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;7-2Sediment 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
informationU.S. and worldwide
-------
------- |