PB99-964004
                               EPA541-R99-048
                               1999
EPA Superfund
      Record of Decision:
      Cecil Field Naval Air Station
      (Site 8) OU 3
      Jacksonville, FL
      8/25/1999

-------

-------
                RECORD OF DECISION
               SITE 8, OPERABLE UN!T 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

Scott A. Glass, P.E., Code 18B12, BRAC Environmental Coordinator


                        July 1999

-------

-------
                                       TABLE  OF  CONTENTS


                                           Record of Decision
                                         Site 8, Operable Unit 3
                                       Naval Air Station Cecil Field
                                          Jacksonville, Rorida
                                                Title     	Page No.
1.0
DECL
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
ARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION 	
SITE NAME AND LOCATION . . . 	
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE 	
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE 	
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY . 	
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 	
SIGNATURE AND SUPPORT AGENCY ACCEPTANCE OF THE REMEDY .
. . . . 1-1
. . . . 1-1
. . . . 1-1
. . . . 1-1
. . . . 1-1
. . . . 1-2
. .' . . 1-2
2.0
DECISION SUMMARY . . . 	 	 	 	 -
2.1 SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION 	 .
2.2 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 	
2.3 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 	
2.4 SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT 	
2.5 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 	
2.6 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 	
2.7 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 	 .....
2.7.1 Groundwater Alternatives 	
2.7.2 Sediment Alternatives 	
2.7.3 Soil Alternatives 	
2.8 SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES . . . .
2 . 9 SELECTED REMEDIES 	
2.9.1 Site 8 Groundwater 	
2.9.2 Site 8 Sediment 	
2.10 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 	
2.11 DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 	
. . . . 2-1
. . . . 2-1
. . . . 2^4
. . . . 2-6
. . . . 2-6
. . . . 2-7
.... 2-11
.... 2-15
.... 2-15
.... 2-20
.... 2-22
.... 2-22
.... 2-22
.... 2-22
.... 2-23
.... 2-23
.... 2-23
REFERENCES
 Cac-SB.ROD
 PMW.06.99

-------
                                LIST OF  FIGURES

                                  Record of Decision
                                 Site 8, Operable Unit 3
                               Naval Air Station Cecil Field
                                  Jacksonville, Rorida


Figure	Title	Page No .

2-1  General Location Map	•  •  •   2-2
2-2  Location Map	2-3
2-3  General Features	2-5
2-4  Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TRPH) and Beryllium  Concen-
     trations in Soil	2-9  '
2-5  Organics Detected in  Confirmatory Groundwater Samples   	  2-10
2-6  Inorganics Detected in Confirmatory Groundwater Samples   .  .  .  .  .  .2-12
2-7  Organics Detected in  Confirmatory Surface Water and Sediment  Sam-
     ples  	  .....  2-13
2-8  Inorganics Detected in Confirmatory Surface Water and  Sediment
     Samples	2-14
2-9  Excess Lifetime  Cancer Risk Summary,  Future Land Use	2-16
2-10 Hazard Index  Summary,  Future Land Use   	...2-17
2-11 Alternative 8GW2,  Proposed Natural Attenuation Groundwater  Monitor-
     ing Locations	2-19
2-12 Alternative 8SD2,  Areal Extent of Sediment to Be Dredged  .  .  .  .  .  .2-21
                                 LIST OF TABLES
Table	Title	Page No.

Q-l  Explanation of Evaluation Criteria	  	  2-24
2-2  Comparative Analyses of Remedial Alternatives   	  2-25
2-3  Synopsis  of Federal and State Regulatory Requirements  for  Site  8  .  .  2-26
Coc.S8.ROD
PMW.06,99                                -jj-

-------
                                 GLOSSARY
ABB-ES
ARAR

bis
BRA

CERCLA
DCE
DDD
DDT

ELCR

FS

HI
HHRA

mg/kg
 HAS
 NCP

 OU

 PEL

 RAB
'RAO
 RI
 ROD

 SVOC

 TRPH

 USEPA

 VOC   •
           ABB Environmental Services,  Inc.
           applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement

           below land surface
           baseline risk assessment

           Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
           Act

           dichloroethene
           dichlorodiphenyldichloroe thane
           dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane

           excess lifetime  cancer risk

           feasibility  study

           hazard  index
           human health risk  assessment

           milligrams per kilogram
           micrograms per liter

           Naval Air Station                                   .
           National Oil and Hazardous  Substances Pollution Contingency Plan

           operable unit

           probable effect  level

           Restoration Advisory Board
            remedial action objective
            remedial investigation
            Record of Decision

            semivolatile organic compound

            total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons

            U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency

            volatile organic  compound
Cec-SS.ROD
PMW.O6.99

-------

-------
                          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:
               July  19.  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-S8.ROD
 PMW.06.99

-------

-------
CERTIFIED MAIL
RF.Tl'RN RECEIPT REOL ESTED

4XVD-FFB

Commanding Officer
Attn: Scott Glass
BRAC Environmental Coordinator
DON. Southern Division
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Mail Code 1SB12
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 8)

Dear Mr. Glass:

       The U.S. Environmental Protection.Agency (EPA) has reviewed the final Record of
Decision (ROD) for Operable Unit 3 (Site 8) and concurs with the selected remedy for the
remedial action. The previously completed Remedial Investigation. Feasibility Study, and the
Baseline Risk Assessment support the remedy. The selected remedy includes institutional
controls on  future groundwater usage and long term groundwater monitoring.

       EPA Region 4 issued, on April 2L 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 8 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 concarrenee with the Record of Decision • RODi for Of' ^ -• Si- 8 . i •
   Motioned on the express understanding tha: the Na'.:. is committed tt, ,ntorin,  ., \fc:,,or:!,j,....
               n                                  -      armenr of EnMronmenta
               hP, that con.pii.s ,ith the April  J,0.S Me^rund^ mentioned aK-v, ^hir „ .
 -a, ^ . .  ,h:s  et:er.  f his M( , x wil, ,or,e ,s :ho u CAP r,r NAS c                      •
 •; .n place, the NAM. e.l F.eld BRAC Cleanup Team ;BCT, .Hi he expected to'd^eW   ' "
 >pccit:o prous.ons tor land use controls as part of the resulting Land Tse Control   '  " ''
  "Dentation Plan for Site 8. that will prohibit unrestricted property reuse until cleanup ,oaU
 »                                                                              r *-
     ( t iC. l.
 f-th inhi "T- C00rdination effoni "^he Navx and the U*el of effort that was out
  o,th m the documents ead.ng to this decision. EPA looks forward to continuing the excellent
 uorkmg relauonsh.p uuh NAS Cecil Field and Southern Division Naval Facilities Engine enn'

                   "
 orEPA can h! 7" T    *     ^^ °f±* NPLsite' Sh°U'd >'°U ha^ »v ^stion
    v    u T     an>' Utlher assistance- Pleas^ contact Ms. Deborah Vauchn-Wrioht of m-
 staff, at the letterhead address or at (404) 562-8539.                                    ''
                                        Sincerelv.
                                        Richard D. Green
                                        Director
                                        Waste Management Division
cc:     Mr. James Crane. FL DEP
       Mr. Eric N'uzie. FL DEP
       Mr. Michael Deliz. FL DEP
       Mr. Mark Davidson, SOUTHDIV
       Ms. Allison Abemathy. FFRCKOSWE
       David Levenstein, FFEO/OECA
       Sherri Fields, EAD
V-WRIGHT^   /99 BOZEMAN i         JOHNrSTON
                                                                 GREEN

-------
                  1.0   DECLARATION  FOR THE  RECORD  OF  DECISION
1.1  SITE NAME AND LOCATION.   Site  8,  Boresite Range,  Hazardous Waste Storage
Area, and Firefighting Training Area, Operable Unit (OU) 3, is situated in the
southern  part of  the  main base  of  Naval Air  Station  (NAS)  Cecil  Field,
Jacksonville, Florida.  The site is located approximately_l,600 feet  south of the
east-and-west flightline and approximately 3,500 feet west of the north-and-south
flightline.


1.2  STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE.  This decision document presents  the selected
remedial action for Site 8, located at NAS Cecil Field, Jacksonville, Florida,
which was chosen in  accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental 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).   This
decision  document  was  prepared  in accordance with  the   U.S.  Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) decision document guidance (USEPA,  1992). This decision-
is based on the Administrative Record for Site  8, 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 is used  as a potable water  source.


1.4  DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY. This ROD is  the final action for Site 8,
OU 3.  Final  RODs have been  approved for OUs  1, 2 (Site 17), 3  (Site 7), 4,  5
(Site 14), 6, 7,  and 8.  An amended  ROD for  OU 2 (Site  5) is  anticipated due to
changes in site conditions and cleanup objectives. Remedial investigations (RIs),
baseline  risk assessments  (BRAs),   and  feasibility  studies (FSs)  have  been
completed for OU 5 (Site 15) and are underway  for OU 9.

The  potential sources  of  contamination stem  from  shooting-range activities,
firefighting  training  activities,   and  hazardous  waste  storage  activities.
Firefighting  training activities utilized waste  solvents, paints  and paint
thinners, and fuel to ignite aircraft frames for firefighting training exercises.
Hazardous waste storage drums at Site 8 were reported to have been shot through,
spilling drummed contents onto the ground.  Lastly, gun sighting activities have
left spent bullets in the soil in front of the firing-range backstop.  Training
activities have ceased at Site 8 and  liquid wastes are no longer used at the site.
Hazardous materials  are no longer stored  at the site.   Spent bullets remain in
the backstop soil,  but  RI data show that potential contaminants from the bullets,
such as  lead,  have not been detected at concentrations greater  than FDEP soil
cleanup target levels.   Because liquid waste sources have been removed,  there is
no source for continued contamination at the training or storage areas.  Remedial
action for source control, therefore,  is  not  required.
 Cec-SS.ROD
 PMW.06.99                                1-1

-------
The  feasibility  study for  Site  8 considered  two  media for  remedial action,
groundwater and sediment.  Upon further review it was assessed  that sediment did
not require remedial action; therefore, the No Action alternative was selected
for Site 8 sediment.

The selected remedy addresses risk reduction of  groundwater contamination.  The
alternative selected for Site 8 is natural attenuation and long-term monitoring.
The estimated present worth  of this alternative is approximately $465,000 over
a 30-year period.  Cost would be less if the goals of the selected alternative
were met before 30 years.   The selected alternative includes  the following:

         restrict  use  of the  surficial  aquifer   groundwater  at  Site   8  by
         implementation of institutional controls to protect human health and the
         environment by limiting exposure to groundwater to prevent unacceptable
         risk.

     •   monitor  groundwater for  the  presence  of  volatile  organic compounds
         (VOCs),  particularly  1,1-dichloroethene  (1,1-DCE),  and semivolatile
         organic compounds (SVOCs);

     •   monitor groundwater for parameters that indicate the presence of natural-
         ly occurring biological,  physical, and chemical processes that reduce
         VOC and SVOC concentrations;

     •   monitor the groundwater for a period for  30 years (or less  if VOC and
         SVOC concentrations meet  State of  Florida  drinking water standards);

     •   model contaminant plume movement and contaminant degradation rates;

     •   review the status of the  groundwater quality every 5 years for 30  years
         (or  less  if VOC and  SVOC, concentrations  are  below  State of Florida
         drinking water standards).


1. 5  STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS.  The selected remedy  is protective of human health
and is cost effective.  The nature of the selected remedy for Site 8 is such that
VOC and SVOC concentrations  in groundwater may remain above regulatory standards
during the remedial action.   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  remedial actions to  ensure that the remedy continues
Co provide adequate protection of  human health.


1.6  SIGNATURE AND  SUPPORT AGENCY  ACCEPTANCE OF THE REMEDY.
 Scott A.  Glass,  P.E.                                   Date
 Base Realignment and  Closure
 Environmental  Coordinator

 CK-SB.ROD
 PMW.06.99                                 1 -2

-------
                            2.0  DECISION SUl&ARY


2.1  SITE NAME.  LOCATION.  AND  DESCRIPTION.  NAS Cecil Field is located 14 miles
southwest of Jacksonville, Florida.  The majority of Cecil Field is located with
Duval County;  the southernmost part  of  the facility  is located in northern Clay
County (Figure 2-1).

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.   Commercial properties, 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, consisting of seven separate  villages,  abut NAS Cecil Field
to the south and southeast.   A golf  course and  residential  area also  border NAS
Cecil Field to the east.

Site 8 is located south  of the east-and-west flightline, in an area that, except
for Site 8,  lacks development.  As a result, there is no housing in the immediate
vicinity  of Site 8.  The nearest housing,  the  bachelor  officer quarters, is
located approximately 1 mile north of the site.  The nearest  building, Building
352,  a weather shelter, is located  approximately 700 feet  northeast  of  Site 8.

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.  Planned future
use  of Site 8 is aviation-related activity.

Site 8,  Boresite Range, Hazardous Waste Storage Area, and Firefighting Training
Area; is located approximately 1,600 feet south of  the east-and-west flightline
and approximately 3,500 feet west of the north-and-south flightline (Figure 2-2) .
Perimeter Road and Sal Taylor Creek are approximately  700 feet  and 1,000  feet
 south of the Site 8 backstop, respectively.

Most of Site 8 is located on a broad slope, which  gently dips  to the southland
 southwest.   The grade of the slope increases  in the southern part of the site,
 from south of the backstop to Perimeter Road, where the  topographic relief is
 nearly flat (Figure 2-2).  The dominant features  at  Site 8 are a taxiway  from the
 east-and-west flightline, a concrete pad at the end of the  taxiway, the boresite
 C»c-S8.ROD
 PMW.OS.93                                2-1

-------
                              ,   YELLOW WATER
                              1   WEAPONS AREA ff
                                                       MAS  CECIL FIELD
                                                      'BOUNDARY
  JACKSONVILLE   CIT«  LIUIIS
                                                 1     "CLAY COUNTY
                                                                         ««.n»ui N*6 CECIL FIELD
       SCALE:  I INCH = 13.000 FEET
FIGURE 2-1
GENERAL LOCATION MAP
RECORD OF DECISION
SITE 8, OPERABLE UNIT 3
                                                                NAVAL AIR STATION CECIL FIELD
                                                                JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA

-------
                                                                                                    I
                                                                                                    N
                                                                 -Runway 9R— 27L
                                 East JBdJW»6t Flightline   _____-Runway 9R • 27L
                 Unnamed —^ ~ %   =
                 tributary
        - i  Hazardous waste
                                                      training pits (3)
        >i;'.PERIMETEB;ffQAD
                      Land surface elevation in feet above
                      National  Geodetic Vertical  Datum of 1929
                      Contour  interval =  2  feei.
      SCALE: 1 INCH = 1000 FEET
    FIGURE 2-2
    LOCATION MAP
RECORD OF DECISION
SITE 8, OPERABLE UNIT 3
                                                                      NAVAL AIR STATION CECIL FIELD
                                                                      JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA
Cec-SS.ROD
PMW.06.99
                                                 2-3

-------
backstop, the open field between the concrete pad and the backstop,  and an access
road (Figure 2-3).  The areas north and northwest of the site are open, grassy
fields.  Areas southwest, south, and east of the site are planted with pine trees.
 On either side of the boresite range  are  drainage ditches.  Both ditches begin
north of Site 8 and drain in a southward direction,  toward Perimeter Road.
Currently. Site 8  is used for loading ordnance onto aircraft.  Loading activities
take place on the  taxiway,  topographically upgradient of  the boresite range and
the former hazardous waste storage and firefighting training areas.


2.2  SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES.   Site 8 was originally used as a
sighting range.  Aircraft would taxi to the concrete pad and sight in aircraft
guns, using targets located immediately in front of backstop.  The range was used
from 1970 to 1988.

Upon closure of Site  7,  the  firefighting  training  area located on the old 310
flightline, Site 8 was used as a firefighting training area.  Training activities
took place in three bermed pits,  two  located adjacent  to and northwest of the
concrete pad, one adjacent to and southwest of  the pad (Figure 2-3).  Training
activities  included placing aircraft  frames in the pits  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 into the soil,  or migrated from the site via surface water
runoff.  Site 8 was used as a firefighting  training area from 1975 to 1988.

From the late  1970s  to 1980, Site 8 was  also  used  for the  storage  of drummed
hazardous waste.  Drums were stored in the southern part of the open field between
the concrete pad and the backstop  (Figure 2-3).  Reportedly, some of the drums
were shot through and their content spilled upon the ground.

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 for NAS  Cecil Field was signed by the Florida Department of Environmen-
tal  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, remedial response
activities at the  facility were conducted under CERCLA authority.

Investigations at  Site 8 began  in 1985.   The  following reports describe the
results of investigations at Site 8 to date:

     •   Initial Assessment  Study of Naval Air  Station Cecil Field,  Envirodyne
         Engineers, 1985.

     •   Resource Conservation and Recovery Act  Facility Investigation Naval Air
         Station Cecil Field, Harding  Lawson Associates (HLA),  1998 (HLA, 1998).

         RI/FS Workplan,  Operable Units 3, 4, 5, and  6, Naval Air  Station Cecil
         Field, ABB-ES,  1994.

Cec-SB.ROD
PMW.08.99                                2-4

-------
P> a
to o
IB O
                                                                                                                           LEGEND
                                                                                                                      —  Drainage  ditch

                                                                                                                      •  •   Tree line

                                                                                                                       70  Land surface elevation
                                                                                                                           contour in feel above
                                                                                                                           National Geodetic  Vertical
                                                                                                                           Datum  of  1929.
                                                                                                                           Contour interval = 2  feet
                                                                                                                            100      200
                                                                                                                    SCALE: 1  INCH = 200 , FEFT
                                                FIGURE 2-3
                                                GENERAL FEATURES
                RECORD OF DECISION
...\**TT^..   S)TE 8) OPERABLE UNIT 3
                                                                                                             ^-'   NAVAL AIR STATION CECIL FIELD
                                                                                                                  JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA

-------
         RI,  Operable  Unit 3, Sites  7  and 8, Naval Air  Station Cecil Field.
         ABB-ES, 1997b  (this  document includes the BRA).

         FS, Operable Unit 3, Naval Air Station Cecil Field, ABB-ES, 1997a.

         Proposed Plan  for Remedial Action,  Operable Unit 3.  Site 8, Boresite
         Range, Hazardous Waste  Storage  Area, and Firefighting Training Area,
         ABB-ES, 1997c.


2.3  HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION.  The  results of the  RI and the BRA,
the remedial alternatives of the FS,  and the  preferred alternative given in the
Proposed Plan were presented  to  the NAS Cecil Field Restoration Advisory Board
(RAB) (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 November 28  through December 28, 1997 .

Public notice of the availability of the Proposed Plan was placed in the Metro
section of  the  Florida  Times Union on November  23,  1997.   This local edition
targets the  communities closest to NAS  Cecil Field.   The public notice also
provided an opportunity to  request a public meeting.  No comments were received
during the comment period, and a public meeting was not requested.  -Documents
pertaining to Site 8 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.


2.4  SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE  UNIT.  The environmental concerns at NAS Cecil
Field are  complex.  As a result, work at the  various sites has been organized into
nine installation restoration OUs 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 (Site 17), 3 (Site 7) , 4,  5  (Site 14),
6, 7, and 8.  An amended ROD  for OU 2  (Site 5) is anticipated due to changes in
site conditions and cleanup objectives.   RIs, BRAs,  and  FSs have been completed
for OU 5 (Site 15) and are underway for OU 9.

Assessment  of  environmental  data  collected  from OU  3,  Site  8,  indicates
groundwater contamination could pose a human  health risk if the  groundwater was
used as a potable water source. The purpose of this remedial action is to monitor
and  remediate the groundwater contamination that  pose a human health risk.
Ingestion of groundwater extracted from the  surficial aquifer poses a human health
risk that exceeds the State of Florida threshold of 1 in 1,000,000 or IxlO"6.

The following remedial action objective  (RAO) was established for Site 8:

     •   Prevent exposure to  groundwater at  Site 8 that contains VOC and SVOCs
         at concentrations greater than  the State of Florida Groundwater Cleanup
         Target Levels and that  causes unacceptable risk to human health.

C«c-S8 ROD
PMW.08.99                                2-6

-------
The remedial action documented in this ROD will achieve this RAO.

2.5  SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS.

Geology.  Geologic  materials  recovered  during drilling  operations at  Site  8
indicate  that the  site  is  underlain  by  approximately 80  feet fine- to medium-
grained sand.   In  the  northern part of the site,  a  clay to clayey sand layer
occurs between 4 feet and  14 feet below land surface (bis).  This clayey layer
is not  continuous  across  the site and was encountered in the  vicinity of the
training  pits and  in area  northwest of the concrete pad and taxiway.

At approximately 80  feet  bis is a sandy  clay  unit with   dolomite pebbles and
stringers.  This clayey unit varies from  0 to  14 feet in  thickness. Underlying
this clayey unit is a dolomite layer that is at least 5 feet thick.

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  8.

The surficial aquifer is unconfined and composed of  fine- to medium-grained sand,
with minor amounts of silt and clay  stringers.  These geologic  deposits  extend
to approximately 80 feet bis and are underlain by sandy clay and dolomite.  The
surficial aquifer  is considered  to behave as one hydrological unit.

The water table in the surficial aquifer  is typically between 2 and 6  feet  bis.
Seasonally, groundwater may discharge to  the drainage ditch in the  southeastern
part of the site.  Groundwater  flow  is  to the  south,  toward Perimeter Road and
Sal Taylor Creek,  at an average rate of 55 feet .per year.   Water-elevation  data
indicate  that the vertical groundwater flow direction is  downward at Site 8.  It
is interpreted that seasonally (during wet periods of the year) the vertical flow
direction is upward  in  the area  of  the  lower  parts of the eastern ditch.

Contaminant Sources. The primary source of contamination at Site 8 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  no
longer  stored at Site 8; therefore, there is no source  for continued contamination
at  the  site.

RI  Results.   RI activities were-conducted by  HLA  during  the fall  of  1994, the
spring  of 1995,  and  the summer of 1997 to characterize the nature and extent of
contamination at  Site  8.   Environmental  samples  for laboratory analysis  were
collected from surface soil, subsurface  soil,  groundwater,  surface water, and
 sediment. Analytical results indicated the presence  of VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides,
 and the  polychlorinated biphenyl Aroclor-1260 in  the various  media at Site  8.
A summary of analytical results for each medium is presented below.

 Surface Soil Analytical Results.  The results of the confirmatory sampling program
 indicated the presence of VOCs,  SVOCs, total recoverable  petroleum hydrocarbons
 (TRPH)  and inorganics in Site 8 surface soil.  TRPH and the inorganic, beryllium,
 were detected at concentrations greater  than  State of Florida guidance values.
 All other constituents detected in surface soils were below their respective  State
 of Florida guidance values.  Seven of 35 surface soil samples had TRPH concentra-
 tions greater than the State of Florida  residential goal of 350 milligrams per


 Coc-SS.ROD
 PMW.06.99                                2-7

-------
 kilogram (mg/kg).   Three of these samples had TRPH concentrations greater than
 the industrial cleanup goal of 2,500 mg/kg.   TRPH was detected in the vicinity
 of the training pits,  in the open field, and behind the backstop (Figure 2-4).

 Beryllium was  detected in three samples at concentrations greater than the State
 of Florida guidance concentration of 0.2 mg/kg but was below the NAS Cecil Field
 background values.   Beryllium  concentrations in  these  three  samples were very
 close to the  guidance value,  ranging  from 0.23 to 0.27 mg/kg.   Beryllium was
 detected in  the open field and behind the backstop (Figure 2-4).

 Subsurface  Soil  Analytical Results.    Several  VOCs,  SVOCs,  pesticides,  and
 inorganics were detected in subsurface soil samples at concentrations below FDEP
 soil  cleanup goals.  TRPH, however,  was detected at a concentration greater than
 State guidance value in one subsurface soil sample. This sample was collected from
 2  to  4 feet  bis in the  southern training  pit  and  had a concentration of 9,000
 rag/kg (Figure  2-4).

 Groundwater  Analytical Results.  VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, and inorganics were
 detected in  several  groundwater  samples.  The  pesticides  dichlprodiphenyl-
 dichloroethane (4,4'-ODD) and  dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane  (4,4'-DDT)  were
 detected in a groundwater sample collected from a shallow monitoring well adjacent
 to  the access  road.   Aldrin  was  detected in the sample  collected  from well
 CF8MW3D.  Pesticide concentrations were below State and Federal guidance values.

 Petroleum-related compounds (benzene, toluene, xylenes, and naphthalenes) and the
 chlorinated  solvent,  1,1-DCE,   were  detected in groundwater at  concentrations
 greater  than State and Federal  regulatory values.' These compounds were detected
 in shallow monitoring well samples collected near and hydraulically downgradient
 of  the training pits.   These  groundwater samples were  collected from  wells
 screened 3 to  14 feet bis.    Those compounds with concentrations  greater than
 drinking water standards are discussed below.

 Three petroleum-related  compounds (benzene, xylenes,  and toluene)  were detected
 above State primary or secondary drinking water standards (Figure 2-5).  Benzene
 was detected  in one  sample from well CF8MW13S,   located  downgradient of  the
 training  pits,  at 1 micrograms per liter (^g/^), which  is  the State  primary
 drinking water  standard  for benzene.  Total xylenes were detected in  the sample
 from well CF8MW18S at 23  ng/t,  which is  above the State secondary drinking water
 standard of 20 ng/J>.  Well CF8MW18S is located adjacent  to  the  western training
 pits.   Toluene  was detected at 48 ng/£ in the sample from well CF8MW10S; the State
 secondary standard is  40 ftg/£.

 1,1-DCE was detected in three groundwater samples at concentrations greater than
 State and Federal drinking water standard  of 1 pg/S.  (Figure 2-5).  1,1-DCE was
 detected at concentrations  above the standard in samples collected from  wells
 CF8MW10S, CF8MW7S, and CF8MW4S, each of which is located in the wooded area east
 of the access  road and hydraulically downgradient  of Site 8.

 Concentrations  ranged  from  a high  of 95 fig/£ (CF8MW10S) to 14 ng/£  (CF7MW7S).
 1,1-DCE  concentrations  in  groundwater decrease  with distance  from  CF8MW10S
 southward in the downgradient direction. At the most  downgradient and perimeter
monitoring wells,  CF8MW1S and  CF8MW9S, 1,1-DCE concentrations  are  below the
 drinking water  standard.
C.c-SS.ROD
PMw.oa.ss                                2-8

-------
                           I  •

                             X
                                                               SITES
                                       (IK:.it  '  '    ""*"     ..••>
                                       	            *        V'.f
            i
     i F        f    \     i
     )     ,     <      >        riissis-
  )             i.i           ' i  •
;       x    <•    >      ,-.

                 1      »BSI»     cnssii,
                                   • (Ml...
                                  ' 'll II .-\
                                            cressi

                                               I-MU)
                 y    .)
                                                                                   Cf«55?J

                                                                                   '•'•'!
                                                                                                                                                             N
                                                                                    LEGEND


                                                                         .>lf1'''     '•-'	-:."«-•.	-  '
                                                                          (• C-'.M


                                                                          I«IMI
                             >
Vnii.c md,. „..• Hfn t..|,,,rlio'i,.»
                                                                                                                                      l»re fcne
                                                                                                                          l.nnij.lc ml,,, at. in lrr| |,,|,,. ,,,d Wllw

                                                                                                                          •l."l nil  Mtni|.bt »nt ..... tilrt n 0- I.
                                                                                                                          lanifil* fff'.ft; j; u.r r-nlr :ub\wtorr •.tin.f.tf with o


                                                                                                                          IM'll I0nienllo. IBu» i-. Iht or.li

                                                                                                                          •.»(.turlQr» to.) »mf>!< 1ho«n
                                                                                                                          1 ...... 1'l I'l l-OHftir-i-l ol ( n*irnr.n,f (.tdl |I,<|I><|K.

                                                                                                                                     ttfil (li-oriitf. (.r,ol
                                                                                                                                  urn

                                                                                                                               B  ^^r,ll„,
                                                                                                                                                 0 2
                                                                                              U.MI  I  mi>' - IJn ItM
                                                                                                                         FIGURE 1-4


                                                                                                                         TOTAL RECOVEfUBlE PETROttUM

                                                                                                                         HYDROCARBON ITHPH) AND tERYUVM

                                                                                                                         CONCENTRATIONS W SOU
                                                                                                                                     RECORD OF DECISION

                                                                                                                         .'.^•;.   SITE B, OPER»Bl£ UM1T 3
                                                                        ..,.^.,V    NAVAl AIR STATION CECH FKID

                                                                                   JACKSONVtLE, FIORIDA

-------
                                                                           Clf«.»
                                                                           («>.. -.
                                                                                   /
                                                          :   llnlined
                                                          >  lircltghling
                                                          '   Iroining  pits
(     ,'           ;,      ;,
                                                                                                                       crsunitQS •
                                                                                                                       (i i Jii)
       Unrioo I^jp'^enl  pi  IP»'nnri»-lf)' Prpfrftirvn


     A*>ltne                             Ui.OOC/20
}»      2-BullnMW                        4.200
4U2C    4-Uelhyi-:--pentonone              KO
OCA     1.1-DkM'Moe'honc                  700
DCF     I.l-Dirhli.rr>e'hi>np                  J
UA     l.l.l-lnchiororlhone                200
Antn    Anthroienr                         2.100
2UN     2-melhytnn:>tilhnlene                68 Iota!
Sufil.    Hophlli-j''-"-                        6.8 lotnt
0,;      bis (7  I lli»l>iei)l) phthololc          C
4ur     4  Velhylphenol                     K
f       Phenol                             '«
Aid      Aldjin                             «(•
DOD     4.4'-DichlorodiphenyIdichloroelhane   0 1
DOt     4.4'-DichlorodipnenyWichloroe.lhene   O.I
DD1     4,4-OichIorndipbenyllriehforoelhonf   0.1
[HDD    Endosultan  sullole                  °-3
CNDO  II tndosullan  It                      0.55
Uoi     Uelhoiychlor                       '0
                                                                                                                                             NOTE:
                                                                                                                                             *ll >oli«5 reported  hi miciogiams pel lilei.
 PD
 SO
 NG
 j
 G
 ND
                                                                                                                                                    Primary  drinking "oler slondord
                                                                                                                                                    Secondary drinking water standard
                                                                                                                                                    Ho regulatory value given
                                                                                                                                                    Estimated value
                                                                                                                                                    Guidance value
                                                                                                                                                    Not  delected
           LEGEND

 CF8U*22D r"'5'
P   _      »*•
           S   =  Sholte.
           I    =  tnlermecjie*
           D   =  Deep
•v   — Drainage ditfh
   i ,  '    1m Ime
 HO       Volut iwfcotes o concen-
           tration equal t- or oieoter
           than o State c-  (ederot
           driniina volet itaneord
  <*:       Averoge ol sample ond
           dupticdle
           Monitoring vefl screen  interval
           in feel bete*  land surtoce
                                                                                                                  j  (10-JOIt)

                                                                                                                  i  .
                                                                              1 onri tyjtr

                                                                                PP
                                                                                riyso
                                                                                m/sp
                                                                                ">n/sn
                                                                                c
                                                                                G
                                                                                G

                                                                                rii
                                                                                c
                                                                                G
                                                                                G

                                                                                r.
                                                                                c
                                                                                c
                                                                                 c
                                                                                G
                                                                                 G
                                                                                 G
                                                                                 PD
                                                                                                                                                           FIGURE 2-S
                                                                                                                                                           ORGAMCS DETECTED H CONFIRMATORY
                                                                                                                                                           6ROUNOWATER SAMPLES
                                                                                                                                                                           RECORD & DECSlOel
                                                                                                                                                                           SITE S, OKRWIE U*T 3
                              KAVAL AD) STATION CECt FB.D
                              JACKSONVUE, aORDA

-------
 The phthalate ester bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was  detected  in concentrations
 greater than the State  regulatory value . These groundwater samples were collected
 from two deep wells, CF8MW20D and CF8MW11D (Figure 2-5) .  CF8MW20S is located near
 the western  training  pits;  CF8MW11S  is  located  east  of  the  access  road.
 Concentrations  detected in these  samples were 12  pg/X. (CF8MW20D)  and 10 J
 (CF8MW11D) .   The State primary  drinking water standard is  6
 The  inorganics aluminum and  iron were detected at concentrations  above  State
 regulatory values in most of the groundwater  samples collected at" Site 8 (Figure
 2-6) .  Concentrations were  greater than Secondary drinking water standards of 200
 Mg/-E  for aluminum and  300 pg/Ji for  iron but were below  the  NAS  Cecil  Field
 background values. Aluminum concentrations ranged from 362 fig/£  to 15,300 J
 Iron  concentrations ranged from 222 J to  3,270
 Sediment Analytical Results.  VOCs ,  SVOCs , TRPH, pesticides, and Aroclor- 1260 were
 detected  in  Site  8  sediment  samples  (Figure  2-7).   Of these, only Aroclor-1260
 was detected in concentrations above its State of Florida threshold effects level
 (TEL) guidance value of 0.022 mg/kg.  The TEL is that concentration of a compound
 that might have an effect upon an organism in the media of concern.  Aroclor-1260
 concentrations, however, are less than its probable effect  level (PEL)  guidance
 value of 0.19 mg/kg.  The PEL is  that concentration of a compound  that probably
 has an effect upon an organism in  the media of concern.  Aroclor-1260 was detected
 in both ditches at sampling locations downgradient  of the training pit locations .
 Aroclor-1260 was  detected in samples CF8SD3 (0.038 J mg/kg)  and CF8SD4 (0.026 J
 mg/kg), located in the western ditch, and in CF8SD8 (0.037 J mg/kg),  located in
 the eastern ditch.

 Surface Water Analytical Results .  The inorganic cyanide was detected in surface
 water samples at concentrations greater than the State  guidance value of 5.2 ng/£
 (Figure 2-8).   Cyanide was  detected in two samples collected from the  eastern
 ditch, CF8SW6 at  13.8  J ng/£ and CF8SW7 at 57.3 J
2^§ _ SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS .  The BRA (ABB-ES, 199 7b) provides the basis for taking
action and indicates the exposure pathways to be addressed by the remedial action.
As a baseline,  it  indicates what risks could exist if no action were taken at the
site.  Both human health and ecological risks were identified at  Site  8.

Human health risks are estimated for both cancer and noncancer risks in accordance
with the NCP.  The NCP establishes "acceptable" as the excess lifetime cancer risk
(ELCR) ,  due to exposure to the  human health chemicals  of potential concern at a
site by each complete exposure pathway, of 1 in 1,000,000 (IxlO"6) to 1 in 10,000
(IxlO"4)  (USEPA, 1990) or a noncancer hazard index (HI) of equal  to or less than
1.  The  State of Florida establishes an acceptable lifetime cancer risk as equal
to or less than IxlO"6  and an HI  equal to or less than 1.

Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) .  The purpose of the HHRA was  to characterize
risk associated with possible  exposure to  site-related contaminants for  human
receptors. Potential health risks were evaluated under  current and assumed future
land-use  conditions for a  subset of  contaminants  detected in surface  soil,
subsurface soil, groundwater (surficial aquifer), and surface water.

Surface Soil.  Risks from surface soil contaminants were not identified for any
current-use scenario.  In a future use scenario, beryllium in Site 8 surface soil
Coc-SB.ROD
PMW.06.99                               2-1 1

-------
CIHOIIK. i 	 j 	 — 	
(S-\Sll) I ('*«"* . '
. . ' • I'O-MII) X Vif X
1.1 !•• . ! • • " v. j ' x / X . ernunrjir, 1
1. tlTt J 1 " •"„'*"' ' X ' x (J-lill) *
. ..<"'-"- rtj"™!' :•"' "'•••' X . ' / , .' ..v 1C N
r ^;. I '-r , ' : x > \ X/SITE 8 • . ' ''".'• i;: .'/| :'
"•""""?< ' * ^ y,/ J* Unlitied f / ^ / . • ' ''" i
crmwir * -~* i X *\S ' firefi9hlin9 ' * •$?' '•'!' '' '
(J-Utt) * "" '.*'*'.* ' ) X Irnininct pits ,•> ^ . '" ' " .*
''" "*' 4 . ' X ••*/  / ^ X ' '' CfWJS'*' N. y / . ' / j "' **'' '" ''''"'
*• (|{|I> i X / ' I i. . , f -~ v' //' / I > iwT , " ,«.
No'iju. ^ / ( ' -•"•- * j^ cfaiwTii // ' (^ .,,„ crsuwios- ^ ""
" \ ' . n. .'" '." . ;T . • - / / f [.'•> 'it (3-I3HJ j ''
) x '•• . »» ' i 	 ."" /"/ • >'•_ UK "•• •'•••'
)' ' , ) >.~ \~\-n •' f. '.'•"• CfBMWIlO ir" M"
) / / - No !,.«(. / ")" y" ',- (7J-82H) (,7' i,i.
)y /")" ««<*!«> v ;.'i / /, ./' . - 	 — ' (K-~: j?. ,;• wi
) X I V \ F lf /Hazardous waste // > 17 — 'i ' -ui.lil?"
\ / ( \\ tta /;':' /\sforoge area // M^ (,/jw Nl- 	 '

J .,( \ x \ Te MJ V ^^ / '^ ^^CFBWW/S R "' ~,7^V" I* (. )
\ £ / N. \. U,j 4.'Hiit" x X. >/ /f'' ^ CF8MWJI d^ *"'* ' 	 J^ hn ""vvn" Ha H.11.0
)/\ ™««« Y>v\\"" //'' /(/ .'?• ^ir - '^ M
J- « »' ' .'•• s\ /'/ i "IP iiii ' K ru- -- "r| -.'K '
) / ( ;;«;*„• 1. \ - , -' .'/ «, "i.:-w N,, .urn !. '". r^'"
•-/ f' K- •) V-^ . //- .' ( t""' ) •' ' / ""' ''•"'" (J-'3") 1' - """
)i / , *J£' ;) .// .(-( ' v.-.-'-;' ... . . - j^ ..« [- 	 -';'"
') i , .'••», i ,//p 1 i;k \ N cfiwmi , crsuwss !"• '.-' i
, >» (, -"'1 •'"•'- ./• / -' , creuwjo T» ••..««.- \ v j'^:50"1 (10-2011) !'• "• i
N{ "••' •'•"": ^ . / • *• »• »., »-. \ . i1" :'.v\ j .' •.,"«-,: !" •" .
) ^ ^ '- * •' ' ' ' '' **" * "'' ' ^ -'- "••'"1 / r^~ii;' ;• '• - I
) ' '\ ^ ; ' ' / \ .".i-.1?™"'. «•• '"* j • ' "'' " '/" ' i"7.j „. j ;"' _"•"•" ;i
\ ( ' \ | / •' ( '." _'-lV.l A [•' '•'." ' ; .... i .' ' ° mini. l?0
" ) \ - / ' < '.": ' ' :''- ~" f "•• ^ '"" ^ ,/, 7 ;; ' bflirt^T^?^

LEGEM)
• A*f»ogc nt snmfvle nn,| oj|-i,Vnlf
1
1 — — — (ttomn^r d.icr
. . Irer linp
rt' Primot) iiiiA'.rg .olti ilanrlnrd
1 51' SfCpnilni» flrinldng wolrr slonriorrt
f* Cuidonrt* vniup
1 J Eslimainj Kniui-
N'" No regulator* volup given
.Rl Bold indicate: a concrnfrat>on
equal to o' greater than o Stole or
Federal drinking «oltr .alue.
let-' beloib land surface
NOTE:
•II »olu« renmlpd in microgram: per lilrr
ItoMda Oeporlmrnl tit in.ironmenlo! Prnlrclion
Anolylieol
Pnrameler "egulotorir volue ond l(pe
At Aluminum ?oo jp
Bo Barium 2.000 n
Co Calcium . HC
Cr Chromium too po
Cu Copper i.ooo SO
CN Cyanide 200 pp
fe iron joo Sr,
Mg Uogrvesium NO
Wn Uang/onese 50 so
"' "ickle 100 ft)
K Potassium MC
S« Selenium 50 pj)
No Sodium 160.000 pp
' Vonodium 49 5
Zn J.nc 5.000 5r;
FIGURE 2-6
INORGANICS DETECTED H CONFRKIATOBY
GROUNDWATER SAMPLES
;,..,.. RECORD OF DECISION
.,-':jt5':i SITE 8, OPERABLE UNIT 3
.'\7_-,-.,r.p NAVAL AIR STATION CECl ITELD
JACKSONVtLE, FLOBDA


-------
9 and 17 rtahlliMi , i ! ' — - "
>< ' ••' .... ' ' i
': ' V '' ;.„ *. j.!D. . «'
/-• cr8SW/SDI x ,-^so . ,,;;-, : I11: ;_; ^ x
!;,-• ;,- }.„•;, • . -, • .-
- -•' I ".:'•• >''"•'" . . x ^*
/ / *... &FT: *;x / / '• I
/ \/ • . ' x / x N
( / 1 crssw/scs ,; \ s / ' -k
*\ jjwffi 	 r° ' ; ' X xiclBSW/SDS '1
/ SCllt- 1 INCH - 1000 Fttl ! ** yX \ . X ' : 1W . y' CITC D •' •*3^/' • i'- ' !' ' • j
/ ,;XX /X\Unlin«l ' '/ /' ,f '
/ J \/ ) fi'efi9htin9 ' -• •" <• X (
/ ) ^CTSSW/SDS^Wl SD " ^^ / hointng pits / f- ^/ (
/ rsi-sir ;K^X ?«'ri«;jT X/ # /'\"'/ x/-(f
'._.. | ._ ™!1-. ) /',-(\ < \ / ) / ' ' (
7R IHI IIU02W 1-^ rX f ,) \ \ X ' •' t '
«.J'!". '«....»«•_ j' x -f ^ \ /--' / <
UDI Nt o(ioo4,i ; ft'*" >/ / •
r N) ()"ii.f j X -f / •" (
AW Nl OIHHlil v^~ V 1 V /' ' * -t
,,„ ,. ,; ) ^(., ; // , ,
. .. » -S. ) ' f' r- '/ ' ,(
A i7i.il MM um )/_(/• : '''/•*
IhiK M' n.(i.Tlj| ] ( , )~ / ' •
Mil ',:• .K- . J 1 i ' J '•/:'
V ( ) • /
\ i r \/r\ Hazardous wosle , // / r
cr8SW/SD«\. / /<. \ storage areo/s' // /•'
\ '( J '\ \ < \, //crBsw/sof ;'1
-, / ( ) "X\ N. / •/'' " .. _i».]».
^ / } '"!\\ X^ f7' liffe
; i ^ N \ \ // s[ Lli • '---• '
• ' ({ V\ \ •/'/ i^
'> , ) x>- ' .1
1 1 (. ) '' ' ( I.CrBSW/S07j SW" SF' . P. iiiji^^'"'
' I / •, •' V ' ' ' '" •-— ' SCALE. 1 INCH i 120 lirl
•• ' ( ) ' '. L'r-, '« . -•'
_ ^ 1 1 — ' 	 •—'-•- • ^
LEGEND
'. .Cf trw/fii)i Surloce *olt'/5ediritnf iom(iic lorolioi
~ — — lirotnoge ditch
. . ''tc line
J [slimoted »olje
K^ Hot delected
7>w Siwloce wotef
CI Sediment
'U Ih.e-.holtl rltrcl leiel
Ml Probublp ellecl le>el
' Ateioge ol sample and duplkale
0^38 Rold indicoies 0 concenlrolinn equal to or
gieole- Iron filip Sedimenl Ckonup Cool;
All sediment value; reported in milligrams per
kilogram. Surface woler samples reported in
microgroms per liter.
Sompte interval, in f«t belt.* land syrface. from
«hich aft samples were collected is 0- 1 leet.
riorida Department of environmental Proten.op. ''D[F')
Sediment Cleanup Coat .p p..
A-I26D Arocte' '260 0.022 0.19
B Benzene KG KG
BbF Benio(b)lluoroT>ll»ne . NG KG
ti", bis (2ittiTlht.il) phthalalr 0-18 2 f
2B 2-tHJtanone NG NG
DnB Di-n-bulrlphllwKile «G NG
Flo riuoronlhene NG NG
Uo< UethilifcHlor NG NG
° Phenot HG NG
•Aid Aldrin 0.00072 0.00<3
*D>eldrin used m o surrogate
F)GUflE2-7
ORCAMCS DETECTED M CONFIRMATORY
SURFACE WATER AND SEDNENT SAMPIES
;••.>. RECORD OF DECISION
j-jffi. ^^ *• W1"*816 ""T 3
•-..-„•. .;'-' NAVAL AR STATION CECL FELD
MCKSONVUE, FLORIDA

-------

)j 4 SW I ^ ; j, S* •' 5D - aasw/so?
; \, b ' -• ' ' ; 1* - ' "4 ' ,
cresw/s&i (« „ "*'- j :•*'., -v- ['
x* o " „.!'*• i i

i " r" " "' • !lta i 4 *
" • * (r }•» ' ",_?'« 1 " « . -i
".*'"' '.' ' ' i'1" i /
y *» K«i- ,"= . ,,
/. / , : :• c ! -. • /
! - / i ' • ;> '
f /U«SW/SDB < t) - - ••'*• - '; ;„. ..,. i .';•
if / EmJfc-T ?:•-•- ••,"..; ":. '' , : - />
" / .- scAU: i INCH = looo rcci |l ••• —"' . X /
/.. -A-^T™").. i ; x/X/SITE 8
/DtM-A-tocnsw/im^cmv/m" ,' / S\ „.„.., '

f1
A
Hn
C«
(. "~
lf
n
,"! •
r
V
Nn
u
V

[V
_J!Ll
?I6.I
U4J

	 ?(i?~"
_ _ 	
/ 4J
.';"?!_
:• 4.1
WIIW "
:• at
IKl"

7H.I
1 S S* \ ununeo j . s
)- \/ } lirslighling \ •' * &
I'- ' *-CF8SW/SD3 ^ training pits \ . jf 3
•SB ; \ ^ 1 // -^- '"''''
-"-'•- ^.V , V X\ / s\ '' ' ''


»,l >' ( ,) - .-'-'v: 'ii. X/^ // . ,(
-,-, • . .1 • r } 5 	 , »•«• ^/ // x .,--'
A""!' ' / j;"" !;• -• -;"- JI-" //'' ' (-— -
." '•' , f ) »i »«: " im /' ' ( '
,-' ( • )- '- 	 - - ,.,• // ' (
1 1 Ml 1 ( 1 ' — • "... / .- ,-»
r ' ' * 1 1 /' / t (
) * i '•' " i~;ii "' '"' i'


Vir " ^ i^ }•' % . ' Hazardous wasle , . '".- " / (
crssw/SD«l\ ( A \ sr°r°9e or«a/V/ '' / (
\ '' , (V \ \ \ / \. / crasw/soc^ t l
- 3 / '-- \\\ N./ -^ *'
ita
in
(>
u
Ir

U
.
V
! ) ) v ^X ^"^ ' ^' ^' C— '
SW
fj
n .'.MH

i;
, (
y., .„.«
N
1
so
{II Vl.1

'•
1 1
1 '(. )

[I IX


»\- . - « .-^
\ i- . '-. \^ ' .' / i *
LEffiMD • " •' \ ' ,. .-' /=. . - SW _ SB
erK*/so« Surface "ralfr/sedimenl sample '•-. " ' > ,• *' •V|/;-
J\ location with designation - - /MM ~ • t '> 7 R
— . . _ Oroino5(e difeh ' v / .• " . 	
• \ \ Tree Kne ' \ \ - / ': t """'
J estimated value \ ' . ' \ ' ' ! •».'•
SD Stdiment ' ' • ' '. -MS" "~,"i -
SW Surloce wolsf ', - ' ; / f^. - - 'ft\







• Averogv of umpte and duplicate . ' / : ' ; ' - ' ' f
UJU Va(o* mdicoies concentrations equal to or ' • . ' t CF8SW/3D7 ! --- ,' _'./
greater than surtoce *ater quofiti standords. * M * n(> i
It! Threshold «Hte evel
PEl Probable ett«! tevel ' { N { - r " j - -
FD Federal »okif " [ ^ 1'" 1. -'':' ''•'
ST Stole ol Florida value I / v 1 ' i * •
NC No criteria ovoJablf • ' ', x *,, " " ! Jj^- 1










^X
r
, '
^




'" SW
4 .•
1 1 .(.•".





-.I-'4.'.-

n*i












• r;: . - —
; ' : ;' :-
• . " ' . 1
1'- ' ' I
s ' ' I . :
X ;.- i ' -' ' :
X ," • • !
> i: • ••. •• '
.'crssw/art :.' ' .,
xx '• i* i -
/ ' NOUS: * 1
*H stdimcnl values lepoilcd in rrnlligiams
, • Per kilog»om Suftocf woiff sample', reporied
*htch all somples »ere colifcled is 0-t Irel
Regulatory Surface Wolfr OfltJ Sedlmenl Criteria
Poramelei Rcqufalni* »olu* d t
«l AlunAium w'1"" *°'" 5*"""""

Co Coleium NC ur J?
Cr Chromium M 51 Ml inn
SD
'iM


~i ••*
• 1^


fi' H
I.I.1.:"
OK'

Co Coball NC NC NC
M cX* " S1 '8i7 IM
F* Iron 1.000 $1 NC NC
Pb l«d 0.54 SI 30.? M?
Hg Uogn^sium NC NC NC
Hn Uangonese NC NC NC
Hi Niefcle 49.0 SI 159 i: SITE •• 0«BABLE UWT 3
|-;i k^u 1^'
' i-V '^9F'J-*i '
:''';'..-i-/' M»MI- *K STATION CEd. FiLO
JACKSOMnUE, FIODDA |

-------
accounts for  the  ELCR due to exposure  to  the surface soil  contaminant  by an
aggregate resident (adult  and child) of 6xlO~6  (Figure 2-9).  This risk is within
the USEPA  acceptable  risk range, but  greater than the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection threshold of IxlO"6.   The noncancer risk to a child has
an HI of 1 (Figure 2-10).   However, NAS  Cecil  Field background screening values
were developed after  the  completion  of the BRA.  and beryllium  would  have been
screened out of the BRA.  Therefore, no risk is posed for residents from exposure
to beryllium in surface soil.  .

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 risk exist at Site  8.   Under  a future land-use scenario, an ELCR
would be posed if the groundwater were used as a potable water supply.  Ingestion
of surficial aquifer groundwater would pose an ELCR for an aggregate resident of
6xlO"5 (Figure 2-9) .  Almost all the risk is due to the presence of 1,1-DCE.  Minor
contributors include 4,4'-ODD,  4,4'-DDT,  benzene, and fais(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate .

Surface Water. A human health risk was  assessed to exist for  current  and  future
adult and adolescent trespassers due to the presence of 4,4'-DDT in surface  water.
The ELCR was assessed  to be 2xlO"6 (Figure 2-9) .  The ELCR was assessed  based  upon
a scenario in which a  person could use the surface water for recreation purposes
(wade  in or  fish from the  ditch) .    Conditions of  the  ditch are  such  that
recreational activities are not  amenable or practicable.   Surface  water, under
normal conditions, is only a few inches  deep (generally less than 12 inches) and
a few feet wide (generally less than 3 feet).   The natural  quality  of the ditch
is such  it  does not sustain sport fish  (such  as  large-mouth bass or  catfish).

Ecological Risk Assessment. Potential risks may exist for terrestrial plants and
aquatic organisms. Risk data indicate that terrestrial plants and aquatic animals
in the southeastern  part  of the site may be at risk due  to aluminum  concentra-
tions  in  the  surface  water  and  potentially  discharging groundwater.   The
ecological  risk assessment indicates  that no risk, however, exists for plants  or
animals  downstream of Site 8.   Site  8 risks  are very conservative  and may  over
estimate actual  risk.  More  importantly,  the  drainage  ditch provides  a  poor
habitat  for both  plants and animals.

The ecological risk assessment also identified Aroclor-1260 and TRPH in sediment
as posing potential risk to macroinvertebrates.  Aroclor-1260 concentrations  in
sediment were an order of magnitude below the State PEL value and slightly greater
than  the TEL.  There  is no PEL value for TRPH, and the comparative  benchmark in
very conservative. Habitat quality the ditch for macro invertebrates  is very poor.
It  is  probable that  risk  due  to contaminants  in sediment is  overestimated.


2.7   DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES.   This  section provides a narrative  of  each
alternative evaluated.  Alternatives were developed for groundwater  and sediment.
The  FS  for OU  3  (ABB-ES, 1997a)  gives further  information on  the  remedial
alternatives.

 2.7.1  Groundwater Alternatives Two alternatives were analyzed for Site 8.  They
 include 8GW1, No Action,  and 8GW2,  Natural Attenuation.
 Cec-S8.ROD
 PMW.06.99                                2-15

-------
..  3
co o
CO O
01
                       1.0E-03-q
                       1.0E-04 —
                       1.0E-OS
               Excess Lifetime
                Cancer Risk
                       1.0E-06
                       1.0E-07
                        1.0E-08
          NQIt
          NCP = National Contingency Plan
                                                                                             NCR
                                                                                          _accepl«bte
                                                                                            risk range
FIGURE 2-9
EXCESS LIFETIME CANCER RISK SUMMARY,
FUTURE LAND USE
RECORD OF DECISION
SITES, OPERABLE UNIT3
                                                                                                                    NAVAL AIR STATION CECIL FIELD
                                                                                                                    JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA
        2S2M7 FIG 29 FINAL U3097MAW

-------
> u>
O CD
P> a
to o
10 o
r
                  100
         Hazard Index
             (HI)
                0.001
                         SurfMtMt  SuitenM*   Surfw»Ml  SuftntMl  SwtevwN   Suf»e»«o»  SwfK*«nd  Otoundnntor Groundmtor    Suctac*     Suite*
                                                                                                                                 Threshold HI
                  0.1
                 0.01
           NOTE:
           < = less than
FIGURE 2-10
HAZARD INDEX SUMMARY,
FUTURE LAND USE
RECORD OF DECISION
SITE 8, OPERABLE UNIT 3
                                                                                                                NAVAL AIR STATION CECIL FIELD
                                                                                                                JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA
        252M7 FIG 2 10 FIMA1122297MAW

-------
8GU1. 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 over time.  ChemicalTspecific ARARs will not be met in
the short term.  Human health  risks 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.   Agencies administering the
well  installation* permit  program in  Duval County  would  be  advised of  the
groundwater use restriction preventing the  issue of permits  for installation of
drinking water wells that would pump contaminated 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 required.
alternative 8SS1 is easily implemented.  There are no capital costs associated
with 8SS1.

8GW2. Natural Attenuation.  Data collected from Site 8 groundwater indicate that
natural attenuation  is already  occurring  at  the  site.   The distribution and
concentrations of the  contaminants of concern and natural attenuation parameters
have been monitored  in 1995,  1996,  and 1997.  Data  indicate that chlorinated
solvent concentrations are declining  in  the  area of  highest  concentration.
Natural  attenuation  parameters,   such  as  changes  in sulfate  and  sulfide
concentrations; the increase of chloride concentrations;  the presence of methane,
ethane, and carbon dioxide; and  the appropriate redox potential values indicate
that methaneogenesis (a natural  attenuation process)  is occurring at the  source
area and sulfate  reduction (another  natural attenuation process)  is occurring
along the fringe of the chlorinated plume.   The natural attenuation alternative
will monitor  contaminant  concentrations and degradation  processes  as  well as
restrict groundwater use.  Highlights of this alternative are listed below.

     •   Restrict  use  of the  surficial  aquifer  groundwater  at  Site  8  by
         implementation of institutional controls to protect human health and the
         environment by limiting exposure to groundwater to prevent unacceptable
         risk.

     •   Monitor groundwater (Figure 2-11) for the-presence of VOCs, particularly
         1,1-DCE, and  SVOCs.  Wells to be  monitored will be  selected during the
         preparation of the remedial design.

         Monitor groundwater for parameters that indicate the presence of natural-
         ly occurring biological,  physical, and chemical processes which  reduce
         VOC and SVOC  concentrations.

         Monitor the groundwater  for a  period for 30 years  (or less if VOC and
         SVOC  concentrations meet State of Florida drinking  water standards).

     •   Model contaminant plume  movement  and contaminant degradation rates.

         Review the status of the  groundwater quality every 5 years  for  30 years
         (or  less  if  VOC  and SVOC  concentrations are  below State of Florida
         drinking water standards).
Cee-SB.ROD
PMW 08.99                                2-18

-------
N
,./"
hf
y XX '" *l
1 ' f,-^ '
Ir -I -'

\ v j* r
j f^ ^
/AVr/
/% r1 ••'-'••
// V-% ^
'/ V*SN
1 " K_ N°»\
f L NW HoldrdoiB
1 T-, ^.TfesStorMI or
\. \3 \
."./ 1
•_v_ . -.. - .* .. -v.«-^. ^. .- 	 	 ^



...„.......,-•. :-.....-v-:. •.«.•••• rv.~ 	 •••• A.t.r.[ ....
/ SITES / / / .
^ •''.' ^X •'-/ / | \ ,•' 1.1-DCt plume
-;/y-/ * Vx
i . ,
^ \^ \

'-.v VN \ \
^•->,V \ -Ltodiig edge oi plums
^*f CFWUWWl /'
CF0UWB '^^ \x
cfsmrso ''

I



's
'.,
- \

CHIWnOS IEGE«»
^ MonJTonng wtll location
ST end dtsignotion
S Shadow
I Intcrmedictt?
0 Deep
— — — Drainage ditch
-. • • • T™, line
O=> Direction of groundwoler
flo>
OCE 1.1- Dkhloroulhene







0 100^^200
SC*U: 1 INCH = 200 FEET
FI8URE 2-11
ALTERNATIVE 8CW2, PROPOSED
NATURAL ATTENUATION GROUNDWATER
MOWTORM6 LOCATIONS

flFrnon nc ncrtamu
v-.c=^;., nCUUnll Vr tlCWoiun
/Sf^SiSiv.. SITE 8, OPERABU UWT 3
;;„•/ **'* 1 SV_",
t<|! ,kflH. )| •'
•^7^^ NAVAL AR STATION CECL FELO
'^^S3-^' JACKSOWniLE, FIORDA

-------
 Human health risk will be immediately reduced by groundwater-use restrictions  (as
 described in the No Action alternative 8GW1) and eventually by the degradation
 processes.  Chemical-specific ARARs will not be met  in the short term.  Over time
 the toxicity, mobility, and volume of the contaminants could be reduced.  Site
 conditions will be reviewed to assess the progress of this remedial action.  This
 alternative is  relatively easy  to  implement,  requiring sampling equipment and
 materials, an analytical laboratory, and containment of purge water and waste
 materials.  Capital costs associated with this alternative are $465,000 over a
 30-year period.

 2;7-2—Sediment Alternatives  Two alternatives were developed and analyzed for
 Site 8 sediment  contamination.  They include 8SD1, No  Action, and 8SD2, Dredging
 of Sediment and Off-Site Disposal.

 8SD1,  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 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  required,  alternative   8SD1  is  easily
 implemented.   There are no  capital  costs  associated with 8SD1.

 8SD2,  Dredging of Sediment and Off-Site Disposal.  This alternative will involve
 dredging approximately 280 to 560 cubic  yards  of sediment from  the  ditch  and
 disposing of the dredged sediment in a landfill (Figure 2-12).  Highlights of this
 alternative  are  listed  below.

         Define dredging boundaries based on additional sediment samples collected
         from  the focus areas  within  the  ditch.

         Prepare the site for dredging, including establishing an exclusion zone
         and decontamination  area.

         Dredge  the sediment to a depth of approximately 2 feet below the  bottom
         of the  ditch.

         Contain dredged sediment in  Department of  Transportation-approved 55-
         gallon  drums.

         Characterize and dispose of  sediment in a  proper  landfill.

         Place and  grade clean soil in the dredged  areas.

         Seed, fertilize, and cover with hay or straw in the disturbed areas along
         the ditches.

Chemical- and  action-specific  ARARs  would be met and ecological  risk will be
immediately  reduced.    Dredging  and  sediment  removal will  provide long-term
effectiveness, as well as reducing the toxicity and volume of contaminants. This
alternative is relatively easy to implement, requiring a backhoe and transport
equipment.   It  is estimated that it would  take approximately 3 days to carry out
Coc-S8ROD
PMW.06.99                                2-20

-------
•ittii'h pw

















































































































, ' '
tt
(












.. .










sw

t











5H

..;.,




!












j

crasw/so}




,'
j

















'

i' *
,iX .











































A l ,,,
l-.ll
HIM























sw
,..
Ill-
III-






















CCBSW/itM ,
sn i ; *
• Mftl ' '
1 r 1
- ! . / f'
'' '•'
1
i
'(
'1
» *•
1 \

> " .

A 1.-M
IM-t'


0*


.
t
1 r(^
- jiff
'l4r ;
'j'i '
', (
/
t






s*
N'-


(Jflf 0
^
j
Xjj
(ll" ,





f°


'




111
9.9SU j ' J|
"I t ' if|l'
\ ^ l!0
• • • 'j1!^ ^
f° * J(|rf*Cf8SW/S03
' '' tV^'
n" ' '
' ' , ' fifeltghling
, ' traming pits



Harardnut wniif
slofoqp o'feo /v
7 < ^s
tfc >v /



(i
<* ' A



















/


tlifl
















^Intion
















/


\^ ' ^
/•^
A
$

i
i(\











f
/


}



\
\
/





/
/ ,'•
* crs
/




/.^ \



^ '

. '


1
	 	 	 • . • 1
^



•*.;
^^

ft

8
1







/
f (
1

3w/S




•.„!.
'-




)



.
!




6







, ^

'
/
\









'i-
H!




,* /
/ f
'



1
; :
•-I, !
•)• i
1



t
so


//
*\
/ i
('





SW
•!'•
*.'.
'-

•1 •




-,v.
Cf85W/SD8
.r>i(, flffr! if.n '
H: Ptnhoblf Hlcci *«t ;
f«S Ho »(jluf qi»tn 1
1 A*e'0(i« el sample ond duplicate [
O.OM Bold indicates o concentration equal la nr 1
(FPC'e' Uian f|)f Sediment tlromip f.not-. |
NOTE:
All nerjimpnl vatup-. f*poilr-rj in rnilttqtoms pft
btlnqrnm. *»urlocp "olft anmpl^'. reported in
mictogtnrris pe' liter.
llnndo Department nt [nvrrnnmentnl ^rolrrlinn (Illtf]
5»d.^(-nl Clfonup r,onl m m
A icftfiPA NO. M^
A-I2SO Arrxlr.- 1?60 0.02? "11
B Ben«nt NC 1C
Bbf 8eruo':>)ltucrrjn!hfrf (j(j W
bis tis (I Illlheifl) phlhrjlote Old ? 6
2B 2-tntTione HG Nr-
OnB Oi-n-bul(lplillinlnlf «f. NT.
llo fluoronlliint HC Nli
Hoi trerho.YCliloi HC "r-
P Phenol N', "T-
•AM »idr,r cnmti? n-llo..^;' NAVAL AIR STATION CECl FIELD
JACKSONVLLE, FLORIDA

-------
this  alternative.   Capital costs  associated with this  alternative  vary from
$100,300 to $473,700, depending upon characterization and disposal of the dredged
sediment.

2.7.3  Soil  Alternatives   The  confirmatory  sampling program  identified the
presence of  TRPHs  at concentrations  greater  than State of Florida soil target
cleanup  levels  and the  FDEP  risk threshold  of  1E10-6,  but within  the  USEPA
acceptable  risk  range.    All  future  remedial  actions  pertaining   to  soils
contaminated  with  TRPH  will  be  addressed under   Chapter  62-770,  Florida
Administrative Code.

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.   These criteria  are  categorized as threshold,
primary  balancing,  or  modifying.    Table  2-1   gives  an explanation 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 groundwater and
sediment remedial alternatives.
2.9  SELECTED REMEDIES.   Two remedies  were  selected to address the contaminants
in the groundwater and sediment at Site 8.   For groundwater, Alternative 8GW2,
Natural Attenuation, was selected.  For sediment, Alternative 8SD1, No Action,
was selected.

2.9.1  Site 8 Groundwater Ninety-seven percent of the risk from groundwater is
derived from presence of 1,1-DCE.  The remaining 3 percent  is derived from the
combination of 4,4'-DDD,4,4'-DDT, benzene,  and fais(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate,  all
of which had a combined risk of IxlO"5,  which was within the USEPA acceptable risk
range  and  equal to the  FDEP  risk threshold. The  chosen alternative,  Natural
Attenuation, will provide a method of observing the fate and any migration of 1,1-
DCE and other  contaminants  over time.  Processes  which  indicate  that natural
attenuation is occurring will  also be monitored.   Contaminant plume movement and
behavior will  be modeled and monitored.   Groundwater use  from  the surficial
aquifer at Site 8 will be restricted thereby, providing immediate protection to
human health. This  alternative  provides monitoring over  30 years,  with 5-year
reviews.  During each review site conditions will be reassessed and monitoring
continued or other appropriate actions taken.

The groundwater  remedy  for  Site  8 includes the  use of institutional controls.
The goals  of institutional controls at Site  8  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 land use controls or 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 5-year  reviews as required by CERCLA.

Coc-SB.ROD
PMW.OB.99                                2-22

-------
2.9.2  Site 8 Sediment  The selected alternative, No Action, was selected because
contaminant  concentrations  are below  the State  of Florida  PEL  criteria and
remedial action is not required.

2.10 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS.  The remedial alternatives selected for Site 8 are
consistent with CERCLA and the  NCP.   The selected  remedy provides protection of
human health and the environment, attains applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirement (ARARs), and  is cost-effective.  Table  2-3 lists and describe Federal
and State ARARs to which the selected remedy must comply.  The selected  remedy
utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum
extent practicable, and  satisfies the  statutory  preference  for  remedies that
reduce 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.
2.11 DOCUMENTATION OF  SIGNIFICANT CHANGES. The  proposed plan for  Site 8 was
released for  public  comment in  November 1997.   The  proposed plan identified
Alternatives  8GW2, natural  attenuation,  and 8SD1,  no action, as the preferred
alternative for groundwater and sediment  remediation.  Public comments on the
proposed plan are  presented  in Attachment  A,  Responsiveness  Summary.   No
significant changes to  the remedy, as originally identified in the proposed plan,
were necessary.
Cac-SS.ROD
PMW.06.99                                2-23

-------
                                                    Table 2-1
                                      Explanation of Evaluation Criteria

                                                 Record of Decision
                                               Site 8. Operable Unit 3
                                             Naval Air Station  Cecil Field
                                                 Jacksonville,  Florida
  Criteria
                  Description
  Three hold
                  Overall Protection of Human Health and 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 .State and Federal Regulations.  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-Term Effectiveness.  The alternatives are evaluated based on their ability to maintain reliable
       protection of human health and the environment after implementation.

Reduction of Contaminant Toxicrty.  Mobirty. and Volume.  Each alternative is evaluated based on how
       it reduces the harmful nature of the contaminants, their ability to move through the environment.
       and the amount of contamination.

Short-Term Effectivenee*.  The risks that implementation of a particular remedy may pose to workers
       and 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.

ImplementabiKy.  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.

Coit. The benefits of  implementing  a particular alternative are weighed against the cost of
       implementation.
 Modifying
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and Florida Department of Environmental Protection
       (FDEP) Acceptance. The final Feasibility Study and the Proposed Plan, which are placed in the
       Information Repository, represent a consensus by 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.
Cee-SBROD
PMW.06,99
                                                       2-24

-------
   3>
 go
 
-------
3 O
1?
gS
b§
«rt 2E

Table 2-3
Synopsis of Federal and State Regulatory
Requirements for Site 8

Record of Decision
Site B, Operable Unit 3
Naval Air Station Cecil Field
Jacksonville, Florida
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)
RCRA, Regulations for Transporters of
Hazardous Waste
(40 CFR Part 263)
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act
Regulations
(49 CFR Parts 171-179)
RCRA Regulations, Land Disposal
Restrictions
(40 CFR Part 268)
Rorida Hazardous Waste Rules
(Rorida Administrative Code [FAC],
62-730)
Rorida Petroleum Contaminated Site
Cleanup Criteria
(FAC, 62-770)
Rorida Soil Thermal Treatment
Facilities Regulations
(FAC, 62-775)
Description
Defines the listed and characteristic hazardous wastes
subject to RCRA. Appendix II contains the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) used for
testing contaminated sediments.
Establishes the responsibilities of transporters for han-
dling, transporting, and managing hazardous wastes.
To avoid duplicative regulation with Department of
Transportation (DOT), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) has expressly adopted certain DOT
regulations governing the transportation of hazardous
materials (see entry directly below).
Establishes the procedures for packaging, labeling,
and transporting of hazardous materials.
Identifies those wastes that are restricted from land
disposal and defines those limited circumstances in
which a prohibited waste may continue to be dis-
posed of on land.
Adopts by reference sections of the Federal hazard-
ous waste regulations and establishes minor additions
to these regulations concerning the generation, stor-
age, treatment, transportation, and disposal of haz-
ardous wastes.
Establishes a cleanup process to be followed at all
petroleum-contaminated sites.
Establishes criteria for the thermal treatment of petro-
leum or petroleum product-contaminated sediments.
The rule outlines procedures for excavating, receiving,
handling, and stockpiling contaminated sediments
prior to thermal treatment in both stationary and mo-
bile facilities.
Consideration in the
Remedial Action Process
These regulations would apply when determining
whether or not waste onsite is listed as hazardous,
as defined in the regulations, or exhibits a hazard-
ous characteristic based on the TCLP. Disposal op-
tion would also be determined based on the TCLP.
These regulations would apply if sediments from
Site 8 needs to be deposited in an off-site hazard-
ous waste disposal area.
Same as above.
If a remedial action involves the thermal treatment
of sediments, the treated sediments would have to
meet the land disposal restriction for metals before
being redeposited on the ground.
These regulations would apply if sediments at Site
8 must be disposed of in a hazardous waste dis-
posal area.
Because this is a petroleum-contaminated site, the
procedures for cleanup in this rule would apply.
If the contaminated sediment is sent to a thermal
treatment facility, these regulations would apply.
Type
Chemical-specific
Action-specific
Action-specific
Action-specific
Action-specific
Action-specific
Chemical-specific
Chemical-specific
Action-specific
Chemical-specific
Action-specific
See notes at end of table.

-------
                                                                           Table 2-3  (Continued)
                                                  Synopsis of Federal and State Regulatory Requirements for Site 8

                                                                               Record of Decision
                                                                             Site 8, Operable Unit 3
                                                                           Naval Air Station Cecil Field
                                                                              Jacksonville, Florida
                Name and Regulatory Citation
                                                        Description
                                                                Consideration in the
                                                              Remedial Action Process
                                                                                                                                                         Type
ro
fc
            Soil Cleanup Standards for Rorida,
            September 1995
            Safe  Drinking Water Act' Regulations,
            Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs)
            (40 CFR Part 141)

            Rorida Groundwater Classes,
            Standards and Exemptions
            (FAC, 62-520)
Rorida Drinking Water Standards
(FAC, 62-550)


Petroleum-Contaminated Site
Cleanup Criteria
(FAC, 62-770)


Rorida Groundwater Guidance,
Bureau of Groundwater Protection,
June 1994
 The document provides guidance for determining
 sediment cleanup levels that can be developed on a
 site-by-site basis,  using the  calculations  found in
 Table 1 of the document.
 Establishes enforceable standards for potable water
 for specific contaminants that have been determined
 to adversely affect human health.
 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 water stan-
 dards 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 State of
Florida.   Groundwater with concentrations  less than
the listed values are considered "free from" contami-
nation.
                                                                                        After thermal treatment is performed, the sediment   Chemical-specific
                                                                                        would have to meet the goals in this guidance be-   Action-specific
                                                                                        fore it could be redeposited.


                                                                                        MCLs can be used as protective levels for ground-   Chemical-specific
                                                                                        waters or surface waters that are current or potential
                                                                                        drinking water sources.

                                                                                        These  regulations  may be  used  to  determine   Chemical-specific
                                                                                        cleanup levels for groundwater that is a potential
                                                                                        source of drinking water.
These regulations apply to remedial activities that   Chemical-specific
involve discharges to potential sources of drinking
water.

Because groundwater at the site is Class II, these   Chemical-specific
regulations would apply.                          Action-specific
                                                                                                   The values in this guidance should be considered    To be considered
                                                                                                   when determining cleanup levels for groundwater.
                                                                                                   Although some values are not promulgated, Rorida
                                                                                                   Department of Environmental Protection considers
                                                                                                   them applicable or relevant and appropriate re-
                                                                                                   quirements for setting cleanup criteria.

-------
                                  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. 1994a. Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study, Operable Units 3.
     4,5. and 6, Naval Air Station Cecil Field, Jacksonville, Florida. Prepared
     for 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. Remedial Investigation, Operable  Unit  3, Naval Air Station Cecil
     Field,  Jacksonville,  Florida.  Prepared  for  SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM,  North
     Charleston, South Carolina.

ABB-ES. 1997c. Draft Proposed Plan for Remedial  Action, Naval Air Station Cecil
     Field, Site 8, Operable Unit 3 , Boresite Range, Hazardous Waste Storage Area.
     and  Firefighting  Training  Area,   Jacksonville,  Florida.  Prepared  for
     SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM, North Charleston, South Carolina  (October).

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  Environmental Support
     Activity, Port Hueneme, California  (July).

Harding Lawson Associates. 1998. 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).

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-SS.ROD
 pww.08.99                               Ref-1

-------
 Harding Lawson Associates



                                                                                    2523-3350

Juh 19. 1999

Ms. Debbie Vaughn-Wright
Remedial Project Manager
Federal Facilities Branch
Waste Management Division. 10th Floor
USER A Region IV
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta. Georgia 30303

Subject:                Final Record of Decision
                       Site 8, Operable Unit 3
                       Naval Air Station Cecil Field, Jacksonville, Florida
                       Contract No. N62467-89D-0317/090

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 >ou may  have  concerning this report  should be directed to Mr.  Mark Davidson at  (84?)
820-5526.


Sincerch.

HARDING LAWSON ASSOCIATES
Rao Angara
Task Order Manager

enclosure

cc.      M. Deliz. FDEP (2 copies)
        M. Davidson. SDIV (1 copy)
        S. Glass. SDIV (1 cop\)
        D. Kruzicki. NASCF (1 copy)
        M. Speranza. TtNUS (1 copy)
        S. Pratt. TtNUS (2 copies)
        D. Ferris. TtNUS (I copy)
        N. Hatch. CH2MHILL (1 copy)
        J. Floxve. City of Jacksonville (1 copy)
        file

-------

-------
                  Reproduced by NTIS
 Q)  4) .£ £
 i-;.« o
 0  = 00
 .   (8 flis-
      ™
 Sf EE
£ 0 0) 0
,- 2,4S*j
M- Q.'"""
 °«5S
 c^*-i
£       c
 EEj-o
 u 0 3-M
 0) U 0 =
         B
   c *  e
   3TJ  C
   tlfl
   Zo w
   W 1^ •••
                  National Technical Information Service
                  Springfield, VA  22161
        I/MS 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

-------

-------