/98
Rev.O
-------
TABLE 6-4
DETAILED ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES ADDRESSING OU18 SOILS AND SEDIMENTS
HOMESTEAD AFB, FEASIBILITY STUDY
EVALUATION CRITERION
REDUCTION OF TM V
Treatment process used and
raid-rial fretted
Amount destroyed or treated
Reduction of TMV (li rough
treatment
Irreversible (raiment
Type and quantity of residuals
remaining utter treatment
Time required (o achieve remedial
action objective! (RAOs)
'rotection of community and
workers during remedial idiom
Environment*! impacts during
remedial actions
lMi'Li;M!-:NTAB II ITY
Ability to construct Mnd operate
Rase of doing more remedial action,
needed
Abiliiy to monitor effectiveness
Ability to attain approvals and
coordination with other agencies
Availability of sen-ices anil
equipment
No Further Action
adequate protection of human health
and the environment is maintained.
None.
None.
None.
None.
Not applicable.
RAOs would not be achieved in the
shorMe mu-
te action taken
Jone.
fat applicable.
Easy.
Nol applicable.
Jot applicable.
ot applicable.
Institutional Controls
Review would be requited to ensure
adequate protection or human licallh
and the environment is maintained.
None.
None.
None.
None.
Nol applicable.
tAOs would not be achieved in short
lerm; however, reduction or human
exposure to contaminants achieved
mmediately.
Little risk to community because
access to Homestead AFB is
restricted. Workers can be protected
using standard health and safety
None.
cueing easily constructed.
Easy.
Easy.
one required.
oromerciaHy available.
Soil Cover
adequate prelection of human health am!
(he environment is maintained.
None.
None.
^Jone.
*Jone.
Not applicable.
RAOs could be achieved witlu'n one
'ear.
.idle risk to community because access
to Homestead AFB is restricted.
Workers can be protected using standard
lealth and safety procedures.
mpacts during construction due lo dust
emissions and run-off can be controlled
through construction erosion control.
landard excavation and earth moving
qiiinment can rcaJily remove soil and
sediment.
Casy.
Annual inspections and monitoring easy
implement.
lone requited.
omnierci ally available.
ALT. GUI 8.4
Remove and Treat using LTTD
Low temperature thermal dcsorption.
An estimated 28,000 tons of surface soil
and sediment containing PAHs.
Reduces TMV of PAHs through iherma
destruction.
LTTD is irreversible.
All residual quantities are expected to be
teneficially reused m pavement
RAOs could be achieved within one year
Some community risk involved in
transportation to the LTTD. Workers can
w protected using standard health and
safety procedures.
Impacts during construction due to dust
emissions and run-off can be controlled
trough construction erosion control. Air
missions from LTTD controlled under
Derating pcnnil.
tandard excavation and earth moving
quiprnent can readily remove soil and
cdiment. LTTD operation already set up
vithin 40 miles of site.
Easy.
Monitoring not required after remedial
ction.
one required.
ommcrcially available.
ALT. OU 18-5
Remove and Landfill
Not required.
None,
None.
tfone.
None,
•Jone.
tAOs could be achieved within one
fear.
Some community risk involved in
transportation to the landfill. Workers
can be protected using standard health
and safety procedures.
mpacls during construction due to dust
emissions and nm-off can be controlled
irough construction erosion control.
mpacts from landfill controlled under
perating permit.
tandard excavation and earth moving
quipment can readily remove soil and
cdimcnt. Permitted solid waste landfill
ocaled within 40 mile; of site.
Easy.
Monitoring by USAF not required after
medial action. Landfill monitors
rtdcr permit conditions.
one required.
ommcrcially available.
Q:V'M I I\BD\RODI 8\[rodl8lab97|TABLE C-4 /M
Homestead AFB - OUs 18,26,28. end 29 Record ofDecision
Sheet 2 of 3
4/29/98
Rev.O
-------
TABLE 6-4
DETAILED ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES ADDRESSING OU18 SOILS AND SEDIMENTS
HOMESTEAD AFB, FEASIBILITY STUDY
Capi'al Cult
Pmtnl Worth Coil of 0*M
Prcirnl Worth Coil
No Furfticr Action
SO
$0
so
ImtilUtiOMlCoWlolj
SJ7.000
123,000
S60.0W
Soil Cow
$585,000
SI69.00C
J754.000
ALT.OUIM
Remove aid Tied uing LTTD
52.139,000
$0
S2.I39.000
jycr Is plated
Capilal costs "$2^35000
•naral worth cwl - 52,335.000
ALT.OUIS-5
Remote jBdUndfill
SI.S4!,OW
SO
ir«n 18" joil cover indO' vejeuiivt
layer is placed
Capital costs - S2.044.000
Q:\3MI HHB\RODIB\[rodl8lab97]TABLE(i-4 IM
llonintead AFB -OUs 18,26,28, and 29 Reconl of Decision
Sheet 3 of3
Rcv.O
-------
TABLE 6-5
ACTION-SPECIFIC ARAUs/TBCs
HOMESTEAD AFB
Standard, Requirement, or Criteria
Federal
Solid Wane Disposal Act (SWDA), »
•mended by Resource Conservation
.nd Recover? Att of 1 976 (RCRA)
(4JUS.C.SKI.6901-WJ7)
Criteria Tor Classification of Solid Waste disposal
Facilities and Practices (Subtitle D) (40 CFR Part 257}
Identification and Lilting of Hazardous Wastes
(Subtitle C)(40 CFR Part 261)
Standards Applicable (0 Generators of Hazardous
Wastes (Subtitle C) (40 CFR Fart 2(2)
Standards Applicable to Transporters of Hazardous
Wastes (Subtitle C) (40 CFR Part 263)
Land Disposal (40 CFR Pin 268)
Federal Waiter Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), u
amended by Ihe Chats Water Act (CIV A) of 1977
(33U.S.C.SK1.125I-1J76)
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (40
CFR Parti 122-125)
National Prelrcatment Standards (40 CFR Part 403)
Illiardous Materials Transportation Act (49 U.S.C.
Sect 1101-1813)
Hazardous Materials Transportation Regulations (49
CFR Parti 107, 171-177)
Slalt
Florida Hazardous Substance Release Notification
rulti (FAC. Title 62, Chapter 62-150)
Florida Solid Waste Disposal Facilities Regulations
(FAC, Title 62, Chapter 62-701)
Florida Hazardous Waste Rules (FAC, Title 62,
Ctapler 62-730)
Alternatives Addressing Soils and Sediments
No Action
Institutional
Controls
Soil Cover
o
X
V
V
4
V
V
o
X
Remove and
Treat using
LTTD
X
V
V
V
-v
V
i
Remove and
Landfill
X
X
V
V
V
V
V
X
X
Alternatives Addressing Groundwaler
No Action
Groundwaicr
Monitoring
Inlrinsic
Remediation
Groundwaier
Collection and
Treaimeni
X
X
flOTES: '
X •• Action-specific ARAR it applicable and aitainable at ill OUs,
O - Action-specific ARAR is applicable bul not coniidcrcd (D be altainible. A waiver will be required Bllo.viitg action to provide an equivalent standard of perfomiMKe.
V •• Action-specific ARAB, applicable only ifcxciviled toil is determined to be characieriiticnlly hazonJous.
llrniKiw.J AHI - OU. II. 3fc )t, *nt M
-------
TABLE 6-6
DETAILED ANALYSIS OF ALTEIINAT1VES ADDRESSING OU26 SOILS AND SEDIMENTS
HOMESTEAD AFn, FEASIBILITY STUDY
lUminUeillnPrelfttk-n
Environmental Protection
Compliance with ARARj
ApnropriXeneu «f waiver*
Magnitude of mid ml risk
Adequacy and reliability of
controls
Netd for 5-yeir review
No FsrtJKT Action
»(o protection.
No protection required became no
unacceptable risk identified by
inseKne risk assessment.
Would not meet chemical specific
requirement].
Not appropriate. None ofthe six
circumstances Identified by
CERCtA would be met.
o reduction in ritk associated
ilh exposure to lead/mercury in
urfice soils.
AHVarsenic/leaoYmercuty in
urfaec soils and
AHs/ancntc/lead in sediments
main at levels ibove PRGs.
ot applicable.
evicw would be required to
mure adequate protection of
umin health and Hie
lattiittloBilCmtroti
Some protection tluoujh tecoi
restrictions and ton|*tenn
miBjjemtnt,
No protection. Allows
contamination to penitt tinder
influence of natural degttdslion
roccues.
Would not meet chtrnkil specific
:quiremenls.
ot appropriate. Noncoflhesix
rcuraslaacej identified by
ERCLA would be met.
oroe reduction in risk (o
wlentUI human receptors.
'AHs/irsenic/lcad/mercury in
urfice soils and
AHs/arsenic/leid in sediments
main ai levels above PRGs.
>ced tnd access restrictions and
rig-terra oversight can be
equate and reliable wtih proper
uiagement
view would be required la
ure adequate protection of
udimcnls
'HsuIindueilttLTTO
•OacifUf to gride with clein fill
'ctmancnl protetllon it lite by
removing coniamiiuted »ili an
sediment]. Permanent protection
off-site by destroying PAHs and
minobilizing
ujcntc/Jcid/mcrnny by revise i
lavcincnl.
PermantM protection by
eliminating conttminition sourc
al jile, destroying PAHs, and
mmobilizmj
arsenic/Iead/merctuybyrMJKln
MeetaallARARs.
Not required.
oils containing
AIIs/irsenic/le«d/mcrcury and
dimtms containing
cmoved from siic. PAHs
deitroyed and
«nic/Iead/mercury
mmobiliicd. Norcsidutlrisk.
emoval of contaminated soils
d sediments is adequate and
iaWc. Incineration is adequate
d reliable method to destroy
AHs. Arsenic/lead/mcrcurywill
t be destroj-cd, but re-use of
aterial in pavement hill
mobilize.
1 required.
Remove and Land/ill
ltdimcnis
• 1 liul ud dbpoic u kndJl,ll
* Buifill la jtide wish cltu fil
Peimanent protection u site by
removing ccntinwnitcd soils and
sedimenu. Adequate protection
ofT-site by conlawiinj wutc in
permitted landfill.
Permanent protection it lite by
removing contaminated aoili tnd
sedimcnti. Adequate future ofT-
site protection by containing
waste in permitted landfill.
Meet] all ARARs.
Not required.
oils cantaining
AHs/arsenic/lead/mercury ind
dimcnts containing
Alls/arsenic/lcid: permanently
moved from site and contained
permitted landfill. No residua
sk. USAF retains long-term
ubility for wasie disposed in
andnil.
temaval oTconuuninatcd soils
nd sediment] is adequite and
iable. Disposal it permitted
ndfill if adequate and reliable
ethod to contain wanes.
ol required.
-------
TABLE 6-6
DETAILED ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES ADDRESSING OU26 SOILS AND SEDIMENTS
HOMESTEAD AFB, FEASIBILITY STUDY
EVALUATION CRITERION
RF.nit(rnoNO~F~fMv
Treatment proceu uitd and
material treated
Amount destroyed or treated
Reduction of TMVIhraujh
ireatment
IrVevcrilbte treatment
Type ind quintity of residuals
remaining after treatment
Time required to achieve
remedial icltan objectim
(RAO*)
'rDtecllon of cammunky ind
worktri diring remedial
ictioni
Environmental Itnpicli during
remtdJil acllant
Ability to construct ind operate
'.tit of doing more remedial
action, If needed
Ability to monitor efltcitrcnMi
Ability lo obtain approvals ind
coordination with ether
Availability oTiervlceJ ind
equipment
CUSI
CapHilCoil
Present Worth Coil of O&M
Prtsrnl Worth Coil
No Further Aclion
None.
None.
None.
•Jone.
Nol ipplicable.
RAOs would not be ichitved in
the short-ienn.
4o tefon ukcn
None.
Not ipplicibte.
Euy.
Not upfvltcitile.
Not ipplictblc.
Ot Ippliciblc,
10
III
SO
Iniiitutionit Controls
None.
None.
None.
None.
Nol applkibte.
RAOs would not be Achieved in
shorMemv. however, reduction o
nunin exposure to conlaminftnU
ichiewd immediilely.
Linle title to community became
accesj to Homesteid AFB is
restricted. Worker? »n be
protected using ilindtrd heahh
indwfety procedures.
None.
'encing easily conslructed.
E«y.
Eaiy.
lone required
^ommetcUlly available.
$3 1,000
S2.00C
JJ4.000
ALT. OU26-3S
Remove ind Treat using LTTD
Low temptnture tliermal
dcsorpfinn.
An eslinilled 390 tons of suffice
soil ind sediment containing
PAHi.
Reducei TMV of PAHs through
thermal destruction.
LTTD is inevnsible.
All residual quantities ue
expected lo be beneficially reuse
in nivement processes.
RAOi could be achieved witttin
one yctr.
Some community risk involved in
tnnjportation to the LTTD.
Worten can be protected using
siandud beiltli and safety
Kocedurei.
mp*(tS during conitniction due
to dust Ctnisiioiu ind nm-off can
be controlled through comtnicu'tni
crojion conttol. Aireraiuions
rom LTTD controlled under
upoiiins, permit -.,.
tinJard cxcavition and clflll
noving equipment can readily
remove soil and sediment. LTTD
peralion ilteady scl up within 40
mites of site,
asy.
>lotii(oring not lequired ifler .
emedial action.
One required.
ommerciiHy available.
S49.000
$0
$49,000
ALT, OU26-4S
Remove and Landfill
None.
None.
None.
Vone.
None.
RAOi could be achieved within
one year.
Some community risk involved in
tnmpariation la the landfill.
Workers cui be protected using
llftndud health and safety
vocediuci.
ropocu during construction due
to dust emissions and run-off can
be controlled through consmictior
erosion control. Impacts from
indflll controlled under opetiling
Standard excavation and earth
moving equipment can reidily
emove soil and icdiment
ermitted solid wute lindfill
ocnted within 40 mile* of site.
Easy.
lonitoting by USAFnoi icquitet
let remeilial action. Lindlill
monitoif under permit condtlioni.
one tequircd
'ommtirially ivailibte.
£43,000
X
S43.00C
-------
TAULEfi-7
DETAILED ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES ADDRESSING OV26 GKOUNDWATER
HOMESTEAD AFB, FEASIBILITY STUDY
llanu) Iltalth ProtKtlon
Enrlrt until*! Prtltttlo*
ConpHmeftilHARARl
ippropri'lttntliafTrilvtn
Mi|nlludtifr«!dui!riik
ftd for 5-year rcvinr
'rtalmrnl proem uud »*d
naftrial trntrd
Anoiml dntroytd «r (rented
(rnlment
Irreversible frtumtnt
N« Further Adioa
No protection in the limit-tarn.
No protection requited became no
unacceptable r!)tc idtnufied by
lueJEne rijlc tueument
Would no! mctt chemical specific
Jtquirernenu.
teUppropriile. Noneoflhejlx
ctrcumilinctt Utmifled by CERCLA
would be met
No ndodion of risk to construction
worker cfpoiure to groundwater.
oi«ppti«b!e.
evkw would be tequited lo ensure
adequate protection of humw hulih
ind Ihc enviro«metit rj maintained
Jone
otw.
fW.
GiovM^iltr ktowttiwi
PrtHKU'on thioogh icceti retliktioni
and tile manigcmenl
Moflhwi for potenctil f«ih«
lejiiditionofst«jndw»Jef Allots
for influence of ntXurd Micnuiticn
ptocciiei.
Would not immttjiutly mctt thcmkal
pccific requif onenL
Conjideted ta be »ppropitaie lince
ptol«ti«i ii i/Twded through tile
mantgeroenttxid monJlofifliof
tiik lo conitniciJon woiktri mitigated
b/Eflllitutionilcontioli. AllowiTCE
(a retntin in gioundwuer UK]
itwilly ittcnuite.
lubk within HomejieidAFD
toundaiiei Groundwiter monilorinj
adequate and retiible for Hnctlng
'CE over lime.
eview would be icquited to HIJUIC
equile protection ofhumin healih
nnd the environment is maintained
one
one by oclive lemedjuliwi
nliminfltion tl the iitc npcclcd lo
graduilty reduce over tinw.
one
• MMtor 5 MtUt f« TCE. tfajjhlw
podoeli. «vj nuutl anttMdwa
ftttmtun
FloWction ihroujh KCCM lejtricttoni tnd
Trie mmigTOKBt
Monilor* for poteniitl fwlhef degradttlon
ofsioundwito-. Allow* for influence of
ntlurtl uienuttion proccnci.
Would not imtntdis(tly meet chemical
tpecific requii email
ContJdeted lo b« ippropriale nnce
irotcct!on ii iflbtdri through lite
nurugement ind moniloring of potentill
Ujk to corutnietion wrxkeis m'rtigaled bj
insiiluligrul eonlreli. Allow) TC5 to
rrm«in in jroundwater ind nUurally
wilhin llomeitead AFD bouoJt/itt.
ttlutil aKenuilion ptoceuel may not be
dwiuite •[ reducingTCE concentiiljonj
and need lobe demonstrated Ihiough
onilwlng,
eview would be requiied to enjuie
equate pcoieclion of human hetlih ud
trmstc remedMtion procnscd include
upcriion, volitiliution, biodegiulalion,
sotplion, and chemical ruclioni
one by aciive remediation,
ntuninuion al the jile expected to
olume and toxicily of TCE expecicd to
raduilly reJwe over time.
odcgradation and chemical reactinns ate
cvniihle
Gtow^Mt CoHtctiM ml TrtUmrrX
•runtpal IWgffufttlyixt
•Tffaluu«|um)pp(r
• Ditchargr k> carul under NrOES permit
• Monilw iroundwiier for ) ) tan aftet
pwnplninitepped
Pid Wicn tfwM^h acteu leUrictiDru *4 lite
miflijemtnl, Perminent pFoteoion aJlrt
complclion orremediil KIKXV
Rtdocei IcHal TCE mua in jfojndwuo-.
Would meet chcroieal jpedfic requirement in
eUimatedSyewt.
Nol«qui'ci
lilt; (o construction woiken militated by
institutional con] tali and decieaxd over time
by active rcmediaiion of aquifer
roundwiicr collection and treatment
adequate to contain TCE plume Reliability to
hieve lowTCEIeveli (e|. MCLs) ii poor
ven body of evidence from other TCE pump
d treat litu. Momioting will prove
rectivewai.
eview would be requwed lo eniute adequate
KOteclion of human health and the
irafefiim TCE from groundwaier to the
por phase uiing an sir jtiippcr.
CE will be tratafcned from groundwaler lo
lumeofeonttmrnitcd media will be
need u plume shiints during grounduaicr
tact ion
Jaiiltraiion is not irrei erjtble because
ii{>< AFO > OUl II. U. II. td » Record
-------
TABLE 6-7
DETAILED ANALYSIS Or ALTERNATIVES ADDRESSING OU26 GROUNDWATER
HOMESTEAD AH), FEASIBILITY STUDY
EVALUATION CRITERION
Type and quantity of roitlu*li
remaining iRer trtnimcHt
Time required (o achieve remedial
ac
-------
TABLE 6-8
DETAILED ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES ADDRESSING OU28 SOILS
HOMESTEAD AFB, FEASIBILITY STUDY
EVALUATION CRiTOUON
OVERALL PROTECTION
llujntn lldlth Praltctkn
EaTlnanmcnUl PnlKllon
ComjillutM with ARARi
Appropiiilcncst of WBlverc
.ONG.TERM
Mlfnlludtflfraiihiilrlik
Adrquicyindrtllkbtlityor
controls
N«d forS-yeir revkw
Nu Pifthcf Actku
•Pwinthini
No jvttfectkn require d hcnuic
DO pnxxtrtaNc rtik identified by
buclinc ruk uicwnem.
Nu pnxcnlio.
Would nix meet chemical
tpccific nituircmeaif.
Nol ipprdfrille. Niweiiflterix
eitcumilancci 'identified by
CERCLA wnold be nwi
Nti reduction irtrinktiHvUied
with environmental expmurci td
cad in surface vttt.
PAHs/arsenndlcid in surfatc
yjjli remain at levels above
FRGj.
N^-jppIkahk.
Icvicw wiiulJ he required ID
cniure aJcijuulc pnitctiitm nf
human hulih and the
L-nvir.inm>l»iccd und accuii rcsiiictttnu and
img-tcrro twcfiijht may mil
cuntro) cnvljtmincnla) ciposurc!.
tcvicw wiiutd he required to
ensure addjuuc ixtitctlim nf
human hc^lh and the
cnvjnmmf Bt » maiatjincJ
ALT OUU-3
• R«n»«fe «p hi 2 feel u/wr txe
KHl
• Backfill n jraJe with ctcin (til
• Revcgcbie
Pcrmuicet pntcvittn n rite by
feraoYini ciKilimiBalcd will.
Permanent fVMtcrwftiiff-Mt£ by
deumyintPAthifltl
Mnrm*ili/ini uuruc/Ieid by rc-
uic In navemcni
Pcrrnuncnt ptUcctiun by
eliini rating cnrttami/iaiiivi
UKVIXI al lite, dcantying PAIlt,
and imimftliiinf uicntc/Iead by
re-UK in ravcrncw.
McetttllARAIU.
Nut required
SiiUiconlainin;
PAHifirscniL/lcaJ permanently
icraovcJ fr»m »ie. PAHs
destroyed and i/Knidlcwl
mmi*i!r/cd- NurcaiJual ruk.
Icmiwul i>f ciKHntninuied wiils
and Kdimentu ii^dcquuic and
rcliible. Incinciaiiun it utkquate
am! (clixhk method lit dctlfuy
PAHt. Arsenic will nm he
ifcsunycJ, hut rc-usc tif material
n pavement will immubili/j; ihc
^(H rcijuired.
ALT.aUIM
RcmiYt Md LiAdfil]
• Reniwcupb>2 feet t
-------
TABLE 6-8
DETAILED ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES ADDRESSING OU28 SOILS
HOMESTEAD AKB, FEASIBILITY STUDY
EVALUATION CRITERION
RFDIJCTION OF TM V fC.rm'tt
Reduction ofTMV through
treatment
Irreversible treatment
Type and quantity of rejtduit*
rcmiiainx after treatment
Time required ta achieve
remedial action objectives
(HAOl}
(•median of conttnunk; and
workers during remedial
idiom
environmental impact* during
remedial aclloni
MPLEMENTABILITY
Ability to corutruct and operale
Ease of doing more remedial
action, if needed
Ability to monitor effecliveneai
Ability (o obtain approval! and
coordination with other
Availability of lervicet and
equipment
Tapllal Coit
Promt Worth Cost of O&M
Present Worth Con
ALT.OU28-I
No Funhfr Action
None.
None.
Nol applicable.
RAOs would not be achieved hi
(Iw jbort-tenn-
No Klion taVen
None.
Mot applicable.
Easy.
Not ipplicible.
Not ipplicible.
Nol ipplicible.
$0
$0
$0
ALT. OU2B-2
Institutional Conlrob
None.
None.
Notipplicable.
lAOi would not be achieved in
short-term.
.[tile ritk to community beciuie
access to Homestead AFB it
rMtricted. Wcrkeiseanbe
protected using standard health
and safety procedures.
None.
:encing easily constructed.
Easy.
Easy.
Jonc required
tommercially ivaitabfe.
I30.00Q
$23,000
$53.000
ALT.OU28-3
Remove ind Tieat using LTTD
Reduces TMV ofPAHs through
thermal deitnicticn and mobility of
lead through
LITDii irreversible.
ReskJial quantities from LTTD ire
expected lo be beneficially reused in
javemtnt pioc«s«, Restdtid
quantities fiom
cncapiutition/stabiiiuttion to be
landfill*!.
XAO) coutd be achieved within one
year.
Some community \i& Involved In
transportation to tfie LTTD. Workers
can be nreieeted using standard health
and lafety procedure].
mpicls during «nitruclion due to dual
eraissions and mn-off can be controlled
through construction notion control.
Aircmiislont from LTTD controlled
under operitt ng p^rtott
Standard excavation and earth moving
equipment can readily Ktnovt loil ind
ediment. LTTD operation tlltaiy set
up wiihin 40 miles of site.
E«y.
•ionitusiBg nuf ttquired after icmediil
Ction.
JOHC requited.
CommereialEy aviilsble.
$367,000
Sti
5357.000
ALT.OU2M
Remove and Landfill
None.
None.
None.
RAOs cou!d be achieved within
OIK year.
Some community risk involved in
tnuuportitton to the landfill.
W«ke» cm be prelected using
sUndatd health and safety
•rocedures.
fflpKtl during cottscniction due
lo dust emiMiorti and run-off can
e controlled through construction
eiojion control. Impacts from
amlfill controlled under operating
Undud excavatioa ind earth
moving equipment can teidily
remove sail and sedimEtit.
ermiited solid waste landfill
Kited wlthm 4d miles of site.
iisy. .
ionitoring by USAF ml required
fier renwditl action, Lutlfil!
monitors under permit condition!.
one reqairei
^immtrciiliy avail ible.
$345.000
$0
5343,000
-------
TABLE 6-9
DETAILED ANALYSIS OF ALTEKNATIVES ADDRESSING OU2? SOILS
HOMESTEAD AFB, FEASIBILITY STUDY
EVALUATION CRITERION
Hi mm Health rraiKilin
Environment*! totedloii
COMPLIANT WITH ARARi
Cflmpll*n« nllh ARARi
Approprblfneuflf waiver*
JNO-TGRM ""~
Hipiltnde of mldtiil riik
Adequjicy and rtliibillly of
control*
4eed for 5-year revieir
REDUCTION OF TMV
realmtnt proem used and
material (ruled
Amount destroyed or treated
Reduction afTMV through
Irutntent
IrreveniWe treatment
Type and quantity of retiduill
remaining after treitmtnl
No Furtker Action
No protection required because no
uoKerptablerWcidaHifiedby
Hulinc risk aiteiunenf.
'to prelection required because na
unacceptable ruk idcntificil by
baieltoe riiX ««(ttnent.
Would not rotel chemtul iptcifie
tequiiemenli.
Not ippropriile. None of the six
ctrctuniuncei Identified by
C6RCLA would be met
PAlIs in iurfice soils renutin at
leveli ibove PRGs.
NNippliciMc,
;ev!ew would be lequired 10 etisuie
•dequite protection of human health
and flic environment is miintsined.
None.
None.
one.
one.
oKpplicablc.
IttilltofhtiJCmbob
Proieetwa through Ktm rtsukttoni
tnd l«fij-l(fm mini|tmenl.
NoprotEclwn. Allow
conlunioHion to pcniil under
inOdeace of natiuil degiukUtm
pioceuei.
Would not meet cheraicil jpccific
requirement!.
Not appropriate. None of the li*
circumstance! identified by
CERCLA would be met.
•Aminstirficooilitml
'AMs/usenic in sediments remain at
levels above PRGs.
Deed and scc«j rciliictioni ind ton);
cim ovetiighl cut be adequate ind
eliable with ptopci ni«nigement
eview would be requited to ensure
adequate protection of liuntui hcaElh
nd the environment is wiinmined.
one.
one.
one.
one.
ot applicable.
Remove ind Tfttt utiitt LTTO
• Rtmote up to 2 feel cf i*rf*« iw
•HtdindfaeitttlTTO
• Didf.ll to glide *ti& clem fill
• Rtvt{cU(c
Pet raweal piotectt t» it itlc by
temovinu contimlMled will.
P(rmio«ilp{«KtiworT")i!c!iy
iJestroyini PAHl.
PemtMttt pfotttlion by eliralnitinj
conluninili'oa isurcfi at lite and
dcitroyingfAlll.
MecUtlEARARi.
Not requited
SoIU COHlaining PAEIs pcrmiuie«Iy
removed tram site, PAHs dcitroycd.
Noteiidutlriik
Rcmuval of conltmimted ioilj and
irdimenb ittdequite and feiiible.
IncincriU'on ii tdequale end rclitble
uiellndloddbByPAHs. Arsenic
will nol be desli oyed. bul IC-UIE of
tnileritl En pavement will immobilize
It Itittlic.
ict requited.
Low urnperiiuK tlietinat slauipiiuii.
neslimated 1,300 tons of surface
oil conliinlng PAHs.
educes TMVoFPAHithmasli
iennai deilmcticn.
TTD U trrcveriible.
il rcsidi»l quantises sre expceled to
* benrftditly reused in pavement
OCCSSM,
AU,tA>i9-l
Remote and Ufldai
•Rcm«eupJo2rc:lcfiarfK(wil
•llJuUftdd.ifowitlwdrJl
• Djckfd] u jra4< wM clean OH
• RevtgeJile
Pcmanetu protrcibn ai site by
removing conlainiiuied loilt.
Adequate protcclion ofT-itie by
contw'nmj waile in pcirnntcd landfill.
^ennineiH prelection al jile by
tcmoving conLuniatlcd MtU,
Adequate futute off-lite protecdon by
ccnufnlng wuie in pcrmttled ItBdfill
MeeliiUARAFU.
Notrequifti
Soils containing PAIIi permanently
removed from site and comttned in
KrmiUedlindfilL Noiesidualmk.
USAF retainj long-term liability of
waste disposed at lindfiil.
temova) of contaminated soils and
sediments is idequiie and reliable.
Disposal at permitted landfill is
dtqmte and reliable method to
ontaiti wastes.
01 required.
Oiic.
one.
one.
one.
one.
-------
TABLE 6-9
DETAILED ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES ADDRESSING OU29 SOILS
HOMESTEAD AFB, FEASIBILITY STUDY
EVALUATION CRITERION
SIIORT.TERM
Time required to achieve
remedial action objectives
(RAOs)
Protection of community and
workers during remedial
tclions
Environmental Impicls during
remedial actions
1MPLEMENTAB1L1TY
Ability to construct and operate
Ease of doing more remedial
action, if needed
Ability to monitor effectiveness
Ability to obtain approvals and
coordination with other
Availability of services and
equipment
COSI
Capital Con
Present Worth Cost ofO&M
Present Worth Cost
ALL OU29-1
No Further Action
RAOs would not be achieved in the
short-term.
No action taken
None.
'Jot applicable.
Jasy.
•lot applicable.
4ot applicable.
Not applicable.
SO
SO
SO
ALT. OU29-2
Institutional Controls
RAOs would not be achieved in shod
term; however, reduction of human
exposure to contaminants achieved
immediately.
Little risk to community because
access to Homestead AFB is
restricted. Workers can be protected
using standard health and safety
jrocedures.
^lone.
Tencing easily constructed.
Easy.
Easy.
tone required.
Commercially available.
$26,000
$23,000
$49,000
AL I . OU29-3
Remove and Treat using LTTD
RAOs could be achieved within one
year.
Some community risk involved in
transportation to the LTTD. Workers
can be protected using standard
health and safety procedures.
impacts during construction due to
dust emissions and run-off can be
controlled through construction
erosion control. Air emissions from
LTTD controlled under operating
permit
Standard excavation and earth
moving equipment can readily
emove soil and sediment. LTTD
operation already set up within 40
miles of site.
Easy.
Monitoring not required after
emedial action.
None required.
Commercially available.
$163,000
SO
$163,000
ALT. OU29-4
Remove and Landfill
RAOs could be achieved within one
year.
Some community risk involved in
transportation to the landfill. Workers
can be protected using standard health
and safety procedures.
impacts during construction due to
dust emissions and run-off can be
controlled through construction
erosion control. Impacts from landfill
controlled under operating permit.
Standard excavation and earth moving
equipment can readily remove soil and
sediment. Permitted solid waste
andfill located within 40 miles of site.
Easy.
Monitoring by USAF not required
after remedial action. Landfill
monitors under permit conditions.
None required.
Commercially available.
$143,000
SO
SI 43,000
!tniMWII\Jn>dlltib97|TAnLE6-9/ikl/j|
•« IAFB -
-------
-------
7.0
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
In accordance with the current ROD guidance, this section is reserved for community
comments and the appropriate responses by the BRAG Cleanup Team (BCT) in regards to
this ROD.
-7 1 «no/o«
Homestead AFB - OUs 18,26.28. and 29 Record of Decision ' ~ *• R 0
-------
-------
8.0
REFERENCES
American Cancer Society. 1990. Cancer Facts and Figures - 1990. Atlanta, GA. American
Cancer Society.
Florida Administrative Code. 1997. Chapter 62-701. "Solid Waste Management Facilities."
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 1994. Groundwater Guidance
Concentrations. Division of Water Facilities. June.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 1995. Soil Cleanup Goals for
Florida. Division of Waste Management. September.
Geraghty and Miller, Inc. 1993b. Ecological Inventory for Homestead Air Force Base,
Florida. Geraghty and Miller, Inc., 1740 Ski Lane, Suite 102, Madison, Wisconsin
53713.
Hilsenbeck, C.E. 1993. Ecological Survey of Homestead Air Force Base, Florida. Report
prepared as part of Florida Natural Areas Inventory.
Metropolitan Dade County, Florida Department of Environmental Resources Management
(DERM). 1995. Soil Cleanup Goals for Homestead Air Reserve Base. Pollution
Prevention Management. March.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1986a. Guidelines for Carcinogenic Risk
Assessment. 51FR33992. September 24.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1986b. Guidelines for the Health Risk
Assessment of Chemical Mixtures. 51FR34014. September 24.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1988a. Recommendations and
Documentation of Biological Values for Use in Risk Assessment. United States
Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/600-87/008.
Q:v3Mll\Q3\RODI8\RODl&SG8.1xr;/md/jdg o 1
Homestead AFB - OUs IS. 26, 2R, and 29 Record of Decision 6~ * RCV
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1988. Superfund Exposure Assessment
Manual. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Directive
9285.5-1. EPA/540/1-88/001. Washington, D.C. April.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for
Superfund. Volume I. Human Health Evaluation. Part A (Interim Final). Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response. EPA/540/1-89/002. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1990. National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). 40 CFR Part 300. 55 FR 8666.
March 8.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1991. Risk Assessment Guidance for
Superfund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual; Part B, Development of
Risk-Based Preliminary Remediation Goals. Interim. Publication 9285.7-01B.
December.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993a. Wildlife Exposure Factors
Handbook. Volumes I and II. EPA/600/R-93/187a-b. United States Environmental
Protection Agency. Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1994a. Risk-Based Concentration Table,
Second Quarter, 1994. Region III. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. April.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1994b. EPA Region IV Risk Assessment
Guidance, Bulletins, and Updates compiled by Elmer Akin. EPA Region IV, Atlanta,
Georgia.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1994c. Revised Interim Soil Lead Guidance
for CERCLA Sites and RCRA Corrective Action Facilities. , OSWER Directive
9355.4-12. From Elliot P. Laws, Assistant Administrator to Regional Administrators
I-X. Washington, D.C. July.
QiTMIIiE./.RO. 't-.ROD18SOB.DOC/mdjdB o^
Homestead '.^P-O!)r!«. 26,2?. and 29 Record of Decision °~*- „ !
Rev. 0
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1995a. Region III. Risk-Based
Concentration Table, July through December, 1995a. From Roy L. Smith, Senior
lexicologist to the RBC Table Mailing List. October.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1995b. Supplemental Guidance to RAGs:
Region IV Bulletins - Human Health Risk Assessment. Waste Management Division.
Atlanta, Georgia. November.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1996. Soil Screening Guidance: Technical
Background Document. EPA/540/R-95/128. Washington, D.C. May.
Woodward-Clyde, 1994. Final RCRA Facility Assessment for Homestead Air Force Base,
Florida.
Woodward-Clyde, 1995. Final Confirmation Sampling Report for Homestead Air Force
Base, Florida.
Woodward-Clyde, 1997a. Final Remedial Investigation Report for Homestead Air Force
Base, Florida.
Woodward-Clyde, 1997b. Draft/Final Feasibility Study for Homestead Air Force Base,
Florida.
Q:UMn\BB\ROm8'JU3D18SCf.DOC/md/jdg o •* 4/29/98
Homestead AFB-OUs 18.26,28. and 29 Record of Decision O"J Rev. 0
-------
-------
0 £ o c
^ Q.U)Q
0 gc Q
: c 0)
T5
(0
r
Reproduced by NTIS
National Technical Information Service
Springfield, VA 22161
This report was printed specifically for your order
from nearly 3 million titles available in our collection.
For economy and efficiency, NTIS does not maintain stock of its vast
collection of technical reports. Rather, most documents are printed for
each order. Documents that are not in electronic format are reproduced
from master archival copies and are the best possible reproductions
available. If you have any questions concerning this document or any
order you have placed with NTIS, please call our Customer Service
Department at (703) 605-6050.
About NTIS
NTIS collects scientific, technical, engineering, and business related
information — then organizes, maintains, and disseminates that
information in a variety of formats — from microfiche to online services.
The NTIS collection of nearly 3 million titles includes reports describing
research conducted or sponsored by federal agencies and their
contractors; statistical and business information; U.S. military
publications; multimedia/training products; computer software and
electronic databases developed by federal agencies; training tools; and
technical reports prepared by research organizations worldwide.
Approximately 100,000 new titles are added and indexed into the NTIS
collection annually.
For more information about NTIS products and services, call NTIS
at 1-800-553-NTIS (6847) or (703) 605-6000 and request the free
NTIS Products Catalog, PR-827LPG, or visit the NTIS Web site
http://www.ntis.gov.
NTIS
Your indispensable resource for government-sponsored
information—U.S. and worldwide
-------
------- |