PB99-964003
EPA541-R99-021
1999
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Cecil Field Naval Air Station
OU3 (Site?)
Jacksonville, FL
3/29/1999
-------
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 FORSYTH STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
MAR 2 9
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
4WD-FFB
Commanding Officer
Ann: Scott Gfass
BRAC Environmental Coordinator
DON, Southern Division
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Mail Code 18B12
P.O. Box 190010)
North Charleston, South Carolina 20419-9010
Subject: Naval Air Station Cecil Field, Jacksonville, Florida
Record of Decision for Operable Unit 3 (Site 7)
Dear Mr. Glass:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the final Record of
Decision (ROD) for Operable Unit 3 (Site 7) and concurs with the selected remedies for the
remedial actions. These remedies are supported by the previously completed Remedial
Investigation, Feasibility Study, Technical Memorandum for Surface Soil Remediation, and the
Baseline Risk Assessment The selected remedies includes institutional controls on future
groundwater usage, soil excavation and long term groundwater monitoring.
EPA Region 4 issued, on April 21,1998, 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. However, until
that time in which Site 7 is transferred by deed to a non-federal entity, EPA believes that our
April 21,1998, policy on land use controls should apply. Therefore, we are concurring with the
condition that a Land Use Control Assurance Plan (LUCAP) be developed.
Thus, EPA's concurrence with the Record of Decision (ROD) for OU 3 (Site 7) is
conditioned on the express understanding that the Navy is committed to entering a Memorandum
of Agreement (MOA) with EPA Region 4 and the Florida Department of Environmental
protection (FDEP) that complies with the April 1998 Memorandum mentioned above withia 90-
days of this letter. This MOA will serve as the LUCAP for NAS Cecil Field. Once the LUCAP
is in place, the NAS Cecil Field BRAC Cleanup Team (BCT) will be expected to develop
Internet Address (URL) • httpj7www.spa.gov
R.cy cl.dtt.cycUbl. . Printed wXn V*geUbl* OU 8as«4 Inks on R«cyctod Pap«r (Minimum 25% Postconsumar)
-------
specific provisions for land use controls as part of the resulting Land Use Control
Implementation Plan for Site 7, that will prohibit unrestricted property reuse until cleanup goals
are met.
EPA appreciates the coordination efforts of the Navy and the level of effort that was out
forth m the documents leading to this decision. EPA looks forward to continuing the excellent
working relationship with NAS Cecil Field and Southern Division Naval Facilities Engineering
Command as we move toward a final cleanup of the NPL site. Should you have any questions*
or if EPA can be of any further assistance, please contact Ms. Deborah Vaughn-Wright, of mv
Staff at the l*m»rh«»aH arfr1r»«e «- o* SAf\A\ C.C-* oe-*n *^ "6"S *" *"J
staff, at the letterhead address or at (404) 562-8539.
Sincerely,
Richard D7 Green
Director
Waste Management Division
cc: Mr. James Crane, FL DEP
Mr. Eric Nuzie, FL DEP
Mr. Michael Deliz, FL DEP
Mr. Mark Davidson, SOtTTHDIV
Ms. Allison Abernathy, FFRO/OSWE
David Levenstein, FFEO/OECA
Sherri Fields, EAD
-------
Harding Lawson Associates
March 3, 1999
Ms. Debbie Vaughn-Wright
Remedial Project Manager
Federal Facilities Branch
Waste Management Division, 10th Floor
USEPA Region IV
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
2523-3323
Subject:
Final Record of Decision
Site 7, Operable Unit 3
Naval Air Station Cecil Field, Jacksonville, Florida
Contract No. N62467-89B-03I7/090
Dear Ms. Vaughn-Wright:
On behalf of Southern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Harding Lawson Associates is pleased
to forward five copies of the subject document for your files. Revisions recommended by the NAS Cecil Field
partnering team have been incorporated into the final document.
Comments or questions you may have concerning this report should be directed to Mr. Mark Davidson at (843)
820-5526.
Sincerely,
HARDING LAWSON ASSOCIATES
Rao Angara
Task Order Manager
enclosure
cc: M. Deliz, FDEP (2 copies)
M. Davidson, SDIV (1 copy)
S. Glass, SDIV (1 copy)
D. Kruzicki, NASCF (1 copy)
M. Speranza, TtNUS (1 copy)
S. Pratt, TtNUS (2 copies)
D. Ferris, TtNUS (1 copy)
N. Hatch, CH2MHILL (1 copy)
J. Flowe, City of Jacksonville (I copy)
file
£:••:: nee' 'c and
p..: ,..,.,..,,:,3. 5^...;
-cCC Exec jive Csntnt Circte Enst. Tallahassee FL -;230'
C»
-------
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
SITE 7, OPERABLE UNIT 3
NAVAL AIR STATION CECIL FIELD
JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA
Unit Identification Code: N60200
Contract No.: N62467-89-D-0317/090
Prepared by:
Harding Lawson Associates
2590 Executive Center Circle, East
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Prepared for:
Department of the Navy, Southern Division
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
2155 Eagle Drive
North Charleston, South Carolina 29418
Mark Davidson, Code 1879, Engineer-in-Charge
February 1999
-------
-------
CERTIFICATION OF TECHNICAL
DATA CONFORMITY (MAY 1987)
The Contractor, Harding Lawson Associates, hereby certifies that, to the best of
its knowledge ,and belief, the technical data delivered herewith under Contract
No. N62467-89-D-0317/090 are complete and accurate and comply with all
requirements of this contract.
DATE:
February 2. 1999
NAME AND TITLE OF CERTIFYING OFFICIAL:
Rao Angara
Task Order Manager
NAME AND TITLE OF CERTIFYING OFFICIAL:
Eric Blomberg, P.G.
Project Technical Lead
(DFAR 252.227-7036)
Cec-S7.ROD
PMW.O2.99
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTESTS
Record of Decision
Site 7, Operable Unit 3
Naval Air Station Cecil Raid
Jacksonville. Florid*
Chapter Title Page No.
1.0 DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION 1-1
1.1 SITE NAME AND LOCATION 1-1
1.2 STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE 1-1
1.3 ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE 1-1
1.4 DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY . 1-1
1.5 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 1-2
1.6 SIGNATURE AND SUPPORT AGENCY ACCEPTANCE OF THE REMEDY 1-2
2.0 DECISION SUMMARY 2-1
2.1 SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION 2-1
2.2 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 2-5
2.3 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION . 2-6
2.4 SCOPE AND ROLE OF OU 2-6
2.5 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 2-7
2.6 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 2-9
2.7 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 2-14
2.7.1 Surface Soil Alternatives 2-14
2.7.2 Groundwater Alternatives 2-16
2.8 SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 2-16
2.9 SELECTED REMEDIES 2-16
2.9.1 Site 7 Surface Soil 2-19
2.9.2 Site 7 Groundwater 2-19
2.10 INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS 2-19
2.11 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 2-19
2.12 DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES ........ 2-19
REFERENCES
APPENDIX
Appendix A: Surface Soil Analytical Results and Excavation Limits
Cec-S7.ROD
PMW.02.99
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Hocord of Decision
Site 7, Operable Unit 3
Naval Air Station CacU R«fc»
Jacksonville, Florida
Figure Title Page No.
2-1 General Location Map 2-2
2-2 Location Map 2-3
2-3 General Features 2-4
2-4 Organics in Confirmatory Subsurface Soil Samples 2-8
2-5 Organic Compound Concentrations in Confirmatory Groundwater Samples 2-10
2-6 Inorganic Concentrations in Confirmatory Groundwater Samples .... 2-11
2-7 Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk Summary, Current Land Use ....... 2-12
2-8 Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk Summary, Future Land Use 2-13
2-9 Hazard Index Summary, Future Land Use 2-15
LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page Mo.
2-1 Explanation of Evaluation Criteria 2-17
2-2 Comparative Analyses of Remedial Alternatives for Site 7 2-18
2-3 Synopsis of Federal and State Regulatory Requirements .... . . .2-20
CK-S7.ROD
PMW.02.99
-------
GLOSSARY
ABB-ES ABB Environmental Services, Inc.
ARAR applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement
bis below land surface
BRA baseline risk assessment
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act
ELCR excess lifetime cancer risk
FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection
FS feasibility study
HI hazard index
HHRA human health risk assessment
mg/kg milligrams per kilogram
Hg/£ micrograms per liter
NAS Naval Air Station
NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
OU operable unit
PAH polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
RA remedial action
RAO remedial action objective
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RI remedial investigation
ROD Record of Decision
SOUTHNAV-
FACENGCOM Southern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command
SVOC semivolatile organic compound
TRPH total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
VOC volatile organic compound
yd3 cubic yards
C«o-S7.ROD
PMW.02.99
-III-
-------
-------
1.0 DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
1.1 SITE NAME AND LOCATION. Site 7, Former Firefighting Training Area, Operable
Unit (OU) 3, is located near the northwest end of the old 310 flightline
approximately 800 feet east of Lake Fretwell and 1,200 feet northwest of the
east-and-west flightline on the main base of Naval Air Station (NAS) Cecil Field,
Jacksonville, Florida. Approximately 2,000 feet east of Site 7 are the aircraft
hangars, Buildings 13 and 14.
1.2 STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE. This decision document presents the
selected remedial action (RA) for Site 7, located at NAS Cecil Field, Jackson-
ville, Florida, which was chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmen-
tal Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, and the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) (40 Code of Federal
Regulations 300) (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA], 1990). This
decision document was prepared in accordance with the USEPA decision document
guidance (USEPA, 1992). This decision is based on the Administrative Record for
Site 7, OU 3.
The USEPA and the State of Florida concur with the selected remedy.
1.3 ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE. Releases of hazardous substances from this site,
if not addressed by implementing the response actions selected in this Record of
Decision (ROD), may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public
health, welfare, or the environment. Human health risks are posed if the
groundwater from the surficial aquifer was used as a potable water source. Human
health and possibly wildlife may be at risk if exposed to Site 7 surface soil.
1.4 DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY. This ROD is the final action for
Site 7, OU 3. Final RODs have been approved for OUs 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, and 8 and
Site 14, which is part of OU 5. Remedial investigations (RIs) and baseline risk
assessments (BRAs) have been completed for OU 3 (Site 8) and OU 5 (Site 15) and
are underway for OU 9.
The selected remedy addresses risk reduction in soil and groundwater at Site 7.
Remedial alternatives selected for Site 7 include surface soil excavation and
groundwater monitoring.
The major components of the selected remedy are listed below. The selected soil
alternative includes
excavating approximately 3,901 cubic yards (yd3) of surface soil (for
a residential land-use scenario to a depth approximately 1 foot below
land surface [bis]) located in an open field at the end of the old 310
flightline;
• disposing of the excavated surface soil to an eligible landfill, either
a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle D (solid
waste) landfill or an RCRA Subtitle C (hazardous waste) landfill;
Cec-S7.ROD
PMW.O2.99 1 -1
-------
backfilling the excavated area with clean soil; and
seeding and fertilizing the excavated area to promote vegetative
growth.
The selected groundwater alternative includes
restricting use of the surficial aquifer groundwater at Site 7,
monitoring the groundwater for a period for 30 years or less if benzene
concentrations meet guidance criteria (State of Florida drinking water
standards), and
• reviewing the status every 5 years until cleanup goals are achieved.
1.5 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS. The selected remedy is protective of human health
and the environment, and is cost effective. The nature of the selected remedy
for Site 7 is such that the single benzene detection in groundwater may remain
above regulatory standards during the RA. As a result, applicable or relevant
and appropriate requirements (ARARs) will not be met as a near-term goal, but
will be met as a long-term goal. The remedy utilizes permanent solutions and
satisfies the statutory preference for remedies that reduce toxicity, mobility,
or volume as a principal element. Because this remedy would result in hazardous
substances remaining onsite above heath-based levels, a review will be conducted
within 5 years of the commencement of RAs to ensure that the remedy continues to
provide adequate protection of human health and the environment.
1.6 SIGNATURE AND SUPPORT AGENCY ACCEPTANCE OF THE REMEDY.
Scott Glass, P.E. Date
Base Realignment and Closure
Environmental Coordinator
CK-S7.HOD
PMW.02.99 1 -2
-------
2.0 DECISION SUMMARY
2.1 SITE SAME. LOCATION. AND DESCRIPTION. NAS Cecil Field is located 14 miles
southwest of Jacksonville, Florida. The majority of Cecil Field is located
within Duval County; the southernmost part of the facility is located in northern
Clay County (Figure 2-1).
NAS Cecil Field was established in 1941 and provides facilities, services, and
material support for the operation and maintenance of naval weapons, aircraft,
and other units of the operation forces as designated by the Chief of Naval
Operations. Some of the tasks required to accomplish this mission over past
years included operation of fuel storage facilities, performance of aircraft
maintenance, maintenance and operation of engine repair facilities and test cells
for turbo-jet engines, and support of special weapons systems.
NAS Cecil Field is scheduled for closure in 1999. Much of the facility will be
transferred to the Jacksonville Port Authority. The facility will have multiple
uses, but will be used primarily for aviation-related activities. The area,
which includes Site 7, is scheduled for aviation-related activities.
Land surrounding NAS Cecil Field is used primarily for forestry, with some
agriculture and ranching use. Small communities and individual dwellings are in
the vicinity of NAS Cecil Field. The closest community, located on Nathan Hale
Road, abuts the western edge of the facility. The nearest incorporated
municipality, Baldwin, is approximately 6 miles northwest of the main facility
entrance.
To the east of NAS Cecil Field, the rural surroundings grade into a suburban
fringe bordering the major east and west roadways. Low commercial use, such as
convenience stores, and low density residential areas characterize the land use
(ABB Environmental Services, Inc. [ABB-ES], 1992). A development called Villages
of Argyle, when complete, is planned to consist of seven separate villages that
will ultimately abut NAS Cecil Field to the south and southeast. A golf course
and residential area also border NAS Cecil Field to the east (Southern Division,
Naval Facilities Engineering Command [SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM], 1989).
Site 7 is located near the west end of the east-and-west flightline (SOUTHNAVFAC-
ENGCOM, 1989). Resultantly, there is no housing in the immediate vicinity of
Site 7. The nearest housing, the bachelor officer quarters, is located
approximately 2,500 feet north to northeast of the site.
Site 7, Former Firefighting Training Area, is located near the northwest end of
the old 310 flightline on the main base (Figure 2-2) . The site is located
approximately 800 feet east of Lake Fretwell and 1,200 feet northwest of the
east-and-west flightline. Approximately 2,000 feet east of the site are the
active aircraft hangars, Buildings 13 and 14.
Site 7 is relatively flat, gently sloping to the west and southwest (Figure 2-3).
The dominant features at Site 7 are the old flightline and adjoining apron and
a storage unit, Building 865. The areas immediately surrounding the old
flightline are open, grassy fields. There is no obvious surface drainage at the
site. Site 7 is accessible by the current east-and-west flightline apron and by
C«c-S7.ROD
PMW.02.99 2-1
-------
YELLOW WATER
WEAPONS AREA
PEMUCTER MUD
NACCEOLFELO
6.250 1 2.500
N*S CECIL
ITTOU KACH
SCALE: 1 INCH =12.500 FEET
! LEQBC
! NAS Naval Air Station
j OLT Outlying Landing field
Cvlf of Utxica
Source: Southern Division. Naval facilities Engineerinc Corrrnonc. 1988
! NOT TO SCALE
Atlantic
Oe««n
FIGURE 2-1
GENERAL LOCATION MAP
< \02S53\01S2>-OM«30\OJS7JflJ7 Owe «.*a-« 11/11/19 11 }* 01 A,toC»S •>••
RECORD OF DECISION
SITE 7, OPERABLE UNIT 3
NAVAL AIR STATION CECIL FIELD
JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA
CK-S7.ROD
PMW.02.99
2-2
-------
RUNWAY 9R-27L
SCALE: 1 INCH = 1000 FEET
RECORD OF DECISION
SITE 7, OPERABLE UNIT 3
FIGURE 2-2
LOCATION MAP
NAVtL AIR STATION CECIL FIELD
JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA
\075Z3\02Mi-OT\«OD\02S23*«SO»C »«*B- 12/t»/»' 0»
C»c-S7.ROD •
PMW.02.99
2-3
-------
Temporary
storage shed
/» >
locohon
former firvfighting
training areas
LEGEND
— 76 Land surface tlevotion
contour in f«et above
mean sea level (National
Geodetic Vertical Datum
of 1929)
-^ Tree line
—«— Fence
865 I Building or structure
SCALE: 1 INCH = ISO FEET
FIGURE 2-3
GENERAL FEATURES
RECORD OF DECISION
SITE 7, OPERABLE UNIT 3
KAVAL AIR STATION CECIL FIELD
JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA
C.C-S7.ROD
PMW.O2.99
2-4
-------
an unpaved service road. Immediately west of the end of the old flightline is
the Lake Fretwell access road, which is separated from the site by a security
fence.
Currently, Site 7 is used as an ordnance storage and general storage area..
Storage structures are located at the end of the old 310 flightline. Explosive
ordnance is stored in Building 865, and unarmed ordnance is stored in portable
storage units. Building 865 was erected sometime after firefighting training
ceased in 1975 and before 1980, as evidenced by aerial photographs.
2.2 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMEHT ACTIVITIES. Site 7 consisted of two
firefighting training areas on the old asphalt flightline (both of which arc
located within the large circle shown on Figure 2-3) and an unlined pit northeast
of and adjacent to the old flightline. From the 1950s to 1965, firefighting
training activities were conducted on the old flightline. From approximately
1965 until firefighting training ceased in 1975, firefighting training activities
were also conducted in the unlined pit. Firefighting training activities
included placing aircraft frames on the old flightline and in the pit and dousing
the frames with flammable liquids. The aircraft frames were ignited, and
firefighting personnel practiced fire containment and extinguishing techniques
on the burning frames. Flammable liquids used in the training activities
included waste paints and paint thinners, spent chlorinated and nonchlorinated
solvents, and petroleum, oil, and lubricant wastes. Extinguishing materials
consisted of water and nontoxic proteinaceous materials such as fish, feather,
horn, or hoof meal. Extinguishing materials and unburned wastes were left on the
site, where they evaporated, infiltrated through the cracks in the asphalt and
into the soil, or migrated from the site via surface runoff.
NAS Cecil Field was placed on the National Priority List (NPL) by the USEPA and
the Office of Management and Budget in December 1989. a Federal Facility
Agreement (FFA) for NAS Cecil Field was signed by the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP) (formerly the Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation) , the USEPA, and the Navy in 1990. Following the listing of NAS Cecil
Field on the NPL and the signing of the site management plan (SMP), remedial
response activities at the facility were conducted under CERCLA authority.
Investigations at Site 7 began in 1985. The previous investigations are listed
in chronological order: "
Initial Assessment Study of Naval Air Station Cecil Field, Jackson-
ville, Florida, Envirodyne Engineers, 1985,
RCRA Facility Investigation Naval Air Station Cecil Field, Harding
Lawson Associates, 1988,
Remedial Investigation, Operable Unit 3, Sites 7 and 8, Naval Air
Station Cecil Field, ABB-ES, 1997c (this document includes the BRA),
Feasibility Study (FS), Operable Unit 3, Naval Air Station Cecil Field,
ABB-ES, 1997a, and
C«c-S7.ROD
PMW.O2.99 2-5
-------
Draft Proposed Plan for Remedial Action, Operable Unit 3, Site 7,
Former Firefij
ABB-ES, 1997&.
•'
2.3 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMOHITY PARTICIPATION. The results of the RI and the BRA,
the remedial alternatives of the FS, and the preferred alternative given in the
Proposed Plan have been presented to the NAS Cecil Field Restoration Advisory
Board (composed of community members as well as representatives from the Navy and
State and Federal regulatory agencies).
The RI and BRA results and the remedial alternatives of the FS were presented at
RAB meetings held on August 19, 1997, and September 16, 1997, respectively. The
preferred alternative was presented at the November 18, 1997, RAB meeting. A 30-
day public comment period was held from October 28 through November 28, 1997.
No comments were received during the comment period.
Public notices of the availability of the Proposed Plan were placed in the Metro
section of the Florida Times Union on November 1, 1997. These local editions
target the communities closest to NAS Cecil Field. Documents pertaining Co
Site 7 are available to the public at the Information Repository, located at the
Charles D. Webb Wesonnett Branch of the Jacksonville Library, 6887 103rd Street,
Jacksonville, Florida.
2.A....SCOPE..AND ROLE OF OP. The environmental concerns at NAS Cecil Field are
complex. As a result, work at the various sites has been organized into eight
Q\JS along with more than 100 other areas undergoing evaluation in the Base
Realignment and Closure and underground storage tank programs.
Final RODs have been approved for OUs 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, and 8 and Site 14, which is
part of OU 5. RIs and BRAs have been completed for OU 3 (Site 8) and OU 5 (Site
15) and are underway for OU 9.
Investigations at OU 3, Site 7, indicated the presence of surface soil and
groundwater contamination. The purpose of this RA is to remediate the soil
contamination and monitor and remediate the groundwater contamination that pose
human health risks. Inhalation or ingestion of surface soil and ingestion of
groundwater extracted from the surficial aquifer pose human health risks that
exceed the State, of Florida threshold of 1x10"*.
The remedial action objectives (RAOs) listed below were established for Site 7.
Prevent exposure to contaminants that pose an unacceptable human health
risk and are present at concentrations exceeding the Florida soil
cleanup goal for industrial sites.
Prevent exposure to groundwacer that contains benzene at concentrations
greater than the Florida groundwater cleanup goal.
The RA documented in chis ROD will achieve these RAOs.
C.c-57 ROD
PMW 02 99 2-6
-------
2.5 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS.
Geology. Geologic materials recovered during drilling operations at Site 7
indicate that the site is underlain by approximately 85 feet fine- to medium-
grained sand with some silty sand, clayey sand, and clay stringers. Beneath
these sandy materials is a sandy clay with dolomite pebbles unit. This clayey
unit is approximately 5 feet thick, dense, and moist. Underlying this sandy clay
unit is a dense dolomite layer.
Hvdrogeology. In the area of investigation, there are three water-bearing
systems: (1) the surficial aquifer, (2) the intermediate aquifer, and (3) the
Floridan aquifer system. Between each system is an aquitard (less permeable
unit). Only the surficial aquifer was investigated at Site 7.
The surf icial aquifer is unconf ined and composed of fine- to medium-grained sand,
with minor amounts of silt and clay stringers. These geologic deposits extend
to approximately 85 feet bis and are underlain by clay and dolomite. The
surficial aquifer is considered to behave as one hydrological unit.
The water cable in the surf icial aquifer is typically between 5 and 10 feet bis.
Groundwatar flow is generally to the northwest, toward Lake Fretwell, at an
average rate of 19 feet per year. Water elevation data indicate that the
vertical flow direction is downward at Site 7 and is predicted (based on U.S.
Geological Survey data) to be upward off site in the vicinity of Lake Fretwell.
Contaminant Sources. The primary source of contamination at Site 7 was the
liquid wastes, i.e., waste solvents, paints and paint thinners, and fuel, used
to ignite aircraft frames. Training activities have ceased and waste materials
are not stored at Site 7; therefore, there is no source for continued contamina-
tion at the site.
RI Results. RI activities were conducted by ABB-ES during the fall of 1994, the
spring of 1995, and the summer of 1997 to characterize the nature and extent of
contamination at Site 7. Environmental samples for laboratory analysis were
collected from surface soil, subsurface soil, and groundwater. Analytical
results indicated the presence of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and
semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), as well as inorganics, in surface soil,
subsurface soil, and groundwater. A summary of analytical results for each
medium is presented below.
Surface Soil Analytical Results. The results of the confirmatory surface soil
sampling program indicate the presence of a group of SVOCs, polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPH), and
inorganics. PAHs and TRPH were detected in the grassy areas adjacent to the
asphalt training area, in the vicinity of the training pit, grassy areas parallel
to the old flightline and at the end of the old flightline. Inorganics were
detected at one location south of the training area and in the grassy area
adjacent to the northwest corner of the old flightline. The highest concentra-
tions of PAH, TRPH, and inorganics were detected in the grassy area at the
northwest corner of the old flightline.
One detection of lead, 178,000 milligrams per kilogram (rag/kg) at sample location
CF7SS12 (Appendix A) , was interpreted not to be representative of site
conditions. Additional samples were collected adjacent to and beneath sample
C«c-S7.HOO
PMW.02.99 2-7
-------
detected in che Additional samples at concentrations
The distribution of surface soil contamination is shown in appendix A.
detecr A"*1.Vti<:*1 *-™1ft. VOCs. SVOCs, pesticides, and TRPH were
detected .n the confirmatory subsurface soil samples (Figure 2-4). Only TRPH
concentrations were detected above guidance criterion.
Groundwater Analytical Resnlrs. A VOC (benzene), an SVOC (naphthalene) and
inorganics were detected in the surf icial aquifer groundwaW! BeSene was
detected in one sample from monitoring well CF7MW8S at a concentration of 13
micrograms per liter G,g/i) . The State of Florida prirnar^ Snkine water
"
aquifer at other sampling locations or at greater depths (Figure J
Concenc1raci°ns ab°ve FDEP guidance criteria were detected in all Site 7
SamP -( 1SUre 2'6)" AlthouSh FDEP secondary and/or groundwater
"^entratxons for aluminum, iron, manganese, and vanadium were
, ,
values^ decec^°ns vere below the established NAS Cecil Field backgroun
°F STTF ^^^ ^ BRA P"vides ^e b«l, for taking action and
?S e3??sure Pathways to be addressed by the RA. As a basel-ne it
^ 11-1^1" if D° aCtiOn WC« ^ « *• •*«•• SSTSLS
^^
heflth and ^^ - On WC«
health and ecological risks were identified at Site 7.
Human health risks are estimated for both cancer and noncancer risks in
-
aeqal
°f Che ""^ was Co characterize
tedw rh
Potent? !P°hSS1lle eXp°Sure Co "te-related contaminants for human
cure land *l H* - P r"kS W"S evaluat^ under current and assumed
..ucure land-use conditions for a subset of contaminants detected -'i surface soil
subsurface soil, and groundwater (surf icial aquifer). surtace soil,
C»c-S7 ROD
W-1W 02.99
-------
Asphalt pavement
CF7SB15U-6«)
lEGENO
2-Butenow
IMhylinl cMoridt
4-mtttiy*-2-ptntanofti
Total rtcovtraMt p«trol«um hirdrocorboiH
Florida Dtportnwnt of Eireiconmtnlel Praltcfion
Minn
4.4'-ocob*v
(4-6 ft) Santph Mvwl. in (Ml MOK kind surfoci.
(nun which sampl* was collwttd
on in mflligrann p* kaogmm.
SCAU: 1 .NCH * 100 fTET
RGURE2-4
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS M CONFRHUTORY
SUBSURFACE 501 SAMPLES
RECORD OF DECISION
SITE 7, OPERABUIHT 3
NAVAL AR STATION CECIL FEIO
JACXSOHYUE, aOfflOA
-------
CJ7UWI2S
A- IMfarinj wit iKoSoa mi dofmfai
8731 Bidding or dndun
woundwa)«r (low dlnetion
MS JJoto. TnSwte canctnlraOon gnotir
ftonfDff jreuB*ro)ir gindonn
conuukuuoni
J EMimaMnlm
TO Primary OrinUng Wdir Standard
SO Secondary DcinUng Wattr Standard
C GuLfafM^ Vdiw
Approximate location
HAS Nanl Mr SMtoa
>-.. CF7MW7I / ApproKimot* v
(40-50 ft) /location of firafightingI •^
"*-^—=^—* ' training arta vx ' v
CF7MW11D(82-92 «}
* w
5b 2.6 Jl
CF7UW3D
(81-91 ft)—^CF7UW2I
(«o-50 ft)
CF7MW4S I ft ff I
(10-20 ft
V Vonodfon
Sb Anftnonv
llffltS;
M PXicmtraliMii an m micnjgrami p«r Kite.
RGUBEM
MORQANCS M COHFRHATORY
QROUMDWATEB SAMPLES
RECORD OF OECtSKDI
SITE 7, OPERABLE UWT 1
HAVAL AH STATWH CECt FELO
-UCXSONVUE, FLORDA
-------
Approximate
location of (infighting
IECENO
Monitoring >ill loeolion and
(40-50 II) Monitoring -.11 Knin interval in (Ml 6«lo
land surface
flfiS j Building or structure
CroiMdidter Ikw direction
fence
Axragt of sample and duplicate
ValM indicates concintrotian greottr tttan
FD£P groundwatir guidance corKtntrationx
Cttifflatid valui
Not dtftcftd
Prinury drinliing voter stanaorc
Svconaary dnnhing •oltr standard
Guidance nlue
TPPH Total nconralKe petroleum hydrocarbons
FOEP Florida [kportment of Erwironmer.lol
Protection
fDtP CmundwoHf Culdatm Concentration
Regutotory Mriue mid fyoe
1 TO
CNqtomene 700/10 PO/SO
Toluene t.OOO/'W PD/SO
«T*w« 10,000/20 PO/SO
2-UeHittnopMtxrtene (.« c
3S.O G
20 C
to c
5 W
Ml conceiilnillmu en in imcrograna per liter
euept ntm. iMdi o) in maiigrami per liter.
HULE: I INCH « 100 FKT
nOUREJ-5
. ORCANC COtfOUNOS M CONnoUTORY
I OROUNOVATER SAMPLES
RECORD OF DECISION
SITE 7, OPERAUE IMT 3
NAVAL AM STATION CEOL REU)
JACKSONVUE, FlOflDA
-------
.> in
o -J
!» 3
to o
to O
ro
Excess Lifetime
Cancer Risk
1.0E-03
1.0E-04
1.0E-05
1.0E-06
1.0E-07
1.0E-08
1.0E-09
1.0E-10
, NCPrisk
range
(dto m«lnl«wno« wwfcw)
•ub«urfM«Mll
(tio«v»Uon woriuw)
HfilEi
NCP = National Contingency Ptin
1E-06>lJnt.uOU.OOO
»1x10*
« 0.000001
JSJWMXCOUJBOOFKJl-tOfltW. UIOMHAS
FIGURE 2-7
EXCESS LIFETIME CANCER RISK SUMMARY,
CURRENT LAND USE
RECORD OF DECISION
SITE 7, OPERABLE UNIT 3
NAVAL AIR STATION CECIL FIELD
JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA
-------
O -4
!° 31
to O
CO O
to
CO
Excess Lifetime
Cancer Risk
1.0E-03-a
1.0E-08
1.0E-09
t.OE-10
. NCP risk
range
*
Surlac« Soil
(tout fuldcnl
child and idult)
Surface Mil
«ielMe«nl«nd
ndull)
8tlt1»C«Mll
(occupation*)
SurlKcsoll
((H* nwlnUnanet
miter)
Surface and
aubtwlac* soil
(MMVttlon
wo**.)
Groundwaler
(rnldcnl)
MQIK;
NCP & National Contingency Plan
1E-06.1 in 1.000,000
»1x10*
.0.000001
FIGURE 2-8
EXCESS LIFETIME CANCER RISK SUMMARY,
FUTURE LAND USE
RECORD OF DECISION
SITE 7, OPERABLE UNIT 3
NAVAL AIR STATION CECIL PIILO
JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA
252M7-tfcC OU) BOO FK3 Ml fWL t»tW HU
-------
noncancer HI for a child resident is 2 (Figure 2-8), with antimony, TRPH, and
arsenic contributing most of the risk.
Subsurface Soil. The BRA indicates that the compounds detected in subsurface soil
do not pose an unacceptable risk to human receptors.
Groundwater. The BRA indicates that compounds in groundwater pose no current
human health risks at Site 7. Under a future land-use scenario, a noncancer
human health risk would be posed if the groundwater were used as a potable water
supply. The HI for a resident child is 2 (Figure 2-9) and is posed by the
presence of benzene, iron, aluminum, and antimony*in groundwater.
Ecological Assessment. Ecological risk was assessed to exist for small mammals
and terrestrial plants at Site 7 due to the presence of lead in surface soil.
The risk is assessed to have a low probability of sub lethal effects from
ingestion or uptake of the lead. The risk is over estimated; however, due Co the
concentration of 178,000 mg/kg at sample location CF7SS12. Additional soil
sample data adjacent to and beneath the CF7SS12 location indicate that the lead
concentration is anomalous and not representative of site conditions.
Ecological risk was not assessed for subsurface soil or groundwater contamina-
tion.
2.7 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES. This section provides a narrative of each
alternative evaluated. Alternatives were developed for surface soil and
groundwater. No other media contain contaminants above risk-based levels. The
FS for OU 3 (ABB-ES, 1997a) and the technical memorandum for Site 7 surface soil
(TetraTech NUS, 1998) gives further information or. the remedial alternatives.
2.7.1 Surface Soil Alternatives Two alternatives were developed and analyzed
for Site 7 surface soil contamination. They include 7SS1, No Action, and 7SS2,
Soil Excavation and Disposal.
7SS1. No Action. Evaluation of the No Action alternative is required by law and
provides a baseline against which other alternatives can be compared. This
alternative will involve leaving the site the way Lc exists today, relying on the
organic contaminants to degrade naturally over time. Chemical-specific ARARs
would not be met in the short term. Ecological and human health risks would not
be immediately reduced. Contaminant toxicity, mobility, and volume would be
reduced only over time. Because there is no action, alternative 7SS1 is easily
implemented. There are no capital costs associated with 7SS1.
7SS2 . Excavation and Disposal. This alternative involves removing approximately
3,901 yd of contaminated soil (above residential land-use cleanup criteria) from
the site and disposal of the excavated soil at an eligible landfill. Areas where
surface soil will be excavated are shown in Appendix A. Clean soil will be
placed in the excavated area, seeded, fertilized, and covered with hay or straw.
Chemical-specific ARARs would be met and ecological and human health risk will
be immediately reduced. Excavated soil will be contained and characterized as
either hazardous or nonhazardous. If necessary, the soil will be treated to
reduce toxicity before disposal. This alternative is relatively easy to
C.c-37 ROD
PMW.02,99 2-14
-------
5
0 ^
to o
co o
to
a!
100-»
10
Hazard Index (HI)
0.01
0.001
Threshold HI
Suite* toll Surte*»oll Suite* Mil Suite* wll Suite* .oil Suite* wid Qtoundwjlw Gfoundw«Ur
(•duM imkfeM) (child <*duH (?*°*'°'? (Heuprtoiul (•iMmdMMune* tutauite* (•** ntUtn^ (chlMtMWtnl)
•Ofto)
FIGURE 2-9
HAZARD INDEX SUMMARY, FUTURE LAND USE
RECORD OF DECISION
SITE 7, OPERABLE UNIT 3
NAVAL AIR STATION CECIL FIELD
JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA
252M7-WOUJBOO FK» M2 FINAL I210WHW
-------
implement, requiring a backhoe and transport equipment. Capital cost associated
with this alternative is $568,000.
2.7.2 Groundwater Alternatives Two alternatives were analyzed for Site 7. They
include 7GW1, No Action, and 7GW2, Annual Monitoring.
7GW1. No Action. Evaluation of the No Action alternative is required by law and
provides a baseline against which other alternatives can be compared. This
alternative will leave the site the way it exists today, relying on the organic
contaminants to degrade naturally over time. Chemical-specific ARARs will not
be met in the short term. Human health risk would be immediately reduced by
restriction of groundwater use. Groundwater-use restrictions would be imposed
by deed restrictions or land-use plans and property deeds. A formal request
would be made to agencies administering the well installation permit program in
Duval County to not issue permits for installation of drinking water wells that
would pump water from the shallow aquifer. Contaminant toxicity, mobility, and
volume could be reduced only over time, but the processes will not be monitored.
The effectiveness and permanence of this alternative, therefore, will be unknown.
Because there is no action, alternative 7SS1 is easily implemented. There are
no capital costs associated with 7SS1.
7GW2. Annual Monitoring. This alternative will require monitoring of contaminant
concentrations and degradation processes as well as restricting groundwater use.
The final selection of wells for annual monitoring will be provided in the
remedial design for Site 7. Human health risk will be immediately reduced by
groundwater-use restrictions (as described in the No Action alternative 7GW1) and
eventually by the degradation processes. Over time, the toxicity, mobility, and
volume of the contaminants will be reduced. Site conditions will be reviewed to
assess the progress of this RA. This alternative is relatively easy to
implement, requiring sampling equipment and materials, laboratory analysis, and
containment of purge water and waste materials. Capital costs associated with
this alternative are $137,000 over a 30-year period.
2 . 8 SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES . This section evaluates and
compares each of the alternatives with respect to the nine criteria outlined in
Section 300.430(s) of the NCP (USEPA, 1990). These criteria are categorized as
threshold, primary balancing, or modifying. Table 2-1 gives explanations of the
evaluation criteria.
A detailed analysis was performed on the alternatives using the nine evaluation
criteria in order to select a site remedy. The following is a summary of the
comparison of each alternative's strength and weakness with respect to the nine
criteria. Table 2-2 presents the evaluation of contaminated surface soil and
groundwater remedial alternatives.
2.9 SELECTED REMEDIES. Two remedies were selected to address the contaminants
in the surface soil and groundwater at Site 7. For surface soil, alternative
7SS2, Excavation and Disposal was selected. For groundwater, alternative 7GW2,
Annual Monitoring, was selected.
Coc-S7 ROD
PMW 02.99 2-16
-------
Table 2-1
Explanation of Evaluation Criteria
Record of Decision
Site 7. Operable Unit 3
Naval Air Station Cecil Field
Jacksonville, Florida
Criteria
Description
Ttvaenold
Ovaral Protection of Human Health end the Environment. This criterion evaluates the degree to which
each alternative eliminates, reduces, or controls threats to human health and the environment
through treatment engineering methods, or institutional controls (e.g., access restrictions).
Compliance with SUM end Federal Regulation*. The alternatives are evaluated for compliance with
environmental protection regulations determined to be applicable or relevant and appropriate to the
site conditions.
Primary
Balancing
Long-Tarm Effectivenaaa. The alternatives are evaluated based on their ability to maintain reliable
protection of human health and the environment after implementation.
Reduction of Contaminant Touchy. Mobihy, and Volume. Each alternative is evaluated based on now
it reduces the harmful nature of the contaminants, their ability to move through the environment,
and the amount of contamination.
Short-Ta
>Effa
The risks that implementation of a particular remedy -nay pose to workers
arid nearby residents (e.g., whether or not contaminated dust will be produced during excavation),
as well as the reduction in risks that results by controlling the contaminants, are assessed. The
length of time needed to implement each alternative is also considered.
Imptoimmabiity. .Both the technical feasibility and administrative ease (e.g., the amount of
coordination with other government agencies needed) of a remedy, including availability of neces-
sary goods and services, are assessed.
Coat. The benefits of implementing a particular alternative are weighed against the cost of
implementation.
Modifying
mtal Prot
U.S. Environmental Prouction Agancy (USEPAI and Florida Papal tinat it of Envirt
(FDEP) Acceptance. The final Feasibility Study and 'be Proposed Flan, which are placed in the
Information Repository, represent a consensus oy the Navy, USEPA, and FDEP.
Community Acceptance. The Navy assesses community acceptance of the preferred alternative by
giving the public an opportunity to comment on the remedy selection process and the preferred
alternative and then responds to those comments.
Cec-S7.HOO
PMW.02.99
2-17
-------
to O
u> O
ro
CO
Table 2-2
Comparative Analyses of Remedial Alternatives for Site 7
Record of Decision
Site 7, Operable Unit 3
Naval Air Station Cecil Field
Jacksonville, Florida
Alternative
Soil. 7SS1,
Surface Soil
No Action
Soil, 7SS2,
Surface Soil
Excavation and
Off-Site Disposal
Groundwater. 7GW1,
Gioundwater - No
Action
Groundwater, 7GW2,
Groundwater - Annual
Monitoring
Threshold Criteria
Overall Protection to
Human Health and
Environment
Protects by means
of property deed
restrictions.
Provides overall pro-
tection to human
health and the envi-
ronment.
Could protect by
means of property
deed restrictions.
Groundwater restric-
tions will provide
protection to human
health.
Compliance with
ARARs
Does not comply with
the chemical-specific
ARARs.
Complies with all
ARARs.
Does not comply with
the chemical-specific
ARARs.
Will, over time, comply
with the chemical-spe-
cific ARARs.
Primary Balancing Criteria
Long-Term Effec-
tiveness and
Permanence
Not affective
over the long
term.
Provides long-
term effective-
ness.
May not be ef-
fective over the
long term.
May not be af-
fective over the
long term.
Reduction In Toxlclty,
Mobility, and Volume
of Contaminants
Natural transformation
processes (physical,
chemical, and biologi-
cal) are anticipated to
reduce the toxlclty,
mobility, and volume
of contaminants.
Reduces the toxlclty,
mobility, and volume
of contaminants.
Natural transformation
processes (physical,
chemical, and biologi-
cal) are anticipated to
reduce the toxlclty,
mobility, and volume
of contaminants.
Limited purging dur-
ing sampling episodes
is anticipated to re-
duce toxlclty, mobility,
and volume of ben-
zene.
Short-Term
Effectiveness
Contaminat-
ed soil Is left
on site. Not
effective over
the short
term.
Provides
short-term
effectiveness.
Not effective
over the
short term.
Effective only
through pro-
perty deed
restrictions.
Implementablllty
Does not require
any resources to
Implement "no
action.'
Excavation and
off-site disposal
are Implement-
able.
Does not require
any resources to
Implement "no
action."
Is readily Imple-
mantable.
Cost
$0
Residential
land use,
$568,000
$0
$137,000
Note: ARAR = applicable or ralavant and appropriate requirement.
-------
2.9.1 Site 7 Surface Soil The selected alternative, Excavation and Disposal,
requires the removal of contaminants of concern from the site. Excavated soil
will be characterized and disposed of in either a subtitle D or C landfill,
depending on soil characteristics. The excavated area will be backfilled and
revegetated. The estimated cost from this alternative is $568,000 and will take
approximately 10 days to complete. This alternative was selected because it will
immediately remove the contaminants of concern, reduce the toxicity, mobility,
and volume of the contaminants, will have a long-term effect on the site, and is
relatively easy to implement.
2.9.2 Site 7 Groundwater Much of the risk from groundwater is derived from a
single detection of benzene. The selected alternative, annual monitoring,
provides a method of observing the fate and any migration of benzene over time.
Groundwater use from the surficial aquifer at Site 7 will be restricted, thereby
providing immediate protection to human health. This alternative provides
monitoring every 5 years until cleanup goals are achieved. During each review,
site conditions will be reassessed and monitoring continued or other appropriate
actions taken.
f
fe
2.10 INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS. The goals of institutional controls at Site 7 are
to protect human health and the environment by limiting exposure to groundwater
to prevent unacceptable risk. The institutional controls will prevent
exposure/consumption of groundwater that exceeds State and Federal drinking water
standards.
Institutional controls will be implemented by the use of deed restrictions to
restrict the installation of groundwater wells and extraction of groundwater for
potable and nonpotable use, or other activities which may cause exposure to
groundwater contaminated above regulatory standards; notice to local agencies;
regular inspections; and through 5-year reviews as required by CERCLA.
2.11 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS. The remedial alternatives selected for Site 7 are
consistent with CERCLA and the NCP. The selected remedy provides protection of
human health and the environment, attains ARARs, and is cost affective. Table
2-3 lists and describe Federal and State requirements to which the selected
remedy must comply. The selected remedy consists of permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies to the maximum axzent practicable and
satisfies the statutory preference for remedies that reduces toxicity, mobility,
or volume as a principal element. The selected remedy also provides flexibility
to implement additional remedial measures, if necessary, to address RAOs or
unforeseen issues.
2.12 DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES. The Proposed Plan for Site 7 was
released for public comment in October 1997. The Proposed Plan contains the
alternatives that were selected for soil and groundwater remediation: Alternative
7SS2, soil excavation and disposal, and alternative 7GW2, annual monitoring. No
significant changes to the remedy, as originally identified in the Proposed Plan,
were necessary.
C«c-S7,ROD
PMW.02.99 2-19
-------
O S
Nil
u> o
U> O
(O
ro
o
Table 2-3
Synopsis of Federal and State Regulatory Requirements
Record ul Decision
Site 7, Operable Unit 3
Naval Air Station Cecil Reid
Name and Regulatory Citation
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) Regulations, Identification and Listing
of Hazardous Wastes
(40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part
261)
Endangered Species Act Regulations
(50 CFR Parts 81. 225, 402)
Clean Water Act Regulations,
Water Quality Standards
(40 CFR Part 131)
Historic Sites Act Regulations
(36 CFR Part 62)
Safe Drinking Water Act Regulations, Maxi-
mum Contaminant Levels (MCLs)
(40 CFR Part 141)
Rorida Hazardous Waste Rules
(Florida Administrative Code [FAC],
62-730)
Rorida Surface Water Quality Standards
(FAC, 62-302)
Jacksonville, Florida
Description
Defines the listed and characteristic hazardous wastes
subject to RCRA. Appendix II contains the Toxlclty
Characteristic Leaching Procedure.
The Act requires Federal agencies to take action to avoid
jeopardizing the continued existence of federally listed
endangered or threatened species.
Establishes ecological and health-based Federal
Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC) that are non-
enforceable guidelines used by states to set their state-
specific water standards for surface water.
Requires Federal agencies to consider the existence and
location of landmarks on the National Registry of Natural
Landmarks to avoid undesirable Impacts on such land-
marks.
Establishes enforceable standards for potable water for
specific contaminants that have been determined to
adversely affect human health.
Adopts by reference sections of the Federal hazardous
waste regulations and establishes minor additions to
these regulations concerning the generation, storage,
treatment, transportation, and disposal of hazardous
wastes.
Rule distinguishes surface water Into five classes based
on designated uses and establishes ambient water quality
standards (called Florida Water Quality Standards) for
listed pollutants.
Consideration In the
Remedial Action Process
These regulations would apply when deter-
mining whether or not waste onslte Is hazard-
ous, either by being listed or exhibiting a
hazardous characteristic, as described In the
regulations.
If a site Investigation or remediation could
potentially affect an endangered species,
these regulations would apply.
These AWQCs may be used as a basis for
determining cleanup levels In the absence of
State water quality standards.
Prior to remedial activities onslte, Including
remedial Investigations, the existence of
Natural Landmarks must be Identified.
MCLs can be used as protective levels for
groundwaters or surface waters that are
current or potential drinking water sources.
These regulations would apply If waste onslte
Is deemed hazardous and needs to be
stored, transported, or disposed of,
Because these standards am specifically
tailored to Florida waters, they should be
used to establish cleanup levels rather than
the Federal AWQC.
Type
Chemical-specific
Action-specific
Location-specific
Chemical-specific
Location-specific
Chemical-specific
Action-specific
Chemical-specific
See notes at end of table.
-------
5 in
o -•
r°3i
88
Table 2-3 (Continued)
Synopsis of Federal and State Regulatory Requirements
Record ol Decision
Site 7, Operable Unit 3
Naval Mr Station Cecil Reid
Jacksonville, Florida
Name and Regulatory Citation
Description
Consideration in the
Remedial Action Process
Type
to
Florida Groundwater Classes,
Standards and Exemptions
(FAC, 62-520)
Florida Drinking Water Standards
(FAC, 62-550)
Petroleum-Contaminated Site
Cleanup Criteria
(FAC. 62-770)
Rorida Groundwater Guidance,
Bureau ol Groundwater Protection,
June 1994.
Rule designates the groundwaters of the State Into five
classes and establishes minimum "free from" criteria.
Rule also specifies that Classes I & II must meet the
primary and secondary drinking walei standards listed
in Chapter 62-550.
Rule adopts Federal primary and secondary drinking
water standards.
Establishes a cleanup process to be followed at all
petroleum-contaminated sites. Cleanup levels for the
G-l and G-ll groundwater are provided in the gasoline
and kerosene/mixed product analytical groups.
The document provides maximum concentration levels
of contaminants for groundwater in the Slate of Florida.
Groundwater with concentrations lass than the listed
values are considered "free from" contamination.
These regulations may be used to determine Chemical-specific
cleanup levels lor groundwater that Is a poten-
tial source of drinking water.
These regulations apply to remedial activities Chemical-specific
that Involve discharges to potential sources of
drinking water.
Because groundwater at the site is Class II, Chemical-specific
these regulations would apply. Action-specific
The values in this guidance should be con- To be considered
sidered when determining cleanup levels for
groundwater. Although some values are not
promulgated, Florida Department of Environ-
mental Protection considers them applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements for set-
ting cleanup crUerla.
Note: OU = Operable Unit.
-------
-------
REFERENCES
ABB-Environmental Services, Inc. (ABB-ES). 1992. Technical Memorandum, Human
Health Risk Assessment Methodology, Naval Air Station Cecil Field,
Jacksonville, Florida. Prepared for Southern Division, Naval Facilities
Engineering Command (SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM), North Charleston, South Carolina.
ABB-ES. 1997a. Feasibility Study, Operable Unit 3, Naval Air Station Cecil
Field, Jacksonville, Florida. Prepared for SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM, North
Charleston, South Carolina (August).
ABB-ES. 1997b. Proposed Plan for Remedial Action, Naval Air Station Cecil
Field, Site 7, Operable Unit 3, Former Firefighting Training Area,
Jacksonville, Florida. Prepared for SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM, North Charleston,
South Carolina (October).
ABB-ES. 1997c. Remedial Investigation, Operable Unit 3, Naval Air Station
Cecil Field, Jacksonville, Florida. Prepared for SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM, North
Charleston, South Carolina.
Envirodyne Engineers, Inc. 1985. Initial Assessment Study, Naval Air Station
Cecil Field, Cecil Field, Florida. Prepared for Navy Assessment and
Control of Installation Pollutants Department, Naval Energy and Environmen-
tal Support Activity, Port Hueneme, California (July).
Harding Lawson Associates. 1988. Draft Final RCRA Facilities Investigation
Report, Naval Air Station Cecil Field,- Jacksonville, Florida. Prepared for
SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM, North Charleston, South Carolina (March).
SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM. 1989. Naval Air Station Cecil Field Master Plan. (November).
TetraTech NUS. 1998. Technical Memorandum, Surface Soil Remediation for Operable
Unit 3, Site 7 (December).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1990. National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, Final Rule. 40 Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 300; Federal Register, 55(46): 8718 (March 8).
USEPA. 1992. Guidance on Preparing Superfund Decision Documents, Preliminary
Draft. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Directive 9355.3.02.
•Washington, D.C.
C«c-S7.ROD
PMW.02.99 Ref-1
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
SURFACE SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS AND EXCAVATION LIMITS
-------
*
-------
Table A-1
Site 7 Surface Soil Screening Criteria
Record of Decision
Site 7, Operable Unit 3
Naval Air Station Cecil Field
Jacksonville, Florida
Chemical of Concern
Residential Cleanup Criteria1
Polvnudaar Aromatic Hydrocarbons U/g/kg)
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo (b)fluoranthene
Benzo (k)fluoranthene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Inorganic Analvtes (mg/kg}
Antimony
Arsenic
Iron
Lead
Thallium
1,400
100
1,400
15,000
100
1,500
26
S2.04
23,000
500
32.84
Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons 1TRPH) (mg/kg)
TRPH 350
1 Rorida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Brownfields residential
cleanup criteria, unless otherwise noted.
2 Value from the Naval Air Station Cecil Field inorganic background data set.
Notes: i/g/kg = micrograms per kilogram.
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram.
Cec-S7.ROD
PMW.O2.99
A-1
-------
-------
MAP
Contract Number
7898
Contact Region 4
Figure 2-1
Surface Soil Excavation Limits
Based on Residential Criteria
Operable Unit 3, Site 7
Naval Air Station Cecil Field
Jacksonville, Florida
-------
-------
-------
-------
0 £ O 0
ti2 2*5
?•
*3 0
£
c
+* 0.8)0
0£.£o
; = 0)
Reproduced by NTIS
National Technical Information Service
Springfield, VA 22161
77i/s 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
-------
------- |