Superfund Record of Decision: Pensacola Naval Air Station OU 6 Sites 9 and 29, Pensacola, FL


                               PB99-964012
                               EPA541-R99-063
                               1999
EPA Superfund
      Record of Decision:
      Pensacola Naval Air Station OU 6
      Sites 9 and 29
      Pensacola, FL
      9/23/1999

-------

-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
.-/ 61 FORSYTH STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

4WD-FFB

Commanding Officer
Naval Air Station Pensacola
190 Radford Boulevard
Pensacola, Florida 32508-5217

SUBJ: Record of Decision - Operable Unit 6
Sites 9 & 29
NAS Pensacola NPL Site
Pensacola, Florida

Dear Sir:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 has
reviewed the above subject decision document and concurs with th«
selected remedy for the Remedial Action at Sites 9 & 29. This
remedy is supported by the removal actions and the previously
completed Remedial Investigation and'Baseline Risk Assessment-
Reports .

The selected remedial alternative is no further action. This
involves taking no further remedial actions at the site and
leaving the environmental media as they currently exist. This
remedial action is protective of human health and the
environment, complies with Federal and State requirements that
are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the
remedial action and is cost effective.
Internet Address (URL) • http://vww.epa.gov
Rocycl»d/R«cycUbl
-------
-2-
EPA appreciates the coordination efforts of MAS Pensacola
and the level of effort that was put forth in the documents
leading to this decision. EPA looks forward to continuing the
exemplary working relationship with NAS Pensacola and Southern
Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command as we move toward
final cleanup of the NPL site.
Sincerely,
CC :
Richard D. Green, Director
Waste Management Division

Elsie Munsell, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy
Ron Joyner, NAS Pensacola
Bill Hill, SOUTHDIV
Joe Fugitt, FDEP
-------
-3-

CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
4WD-FFB

Commanding Officer
Naval Air Station Pensacola
190 Radford Boulevard
Pensacola, Florida 32508-5217

SUBJ: Record of Decision - Operable Unit 6
Sites 9 & 29
NAS Pensacola NPL- Site
Pensacola, Florida

Dear Sir:

_The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 has
reviewed the above subject decision document and concurs with the
selected remedy for the Remedial Action at Sites 9 & 29 . This
remedy is supported by the removal actions and the previously
completed Remedial Investigation and Baseline Risk Assessment
Reports .

The selected remedial alternative is no further action. This
involves taking no further remedial actions at the site and
leaving the environmental media as they currently exist. This
remedial action is protective of human health and the
environment, complies with Federal and State requirements that
are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the
remedial action and is cost effective.
EPA appreciates the coordination efforts of NAS Pensacola
and the level of effort that was put forth in the documents
leading to this decision. EPA looks forward to continuing the
exemplary working relationship with NAS Pensacola and Southern
Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command as we move toward
final cleanup of the NPL site. •
Sincerely,

Richard D. Green, Director
Waste Management Division

cc: Elsie Munsell, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy
Ron Joyner, NAS Pensacola
Bill Hill, SOUTHDIV
Joe Fugitt, FDEP
Towns e\nd Marshall Bozeman Johnston

-------
-------
FINAL RECORD OF DECISION
OPERABLE UNIT 6 (SITES 9 AND 29)
NAS PENSACOLA
PENSACOLA, FLORIDA
SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM
Contract Number:
N62467-89-D-0318
CTO-083
Prepared for:

Comprehensive Long-Term Environmental Action
Navy (CLEAN)
Naval Air Station
Pensacola, Florida
Prepared by:

EnSafe Inc.
5724 Summer Trees Drive
Memphis, Tennessee 38134
(901) 372-7962
September 7,1999
-------
-------
FINAL RECORD OF DECISION
OPERABLE UNIT 6 (SITES 9 AND 29)
NAS PENSACOLA
PENSACOLA, FLORIDA
SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM
Contract Number:
N62467-89-D-0318
CTO-083
Prepared for:

Comprehensive Long-Term Environmental Action
Navy (CLEAN)
Naval Air Station
Pensacola, Florida
Prepared by:

EnSafe Inc.
5724 Summer Trees Drive
Memphis, Tennessee 38134
(901) 372-7962
The Contractor, EnSafe Inc., hereby certifies that,
to the best of its knowledge and belief, the
technical data delivered herewith under Contract
No, N62467-89-D-0318 is complete, accurate, and
complies with all requirements of the contract.
Date:
Signature:
Name:
Title:
September 7. 1999
Allison Harris
Task Order Manager
-------
-------
Table of Contents

DECLARATION OF THE RECORD OF DECISION v

1.0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1

2.0 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 5
2.1 General Site History 5
2.2 Site-Specific History 5
2.2.1 General History 5
2.2.2 Chronology of Events and Previous Investigations 6

3.0 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 13

4.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF THE OPERABLE UNIT ....;....... 14

5.0 SITE CHARACTERISTICS . 15
5.1 Nature and Extent of Contamination 15
5.1.1 Site 9 16
5.1.1.1 Soil Contamination Assessment 16
5.1.1.2 Ground water Contamination Assessment 18
5.1.1.3 Sediment Analysis . 21
5.1.1.4 Summary and Conclusions — Site 9 21
5.1.2 Site 29 ... 22
5.1.2.1 Soil Contamination Assessment 22
5.1.2.2 Groundwater Contamination Assessment 22
5.1.2.3 Summary and Conclusions — Site 29 25
5.2 Contaminant Migration 25
5.2.1 Leaching of Soil Constituents to Groundwater 25
5.2.2 Surface Water Transport 26
5.2.3 Groundwater Transport 27
5.3 Current and Potential Receptors 27

6.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS ; 29
6.1 Human Health Risk Assessment 29
6.1.1 Identification of Exposure Pathways -. . . . 29
6.1.2 Identification of Chemicals of Concern (COCs) 29
6.1.3 Carcinogenicity and Noncancer Effects 38
6.1.4 Risk Summary 39
6.1.5 Remedial Goal Options 41
6.2 Ecological Risk Assessment 42

7.0 THE SELECTED REMEDY 45
-------
8.0 DOCUMENTATION OF NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 46

9.0 REFERENCES 47

List of Figures

Figure 1-1 Site Location Map 2
Figure 1-2 Site Distribution Map ]'/ 3
Figure 2-1 Interim Soil Removal Locations (Pre-BRAC Depiction) . . . . . .12
Figure 5-1 Inorganics Above PRGs and Reference Concentrations \ 17
Figure 5-2 Site 9 Organics Detected Above PRGs in Soil Samples 19
Figure 5-3 Site 9 Inorganics Detected Above PRGs and
Reference Concentrations in Groundwater Samples 20
Figure 5-4 Site 29 Organics Detected Above PRGs in Soil Samples '.''.23
Figure 5-5 Site 29 Inorganics Detected Above PRGs and
Reference Concentrations in Groundwater Samples 24

List of Tables

Table 6-1 Exposure Pathways Summary NAS Pensacola OU 6 Sites . . 30
Table 6-2 Reference Concentrations — Shallow Groundwater NAS Pensacola OU 6 .. 34
Table 6-3 Chemicals Detected in Site 9 Groundwater 36
Table 6-4 Chemicals Detected in Site 29 Groundwater 37
Table 6-5 Toxicological Database Information for NAS Pensacola, OU 6 40
Table 6-6 Remedial Goal Options for Site 9 Groundwater COCs 43
Table 6-7 Remedial Goal Options for Site 29 Groundwater COCs 44
List of Appendices
Appendix A Glossary
Appendix B Responsiveness Summary
-------
List of Abbreviations

The following list contains many of the abbreviations, acronyms, and symbols used in this
document. A glossary of technical terms is provided in Appendix A.

ARAR Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement

BRA Baseline Risk Assessment
BRAC Base Closure and Realignment Act

GDI Chronic Daily Intake
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CG Cleanup Goal
CGL Cleanup Goal Leaching
COC Chemical of Concern
COPC Chemical of Potential Concern
CPSS Chemical Present in Site Sample
cy Cubic yard

FDER Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (since renamed Florida
Department of Environmental Protection [FDEP])
FFA Federal Facilities Agreement
FGGC Florida Groundwater Guidance Concentration
FPDWS Florida Primary Drinking Water Standard
FSDWS Florida Secondary Drinking Water Standard

HEAST Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables
HI Hazard Index
HQ Hazard Quotient
HRS Hazard Ranking System

IAS Initial Assessment Study
ILCR Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
IWTP Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plant

MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
msl mean sea level

NADEP Naval Aviation Depot
NAS Naval Air Station
NATTC Naval Air Technical Training Center
NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
in
-------
List of Abbreviations (Continued)
NEESA
NFESC
NPL

PAH
PRO

RAB
RBC
RCRA
RDA
RfD
RGO
RI
ROD

SARA
SF
SMCL
SQAG
SSL
SWMU

TRC
TRPH

USEPA

VOC
Naval Energy and Environmental Support Activity
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
National Priorities List

Operable Unit

Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon
Preliminary Remediation Goal

Restoration Advisory Board
Risk-based Concentration
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Recommended Dietary Allowance
Reference Dose
Remedial Goal Option
Remedial Investigation
Record of Decision

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
Slope Factor
Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level
Sediment Quality Assessment Guideline
Soil Screening Level
Solid Waste Management Unit

Technical Review Committee
Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbon

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Volatile Organic Compound
IV
-------
DECLARATION OF THE RECORD OF DECISION

Site Name and Location

Operable Unit 6
Naval Air Station Pensacola
Pensacola, Florida

Statement of Purpose

this decision document (Record of Decision), presents the selected remedy for Operable Unit 6
at Naval Air Station Pensacola, Pensacola, Florida, developed in accordance with the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA),
as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), 42 U.S.C.
§ 9601 et seq. , and to the extent practicable, the National Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 Code of
Federal Regulations Part 300. This decision is based on the administrative record for Operable
Unit 6 at the Naval Air Station Pensacola.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection concur with the selected remedy.

Description of the Selected Remedy

This action is the first and final action planned for the operable unit. The removal actions and
remedial investigation, including the human health and ecological risk assessments, support a ho-
actlon alternative for Operable Unit 6. The remedial investigation and baseline risk assessment
addressed all environmental media within Operable Unit 6; therefore, no other remedial actions
will be considered for the site.

Statutory Determinations

No further remedial action is necessary to ensure protection of human health and the environment
at Operable Unit 6. The removal actions performed at Operable Unit 6 eliminated the need to
conduct additional remedial action. The selected remedy complies with federal and state
requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial action and is
cost-effective.

Because this remedy will not result in hazardous substances remaining onsite above health-based
levels, the five year review will not apply to this action.
7
Captain Randal L. fiahr, Commanding Officer, NA.S Pensacola Date
**
-------
-------
CD
r*
n

a:
o
Section 1
-------
-------
Final Record of Decision
NAS Pensacola Operable Unit 6 (Sites 9 and 29)
September 7, 1999
1.0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
Operable Unit (OU) 6 consists of the following sites:

• Site 9 — Navy Yard Disposal Area
• Site 29 — Soil South of Building 3460

OU 6 is near the southwest portion of Chevalier Field as shown on Figure 1-1, Site Location Map
and Figure 1-2, Site Distribution Map. Now the site of the Naval Air Technical Training Center
(NATTC), this area was once used by the Naval Aviation Depot (NADEP) to rebuild, repair, and
paint aircraft. Helicopter airframe work was conducted in two large hangars (Buildings 3460 and
3557) near the investigation area. The hangars were surrounded by a concrete aircraft parking
apron, a grassy field, and asphalt parking lots.

Beginning in 1995, the area was changed radically. Under the Base Closure and Realignment Act
(BRAC), NADEP was closed, and the NATTC current campus was constructed. During BRAC
construction, Building 3557 was razed and Building 3460 was incorporated into what is now
known as the NATTC's Consolidated Training School. The concrete aircraft parking apron was
removed from the site area, and the surrounding areas altered to incorporate new roadways,
parking lots, and landscaping. Other than Building 3460 and some hangars south of the site area,
nothing remains of the former NADEP facilities at Chevalier Field.

The OU 6 sites are described below:

Site 9
The Navy Yard Disposal Area, used for trash and refuse disposal from 1917 until the early 1930s,
includes the large grassy area and parking lot west of Building 3460, along with portions of the
concrete apron next to Building 3460. The land surface at Site 9 is approximately 5 feet above
mean sea level (msl). The terrain is relatively flat.
-------
N,
cmr or UEWO
202
SCALE UILES
OU-6
2500
CH
SCAIE
2500

FEET
RECORD OF
DECISION
OU 6
NAS PENSACOU
FIGURE 1-1
SlTL LOCATION MAP
-------
CHEVAUER FIELD
RECORD OF
DECISION
OU 6
MAS PENSACOLA
FIGURE 1-2
SITE DISTRIBUTION MAP
DWG CAFE: 12/05/97
)WG NAME: 7CWODSOM
-------
Final Record of Decision
NAS Pensacola Operable Unit 6 (Sites 9 and 29)
September 7, 1999
Before BRAG construction, the site's northeast corner had a picnic shelter (Building 3615). An
aboveground steam pipeline originated near this shelter and crossed the eastern portion of the site,
northeast to southwest, where it re-entered the ground. The site's northeast portion included a
parking lot, while its northwest and southern portions were mostly unpaved areas of sandy soil
landscaped with grass. The site's southeast corner included a portion of the concrete apron that
surrounded Building 3460. The west and southwest portions of the site encompassed those areas
near Industrial, Murray, and Moffett roads, and Ellyson Avenue.

Currently, Site 9 consists of the soils underlying a new parking lot for the Consolidated Training
School and a grassy area between the parking lot and the drainage ditch that traverses the western
edge of the site. This drainage ditch is known as Wetland 6.

Site 29
Before BRAG construction, most of Site.29 (the Soil South of Building 3460) consisted of the
concrete aircraft parking apron on the southern side of the Building 3460. A small portion of the
site's western side included a part of the flat grassy field described for Site 9. Activities
surrounding the site included those described for Building 3460. To the east was Building 3588
where airframes were painted. To the south are Building 607, which was used for general
maintenance and repair of helicopters, and Building 630. A fenced outside storage area north of
Building 630 was used to store helicopter rotor blades and fuel tanks. Immediately north of this
former storage area was an automobile parking area used by NADEP employees. An industrial
wastewater treatment plant (IWTP) sewer line crosses the site.

Site 29 currently lies beneath the south wing of the Consolidated Training School. During BRAG
construction, Building 3460 was expanded, incorporating most of the area investigated for the site.
-------
Section 2
v
-------
-------
Final Record of Decision
NAS Pensacola Operable Unit 6 (Sites 9 and 29)
September 7, 1999
2.0 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
2.1 General Site History
In December 1989, the base was placed on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA)
National Priorities List (NPL). A Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA) signed in October 1990
outlines the regulatory path to be followed at NAS Pensacola. NAS Pensacola must not only meet
its regulatory obligations associated with its NPL listing, but also satisfy the ongoing requirements
of a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) permit issued in 1988. That permit
addresses the treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste and also the investigation and
remediation of any releases of hazardous waste and/or constituents from Solid Waste Management
Units (SWMUs). RCRA and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA) cleanup activities are coordinated through the FFA, streamlining the
remediation process.

2.2 Site-Specific History
2.2.1 General History
Site 9
This site, which was used for trash and refuse disposal between 1917 and the early 1930s, is
shown on several old maps as the Navy Yard Dump or the Warrington Village Dump. Part of
Site 9 was excavated in the late 1960s during trenching for an industrial wastewater sewer. Glass,
scrap metal, and debris were unearthed, but no unusual odor was reported.

Site 29
According to an Initial Assessment Study (IAS) performed by the Naval Facilities Engineering
Service Center (NFESC, formerly the Naval Energy and Environmental Support Activity
[NEESA]) in 1981, workers received minor skin burns while excavating a trench to repair a
16-inch water main south of Building 3460. These injuries were attributed to a unknown black,
oily liquid mixed with soil floating on water in the trench. When the water was pumped out, a
-------
Final Record of Decision ^fr
NAS Pensacola Operable Unit 6 (Sites 9 and 29)
_ September 7, 1999
residue coated the sides of the trench and pipe, and the workers noticed an odor similar to paint
remover. Because of the proximity of the excavation site to the sewer line crossing the site,
industrial waste from the line is suspected to have leaked into the surrounding soil.

A second leak in the industrial sewer line was repaired in September 1986. This leak was under
the grassy portion of the site immediately west of Building 3460, beneath the aboveground
steamline system. The leak occurred along a portion of the industrial waste sewer line about
7.2 feet bis and approximately 3 to 4 feet below the top of the saturated zone.

2.2.2 Chronology of Events and Previous Investigations
This section summarizes previous work with a connection to the OU 6 sites.

1983 - IAS
The IAS conducted by the NFESC (formerly NEESA) identified sites posing a potential threat to
human health or the environment due to contamination from past hazardous materials operations.
Historical records, aerial photographs, field inspections, and personnel interviews were used to
identify 29 potentially contaminated sites at NAS Pensacola. Sites 9 and 29 were among those
identified for evaluation by this study. According to the IAS report, Site 9 was used only to
dispose of domestic trash and refuse, and not hazardous waste. Also according to the report, there
is no danger to human health or the environment from Site 9, and no further study at the site was
recommended. Because several workers received minor skin burns from contact with an unknown
chemical during excavation, it was concluded that Site 29 constitutes a potential threat to human
health. Further study was recommended'for Site 29.

1984 — Verification Study
During the 1984 Verification Study, the OU 6 sites were further examined through the installation
of four monitoring wells along the southwest perimeter of Cheval ier Field. Piezometric data from
-------
Final Record of Decision
NAS Pensacola Operable Unit 6 (Sites 9 and 29)
September 7, 1999
these wells indicated that groundwater moved toward the paved ditch west of Chevalier Field.
Samples of groundwater from these wells and surface water from a downstream ditch were
analyzed for volatile organic carbons (VOCs). No VOCs were present in groundwater samples
in concentrations at or above method detection limits, although surface water samples contained
low VOC concentrations. The study suggested that contaminants were very localized or had been
purged from the shallow aquifer. No further inquiry was recommended for Sites 9 and 29.

1991 — Contamination Assessment/Remedial Activities Investigation
Phase I contamination assessments were conducted at 22 Installation Restoration Program sites at
NAS Pensacola to identify principal areas and primary contaminants of concern at each site and
to recommend any subsequent investigations. Fieldwork included site reconnaissance, surface
emission surveys, paniculate air screening, utilities surveys, collection of soil and groundwater
samples, and hydrologic assessments. Sites 9 and 29 were included in these investigations. It
-o
should be noted that the laboratory analyses were conducted as screening analyses intended only
to focus additional investigations. Findings were presented in Interim Data Reports for each site
and are summarized below:

• Site 9 — The Site 9 Phase I investigation identified soil and groundwater contaminated
primarily with total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPHs) and polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Low amounts of radiation were also identified at the site.
The report referred to repeated soil disturbance from grading, backfilling, and
construction, and how these activities have most likely affected the redistribution of
contaminants. Low concentrations of metals such as lead and arsenic were widespread.
The distribution of these metals in the unsaturated zone was attributed to localized sources
of contamination and redistribution of soil. Concentrations of TRPHs were identified in
soil along the site's perimeter and near the point where the industrial waste sewer line
crosses the site. PAHs were present at twice the detection limit at one location.
-------
Final Record of Decision
NAS Pensacola Operable Unit 6 (Sites 9 and 29)
September 7, 1999
Groundwater was contaminated mostly with metals, primarily lead. The scattered
distribution of elevated lead in the saturated zone was attributed to localized contaminant
sources, the extensive redistribution of soil from construction and earth moving, and/or
leakage from the industrial waste sewer line. Further investigation was recommended at
and near Site 9.

• Site 29 — The Site 29 Phase I investigation indicated the presence of metals, TRPHs,
PAHs, and VOCs. TRPHs appeared to be limited to soil in the northern area of the site
and along the section of the industrial waste sewer line passing through the site. The
northern concentration of TRPHs indicated a potential local source of contaminants. PAHs
present in a single sample from the eastern part of the site also suggested a local
contaminant source. Higher concentrations of metals were in ground water samples
collected along the sewer line than in samples from other locations on the site. However,
arsenic was present above Florida Primary Drinking Water Standards (FPDWS) in a
groundwater sample from the southern edge of the site. Methylene chloride from an
unknown source was present in a groundwater sample from the western part of the site.
The report concluded that further investigation was required at and near Site 29.

1992 — Data Summary/Preliminary Scoping Report for Ecological Assessment Work Plans
This report documented data for the scoping of work plans and outlined the need for risk
assessment studies at various sites including Bayou Grande. Sites 9 and 29 were among
11 contributing sources that "potentially discharge into the Bayou Grande yacht basin via
groundwater migration and surface runoff. The report suggested that an ecological risk assessment
was warranted for the yacht basin due to the high risk quotients associated with contaminants in
the sediments, surface waters, and multiple contributing sources.
-------
SITE 98
(PAH CONTAMINATED
SOIL}
SITE 9A
(LEAD AND PAH
CONTAMINATED SOIL)
SITE 29
{DIELDRIN CONTAMINATED
SOIL)
- INTER!*/ SOIL REMOVAL
LOCATlOr;
RECORD 0-
DECfSiOK
OU 6
NAS PENSACOL/
FIGURE 2-1
INTERIM SOIL REMOVAL LOCATIONS
ov-: DATE:- :2/os '=
-------
Final Record of Decision
NAS Pensacola Operable Unit 6 (Sites 9 and 29)
September 7, 7999
1994 — Phase I/II Remedial Investigation for Sites 9 and 29
The OU 6 remedial investigation (RI) occurred several months before the NADEP facilities at
. Chevalier Field were demolished and the NATTC was built. Analytical data for soils at these sites
were initially compared to risk-based, surface soil preliminary remediation goals (PRGs)
exclusively. Analytical data for each site are summarized below:

• Site 9 — Site 9 contained localized concentrations of arsenic and manganese above PRGs
in soil. In soil in the site's central portion, apparently near the former dump, inorganics
and PAHs exceeded PRGs. Isolated soil PAH constituents were found in other places
onsite and were attributable to pavement runoff, nearby road construction, and vehicle
activity. Pesticide constituents were localized in soil in a manner consistent with surface
application. Groundwater contained inorganic constituents above PRGs (but mostly below
NAS Pensacola groundwater reference concentrations) consistent with the general quality
of groundwater at NAS Pensacola and the Sand-and-Gravel aquifer in southern
Escambia County. No PAHs or pesticides were detected in site groundwater. An isolated
lead exceedance in groundwater during the first sampling phase was not confirmed in a
subsequent sample.

• Site 29 — Site 29 soil contained localized manganese concentrations exceeding its PRG in
soil. Localized surface and subsurface soil dieldrin and PAH contamination was
determined to result from previous grading, backfilling and construction (and consequent
soil redistribution)" in the area. Groundwater contained ubiquitous inorganic constituents
as Site 9 did. Cyanide was also detected above its primary drinking water standard in a
single groundwater sample on the south side of the site but did not exceed its drinking
water standard during a subsequent resampling. The cyanide did not appear to be related
to any soil source at the site, and no history of cyanide existed where this constituent was
-------
Final Record of Decision
NAS Pensacola Operable Unit 6 (Sites 9 and 29)
September 7, 1999
found. An isolated dieldrin exceedance in groundwater during the first sampling phase was
not confirmed by a subsequent sample.

The soil and groundwater contamination on these sites was considered delineated. The main areas
of soil contamination for each site (pre-interim removal) included: (1) the presumed former dump
at Site 9, and (2) dieldrin and PAH contamination at Site 29. No correlation was determined
between the distribution and inorganic concentrations above PRGs in soil and inorganics above
PRGs in groundwater. Groundwater concentrations were typically below NAS Pensacola
reference concentrations. Also, comparison with groundwater inorganics at other NAS Pensacola
sites did not indicate anything unusual. Further delineation and assessment in the area surrounding
Sites 9 and 29 were considered unwarranted. Because of the subsequent removals, an FS detailing
suggested remedial alternatives was not completed, and no further action was recommended.

1995 — Interim Removal Actions
To accommodate the BRAC construction scheduled to begin on Chevalier Field in early 1995,
several soil interim removal actions were performed on Sites 9 and 29 commensurate with NADEP
demolition and new construction work. These interim soil removals are described in the
Soil Removal Summary Report. The removal actions are briefly summarized as follows:

• Site 9 — This site was divided into two areas for removal, Sites 9A (lead and PAH
contamination in the west-central portion of the site), and 9B (PAH contamination in and
around boring location 09S06). Approximately 215 cubic yards (cy) of PAH-contaminated
soil was excavated from Site 9B. The removal at Site 9A was conducted in January 1998.
Currently, Site 9A is in a landscaped area between the parking lot of the
Consolidated Training School, and the drainage ditch west of the site. Site 9B lies beneath
concrete adjacent to the air conditioning cooling towers for the school.
10
-------
Final Record of Decision
NAS Pensacola Operable Unit 6 (Sites 9 and 29)
September 7, 1999
• Site 29 — About 422 cy of dieldrin-contaminated soil was removed from this site.
Currently, Site 29 lies beneath the foundation of the Consolidated Training School's south
wing.

Figure 2-1 shows the location of the OU 6 Interim Soil Removals. Post-removal confirmation
samples collected from Site 9B (the area in and around boring 09S06) showed only dieldrin
slightly above the USEPA soil screening level (SSL). No PAHs above PRGs were found in the
confirmation samples. At Site 29, confirmation samples revealed dieldrin above the SSL at
two locations. Note, however, that no dieldrin was found in groundwater samples from Site 29.

1998 — Interim Removal Actions
The interim removal action for Area 9A was conducted in January 1998 when an estimated
802 tons of lead and PAH-contaminated soil were excavated from this area. Confirmation samples
collected at the extent of the excavation indicated that the soil remaining were below PRGs.
11
-------
Section 3
-------
-------
Final Record of Decision
NAS Pensacola Operable Unit 6 (Sites 9 and 29)
September 7, 1999
3.0 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
Throughout the site's history, the community has been kept abreast of activities in accordance with
CERCLA Sections 113(k)(2)(B)(i-v) and 117. In January 1989, a Technical Review Committee
(TRC) was formed to review recommendations for and monitor the investigation and remediation
progress at NAS Pensacola. The TRC was made up of representatives of the Navy, USEPA,
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, and the local community. In addition, a mailing
list of interested community members and organizations was established and maintained by the
NAS Pensacola Public Affairs Office. In July 1995, a Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) was
established as a forum for communication between the community and decision-makers. The RAB
absorbed the TRC and added members from the community and local organizations. The RAB
members work together to monitor progress of the investigation and to review remediation
activities and recommendations at NAS Pensacola. RAB meetings are held regularly, advertised,
and are open to the public.

Before the removal action occurred at Site 17, a public notice was placed in the Pensacola News
Journal on January 8, 1998. After finalizing the RI, the preferred alternative for OU 6 was
presented in the Proposed Remedial Action Plan, also called the Proposed Plan. Everyone on the
NAS Pensacola mailing list was sent a copy of the Proposed Plan. The notice of availability of
the Proposed Plan, RI, and FFS documents was published in the Pensacola News Journal on
December 11, 1997. A public comment period was held from December 8, 1997 to
January 22, 1998 to encourage public participation in the remedy-selection process. In addition,
the opportunity for a public meeting was provided during the comment period. Responses to
comments received during the comment period are contained in Appendix B.
13
-------
-------
Section 4
V
CT>
.
o
a
-------
-------
Final Record of Decision
NAS Pensacola Operable Unit 6 (Sites 9 and 29)
September 7, 1999
4.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF THE OPERABLE UNIT
This selected remedy is the first and final remedial action for the site. The no-action alternative
is selected for OU 6 due to the lack of any unacceptable risk to human health or the environment.
This is the only Record of Decision (ROD) contemplated for OU 6. OU 6, which consists of
Sites 9 and 29, is one of 13 operable units within NAS Pensacola. The purpose of each operable
unit is defined in the FY1997 Site Management Plan (SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM, 1996) for
NAS Pensacola, which is hi the administrative record. Separate investigations and assessments
are being conducted for the other operable units at NAS Pensacola in accordance with CERCLA.
Therefore, this ROD applies only to OU 6.
14
-------
-------
Jf
».
o
s
On
Section 5
-------
-------
Final Record of Decision
NAS Pensacola Operable Unit 6 (Sites 9 and 29)
September 7, 1999
5.0 SITE CHARACTERISTICS
This section of the ROD presents an overview of the nature and extent of post-removal
contamination at OU 6 with respect to known or suspected sources of contamination, types of
contamination, and affected media. This discussion presents original sampling locations and
compares the analytical results to current PRGs. Known or potential routes of contaminant
migration also are discussed.

5.1 Nature and Extent of Contamination
The OU 6 area has been subject to extensive demolition and construction since the 1994 field
investigation. Before construction, areas of contaminated soil discovered during the field
investigation were subjected to interim removal actions. Even though different portions of the site
were graded, backfilled, paved, sodded, and constructed over, original surface soil sample results
were compared to surface soil PRGs. This was done regardless of whether any particular
sampling location was covered by fill, sod, pavement, or construction. This discussion does not,
however, include borings within areas subject to interim removals. These areas were considered
remediated as described in Section 2, above.

Comparison to PRGs
The following general and site-specific PRGs were used for the current conditions comparison:

Soil
• USEPA risk-based concentrations (RBCs) soil ingestion scenario for residential soil
(surface soil) and SSLs transfer scenario from soil to groundwater (subsurface soil)

• Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Selected Cleanup Goals (CGs),
considering residential cleanup goals for surface soil, and teachability goals (CGLs) for
subsurface soil
15
-------
Final Record of Decision
NAS Pensacola Operable Unit 6 (Sites 9 and 29)
September 7, 1999
• USEPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response draft, revised, Interim Soil Lead
Guidance

Groundwater
• USEPA Maximum/Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs/SMCLs)
• USEPA Tapwater RBCs
• FPDWS/FSDWS and Florida Groundwater Guidance Concentrations (FGGC)

Sediment
• USEPA Sediment Screening Values
• FDEP Sediment Quality Assessment Guidelines (SQAGs), Threshold Effects Levels

In addition, soil and groundwater were compared to NAS Pensacola-specific reference
concentrations, developed by the Navy during the Site 1 investigation. These concentrations are
equal to two times the detected mean for any given parameter.

5.1.1 Site 9
5.1.1.1 Soil Contamination Assessment
Figure 5-1 diagrams soil inorganics that exceeded PRGs and reference concentrations detected at
Site 9. Surface soil constituents above these standards include aluminum, arsenic, iron,
manganese, and thallium. Aluminum at boring 09S04 (8,050 mg/kg) and thallium at boring 09S20
(1 mg/kg) each exceeded their lowest PRGs and reference concentrations.

Only two arsenic concentrations above PRGs (borings 09S02 and 09S04), were also above the
NAS Pensacola reference concentration for arsenic (1.56 mg/kg). Three of the four iron
concentrations above PRGs (borings 09S02, 09S04, and 09S07) also exceeded the iron reference
concentration (2,745 mg/kg).
16
-------
I Kil Nil
I?) '-,011 BORING (CUMHFTFD AS A
II MI'ORARY Wfll )
• - MJIL BORING

AL 8050 AlUMINUM MG/KG
AS 2 f> ARSb NIC MG/KG
fl IKON MG/KG
MN MANGANt'jt MG/KG
It I MAI MUM, MG/KG

PRG
Al - 7800 MG/KG. (USFPA RUG)
AS - 1.b6 MG/KG (NAbf KC)
IF -21V.-, M(i/KG (NASP RG)
MN 180 MG/KG (USFPA RHC)
Tl 0.82 MG/KG (NASP RC)
l.'iO

SCAI t
ISO
—1
M.LI
JL
RFCORI) Ol
OFGISION
01) 6
NA:> I'I N'jACOLA
HGURL ') 1
SI If 4
INORGANIC", OlllC.ILU AliOVl p«(;s
AND RlliRlNCl. ( ON<-
ttj SOU '.AMPI1S
»w<;
|nw<; NAMI
-------
Final Record of Decision
NAS Pensacola Operable Unit 6 (Sites 9 and 29)
September 7, 1999
Organics
Figure 5-2 diagrams soil organics detected above PRGs on Site 9. Boring 09S17 had surface soil
benzo(a)pyrene above the PRO, and subsurface benzo(a)anthracene, chrysene, and phenanthrene
above either the SSL or CGL. The boring location has been covered by approximately 2 feet of
fill and a road. The benzo(a)pyrene detection is below its subsurface PRO.

Pesticide constituents above PRGs are surface soil dieldrin above the RBC at borings 09S05 and
09S07. Subsurface pesticides, including dieldrin, 4'4'- DDE, and alpha-BHC above either the
SSL or CGL, are widely distributed among several borings, however, the parameters were not
detected in groundwater indicating that the concentrations in soil are protective of groundwater.

5.1.1.2 Groundwater Contamination Assessment
Analysis of groundwater samples collected at Site 9 revealed certain inorganic constituents above
groundwater PRGs. No organic compounds were detected above standards.

Inorganics
Figure 5-3 maps inorganics exceeding PRGs and reference concentrations in Site 9 groundwater.
Though aluminum exceeded the SMCL/FSDWS (50-200 vg/L) in nine Phase I groundwater
samples (ranging from 258 //g/L to 2,050 Mg/L), none of these concentrations exceeded the
NAS Pensacola groundwater reference concentration for aluminum (3,882.8 yug/L). Likewise,
10 Phase I groundwater samples also exceeded secondary standards for iron (300 ^g/L).
However, nine samples (ranging from 318 to l,300jug/L) were below the NAS Pensacola both
the PRG and reference concentration. Manganese exceeded both the PRG (50/ug/L) and reference
concentration (22 //g/L) in seven Phase I groundwater samples (ranging from 59.3 to 691 //g/L).
Lead exceeded its MCL/FPDWS (15 //g/L) at a single sampling location (09GR02)
at a concentration of 27 ^g/L. During the Phase II investigation, temporary well 09GR02 was
18
-------
-------
OHdOOHOriWVN ;iM(ll tlj/'M/ti MV
Sll.mVS HllVMIINIIlUn Nl
sNMiiv«iN):)No;> ION WHIM
1.M1HV (I Hill 1(1 '.J1NV1MONI
6
s <; wnnn
V.JI'.fl) l/hn
HSVtll l/f'ii H /()./
Nl NOIlVMINriNOO 1MNV1NVW t-fl NW
I/fin NI M()||V>IIMJ.';)M(n NOMI - Ot-ttS' JJ
DIM ONI'IOIINCm INJNVWMiH

v sv mnidwo:;) DNIMOH MOC,
-------
Final Record of Decision
NAS Pensacola Operable Unit 6 (Sites 9 and 29)
September 7, 1999
resampled for metals only to further clarify the lead contamination found in the Phase I
groundwater sample from this well. Lead was not detected in the second sample.

5.1.1.3 Sediment Analysis
A single sediment sample was collected from the drainage ditch west of Site 9 to evaluate potential
contaminant migration from the site to downgradient wetlands. A more complete investigation
Oof this possibility will be forthcoming in the Site 41 (NAS Pensacola wetlands) investigation.
All PRGs exceeded were FDEP values. Lead was present at 38.8 mg/kg in this sample.
Pesticides exceeding PRGs included 4'4-DDD, 4'4-DDE, and 4'4-DDT. PAHs exceeding the
PRGs were benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene, fluoranthrene, and pyrene.

5.1.1.4 Summary and Conclusions — Site 9
The investigation data shows a wide distribution of pesticides slightly above SSLs or CGLs at
Site 9. Most of the borings containing pesticides were in sodded areas maintained by
NAS Pensacola landscaping contractors, and that the low levels of pesticides encountered appear
consistent with current application. Notably, of the pesticides and PAHs exceeding standards in
surface or subsurface soils at Site 9, none were detected above PRGs in site groundwater.
Groundwater contamination was otherwise limited to inorganics above PRGs (secondary standards
for aluminum, iron, and manganese). However, all aluminum and most iron concentrations
exceeding PRGs were below the reference concentrations for these analytes. A lead concentration
found in a Phase I groundwater sample was not confirmed in a subsequent resampling.
21
-------
Final Record of Decision
NAS Pensacola Operable Unit 6 (Sites 9 and 29)
September 7, 1999
5.1.2 Site 29
5.1.2.1 Soil Contamination Assessment
Organics
Figure 5-4 diagrams soil organics at Site 29 which exceeded PRGs. Subsurface dieldriri above the
SSL (1 ,ug/kg), ranging from 2.3 to 45 A
-------
i, w. no'-, ni !i:
(1 II ) II HI '-;.HNV!»I(>
iv Jii'.
t- •
'-?*.--'--'--Lf.-L
';Glil JNIII'-W^ lUDlllfi')
-. JMOIVMMIimn
/(>N NI>l
-------
29CR08
(MN. Si.6]
i;i - IIMI'ORARY MONIloNlNli WFI I
O - PLKMANLN1 MOIIIIOKINC. Will
MANOANLSL CONCI NIK'AIION IN ug/L
CYANIC)? CONCtNIKAIlON IN inj/1
(U:.H'A V>MCI
g/l (IJSll'A Ml.l/11'DW
I K.UKl !> 5
.'H
INOWiANIl ', I)! II CU'li AHOVI
•Hi,:. AND RrilKtNU I'ONi.lNIRAllON
IN GROUNIWAHK SAMI'IFS
U/Oii/a/ iDwr, NAMt
-------
Final Record of Decision
NAS Pensacola Operable Unit 6 (Sites 9 and 29)
September 7, 1999
5.1.2.3 Summary and Conclusions — Site 29
No inorganic constituents exceeded PRGs in site soil samples. Organic soil contamination is
limited to subsurface dieldrin in the northwest portion of the site. Though found in one Phase I
groundwater sample, a Phase II resampling from the same well showed no dieldrin. Groundwater
contamination was limited to inorganics above secondary standards (aluminum, iron, and
manganese, along with one cyanide concentration that was detected below standards in a
subsequent resampling). However detected concentrations are below reference concentrations for
aluminum and iron.

5.2 Contaminant Migration
5,2.1 Leaching of Soil Constituents to Groundwater
Contaminant leaching from soil to groundwater may be facilitated via rainwater percolating to the
water table or direct continual contact between soil and groundwater. Although soil within the site
area is very permeable, resulting in quick infiltration and minimal contact time between
percolating water and soil above the water table, the relative absence of most contaminants in
OU 6 groundwater indicates that leaching is not significant. To facilitate the assessment of the
potential for leaching, this section discusses parameters that exceeded both surface PRGs and
subsurface PRGs (leachability-based).

Site 9
Before the 1998 interim removal action, Site 9A and vicinity contained the highest concentrations
of inorganic and organic constituents above PRGs. Parameters of concern in surface soil were
aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, cadmium, copper, iron, lead (copper and lead were
considerably above PRGs), manganese, and zinc above respective PRGs and reference
concentrations. Leachability PRGs were exceeded for barium, cadmium, nickel, lead and thallium
in subsurface soil. Several PAH compounds were also present in subsurface soils at the site, as
well as occasional subsurface soil pesticides. Groundwater samples from the nearest well
25
-------
Final Record of Decision
NAS Pensacola Operable Unit 6 (Sites 9 and 29)
.^___ September 7, 1999
downgradient from Site 9A (09GR02) indicated the presence of aluminum, iron, and manganese,
with an absence of the remaining parameters. Given that aluminum, iron, and manganese occur
at significant levels under ambient conditions, it is difficult to quantify any derived from Site 9
soil. The potential for leaching of the remaining soil contaminants at harmful levels is clearly
minimal.

Site 29
No soil inorganics exceeded PRGs and reference concentrations at Site 29. Phase 1 soil organics
were limited to an isolated area of subsurface dieldrin above teachability PRGs, however, this area
was subject to interim removal. Groundwater inorganics above PRGs were limited to aluminum,
iron, and manganese, along with one cyanide exceedance that was not confirmed in a subsequent
resampling. Again, without a clear soil/groundwater exceedance connection established.in the
analytical data, empirical evidence suggests that leaching of inorganics is not substantial.

5.2.2 Surface Water Transport
The OU 6 area contains landscaped and sodded-over sandy soil, occasional patches of open
ground, and impervious surfaces, all affect the transport of surface water in different ways.
Recent construction of the new training facility has resulted in increased fill, pavement, and sod
over the area. This has decreased the potential for surface water contact with previous site surface
soil, thus surface water transport concerns focus on stormwater drainage from paved and filled
areas. Several drainage conduits receive surface runoff from the western Chevalier Field area and
convey it into a channelized drainage ditch (Wetland 6) west of the site complex. Since the
construction of the NATTC, much of'Site 9 is now a paved parking lot and an adjacent
landscaped/sodded area. Surface runoff that does not percolate through the sod cover on Site 9
is conducted toward the channelized drainage ditch west of the site area. Site 29 is now largely
covered by the south wing of the NATTC's Consolidated Training School. The site also has no
storm-drains or conduits for surface runoff, however the soil and groundwater are protected
26
-------
Final Record of Decision
NAS Pensacola Operable Unit 6 (Sites 9 and 29)
September 7, 1999
beneath building foundation and surrounding pavement. Surface runoff from Site 29 is conducted
across the Site 9 area, to the drainage ditch. In summary, given the construction minimized
potential for contact between surface water and previous site surface soil, surface water transport
of documented surface soil constituents is negligible.

5.2.3 Groundwater Transport
The direction of groundwater flow is westerly at Site 29. Travel time for constituents directly
west of Site 29 to the drainage ditch (approximately 710 feet to the west) would be about
4.7 years, assuming the rate of migration is equal to groundwater velocity of 0.410 ft/day
(i.e., advective transport only). With an average calculated groundwater flow of 0.304 ft/day,
constituents from the eastern portions of Site 9 would take about 5.7 years to travel roughly
630 feet to the drainage ditch. These travel times assume advective transport only. Considering
retardation and dispersion (which would increase travel time and decrease endpoint
concentrations), this is a very conservative transport determination.

5.3 Current and Potential Receptors
The primary receiving aquifer within the OU 6 area is the surficial zone of the Sand-and Gravel
Aquifer which naturally contains aluminum and iron concentrations exceeding SMCLs/FSDWS.
Because of these natural qualities, the surficial zone of the Sand-and-Gravel aquifer is not
considered suitable as a drinking water supply without treatment for these constituents, and is
currently not used as such at NAS Pensacola. Further, the sources for organic and lead
contamination in OU-6 groundwater have been mitigated by past removal actions. However, for
the purpose of identification, the potential receptors of groundwater contamination are:

• The main producing zone of the Sand-and-Gravel Aquifer, which underlies the surficial
zone (separated from it by a confining unit), and is used as a potable water source in
Escambia County.
27
-------
Fined Record of Decision
NAS Pensacola Operable Unit 6 (Sites 9 and 29)
September 7, 1999
• The tile-lined drainage ditch, also known as NAS Pensacola Wetland 6, which traverses
the western portion of the site area.

• Bayou Grande, which receives runoff from the tile-lined drainage ditch.

The low permeability clay layer between the surficial and main producing zones of the Sand-and-
Gravel aquifer functions as a confining unit, and generally inhibits any downward contaminant
migration into the deeper groundwater below the clay. As for Bayou Grande, the coastal waters
of surrounding NAS Pensacola have been classified by FDEP as Class III water, indicating their
use for recreation and maintenance of a well-balanced fish and wildlife population. The low
concentrations of contaminants and the amount of dilution they are likely to undergo before
reaching Wetland 6 and Bayou Grande minimizes their impact to hearby coastal waters. Potential
ecological impacts on these receptors will be addressed in separate upcoming RI/FSs for
Bayou Grande (Site 40), and the NAS Pensacola Wetlands (Site 41).
28
-------
V
Section 6
sp
n
-------
-------
Final Record of Decision
NAS Pensacola Operable Unit 6 (Sites 9 and 29)
September 7, 1999
6.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
Section 10 of the RI report details the results of the Baseline Risk Assessment (BRA) for OU 6
which are summarized in this section. A BRA analyzes the potential adverse effects of hazardous
substance releases on actual or hypothetical human and ecological receptors should no remedial
actions be taken to reduce a site's environmental contamination. This BRA is divided into
two subsections — the first addresses human health risk, and the second assesses ecological risk.
Those risks are summarized here.

6.1 Human Health Risk Assessment
6.1.1 Identification of Exposure Pathways
Table 6-1 identifies the potential pathways of exposure to chemicals of potential concern (COPCs)
identified in shallow and intermediate groundwater and details the rationale for exposure pathway
selection/rejection.

6.1.2 Identification of Chemicals of Concern (COCs)
Because of the extensive grading, filling, construction work, and soil removals in OU 6 before and
during BRAG construction, no populations were identified which would be exposed to site soils
other than the hypothetical site residents. However, the soil pathway is considered to be
incomplete because of the cover placed on the OU 6 land surface (i.e., buildings, parking lots,
clean fill covered with sod). The only population that would be exposed to site soils would be the
future hypothetical site residents. The current land use is for military training. Hypothetical
future site residents could be exposed to groundwater, only if the residents choose to derive
potable water from a well in the surficial aquifer rather than using the existing base/municipal
water supply. Only groundwater COPCs were evaluated during this assessment.

Chemicals present in site samples (CPSSs) were evaluated as potential COPCs based on
their intrinsic toxicological properties, persistence, fate and transport characteristics, and cross-
media transfer potential. To focus the risk assessment, reported CPSS concentrations were used
29
-------
Final Record of Decision
NAS Pensacola Operable Unit 6 (Sites 9 and 29)
September 7, 1999
Table 6-1
Exposure Pathways Summary
NAS Pensacola OU 6 Sites
Potentially
Exposed
Population
Medium and
Exposure Pathway
Pathway
Selected for
Evaluation?
Reason for Selection or Exclusion
Current Land Uses
Recreational
Residents (Child
and Adult)
Air, Inhalation of
gaseous contaminants
emanating from soil
Air, Inhalation of
chemicals entrained in
fugitive dust
Groundwater, Ingestion
of contaminants during
potable or general use
Groundwater,
Inhalation of volatilized
groundwater
contaminants
Soil, Incidental
ingestion
No The construction activities generally
included the covering of site surface soils
with clean fill, sod, concrete, asphalt
paving, or buildings. Interim removal of
known areas of soil contamination also
occurred (removal of Site 9A is
scheduled for 1997). Consequently, the
soil exposure pathway is incomplete.

No NAS Pensacola obtains potable water
from an off-base source. Because of dais
and the propensity for salt water
intrusion of the surficial aquifer at OU 6,
the groundwater beneath OU 6 is
currently not used as a water source.

No The construction activities generally
included the covering of site surface soils
with clean fill, sod, concrete, asphalt
paving, or buildings. Interim removal of
known areas of soil contamination also
occurred (removal of Site 9A is
scheduled for 1997). Consequently, die
soil exposure pathway is incomplete.
30
-------
Final Record of Decision
NAS Pensacola Operable Unit 6 (Sites 9 and 29)
September 7, 1999
Table 6-1
Exposure Pathways Summary
NAS Pensacola OU 6 Sites
Potentially
Exposed
Population
Medium and
Exposure Pathway
Pathway
Selected for
Evaluation?
Reason for Selection or Exclusion
Current Land Uses
Recreational
Residents (Child
and Adult)
Soil, Dermal contact
Infrequent Child
Trespasser
Soil, Dermal contact
No The construction activities generally
included the covering of site surface soils
with clean fill, sod, concrete, asphalt
paving, or buildings. Interim removal of
known areas of soil contamination also
occurred (removal of Site 9A is
scheduled for 1997). Consequently, the
soil exposure pathway is incomplete.

No The construction activities generally
included the covering of site surface soils
with clean fill, sod, concrete, asphalt
paving, or buildings. Interim removal of
known areas of soil contamination also
occurred (removal of Site 9A is
scheduled for 1997). Consequently, die
soil exposure pathway is incomplete.
Future Land Uses
Future Site
Residents (Child
and Adult)
Air, Inhalation of
gaseous contaminants
emanating from soil
Air, Inhalation of
chemicals entrained in
fugitive dust
Groundwater, Ingestion
of contaminants during
potable or general use
No The gaseous air pathway is not
considered due to die absence of
significant volatile chemicals in soil. In
addition, construction activities generally
included the covering of site surface soils
with clean fill, sod, concrete, asphalt
paving, or buildings.

No The sand grains, described as fine-
medium grain quartz, are not respirable.
In addition, construction activities
generally included the covering of site
surface soils with clean fill, sod,
concrete, asphalt paving, or buildings.

Yes Required to be evaluated under the
National Contingency Plan.
31
-------
Final Record of Decision
NAS Pensacola Operable Unit 6 (Sites 9 and 29)
September 7, 1999
Table 6-1
Exposure Pathways Summary
NAS Pensacola OU 6 Sites
Potentially
Exposed
Population
Medium and
Exposure Pathway
Pathway
Selected for
Evaluation?
Reason for Selection or Exclusion
Future Land Uses
Future Site
Residents (Child
and Adult)
Site Worker
Groundwater,
Inhalation of volatilized
contaminants during
domestic use

Soil, Incidental
ingestion
Soil, Dermal contact
Wild game or domestic
animals, Ingestion of
tissue impacted by
media contamination

Fruits and vegetables,
Ingestion of plant
tissues grown in
contaminated media
Groundwater, Ingestion
of contaminants during
potable or general use
No Required to be evaluated under the
National Contingency Plan.
No The construction activities generally
included the covering of site surface soils
with clean fill, sod, concrete, asphalt
paving, or buildings. Interim removal of
known areas of soil contamination also
occurred (removal of Site 9A is
scheduled for 1997). Consequently, the
soil exposure pathway is incomplete.

No Hunting/taking of game and/or raising
livestock is prohibited at NAS Pensacola.
No The potential for significant exposure via
this pathway is low. The construction
activities generally included the covering
of site surface soils with clean fill, sod,
concrete, asphalt paving, or buildings.

No NAS Pensacola obtains potable water
from an off-base source. Because of this
and the propensity for salt water
intrusion of the surficial aquifer at OU 6,
the groundwater beneath OU 6 is
currently not used as a water source.
32
-------
Final Record of Decision
MAS Pensacola Operable Unit 6 (Sites 9 and 29)
_^____ September 7, 1999
Table 6-1
Exposure Pathways Summary
NAS Pensacola OU 6 Sites
Potentially
Exposed
Population
Medium and
Exposure Pathway
Pathway
Selected for
Evaluation?
Reason for Selection or Exclusion
Future Land Uses
Site Worker
Soil, Incidental
ingestion
Soil, Dermal contact
No The construction activities generally
included the covering of site surface soils
with clean fill, sod, concrete, asphalt
paving, or buildings. Interim removal of
known areas of soil contamination also
occurred (removal of Site 9A is
scheduled for 1997). Consequently, the
soil exposure pathway is incomplete.

MCLs, SMCLs, and FPDWS/FSDWS which were taken together as the groundwater PRGs for
OU 6. Inorganic CPSSs with maximum detected concentrations exceeding their corresponding

groundwater PRO were then compared to reference concentrations established for the OU 6 sites

(see Table 6-2). Twice the reference criterion was used to compare inorganic concentrations
onsite to those in reference samples. It was assumed that organic compounds were not present in
these reference samples. This comparison assists in accounting for naturally occurring chemicals

ubiquitous in nature such as aluminum. Finally, essential elements potentially toxic only at

extremely high concentrations were compared to their respective U.S. Recommended Dietary
Allowance (RDA).

33
-------
Final Record of Decision
NAS Pensacola Operable Unit 6 (Sites 9 and 29)
September 7, 1999
Table 6-2
Reference Concentrations — Shallow Groundwater
NAS Pensacola OU 6
Chemical
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
01GS67
0"g/L)
4,240
1.4 U
5.5 U
1.7 U
17.800
4.85 U
2.05 U
5.4 U
677
0.8 U
795 U
5.7
O.I U
19.95 U
13,300
10,700
7.9
8.75 U
01GI69
teg/L)
146.5 U
1.4 U
6.75 U
1.7 U
5.670
2.6 U
2.05 U
5.4 U
942
0.8 U
665 U
8.9
0.1 U
19.95 U
1.275 U
8,350
3.75 U
3.9 U
01GS69
fc
-------
Final Record of Decision
NAS Pensacola Operable Unit 6 (Sites 9 and 29)
September 7, 1999
Tables 6-3 and 6-4 list the Sites 9 and 29 maximum detected concentrations of CPSSs in shallow
groundwater with their corresponding chemical-specific concentrations, as well as the PRGs and
reference criteria. CPSSs that exceed the lowest of the PRGs and reference concentrations are
denoted with the symbol "*" next to the chemical name, to identify them as COPCs. CPSSs with
concentrations below these criteria are eliminated from further consideration in the BRA and are
denoted in the tables by the numerical symbols of "1," and "2," respectively. A COPC carried
through the risk assessment process becomes a COC if it contributes: (1) to a pathway that
exceeds a 1Q-6 incremental lifetime cancer risk (ILCR); or (2) a hazard index (HI) greater than 1
for any exposure scenario; or (3) has an individual risk greater than 1Q-6 or hazard quotient (HQ)
greater than 0.1.

As indicated in Table 6-3, arsenic, lead, and manganese were identified as COPCs in Site 9
groundwater. Sites 29's screening evaluation, shown in Tables 6-4, identified cyanide, dieldrin,
and manganese as COPCs for Site 29. These chemicals were further evaluated in this risk
assessment.
35
-------
Final Record of Decision
NAS Pensacola Operable Unit 6 (Sites 9 and 29)
September 7, 1999
Table 6-3
Chemicals Detected in Site 9 Groundwater
Average of
Frequency of Range of Detected Detected
Chemical Detection Concentrations Concentrations Screening Value Source
Aluminum
*Arsenie
Barium
Calcium
Copper
Iron
*Lead
Magnesium
*Manganese
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Zinc
Notes:
*
1
2
CO and/or RBC
TT
r
CG
10/12 221-2,050 606
2/12 6.6 - 10.2 8.4
9/12 15.4 - 129 41
12/12 3,600-36.100 15,618
4/12 .. 4.6-5.9 5.5
11/12 318-3,940 1,239
8/12 2-27 6
12/12 1,340-5,210 2,574
12/12 10.8-691 147
12/12 601-2,550 1,555
2/12 5.2-6.1 5.65
12/12 2,430 - 20,000 8,054
10/12 11-75.1 40.74

3.800 RBC r
0.038 RBC r
260 RBCr
NA
140 RBCr
NA
15 TT
NA
18 RBCr
NA
18 RBCr
NA
1,100 RBCr

Reference
Concentration
3.882.8
2.8
13.2
17,560
16.2
1,707.8
1.6
2.512.5
22
12,167.6
NA
18,345
1506

Notes
12

2
1

= Retained as a chemical of potential concern based on comparison to the most conservative screening tool.
= Does not exceed the screening value.
= Does not exceed the reference concentration.
= Residential screening value from FDEP or USEPA Region HI Screening Concentration Table (March 1994).
= Treatment technique action level for lead in tap water.
= Residential Risk Based Screening Value.
= FDEP Residential Soil Screening Value; excerpted from July 1994 CO table.
36
-------
Final Record of Decision
NAS Pensacola Operable Unit 6 (Sites 9 and 29)
September 7, 1999
Table 6-4
Chemicals Detected in Site 29 Groundwater
Chemical
Aluminum
Barium
Calcium
*Cyanide
*Dieldrin
Iron
*Lead \
Magnesium
*Manganese
Potassium
Stiver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Notes:
* =
I •— •
2
CO and/or RBC =
TT
r =
CG
Frequency of
Detection
7/10
1/10
10/12
1/10
1/11
8/10
4/10
10/10
8/10
10/10
1/10
10/10
9/10
5/10

Range of Detected
Concentrations
203-2,060
53.6
19,900 - 36,900
276
0.13
39.1-1.400
4.1-9.2
631 -1,840
69.1-270
1,250- 15,600
3.9
2.210-10,000
4.4 - 7.6
4.2-22.1

Average of
Detected
Concentrations
704
53.6
30,200
276
0.13
521
6.4
1,212
143
7,467
3.9
5,243
6.2
1.33

Screening Value Source
3,800 RBC r
260 RBC r
NA
73 RBCr
0.0042 RBC r
NA
15 TT
NA
18 RBCr
NA
18 RBC r
NA
26 RBC r
1,100 RBCr

Reference
Concentration
3.882.8
13.2
17,560
NA
NA
1,707.8
1.6
2,512.5
22
12,167.6
NA
18.345
9.6
150.6

Notes
12
1

2
1
2

1
2
12
12

Retained as a chemical of potential concern based on comparison to the most conservative screening tool.
Does not exceed the screening value.
Does not exceed the reference concentration.
Residential screening value from FDEP or USEPA Region III Screening Concentration Table (March 1994).
Treatment technique action level for lead in tap water.
Residential Risk Based Screening Value.
FDEP Residential Soil Screening Value; excerpted from July 1994 CG table.
37
-------
Final Record of Decision
NAS Pensacola Operable Unit 6 (Sites 9 and 29)
September 7, 1999
6.1.3 Carcinogenicity and Noncancer Effects
The USEPA has established a classification system for rating the potential carcinogenicity of
environmental contaminants based on the weight of scientific evidence. The cancer classes are
described below. Cancer weight-of-evidence class "A" (human carcinogens) means that human
toxicological data have proven a correlation between exposure and the onset of cancer. The "Bl"
classification indicates some human exposure studies have implicated the compound as a probable
carcinogen. Weight-of-evidence class "B2" indicates a possible human carcinogen, a description
based on positive laboratory animal data (for carcinogenicity) in the absence of human data.
Weight-of-evidence class "C" identifies possible human carcinogens, and class "D" indicates a
compound not classifiable with respect to its carcinogenic potential. The USEPA has established
slope factors (SF) for carcinogenic compounds. The SF is defined as a "plausible upper-bound
estimate of the probability of a response (cancer) per unit intake of a chemical over a lifetime."

In addition to potential carcinogenic effects, most substances also can produce other toxic
responses at doses greater than experimentally derived threshold concentrations. The USEPA has
derived Reference Dose (RfD) values for these substances. A chronic RfD is defined as "an
estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude or greater) of a daily exposure
concentration for the human population, including sensitive subpopulations, that is likely to be
without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime." These toxicological values
are used in risk formulae to assess the upper-bound level of cancer risk and noncancer hazard
associated with exposure to a given concentration of contamination.

For carcinogens, the potential risk posed by a chemical is computed by multiplying the chronic
daily intake (GDI [as mg/kg-day]) by the SF (in reciprocal mg/kg-day). The hazard quotient (for
noncarcinogens) is computed by dividing the GDI by the RfD. The USEPA has set standard limits
(or points of departure) for carcinogens and noncarcinogens to evaluate whether significant risk
is posed by a chemical (or combination of chemicals). For carcinogens, the point-of-departure
38
-------
Final Record of Decision
NAS Pensacola Operable Unit 6 (Sites 9 and 29)
September 7, 1999
range is 10"6, with a generally accepted range of 1O4 to 10"6. These risk values correlate with 1 in
10,000 and 1 in 1,000,000 excess incidence of cancer resulting from exposure to xenobiotics
(all pathways). The FDEP risk threshold is 10"6.

For noncarcinogens, other toxic effects are generally considered possible if the HQ (or sum of
HQs for a pathway — hazard index) exceeds unity (a value of 1). Although both cancer risk and
noncancer hazard are generally additive within each group only if the target organ is common to
multiple chemicals, a most conservative estimate of each may be obtained by summing the
individual risks or hazards regardless of target organ. This BRA has taken the universal
summation approach for each class of toxicant. The FDEP hazard threshold is 1.

Critical studies used in establishing toxicity classifications by USEPA are shown in the
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database (primary source) and/or Health Effects
Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST) Fiscal Year 1994 (secondary source). In addition, the
USEPA Region III, Risk-based Concentration Tables, Third Quarter 1994, contained toxicological
values not listed in primary or secondary sources. Where applicable, these values were also
included in the database for this BRA. Table 6-5 summarizes toxicological data in the form of
RfDs and SFs obtained for each COPC identified in OU 6 shallow and intermediate groundwater.

6.1.4 Risk Summary
The human health risk associated with exposure to environmental media at NAS Pensacola OU 6
was assessed for hypothetical future site residents. Extensive grading, backfilling, paving, and
construction, along with the interim removal of contaminated soils occurred at these sites as a
result of BRAC construction. Therefore, no soil exposure pathway is complete at OU 6, and soil
exposure was not addressed in this BRA.
39
-------
Final Record of Decision
NAS Pensacola Operable Unit 6 (Sites 9 and 29)
September 7, 1999
Table 6-5
Toxicological Database Information for NAS Pensacola, OU 6
Pensacola, Florida
Chemical
Arsenic
Cadmium
Cyanide
Dieldrin
Lead
Manganese
Naphthalene
Oral Reference
Dose
(mg/kg/day)
0.0003 »
0.0005*
0.02 *
0.00005*
NA
0.005*
0.04 d
Oral Cancer
Slope Factor
[(ing/kg/day)]-!
1.75*
NA
NA
16
NA
NA
NA
Cancer
Classification
A
D
D
B2
B2
NA
D
Uncertainty
Factor/Modifying
Factor Oral
1000/3
107 1
100/5
100 / 1
NA
1 /I
see note (d)
Notes:
ARARs for the COPCs above are discussed in Section 6.1.6.
a = Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)
b = Oral reference dose provided in a meeting with Julie Keller, USEPA Region IV Office of
Health Assessment
c = Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office (ECAO)
d = This reference dose has been withdrawn from 1RIS/HEAST; the uncertainty and
modifying factors are unknown
NA = Not applicable
mg/kg/day = milligrams per kilogram per day
Cancer Class A = Classified as a known, human carcinogen by USEPA
Cancer Class B2-C = Classified as a probable to possible human carcinogen by USEPA

The theoretical future risk posed by arsenic at Site 9 (IxlO"4) exceeds the FDEP and USEPA point

of departure (IxlO*6). However, the maximum groundwater concentrations reported for arsenic

at Sites 9 and 29 do not exceed the ARAR, 0.05 mg/l (MCL/FPDWS). The only reported

concentration for dieldrin (0.00013 mg/l) is approximately equal to the FDEP ARAR (0.0001),

and this compound was not detected in the confirmatory sampling effort.
40
-------
Final Record of Decision
NAS Pensacola Operable Unit 6 (Sites 9 and 29)
September 7, 1999
Although the calculated risk exceeds the FDEP and USEPA threshold, the frequency of detection
of dieldrin and comparison of reported concentrations to ARARs support a no-action conclusion
for groundwater based on risk.

The shallow/intermediate groundwater pathway hazard indices were found to be 9 and 4 for the
future child resident and 4 and 2 for the adult at Sites 9 and 29. The primary contributor to hazard
at all sites is manganese. However, it is important to note that the future land use of these sites
will be that of a military operations school and training facility. The aquifer is not used as a
potable or nonresidential water supply, and will not be used based on the Navy's future plans for
the sites. It should also be noted that the contaminants which resulted in the risk values discussed
above are all contained in water table wells and are not found in wells screened in the deeper zones
within which any future potable water wells would also be expected to be screened. Finally, water
for the military operations school is supplied by Corry Station. Based on the lack of aquifer
usage, no further action is recommended for groundwater at the OU 6 sites.

6.1.5 Remedial Goal Options
Remedial goal options (RGOs) are chemical concentrations computed to equate with specific risk
and/or hazard goals that may be established for a particular site. Based on the algorithms
described in this risk assessment, COCs were identified which required calculation of RGOs. In
accordance with USEPA Supplemental RGO Guidance, RGOs were calculated at IxlO"4, IxlO'5,
and IxlO"6 risk levels for carcinogenic COCs and HQ goals of 10, 1, and 0.1 for noncarcinogenic
COCs. RGOs for carcinogens were based on the lifetime weighted average, and RGOs for
noncarcinogens were based on the child exposure assumptions.
41
-------
Final Record of Decision
NAS Pensacola Operable Unit 6 (Sites 9 and 29)
September 7, 1999
Shallow/Intermediate Groundwater RGOs
Tables 6-6 and 6-7 provide RGOs for the shallow/intermediate groundwater ingestion pathway for
Sites 9 and 29. As shown in the tables, the RGOs for arsenic and dieldrin are below the ARAR.
In addition, the RGOs based on a hazard quotient of 1 are slightly above ARARs for manganese
and cyanide. However, the cyanide concentration decreased to below the ARAR in a subsequent
resampling.

6.2 Ecological Risk Assessment
The purpose of the ecological risk assessment is to assess the actual or potential effects to
ecological receptors due to contamination at the OU 6 sites.

OU 6 is within the confines of the southwest portion of the former Chevalier Field. The general
area mostly encompasses the NATTC in the vicinity of the Consolidated Training School, and the
entry promenade to the NATTC. No natural plant or animal habitats are present onsite, which
consists of weedy, ruderal habitat outside of developed or landscaped areas. During the work
week, the area is heavily trafficked by people on foot and by vehicles. The shoreline of
Pensacola Bay lies approximately 2,700 feet east of the site's center, and shore birds are often
observed near Chevalier Field. These sightings are normally associated with wetlands east of
Chevalier Field, and the drainage ditch to the west. However, this does not mean that shorebirds
do not visit the site area during periods of reduced human activities (i.e., weekends and after
working hours). The lack of natural habitat within the OU 6 area will likely limit faunal use of
the immediate area.

The Ecological Risk Assessment in the RI report did not identity any unacceptable ecological risk
at or resulting from OU 6. Further, Wetland 6, downstream wetlands, and Bayou Grande will be
screened in depth during the Sites 40 and 41 investigations. These investigations are expected to
more thoroughly study the nature and extent of contamination in the Wetland 6 and downstream
areas, and confirm if the OU 6 sites are sources contributing to potential contamination there.
42
-------
Final Record of Decision
MAS Pensacola Operable Unit 6 (Sites 9 and 29)
September 7, 1999
Chemical

Arsenic

Manganese
Table 6-6
Remedial Goal Options for Site 9 Groundwater COCs
Risk-Based RGOs
1E-4

0.0038

NA
1E-5
0.00038
NA
1E-6
0.000038
NA
10
0.047
0.78
Hazard-Based RGOs

1 0.1

0.0047 0.00047

0.078 0.0078
Exposure
Point Reference
Concentration Concentration
0.0049

0.605
0.0028

0.022
ARAR
1
0.05

0.05
Source
—_^_
MCL/FPDWS

SMCL/FSDWS
Notes:
RGO = Remedial Goal Option
MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level
FPDWS = Florida Primary DrinRing Water Standard
FSDWS = Florida Secondary Drinking Water Standard
SMCL = Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level
NA = Not Applicable
= Risk-based RGOs are based on the lifetime weighted average adult and child exposure.
= Hazard-based RGOs are based on childhood exposure.
43
-------
Final Record of Decision
NAS Pensacola Operable Unit 6 (Sites 9 and 29)
September 7, 1999
Chemical
Table 6-1
Remedial Goal Options for Site 29 Groundwater COCs
1E-4
Risk-Based RGOs
1E-S
Hazard-Based RGOs
1E-6
10
0.1
Exposure
Point Reference
Concentration Concentration
ARAR
Source
Cyanide
Dieldrin
Manganese
Notes:
RGO
MCL
FPDWS
FSDWS
SMCL
NA
FDEP (care)
NA NA NA 3.129 0.3129 0.03129 0.248
0.00042 4.2E-05 4.2E-06 0.00782 0.000782 7.82E-05 4.6E-05
NA NA NA 0.78 0.078 0.0078 0.27
= Remedial Goal Option
= Maximum Contaminant Level
= Florida Primary Drinking Water Standard
= Florida Secondary Drinking Water Standard
= Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level
= Not Applicable
= carcinogenic value calculated for FDEP.
= Risk-based RGOs are based on the lifetime weighted average adult and child exposure.
= Hazard-based RGOs are based on childhood exposure.
NA 0.2 MCL/FPDWS
NA 0.1 FDEP (care)
0.022 0.05 SMCL/FSDWS

44
-------
Section 7
\
8
-------
-------
Final Record of Decision
NAS Pensacola Operable Unit 6 (Sites 9 and 29)
September 7, 1999
7.0 THE SELECTED REMEDY
Based upon consideration of the requirements of CERCLA, the NCP, the human health and
ecological risks associated with OU 6, and public and state comments, the Navy has selected the
no-action alternative as the preferred remedial action alternative for OU 6. Based on the results
of the RI and baseline risk assessment, no remedial action is necessary to control residual risks
associated with OU 6 because of the lack of ground water usage. Due to interim removals
conducted for BRAC construction at the site, existing conditions (i.e., buildings, parking lots, fill,
and sod) are protective of human health and the environment. In addition, the selected alternative
attains all federal and state ARARs, except for manganese, is cost-effective, and uses permanent
solutions to the extent practicable. The shallow ground water is not used as a potable source
because better quality water is available from the Main Producing Zone and there is a potential
for salt water intrusion during pumping. Because the no-action alternative is the only alternative
considered, the nine criteria analysis does not apply. Because hazardous substances do not remain
onsite, the five-year review does not apply.
45
-------
-------
Section 8
ST.
O
a
Qt
-------
-------
Final Record of Decision
NAS Pensacola Operable Unit 6 (Sites 9 and 29)
September 7, 1999
8.0 DOCUMENTATION OF NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The proposed plan for OU 6 released on December 8, 1997 identified the no-action alternative as
the preferred alternative. There have been no significant changes since that tune. The no-action
alternative presented in the proposed plan is the same as the no-action alternative described in this
Record of Decision. No comments were received during the public comment period.
46
-------
-------

n
rr
I'
/
-------
-------
Final Record of Decision
NAS Pensacola Operable Unit 6 (Sites 9 and 29)
September 7, 1999
9.0 REFERENCES
Ecology & Environment, Inc. (1992). Interim Data Report, Contamination Assessment/Remedial
Investigation, Navy Yard Disposal Area (Site 9), Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Florida.
Ecology & Environment, Inc. Pensacola, Florida.

Ecology & Environment, Inc. (1992). Interim Data Report, Contamination Assessment/Remedial
Investigation, Soil South of Building 3460 (Site 29), Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Florida.
Ecology & Environment, Inc. Pensacola, Florida.

EnSafe/Allen & Hoshall. (1996). Soil Removal Summary Report, Naval Air Station,
Pensacola, Florida.

EnSafe/Allen & Hoshall. (1996). Final Remedial Investigation Report — Site 1,
NAS Pensacola, Florida. Memphis, Tennessee, January 5.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. (1988). Water Quality Standards,
Classification of Groundwater, Usage, Reclassification. Chapter 17-3.403,
Florida Administrative Code.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. (1994a). Groundwater Guidance
Concentrations, FDEP Division of Water Facilities, Bureau of Drinking Water and
Groundwater Resources, Tallahassee, Florida, June.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. (1994b). Approach to the Assessment
of Sediment Quality in Florida Coastal Waters, FDEP Office of Water Policy,
Tallahassee, Florida, November. "
47
-------
Final Record of Decision
NAS Pensacola Operable Unit 6 (Sites 9 and 29)
September 7, 1999
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. (1995). Memorandum-Soil Cleanup
Goals for Florida. FDEP Division of Waste Management, Tallahassee, Florida,
September 29, 1995.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. (1996). Applicability of Soil Cleanup Goals for
Florida, FDEP Division of Waste Management, Tallahassee, Florida, January 19, 1996.

National Research Council. (1989). Recommended Dietary Allowances, 10th ed.
National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 1989.

Naval Energy and Environmental Support Activity. (1983). Initial Assessment Study of Naval Air
Station, Pensacola, Pensacola, Florida, Port Hueneme, California. (NEESA 13-015).

Naval Energy and Environmental Support Activity. (1988). Sampling and Chemical Analysis
Quality Assurance Requirements for the Navy Installation Restoration Program.
(NEESA 20.2-047B).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1994a). Draft Revised Soil Interim Lead Guidance.
USEPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, D.C., May 27.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1996b). Risk-Based Concentration Table.
USEPA Region HI, Office of RCRA, Philadelphia, PA.
*
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1996c). Drinking Water Regulations
and Health Advisories. USEPA Office of Water, Washington, D.C., February
(EPA-8-22-R-96-001).
Q:\T.083\PCOLA\ROD\OU6FNLrodSepl1999.wpd
48
-------
Appendix A
Glossary
-------
-------
GLOSSARY
This glossary defines terms used in this record of decision describing CERCLA activities. The
definitions apply specifically to this record of decision and may have other meanings when used
in different circumstances.

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD: A file that contains all information used by the lead agency to
make its decision in selecting a response action under CERCLA. This file is to be available for
public review and a copy is to be established at or near the site, usually at one of the information
repositories. Also a duplicate is filed in a central location, such as a regional or state office.

AQUIFER: An underground formation of materials such as sand, soil, or gravel that can store
and supply groundwater to wells and springs. Most aquifers used in the United States are within
a thousand feet of the earth's surface.

BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT: A study conducted as a supplement to a remedial
investigation to determine the nature and extent of contamination at a Superfund site and the risks
posed to public health and/or the environment.

CARCINOGEN: A substance that can cause cancer.

CLEANUP: Actions taken to deal with a release or threatened release of hazardous substances
that could affect public health and/or the environment. The noun "cleanup" is often used broadly
to describe various response actions or phases of remedial responses such as Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study.

COMMENT PERIOD: A time during which the public can review and comment on various
documents and actions taken, either by the Department of Defense installation or the USEPA.
For example, a comment period is provided when USEPA proposes to add sites to the
National Priorities List.
A-l
-------
COMMUNITY RELATIONS: USEPA's, and subsequently Naval Air Station Pensacola's,
program to inform and involve the public in the Superfund process and respond to community
concerns.

COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION, AND
LIABILITY ACT (CERCLA): A federal law passed in 1980 and modified in 1986 by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA). The act created a special tax that goes
into a trust fund, commonly known as " Superfund," to investigate and clean up abandoned or
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.

Under the program the USEPA can either:

• Pay for site cleanup when parties responsible for the contamination cannot be located or
are unwilling or unable to perform the work.

• Take legal action to force parties responsible for site contamination to clean up the site or
pay back the federal government for the cost of the cleanup.

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION ACCOUNT (DERA): An account
established by Congress to fund Department of Defense hazardous waste site cleanups, building
demolition, and hazardous waste minimization. The account was established under the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act.

DRINKING WATER STANDARDS: Standards for quality of drinking water that are set by both
the USEPA and the FDEP.

EXPLANATION OF DIFFERENCES: After adoption of final remedial action plan, if any
remedial or enforcement action is taken, or if any settlement or consent decree is entered into, and
A-2
-------
if the settlement or decree differs significantly from the final plan, the lead agency is required to
publish an explanation of any significant differences and why they were made.

FEASIBILITY STUDY: See Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study.

GROUNDWATER: Water beneath the earth's surface that fills pores between materials such as
sand, soil, or gravel. In aquifers, groundwater occurs hi sufficient quantities that it can be used
for drinking water, irrigation, and other purposes.

HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES: Any material that poses a threat to public health and/or the
environment. Typical hazardous substances are materials that are toxic, corrosive, ignitable,
explosive, or chemically reactive.

INFORMATION REPOSITORY: A file containing information, technical reports, and
reference documents regarding a Superfund site. Information repositories for Naval Air Station
Pensacola are at The John C. Pace Library at the University of West Florida and the
NAS Pensacola Library in Building 633 on the Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Florida.

MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVEL: National standards for acceptable concentrations of
contaminants in drinking water. These are legally enforceable standards set by the USEPA under
the Safe Drinking Water Act.

MONITORING WELLS: Wells drilled at specific locations on or off a hazardous waste site
where groundwater can be sampled at selected depths and studied to assess the groundwater flow
direction and the types and amounts of contaminants present, etc.

NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST (NPL): The USEPA's list of the most serious uncontrolled or
abandoned hazardous waste sites identified for possible long-term remedial response using money
from the trust fund. The list is based primarily on the score a site receives on the Hazard Ranking
System. USEPA is required to update the NPL at least once a year.
A-3
-------
PARTS PER BILLION (ppb)/PARTS PER MILLION (ppm): Units commonly used to express
low concentrations of contaminants. For example, 1 ounce of trichloroethylene in a million
ounces of water is 1 ppm; 1 ounce of trichloroethylene in a billion ounces of water is 1 ppb. If
one drop of trichloroethylene is mixed in a competition-size swimming pool, the water will contain
about 1 ppb of trichloroethylene.

PRELIMINARY REMEDIATION GOALS: Screening concentrations that are provided by the
USEPA and the FDEP and are used in assessing the site for comparative purposes before remedial
goals are set during the baseline risk assessment.

PROPOSED PLAN: A public participation requirement of SARA in which the lead agency
summarizes for the public the preferred cleanup strategy and the rationale for the preference,
reviews the alternatives presented in the detailed analysis of the remedial investigation/feasibility
study, and presents any waivers to cleanup standards of Section 121(d)(4) that may be proposed.
This may be prepared either as a fact sheet or as a separate document. In either case, it must
actively solicit public review and comment on all alternatives under agency consideration.

RECORD OF DECISION (ROD): A public document that explains which cleanup alternative(s)
will be used at NPL sites. The ROD is based on information and technical analysis generated
during the remedial investigation/feasibility study and consideration of public comments and
community concerns.

REMEDIAL ACTION (RA): The actual construction or implementation phase that follows the
remedial design and the selected cleanup alternative at a site on the NPL.

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY (RI/FS): Investigation and analytical
studies usually performed at the same time in an interactive process, and together referred to as
the "RI/FS." They are intended to: (1) gather the data necessary to determine the type and extent
of contamination at a Superfund site; (2) establish criteria for cleaning up the site; (3) identify and
A-4
-------
screen cleanup alternatives for remedial action; and (4) analyze in detail the technology and costs
of the alternatives.

REMEDIAL RESPONSE: A long-term action that stops or substantially reduces a release or
threatened release of hazardous substances that is serious, but does not pose an immediate threat
to public health and/or the environment.

REMOVAL ACTION: An immediate action performed quickly to address a release or threatened
release of hazardous substances.

RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA): A federal law that
established a regulatory system to track hazardous substances from the time of generation to
disposal. The law requires safe and secure procedures to be used in treating, transporting, storing,
and disposing of hazardous substances. RCRA is designed to prevent new, uncontrolled hazardous
waste sites.

RESPONSE ACTION: As defined by Section 101(25) of CERCLA, means remove, removal,
remedy, or remedial action, including enforcement activities related thereto.

RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY: A summary of oral and written public comments received
by the lead agency during a comment period on key documents, and the response to these
comments prepared by the lead agency. The responsiveness summary is a key part of the ROD,
highlighting community concerns for USEPA decision-makers.

SECONDARY DRINKING WATER STANDARDS: Secondary drinking water regulations are
set by the USEPA and the FDEP. These guidelines are not designed to protect public health,
instead they are intended to protect "public welfare" by providing guidelines regarding the taste,
odor, color, and other aesthetic aspects of drinking water which do not present a health risk.
A-5
-------
SUPERFUND: The trust fund established by CERCLA which can be drawn upon to plan and
conduct cleanups of past hazardous waste disposal sites, and current releases or threats of releases
of nonpetroleum products. Superfund is often divided into removal, remedial, and enforcement
components.

SUPERFUND AMENDMENTS AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT (SARA): The public law
enacted on October 17, 1986, to reauthorize the funding provisions, and to amend the authorities
and requirements of CERCLA and associated laws. Section 120 of SARA requires that all federal
facilities "be subject to and comply with, this act in the same manner and to the same extent as any
non-governmental entity."

SURFACE WATER: Bodies of water that are aboveground, such as rivers, lakes, and streams.

VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND: An organic (carbon-containing) compound that
evaporates (volatizes) readily at room temperature.
A-6
-------
Appendix B
Responsiveness Summary
-------
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
Overview
During the public comment period, the U.S. Navy proposed a no-action alternative at
Operable Unit 6 on NAS Pensacola. This preferred remedy was selected in coordination with the
USEPA and the FDEP. The NAS Pensacola RAB, a group of community volunteers, reviewed
the technical details of the selected remedy. The sections below describe the background of
community involvement on the project and comments received during the public comment period.

Background of Community Involvement
Throughout the site's history, the community has been kept abreast of site activities through press
releases to the local newspaper and television stations that reported on site activities. Site-related
documents were made available to the public in the administrative record at information
repositories maintained at the NAS Pensacola Library and The John C. Pace Library of the
University of West Florida.

On December 11, 1997, newspaper announcements were placed to announce the public comment
period (December 8, 1997, through January 22, 1998) and included a short description of the
proposed plan. The announcement appeared in the Pensacola News Journal. In conjunction with
the newspaper announcement, copies of the proposed plan were mailed to addresses on the
IRP mailing list. The opportunity for a public meeting was provided.

Summary of Comments Received During the Public Comment Period
No comments were received during the public comment period.
B-i
-------
-------
•-
fc- ). 0 O
0 o 0
E"O
•:: c
0 > c
43 o o> Q)
£ 0 o C
££«-£
t: 0) 343
0)00^
ajS>c
+t Q,U)Q
0£.£o
(0*55.5
p "-'£'
20 W C
w «^ •••
Reproduced by NTIS

National Technical Information Service
Springfield, VA 22161
This report was printed specifically for your order
from nearly 3 million titles available in our collection.
For economy and efficiency, NTIS does not maintain stock of its vast
collection of technical reports. Rather, most documents are printed for
each order. Documents that are not in electronic format are reproduced
from master archival copies and are the best possible reproductions
available. If you have any questions concerning this document or any
order you have placed with NTIS, please call our Customer Service
Department at (703) 605-6050.

About NTIS
NTIS collects scientific, technical, engineering, and business related
information — then organizes, maintains, and disseminates that
information in a variety of formats — from microfiche to online services.
The NTIS collection of nearly 3 million titles includes reports describing
research conducted or sponsored by federal agencies and their
contractors; statistical and business information; U.S. military
publications; multimedia/training products; computer software and
electronic databases developed by federal agencies; training tools; and
technical reports prepared by research organizations worldwide.
Approximately 100,000 new titles are added and indexed into the NTIS
collection annually.
For more information about NTIS products and services, call NTIS
at 1-800-553-NT1S (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
-------
-------