PB99-964014
EPA541-R99-069
1999
EPA Superftmd
Record of Decision:
Homestead Air Force Base OU 5
Homestead, FL
9/29/1999
-------
-------
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Final
Record of Decision for
Operable Unit No. 5, Site WP-1
Electroplating Waste Disposal Area
June 1997
-------
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1 REGION 4
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 FORSYTH STREET
Jqc'" ATLANTA. GEORGIA 3G303-396C
.Si-p i«t
CERTIFIED \f A fl
R£TLTL\ RFCEIPT RFOC
4UD-FFB
Ma.j Gen David R Smich
Vice Commander, AFRG'CV
1 55 Second Street
Robins AFB, GA 31098-1635
SLTBJ Record Of Decision - Operable Unit 5
Homestead Air Force Base NPL Site
Homestead. Florida
Dear Maj Gen. Smith.
..The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region IV has reviewed the subject
decision document and concurs with the selected remedy for the remedial action at Operable Unit
(OU) 5 at the former Homestead Air Force Base (HAFB). This remedy is supported by the
previously completed Remedial Investigation, Feasibility Study, and Baseline Risk Assessment
Reports The selected remedy consists Land Use Controls which include:
Posting of signs
Restriction on construction
Notify workers before they excavate : " "
Obtain FDEP and EPA approval prior to construction design
Restrict ground water access
No water supply wells within restricted area
No residential usage : :°~ v-'rv:-:/, ' • • .- .>/••••; ^.; x^'-? •»,-•"• -v^'
"Dig permit" required prior to construction '
Conduct inspections and correct discrepancies
The determination to implement this course of action at this site is consistent with the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as
amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) and the National
Contingency Plan (40 CFR 300).
Concurrence with the Record of Decision (ROD) is conditioned on the express
understanding that the Air Force is committed to the agreement reached with EPA Region IV and
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) that complies xvith EPA's
Internet Address (URL) • http://www.»p*.gov
.P*Md «tti V«gtfabte CM B*ud Inks on ftecytM P*Mr (Mhfcroim 25% Pwteooaunwf)
-------
April 21. 1998 Memorandum titled "Assuring Land Use Controls at Federal Facilities "
We reiterate, as we advised Air Force Regional Environmental Office representatives in our
meeting on May 21. 1998. cur concurrence with this particular ROD is based on the
understanding that the Air Force is committed to the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
consistent with the above-referenced Land Use Control (LUC) Policy. Furthermore, the
Homestead Air Force Base BRAC Cleanup Team (BCT) will be expected to craft specific
provisions for Land Use Controls as part of the resulting Land Use Control Implementation Plan
for OU- 5, that will prohibit residential land use
EPA appreciates the level ofeffort that was put forth in the documents leading to this
decision. EPA looks forward to working with HAFB as we move towards final cleanup of the
National Priorities List (NPL) site.
If you have any questions, please call me at (404) 562-8651, or Doyle T Brittain at
(404) 562-8549.
Sincerely,
Richard D. Green, Director
Waste Management Division
cc: Thomas J. Bartol, HAFB/AFBCA
John Mitchell. HAFB/AFRES
Jim Woolford, EPA/FFRO
Jorge Caspary, FDEP
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE RESERVE COMMAND
MEMORANDUM FOR: SEE DISTRIBUTION September 8, 1999
FROM:482d SPTG/CEV
29050 Coral Sea Blvd,
Bldg. 232
Homestead ARS, Fl 33039-1299
SUBJECT: Insertion of Institutional Control language into the Record of Decision for
Enclosed please find a copy of a paragraph to be inserted into the Record of Decision
dated April, 1997 for OU-5. This paragraph incorporates language committing to
institutional controls as included in the Land Use Control Implementation Plan (LUCIP)
for this site. y
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (305) 224-7163.
John B. Mitchell, Chief
Environmental Engineering Flight
Attachment:
ROD Insertion
Cc:
HQ AFRC/CEW, Mr. Philippe Montaigne
AFBCE/DD Homestead, Mr. Tom Bartol
Gannett Fleming, Hugh Vick
DISTRIBUTION:
U.S. EPA, Doyle T. Brittain
FDEP, Jorge R. Caspary
DERM, James A. Carter
-------
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE RESERVE
MEMORANDUM FOR: SEE DISTRIBUTION November 3, 1997
FROM: 482d SPTG/CEV
29050 Coral Sea Blvd.
Building 232
Homestead ARS, Florida 33039-1299
SUBJECT: Record of Decision (ROD): Operable Unit #5
Attached for your approval and records is the final ROD
signed by the Homestead Air Force Base Installation
Commander, Air Force Reserves for Operable Unit #5. Please
contact Mr. Enrique Escalera at (305) 224-7324 or myself if
you have any questions.
John B. Mitchell, Chief
Environmental Engineering Flight
cc: w/o atch
AFBCA/DD
DERM7 James A. Carter
HQ AFRC, Toni B. Thorne
DISTRIBUTION:
U.S. EPA, Doyle T. Brittain
FDEP, Jorge R. Caspary
-------
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
Operable Unit 5
SiteWP-1
Electroplating Waste Disposal Area
Homestead Air Reserve Base
Homestead, Florida
FDEP Facility No. 138521996
June 1997
Montgomery Watson appreciates the opportunity to work for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
at the Homestead Ak Reserve Base facility in Homestead, Florida. If you have any questions or
comments concerning this report, please contact Mr. John B. Mitchell, Remedial Program
Manager, Homestead Air Reserve Base.
Respectfully submitted,
MONTGOMERY WATSON
//J
jerry t$. Gaccetta, P.G.
Project Manager
Freddie Moreton, P.G-——~
Project Geologist
-------
-------
FINAL
RECORD OF DECISION
FOR
OPERABLE UNIT 5
SITE WP-1,
ELECTROPLATING WASTE DISPOSAL AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
June 1997
Prepared for:
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Missouri River Division
Omaha District
Omaha, Nebraska
Prepared by:
Montgomery Watson
107 Mallard Street, Suite D
St. Rose, Louisiana 70087
-------
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
OPERABLE UNIT FIVE
MOA INCORPORATION LANGUAGE
By separate Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) dated 15 March, 1999, with US
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP), HARS, on behalf of the Department of the Air Force,
agreed to implement base-wide, certain periodic site inspection, condition certification
and agency notification procedures designed to ensure the maintenance by Installation
personnel of any site-specific Land Use Controls (LUCs) deemed necessary for future
protection of human health and the environment. A fundamental premise underlying
execution of that agreement was that through the Air Force's substantial good-faith
compliance with the procedures called for therein, reasonable assurances would be
provided to U.S. EPA and FDEP as to the permanency of those remedies which included
the use of specific LUCs.
Although the terms and conditions of the MOA are not specifically incorporated or made
enforceable herein by reference, it is understood and agreed by the Air Force, U.S. EPA
and FDEP that the contemplated permanence of the remedy reflected herein shall be
dependent upon the Installation's substantial good-faith compliance with the specific
LUC maintenance commitments reflected therein. Should such compliance not occur or
should the MOA be terminated, it is understood that the protectiveness of the remedy
concurred in may be reconsidered and that additional measures may need to be taken to
adequately ensure necessary future protection of human health and the environment.
Land Use Controls Implemented:
Homestead ARS Installation Restoration Manager coordinates inspections and forwards
discrepancies for correction.
Maintenance of signage to prevent unauthorized access.
Restrict construction. Workers must be notified that contamination exists and OSHA
regulations apply if excavation activities are proposed on the site. Obtain concurrence
from USEPA and FDEP prior to design. No residential usage allowed. Restrict
groundwater access. No water supply wells allowed within the restricted area. Prior to
all construction activities, a dig permit is required which also restricts groundwater access
for this site.
Objective:
Prevent direct contact with contaminated media. Prevent trespasser and residential use.
-------
-------
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Operable Unit 5, Site WP-1
Electroplating Waste Disposal Area
Declaration for the Record of Decision
-------
-------
DECLARATION STATEMENT
FOR THE
RECORD OF DECISION FOR
OPERABLE ONIT MO. 5
HOMESTEAD AIR RESERVE BASE SUPERFOND SITE
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Homestead Air Reserve Base
Homestead, Dade County, Florida
Operable Unit No. 5, Site wp~i,
Electroplating Waste Disposal Area (Former Site SP-1)
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial
££i0Hi n the f0rmer Electroplating Waste Disposal Area,
Operable Unit No. 5 (OU-5), Site WP-1, at the Homestead Air
Reserve Base (ARB) {formerly Homestead Air Force Base), in
Homestead, Florida. The selected remedial action is chosen
in accordance with CERCLA, as amended by SARA, and, to the
extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This decision
is based on the administrative record for this site.
The State of Florida, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA), and the U.S. Air Force (USAF) concur with
^™? °ted remedy Presented in the Record of Decision
(KOD}.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
No Further Investigation (NFI) with Land Use Controls.
-------
00/27/08 13:40 © E003,005
DECLARATION S2ATZMZNT
The selected remedy 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. This remedy
utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies, to the maximum extent practicable for the
siue. Because the previous removal/remedial action at this
site left contaminants at industrial levels, institutional
controls are required to prevent unacceptable exposures
from hazardous substances that remain above health-based
levels. This site will require a five-year review to
assure there has been no migration of contaminants off site
and that the institutional controls are effective in
safeguarding human health and the environment.
-------
United States Air Force
Homestead Air Reserve Base
Date:
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SECTION 1.0 - SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND HISTORICAL DESCRIPTION 1
1.1 Site Description 2
1.2 Regional Land Use 3
1.3 Surface Hydrology o
1.3.1 Regional Hydrogeologic Setting 4
1.4 Site Geology and Hydrogeology ' 5
SECTION 2.0- SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACnvITIES 6
2.1 Operable Unit No. 6 History 6
2.1.1 Past Site Usage I"."!.".'!!!!."!."!.'!.'!!! 6
2.1.2 Future Site Usage !!!!!!.'!"!"""! 6
2.2. Enforcement History 6
2.2.1 CERCLA Regulatory History .............1".......!."......." 6
2.3 Investigation History 9
2.3.1 IRP Phase I-Record Search ..................."........".." 9
2.3.2 IRP Phase n - Confirmation/Quantification 10
2.3.3 IRP Phase m - Technology Base Development n
2.3.4 IRP Phase IV-Additional Investigations... 11
2.3.5 1991 Remedial Investigation 12
2.3.6 1993 Remedial Investigation Addendum 12
2.3.7 1994 and 1995 Investigation ""."!'"']]". 13
2.3.8 1996 Confirmation Groundwater Sampling.... 14
2.4 Community Relations History 14
2.5 Scope and Role of Response Action 15
2.6 Summary of Site Characteristics 15
2.6.1 Nature and Extent of Contamination.... 16
2.6.1.1 1991 Investigation 17
2.6.1.2 1993 Investigation '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 17
2.6.1.3 1994 and 1995 Investigations ........"....""."." 18
2.6.1.4 1996 Confirmation Groundwater Sampling 19
2.6.2 Soil Investigations 20
2.6.2.1 Volatile Organic Compounds 20
2.6.2.2 Base Neutral/Acid Extractable Compounds 21
2.6.2.3 Organochlorine Pesticides/PCBs 23
2.6.2.4 Metals and Cyanide 24
2.6.2.5 Summary Section for Soils 28
2.6.3 Groundwater Investigations 29
2.6.3.1 Volatile Organic Compounds 31
2.6.3.2 Base Neutral/Acid Extractable Compounds 32
2.6.3.3 Organochlorine Pesticides/PCBs 32
2.6.3.4 Metals and Cyanide Compounds 33
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
2.6.3.5 Summary Section for Groundwater 37
2.6.4 Sediment Investigations 3g
2.6.4.1 Volatile Organic Compounds 40
2.6.4.2 Base Neutral/Acid Extractable Compounds 41
2.6.4.3 Organochlorine Pesticides/PCBs 44
2.6.4.4 Metals and Cyanide " 45
2.6.4.5 Summary for Sediment 48
2.6.5 Surface Water Investigations 49
2.6.5.1 Summary for Surface Water 50
2.6.6 Potential Routes of Migration 51
2.6.7 Exposure Assessment 52
2.7 Summary Of Site Risk 55
2.7.1 Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern 55
2.7.1.1 Criteria for Selection 55
2.7.1.2 Concentration-Toxicity Screen 57
2.7.1.3 Data Analysis 5g
2.7.1.4 Screening Using Risk-Based Concentrations 59
2.7.1.5 Chemicals of Potential Concern Selection Process 60
2.7.2 Potential Routes of Migration 61
2.7.3 Exposure Assessment 62
2.7.4 Toxicity Assessment 55
2.7.5 Risk Characterization 68
2.7.5.1 Carcinogenic Risks 68
2.7.5.2 Chronic Health Risks ...!....".".."...!!..".... 70
2.7.5.3 Risks Associated with Exposure to Groundwater 71
2.7.5.4 Risks Associated with Exposure to Soils 74
2.7.5.5 Lead 74
2.7.5.6 Total Site Risk .--....................".........".' 75
2.7.5.7 Development of Remedial Goal Options 79
2.7.6 Ecological Risk Assessment 80
2.8 Description of the "No Action" Alternative ."...!........ 81
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
FifrUre „, Follows
No- Title Page
1-1 Location of Homestead Air Force Base 1
1-2 Future Land Use Map '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'". 2
1-3 Base Location Map ..".!.."..!!!....!.". 2
1-4 Site OU-5AVP-1, Electroplating Waste Disposal Area Site Map ..............!."! 2
2-1 Site Locations 9
2-2 Phase H (1984) and Phase IV-A (1988) Sampling Locations!
Electroplating Waste Disposal Area, OU-5/Site WP-1 10
2-3 Sampling Locations - 1991 Investigation, Electroplating Waste Disposal
Area, OU-5/Site WP-1 * 12
2-4 Sampling Locations - 1993 Investigation, Electroplating Waste Disposal
Area OU-5/SITE WP-1 _ 12
2-5 1994 Confirmation Sample Locations, Electroplating Waste
Disposal Area, OU-5/Site WP-1 13
2-6 Confirmation Sample Locations, 1995 Interim Action, Electroplating Waste
Disposal Area, OU-5/Site WP-1 13
2-7 1996 Groundwater Sampling Locations, Electroplating Waste Disposal
Area, OU-5/Site WP-1 14
2-8 Area of Excavation 1995 Interim Action, Electroplating Waste Disposal
Area, OU-5/Site WP-i:: ......6 P. 19
2-9 Conceptual Model for OU-5/Site WP-1, Electroplating Waste Disposal
Area 55
2-10 Identification of Chemicals of Potential Concern (COPCs): Criteria for
Selection 55
-------
41
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table • _ „
No. Title Follows
• *-***£ Page
2-1 Analytical Results for Phase H Groundwater Samples at Site WP-l/OU-5 10
2-2 Analytical Results for Phase H Soil and Sediment Samples at
Site WP-l/OU-5 _ 10
2-3 Analytical Results of Phase IV-A Groundwater Samples at Site
WP-l/OU-5 * 12
2-4 Summary of Excavated Samples at Site WP-l/OU-5 .......". 14
2-5 Summary of Analytical Constituents Detected in Soils, 1991 Investigation at
SiteWP-l/OU-5 1?
2-6 Summary of Constituents Detected in Groundwater, 1991 Investigation at
Site WP-l/OU-5 1?
2-7 Summary of Constituents Detected in Sediment Samples Collected in 1991
at Site WP-l/OU-5 17
2-8 Summary of Constituents Detected in Surface Water Samples Collected in
1991 at Site WP-l/OU-5 17
2-9 Summary of Constituents Detected in Soils, 1993, 1994, and 1995
Investigations at Site WP-l/OU-5 18
2-10 Summary of Constituents Detected in Groundwater, 1993 and 1996
Investigation at Site WP-l/OU-5 18
2-11 Summary of Constituents Detected in Sediments, 1993, 1994, and 1995
Investigations at Site WP-l/OU-5 18
2-12 Groundwater Quality Criteria 31
2-13 Exposure Point Concentrations for Groundwater 53
2-14 Exposure Point Concentrations in Surface Soil. ..."........ 53
2-15 Example Data Reduction Calculation for Arsenic in Groundwater Samples 53
2-16 Potential Pathways of Exposure to Chemicals Detected 53
2-17 Concentrations of Dissolved Inorganic Constituents Detected in the
Biscayne Aquifer in Dade County, Florida 55
2-18 Background Soil Chemical Concentrations .I."..!."........"!... 55
2-19 Summary of Chemicals Present in Site Samples - Groundwater..............'. 55
2-20 Summary of Chemicals Present in Site Samples - Surface Soil '.'.'.'.'.".'. 56
2-21 Toxicity-Concentration Screen for Chemicals Present in Site Samples -
Groundwater 58
2-22 Toxicity-Concentration Screen for Chemicals Present in Site Samples -
SurfaceSoil '; 5g
2-23 RBC-Based Screening for Chemicals Present in Site Samples -
Groundwater 59
2-24 RBC-Based Screening for Chemicals Present in Site Samples-
Surface Soil ,-Q
2-25 Chemicals of Potential Concern in Environmental Media '.'.', 60
2-26 Dermal and Oral Absorption Efficiencies for Chemicals of Potential
Concern
-------
LIST OF TABLES
2-27 Reference Doses for Chemicals of Potential Concern 67
2-28 Cancer Slope Factors, Tumor Sites, and USEPA Cancer Classifications
for Chemicals of Potential Concern 57
2-29 Adjusted Toxicity Values used to Assess Dermal Exposure 67
2-30 Groundwater Ingestion Exposure Doses and Risk Calculations for a
Hypothetical Future Adult Resident 71
2-31 Soil Exposure Doses and Risk Calculations for Potential Current Base
Worker 74
2-32 Soil Exposure Doses and Risk Calculations for a Hypothetical Future Adult
Resident 74
2-33 Soil Exposure Doses and Risk Calculations for a Hypothetical Future Child
Resident 74
2-34 Soil Exposure Doses and Risk Calculations for a Hypothetical Future
Construction Worker. 74
2-35 Modeled Blood Lead Levels in Hypothetical Children (aged 0-6) 74
2-36 Summary of Risk Calculations ^ 75
2-37 Risk-Based Remedial Goal Options and FDEP Soil Target Levels
Hypothetical Future Construction Worker 79
2-38 Risk-Based Remedial Goal Options and FDEP Soil Target Levels
Hypothetical Future Adult Resident 79
2-39 Risk-Based Remedial Goal Options and FDEP Soil Target Levels
Hypothetical Future Child Resident 79
2-40 Risk-Based Remedial Goal Options Hypothetical Future Adult Resident .... 79
-------
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Operable Unit 5, Site WP-1
Electroplating Waste Disposal Area
Decision Summary for the
Record of Decision
-------
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
FOR THE
RECORD OF DECISION
1.0 SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND HISTORICAL DESCRIPTION
Homestead Air Reserve Base (ARE) is located approximately 25 miles southwest of Miami
and 7 miles east of Homestead in Dade County, Florida (Figure 1-1). The main Installation
covers approximately 2,916 acres while the surrounding areas are semi-rural. The majority
of the Base is surrounded by agricultural land. The land surface at Homestead ARB is
relatively flat, with elevations ranging from approximately 5 to 10 feet above mean sea level
(msl). The Base is surrounded by a canal (Boundary Canal) that discharges to Outfall Canal
and ultimately into Biscayne Bay approximately 2 miles east.
The Biscayne Aquifer underlies the Base and is the sole source aquifer for potable water in
Dade County. Within 3 miles of Homestead ARB over 4,000 area residents obtain drinking
water from the Biscayne Aquifer while 18,000 acres of farmland are irrigated from aquifer
wells (USEPA, 1990). All recharge to the aquifer is through rainfall.
Homestead Army Air Field, a predecessor of Homestead Air Reserve Base, was activated in
September 1942, when the Caribbean Wing Headquarters took over the air field previously
used by Pan American Air Ferries, Inc. The airline had developed the site a few years earlier
for pilot training. Prior to that time, the site was undeveloped. Initially operated as a staging
facility, the field mission was changed in 1943 to training transport pilots and crews.
In September 1945, a severe hurricane caused extensive damage to the air field. The Base
property was then turned over to Dade County and was managed by the Dade County Port
Authority for the next eight years. During this period, the runways were used by crop dusters
and the buildings housed a few small industrial and commercial operations.
In 1953, the federal government again acquired the airfield, together with some surrounding
property, and rebuilt the Site as a Strategic Air Command (SAC) Base. The Base operated
under SAC until July 1968 when it was changed to the Tactical Air Command (TAC) and the
-1-
-------
I
N
HENDRY COUNTY
COLLIER COUNTY
BROWARD COUNTY {
FORT^
I LAUDERDALE
r—- j—4
• -,'
{ DADE COUNTY JMIAMI-
X ii 1
MONROE COUNTY I , .
"> U I PERRINt/BISCAYNE
1 *( BAY
i
HOMESTEAD
EVERGLADES ~|_
NATIONAL '
PARK [_
i
HOMESTEAD
f ARB
HOMESTEAD AIR ffESFfli/g BASE
10 Mi 20 us
i
APPROX. SCALE
HOMESTEAD AIR RESERVE BASE
HOMESTEAD, FLORIDA
-------
4531st Tactical Fighterwing became the new host. The Base was transferred to Headquarters
Air Combat Command on June 1, 1992.
In August 1992, Hurricane Andrew struck south Florida causing extensive damage to the
Base. The Base was placed on the 1993 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) list and
slated for realignment with a reduced mission. Air Combat Command departed the Base on
March 31, 1994 with Air Force Reservists activated at the Base on April 1,1994. The 482nd
Reserve Fighter Wing now occupies approximately 1/3 of the Base with the remaining 2/3
slated for use and oversight by Dade County. Figure 1-2 depicts the proposed future land use
for the Base.
1.1 SITE DESCRIPTION
The Homestead ARB location map is depicted in Figure 1-3. The former Electroplating
Waste Disposal Area (OU-5/Site WP-1) is located in the west-central portion of the Facility
(Figure 1-4). The site is located in the portion of the Base remaining under control of the
482nd Reserve Fighter Wing. The site is in the cantonment area, east of Building 164 and
consists of a grass lawn adjacent to Building 164, which is approximately 50 feet wide, and
approximately the western third of the asphalt parking lot east of the grass lawn (Figure 1-4).
Biggs Street is located north of the sfte and Buildings 163, 159, and 176 are located west,
southeast, and southwest, respectively, of the site. A grassy drainage swale (low lying
depressed stretch of land), with a north to south drainage flow direction, transects the grass
lawn located adjacent to Building 164. Asphalt parking areas are located east of the grassy
drainage swale and west of Building 164. The drainage swale east of Building 164,
discharges into an underground culvert located south of Building 164. The underground
culvert extends southward under Bikini Blvd. and an equipment storage area for
approximately 500 feet and discharges into an unlined drainage swale just south of the
equipment storage area. The equipment storage area also serves as a motor pool for large
vehicles and contains an equipment/vehicle washrack. The unlined drainage swale is
approximately five feet wide and three feet deep and has sparse terrestrial vegetation growing
in the bottom of it and grass along the'sides. The underground culvert collects runoff from
OU-5/Site WP-1, Bikini Road, the equipment storage area, and other surrounding areas.
South of the equipment storage area the drainage swale flows southwest into a drainage canal
which travels for approximately one-half mile before entering the Boundary Canal. A second
drainage swale, which flows from west to east into the culvert, is located southeast of
Building 164 and south of Building 159. The two drainage swales located near Building 164
-2-
-------
INDUSTRIAL
RISK
N
Svyy] OFFICE
££3 BUSINESS
INDUSTRIAL &OFRCE
INSTITUTIONS
AVIATION FACILITIES
PARKS & RECREATION
DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN
RESIDENTIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL RISK
BLDGS. 779 AND 775 HAVE
RESIDENTIAL RISK I 1
HOMESTEAD AIR RESERVE BASE
HOMESTEAD, FLORIDA
FUTURE LAND USB MAP
FIGURE 1-2
-------
HOMESTEAD AIR RESERVE BASH
HOMESTEAD, FLORIDA
Source: USGS 7.5 minute
Topographic Quadrangles , 1000 0
Arsenicker, Homestead,
Goulds, and Perrine.
-------
GRASSY DRAINA
SWALE
UNDERGROUND
CULVERT
N
V
J 1
EQUIPMENT
STORAGE AREA
_UNLJNED DRAINAGE
SWALE
LEGEND
INVESTIGATION AREA
DRAINAGE SWALE
UNUNED DRAINAGE SWALE
150
APPROXIMATE SCALE
HOMESTEAD AIR RESERVE BASE
HOMESTEAD, FLORIDA
SITE LOCATION MAP
ELECTROPLATING WASTE DISPOSAL AREA
SITE WP'1/OU-S
RGURE 1-4
-------
and the unlined drainage swale located south of the equipment storage area contain surface
water only during heavy rain storms.
1.2 REGIONAL LAND USE
The area adjacent to Homestead ARB including OU-5/Site WP-1, to the west, east, and south
within a half-mile radius is primarily composed of farmland and plant nurseries. Residential
areas are located within a half-mile to the north and southwest of the Base. Woodlands are
located approximately one-half-mile east of the facility and mangroves and marsh occur
adjacent to Biscayne Bay. The Biscayne National Park is located 2 miles east of Homestead
ARB; the Everglades National park is located 8 miles west-southwest of the Base; and the
Atlantic Ocean is approximately 8 miles east of the Base.
1.3 SURFACE HYDROLOGY
Surface hydrology at Homestead ARB, including OU-5/Site WP-1 is controlled by five main
factors: 1) relatively impermeable areas covered by runways, buildings and roads;
2) generally high infiltration rates through the relatively thin layer of soil cover; 3) flat
topography; 4) generally high infiltration rates through the outcrop locations of the Miami
Oolite Formation; and 5) relatively Mgh precipitation rate compared to evapotranspiration
rate. Infiltration is considered to be rapid through surfaces of oolite outcrop and areas with a
thin soil layer. Infiltration rates are accelerated by fractures within the oolite, as well as
naturally occurring solution channels. Precipitation percolates through the relatively thin
vadose zone to locally recharge the unconfined aquifer.
Natural drainage is limited because the water table occurs at or near land surface. The
construction of numerous drainage canals on Homestead ARB has improved surface water
drainage and lowered the water table in some areas. Rainfall runoff from within Homestead
ARB boundaries is drained via diversion canals to the Boundary Canal.
A drainage divide occurs within the Homestead ARB facility property, running from the
northern end of the facility, toward the center. Water in the Boundary Canal flows generally
south and east along the western boundary of the property, and south along the eastern
boundary, converging at a storm-water reservoir located at the southeastern corner of the
Base. Flow out of the stormwater reservoir flows into Outfall Canal, which, in turn, flows
east into Biscayne Bay, approximately 2 miles east of the Base. Water movement is typically
-3-
-------
not visible in the canals in dry weather due to the lowered water table and the very low
surface gradient (0.3 feet per mile) that exists at the Base.
1.3.1 Regional Hydrogeologic Setting
The regional hydrogeology in the southeast Florida area consists of two distinct aquifers: the
surficial aquifer system, which consists of the Biscayne Aquifer and the Grey Limestone
Aquifer, and the lower aquifer, the Floridan Aquifer.
Biscayne Aquifer. The Biscayne Aquifer at Homestead ARB consists of the Miami Oolite,
Fort Thompson Formation, and the uppermost part of the Tamiami Formation. In general,
the most permeable parts of the aquifer lie within the Miami Oolite and the Fort Thompson
Formation.
The Biscayne Aquifer underlies all of Dade, Broward, and southeastern Palm Beach
Counties. The Biscayne Aquifer is the sole source of potable water in Dade County and is a
federally-designated sole-source aquifer pursuant to Section 1425 of the Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA). The Biscayne Aquifer supplies drinking water to approximately 2.5 million
people within local communities. All recharge to the aquifer is derived from local rainfall,
part of which is lost to evaporation, transpiration, and runoff.
The Biscayne Aquifer has reported transmissivities ranging from approximately 4 to
8 million gallons per day per foot (mgd/ft) (Allman et al., 1979).
Water-table contours indicate that under natural conditions, groundwater flows southeasterly
toward Biscayne Bay. The hydraulic gradient is approximately 0.3 ft/mile. The water table
at Homestead ARB generally is encountered within 5 to 6 feet of land surface, but may occur
at or near land surface during the wet season (May to October). Fluctuations of groundwater
levels and local variations in the direction of groundwater flow are due to several factors:
(1) differences in infiltration potential, (2) runoff from paved areas, (3) water-level
drawdown near pumping wells, (4)--significant but localized differences in lithology
(e.g., silt-filled cavities) and (5) drainage effects of canals and water-level control structures.
Floridan Aquifer. Underlying the low-permeability sediments of the Tamiami Formation
and Hawthorn Group are the formations which constitute the Floridan Aquifer.
-4-
-------
The Floridan Aquifer is made up of limestones and dolomites. It is under artesian pressure
and water levels in deep wells may rise 30 to 40 ft above ground surface. Groundwater
within these Miocene and Eocene age formations tends to contain dissolved constituents at
levels significantly above those recommended for drinking water. In view of the poor water
quality and the depth of water yielding zones (800 to 900 feet bgs), the Floridan Aquifer is of
limited usefulness as a source of potable water supply in the study area.
1.4 SITE GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY
The stratigraphy of the shallow aquifer system as determined from soil borings performed
during site investigations by Geraghty & Miller (G&M) and Montgomery Watson consists of
a surficial weathered Miami Oolite ranging in depth from 2 to 6 feet below ground surface
(bgs). The weathered limestone consists of a white to brown semi-consolidated oSlitic
limestone. This strata is underlain by consolidated to semi-consolidated oolitic and coral
limestone interbedded with coarse to fine sand and clayey sand layers and lenses down to the
total depth of borings (approximately 40 feet bgs).
The Biscayne Aquifer is one of the most transmissive aquifers in the world. It underlies
Homestead ARE. A thin vadose zone, nominally less than 5 feet deep, overlays the
groundwater table at the site. As previously stated, the aquifer structure is a calcium
carbonate matrix. This lithology is known to have natural concentrations of target analyte
list (TAL) metals. In descending order by concentration, calcium, aluminum, iron
magnesium, sodium, and potassium can be considered the primary metals of carbonate rock.
The other TAL metals occur in trace concentrations, less than 50 milligrams per kilogram
(mg/kg). The range and the standard deviations are not provided at this time. It should be
expected that, as precipitation infiltrates and recharge takes place, leaching of metal ions
from the weathered vadose zone and shallow unsaturated zone occurs. Regional data
collected suggest that concentrations of trace metals can be expected to be the greatest in the
shallow portion of the aquifer because of the proximity to the source (i.e., the weathering
vadose structure) and the decreasing retention time with decreasing depth of the saturated
zone. These observations support a hydrogeologic model in which the shallow portion of the
aquifer has a greater horizontal transmissivity than the vertical component during recharge
events. However, it is not possible, from the available data at the site, to quantitatively
differentiate horizontal and vertical components of the aquifer's hydrologic conductivity.
The possible presence of vertical solution zones is well documented in literature. The site-
specific effects have not been fully investigated. Nevertheless, the available data does not
lead to the immediate conclusion that this is a necessary task. The conceptual model that the
-5-
-------
shallow groundwater is discharging to the ditches and canals provides sufficient detail for the
purpose of discussing Site OU-5/WP-1.
2.0 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
2.1 OPERABLE UNIT NO. 6 HISTORY
2.1.1 Past Site Usage
OU-5/Site WP-1 was formerly used as a disposal area for spent plating baths and rinses from
a plating shop located in Building 164. During the period between 1946 and 1953, when
Homestead ARE was inactive and ownership of the property was transferred to Dade
County, a small electroplating operation was located in Building 164. Spent plating solutions
containing chromium, nickel, copper, and sulfuric and hydrochloric acid were routinely
disposed of by discharging them on the ground in an area just east of Building 164
(Engineering-Science, 1983). Wastes were generated at a rate of approximately 250 gallons
per month, and the electroplating operation continued for about two years (Engineering-
Science, 1983). According to 1958, 1962, and 1973 aerial photographs, the asphalt parking
lot located east of Building 164 did not exist when the electroplating company was operating
and the area was covered with trees' and grass. The parking lot was constructed between
1962 and 1973. No visible evidence of waste residue is observed on the ground surfaces that
-are presently exposed (not covered by parking lot). The high amount of rainfall typical of the
area is suspected to have dissipated the waste residues.
2.1.2 Future Site Usage
OU-5/Site WP-1 is within the cantonment area of the 482nd Air Force Reserve unit. The
cantonment area has restricted access and is fenced off from other areas of the Base.
2.2. ENFORCEMENT HISTORY
2.2.1 CERCLA Regulatory History
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA) established a national program for responding to releases of hazardous
substances into the environment. In anticipation of CERCLA, the Department of Defense
(DOD) developed the Installation Restoration Program (IRP) for response actions for
-6-
-------
potential releases of toxic or hazardous substances at DOD facilities. Like the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA's) Superfund Program, the IRP follows the
procedures of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP).
Homestead ARE was already engaged in the IRP Program when it was placed on the
National Priorities List (NPL) on August 30, 1990. Cleanup of DOD facilities is paid for by
the Defense Environmental Restoration Account (DERA), which is DOD's version of
Superfund.
The Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act (SARA), enacted in 1986, requires
federal facilities to follow NCP guidelines. The NCP was amended in 1990 (see 40 CFR 300
et seq.) to implement CERCLA under SARA. In addition, SARA requires greater USEPA
involvement and oversight of Federal Facility Cleanups. On March 1, 1991, a Federal
Facility Agreement (FFA) was signed by Homestead ARE (formerly Homestead AFB), the
USEPA, and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). The FFA guides
the remedial design/remedial action (RD/RA) process.
The purpose of the FFA was to establish a procedural framework and schedule for
developing, implementing, and monitoring appropriate response actions at Homestead ARE
in accordance with existing regulations. The FFA requires the submittal of several primary
and secondary documents for each of the operable units at Homestead ARE. This ROD
concludes all of the remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) requirements for OU-
5/SiteWP-l.
As part of the RI/FS process, Homestead ARE has been actively involved in the Installation
Restoration Program (IRP). From 1983 to 1992, 27 Potential Sources of Contamination
(PSCs) were identified at Homestead ARE. Ten sites have been investigated in the PA/SI
stage of CERCLA, with four sites warranting no further investigation and six sites requiring
further investigation. One of the PSCs sites has been closed under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) guidelines and seven sites were investigated under
the FDEP petroleum contaminated sites criteria (Florida Administrative Code (FAC) 62-
770). Additionally, a RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) has been conducted to evaluate
numerous solid waste management units (SWMUs) identified during the RCRA Facility
Assessment (RFA). A cleanup effort was initiated after Hurricane Andrew to prepare the
base for realignment. This included the removal of fuel storage tanks and oil/water
separators. Additional PSC have been identified subsequent to 1992 as a result of
investigations and/or remediation of the base. The following PSC sites are currently in
various stages of reporting under the CERCLA RI/FS guidelines.
-7-
-------
Operable
Unit No.
Fire Protection Training Area 2
Residual Pesticide Disposal Area 2
Oil Leakage Behind the Motor Pool 4
Electroplating Waste Disposal Area 5
Aircraft Washrack Area g
Entomology Storage Area 7
Fire Protection Training Area 3 g
Boundary Canal 9
Landfill LF-12 10
Sewage Treatment Plant/Incinerator Ash Disposal Area 1 1
Entomology Shop 12
Landfill SS-22 13
Drum Storage Area 14
Hazardous Storage Bldg. j5
Missile Site . ,g
Hanger 793 17
Construction Debris Landfill •'' jg
Bldg. 208 19
Bldg. 618 Parking Lot 20
# 32, Bldg. 619 Parking Lot 2 1
Bldg. 761/764 22
Bldg. 814 25
Bldg. 745 26
Bldg. 268 & 268 A 27
Bldg. 750 2g
Bldg. 760 29
Operable Unit No. 3 PCB Spill, C.E. -Storage Compound has been closed out with a No
Further Action Record of Decision (ROD) in June 1994. Operable Units 1, 2, 4, and 6 have
been completed through the ROD stage requiring various levels of remedial action/remedial
design. OU-8 has been closed out under CERCLA with a No Further Investigation Decision
Document and is being transfered to the FAC 62-770 program. Two Solid Waste
Management Units, OU-23 and OU-24, have been closed out while three areas of concern
(AOC-1, AOC-3, and AOC-5) are in the preliminary assessment phase of investigation.
-8-
-------
Figure 2-1 depicts the above-listed CERCLA sites, as well as the FAC 62-770 fuel
contaminated sites currently under investigation.
The Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Cleanup Plan currently incorporates both the
IRP and associated environmental compliance programs to support full restoration of the
base.
2.3 INVESTIGATION HISTORY
2.3.1 IRP Phase I - Record Search
An IRP Phase I - Records Search was performed by Engineering Science, and is summarized
in their report, dated August 1983 (Engineering-Science, 1983). During the Phase I study,
sites with the potential for environmental contamination resulting from past waste disposal'
practices were identified. Thirteen sites of potential concern were identified by reviewing
available installation records, interviewing past and present Base employees, inventorying
wastes generated and handling practices for these wastes, conducting field inspections, and
reviewing geologic and hydrogeologic data. In general, Phase I studies are used to determine
if a site requires further investigation.
.*•
The thirteen identified sites were ranked using the Hazard Assessment Rating Methodology
(HARM) developed by JRB Associates of McLean, Virginia, for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA). HARM was later modified for application to the Air Force
IRP. The following factors are considered in HARM: (1) the possible receptors of the
contaminants; (2) the characteristics of the waste; (3) potential pathways for contaminant
migration; and (4) waste management practices. HARM scores for the sites ranked at
Homestead ARB ranged from a high of 72 to a low of 7 out of 100. Eight of the thirteen sites
were determined to have a moderate-to-high contamination potential, one of which was the
Electroplating Waste Disposal Area. These sites were recommended for additional
monitoring. The remaining five sites were determined to have a low potential for
environmental contamination.
According to the IRP Phase I Report, Site OU-5/WP-1 received a moderate to high HARM
score of 72 due to the nature of the waste (persistent metals) that were disposed of at the site
(Engineering-Science, 1983). In addition, Site OU-5/WP-1 scored high as a potential
migration pathway because of the extremely permeable nature of the underlying rock,
shallow groundwater, and the proximity of the drainage swale to the site. This score.
-9-
-------
HOMESTEAD
AIR RESERVE
BASH
OU4 Aounairy £vwl
OU-IOLF-UOmM
evj-ii S*M«. T
-------
however. d,d no, reflect the site conditions which have probab.y caused dissipation of the
wastes; mcludmg heavy rain infiltration and the amount of time (30 years) since the disposal
ac,,v,«ies ceased. The Phase I report recommended sampling the exling Base s* py J U
the one currently or most recent,y in service, from We,, Fie,d No. , and anting L pH
total djssolvedsohdsCTDS), chromium, nickel, copper, and sulfate.
133. IRP Phase II - Conflrmatloii/Quantificatlon
An mp Phase II study was performed by Science Applications International Corporation in
1984 and a report was completed in March 1986 (SAIC. 1986). The objectives of a Phase n
study are to confirm the presence or absence of contamination, to quantify ,he extent and
degree of contamination, and ,o determine if remedial actions are necessary. During the
Phase M study, additional investigations were performed a, the eight sites recommended for
monuonng ,„ the Phase I report, as we,, as two of the other thirteen originaUv-identified
s«es. The Eiectroplatmg Waste Disposal Area was included in this investigation.
The Phase II - Confirmation/Quantification investigation included installation of three
momtonng wel,s (1-01 through 1-03) and four soil borings (SL-, through SL-4), coHection of
»o sedtment samp.es (SD-, and SD-2), and groundwater sampHng. The monitoring wel,s
were s.ted for the purpose of confining and quantifying suspected contaminants. The
locations of these monitoring wells and the sampling points are shown in Figure 2-2 The
sou, sednnen,, and groundwater samples were analyzed for total metals (cadmium
chrormum, copper, !ead, nickel, zinc) and cyanide. The groundwater samples were also
analyzed for hexavalent chromium.
The groundwater analyses indicated the presence of metals; however, the concentrations
detected were below applicable Federal and Florida drinking water standards. The detected
eve s of metals in the soil and sediment samples are comparable to common background
levels for those metal constituents. Elevated levels of cyanide, however, were detected in the
s'atr 7™' n^ Tai"e ^ PreSe"tS ^ ""fr""1 reS""S for •*• Sroundwater
Zn Ttlfrt PreSCatS "" a"3ly'iCal reSU'B f°r SOH -
during the 1984 IRP investigations.
The Phase n report contained the following aUematives for additional investigation at this
«e. (1) resample existing wells for inorganics; (2) install an additional monitoring well
tocated southeast of Building ,59; (3) collect surface-water (and sediment) samp.es from the
dramage canal and runoff from the site and other areas to assess the contaminant contribution
-10-
-------
1
N
r
il
•»-
j-'
r
U
BIGGS ST.
01
O
t
J
1
176
I
164
V
|^M2 GRASSY DRAINAGE )
JiSL-1-^SWALE
A'SL-2
ASL-3
^
«*I03| 159 |
!! SD-1 <3»QSD-2 ••
II
II
UNDERGROUND ."
CULVERT ' — -*-.i
-i 1
, r^
: I
" , I
J
s
— ]
rr
( XGRASSY DRAINAGE^-
SWALE
I
\
153
-r
BIKINI BLVD.
173
I
. I
1
J U
;; iso f
it
it
" EQUIPME
, _[' STORAGE A
J I II I
181^ I
HT
REA
•UNUNED DRAINAGE
SWALE
LEGEND
SOIL BORING LOCATION SMC. 1984
SHALLOW MONITORING WELL INSTALLED
1964 BY SMC. SAMPLED IBM AND 1988
SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATION SA1C, 1964
DBAMAGE SWALE
UNUNED DRAINAGE SWALE
150
APPROXIMATE SCALE
HOMESTEAD AIR RESERVE BASE
HOMESTEAD. FLORIDA
PHASE It (1984) AND PHASE IV-A (19B6)
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
ELECTROPLATING WASTE DISPOSAL AREA
SITE WP- 1/OU-f
RGURE2-2
-------
TABLE 2-1
ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR PHASE II GROUNDWATER SAMPLES
SITE WP-1/OU-S, ELECTROPLATING WASTE DISPOSAL AREA
SAIC, 1984 INVESTIGATION
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
ANALYTE
Field Parameters
pH (Std. Units)
Temp (°C)
Specific Conductance (umhos/cm)
Metals: ug/L:
Cadmium
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Cyanide ue/L
Source: Geraghty & Miller, Inc., 1992
NA - Not Available
OCATION 1-01
6.8
29
420
0.2 V
19.7
0.3
4.2
7.8
10.6
15.1
— — — — — — — — .
1-02
6.8
24
420
0.2
<0.5
<0.1
5.3
6.8
10.8
16.3
REPLICATE
1-02
6.8
24
420
<0.2
<0.5
4.8
9.0
9.2
15.7
1-03
NA
29
430
0.4
<0.5
1.7
7.0
5.7
16.9
16.3
-------
TABLE 2-2
ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR PHASE II SOIL AND SEDIMENT SAMPLES COLLECTED
SITE WP-l/OU-5, ELECTROPLATING WASTE DISPOSAL AREA
SAIC, 1984 INVESTIGATION
Homestead Air Reserve Base. Florida
SOIL
0.01
0.07
0.05
1.17
0.01
0.80
3.90
ANALYTE (nig/Kg)
Cadmium
Total Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Cyanide
Source: Geraghty & Miller, Inc., 1992
Shading indicates sediments have been removed during the 1995 Interim Removal Action
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
-------
of the site area and whether significant levels of inorganics are migrating from the site via
surface water; (4) collect additional soil samples to delineate soil contamination- and (5) a
combination of alternatives one and three. The recommendations of the Phase II report
included: sampling the canal water and sediments southeast of Building 159 at two locations
during the wet season to determine the role of surface water as a pathway; resampling
easting monitoring wells for comparison with Stage I results to determine the statistical
significance of the elevated inorganics indicated by Stage I analysis; and installation and
sampling of two additional monitoring wells. A complete discussion of the methods and
results of this study are presented in the Phase II - Confirmation/Quantification Report
(SAIC, 1986). y
2.3.3 IRP Phase III - Technology Base Development
The IRP Phase III is a research phase and involves technology development for an
assessment of environmental impacts. There have been no Phase III tasks conducted at the
Base to date.
2.3.4 IRP Phase IV -Additional Investigations
The IRP Phase IV investigations consist of two areas of work activity. Phase IV-A involves
additional site investigations necessary to meet the Phase II objectives, a review of all
management methods and technologies that could possibly remedy site problems, and
preparation of a baseline risk assessment to address the potential hazards to human health and
the environment associated with the constituents detected at the site. Detailed alternatives
are developed and evaluated and a preferred alternative is selected. The preferred alternative
is then described in sufficient detail to serve as a baseline document for initiation of
Phase IV-B.
An IRP Phase IV-A investigation was performed at Site OU-5/WP-1 by Geraghty & Miller
in 1988. The results of this investigation are included in the report entitled Draft Remedial
Investigation Report for the Building 207 Underground Storage Tank Area, Residual
Pesticide Disposal Area, and the Electroplating Waste Disposal Area, Homestead Air Force
Base, Florida, October 1988.
The Phase IV-A - Remedial Actions investigations included additional groundwater analysis,
water-level measurements, and a topographic survey. Groundwater samples from the
existing wells were collected and analyzed for total metals (arsenic, barium, cadmium
-11-
-------
chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, sodium) and cyanide. Arsenic and
sodium were the only constituents detected at concentrations exceeding the quantitation limit
(Table 2-3). All detected concentrations were below applicable Federal and Florida
standards. The locations of the permanent monitoring wells, as well as significant
topographic features of the site, have been indicated on Figure 2-2.
No significant risks to public health or the environment were identified in the baseline risk
assessment; therefore, the Draft RI Report (Geraghty & Miller, 1988) recommended no
further action at this site. A "no further action" recommendation specifies that additional
investigations and/or remedial action are not warranted at the site.
2.3.5 1991 Remedial Investigation
In 1991, G&M conducted a remedial investigation at OU-5/Site WP-1. This investigation
included the installation of one additional monitoring well (SP1-MW-0001), sampling of the
three existing monitoring wells plus the new well, collection of four shallow soil/weathered
rock samples, two sediment, and two surface water samples. The 1991 sampling locations
are shown on Figure 2-3. All samples were analyzed for the USEPA Target Compound List
(TCL) VOCs and BNAs, and the Target Analyte List (TAL) metals and cyanide using
USEPA SW-846 the methods. The results of these analyses are presented in Sections 2.6.2,
2.6.3, 2.6.4, and 2.6.5. Complete results of the 1991 RI are presented in G&Ms report titled
Remedial Investigation Report for Site WP-1 Electroplating Waste Disposal Area, June 1992.
Geraghty & Miller's conclusion presented in the RI Report was that no additional study was
recommended.
2.3.6 1993 Remedial Investigation Addendum
In 1993, Montgomery Watson Americas, Inc. performed supplemental RI activities to
evaluate the soil and groundwater quality with respect to the USEPA target compound
list/target analyte list (TCL/TAL), to fill data gaps from the previous field investigations, and
to evaluate any impacts due to Hurricane Andrew. The 1993 investigation included the
drilling of five soil borings, groundwater sampling of seven shallow and one deep monitoring
well, and the collection of three sediment and surface water samples. Sampling locations are
illustrated on Figure 2-4. All samples were analyzed for TCL Organochlorine
Pesticides/PCBs and cyanide. All sediments, one soil, and one groundwater sample were
also analyzed for the presence of TCL VOCs, BNAs, and TAL metals. Dissolved (filtered)
-12-
-------
TABLE 2-3
ANALYTICAL RESULTS OF PHASE IV-A GROUNDWATER SAMPLES
SITE WP-l/OU-5, ELECTROPLATING WASTE DISPOSAL AREA
GERAGHTY & MILLER, 1988 INVESTIGATION
Analvtes
Metals (ug/L)
Total a*rsenic
Total barium
Total cadmium
Total chromium
Total copper
Total lead
Total mercury
Total nickel
Total selenium
Total sodium
Total cyanide
Source: Gerao>h»v * Miiw im* TOOT
-Ul
_ *
[7.6]
-------
r
1 rn I
137
GRASSY DRAINAGE
SWALE
A SP1-SL-0003
SP1-MW-0031S
SP1-MW-0001
r
UNDERGROUND
CULVERT
-&
VGRASSY DRAINAGES
SWALE
153
L
BIKINI BLVD.
180 |
EQUIPMENT
STORAGE AHEA
SPl-SD-0005
UNUNED DRAINAGE
SWALE
PI^D^KKW
D
O
©
SOIL BORING LOCATION
MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY SMC, 1984
SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATION
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATION
DRAINAGE SWALE
150
150
APPROXIMATE SCALE
.
BORE HOLE INSTALLED BY GERAGHTY * MILLER, 1991
UNUNED DRAINAGE SWALE
'HOMESTEAD AIR RESERVE BASE
HOMESTEAD, FLORIDA
SAMPLING LOCATIONS • 1991 INVESTIGATION
ELECTROPLATING WASTE DISPOSAL AREA
SITE WP-1JOU-5
RGURE2-3
-------
BIGGS ST.
1-02—BRASSY DRAINAGE
"SWALE
A SP1-SL-0006
SP1-SL-OOOT
SP1-UW-0001
o
SP1-SD-0012 Op M3
L-rl '
176
fr
XGRASSYDRAINAGE
SWALE
UNDERGROUND
CULVERT
L
BIKINI BLVD.
181
EQUIPMENT
STORAGE AREA
IP1-SD-O007
^.UNUNED DRAINAGE
, SWALE
ISP1-SD-0008 ._ .
I - I II—
LEGEND
A SOIL BORING LOCATION
• MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY SAIC, 1984
Q MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY
w GERAGHTY & MILLER. 1991
O SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATION
•—• DRAINAGE SWALE
= UNUNED DRAINAGE SWALE
APPROXIMATE SCALE
HOMESTEAD AIR RESERVE BASE
HOMESTEAD, FLORIDA
SAMPLING LOCATIONS - 1993 INVESTIGATION
ELECTROPLATING WASTE DISPOSAL AREA
WP-1/OU-5
FIGURE 2-4
-------
TAL metals were also analyzed for in groundwater samples. The results of these analyses
are presented in Sections 2.6.2, 2.6.3, 2.6.4, and 2.6.5.
23.7 1994 and 1995 Investigations
Confirmatory samples were collected during the summer of 1994 from 28 shallow borings at
the locations shown in Figure 2-5. This work was completed under the direction of the
USACE-Mobile District. For the purposes of this evaluation, samples collected from the
two borings advanced west of Building 164 and the five borings in the grassy swale east of
Building 164 were considered soil samples due to their location in a asphalt paved parking
area and the absence of a well defined drainage system in the swale. The remaining samples
were considered sediments. The two samples collected from the borings located west of
Building 164 were analyzed for semi-volatile organic compounds (USEPA SW-846 Method
8270) and TAL metals (USEPA SW-846 Method 6010, 7060, 7421, 7740, and 7471). The
remaining 26 soil/sediment samples were analyzed for semi-volatile organics, TAL metals,
and pesticides (USEPA Method 8080). All analyses were performed in accordance with
USEPA SW-846 protocol. The results of these analyses are presented in Sections 2.6.2 and
2.6.4. Further information regarding the collection of the 28 confirmatory soil samples
collected during the 1994 sampling event is provided in the IT report entitled Confirmation
Sampling Results: Electroplating Waste Disposal Area (IT Corporation, August 29, 1994).
In 1995, IT conducted an Interim Action (IA) at OU-5/Site WP-1. This work was completed
under the direction of the USACE-Mobile District. The remedial activities included
delineation and profiling of contaminated soils/sediments, excavation and disposal of
contaminated soils/sediments, and analysis of confirmation samples collected from within the
excavation limits. Further details on the activities conducted during the 1995 investigation
can be found in the IT report entitled Interim Action Report: Electroplating Waste Disposal
Area(OU-S) (FT Corporation, November 30, 1995).
After excavation, three confirmation samples were collected from the base of the excavated
areas. These confirmation samples were analyzed for semi volatile organics, TAL metals,
and pesticides using USEPA SW-846 methods. Confirmation sample locations are depicted
on Figure 2-6. The results of these analyses are presented in Section 2.6.2.
During the investigations and excavation activities, 14 analytical samples were collected
from soil/sediments that were later excavated during the Interim Action. Of those samples, 2
were collected during the 1984 Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC)
-13-
-------
09, 27/09 13:40 3J g. 004/005
investigation, 4 were samples collected during the 1993
Montgomery Watson Investigation, and 14 were samples collected
during the 1994 IT Corporation projects. The results from these
analysis are no longer representative of current site conditions.
A complete list of the soil/sediment samples which were
subsequently excavated is presented in Table 2-4.
2.3.8 1996 Confirmation Qroun«lwafc«r Sampling
On January 24 and 25, 1996, OHM, under contract with the Mr
Force Center for Environmental Excellence (AFCEE), conducted as
confirmation groundwater sampling event at OU-5/Site KP-1.
During this event groundwater samples were obtained from each of
the sites 4 groundwater monitoring wells (SP1-MW-0001, i-Di, 102,
and 1-03) (Figure 2-7). Groundwater samples were collected with'
USEPA and State of Florida approved methods. The 4 groundwater
samples were analyzed by Analytical Technologies, Inc., in
Pensacola Florida, for the target compound list (TCL) volatile
organic compounds (VOC's), TCL base neutral and acid extractable
(BNA's), TCL organochlorine pesticides/PCE's, and target analyte
list {TAL) metals and cyanide. The results of these analytes are
presented in Section 2.6.3. All samples were analyzed in
accordance with USEPA Contract Laboratory Protocol (CLP)
requirements.
The results of the site characterization activities conducted
during the 1991 and 1993 investigations, as well as the results
from the 1994 and 1995 IT Corporation Interim Action and the 1996
OHM confirmation sampling event are presented in Sections 2.6.2.
2.6.3, 2.6.4, and 2.6.5 of this ROD.
2-4 CCM4UNITY RELATIONS HISTORY
The Remedial Investigation/Baseline Risk Assessment Report and
the Proposed Plan (PP) for Homestead ARE, OU-5/Site WP-1 we^e
released to the public in October and December 1996,
respectively. These documents were made available to the public
in both the administrative record and an informal repository
maintained at the Air Force Base Conversion Agency OL-Y office.
A public comment period will be held from March 16, 1997 to April
14, 1997 as part of the conrounity relations plan for OU-5/Site
WP-1. Additionally, a public meeting was be held en Thursday,
March 13, 1997 at 7:00 pm at the South Dade Senior High School. A
Public Notice was published in., the Miami Herald and the South
Dade News Leader on February 21, 1997. At this meeting, the
USAF, in coordination with USEPA Region 4, FDEP and Dade County
Environmental Reaources Management (DERM), will be prepared to
discuss the Remedial Investigation, the
•14-
-------
TABLE 2-4
SUMMARY OF EXCAVATED SAMPLES
Site WP.l/OU-5, Electroplating Waste Disposal Area
IT Corporation, 1995 Interim Removal Action (IRA)
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Sample Identifier
NORTH AREA (a)
SD-1 (sediment)
SD-2 (sediment)
SP1-SD-0009 (sediment)
SP1-SD-0010 (sediment)
SP1-SD-0011 (sediment)
SP1-SD-0012 (sediment)
EWA-6 (soil)
EWA-7 (soil)
EWA-8 (sediment)
EWA-10 (sediment)
EWA-11 (sediment)
EWA-12 (sediment)
EWA-13 (sediment)
EWA-15 (sediment)
Sampling IRA
Depth Excavation
Interval Depth
(a)
(a)
O'-r
O'-r
O'-r
o'-r
0--0.51
0'-0.5'
0'-0.5'
0'-0.5'
0'-0.5'
0'-0.5'
0'-0.5'
0'-0.5'
^Investigation
1984(SAIC)
1984 (SAIC)
1993 (Montgomery Watson)
1993 (Montgomery Watson)
1993 (Montgomery Watson)
1993 (Montgomery Watson)
1994 (IT Corporation)
1994 (IT Corporation)
; 1994 (IT Corporation)
1994 (IT Corporation)
1994 (IT Corporation)
1994 (IT Corporation)
1994 (IT Corporation)
1994 (IT Corporation)
Comments
Excavated
Excavated
Excavated
Excavated
Excavated
Excavated
Excavated
Excavated
Excavated
Excavated
Excavated
Excavated
Excavated
Excavated
NOTES:
(a) Sample interval unknown
-------
EWA3-
EWA-4-
k
I
ASPHALT PAVEMENT
y CURB AND GUTIiR— *"
JWA-17A
EWA-lt' i
EWA-1SA
I
0M-14A
EWA-13
ew
raa—' twA-i
B4.00IIM EWA-t
A
EWA-1
A CONFIRMATION SOIL
SAMPLING LOCATION
CONFIRMATION SEDIMEN i
SAMPLING LOCATION
HOMESTEAD AIR RESERVE BASE
HOMESTEAD, FLORIDA
1(94 CONFMUMnON SAMPLE UXMnONS
eLECTROfiATIHO WASTS DISPOSAL XflEA
areiw-)(tx/-j
Fiouan-i
-------
13* CULVERT —'
ASPHALT PAVEUEHT
r CUM AMD GUTTER -••
V
/" SWAUt-
ASPHALT
CAVfUtHI
BOO
no
CS02
. CONC.
t\
ASPHALT
PAVEMENT
••—CCNC. CATCH WIW
LEOEhD.
CONFIHMATIOM-SEDIML;
8 AMPLINQ LOCATION
A CONFIRMATION SOIL
SAMPLING LOCATION
HOMESTEAD MR RESERVE BASE
JiOMaSTEAS.fLCRISA
CONFIFlUATIOHSAUnEiOCATIOHS- IttSINTfluUAC.
ELECmOPlATINa WASTE DISPOSAL UtCA
smwp-uou-s
-------
fJH)2 GRASSY DRAINAGE
'SWALE
VGRASSY DRAINAGE^
SWALE
UNDERGROUND "
CULVERT
EQUIPMENT
STORAGE AREA
UNUNED DRAINAGE
SWALE
I
N
150
•e
•x
I
MONITORING A'ELL INSTALLED BY SAIC, 1984
DRAINAGE SWALE
UNLINEO DRAINAGE SWALE
MONITORING WELL
INSTALLED BY GERAGHTY & MILLER. 1991
APPROXIMATE SCALE
HOMESTEAD AIR RESERVE BASE
HOMESTEAD, FLORIDA
1996 GROUNCWAT=R SAMPLING LOCATIONS
ELECTROPLATING WASTE DtS=3SAL AREA
SITE /VP-1/OU-S
FIGURE 1-7
-------
Baseline Risk Assessment, and the Preferred Alternative as described in the Proposed Plan.
A court reporter will prepare a transcript of the meeting. A copy of the transcript and all
written comments received during the comment period will be placed in the Administrative
Record. A response to the comments received during this period will be included in the
Responsiveness Summary section of a later draft of this ROD. This decision document
presents the selected remedial action for OU-5/Site WP-1 at Homestead ARB, chosen in
accordance with CERCLA, as amended by SARA and, to the extent practicable, the National
Contingency Plan. The decision for this site is based on the administrative record.
2.5 SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION
Homestead ARB, Florida with concurrence from the FDEP and USEPA, has elected to
define Operable Unit 5 as the former Electroplating Waste Disposal Area and associated
potential soil and groundwater contamination only. The remedial actions planned at each of
the Operable Units at Homestead ARB are, to the extent practicable, independent of one
another. However, with respect to OU-5 and OU-9 (Boundary Canal), the definition of these
two operable units has resulted in the necesity to assign different physical media to each
operable unit. Consequently, all sediment and surface water-samples collected in association
with investigations conducted at OU-5 have been evaluated in the OU-9, Boundary Canal RI
through ROD.
2.6 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
OU-5/Site WP-1 was formerly used as a disposal area for spent plating baths and rinses from
a plating shop located in Building 164. During the period between 1946 and 1953, when
Homestead ARB was inactive and ownership of the property was transferred to' Dade
County, a small electroplating operation was located in Building 164. Spent plating solutions
containing chromium, nickel, copper, and sulfuric and hydrochloric acid were routinely
disposed of by discarding them on the ground in an area just east of Building 164
(Engineering-Science, 1983). Wastes were generated at a rate of approximately 250 gallons
per month, and the electroplating operation continued for about two years (Engineering-
Science, 1983). According to 1958, 1962, and 1973 aerial photographs, the asphalt parking
lot located east of Building 164 did not exist when the electroplating company was operating
and the area was covered with trees and grass. The parking lot was constructed between
1962 and 1973. No visible evidence of waste residue is observed on the ground surfaces that
are presently exposed (not covered by parking lot). The high amount of rainfall typical of the
area is suspected to have dissipated the waste residues.
-15-
-------
2.6.1 Nature and Extent of Contamination
This section describes the nature and extent of contamination defined to-date at the
Electroplating Waste Disposal Area, OU-5/Site WP-1. Subsurface investigations at the site
were initiated by SAIC in 1984 (SAIC, 1986). Further field investigations were conducted
by G&M in 1988 and 1991 following IRP and CERCLA directives. The results of the 1984
activities are reported in "Installation Restoration Program Phase II -
Confirmation/Quantification, Stage I, Homestead AFB, Florida" prepared by SAIC. The
1991 investigative results are reported in "Remedial Investigation Report for Site WP-1,
Electroplating Waste Disposal Area, July 1992" (G&M, 1992). Based on recommendations
following the 1992 RI report by G&M, Montgomery Watson performed an additional field
and sampling investigations in 1993. The Montgomery Watson investigation was conducted
in accordance with the approved Facility Work Plan and Work Plan Addenda (G&M
1991a,b,c).
In 1994, IT Corporation completed a soil and sediment confirmation sampling program at the
Electroplating Waste Disposal Area, OU-5/Site WP-1. This confirmation sampling program
was developed to further define the nature and extent of contamination at the OU-5/Site WP-
1 area. Based on the findings of this investigation, excavation of sediments from the
northern swale was performed (Figure 2-6). Upon completion of the excavation, three
confirmation soil/sediment samples were collected from the base of each of the three
excavations in the North Area. Additionally, groundwater samples were collected from each
of the 4 site monitoring wells in 1996 by OHM Corporation. This action was completed
based on USEPA recommendations to confirm the groundwater quality of the site given there
has been a three year delay between sampling and reporting.
A summary of the scope of previous investigations, including those associated with the 1994
and 1995 Interim Action, the 1996 Groundwater Sampling event, and a discussion of data
collected to-date at OU-5/Site WP-1 are presented below.
An IRP Phase II investigation was completed by SAIC in 1984. The Phase II Confirmation
Quantification investigation included installation of three monitoring wells (1-01 through I-
03) and four soil borings (SL-1 through SL-4), collection of two sediment samples (SD-1 and
SD-2), and sampling of groundwater. All of the samples were analyzed for total metals
(cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc) and cyanide. The groundwater was
also analyzed for hexavalent chromium. Locations of the wells and soil borings are shown in
Figure 2-2. Analytical results for this sampling are discussed in Section 2.3.2.
-16-
-------
Based on the presence of contamination at the site, a Phase IV-A investigation was |flt
performed in 1988 by G&M to further define the extent and degree of contamination. The ™
1988 work included groundwater analysis, water-level measurements, and a topographic
survey. The three existing wells were sampled and analyzed for total metals (arsenic,
barium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, sodium) and
cyanide. Results of the 1988 groundwater sampling are discussed in Section 2.3.4. Well
locations are shown on Figure 2-2.
2.6.1.1 1991 Investigation. In 1991 additional CERCLA field investigations were
performed by G&M to evaluate groundwater and soil quality with respect to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) analyte list
for organics (TCL) and inorganics (TAL). This field effort included the installation of one
shallow monitoring well (SP1-MW-0001) and the collection of groundwater samples from
this new well and from the three existing wells (1-01, 1-02, and 1-03) at OU-5/Site WP-1.
Monitoring Well SPl-MW-0001 was completed to 13 ft bis at a location east of Building 164
approximately midway between existing monitoring wells 1-02 and 1-03. The well is located
near the SL-3 sampling location of the 1984 Phase II investigation; this location is the
suspected center of the waste disposal area. Three shallow soil/weathered rock samples
(SP1-SL-0001, SP1-SL-0002, SP1-SL-0003; plus SP1-SL-9002, the duplicate of SP1-SL-
0002) were collected. In addition, one soil sample (SP1-MW-0001-S) from the monitoring
well boring was collected. All soil samples were collected from the 2-4 ft bis interval. Two
sediment and two surface water samples were collected from the unlined drainage swale
south of the equipment storage area. The sediment/surface water pairs were identified as
SP1-SW/SD-0005 and SP1-SW/SEKJ006. Locations of the water and soil/sediment
sampling points are illustrated on Figure 2-3. All samples were analyzed for the Target
Analyte List (TAL) and the Target Compound List (TCL) elements or compounds excluding
pesticides/PCBs. USEPA SW846 methodologies were employed for all analyses performed
in 1991. Analytical results for soil, groundwater, sediment, and surface water samples are
discussed in Sections 2.6.2, 2.6.3,2.6.4 and 2.6.5, respectively. Tables 2-5,2-6, 2-7, and 2-8
provide a summary of analytical results for the 1991 investigation.
2.6.1.2 1993 Investigation. In 1993, Montgomery Watson performed additional
investigations of soil, sediment, and groundwater at OU-5/Site WP-1. Surface water was not
present in any of the drainage swales during the 1993 sampling activities; therefore, it could
not be collected. The Montgomery Watson field effort included drilling four soil borings
(SPI-SL-0004 through SP1-SL-0007). These borings were in the same relative locations as
SP1-SL-0001 through SP1-SL-0003 and SP1-MW-0001-S, drilled during the 1991
-17-
-------
TABLE 2-5
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN SOILS
Sire WP-MOO-S, ELECTROPLATING WASTE DISPOSAL AREA
eOUOHTY * MILLER. 1991 INVESTIGATION
Homaalaad Ur flaaarva Bas«. Rerida
Analyla
(UMSamptoLO. A««ga Aw^. s«
-------
TABLE 2-6
SUMMARY °F CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN GROUNDWATER
SITE WP-1/OU-5, ELECTROPLATING WASTE DISPOSAL AREA
GERAGHTY & MILLER, 1991 INVESTIGATION
Homestead Air Reserve Bate, Florida
Analyta
Florida
Drinking
Water
Standards
EPA EPA Range SP1-MW-0001 SPflM-01
Maxkim Maximum Of CONSTITUENTS 37428-18 37460-4
Contaminant Contaminant Detected 11/13/91 11/14/91
Level Level Goal Mln. Max.
VOUTILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (090.):
Methytene chloride 5 NS
BASE/NkU IHAL. ana ACID tXiHACTABLE COMPOUNDS (ug/L):
Ws(2-Ethytiexyl) phlhalate 6 6
Aluminum
Arsenic •
Barium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Zinc
CYANIDE
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS (mart.)
200
50
2,000
5
NS
100
300
15
NS
50
NS
50
160.000
NS
5.000
200
500
I
k
k
k
k
1
1
k
k
1
k
1
50-200
50
2,000
5
NS
100
300
15
NS
50
NS
50
NS
NS
5.000
200
500
l.h
g
1,9
1
i,9
h
h
1,9
h
n
h
NS
0
NS
NS
2,000
5
NS
100
NS
0
NS
NS
NS
50
NS
NS
NS
200
NS
BDL .
8DL -
5700 J -
11J -
i 25 -
i BDL -
130000 •
i 22 -
1700 J •
8.6 J -
3900 •
33 J -
1600 J -
i BDL -
n
(3.1] <
. k
320 J
24000
92J
150
BDL <
5400000
130
18000J
14000
200 J
3900
BDL <
<
5.0
10.7)
3000
11
33
5.0
130000
22
1700
3900
53
3900
50
18000
25
10
NA
[1.4]
< 10
5700
J 92
63
< 25
3100000
59
J 3600
J 11
7300
J 75
1600
UJ < 50
23000
< 50
< 100
NA
NA
J
J
J
UJ
J
J
,1
J
J
J
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
SPM-01 SPM-02
37508-14 37460-1
11/18/91 11/14/91
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10
NA
[3.1] <
[0..9] J
24000
60 J
150
< 25 <
5400000
130
30 J
14000
200 J
2600
< 50 UJ <
82
< 100
< 10 <
300
SPM-03
37428-17
11/13/91
5.0
320 J
3000
19 J
25
5.0
130000
34
5.4 J
3800
33 J
2100
50 UJ
12
26
10
NA
SPM-9002 SP1-EB-0023
37460-2 37460-3
11/14/91 11/1*91
< 5.0 <
< 10 <
6400 <
42 J <
89 <
< 25 <
2600000
62 <
30 J <
6600 <
110 J <
2000 <
< 50 UJ <
< 50 UJ <
< 100 <
< 10 <
290 <
5.0
10
200
10
10
5.0
370
10
5.0
50
10
1000
10
10
20
10
5.0
-------
TABLE 24
lS52Y.2f,CONStITUENTS DETECTED IN GROUNDYVATER
SITE WP-1/OU-5, ELECTROPLATING WASTE DISPOSAL AREA
GEHAGHTY « MILLER, 1991 INVESTIGATION
Homestead Air Reserve Bate, Florida
.fls2ol2
METALS (iKKl):
Aluminum
Arsenic
calcium
Chrofnlum
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Selenium
Vanadium
Zinc
CYANIDE
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS (m^L)
Source: Qeraghty ft Miller, lne.,1»92
NS
100
300
IS
NS
50
50
160.000
NS
5,000
200
k
1
""T"
I
k
k
1
k
NS
too
300
15
NS
50
NS
50
NS
NS
5.000
200
1.0
h
d
h
1.0
•••IXOXMH
h
n
NS
100 1
NS
0
NS
NS
SO 1
NS
NS
200 n
NA
NA
NA
NA
s*
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NOTES:
d ^B'M^I°,;LL^
10% of targeted tap samples la greater than the action level.
h otsr;^r^
I
J Positive result has been classified as quaftlatlva.
k Florida Primary Drinking Water Standard.
I Florida Secondary Drinking Water Standard.
n Proposed Primary MCL or MCLO
NS No Standard Available
NA Not analyzed.
U Classified as undetected.
UJ
II
. 1991
-------
TABLE 2-7
SUMMARY OF CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN SEDIMENT SAMPLES COLLECTED IN 1991
StfE WP-1/OU-5, ELECTROPLATING WASTE DISPOSAL AREA
GERAGHTY & MILLER, 1991 INVESTIGATION
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Q&M Sample I.D.
Sampling Date
SQC
(ug/KgCX"
SQC at
1%OC
("3/Kg)
TripBtank (2
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND ftnft>| ^
Ac*tont NS
Methyttncchlorlda ^
TelracMofotthan*
TrlctitonxUxx)* '
BC-SD-0100
Background
Sampto
Bento(b)lluwanlh«Ki«
Benzota.hJJpdiyiene
Banzo(k)nuoranlh«ne
Chiysem
Dtb«tuo
-------
TABLE 2-7
SUMMARY OF CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN SEDIMENT SAMPLES COLLECTED IN 1991
SITE WP-1/OU-5, ELECTROPLATING WASTE DISPOSAL AREA
GERAGHTY & MILLER, 1991 INVESTIGATION
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Anilyte
G&M Sample I.D.
Sampling Date
SQC
(ug/Kg CX«
SQC at
1%OC
METALS (mafktf dw)
Aluminum (
Arssnfc
Barium
Cadmium
ug/kgdw micrograms per kilogram dry weight
mg/kgdw milligrams per kilogram dry weight
NA Not Analyzed '
< Analyte was not delected at or above the indicated concentration.
| J Value is greater than instrument detection limit but less than pactical quanttelion limit
J Positive result has been classified as qualitative.
UJ Analyte was undetected. Classified as qualitative.
U Classified as undetected,
N Not Available
NS No Standard
Organic Carbon
The sediment quality criteria (SQC) cannot be directly compared with the drainaae swale
data because the SQC are presented as normalized to organic carbon
(i.e. presented on a per organic carbon weight basis). To allow a direct comparison
between the sediment data and SQC, the SQC lor an organic caiton contentol 1 0% OC
(SncjSoS^ If sSnT9)"'1% °° W8r°derived by mutllplyin9 "" sa6
-------
III! till
fill ill
!
p
is1
n a
c «
If
II
= . 3
IH
EPP
5 555555555?
5-f 55555
5551
5 w w
555
A I A A * A A
«3 i« >*
ssg ESS
£ E
sss E
A A A IA A
f!
IIP
.s I Hit
z
X
-------
investigations by G&M. Soil/weathered rock samples were collected from each of the 1993
borings at the 0-1 or 0-2 ft bis intervals. Grouhdwater samples were collected from the four
shallow monitoring wells at OU-5/Site WP-1. A total of six sediment samples were collected
from the three drainage swales. Sediment thickness varied with sampling location and were
encountered underlying several inches of benthic organic material such as algae in the
drainage swales. Figure 2-4 illustrates the locations of all samples collected during this
current investigation. Each matrix was analyzed using USEPA CLP protocols for TCL
organics and TAL inorganics. All samples were analyzed for TCL organochlorine
pesticides/PCBs and cyanide. All sediments, one soil and one groundwater sample were also
analyzed for the presence of TCL VOCs, BNAs and TAL metals. Dissolved (filtered) TAL
metals were also analyzed for in groundwater samples. All samples were analyzed by
Savannah Laboratories, Tallahassee, Florida. Analytical results of the Montgomery Watson
sampling are discussed in Section 2.6.2 and 2.6.3, and 2.6.4. Tables 2-9, 2-10, and 2-11
provide a summary of analytical results for the 1993 investigation.
2.6.1.3 1994 And 1995 Investigation. The 1994 Interim Action was performed in
accordance with Section 300.415(b) of the National Contingency Plan (NCP) and CERCLA.
The purpose of this non-time critical removal action-was to clean-up and remove
contaminated media in order to prevent damage to the public health or welfare of the
environment. Prior to the removal action, an engineering evaluation/cost analysis (EE/CA)
was completed which identified the objectives of the removal action and analyzed the various
alternatives that were available to satisfy the objectives for cost, effectiveness, and
implemtability. From this evaluation, the recommended alternative is implemented.
In 1994, IT Corporation conducted an investigation of affected soils/sediments at OU-5/Site
WP-1. This work was performed under contract to USAGE - Mobile District. The
investigation consisted of completing 28 soil borings at the locations identified on Figure 2-5.
Two borings, EWA-1 and EWA-2, were completed in the paved parking area west of
Building 164. These borings were extended to a depth of 2 ft below the asphalt. The
remaining 26 borings were located at points within the drainage swales and advanced to a
depth of six inches. The draining swales have been divided into a North and a South Area.
The North Area is located between Building 164 and 153. The South Area is located
between Building 179 and 185. Soil/sediment samples were collected from each boring to
obtain a sample for laboratory analysis. The samples collected from the two borings drilled
west of Building 164 and the five northern most borings (EWA-3 through EWA-7) are
considered soil/weathered rock samples. These five northern most points were considered to
be representative of soil/weathered rock due to the absence of a well defined drainage system
-18-
-------
Analyle
VOA TCL Compounds DDD
p.p'DDE
p.p'DDT
BNA TCL Compounds (ug/kg)
AceruphlhctK
Anthracene
Benio(a)Anlhracene
BenzofatPyrene
BcnioiblFluoranlhene
Benio(jJi4)Perykne
BenzotklFluoranthene
Beruylbutyl Phthalaie
B»(2-Elhy!»yl) Phthalate
Carbazole
Chryscne
Dt-n-Biityl Phthalaie
Oi-n-Octyl Phtnalaic
Dibeiu{a,h)Anihnccne
Dibenierunui
< rxx detected a specified detection limit
NE-nouitat>liited
NA • DOI analyzed
M>(!)-i»dua
(2) - no) liurd on the Soil Tarjei Level Table
but was lined in 62-775 of the FAC. Tool VOC
luted in 62-775 aa having « max cone, of
»ot*tand I mflkf forToul PAHs,
Z
1995
FDEP Health Based
Soil T*net Levels
1.800.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
5.900.000
17.000
11.000
12.000
30.000.000
300.000,000
4.900
500
5.000
50.000
48.000
310.000.000
110.000
120.000
500.000
140.000.000
32.000.00
500
3.500,000
Removal
Action Level
ND(1)
Sample ID.
Simple Interval (ft)
Date Collected
3.210
3.210
3,210
ND(I)
17.500
12.400
11.300
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
5.040
540
5.010
ND(1)
4.970
ND<1>
ND(I)
224.000
50.300
ND(I)
ND{1)
505
1,000(2)
Muonntnene
•Wfcne
eno(I,2J.CJ3)Pyrcne
•Knanthrcne
Pyrene
MeCals (mt/kg)
Aluminum
Arsenic
Danum
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium. Total
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potauiuia
Sodiura
Vanadium
Zinc
.
48.000.000
30,000.000
5,000
21.000.000
41.000.000
>I, 000,000.000
4.000
600
• ND(1)
430
110.000
ND<1)
ND(I)
1.000
ND(1)
5300
480
2.600
ND(1)
ND(1)
4.800
560,000
1.000(2)
1,000(2)
"5,040
1.000(2)
1,000(2)
ND(I)
10(3)
4.94O
1.070
ND(I)
160 1
ND(1)
ND(I)
ND(I)
108 I
ND(I) !
ND{1) 5
17 f
3 24 c
ND(i) a
ND(1) 8
NO (1) §
N6<1) I
Q
Data Qualifiers for Organic Compounds
1 • Estimated value, 25 % difletence in detected value between two columns
B - Compound detected in an associated blank
C- Confirmed on second column
Data Qualifiers for Inorganic Compounds
B - Reading is less than CRQLbut greater than IDL
E - rcponed value is estimated due to interference
N . spiked sample recovery not within control limits
• - duplicate analysis not within control limits
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.9 J
MWI993
SPI-SL-0007
(0-1)
3/11/93
21000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
93 BJ
35 J
410
17 BJ
II
87 J
4J
650
81
2001
190 J
510
27000
5 <2.0
NA
<3.8
<3.8
3.9
1 0.83 J
\ NA
J NA
J NA
j NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.3 P
NA
0.77 J
28
130
34
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
Analyte
VOA TCL Compounds (uf/Vf)
Acetone
Pestlcldec/FCB TCL Compounds (ug/kg)
Alpha-Qilordane
Beta-Chlordane
Chlordane (technical)
Endosulfan SulCale
p.p'DDD
p.pDDE
p.p"DDT
BNA TCL Compounds (tig/kg)
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)Anthracene
Benzo.5>
Removal
Action Uvel
Simple ID.
Sample Interval (ft)
Dale Collected
3.000
3.000
3,000
5.900,000
17,000
11.000
12.000
3.210
3.210
3.210
ND<1)
17,500
12.400
11.300
30.000.000
300,000.000
4.900
500
5.000
50.000
48.000
310.000.000
110.000
120.000
500.000
140.000.000
32.000.00
500
3.500.000
48.000,000
30.000.000
5.000
21,000.000
41.000.000
l.000<2)
1,000(2)
5.040
540
5.010
ND(I)
4.970
ND(1)
ND(1)
224,000
SOJOO
ND(I)
ND(I)
505
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
5.040
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
<7500
<7500
<7500
<7500
<7500
<7500
<7500
<7500
<7500
NA
<7500
<7500
<7500
<7500
<7SOO
<7500
<7500
<7500
<7500
<7500
<110000
<110000
1.000.000.000
3
4.000
600
ND(I)
430
110,000
ND(I)
ND(1)
1.000
ND
ND(I)
17
3.24
ND(1)
ND(I)
ND(I)
< not detected at specified detection limit
NE- not established
NA - not analyzed
NO (1). no data
(2) - not listed on the Soil Target Level Table
but was listed in 62-775 of the FAC. Total VOC
listrH in 62-775 as having A max cone, of
', and 1 mg/kg for Total PAHs.
val Action Level as determined by BC T
"- -ueeds Action Level
Bold & Shaded - exceeds Action Level and
FDEP Soil Target Level
•• - 2 samples used to calculate mean.
Data Qualifiers for Organic Compounds
J - Estimated value, 2S 56 difference in detected value between two columns
B • Compound detected in an °"~-iimJ blank
C - Confirmed on second column
Data Qualifiers for Inorganic Compounds
B - Reading is leu than CRQL but greater than 1DL
E - reported value is estimated due to interference
N - spiked sample recovery not within control limits
• - duplicate analysis not within control limits
-------
TABLE 2-10
PjfC I all
SUMMARY OF CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN GROUNDWATER
SITE WP-1/OU.5, ELECTROPLATING WASTE DISPOSAL AREA
1993 AND 1996 INVESTIGATIONS
Homestead Air Reserve Base. Florida
Analyle
VOA TCL Compounds (ug/1)
Chloroform
BramodicMoromethane
1.2-Dichloropropanc
Melhytene Chloride
Methyl Emyl Ketonc (2-Buunone
BNA TCL Compounds (ut/1)
Bi»(2.Ethy!h«yl)I>f«halate
Di*n-Buiyl Phthalate
2-MeihyIiuphtfulcne
Naphthalene
1elaU(ut.<1)(c)
Aluminum
Arxiuc
Banum
Calcium
Copper
Chromium
Cotult
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
MW 1993 MW 1993
SPM-OZ SPI-I.902
3/1*3 3/1/93
DUPLICATE
MWI993
SPI-EB-000
3/1/93
OHM199*
Sf'l-MW-000
tasat
Florida
Drinking
Water
Standards
EPA Maxlmu
Conlaminan
Level
Cool
Sample ID
Dale Collecta
200®
50(1)
2000 (i)
NS
10000)
100 (i)
NS
300 (j)
15(0
NS
500)
100 (i)
NS
160000 (i)
NS
50000)
50-200 (h)
50 (g)
2000(e)
NS
900 (h VI300 (d
I00(g)
NS
300(h)
15(d)
NS
50 (h)
100
NS
NS
NS
5000 (h)
Dau Qualifim for Organic Compounds
J - estimated quantity. <}uality
control criteria were no( met
Dau Qualifiers for Inorganic Compounds
B - Reading is less lhan CRQL
but greater than IDL
< not delected at spcciflcd detection limit
Bold • equal to or greater lhan BC
NS-No Standard
(a) MCLonoOut/UsfortotalTHMs-
(b) loui uphthakne* must be
-------
TABLE 2-10
SUMMARY OF CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN GROUNDWATER
SITE WP-1/OU.S. ELECTROPLATING WASTE DISPOSAL AREA
1993 AND 1996 INVESTIGATIONS
Homestead Air Reserve Base. Florid*
Analyte
Florida
Drinking
Water
Standards
EPA Drinkint
Water
Standard
EPA Maximum
Contaminant
Level
Coal
OHM 1996
SPI-l-02
1/2S/96
OHM 199*
SPI-l-02
I/2S/96
DUPLICATE
VOA TCL Compounds (us/1)
Chloroform
Bromodichlorameihane
1.2-Dichloropropane
Methylene Chloride
Methyl Ethyl Ketone (2-Bulanone;
100 (a) (i)
100 (a) (i)
5
NS
100 (a)
100 (a)
5
NS
NS
BNA TCL Compounds
2000(g)
NS
000(hV1300(d
100 (g)
NS
300 (h)
I5(d)
NS
50 (h)
100
NS
NS
NS
5000 (h)
0
0
0
NS
NS
0
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
2000
NS
1000
100
NS
NS
0
NS
NS
100
NS
NS
NS
NS
-------
Ifffj .p.
{pM |HJ|| f
II Illllll
I
•i
' 11
III
ftlffHFfHHKHHsiffrmril
Hlinilf «'if! {fillJlB
-------
TABI.r3J.il
SUMMARY OF CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN SEDIMENTS
SITE WP-IWU-5. ELECTROPI.ATING WASTE DISPOSAL AREA
1993. tVH. AND 19VS INVESTIGATIONS
Aufe*
Acanne
Mcthylme CUonde
Pettkidet/PCB TCL ramiMimll (u£/k|j
Bcu-Chionla«e
CMordaee Uechekd)
Endmulras Solfatt
ppDDE
P4i'DDT
PCS. 1260 tArota 1260)
BNA TQL CwnpMMda
Accnartthera:
Accnartilhyleae
AMImtxrc
acnzn(a>ARtrncene
BeiunfklFluonmhene
Bouyl Butyl fTtlhaUK
aistt-Elhylheiyll FMliaUe
Cartuzoie
•4-CMnrouiliae
Chryjene
Dt-n-Mlylphttulatt
Di-«-OayirtlDuJ»le
DiherafaJDAHrncene
Diberunruran
WeUjylphUlalatt
DimeUv/t Phthalale
2.6-Diltilranlueac
Ftonrantfiew
Flunrene
lndennC1^3-cd)Pyrrae
2-MeUtylnapMulen:
N-NiirucncJupneAylanuMe
Narftluleae
Phead
Pyreae
Metals
:;:« 2=
NE
NE
NE
£»
*l«0
NE
NE
u;
I6J
1700
ii ;
1IKX) 1
<19 ;
o.txa |
NE !
NE
NE
290 J $
3,7 J '
27 J J
*vn*J
<97(X)
<97(lfl
<971X)
<9700
<97m
55000
14003
^UTIVl
^^^^ SSS
SS^
^
^888888«
iliiiii
^^^^
111
e^^^^
•
52000
1670
Ty
• 109*
141010
343
<25.6
274
loo
341
150*
IU
O.K
< 25611
<12*
Ml
<25.6
311
l»u Ooilif,*! for OrtJoicCoacam).
) - atimued iruanlir. lea tlm CXQL
•~r, rMOToa
IT1W4
EWAI2
NA
NA
NA
NA
270"
<4fiOO
130M
«4iUO
<46t»
<46tX>
<460Q
<460D
4400 J
100*0
3490
<4300
15000
490)
<431XI
<4xn
<430I)
*%£
<4X10
11MO
2340
moo
370)
HOD
<27(JO
<270II
<27t)0
5700
<27(D
170M
3540
<5son
S900J
<5
U4
4VM8
*3I ,
704
C66.7
<3330
25* diflocaoe In dcKOtd nkie ben>ee« l«o cui
E - Enccnkil alitmiaa n^e of iratnjroo.
C - Confirmed on iccoad oduau
• - Efcvutd dcuoiim limit due to either penlcidn rmeK « malrU
"
B - ScaJinj n leu Him CROL DW pcaur than IDL
E - iqmial nine u ealnaKd ttie lo liurferenx
N - apitod laaple TOOVBJ an wiiM, CO«OT| liinitl
« - JOB diteaioxplke for fwuce AA oil of craiol linlu
< M dented 11 ipcdEcd dcudini llnM
NA-«xi>alyzeil
BoU > equal or frem ttnu «BO
Sou * Shaded >e^ia
-------
TAKI.E2-II
Pax I ii
*,™«l r
SITE WP-I/OU-S. ELECTROPLATINC WASTE DISPOSAL AREA
IJ93. 1»M. ANt> IIISIS INVESTIGATIONS
_ """""oil Air RfMrvc Hue, Florid*
Aialytt
OA TCL CxnpMMck (u|/k|)
Auaiine
MethylcneCnkxide
Simple l«Uml
Ditc Canceled
IT19M
EWAZf
0-6"
BcuOJonhae
Chlonliae (technical)
EndOKilfanSulfKc
p.p'DDD
ftp-DDE
pp'DDT
PCB-l2«l(Arodorl2«l)
NA
NA
UNA TCL CMjMiuufe (u*(kf)
Accairrilhent
Acemnhiliyleae
Anthracene
BenzrtDAnthncene
BetuofDPytrae
BenzortOFlBnranlhene
BenzixiJi.DPeryicne
BauiXklFlumiilheae
Benzyl Butyl Rvhaltie
B&2.EUiylheiyl) Pnlhjltle
Cirbunle
Chryseae
DI-o-Butyt Phthalate
*CU>l Thttulate
DibeoztaJDAathncenc
DitcnuAxu
Dtaiiylftaaimc
Di methyl PN(u;«£
2.6-CXnJm(olucne
Flvmruheae
Fhxxene
J-MethylMpddiilenc
N-NitrrBottfihcnylunlne
Niphtfulene
FhenuUnne
Pheeol
Pyrcne
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
Atuminuaa
Antimony
Anenlc
Birium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Caldum
<493
<493
<4M
<4U3
NA
<493
<493
410
<493
<4V3
<493
<493
<493
<493
B3n
<493
j <24«l
J <240Q
<2tm
2IOOJ
<244X>
5000
3550
O«i Qmlilkn for Orj««ic Compoo**
J - eiiinMed tfattilf. Icm ihn CHQL
8 - cocnpouDd detected IB in uaodned bttalc
D- Xeuk It reported from teamiuy cHImiai
P - >25* dUTemx in detected nine between two cdimuu
E • Exceeded aUlnUan note of lonmca
C - ConOmxd on icoaod cotaiHl
•- Be»«d detoJia, limit due lo dtta penfcide. frant or nuttix interferences
"-AltaBJpiaera
D«U Quilinen for lanrf nic Compound!
B - Readlnf li leu Una CRQL but finer Ihu IDL
E - reported nlue Ij otinaled due to Interfeirnce
N - ipikrd umpk recovery m wiihia cnmol limit,
W - pot diiearao tpikc for furnace AA out of control Hmilt
•• Uupliiile nulyti! ncx within annul limiu
equil orrraierihaji «BO
Bold & Shaded > equal or jreaicr thin 2«BC
2.7
290000
33
I
IS
3100
120
1100
«7
L5>
6.2
110
-------
in this area and lack of sediment observed at these locations. The remaining samples were
considered sediments based on their location in a well defined drainage ditch or swale and
the presence of sediment. The 28 soil/sediment samples were analyzed for base neutral and
acid extractable compounds (BNA's) and TAL metals. Additionally, the 21 soil/sediment
samples from the drainage swales were further analyzed for pesticides. All analyses were
performed in accordance with USEPA SW-846 protocols. Analytical results of the 1994
sampling are discussed in Sections 2.6.2 and 2.6.4. Tables 2-9 and 2-11 provide a summary
of analytical results for the 1994 investigation.
In 1995, IT Corporation completed an Interim Action which included the excavation of
soil/sediment from selected areas within the northern swale. This work was performed under
contract to USAGE - Mobile District. The excavations were completed to a depth of 1 ft bis
and extended three ft to either side of the centerline of the swale (Figure 2-8). The
excavations were completed using a front loader/backhoe combination unit. Excavated
soils/sediments were stockpiled on visqueen, bermed with hay bails, and covered at the end
of each day's work shift. For the purposes of evaluation, the confirmation sample CS-01 was
evaluated as representative of soil/weathered rock while, CS-02 and CS-03 were evaluated as
sediments. _
Soil/sediment excavation activities were not completed in the south area. Upon completion
of the excavation, confirmation samples were collected from each of the three north area
excavations (Figure 2-6). The confirmation samples were analyzed for BNAs, TAL metals,
and pesticides. Analytical results of the 1995 sampling are discussed in Sections 2.6.2 and
2.6.4. Tables 2-9 and 2-11 provide a summary of analytical results for the 1995
investigation.
2.6.1.4 1996 Confirmation Groundwater Sampling. On January 24 and 25, 1996,
OHM Corporation conducted a complete round of groundwater sampling from the four
groundwater wells located on OU-5/Site WP-1. This work was performed under contract to
AFCEE. This groundwater sampling event was recommended by the USEPA to provide
current groundwater quality information for site characterization purposes. OHM
Corporation completed the groundwater sampling program in accordance with a USAGE
internal statement of work dated August 22, 1995.
In accordance with the scope of work, OHM Corporation collected groundwater samples
from monitoring wells MW-0001,1-01,1-02, and 1-03. Groundwater sampling locations are
shown on Figure 2-7. Two equipment blanks, one blind duplicate, and two trip blanks were
-19-
-------
GRASSY DRAINAGE
SWALE
EQUIPMENT
STORAGE AREA
>t\UNLINED DRAINAGE
SWALE
GRASSY DRAINAGE
SWALE
LESEND.
AHEA OF EXCAVATION
DRAINAGE SWALE
UNLINED DRAINAGE SWALE
150
150
APPROXIMATE SCALE
HOMESTEAD AIR RESERVE BASE
HOMESTEAD, FLORIDA
AREA OF EXCAVATION - 1995 INTERIM ACTION
ELECTROPLATING WASTE DISPOSAL AREA
SITEWP-1/OU-5
RGURE 2-8
-------
also collected and analyzed as part of the sampling event. Groundwater samples were
analyzed for TCL VOCs, TCL BNAs, TCL organcohlorine pesticides/PCBs, TAL metals,
and cyanide. Laboratory analyses were performed by Analytical Technologies, Inc., located
in Pensacola, Florida. Analytical results of the 1996 sampling are discussed in Section 2.6.3.
Table 2-10 provides a summary of analytical results for the 1996 investigation.
A summary of the detected parameters from the 1991, 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996
investigations are provided in Sections 2.6.2, 2.6.3, 2.6.4, and 2.6.5.
2.6.2 Soil Investigations
This section presents the results from the soil samples that were collected by G&M during
the 1991 Remedial Investigation, results from the 1993 Montgomery Watson Remedial
Investigation Addendum, and the 1994 and 1995 IT Corporation Interim Action
Investigations. Results of soil analyses for the previous and the current investigations are
presented by analytical group (i.e., VOCs, metals, etc.). Figures 2-3 and 2-4 provides an
illustration of the locations of the soil sampling points for 1991 and 1993, Figures 2-5 and 2-
6 present the soil sampling points for the 1994 and 1995 investigations, respectively.
2.6.2.1 Volatile Organic Compounds. 1991 Investigation. A summary of laboratory
results of constituents detected in soil during G&M's 1991 investigation are presented in
Table 2-5. Acetone was the sole volatile organic compound (VOC) detected in 1991 and was
seen in two of four samples, including the background sample (SP1-SL-0002).
Concentrations ranged from 1,268 u.g/kg to 7,301 u.g/kg. G&M calculated the average
background to be 1,029 jig/kg for Homestead ARE at the 2-4 ft bis level. Based on current
sampling information, and the background soil data, the acetone appears to be related to the
degradation of isopropanol used in the decontamination of field sampling equipment.
1993 Investigation. In 1993, only soil sample SP7-SL-0007 and its duplicate, SP7-SL-9007,
were analyzed for VOCs as required by the Work Plan. Table 2-9 presents concentrations of
compounds detected in soils during the 1993 investigation. Acetone was detected at 25,000
and 27,000 ^g/kg, respectively. These concentrations are well below the State of Florida
Health-Based Soil Target Levels. The acetone detected in these samples is believed to be
attributable to the degradation of the isopropanol utilized for field decontamination of
sampling equipment. Isopropanol samples were analyzed and found to contain acetone at
concentrations up to 120,000 jig/L. Acetone, therefore, is most likely a field contaminant
introduced into the samples during the decontamination process. A discussion of the
-20-
-------
isopropanol analysis is included in the Quality Control Summary Report (QCSR) submitted
to the USACE-Omaha District under separate cover.
1994 and 1995 Interim Action. Confirmation samples collected during the 1994 and 1995
Interim Action investigations were not analyzed for VOCs.
2.6.2.2 Base Neutral/Acid Extractable Compounds. 1991 Investigation. During the
1991 investigation, five soil samples were collected and analyzed for Base Neutral/Acid
Extractable Compounds (BNAs). These samples were identified as SP1-SL-0001, SP1-SL-
0002-split, SP1-SL-9002 (the duplicate of SP1-SL-0002), SP1-SL-0003, and SP1-MW-
0001S. Soil boring SP1-SL-0002 was identified prior to sampling as a background sampling
location. All soil samples for the event were collected from the 2-4 ft bis interval. Detected
BNAs from the 1991 sampling event are listed in Table 2-5.
Several BNA compounds (mainly polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons [PAHs]) were detected
in background sample SPl-SL-0002-split, although, at very low levels. Concentrations of
PAHs detected in the background sample, including benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene,
benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, fluoranthene,'
phenanthrene, and pyrene, are estimated values because they are between the method
detection limit and the practical qaantitation limit (PQL). Additionally, two non-PAH
BNAs, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and 2-chlorophenol, were detected in sample SPl-SL-
0002-split at estimated concentrations of 110 and 10 ug/kg, respectively. PAHs were not
detected in sample SP1-SL-9002, or the three other OU-5/Site WP-1 soil samples.
The concentrations of PAHs, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and 2-chlorophenol detected in OU-
5/Site WP-1 background samples were equal to or less than the average Homestead ARB
background concentrations for the 2-4 ft depth interval. The PAH,
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, and 2-chlorophenol concentrations are similar because the
background data collected at OU-5/Site WP-1 was included in the average Homestead ARB
calculations and some PAH compounds and 2-chlorophenol were only detected in
background data collected at OU-5/Ske WP-1. The PAH, and bis(2-ethylhexyl)Phthalate
concentrations detected at OU-5/Site WP-1 were less than the average Homestead ARB
background concentrations for the 0-2 ft depth interval. PAHs and 2-chlorophenol were not
detected in the Homestead ARB background samples included in the 4-6 ft depth interval.
Additionally, the concentrations of bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate detected at OU-5/Site WP-1
were below the average Homestead ARB concentration of this compound calculated for the
4-6 ft interval.
-21-
-------
1993 Investigation. Of the four samples collected in 1993, only one sample (SP1-SL-0007)
and its duplicate (SP1-SL-9007) were analyzed for BNAs (Table 2-9). This sample was
collected from the 0-1 ft bis interval. Fifteen PAH compounds were detected at comparable
levels in both samples. Additionally, dibenzofuran, carbazole and four phthalates were
detected. Carbazole concentrations were 35 and 62 ng/kg and are estimated below the
contract required quantitation limit (CRQL). Di-n-butyl phthalate and bis-2-ethylhexyl
phthalate were detected at less than the CRQL and were also detected in the laboratory blank.
Benzylbutyl phthalate and di-n-octyl phthalate at 24 ng/kg and 7 jig/kg, respectively were
detected in SP1-SL-0007. SP1-SL-9007 contained 14 ng/kg of benzylbutyl phthalate. All
phthalate concentrations were below the CRQL. The total phthalate concentration of 141
Jig/kg is slightly greater than the average Homestead background of 126 u.g/kg. The total
PAH concentrations for SP1-SL-0007 and SP1-SL-9007 were 3,609 jig/kg and 4,825 ng/kg,
respectively. However, only five of the PAH compounds were above the CRQL:
fluoranthene (650 and 880 ^g/kg), pyrene (510 and 810 u.g/kg), benzo(b) fluoranthene (380
and 540 ng/kg), benzo(k)fluoranthene (390 and 420 jig/kg), and chrysene (410 and 540
Hg/kg). All other individual PAH compounds were detected at less than the CRQL. None of
the detected BNA compounds exceed the State of Florida Health-Based Soil Target Levels.
The background soil samples for OU-5/Site WP-1 are samples SP1-SL-0002 and its
duplicate, SP1-SL-9002, collected b/Geraghty & Miller in 1991. Soil sample SP1-SL-0007
(0-1 ft bis), collected during the 1993 investigation, indicates an order of magnitude greater
concentration of BNAs when compared to the 1991 background sample SP1-SL-0002 (2-4 ft
bis). Background total PAHs at Homestead ARE as presented by G&M for the 0-2 ft bis
interval were 739 ng/kg. In 1993, Total PAHs were 3,609 and 4,825 jig/kg detected in
samples SP1-SL-0007, and SP1-SL-9007, respectively.
A comparison of the 1991 sample, SP1-MW-0001-S, with the 1993 sample SP1-SL-0007
indicate an absence of detected PAHs above the method detection limit in 1991, while 17
PAH compounds were detected in 1993. However, with the exception of pyrene «361
Hg/kg in 1991 and 510 Mg/kg in 1993), the reported quantitation limits for the PAHs analyzed
in 1991 were above the quantities reported in 1993. PAH compounds are not generally
associated with electroplating waste. Sample SP1-SL-0007 is located in close proximity to
the asphalt parking lot. These PAH results may be indicative of run-off from the parking
area. The PAH concentrations reported for OU-5/Site WP-1 were near the values reported
for urban areas and are within the range of values reported for road dust (Menzie et al
1992). "
-22-
-------
The background soil samples for OU-5/Site WP-1 are samples SP1-SL-0002 and its
duplicate, SP1-SL-9002, collected by Geraghty & Miller in 1991. Soil sample SPi-SL-0007
(0-1 ft bis), collected during the 1993 investigation, indicates an order of magnitude greater
concentration of BNAs when compared to the 1991 background sample SP1-SL-0002 (2-4 ft
bis). Background total PAHs at Homestead ARE as presented by G&M for the 0-2 ft bis
interval were 739 ng/kg. In 1993, Total PAHs were 3,609 and 4,825 ng/kg detected in
samples SPI-SL-0007, and SP1-SL-9007, respectively.
A comparison of the 1991 sample, SP1-MW-0001-S, with the 1993 sample SPI-SL-0007
indicate an absence of detected PAHs above the method detection limit in 1991, while 17
PAH compounds were detected in 1993. However, with the exception of pyrene (<361
U-g/kg in 1991 and 510 ^g/kg in 1993), the reported quantitation limits for the PAHs analyzed
in 1991 were above the quantities reported in 1993. PAH compounds are not generally
associated with electroplating waste. Sample SPI-SL-0007 is located in close proximity to
the asphalt parking lot. These PAH results may be indicative of run-off from the parking
area. The PAH concentrations reported for OU-5/Site WP-1 were near the values reported
for urban areas and are within the range of values reported for road dust (Menzie et al
1992).
Dibenzofuran was detected in SPI-SL-0007 and the duplicate at 4 and 11 |ag/kg,
respectively. Carbazole was also detected at 35 and 62 u,g/kg. All values reported for
dibenzofuran and carbazole are less than the CRQL. Carbazole was not analyzed in the 0-2
ft Homestead ARB background samples and was not detected at a quantitative limit of 1,250
Hg/kg in the 2-4 ft background sample. Dibenzofuran was not detected in the background
samples for the Base or OU-5/Site WP- 1 .
1994 and 1995 Interim Action. During the 1994 confirmation sampling program, 7 of the
28 samples collected were considered soil/weathered rock due to their position either
underlying the asphalt parking area (EWA-1 and EWA-2) or within the grassy swale east of
Building 164 (EWA-3 through EWA-7). Two of the soil samples EWA-6 and EWA-7, are
no longer considered representative of site conditions, given that the area from which they
were sampled, was excavated during the 1995 excavation and removal activity. Analytical
results of the 5 remaining samples did not indicate the presence of BNA compounds above
the specified detection limit. The 1994 BNA soil analytical results for these 5 samples have
been summarized and are presented in Table 2-9. However, elevated detection limits were
reported in each of the samples. Ten BNAs were reported in the two soil samples (EWA-6
and EWA-7) collected from areas that were subsequently excavated. Five of the BNAs
_23_
Revised 10/20/97
-------
detected exceeded the State of Florida Health-Based Soil Target Levels in sample EWA-7.
The BNAs exceeded include; benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene,
fluoranthene, and indeno (1,2, 3-C, D)pyrene. Concentrations of these compounds ranged
from 11,000 \igfkg, to 32,000 fig/kg.
Soil analytical results from the 1995 confirmation sample (CS-01) collected from the base of
the excavation associated with the 1994 soil samples EWA-6 and EWA-7, indicate detectable
concentrations of 10 BNA compounds, primarily PAHs. The compounds detected include 9
of the compounds found in the pre-excavation sample, di-n-butyl phthalate was the only
compound not previously reported. The concentration of detected BNA compounds ranged
from 370 jig/kg to 1260 M-g/kg- None of the compounds detected were reported above the
State of Florida Health-Based Soil Target Levels. However, the concentration of PAHs in
this sample exceed the FDEP 62-775 maximum level of 1000 u.g/kg Total PAHs.
A summary of the 1995 soil BNA analytical results is provided in Table 2-9.
2.6.2.3 Organochlorine Pesticides/PCBs. 1991 Investigation. Soil samples collected
by G&M during the 1991 investigation were not analyzed for Pesticides and PCBs.
1993 Investigation. Four soil samples plus one duplicate were collected and analyzed for
organochlorine pesticides and PCBs. A summary of the pesticide/PCB constituents detected
is provided in Table 2-9. No PCBs were detected in any of the soils collected.
Concentrations of pesticides detected in 1993 soil samples are well below the CALs as well
as the State of Florida Health-Based Soil Target Levels. Sample SP1-SL-0004 at the 0-2 ft
bis interval showed no detectable concentrations of pesticides. DDT and its metabolites were
detected in the three soil samples SP1-SL-0006, SP1-SL-0007, and the background sample,
SP1-SL-0005. DDT ranged in concentration from 0.83 (background SP1-SL-0005) to 34
u.g/kg. The DDE metabolite was seen at 3.8 to 130 u.g/kg (SP1-SL-0006). The background
sample was reported at 3.9 u.g/kg DDE. The DDD metabolite was not observed in
SP1-SL-0005, but was detected in samples SPtSL-0006 and SP1-SL-0007 and the SP1-SL-
0007 duplicate at concentrations ranging from 0.75 to 28 u.g/kg. Endosulfan sulfate was
detected in two locations: SP1-SL-0006 (0.77 Jig/kg) and SP1-SL-0007 (6.4 and 8.8 Jig/kg).
Alpha and beta chlordane were detected in SP1-SL-0006 at 1.9 and 2.3 ug/kg, respectively.
HltHESTEW/FIHfLOU-SKOD -24- ADnl 1997
Revised 10/20/97
-------
soil samples were collected adjacent to the grassy swale located east of Building 164 (Figure
2-2) where runoff from the surrounding area collects. Analytical data for the 1984 sampling
is presented in Table 2-2. Low concentrations of cyanide and all metals analyzed, except
cadmium, were detected in the four samples as follows: cyanide concentrations ranged from
0.60-1.3 mg/kg, total chromium concentrations ranged from 0.02-0 07 mg/kr copper
concentrations ranged from 0.08-0.1 1 mg/kg; lead concentrations ranged from 0 09-0 21
mg/kg; nickel concentrations ranged from 0.01-0.05 mg/kg; and zinc concentrations ranged
from 0.12-0.72 mg/kg. Concentrations of chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc detected
in these surficial samples are below concentrations detected in background soil sample
SP1-SL-0002, collected northwest of Building 164 during the 1991 investigation In
addition, concentrations of chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc were well below the
average Homestead ARB background concentrations (7.6, 1.8, 3.3, 1.1 and 3 3 mg/kg
respectively) for the 2-4 ft bis soil interval and the average carbonate composition
concentrations reported by Hem (1989).
1991 Investigation. TAL metals detected in the four soil samples collected from 2-4 feet bis
in 1991 included aluminum, arsenic, barium, beryllium, calcium, chromium, cobalt, copper
iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, mercury, nickel, potassium, sodium, vanadium, zinc, and
lead (Table 2-5). These constituents are typically present in carbonate rocks and soils.
According to the average carbonate-composition data presented by Hem (1989) ralcium
magnesium, aluminum, iron, potassium, manganese, and sodium are the most' common
constituents of carbonates. Arsenic, barium, beryllium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead
nickel, vanadium, and zinc occur at trace levels. Concentrations of most of the metals
detected in the background samples for OU-5/Site WP-1, SP1-SL-9002 and SP1-SL-0002-
spht, were below the average carbonate composition concentrations with the exception of
calcium, chromium, and sodium. Similarly, most metals detected in the three soil samples
collected at OU-5/Site WP-1, SP1-SL-0001, SP1-SL-0003, and SP1-MW-0001-S were
below the average limestone composition concentrations except for concentrations of
calcium and chromium. Additionally, concentrations of aluminum, beryllium, and vanadium
m sample SP1-SL-0003 were above the average carbonate concentrations. Cyanide which is
not a common constituent of limestone, was not detected in the soil samples collected in
Concentrations of chromium (7.2 to 23.4 mg/kg), copper (1.7 to 2.6 mg/kg), lead (0.64 to 5.5
mg/kg), nickel (0.87 to 5.2 mg/kg), and zinc (2.2 to 2.9 mg/kg) detected in the soil samples Jfc
collected m 1991 were higher than concentrations detected in 1984 except for cyanide which W
was not detected in the 1991 samples. The different sampling intervals used during these
-25-
-------
investigations may explain the difference in detected concentrations of these metals: the
samples collected in 1984 were surficial samples and the samples collected in 1991 were
bedrock samples of Miami Oolite collected from 2 to 4 ft bis.
Concentrations of TAL metals detected at OU-5/Site WP-1 were compared to background
concentrations, which were determined by combining results from background soil samples
SPl-SL-9002-split and SP1-SL-0002. Concentrations of calcium, magnesium, and vanadium
detected in samples SP1-SL-0001, SP1-SL-0003, and SP1-MW-0001S were above the
background concentrations of these metals. In addition, concentrations of aluminum, copper,
iron, manganese, nickel, potassium, and arsenic detected in samples SP1-SL-0003 and SP1-
MW-0001-S were greater than background concentrations. Sample SP1-SL-0003 also
contained concentrations of barium, beryllium, chromium, cobalt, and lead that were greater
than background concentrations.
Concentrations of TAL metals detected at OU-5/Site WP-1 were also compared to average
Homestead ARE background concentrations for the 2-4 ft bis depth interval. Concentrations
of calcium, magnesium, and vanadium detected in samples SP1-SL-0001, SP1-SL-0003, and
SP1-MW-0001S were above the average Homestead ARB background concentrations of
these metals in the 2-4 ft bis depth interval. Concentrations of aluminum, arsenic, chromium,
copper, iron, nickel, and potassium detected in samples SP1-SL-0003 and SP1-MW-0001-S
were greater than the average Homestead ARB background concentrations for the 2-4 ft bis
depth interval. Additionally, concentrations of barium, lead, and manganese detected in
sample SP1-SL-0003 and sodium detected in sample SP1-SL-0001 were also above the
average Homestead ARB background concentrations for the 2-4 ft bis interval.
1993 Investigation. Four soil samples were collected in 1993 and analyzed for cyanide:
SP1-SL-0004 (0-2 ft bis), SP1-SL-0005 (0-2 ft bis), SP1-SL-0006 (0-2 ft bis), and SP1-SL-
0007 (0-1 ft bis), and a duplicate, SP1-SL-9007 (0-1 ft bis). Cyanide was not detected above
the CRQLs which ranged from 0.28 to 0.29 mg/kg dry weight.
Only sample SP1-SL-0007 and its duplicate, SP1-SL-9007, were analyzed for TAL metals.
Aluminum, arsenic, barium, cadmium (duplicate only), calcium, chromium, cobalt, copper,
iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, nickel, potassium, sodium, vanadium, and zinc were
detected at this location (Table 2-9). With the exception of cadmium in the duplicate, and
cobalt, these same metals were detected during the 1991 sampling. Calcium (285,000
mg/kg), magnesium, (1,160 mg/kg), and sodium, (513 mg/kg) were below the OU-5/Site
WP-1 background sample collected by G&M in 1991 (SP1-SL-0002). Barium, (17.7 mg/kg)
-26-
-------
and cobalt (0.62) were below the Homestead ARB average of 1.2 mg/kg. The remaining
metals were detected at concentrations slightly above site background and also above
Homestead ARB background. Aluminum (5,460 mg/kg), iron (3,070 mg/kg), manganese
(72.4 mg/kg), nickel (13 mg/kg), potassium (630 mg/kg), and vanadium (8.4 mg/kg) were
below average carbonate composite values (HEM, 1989).
Arsenic is the only metal detected which exceeds the State of Florida Health-Based Soil
Target Level of 3 and was reported at 9.1 mg/kg and 9.7 mg/kg in the duplicate. However,
arsenic is a common constituent in the environment and is present throughout Homestead
ARB. A CAL of 10 mg/kg was established for the base by USEPA, FDEP, and DERM
While the arsenic levels approached the CAL of 10 mg/kg, it was not exceeded. Nickel was
also detected in soil sample SP1-SL-0007 and its duplicate SP1-SL-9007 at concentrations of
7.2 mg/kg and 6.1 mg/kg, respectively. These nickel concentrations exceed the CAL, of 3.24
mg/kg but are well below the State of Florida Health-Based Soil Target Level of 2,600
mg/kg. Furthermore, the nickel concentrations are below the average carbonate
concentration and the common concentration of nickel found in the Eastern United States.
Chromium was detected at 18.6 and 18.9 mg/kg. Copper (13.8 and 15.5 mg/kg), lead (38 3
and 44.5 mg/kg), and zinc (20.1 and 23.3 mg/kg estimated due to interference) were also
detected. Arsenic, copper, lead, and zfnc levels were slightly higher in the 1993 soil samples
than those reported by G&M in 1992.
The furnace metals, arsenic, lead, selenium, and thallium, are qualified as estimated due to
inherent interference from the limestone nature of the soil. In general, the metals
concentration values for aluminum, beryllium, cadmium, calcium, cobalt, copper,
magnesium, manganese, mercury, nickel, potassium, sodium, and vanadium are unqualified
data. Data for antimony, barium, chromium, iron, lead, silver, and zinc are qualified as
estimated due to interference or difficulty with reproducibility, again caused by the nature of
the samples. Further discussion of these interferences is addressed in the associated QCSR.
-»
As reported by G&M in 1991, the metals constituents observed are typically present in
carbonate soils and rocks. With the exception of arsenic (9.1 mg/kg), calcium (285,000
mg/kg), chromium (18.6 mg/kg), cobalt (0.62 mg/kg), copper (13.8 mg/kg), lead (38.3
mg/kg), sodium (513 mg/kg), and zinc (20.1 mg/kg), the metals were below the carbonate
soils averages.
0
-27-
-------
1994 and 1995 Interim Action. Soil samples collected during the 1994 and 1995 Interim
Action were each analyzed for TAL metals. Cyanide was not analyzed for during these
investigations. Results from the 1994 and 1995 investigations have been summarized and are
presented in Table 2-9. With the exception of cobalt, copper, lead, mercury, and nickel,
metal results are comparable to previous sampling results. The concentrations of these
metals were typically higher than 1993 and 1991 results. Cobalt was not detected in any of
the 1994 samples, but was detected in the 1995 soil samples, CS-01 at a concentration of 1.4
mg/kg. The maximum concentrations of copper were detected in the 1994 soil samples
EWA-3 at a concentration of 109 mg/kg and the 1995 soil sample CS-01 at a concentration
of 160 mg/kg. Elevated detection limits were reported for cobalt and copper in the 1994 soil
samples. Lead was detected in each of the 1994 and 1995 samples ranging in concentration
from 4.4 mg/kg to 799 mg/kg. The maximum lead concentration was reported in sample
EWA-7. This sampling point has been subsequently excavated. Mercury and nickel were
only detected in the 1995 soil samples at concentrations of 0.40 mg/kg and 300 mg/kg. The
levels of cobalt, copper, lead, mercury, nickel and silver appear to have higher concentrations
in the excavated portions of the North Area swale, i.e., at sampling points EWA-6 and EWA-
7.
The concentrations of metals in the 1994 and 1995 soil samples are below the State of
Florida Health-Based Soil Target Levels with the exception of arsenic. Arsenic, lead, and
nickel concentrations exceed the CALs of 10 mg/kg, 108 mg/kg and 3.24 mg/kg in the 1994
soil sample EWA-7 (subsequently excavated) and the 1995 confirmation sample CS-01.
2.6.2.5 Summary Section for Soils. In general, analytical results do not indicate
significant impact in the areas of soil sample collection. Concentrations of compounds
detected in soils at OU-5/Site WP-1 include BNAs, pesticides, and metals. The VOC
detected (acetone) has been traced to field decontamination of sampling equipment. Acetone
has been widely detected in soil samples throughout Homestead ARE and has been identified
as an artifact of the degradation of isopropyl alcohol used during field decontamination
procedures. Field samples of the isopropanol alcohol were obtained for analysis which
indicated up to 120,000 u.g/L acetone content. Results of the acetone sampling are
documented in the quality control summary report (QCSR) provided to the USAGE, Omaha -
District.
BNAs, primarily PAHs, were detected in the one sample collected in 1993, the background
sample collected in 1991, and the confirmation samples collected in 1995. BNA compounds
were not detected in the 1994 samples due to elevated detection limits. The proximity of
-28-
-------
sample SP1-SL-0007 to the asphalt parking lot and tte surficial location of this sample
indicate the potential source of the PAH compounds may be run-off from the parking lot
The PAH compounds seen in the 1991 background samples were reported at higher
concentrations than those detected in the 1993 samples. Only the background sample
collected in 1991 had detectable quantities of PAHs with all results estimated at values less
than the PQLs. The PAH concentrations were near the range of background concentrations
reported for urban areas and those affected by anthropogenic influences.
Cyanide has not been detected in any of the soil samples collected at OU-5/Site WP-1 A
comparison of the 1993, 1994, and 1995 metals analytical results indicate elevated
concentrations above State of Florida Health-Based Soil Target Levels or CALs for arsenic
lead, and nickel in the 1995 excavation sample. Again, this may be indicative of their
location within the swales which receive runoff from the surrounding area Nickel was
above the CALs in both 1993 and 1995 soil samples, while lead was above CAL in only the
1995 soil sample collected from the swale excavation. Arsenic exceeded the State of Florida
Health-Based Soil Target Levels in the 1993 and 1995 soil samples.
2.6.3 Groundwater Investigations
The Electroplating Waste DisposaUArea was identified during the initial IRP Phase I
investigations. Groundwater samples have been collected at OU-5/Site WP-1 in every phase
of field investigations conducted at Homestead ARB since 1984 with the exception of the
1994 and 1995 Interim Action.
During the 1984 IRP Phase II investigation, three monitoring wells (1-01 to 1-03) were
installed (Figure 2-3) and groundwater samples were collected and analyzed for cyanide and
total metals including cadmium, total chromium, hexavalent chromium, copper, lead nickel
and zinc. A summary of the analytical data generated in 1984 is presented in Table 2-l'
Low concentrations of cadmium «0.2 to 0.4 ug/L), total chromium «0.5 to 19 7 ug/L)
hexavalent chromium «0.1 to 1.7 ug/L), copper (4.2 to 7.0 ug/L), lead (5.7 to 9.0 ug/L)'
nickel (9.2 to 16.9 Ug/L), and zinc (15.1 to 16.3 ug/L) were detected in the three groundwater
samples. Cyanide was not detected in the groundwater samples. The highest concentration
of total chromium was detected in sample 1-01; the highest concentration of lead was
detected in the duplicate of sample 1-02; the highest concentrations of hexavalent chromium
cadmium, copper, and nickel were detected in sample 1-03; and the highest concentrations of ^
zinc was detected in samples 1-02 and 1-03. The concentrations of these constituents detected tl
at OU-5/Site WP-1 were well below their applicable Florida Primary and Secondary
-29-
-------
Drinking Water Standards and the Federal Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) or Action
Levels.
During the 1988 IRP Phase IV-A investigation, groundwater samples were collected from the
three existing wells installed during the Phase II investigation (Figure 2-3). The groundwater
samples were analyzed for total cyanide and total metals including arsenic, barium,
cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, sodium (Table 2-3). Low
concentrations of total metals included arsenic (8.1 to 24 jig/L), barium (5.7 to 7.6 u.g/L),
cadmium (<0.12 to 0.48 ng/L), chromium (8.9 to 9.4 u.g/L), copper (<7.8 to 8.3 jig/L), lead
(1.4 to 2.5 M-g/L), mercury (<0.13 to 0.16 ^ig/L), nickel (<11 to 14 |ig/L), selenium (0.54 to
1.0 ng/L), and sodium (7,710 to 33,500 ng/L). All metals detected except for sodium and
arsenic exhibited concentrations between the practical quantitation limit and the method
detection limit. The highest concentrations of total arsenic, barium, nickel, selenium, and
sodium were detected in sample 1-01; the highest concentrations of cadmium, total
chromium, and total lead were detected in sample 1-02; and the highest concentrations of
total copper and total mercury were detected in sample 1-03. Concentrations of metals
detected in groundwater were below applicable Florida Primary and Secondary Drinking
Water Standards and Federal MCLs or Action Levels. Total-cyanide, which was not detected
in 1984, was detected in samples 1-01 and 1-03 at concentrations of 7.4 and 24 \igfL,
respectively; however, these concentrations are well below the Federal MCL of 200 fig/L.
Based on results from the previous investigations, G&M conducted a Remedial Investigation
in 1991, during which additional groundwater samples were collected. Three existing wells
1-01,1-02, and 1-03 were sampled. One new monitoring well, SP1-MW-0001, was installed
east of Building 164 in 1991 (Figure 2-3). This new well was also sampled. VOCs, BNAs,
and TAL metals were included in the analyses.
The remedial investigation continued in 1993, with Montgomery Watson collecting samples
from all four monitoring wells (SP1-MW-0001, 1-01, 1-02, and 1-03) associated with OU-
5/Site WP-1 (Figure 2-4). All groundwater samples were analyzed for TCL pesticides/PCBs
and cyanide. Additionally, groundwater sample SP1-1-02 was analyzed for TCL VOCs, TCL
BNAs, and TAL metals (total and dissolved).
In 1996, OHM Corporation completed an additional round of groundwater sampling from the
four OU-5/Site WP-1 monitoring wells SP1-MW-0001, 1-01, 1-02, and 1-03. This
groundwater sampling event was completed to supplement previous groundwater sampling
events and provide a current characterization of site conditions. Groundwater samples
-30-
-------
collected by OHM Corporation were analyzed for TCL VOCs, TCL BNAs, TCL
pesticides/PCBs, total metals and cyanide.
Groundwater results are compared to Florida Primary and Secondary Drinking Water
Standards, Florida 62-770 Target Cleanup Levels, and Federal Primary and Secondary
Drinking Water Standards (MCLs), presented in Table 2-12.
2.6.3.1 Volatile Organic Compounds. 1991 Investigation. In 1991, groundwater
samples were collected from three existing monitoring wells (1-01,1-02, and 1-03) and one
newly installed monitoring well (SP1-MW-0001) (Figure 2-3). One VOC, methylene
chloride, was detected in monitoring wells 1-01 and 1-02 at concentrations of 1.4 and 3.1
ug/L, respectively (Table 2-6). These reported concentrations are below the PQL for
methylene chloride (5 ug/L) and also below the Florida Primary Drinking Water Standard, 5
fig/L. Methylene chloride is also a common laboratory contaminant and concentrations'at
these low levels are not necessarily indicative of site contamination.
1993 Investigation. Groundwater samples were collected for VOC analysis at only one
monitoring well at OU-5/Site WP-1 during the 1993 field -investigation. Monitoring well
SP1-I-02 was sampled and a duplicate was collected. Chloroform (2.52 ug/L) and
bromodichloromethane (1 and 2 ug/L) were detected at less than the CRQL of 10 ug/L.
These values are also significantly below the Federal MCL of 100 ug/L for each compound.
Field QA/QC samples indicated the presence of 1,2-dichloropropane in the equipment blank
associated with the collection of SP1-I-02 and SP1-I-902. The concentration (2 ug/L) is
estimated below the CRQL. This compound has been detected in other equipment blanks
and analyte-free water samples obtained during the 1993 investigation and is most likely
associated with the use of the analyte-free water system. The QCSR discusses the full scope
of quality assurance for the 1993 investigation and is submitted under separate cover.
1,2-dichloropropane was not detected in any of the groundwater samples collected. A
summary of the 1993 groundwater analytical results for VOCs are presented in Table 2-10.
1996 Investigation. Groundwater samples were analyzed for VOCs in the 1996
investigation from each of the four OU-5/Site WP-1 monitoring wells. Methylene chloride
was the only compound detected and was reported in two samples and one duplicate, ranging
in concentration from 1 ug/L to 7 ug/L. Methylene chloride was also present in an
equipment blank at a concentration of 3 ug/L. Methylene chloride is a common laboratory
contaminant and was also present in the equipment blank. Methylene chloride was detected
-31-
-------
TABLE 2-12
GROUNDWATER QUALITY CRITERIA
Analyte
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (ug/L):
Chloroform
Bromodichloromethane
BASE/NEUTRAL AND ACID EXTRACTABLE
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (ug/L)
bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate
Di-n-octylphthalate
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
METALS (ug/L):
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
TOTAL RECOVERABLE
PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS (mg/L)
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS (mg/L)
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (mg/L)
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS (mg/L)
ALKALINITY (mg/L)
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON (mg/L)
SULFATE(mg/L)
SULFIDE(mg/L)
HARDNESS as CaCO3 (mg/L)
Florida
Drinking
Water
Standards
NIC
Wo
NS
6
NS
NS
NS
2001
50k
2000k
4
MC
INo
100k
NIC
INo
1000 1
3001
15k
MC
i'CtJ
501
•Jv 1
2k
100k
MC
l^tlS
50k,
160000k
2
NS
5000 1
NS
5001
NS
NS
NS
NS
250
NS
NS '
Florida
62-770
NS
NS
NS
NS
d
d
NS
MC
I'ilJ
NS
INo
NS
NS
KTO
NS
NS
NS
50
MO
No
MO
No
MO
INO
NS
MC
No
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
5
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
EPA
Drinking
Water
Standards
100
100
6
NS
NS
NS
50 to 200 h
50g
2000 i
4
NS
lOOi
NS
1000h/1300s
300 h
15s
NS
50h
2i
100 g
NS
50 i
NS
2
NS
5000 h
NS
500 h
NS
NS
NS
NS
250
NS
NS
EPA Maximum
Contaminant
Level Goal
0
0
0
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
2000 i
4
NS
100 i
NS
1000
NS
0
NS
NS
2i
100
NS
50 i
NS
0.5
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
400/500 g
NS
NS
mg/L - milligrams per liter
NS - No Standard
£S±KCS»«ffi-,^!SU5!^
1 - Florida Secondary Drinking Water Standard
n
-------
in groundwater samples collected from the same two wells (1-01 and 1-02) during the 1991
RI. However, methylene chloride was not reported above the method detection limit in the
1993 groundwater sample collected from monitoring well SP1-I-02. A summary of the 1996
VOC analytical results are provided in Table 2-10.
2.6.3.2 Base Neutral/Acid Extractable Compounds. 1991 Investigation. All four
monitoring wells (1-01 through 1-03, and SP1-MW-0001) were sampled and analyzed for
BNAs during the 1991 investigation. Only one BNA, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, was
detected in monitoring wells 1-02,1-03, and SP1-MW-0001 at concentrations of 0.9, 320, and
0.7 mg/L, respectively (Table 2-6). Concentrations of bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate were
classified as qualitative because they were either detected below the PQL or were observed in
an associated blank sample. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate is a common laboratory contaminant.
This compound is a plasticizer and is also commonly encountered in samples which have
been in contact with plastics (gloves, sample containers, etc.).
1993 Investigation. One well was sampled and analyzed for BNAs during the 1993 field
investigation. The sample, SP1-I-02 and its duplicate, SP1-I-902, were collected from
monitoring well 1-02. Sample SP1-I-02 indicated 0.5 u.g/Lrof di-n-butyl-phthalate and 0.3
lig/L of bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (Table 2-10). Both concentrations are below the CRQL
of 11 jig/L. Duplicate sample SP13-902 had reported concentrations of naphthalene (1
Hg/L), 2-methylnaphthalene (2 ug/L), and di-n-butyl phthalate (0.5 ng/L). Concentrations
reported for all BNA constituents are estimated since they are below the CRQLs (1J. jig/L).
The Florida Primary Drinking Water Standard for bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate is 6 ug/L and
the Federal MCL is 6 u.g/L. Groundwater concentrations of these compounds detected at
OU-5/Site WP-1 were below these values. There is no established groundwater criteria for
di-n-butylphthalate. As stated previously, phthalates are commonly encountered in samples
exposed to plastics. The concentrations of naphthalene and 2-methylnaphthalene detected in
the duplicate sample are below the Florida 62-770 guidelines of 100 ug/L with a total
naphthalenes concentration of 3 \ig/L.
1996 Investigation. Groundwater samples were collected and analyzed for BNAs from each
of the OU-5/Site WP-1 wells in 1996. BNAs were not reported above the method detection
limit in any of the groundwater samples. The 1996 groundwater analytical results for BNAs
are presented in Table 2-10.
2.6.3.3 Organochlorine Pesticides/PCBs. 1991 Investigation. Groundwater samples
collected in 1991 were not analyzed for pesticides and PCBs.
-32-
-------
1993 Investigation. Groundwater samples were collected from all four monitoring wells at
OU-5/Site WP-1 in March of 1993 and analyzed for TCL organochlorine pesticides and
PCBs. Wells SPl-MW-0001, SP1-I-01, SP1-I-02, SP1-I-03, were sampled and submitted for
analysis. Pesticides and PCBs were not detected above CRQLs in any of the four
groundwater samples, and one duplicate sample collected. A summary of the 1993
groundwater analytical results for pesticides/PCBs is provided in Table 2-10.
1996 Investigation. Groundwater samples were collected from the four monitoring wells at
OU-5/Site WP-1 during the 1996 investigation. Pesticides and PCBs were not reported
above the detection limit in any of the samples collected. A summary of the 1996
groundwater analytical results for pesticides/PCBs is provided in Table 2-10.
2.6.3.4 Metals and Cyanide. 1991 Investigation. Three existing monitoring wells (1-01
through 1-03) and the one newly installed well (SPl-MW-0001) were sampled during the
1991 investigation. A duplicate of sample 1-02 was also collected (1-9002). The following
TAL metals were detected in groundwater samples collected at OU-5/Site WP-1: aluminum,
barium, calcium, chromium, iron, magnesium, manganese, potassium, sodium, vanadium,
zinc, arsenic, and lead (Table 2-6). Calcium, magnesium, and potassium were detected in the
four wells sampled; however, no Florida Drinking Water Standards or Federal MCLs exist
for these metals. Groundwater simples 1-01, 1-02 and 1-9002 contained very high
concentrations of total calcium, 3,100,000, 5,400,000, and 2,600,000 fig/L, respectively, in
addition to significant concentrations of many other TAL metals. Review of the groundwater
sampling logs for these samples indicated that all samples were turbid during sample
collection. It is possible that the high TAL metal concentrations, particularly that of calcium,
were a result of suspended sediments as artifacts of well construction and thereby overstated
the actual concentrations of the analytes at the site. Calcium concentrations reported in
groundwater samples 1-02,1-9002, and 1-03 were much higher than the range of dissolved
calcium concentrations (55,000 to 140,000 u.g/L) reported in the Biscayne Aquifer by
Sonntag (1987).
Concentrations of barium detected in groundwater samples collected at OU-5/Site WP-1
were well below the Florida Primary Drinking Water Standard of 2,000 ng/L and the Federal
PMCL of 2,000 u.g/L. In addition, concentrations of sodium detected were well below the
Florida Primary Drinking Water Standard of 160,000 u.g/L. Estimated concentrations of
arsenic detected in monitoring wells 1-01 (92 u,g/L) and 1-02 (60 u.g/L) exceeded the Florida
Primary Drinking Water Standard and Federal MCL for arsenic of 50 u.g/L. Concentrations
of lead detected in samples 1-02 and 1-9002 (duplicate of 1-02) exceeded both the Florida
-33-
-------
Primary Drinking Water Standard and the Federal Action Level of 15 ng/L. Concentrations
of chromium detected in sample 1-02 exceeded the Florida Primary Drinking Water Standard
and the Federal MCL of 100 jig/L. The high concentrations of calcium interfered with the
ability to detect cadmium in samples 1-01,1-02, and 1-9002 resulting in detection limits for
cadmium which exceed the Florida Primary Drinking Water Standard and the Federal MCL
of 5 u,g/L. Additionally, the high concentrations of calcium interfered with the ability to
detect selenium resulting in detection limits for all samples of 50 u.g/L.
Federal Secondary Drinking Water Standards establish recommended limits and deal with
the aesthetic qualities of drinking water; however, the FDEP has adopted these standards as
the Florida Secondary Drinking Water Standards and requires that potable groundwater shall
meet these recommended limits. Concentrations of iron are naturally high and commonly
exceed the Florida standard (Sonntag, 1987). Concentrations of iron detected in all
groundwater samples collected in 1991 at OU-5/Site WP-1 exceeded the Florida Secondary
Drinking Water Standard and Federal Secondary MCL of 300 jig/L. Concentrations of
manganese detected in groundwater samples SP1-MW-0001,1-01,1-02, and 1-9002 exceeded
the Florida Secondary Drinking Water Standard and Federal Secondary MCL of 50 |ig/L.
Concentrations of aluminum detected in all groundwater-samples exceeded the Federal
Secondary MCL for aluminum of 50-200 jig/L. However, concentrations of total dissolved
solids and zinc did not exceed the Florida Secondary Drinking Water Standards and Federal
Secondary MCLs in samples analyzed for these constituents.
The metal concentrations detected in the groundwater samples collected during the 1991
CERCLA investigation had the highest concentrations of metals of all sampling events. As
discussed above, it is likely that the increase in metal concentrations is the result of
suspended sediments in the groundwater samples collected.
Cyanide was not detected in any of the groundwater samples collected in 1991.
1993 Investigation. All four existing monitoring wells (SP1-MW-0001, SP-I-01, SP1-1-02,
and SP1-I-03) were sampled in 1993 and analyzed for cyanide. Cyanide was not detected
above the CRQL in any of the groundwater samples.
Only well SP1-I-02 was sampled and analyzed for TAL metals. Monitoring well SP1-I-02
was sampled in duplicate (SP1-I-902) and an equipment blank was collected. Due to high
turbidity encountered in groundwater samples during the 1991 sampling events, both total
(unfiltered) and dissolved (filtered) metals were analyzed (Table 2-10). Dissolved metals
-34-
-------
samples were filtered at the time of collection using a 0.45 micron disposable (single use)
filter. The filtered sample was placed in the appropriate sample container and preserved with
nitric acid to achieve a pH of <2. The pH was tested on all metals samples prior to shipment
to the laboratory to ensure that proper preservation (pH <2) had been achieved. Savannah
Laboratories, Tallahassee, again checked the pH upon receipt at the laboratory. No report of
inadequate preservation was noted in the analytical data.
Aluminum, arsenic, barium, calcium, copper, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, potassium
sodium, vanadium, and zinc were detected in the unfiltered samples. Analysis of filtered
samples showed lead, manganese, and vanadium had been removed to below detectable
limits. Aluminum concentrations were reduced significantly ( by as much as three orders of
magnitude) in the filtered vs. unfiltered groundwater samples.
Evaluation of dissolved metals indicate that arsenic, copper, magnesium, potassium, sodium,
and zinc are comparable to the total concentrations detected in groundwater. Total arsenic
concentrations were 18.4 and 18.1 ug/L in SP1-I-02 and the duplicate, while dissolved
arsenic concentrations were 16.1 and 16.7 ug/L. These values are well below the 60 ug/L
reported during the 1991 sampling event. Total copper was-reported at 3.1 and 3.7 ug/L and
dissolved copper at 3.5 and <3.0 ug/L. Copper results were below the CRQL. Magnesium
was detected in the unfiltered samples at 2,780 and 2,980 ug/L and at 2,230 and 2,290 ug/L
in the filtered samples. Potassium was reported at 4,410 and 4,950 [ig/L (total) and 3,250
and 3,750 ug/L (dissolved). Potassium results are below the CRQL. Sodium data indicated
14,300 and 14,500 Ug/L (total) and 13,700 and 13,800 ug/L (dissolved).
Zinc was detected at 33.5 and 18.2 ug/L in the unfiltered samples and at 44.1 and 15.3 ug/L
in the filtered samples. Zinc was also detected in the equipment blank at 36.1 ug/L and is a
known contaminant at low levels in acids used for preservation and digestion of samples.
Arsenic, copper, magnesium, potassium, sodium, and zinc concentrations were all below the
established regulatory guidance levels or fell within the range of concentrations reported in
the Biscayne Aquifer, if no guideline for the metal in groundwater was available.
Aluminum, barium, calcium, iron, lead, manganese, and vanadium showed significant
decreases in concentrations between total and dissolved metal results. Total aluminum was
reported at 1,850 and 2,610 ug/L in SP1-I-02 and the duplicate SP1-I-902. The Florida
Secondary Drinking Water Standard is 200 ug/L. The Federal Secondary MCL is 50-200
ug/L. The filtered samples indicated a significant decrease in aluminum concentrations to
-35-
-------
<20 and 23.8 u.g/L in SP1-I-02 and SP1-I-902. respectively. High concentrations of
aluminum have been observed in background soil samples at HARB and in carbonate soils.
Reported barium concentrations are below the Federal MCL of 2,000 |ig/L in both total and
dissolved analyses.
There are no Federal MCLs or Florida Drinking Water Standards for calcium. The dissolved
calcium concentrations (78,800 and 82,200 jigfL) are within the range reported by Causaras,
1987, for concentrations of dissolved inorganic constituents in the Biscayne Aquifer. These
high calcium concentrations contribute interference in analytical determinations for other
metals.
Total iron detected at 1,560 and 1,950 ug/L is within or near the range detected as a
dissolved constituent in the Biscayne Aquifer (<10 to 1,900 jig/L). These detected
concentrations are higher than the Federal Secondary MCLs and Florida Secondary Drinking
Water Standards of 300 u,g/L. However, the filtered samples contained 40.5 and 50.0 u.g/L
dissolved iron for SP1-I-02 and SP1-I-902. The dissolved iron values are below the CRQL
for the method and are also below the Federal Secondary MCL and the Florida Secondary
Drinking Water Standard. As reported by Sonntag in 1987, concentrations of iron are
naturally high and commonly exceed the Florida Secondary Drinking Water Standard.
^
Lead was detected in only the unfiltered groundwater metals analysis (9.3 and 9.1 u.g/L).
Total (unfiltered) lead levels were below the Federal MCL of 15 \ngfL. Total manganese
(26.7 and 28.5 ng/L) did not exceed the Florida Secondary Drinking Water Standard or the
Federal Secondary MCL of 50 jag/L. Manganese was not detected in any of the filtered
samples. No established guidelines for vanadium are available. Total vanadium values
reported (5.5 and 6.5 u.g/L) are below the CRQL. Vanadium was not detected above the
CRQL in the filtered samples.
Thallium has a Florida Primary Drinking Water Standard of 2 u,g/L, a Federal MCL of 2
Hg/L, and a Federal MCLG of 0.5 jig/L. Thallium was not detected above the CRQL of 5
Hg/L in any of the groundwater samples collected from SP1 -1-02.
Though not detected at the attainable CRQLs, selenium and thallium results are qualified due
to technical interferences caused by the high calcium typically observed in samples obtained
in south Florida.
-36-
-------
1996 Investigation. Groundwater samples were obtained from the four wells associated
with OU-5/Site WP-1 (Figure 2-7) during the 1996 investigation and analyzed for total
metals and cyanide. The groundwater analytical results obtained during this investigation are
provided in Table 2-10. No filtered (dissolved) analyses were performed on the 1996
groundwater samples. Instead, care was taken during groundwater sampling to minimize the
turbidity of the samples. The groundwater was sampled once the turbidity levels were below
10 NTU. Cyanide, aluminum, beryllium, cadmium, lead, mercury, selenium, silver, and
thallium were not detected above the detection limit in the four groundwater samples
collected in 1996.
Five metals, arsenic, barium, calcium, magnesium, and sodium, were detected in each of the
four monitoring wells at OU-5/Site WP-1. Additionally, copper, iron, lead, manganese,
potassium, vanadium, and zinc were detected in one or more of the groundwater samples.
Concentrations of these metals were all below the Federal MCLs and Florida Drinking Water
Standards. The metals, chromium, cobalt, copper, and nickel were only reported above
detection limits in well SP1-I-03. Concentrations of these metals in well SP1-I-03 were
reported below the Federal MCL and Florida Drinking Water Standards.
The calcium, magnesium, and sodium concentrations, which range from 83,900 \ig/L to
114,000 tig/L to 2,740 ng/L, and 4,860 fig/L to 10,600 u.g/L are within the range of values
for dissolved inorganics detected in the Biscayne Aquifer.
Arsenic, which ranged in concentration from 3.9 ng/L to 15.3 u.g/L, is above the range of
<1.2 ng/L and the mean of 1.2 u.g/L for dissolved organic constituents detected in the
Biscayne Aquifer. Arsenic was detected at concentrations below the Federal MCL and
Florida Primary Drinking Water Standard of 50 u.g/L.
2.6.3.5 Summary Section for Groundwater.
Impacts to groundwater as a result of past operation do not indicate significant impacts as
determined by groundwater samples obtained in 1991, 1993, and 1996. Comparison of the
groundwater results collected in 1991 with those collected in 1993 and 1996 indicate
elevated concentrations of constituents, primarily metals in the 1991 groundwater samples.
This is likely due to the turbid conditions which were reported in the 1991 samples.
Comparison of the range of the calcium concentrations in the 1991 groundwater samples,
(130,000 u.g/L to 5.4E+06 fig/L) with the 1993 (209,000 ^ig/L to 220,000 u,g/L) and 1996
-37-
-------
(83,400 u.g/L to 1 14,000 ng/L) samples further substantiates the fact that turbid groundwater
samples were collected.
The groundwater compounds detected in OU-5/Site WP-1 wells include VOCs (chloroform
and bromodichloromethane), BNAs (naphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene, di-n-butyl phthalate
and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate) and various naturally occurring metals. The organic
contaminants are observed at very low levels. Methyle chloride was detected in monitoring
wells MO and 1-02 during the 1991 and 1996 groundwater sampling events. However,
methylene chloride is a common laboratory contaminant and may not be indicative of
groundwater impacts. Although arsenic exceeded Federal MCLs and Florida Primary
Drinking Water Standards in one sample collected in 1991, this has been attributed to the
significant turbidity reported in these samples. Aluminum and iron are the only compounds
which exceed Federal MCLs and/or Florida Drinking Water Standards. Elevated
concentrations of the metals are indicative of the Biscayne Aquifer in South Florida.
Thallium was not detected, but the quantitation limit is above Federal MCLs and Florida
Drinking Water Standards.
2.6.4 Sediment Investigations -
This summary of sediment investigations is presented for the purpose of review only.
Sediments have been fully evaluated in the investigation of OU-9, Boundary Canal.
Various sediment samples have been collected from the drainage swale south of Building
159, and the unlined drainage swale after it exits the underground culvert south of OU-5/Site
WP-1 south and west of the equipment storage area (Figures 2-2, 2-3, 2-4, 2-5, and 2-6).
Because background sediment samples were not collected during the 1984 Phase II
investigation and the 1991 CERCLA investigations at OU-5/Site WP-1, concentrations of
constituents detected in the sediment samples collected during the OU-5/Site WP-1
investigations were compared with the background sediment sample, BC-SD-0010, from the
1991 Boundary Canal sampling event. The Boundary Canal background sample was
obtained from a location upgradient of all industrial (PSCs) sites at Homestead ARB.
Constituents detected in this sample are assumed to not be the result of the past or present
industrial waste-handling activities/practices. Sediment sample BC-SD-0010 was analyzed
for TCL BNAs, organochlorine pesticides, and TAL metals in 1 99 1 .
^t
4flk
-38-
-------
Two sediment samples were collected in 1984 from the drainage swale located south of
Building 159 (Figure 2-2). These sediments were subsequently excavated during the 1995
Interim Action. The sediment samples were analyzed for cyanide and total metals including
cadmium, total chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc (Table 2-2). Low concentrations of
these constituents were detected in the sediment samples as follows: cyanide concentrations
ranged from 0.6 to 3.9 mg/kg, cadmium concentrations ranged from 0 to 0.01 mg/kg, total
chromium concentrations ranged from 0.02 to 0.09 mg/kg, copper concentrations ranged
from 0.01 to 0.04 mg/kg, lead concentrations ranged from 0.11 to 1.18 mg/kg, nickel
concentrations ranged from 0 to 0.01 mg/kg, and zinc concentrations ranged from 0.8-0.13
mg/kg. Concentrations of total chromium, lead, zinc, and cyanide detected in the sediment
samples were slightly higher than the concentrations detected in the surficial soil samples
collected during the Phase II investigation in 1984; however, concentrations of chromium,
copper, lead and zinc detected in the OU-5/Site WP-1 sediment samples were well below the
Boundary Canal background concentrations. Concentrations of cadmium, total chromium,
copper, lead, nickel and zinc were well below their respective NOAA ER-L and ER-M
values.
The 1991 CERCLA RI included the collection of two sediment and surface water samples in
the unlined drainage swale approximately 400 ft south of Building 164 and just south of the
equipment storage area (Figure 2-3). ^
The 1993 RI field activities included the collection of six sediment samples from the
drainage areas: the grassy drainage swale east of Building 164, the grassy drainage swale
south of Building 159, and the unlined drainage swale south of Building 164, which was also
sampled in 1991. Samples SP1-SD-0007 and SP1-SD-0008 were collected from the same
locations as SP1-SD-0005 and SP1-SD-0006 (1991). SP1-SD-0012 was collected at the
south end of the north/south drainage swale east of Building 164 while SP1-SD-0009 through
SP1-SD-0011 were collected from the east/west drainage swale south of Building 159
Sediment samples SP1-SD-0009 through SP1-SD-0012 were subsequently excavated during
the 1995 Interim Action. All sediment samples collected in 1993 were analyzed for USEPA
TCL organic compounds, TAL metals, and cyanide. Figures 2-3 and 2-4 illustrates the
locations of the 1991 and 1993 sediment samples.
In 1994, IT Corporation completed a confirmation sampling program which included the
collection of sediment samples from the east/west drainage swale south of Building 159 and
the unlined drainage swale which extends south from Building 164. Twenty-one sediment
samples were collected from the locations depicted on Figure 2-5. These samples were
-39-
-------
analyzed for BNAs, pesticides and TAL metals. Based on the results of the 1994
investigation, an Interim Action was performed by IT Corporation in 1995 to excavate
affected sediments from the North Area drainages. After excavation, three confirmation
samples were collected from the base of the excavation area. Two of the samples, CS-02 and
SC-03, were considered to be sediments based on their locations in the drainage system
(Figure 2-6).
Interim Action activities involved excavating the sediments to a depth of approximately 1 ft
bis at each location. The excavation was extending out 3 ft from the centerline of the
drainage swale. During the excavation activities, 12 sediments and 2 soil analytical sampling
points from previous investigations were removed (Table 2-4). The results from samples
collected at these locations are no longer considered representative of current site conditions.
2.6.4.1 Volatile Organic Compounds. 1991 Investigation. Two VOCs,
tetrachloroethene, and trichloroethene, were detected in the 1991 sediment samples (Table 2-
7). Tetrachloroethene and trichloroethene were detected in sample SP1-SD-0006 at
concentrations of 29 and 12 u\g/kg, respectively. These VOCs are not commonly used in the
electroplating operations. A possible source for the tetrachloroethene and trichloroethene is
the adjacent equipment storage area and motor pool. Tetrachloroethene and trichloroethene
are solvents used during degreasing^perations as well as other processes associated with
automobile maintenance. These constituents may be present in waste oils in minor amounts
because through historical waste oil handling practices solvent residue may have become
incorporated into the waste oil. These compounds were not detected in the sample (SP1-SD-
0008) collected from a similar location in 1993.
1993 Investigation. Six sediment samples plus one duplicate were collected and analyzed
during the 1993 field investigations. The samples were identified as SP1-SD-0007 through
SP1-SD-0012 plus duplicate sample SP1-SD-9012. Sediment sampling points SP1-SD-0008
through SP1-SD-00012 have been subsequently excavated. Two VOCs were detected:
methylene chloride was detected in only one sample (SP1-SD-0010) while acetone was
detected in two samples and the duplicate. Sample SP1-SD-0007 contained acetone outside
the calibration range of the instrument in the initial analysis. The subsequent dilution
showed <16,000 ug/L. The results are considered qualitative only for the positive presence
of acetone although a quantity was not reported. Samples SP1-SD-0012 and SP1-SD-90012
reported acetone at 8 and 15 ug/L, respectively. These values are less than the CRQL. As
previously discussed, acetone has been widely detected throughout Homestead ARE and has
been identified as an artifact of the isopropyl alcohol used during field decontamination.
-40-
-------
Acetone does not appear to be a soil/sediment contaminant at OU-5/Site WP-1 Additional
discussion of the presence of acetone is provided in the QCSR provided to the USAGE
Omaha-District.
The methylene chloride detected at 8 ng/L is below the CRQL. As previously discussed this
compound is a common contaminant in laboratories. Though not reported in an associated
blank, it ,s unlikely, at the reported concentration, to be a site contaminant Table 2-11
summarizes constituents detected during the 1993 investigation.
1994 and 1995 Interim Action. The sediment samples collected during the 1994
Confirmation Sampling and 1995 Interim Action were not analyzed for VOCs.
2.6.4.2 Base Neutral/Acid Extractable Compounds. 1991 Investigation. Several
BNA compounds (mainly PAHs), including acenaphthene, anthracene, benzo(a)anthracene
benzoCa)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, benzo(k)fluoranthene'
chrysene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, fluoranthene, fluorene, indeno(l,2,3-c d)Pyrene'
phenanthrene, and pyrene, were detected in the two sediment samples collected south of the'
equipment storage area. For the most part, concentrations of PAHs detected in sediment
samples SPI-SD-0005, SP1-SD-9005, and SP1-SD-0006 were above concentrations detected
m background sample, BC-SD-0010 (table 2-7).
The unlined drainage swale sampled contains surface-water intermittently, after rain storms
and it does not support aquatic life. To be consistent with other Homestead ARE site'
mvestigations, the PAH concentrations detected in these sediment samples were compared
with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrative effects range-low and effects range-
median (NOAA ER-L and ER-M) values and sediment quality criteria (SQC) values which
are indicators of risk to aquatic life. Concentrations of anthracene, benzo(a)Pyrene
benzo(a)anthracene, chrysene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, fluoranthene, phenanthrene, and
pyrene detected in sediment samples SP1-SD-0006 and SPI-SD-0005 (and/or its duplicate
SP1-SD-9005) were above the NOAA ER-L and ER-M values for these constituents The
concentrations of acenaphthene and fhiorene detected in sample SPI-SD-0005 were above
both their respective NOAA ER-L and ER-M values and the concentrations detected in SP1-
SD-0006 were above their respective NOAA ER-L value.
Based on USEPA guidance for sediment samples with an unknown organic carbon content
sediment quality criteria for sediment containing one percent organic carbon were compared
to the unlmed drainage swale sediment samples. SQC for benzo(a)anthracene and
-41-
-------
benzo(a)pyrene were exceeded in samples SP1-SD-0005 and SP1-SD-9005 and the SQC for
fluoranthene, pyrene, and phenanthrene were exceeded in samples SP1-SO-0005,
SP1-SD-9005, and SP1-SD-0006. PAHs are not commonly associated with electroplating
operations. Possible sources for the PAHs are the adjacent equipment storage area and motor
pool and road runoff. PAH compounds are commonly present in waste automotive oil and
asphalt.
Additionally, two non-PAHs were detected in the sediment samples including bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate, which was detected in samples SP1-SD-0005 and SP1-SD-0006 at
concentrations of 6100 and 1700 u.g/kg, respectively, and dibenzofuran which was also
detected in sample SP l-SD-0005 at a concentration of 2000 u.g/kg. Concentrations of bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate detected in sediment samples SP1-SD-0005 and SP1-SD-0006 were
above background concentrations detected in BC-SD-0010. Dibenzofuran was not detected
in the background canal sediment.
1993 Investigation. Six sediments and one duplicate sample were collected and analyzed for
TCL BNA compounds. Four of the 1993 sediment sampling locations have undergone
excavation during the 1995 Interim Action. Sediments from-SPl-SD-0009 through SP1-SD-
0012 are no longer considered representative of site conditions. Eighteen PAHs were
detected, as well as four phthalate compounds, dibenzofuran, carbazole, naphthalene, 2-
methylnaphthalene, and 2,6-dinitrotoluene. The BNA compounds listed in Table 2-11 are
similar to the compounds detected in 1991 (Table 2-7). Sample SP1-SD-0007 and SP1-SD-
0008 collected in 1993 correspond to the same locations sampled in 1991 and identified as
SP1-SD-0005 and SP1-SD-0006. The compounds detected in 1991 were reported at much
lower concentrations in 1993 data. Concentrations of PAHs detected in sample SP1-SD-
0007 were lower than the PQLs of the background sample (BC-SD-0100) used for
comparison by G&M. With the exception of SP1-SD-0007 the PAH quantities reported are
above the NOAA Median Effect Range for sediment quality. The concentrations of
individual PAH compounds range from 5 u,g/kg (2-methylnaphthalene) to in excess of
45,000 ng/kg of chrysene; 49,000 ng/kg fluoranthene; and 110,000 ng/kg pyrene in sample
SP1-SD-0010.
The highest concentrations of PAHs occur in the east/west drainage swale located south of
Building 159 in samples SP1-SD-0010 and SP1-SD-0011. These samples have been
subsequently excavated. SP1-SD-0012 contained concentrations of PAHs at values
comparable to SPl-SD-0011. Sample SP1-SD-0012 was collected from the southern end of
the open drainage swale east of Building 164. Samples SP1-SD-0009 contained the same
-42-
-------
PAHs as SP1-SD-0010 but in lower quantities. SPl-SD-0009 is downstream of the
directional How in the drainage swale from SP1-SD-0010. Samples SP1-SD-0007 and SP1-
SD-0008 were collected further downstream of the directional flow of all the previously
discussed samples. The two sediments, SP1-SD-0007 and SP1-SD-0008, contained the
lowest quantity of detected PAHs for OU-5/Site WP-1.
Observations made during the March 1, 1993 investigation, indicated that a large diesel
powered generator was operating approximately 20 ft northeast of monitor well 1-03. An
apparent fuel spill was observed during this event, which is believed to have occurred during
fueling of the 250-gallon diesel fuel tank used to run the generator. Fuel was observed in the
north-south drainage swale to the east of Building 164. This area corresponds with sample
point SP1-SD-0012.
Dibenzofuran was detected in all the 1993 sediment samples at quantities ranging from 3
^g/kg to 1,100 ng/kg (SP1-SD-0010). All reported quantities were below the CRQL and
therefore are estimated. Di-n-butyl phthalate was detected in two samples, SP1-SD-0007 (23
Ug/kg) and SP1-SD-0011 (570 ug/kg). This compound was also reported in the associated
lab blank. Both reported sample values are below the GRQL and are evaluated as non-
detects in the QCSR. Two additional phthalates were detected: benzyl butyl phthalate and
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, at levels^ranging from 53 ug/kg to 4,000 ug/kg (SP1-SD-0012,
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate). Carbazole was detected in five of the six sediment locations
ranging from 330 to 8,000 ug/kg (SPl-SD-0010). Only the 8,000 ug/kg result was above the
CRQL.
Naphthalene was detected in two sediment samples SPl-SD-0009 and SP1-SD-0012 at 320
and 130 ug/kg, respectively. 2-methylnaphthalene was detected in all sediments except
SP1-SD-0008 at ranging from 6 ug/kg to 79 ug/kg. All reported values are bebw the CRQL.
Naphthalenes were not reported as detected in the background canal sediment. Naphthalenes
have not previously been detected at OU-5/Site WP-1 and are not an anticipated by-product
of electroplating operations.
The duplicate sample, SP1-SD-9012 contained 540 ug/kg of 2,6-dinitrotoluene. No other
samples collected at this site had reported 2,6-dinitrotoluene at detectable quantities.
Concentrations in the sediments are higher than those detected in the soil samples collected at
OU-5/Site WP-1 during any of the previous investigations. However, 1993 sediment results
-43-
-------
for samples collected from the drainage swale 400 ft south of OU-5/Site WP-1 were lower
than at the same locations sampled in 1991.
1994 and 1995 Interim Action. Twenty-one sediment samples were collected and analyzed
for BNAs during the 1994 confirmation sampling program (Figure 2-5). Nine PAH
compounds were reported in most of the sediments collected during the 1994 sampling event.
The PAHs include; phenathrene, anthracene, fluoranthene, pyrene, benzo(a)anthracene,
chrysene, benzoCb)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthtene, and benzo(a)pyrene. Addition
BNAs detected in one or more of the samples include; acenapthene, acenaphylene, fluorene,
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, and
dibenz(A,H)anthrancene.
The 1994 sediment sample concentrations in the east/west drainage ditch east of Building
164 and north of Building 153 include samples EWA-8 through EWA-17. Concentrations of
PAHs in this drainage are highest in the EWA-9, EWA-11, and EWA-12 samples (Table 2-
11). This is likely a result of their location immediately adjacent to areas which receive
runoff from roadways and asphalt pavement. Concentrations of PAHs at these locations
ranged from 3,100 u.g/kg to 41,000 ug/kg. Sediments associated with the samples EWA-1
and EWA-12 have subsequently been excavated. The two 1995, post excavation samples,
CS-02 and CS-03 have as much as one to two orders of magnitude lower concentrations of
PAH compounds than the pre-excavation samples. Benzo(a)anthracene, fluoranthene, and
pyrene in the post excavation sediment sample CS-02 are greater than 2 times the
background sediment concentration.
Similarly, in the South Area, the PAH sediment concentrations are slightly elevated in
samples EWA-18, EWA-19, EWA-20, and EWA-22. These points are the uppermost points
in the South Area, just below the culvert (Figure 2-5). PAH concentrations may be slightly
more elevated at these points due to runoff passing through the culvert and potentially
dissipating quickly into the underlying formations. Concentrations of PAHs in the South
Area range from 3,300 u.g/kg to 55,000 ug/kg. There were no excavation activities in the
South Area. Sediment concentrations from the 1994 Confirmation Sampling and 1995
Interim Action have been summarized on Table 2-11.
2.6.4.3 OrganochlorinePesticides/PCBs. 1991 Investigation. Sediment samples were
not analyzed for organochlorine pesticides/PCBs in the 1991 investigation. A
-44-
-------
1993 Investigation. Of the six sediments collected during the 1993 investigation only SP1-
SD-0008 showed no pesticide presence. This sample did, however, contain a reported 870
lig/kg of PCB 1260 (Table 2-11). This is below any Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
PCB spill cleanup guidelines (40 CFR 761.120). Field observations of March 1, 1993, noted
a downed power line and pole east of well 1-03. A transformer was not observed in the area.
The other five sediments plus the duplicate contained p'p'-DDT, p'p'-DDE, p'p'-DDD, and
alpha- and beta-chlordane. The highest concentrations of DDT (1,200 jig/kg) and the
chlordanes (2,400 and 2,800 ng/kg), were at SP1-SD-0012. The downstream samples
showed lower concentrations of all pesticides detected. The full extent and source of
pesticide contamination was not determined during this investigation. It is possible that local
use of these pesticides has contributed to the concentration in sediments via surface run-off.
1994 and 1995 Interim Action. Organochlorine pesticides were analyzed for in the 1994
and 1995 sediment samples. However, PCBs were only analyzed for in the two 1995 post
excavation sediment samples. The primary pesticides detected in the 1994 and 1995
sediment samples were DDT and its metabolites and chlordane. Concentrations of DDT and
its metabolites ranged from 7.9 u.g/kg to 620 u.g/kg, while chlordane ranged from 82 jig/kg to
1,500 ug/kg. The highest reported concentrations of pesticide in the North Area were
associated with sample EWA-11 and' EWA-12. Pesticide concentrations in the 1995 post
excavation samples are consistent with the pre-excavation concentrations in sample CS-02
and at reduced levels in sample CS-03.
In the South Area, higher concentrations were associated with sample EWA-18. As with the
BNA compounds, pesticides levels appear to be concentrated at the exit point of the culvert
which may be due to transport of contaminants through the culvert and then once it exits
rapidly infiltrate into the underly formation. Pesticides have been used throughout the
Homestead ~A^B. The concentrations observed at the Base are indicative of these
^rth^p^nicjourjses. A summary of pesticide results from the 1994 Confirmation Sampling
and 1995 Interim Action are presented in Table 2-11.
2.6.4.4 Metals and Cyanide. 1991 Investigation. During the 1991 investigation, two
sample points were collected from approximately 400 ft south of the defined area of OU-
5/Site WP-1. TAL metals detected in the sediment samples included aluminum, barium,
cadmium, calcium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, magnesium, sodium, vanadium, zinc,
mercury, arsenic, and lead. As previously discussed, these metals are commonly detected in
limestone. Concentrations of most constituents detected in the sediment samples were below
-45-
-------
average carbonate concentrations except for the trace metals, barium, cadmium, chromium
cobalt, copper, zinc, arsenic, mercury, and lead, which were above concentrations given for
the average carbonate composition (Hem, 1989). In addition, concentrations of aluminum
barium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, vanadium zinc'
mercury, arsenic, lead and cyanide detected in at least one of the sediment samples collected
were above background soil concentrations detected for OU-5/Site WP-1
Concentrations of barium, chromium, iron, lead, mercury, vanadium and zinc detected in
sediment samples SP1-SD-0005, SP1-SD-9005, and SP1-SD-0006 were greater than the
concentrations of these metals detected in the background sample, BC-SD-0010. In addition,
concentrations of cadmium detected in samples SP1-SD-0006 and SP1-SD-9005, copper in
sample SP1-SD-9005, and concentrations of arsenic detected in samples SP1-SD-0005 and
SP1-SD-9005 were above background concentrations of these metals detected in sample
BC-SD-0010. Concentrations of barium, lead, mercury, and zinc detected in samples
SP1-SD-0005 and its duplicate, SP1-SD-9005, located closest to the equipment storage area
contained the highest concentrations above background.
Concentrations of chromium detected in sample SP1-SD-0005 exceeded the NOAA ER-L
and ER-M values. Concentrations of zinc in samples SP1-SD-0005, SP1-SD-9005 and
SP1-SD-0006 exceeded the NOAA ER-L values and concentrations detected in
SP1-SD-0005 and SP1-SD-90005 exceeded the NOAA ER-M value. Sediment samples
SP1-SD-0005, SP1-SD-9005 and SP1-SD-0006 contained mercury concentrations which
exceeded the NOAA ER-L value, and additionally, the concentration of mercury detected in
sample SP1-SD-0005 exceeded the NOAA ER-M value. Lead concentrations detected in
samples SP1-SD-0005 and SP1-SD-9005 exceeded the NOAA ER-M and ER-L values and
sample SP1-SD-0006 exceeded the NOAA ER-L value. Table 2-7 summarizes metals
detected in the 1991 sediment samples.
Cyanide was detected in sample SP1-SD-9005 at a concentration of 2.2 mg/kg Because of
the distance from OU-5/Site WP-1 and the time elapsed since the Electroplating Facility was
in operation, OU-5/Site WP-1 is an unlikely source for the cyanide. Additional sources of
cyanide include herbicides, rodenticides, insecticides, and fungicides.
1993 Investigation. Metals analyses were performed on the six sediment samples collected
in 1993 (Figure 2-4). Four of the sampling point were subsequently excavated during the
1995 Interim Action. The metals detected during the 1993 sampling activities are the same
metals detected in 1991 with the addition of antimony and potassium. However, the
-46-
-------
antimony values reported in 1993 are all below the PQLs reported for the 1991 samples. The
sampling in 1993 was more extensive and include drainage swales within the OU-5/Site WP-
1. Table 2-11 summarizes the 1993 investigation results for sediments.
Aluminum, calcium, cobalt, magnesium, and sodium values are similar to background
concentrations in the Boundary Canal. The iron, manganese, nickel, potassium, and
vanadium concentrations reported are less than the average carbonate compositions for those
analytes.
Barium is below the carbonate composition (30 mg/kg) at SP1-SD-0012 and SP1-SD-0010,
but considerably above the average at SP1-SD-0007 (635 mg/kg), and SP1-SD-0009 (201
mg/kg). Cadmium was detected at all points in the range of 1.6 to 4.6 mg/kg with the highest
concentration at SP1-SD-0011. Chromium was detected in all samples (15-810 mg/kg) with
the highest concentration at SP1-SD-0009). All values for chromium were above
background and average carbonate concentrations. Copper was detected in all samples (14.6
to 61.1 mg/kg) with only 1 sample result below the Boundary Canal background value.
Lead values ranged from 87.6 to 1,180 mg/kg. Mercury-was detected at five of the six
sampling locations. Sample SP1-SD-0008 contained <0.11 mg/kg mercury. Concentrations
at the other sampling points ranged from 0.25 to 4.4 mg/kg mercury with SP1-SD-0009 the
highest reading. Zinc concentrations ranged from 58.9 to 612 mg/kg.
The reported values for antimony, arsenic, barium, chromium, iron, lead, and zinc are
qualified as qualitative data due to technical difficulties encountered during analysis. The
primary source of these technical interferences is the high calcium inherent in these samples
from south Florida. Additional discussion of these technical interferences and the
qualification of this data is presented in the associated QCSR.
The concentration reported for cobalt, potassium, sodium, and most of the nickel values are
below the CRQL.
In summary, the highest metals concentrations generally occur in the grassy east/west
drainage swale south of Building 159. The elevated lead concentration (1,180 mg/kg) is
considered to be representative of a limited area within the swale and is considered an
isolated detection. This sample point has been subsequently excavated. Sample point SP1-
SD-0007 also shows higher concentrations of metals than downstream sample SP1-SD-0008.
-47-
-------
Cyanide was not detected- in any of the sediment samples collected during the 1993
investigation.
There were no significant differences in the sediment analytical results for samples collected
in 1991 from samples collected in 1993 at sites SP1-SD-0005 and SP1-SD-0006, and SP1-
SD-0007 and SP1-SD-0008.
ft-
1994 and 1995 Interim Action. Twenty-one sediment samples were collected and analyzed
forTAL metals in 1994 and two sediments in 1995 from the locations depicted in Figures 2-5
and 2-6, respectively. Metal analytical results for the 1994 sediment samples indicated
concentration above the method detection limit for each of the TAL metals except for
cadmium, cobalt, nickel potassium, thallium, and vanadium. The metals arsenic, barium,
chromium, lead, mercury, and zinc were detected at higher concentrations in sediment
samples than soil samples. Arsenic concentrations ranged from 2 mg/kg to 34 mg/kg. Six of
the 1994 sediment samples exceed the soil CAL of 10 mg/kg established for Homestead
ARE. Of those 6 sediments, 5 sample locations were subsequently excavated. Arsenic
concentrations from the two post excavation samples are 25 mg/kg (CS-02) and 22 me/kg
(CS-03). ,._ A
41
The ranges of concentrations for the-femaining elevated metal compounds were 20.9 mg/kg
to 5,290 mg/kg for barium; 44.3 mg/kg to 116 mg/kg for chromium; 157 mg/kg to 1210
mg/kg for lead; 0.13 mg/kg to 4.2 mg/kg for mercury; and 152 mg/kg to 954 mg/kg for zinc.
Sediment concentrations exceeded CAL in only one sample for barium and all samples for
lead. However, only one sample exceeded the State of Florida Health-Based Soil Target
Level for lead. This sample (EWA-10) was subsequently excavated. With the exception of
arsenic and lead, 1995 post excavation sediments were below the CAL and State of Florida
Health-Based Soil Target Levels. Sediments analytical results for the 1994 Confirmation
Sampling and 1995 Interim Action are summarized in Table 2-11.
2.6.4.5 Summary for Sediment. The two chlorinated VOCs detected at low
concentrations in 1991 were probably associated with an adjacent equipment storage area.
They were not detected in 1993. However, acetone and methylene chloride were detected,
but are related to the field decontamination solvent and laboratory contamination,'
respectively.
Phthalates were detected in 1991 and 1993. These compounds are commonly observed when
water has come in contact with plastics. No criteria are proposed for phthalates in sediment.
-48-
-------
PAHs were detected in sediments. The most likely source of PAHs detected in the 1991
through 1995 sediment samples is run-off from the roadways and asphalt parking lots which
are part of OU-5/Site WP-1. Also, in 1993 a leak from a diesel generator was observed
following into one of the drainage swabs. PAHs and phthalates are not associated with
electroplating wastes.
The metals detected in 1991 were comparable to the Boundary Canal background sample
with the exception of mercury and zinc. Metals detected in 1993 were significantly higher
then in 1991. Similarly, the metals arsenic, barium, chromium, lead, mercury, and zinc were
detected at higher concentrations in 1994 and 1995 than in 1993. Arsenic and lead were the
only metals detected which exceed CAL or State of Florida Health-Based Soil Target Levels.
Cyanide was not detected in any of the sediment samples collected in 1991, 1993, or 1995.
Pesticides and PCBs were analyzed during the 1993 investigation only. PCB 1260 was
detected at very low levels at one location. DDT, DDT metabolites, and chlordane were
detected in sediment samples collected from 1994 through 1995. Pesticides have been
observed in soil and sediment samples throughout Homestead ARB.
The significant and potential human health and environmental impacts of occurrences of
constituents detected in drainage diten sediments and surface water have been fully evaluated
in the Final OU-9 Remedial Investigation Report (Woodward - Clyde, November 1995).
2.6.4 Surface Water Investigation
Due to the presence of surface water in the OU-5/Site WP-1 drainage ditches observed only
during periods of heavy rain, surface water samples were only collected during the 1991
Investigation. In addition, surface water impacts of the Base ditches and canals have been
evaluated further in the OU-9 Boundary Canal RI/RA. During the 1991 investigation, two
surface-water samples were collected at the same locations as the sediment samples (Figure
2-3). Table 2-8 provides a summary of the compounds detected in the surface waters
collected in 1991.
1991 Investigation. Two VOCs, acetone and methylene chloride, were detected in surface-
water samples below the CRQL.
Several BNAs, mainly PAHs, were detected in the surface-water samples.
Benzo(b)fluoranthene was detected in samples SP1-SW-0006 and SP1-SW-9005 at
-49-
-------
concentrations of 22 and 2.0 u,g/L, respectively. Pyrene was detected in samples SP1-SW-
0005, SP1-SW-90005, and SP1-SW-0006 at concentrations of 1.8, 2.4, and 27 u.g/L.
Anthracene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, and
phenanthrene were detected in sample SP1-SW-0006 at concentrations of 0.96, 1.5, 14, 17,
26, and 6.8 u,g/L, respectively. Fluoranthene was detected in samples SP1-SW-0005, SP1-
SW-90005, and SP1-SW-0006 at concentrations of 3.6, 3.6, and 41 ug/L. PAHs are not
commonly associated with electroplating operations but are present in waste automobile oils
and fuels. The runoff from the equipment storage area and motor pool area or from the road
would be a likely source of these contaminants.
Although the unlined drainage swale contains surface water intermittently, only during and
after rain storms, the Class III Florida Surface-water Quality Standards for recreation and fish
and wildlife were used to be consistent with investigations conducted at other Homestead
ARE sites. TAL metals detected in the surface-water samples includes aluminum, barium,
cadmium, calcium, chromium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, potassium, silver,
sodium, vanadium, zinc, mercury, and lead. Aluminum, barium, calcium, magnesium,
manganese, potassium, sodium, and vanadium are nutrients and there are no surface-water
quality standards available for these constituents. The cadmium, copper, iron, silver, and
mercury concentrations detected in sample SP1-SW-0006 exceeded their respective Florida
Surface-water Quality Standards and the Federal Water Quality Criterion for these
constituents. The concentrations of lead and zinc detected in samples SP1-SW-0005, SP1-
SW-9005, and SP1-SW-0006 exceeded the Florida Surface-water Quality Standard and
Federal Water Quality Criterion. Additionally, the detection limit for cyanide exceeded the
Florida Surface-water Quality Standard and the Federal Water Quality Criterion of 5 and 5.2
p.g/L, respectively.
2.6.4.1 Summary for Surface Water. Several PAHs were detected at low levels in
surface water during the 1991 investigations. These concentrations are most likely the result
of dissolution from the sediment when surface water is present primarily during the wet
season or from surface runoff during frequent rainfall. The VOCs detected at very low levels
are most probably laboratory or field contaminants.
Zinc, lead and cyanide were the only inorganics detected which exceeded water quality Y/
standards and/or criterion. The source of these constituents is most likely local runoff/A
associated with frequent rainfall. I
-50-
-------
The significant and potential human health and environmental impacts of occurrences of
constituents detected in drainage ditch sediments and surface water will be fully evaluated in
the Final OU-9 Remedial Investigation Report (Woodward - Clyde, November 1995).
2.6.6 Potential Routes of Migration
Contaminants may migrate from a source area through a variety of processes. Volatile
contaminants may be released into air and migrate in the vapor phase. Liquid or aqueous-
phase contaminants may migrate to both soils and groundwater through direct infiltration.
Erosion related to surface runoff or wind may transport contaminants sorbed to surface soils.
Infiltrating precipitation may dissolve contaminants and carry them into deeper soils where
they can be adsorbed, or into groundwater in the dissolved phase. Dissolved phase
contaminants may be carried in the down gradient direction by groundwater flow in an
aquifer.
Although other contaminated media are present at OU-5/Site WP-1, the principal route of
migration of contaminants is through shallow groundwater. The impacts associated with the
surface water and sediment samples have been further evaluated in the OU-9, Boundary
Canal RI/RA. Past activities allowed contaminants to enter soil and surface water, which
eventually migrated to shallow groundwater. Migration of contaminants via surface water
occurs intermittently, during storm events.
OU-5/Site WP-1 and its drainages are situated on a developed portion of the Base which
includes buildings, roads, and parking areas. The cycle of water through the site begins with
precipitation. During rainfall events, water percolates rapidly through the limestone and
weathered limestone bedrock underlying the site. Surface water runoff is over land to one of
the drainage swales or ditches located in the immediate area of the site. The drainage swales
and canals provide adequate surface water drainage for this site and are typically dry during
non-storm events. Given the highly transmissive underlying formation, rainwater and
surface water will typically infiltrate rapidly into the shallow aquifer system. It is estimated
that horizontal groundwater movement can be on the order of tens of feet during a single
rainfall event. Once the rainfall ceases, the water table returns to near static conditions and
groundwater movement decreases dramatically.
Between rainfall events, evaporation from the surface soils returns water from the aquifer to
the atmosphere. The rate of loss is greatest with open water bodies and decreases with
increasing distance from the water table.
-51-
-------
The natural concentrations of chemicals in the soil, rock, and water have a controlling effect
on the fate and transport mechanisms. Soils at the site exist primarily as a veneer on the
bedrock surface. A considerable amount of the OU-5/Site WP-1 area is covered by asphalt,
roads, or buildings. The soil has both organic and iron precipitants. Nevertheless the
calcium carbonate from the underlying oolite is the primary mineral present. The site
drainage swales also receive runoff from the asphalted parking area located east of Building
164.
2.6.7 Exposure Assessment
This section of the risk assessment identifies and describes potential human receptors,
reviews possible pathways of exposure for compounds of concern at OU-5/Site WP-1, and
presents estimates of exposure doses resulting from identified pathways at OU-5/Site WP-1.
An exposure assessment is conducted to identify potential sources and mechanisms of
release, transport pathways (e.g., groundwater, surface water, soil, and air), routes of
exposures (ingestion, inhalation, dermal contact), and potential on-site and off-site receptor
populations (current users of the site, as well as adjacent populations which may be exposed
to chemicals that have been transported off-site). This information provides the basis for
constructing site-specific exposure scenarios.
Two environmental media were considered in this document - groundwater and surface soil.
It should be noted that guidance on what depth range should be used for surface soil differs
between the USEPA (0 to 12 inches) and the Florida DEP (0 to 24 inches). Samples taken
between 0 and 24 inches below land surface (bis) were considered surface soil samples, so
receptor exposure during gardening or landscaping activities could be evaluated in this
assessment. This choice seems reasonable for south Florida, as the year-round, mild climate
would permit possible residential gardening and frequent landscaping activities on base. No
subsurface soil sampling was conducted because most soil layers at OU-5/Site WP-1 are only
one to two inches deep and the underlying layers are composed of limestone and bedrock.
Furthermore, the sediment and surface'water samples collected at OU-5/Site WP-1 from the
area canals and drainage ditches are not evaluated in this document. The potential human
health effects due to exposures associated with the canal system are addressed in the BRA for
OU-9, Boundary Canal Evaluation, which will be submitted as a separate report.
Other information considered in the development of present and future exposure scenarios
includes: physical characteristics of the site and surrounding area such as climatology,
-52-
-------
groundwater hydrology, location and description of surface water and surrounding land use
and available state-specific guidelines relevant to exposure and risk assessments.
A critical step in assessing the potential risk to public health is to identify the pathways
through which exposure could occur. A typical transport pathway consists of four necessary
elements: 1) a source and mechanism of chemical release, 2) an environmental transport
medium, 3) a point of potential contact with the contaminated medium, and 4) an exposure
route (inhalation of vapors, ingestion of groundwater, etc.). All four of these elements must
be present for a pathway to be complete.
Exposure Point Concentration. In accordance with USEPA methodology (1989a), the
medium-specific 95 percent UCL on the arithmetic mean concentrations for the COPCs will
be used as exposure point concentrations (EPCs) to estimate reasonable maximum exposure
(RME). The RME approach is suggested by the USEPA (1989a) to provide an estimate of
the maximum exposure (and therefore risk) that might occur. The RME corresponds to a
duration and frequency of exposure greater than is expected to occur on an average basis. In
those instances where the calculated 95 percent UCL exceeds the maximum detected
concentration, the maximum detected concentration was used as the EPC for a more accurate
estimate of RME concentration (USEPA, 1989a).
The total number of samples collected, as well as the sources of the data used in the risk
assessment and included in the database for the calculation of each COPC exposure point
concentration, varied by medium.
Once the database for each medium was developed, the 95 percent UCL concentration on the
arithmetic mean concentration (one-tailed test, assuming a lognormal distribution) was
calculated and compared to the maximum COPC concentration to determine the EPC for
each COPC. The results of these analyses for the sampled media are presented in Tables 2-
13 and 2-14. The information presented in these tables is discussed in the following
subsections. An example of the data reduction used to calculate the arithmetic mean and
UCL for each COPC is shown in Table. 2-15.
Exposure Scenarios. Exposure pathways identified at OU-5/Site WP-1 are shown in Table
2-16 and are associated with soils or groundwater. With the exception of the VOCs, the
chemicals detected at the site have low environmental mobility.
-53-
-------
TABLE 2-13
EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS FOR GROUNDWATER
SITE WP-l/OU-5, ELECTROPLATING WASTE DISPOSAL AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Number of Samples In Groundwaler Database'
Constituent
GeraghtyA Miller
1991
Montgomery
Watson
1993
OHM
1996
Total Number
Samples Averaged
199L93
UCL
Concentration'
(M8/0
Maximum
Detected
Concentration
(ME/I)
Mean
Concentration
Value Used
in Risk
Calculations'
Bromodichlorome thane
Chloroform
Methylene Chloride
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
MElALs.
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Vanadium
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
9
9
9
K 9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
s
4.8
4.8
5.5
1500
202,228,118
83.2
203.7
486.7
259.8
170133.5
42.3
151.7
2
2
7
320
Hg/L micrograms per Liter
Count does not include duplicates; a duplicate samole was cnii«
; TheUCLconcemrationwLcalcu^^^
As per Region iV Guidance, the arithmetic mean of the wells in the plume (assumed to be the entire site) was used as the exposure point concentration
3.6
3.6
3.3
38.5
24000
92
150
130
30
200
8
82
4266.3
26.3
37.2
29.2
7.3
44
10.8
16.4
3.6
3.6
3.3
38.5
4266.3
26.3
37.2
29.2
7.3
44
10.8
16.4
-------
TABLE 2-14
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Chemical
BNAs (Hg/fre)
Benzo(a)pyrene
Pesticides ing/fa)
4.4'-DDD
Chlordane Isomcrs
TRPHff fries) fmr/kp'
Metals fmg/ltg) a
Aluminum •
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Vanadium
Geraghty & MOT
Miller 1991 ' Wats
4
o
0
I 0
1 V
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
IT Corp
1994'
IT Corp
19954
Mg/kg Microgramj per kilogram
mg/kg Miligram per kilogram
Not calculated due to low number of samples
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Total
No. of
Samples
II
II
11
11
11
11
11
II
11
II
II
UCL
Concentration'
2.05E+06
87989
I.47E+06
6,453
7.8
26.4
18
226
543
184
0.15
509
12.4
«' Geraghty & Miller, 1991 Data Points: SPI-SL-OOOI, SPI-SL-0002, SPI-SL-0003 SPI MW-OOOl
-------
TABLE 2-15
EXAMPLE DATA REDUCTION CALCULATION
FOR ARSENIC IN SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES AT
SITE WP-l/OU-5, ELECTROPLATING WASTE DISPOSAL AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
i i n ^^^5^^^
Sample Analytical
Designation Result
(mg/kg)
EWA1 (1ft), 1994
EWA2 (1ft), 1994
EWA3 (1ft), 1994
EWA4 (1ft), 1994
EWA5 (1ft), 1994
CS-01 (1ft), 1995
SP1-SL-0007 (0-lft), 1993
SPl-SL-0001 (0-lft), 1991
SP1-SL-0002 (0-lft), 1991
SP1-SL-0003 (0-lft), 1991
SP1-MW-0001A (0-lft), 1991
x + [o.5*2 + -sH-
UCL=e ( ™^
where:
0.43B
<0.45
<1.5
0.56B
<0.41
6.9
9.7N
0.26
0.61
1.5
0.83
:)
J
Arithmetic mean of transformed data
Total number of samples
Degrees of freedom
Standard Deviation
H-statistic of transformed
data (oc=0.05)
Upper Confidence Limit (in mg/kg)
Value Log
Used ( i ) Transformed
(mg/kg) Data
0.43
0.23
0.75
0.56
0.21
6.9
9.7
0.26
0.61
1.5
0.83
JC =-0.201
n = 11
n - 1 = 10
s = 1.287
H = 3.5
UCL = 7.79
-0.844-
-1.492
-0.288
-0.580
-1.585
1.932
2.272
-1.347
-0.494
0.405
-0.186
(1)
All statistics were calculated using one-half the detection limit for non-detects, where
applicable.
-------
TABLE 2-16
s^^
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Medium
Groundwater (potable use)
Surface Soil
Surface Soil
Pathway/Route
Potentially-Exposed
Population
Comments
Ingestion, dermal contact, and None currently identified
inhalation of constituents in Hypothetical future on-site
groundwater.
Incidental ingestion of and
dermal contact with affected
surface soils/dust and
inhalation of affected dust.
Incidental ingestion of and
dermal contact with affected
surface soils/dust and
inhalation of affected dust.
No potable wells are located
„ f „.„, between Site WP-1 and the
residents unlikely due to nature groundwater discharge point
and history of site. (drainage ditches or Boundary
Canal). No active potable wells
are located within a 1-mile
radius of the site. Future
potable use of groundwater is
unlikely due to high total
dissolved solids associated with
salt-water intrusion.
Current base workers accessing Most of the site is covered with
site to cut the grass. Future sparse grass or gravel so
construction workers contact with soil, dust or
excavating soils. volatilized constituents is
possible.
Hypothetical future residents
could be exposed to
constituents in soils.
The potential for future
development of the site is
limited due to the surrounding
land use.
-------
Under present conditions, access to the site is limited primarily to base workers performing
duties that might require site access, such as cutting the grass. COPCs detected in the surface
soils include one BNA, two pesticides, nine metals, and TRPH. Base workers cutting the
grass at the site could be exposed to the soils via direct contact with exposed arms and face,
incidental ingestion of soils that might adhere to the hands, and inhalation of dusts or vapors
generated while cutting the grass. The site is sparsely vegetated, therefore, potential
exposure rates will not be reduced by a vegetation factor.
If the operation of Homestead ARB is to continue in the future, exposure pathways at the site
are unlikely to change. Given the location of OU-5/Site WP-1 in the midst of base
administration activity, future development of this area for intensive base operations is
unlikely. Foreseeable future use conditions at the site would result in potential exposure
pathways similar to those discussed for present site conditions. However, it should be noted,
that damage from the hurricane would necessitate construction activities regardless of future
land use.
Under current reuse plans, OU-5/Site WP-1 will be under cantonment of the US Air Force
Reserve. Therefore, reuse of OU-5/Site WP-1 for residential purposes is unlikely in the
foreseeable future. However, for risk characterization, hypothetical future residents were
considered as receptors. Exposure pathways for hypothetical future residents would include
direct contact with the surface soils, incidental ingestion of the surface soils, and inhalation
of fugitive dust or vapors.
Hypothetical future construction workers were included in the risk characterization.
Exposure pathways for future hypothetical construction workers would include ingestion and
inhalation of soil. This receptor is evaluated for only surface soils (less than two feet) as no
subsurface soil (greater than two feet) is expected at the site since most soil layers are usually
one to two inches deep and the underlying layers are composed of limestone and bedrock.
Although it is unlikely that potable wells would be installed in the vicinity of the site, a
conservative assumption made in this risk assessment is that a potable well is installed in the
groundwater plume, downgradient of the site. Exposure of hypothetical future residents to
affected groundwater via ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact are considered potential
exposure pathways.
In summary, workers cutting the grass on the site will be used to represent current exposure
to the on-site soils. In the unforeseen event that the site is no longer under cantonment of the
-54-
-------
US Air Force Reserve, hypothetical future exposure pathways considered included
residential development of the site. Table 2-16 and Figure 2-9 summarize the potential
exposure pathways for OU-5/Site WP-1.
2.7 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
In order to evaluate whether existing or future exposure to contaminated media at OU-5/Site
WP-1 could pose a risk to people or the environment, USAF completed a Baseline Risk
Assessment (BRA) in October 1996 with USEPA oversight of this process. This evaluation
then served as a baseline for determining whether cleanup of each site media was necessary.
In the BRA, USAF evaluated site risks for several environmental media. This ROD
addresses the risks attributable to chemicals in the soil and groundwater at OU-5/Site WP-1.
Sediment and surface water will be addressed as part of OU-9, Boundary and Military Canal
investigation. The risk assessment included the following major components: selection of
chemicals of potential concern, exposure assessment, toxicity assessment, risk
characterization, development of remedial goal options, ecological risk, and uncertainties.
The USAF estimated potential site risk in the absence of any future remediation.
2.7.1 Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern
s
This section presents an analysis of the site data to determine which chemicals present in site
samples are potentially responsible for the greatest risks at the site. These chemicals are
designated chemicals of potential concern (COPCs). The selection of COPCs allows the risk
assessment to focus on a manageable list of the most important chemicals, which in turn
permits concise analysis and presentation of information during the remainder of the risk
assessment.
2.7.1.1 Criteria For Selection. The process of selecting the COPCs involves four criteria.
These criteria are outlined in Figure 2-10. The first criterion involves determining whether a
chemical is present within its range of natural background concentrations. Chemicals present
at background levels are not selected as COPCs. Tables 2-17 and 2-18 present groundwater
and soil background data, respectively.
The second criterion is whether a chemical represents at least one percent of the risk in a
given media, based on a screening method that involves the concentration and toxicity of the
chemical. Factors other than concentration and toxicity are considered to potentially modify
this criterion to include additional chemicals that account for less than one percent of the risk.
-55-
-------
Primary
Sources
Chemicals
detected at
OU-5/WP-1
Electroplating
Waste
Disposal Area
Primary
Release
Mechanism
k Infiltration
* Percolation
p
w Food
onam
*•
Secondary
Sources
Soil
->
Secondary
Release
Mechanism
Volatile
Emissions
Infiltration/
Percolation
Stormwater
Runoff
Pathway
*
s
Wind
*
*
Groundwater
t
— »
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Contact
Inoestion
Contact
Inpestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Contact
Current
Base
Worker
O
O
O
O
O
Future
Resident
O
O
•
.
Future
Construction
Worker
O
O
O
O
O
O
Terrestrial
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
H
Ingestion
O
O
O
O
• = Pathway complete, further evaluation recommended
O = Pathway evaluated and found incomplete, no further evaluation recommended
Footnote: (1) Based on the non-volatile nature of the COPCs, it was considered that the potential for exposure to particular,!, but not volatile emissions exists.
Conceptual Model for OU-5/Site WP-1, Electroplating Waste Disposal Area
Figure 2-9
-------
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Comparison with Background Levels
Concentration-Toxicity
Screen
Comparison with Region III
Risk-Based Concentrations (RBCs)
Evaluation of Essential Nutrient Status
Analysis of Frequency of Detection
COPCs Selected for the Risk Assessment
Identification of Chemicals of Potential Concern (COPCs):
Criteria for Section
Figure 2-10
-------
TABLE 2-17
CONCENTRATIONS OF DISSOLVED INORGANIC CHEMICALS
DETECTED IN THE BISCAYNE AQUIFER IN DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Constituent
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Potassium
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
Alkalinity (as CaCOS)
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium a
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Zinc
TDSb
Hardness (as CaCOS) b
Range
0*8/1)
55,000 - 140,000
1,700-19,000
7,400 - 77,000
200 - 6,500
13,000 - 1 10,000
100-500
100 - 45,000
157,000 - 624,000
-------
TABLE 2-18
BACKGROUND SOIL CHEMICAL CONCENTRATIONS
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Compound
Volatile Organic Compounds (|ig/kg)
Acetone
Chkxobeiuene
Methylene Chloride
Total PAHs (iig/kg>
Average Homestead ARB Homestead ARB Typical Values
119.2
3.8 „ ~
4 ~
73855 - 0.01 -1.3 forest-
0.01 - 1.01 rural
0.06 - 5.8 urban
8 - 336 road dust
R*ngeMt
(mg/kg)
"•
Average1*
(mg/kg)
-
Base/Neutral and Acid Extractable Organic Compounds 0»g/kg/dw)
Acenaphthene
Betuo(a)aMhraccne
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoniithene
Bcnzo(g.h.i)peiylene
Benzo(kHluoranthene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phiha!ale
Chrysene
Dibenzofuran
Fluoranthene
Ruorene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
1.2-Dichtorobenzene
1.4-Dichlorobenzene
Total Phthalates <|ig/kg)
Metals
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
ND
67
66
69
44
66 • . „
1(10
79
ND
52.4
NO -
84
SO - _ . I
50 _ "*"
49.15 _ ~
ND
Ntf - - . I
'26 515 . _ .
8970 2400 425
<28-30 <7.4-<160 0-30
'•8 '•* 10.000
2-10"
<0.1 - 73
10-1^00
0.01-0.1"
10-28,000
1-1.000
<0.3 - 70
43
-------
These factors include physical and chemical properties of a given chemical, environmental
persistence, medium-specific mobility, the potential to bioaccumulate, potential routes of
exposure, the spatial extent of the chemical, and the range and magnitude of concentrations
detected. This screening method is consistent with toxicity screening guidance available
during the preparation of previous drafts of this document.
Changes in COPC screening guidance have occurred. At the request of regulators, this
change in guidance was incorporated into this document by screening chemicals detected in
site samples using an additional method based on USEPA Region III Risk-Based
Concentrations (RBCs). This additional screening is further discussed in Section 2.7.1.4.
The third criterion is whether a chemical is an essential human nutrient that is only toxic at
very high doses (i.e., at doses that are both much higher than beneficial levels and much
higher than could be associated with contact at the site). Chemicals typically considered
under this criterion include calcium, iron, magnesium, potassium, and sodium.
The fourth criterion is to determine frequency of detection in a given medium. When
chemicals are detected in less than five percent of the site samples for a given medium, they
are not selected as a chemical of potential concern. This criterion was only used when at least
20 site samples had been collected" for a particular medium. The following paragraphs
discuss the four criteria above in greater detail.
Background levels have been estimated for groundwater, surface soil, and subsurface soil.
As per Region IV risk assessment guidance (USEPA, 19925). inorganic chemicals which
have maximum detected concentrations less than twice the background concentration are
considered to be present at background levels. Exceptions to this rule have been made for
known human carcinogens such as arsenic and chromium (assumed to present in the
hexavalent state, or Cr(VI)). For these metals, the maximum detected concentration has been
required to be less than background to assume that the metal is present at background levels.
The results of COPC screening groundwater and surface soil are summarized in Tables 2-19,
and 2-20, respectively.
Groundwater. For groundwater, United States Geological Survey (USGS) data on the
Biscayne Aquifer have been used for comparison with site groundwater samples (Causarus,
1987). The USGS data are summarized in Table 2-17. While it is generally considered
preferable to determine background concentrations with wells immediately upgradient of the
-56-
-------
TABLE 2-19
SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS PRESENT IN SITE SAMPLES - GROUNDWATER
SITE WP-l/OU-5, ELECTROPLATING WASTE DISPOSAL AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
(Page 1 of 2)
Constituent
Minimum
Detected
Concentration
Maximum
Detected
Concentration
No. of
Samples
With Detects/
Total No.
Samples
Preliminary Screening
Summary
VOCs(ng/l)
Bromodichloromethane 2
Chloroform 2
Methylene chloride ]
BNAs (u.g/1)
bis(2-Ethyihexyi)phthalate 0.3
Di-n-butyl phthalate 0.5
2-Methylnaphthalene 2
Naphthalene 1
Metals (jig/1)
Aluminum 2610
Arsenic 3.9
Barium 4.5
Calcium 10,100
Chromium 4. ]
Cobalt 3.5
Copper 3.7
Iron 4.9
Lead 5.4
2
2
7
320
0.5
2
1
24,000
92
150
5,400,000
130
3.5
11.9
18,000
30
1/9
1/9
5/9
4/9
1/9
1/9
1/9
5/9
9/9
9/9
9/9
7/9
1/9
3/9
7/9
5/9
Included'
Included'
Included'
Included
Excluded, low score2
Excluded, low score2
Excluded, low score2
Included
Included
Included
Included, qualitative, high cone essential nutrient
Included
Excluded, low score2
Excluded, low score2
Included, qualitative, high cone essential nutrient
Included
-------
TABLE 2-19
SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS PRESENT IN SITE SAMPLES -
SITE WP-l/OU-5, ELECTROPLATING WASTE DISPOsTLAREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
(Page 2 of 2)
Constituent
Metals (ng/1) (continued)
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Minimum
Detected
Concentration
Oig/i)
1490
0.81
0
642
3,870
2.9
.7
Maximum
Detected
Concentration
(Hg/0
14,000
200
4,950
26,000
82
33.5
No. of
Samples
With Detects/
Total No.
Samples
'* 9/9
7/9
1/9
9/9
9/9
6/9
5/9
Preliminary Screening
Summary
Excluded, essential nutrient, below site background
Included
Included
Excluded, essential nutrient, below site background
Excluded, essential nutrient, below site background
Included
Excluded, low score 5
i based on USEPA Region HI Risk-Based Concentrations
Low score indicates <1% result for concentration-toxicity screen (USEPA, 1989) for the RfD and/or SF calculation (see Table 2-5).
-------
TABLE 2-20
SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS PRESENT IN SITE SAMPLES - SURFACE SOIL
SITE WP-l/OU-5, ELECTROPLATING WASTE DISPOSAL AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
(Page 1 of 3)
Constituent
Minimum Maximum
Detected Detected
Concentration Concentration
No. of
Samples Prelimin
With Detects/ Su
Total No.
Samples
Volatile Organics (ug/kg)
Acetone 1268
BNAs (ug/kg)
Acenaphthene .« 17
Anthracene 39
Benzo(a)Anthracene 25
Benzo(a)Pyrene 30
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 37
Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene 8.1
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 44
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate 93
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate 24
Carbazole 62
Chrysene 46
Di-n-Butyl Phthalate 17
Di-n-Octyl Phthalate 7
Dibenz(a,h)Anthracene 87
Dibenzofuran 11
Fluoranthene 55
Fluorene 20
lndeno(l,2,3-c,d)Pyrene 230
Phenanthrene JQ
Pyrene 58
TRPHs (TICs) (mg/kg) 3322
27,000
3/5
17
39
691
460
540
240
460
110
24
62
540
460
7
87
11
1,200
20
230
490
810
1/11
I/ll
3/11
3/11
3/11
3/11
3/11
2/11
1/11
1/5
3/11
2/11
1/11
1/11
1/11
3/11
1/11
1/11
3/11
3/11
Summary
3322
1/1
Excluded, low score'
Excluded, low score'
Excluded, low score'
Excluded, low score'
Included'
Excluded, low score'
Excluded, low score'
Excluded, low score'
Excluded, low score'
Excluded, low score'
Excluded, low score'
Excluded, low score'
Excluded, low score'
Excluded, low score'
Excluded, low score'
Excluded, low score'
Excluded, low score'
Excluded, low score'
Excluded, low score'
Excluded, low score'
Excluded, low score'
Included
-------
TABLE 2-20
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
(Page 2 of 3)
Constituent
Pesticides/PCBs (ng/kg)
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Chlordane
Endosulfan Sulfate
Metals (mg/kg)
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Minimum
Detected
Concentration
1.4
3.9
0.83
4.2
0.77
728
0.26
4.6
0.31
0.42
30,600
7.2
0.34
1.7
302
2.4
970
5.1
0.011
0.87
28
212
Maximum
Detected
Concentration
1,400
240
34
1,400
8.8
9,270
9.7
21.2
0.31
1.4
646,716
23.4
1.4
160
5,800
120
1,500
230
0.4
300
2,160
513
No. of
Samples
With Detects/
Total No.
Samples
• • __
5/8
7/8
S 5/8
4/8
2/8
11/11
8/1)
11/11
1/11
2/11
U/\l
6/11
4/11
7/11
11/11
10/11
11/11
11/11
2/11
6/11
7/11
9/11
Preliminary Screening
Summary
Included
Excluded, low score'
Excluded, low score'
Included
Excluded, low score'
Included
Included
Excluded, low score'
Excluded, low score '•'
Included
Excluded, essential nutrient, below site background
Included
Excluded, low score'
Included
Included, qualitative, high cone essential nutrient
Excluded, USEPAIEUBK >
Excluded, essential nutrient, below site background
Included
Included
Included
Included, qualitative, high cone essential nutrient
Excluded, essential nutrient, below site background
-------
TABLE 2-20
SUMMARY OF CHEMICALSPRESENT IN SITE SAMPLES - SURFACE SOIL
SITE WP-l/OU-5, ELECTROPLATING WASTE DISPOSAL AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
(Page 3 of 3)
Constituent
Minimum
Detected
Concentration
Maximum
Detected
Concentration
No. of
Samples
With Detects/
Total No.
Samples
• '
Preliminary Screening
Summary
Metals (mg/kg) (continued)
Vanadium
Zinc
8.2
2.2
14.7
300
6/11
9/11
Included
Excluded, low score'
Low score indicates <1% result for toxicity-concentration screen (USEPA, 1989) for the RfD and/or SF calculation (Refer to Table 2-6)
s^°r^^^
Included as a COPC despite low score, because there is no Region DIRBC available for n-nonane (see Section 2 6)
Sr T, n nCHhma^fet!on USEPA Re8io«In RBCs (see Section 2.6), but did not exceed site background
-------
site, the monitoring well SPi-I-01 designated by Geraghty & Miller as a background well in
1991 had concentrations of several metals which indicate it is not representative of
background conditions. Therefore, this well has subsequently been included in the risk
assessment dataset for groundwater. The USGS data for the Biscayne Aquifer are more
likely to represent undisturbed groundwater conditions and have been used to place the site
data in perspective.
Soil. For surface soil, five Base-wide background samples were collected by Geraghty &
Miller in 1991. These samples include SP1-SL-0028-2, P3-SL-0023, P2-SL-0023-2, SP3-
SL-0004-1, and SP3-SL-0004-2. For subsurface soil, two background samples (SPl'l-SL-
0028-6 and SP7-SL-0002) were collected. Soil background values are summarized in Table
2-18. In addition, data concerning typical chemical concentration ranges in soil are used to
place the site data in perspective (Shacklette and Boerngen, 1984).
2.7.1.2 Concentration-Toxicity Screen. The concentration-toxicity screen is used to
calculate indices that rank the chemicals according to their relative potentials to create health
risks at the site. One index is used to rank chemicals according to their potential for initiating
or promoting cancers, and a second index ranks chemicals-according to their potential for
chronic non-cancer effects. The first index applies only to carcinogens, while the latter index
applies to noncarcinogens. These indices are used for ranking purposes only, and do not
represent actual risk values.
The index used for ranking carcinogens involves the use of a cancer slope factor (CSF).
Studies of carcinogenicity tend to focus on identifying the slope of the linear portion of a
curve of dose versus response. A plausible upper-bound value of the slope is called the slope
factor.
The index used to rank chemicals according to their potential to cause noncarcinogenic
effects involves the use of a reference dose (RfD). A chronic RfD is an estimate of a daily
exposure level for which people, including sensitive populations, do not have an appreciable
risk of suffering significant adverse health effects. Most CSFs and RfDs were obtained from
the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), or, if not available there, from the Health
Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST).
The index for carcinogenic effects is calculated by taking the maximum detected
concentration of each contaminant and multiplying by the oral slope factor. The inhalation
CSF is used for chemicals that are only carcinogenic by inhalation (chromium and cadmium).
-57-
-------
The index for noncarcinogenic effects is calculated by taking the maximum detected
concentration of each contaminant and dividing by the oral RfD. Chemicals making up at
least one percent of the total index for all chemicals have been selected as COPCs (unless the
chemical has been eliminated based on background or essential nutrient considerations).
Concentration toxicity screening results for groundwater and surface soils are presented in
Tables 2-21 and 2-22, respectively.
Due to changes in guidance during the development of this document, an additional toxicity-
screening method, based on USEPA Region III RBCs, was also used to screen for COPCs.
This method is described in Section 2.7.1.4.
2.7.1.3 Data Analysis. This subsection is organized according to media (groundwater and
surface soil). Within each medium, the data are presented in the order of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), semi-volatile organic compounds, pesticides/polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), and inorganics. Comparisons are made to the four criteria listed in Section 2.7.1.1,
and then COPCs are selected. The summary Tables 2-19 and 2-20 present chemical
concentration ranges, frequencies of detection, and whether a chemical has been selected as a
COPC.
The analytical data for this risk assessment were collected by Geraghty & Miller during an
investigation in 1991, Montgomery Watson during 1993, IT Corporation in 1994 and 1995
(soil sampling only), and OHM in 1996 (groundwater sampling only). An in-depth
discussion of the sample collection and analytical methodology is presented in Section 2.0 of
the Final Remedial Investigation Report for Operable Unit 5/Site WP-1, Electroplating
Waste Disposal Area (Former Site SP-l) (Montgomery Watson, 1996).
The soil and groundwater analytical data were reduced and analyzed for use in the risk
assessment according to guidelines provided by USEPA (1989a, 199la). Geraghty & Miller,
IT Corporation, and OHM performed laboratory analyses and data validation for their field
samples; Montgomery Watson performed its own data validation, which is reported in a
Draft Quality Control Summary Report, while Savannah Laboratories performed the
laboratory analyses. All data collected by Geraghty & Miller in 1991, Montgomery Watson
in 1993, IT Corporation in 1994 and 1995, and OHM in 1996 were reviewed for this risk
evaluation. This includes a review of detects, detection limits for non-detects, and estimated
(J-qualified) data. Detection limits reported for Montgomery Watson samples were in
compliance with CLP SOW contract required quantitation limits (CRQL). However, sample
-58-
-------
TABLE 2-21
TOXICITY - CONCENTRATION SCREEN FOR CHEMICALS
PRESENT IN SITE SAMPLES - GROUNDWATER
WP-1/OU-S, ELECTROPLATING WASTE DISPOSAL AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Constituent
Bromodichloromethane
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
UNA?
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalale
Di-n-Buryl Phthalate
2-Methylnaphihalene '"
Naphthalene
Metal-j
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Calcium
Chromium °'
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese"'
Nickel1"
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Maximum
Concentration RfD
mg/I mg/kg/day
0.002
0.002
0.007
0.32
0.0005
0.002
0.001
24
0.092
0.15
5400
0.13
0.0035
0.01 19
18
n/w
14
0.2
0.008
4.95
26
0.082
0.0335
2.0E-02 "'
l.OE-02 "
6.0E-02 <•>•
2.0E-O2 <»
l.OE-01 »
4.0E-02 "
4.0E-02 «
l.OE+00 «
3.0E-04 «
7.0E-02 w
NA
5.0E-03 w
6.0E-02 "
3.7E-O2 ""
NA
NA
2.4E-02 '»
2.0E-O2 ">
NA
NA
7.0E-03 •"
3.0E-01 '"
Non-Carcinogen Carcinogen
Slope Factor Index Index
(mg/kg/day)-1 (conc/RTD) (concxSF)
6.2E-02 <"
6.1E-03 '"
7.5E-03 "'
I.4E-02 ">
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.5E-fOO «
NA
NA
4.2E+OI '"
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.4E-01 <"
NA
NA
NA
NA
l.OE-01 .
2.0E-01
1.2E-01
I.6E40I
5.0E-03
5.0E-02
2.5E-02
2.4E-K)!
3.1E+02
2.IE+00
NC
2.6E+01
SXE-Q2
3.2E-01
NC
NC
NC
8.3E+00
4.0E-OI
NC
NC
1.2E+01
1.IE-OI
1.2E-04
1.2E-05
5.3E-05
4.5E-03
NC
NC
NC
NC
1.4E-01
NC
NC
5.5E+00
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
6.7E-03
NC
NC
NC
NC
RfD
0.03%
0.05%
0.03%
4.04%
0.00%
0.01%
0.01%
6.06%
7739%
0.54%
NC
6.56%
0.01%
0.08%
NC
NC
NC
2.10%
0.10%
NC
NC
2.96%
0.03%
SF
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.08%
NC
NC
NC
NC
2.46%
NC
NC
97.34%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.12%
NC
NC
NC
NC
Notes:
Toxicity values quoted in this table are for the oral pathway unless otherwise noted
cone = concentration
NA = Not Available
NC= Non-Carcinogenic
RfD « Reference Dose
SF=Slope Factor
« IRIS. 1995
»' HEAST. 1995
"' ECAO
m Naphthalene RfD used as surrogate for 2-Methylnaphthalene.RfD
01 Slope factor is for inhalation pathway
SSSreSd^H n±±ted, bSSf °n Ae fAEL °f'° mg/day in food' "•*•« a mod«y™g fetor of 3 for non-dietary intake.
Nickel refinerv du« mh^iahnn cin~. factor usgj ^ surrogate for Nickel slope factor
-------
TABLE 2-22
TOXICITY - CONCENTRATION SCREEN FOR CHEMICALS
PRESENT IN SITE SAMPLES - SURFACE SOIL (0-2 FT)
SITE WP-l/OU-5, ELECTROPLATING WASTE DISPOSAL AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
(Page 1 of 2)
Maximum
Constituent Concentration RfD
mg/kg mg/kg/day
VOCs
Acetone
BNAs
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene "'
Benzo(a)pyrene'"
Benzo(b)fluoranthene (I>
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene. ("
Benzo(k)fluoranthene "'
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Butylbenzy phthalate
Carbazole'"
Chrysene '"
Di-n-Butyl Phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene '"
Dibenzofuran
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
lndeno(1.2,3-c,d)pyrene '"
Phenanthrene ("
Pyrene
TRPHs (TICS) fas n-Nonane> "'
Pesticides/PCBs
4,4'-DDD<3)
4,4-DDE <3>
4,4'-DDT
Chlordane
Endosulfan Sulfate '•"
Metals
Aluminum
Arsenic'
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium (food) '*'
Calcium
27
0.017
0.039
0.691
0.46
0.54
0.24
0.46
0.11
0.024
0.062
0.54
0.46
0.007
0.087
0.011
1.2
0.02
0.23
0.49
0.81
3322
1.4
0.24
0.034
1.4
0.0088
9270
9.7
21.2
0.31
1.4
646716
l.OE-01 '"
6.0E-02 ""
3.0E-01 <"
3.0E-02 <"
3.0E-02 <"
3.0E-02 Ul
3.0E-02 (1)
3.0E-02 '"
2.0E-02 U)
2.0E-01 "'
3.0E-02 ">
3.0E-02 (>)
l.OE-01 <"
2.0E-02 u)
3.0E-02
5.0E-04 <"
5.0E-04 <"
5.0E-04 <"
6.0E-05 <«
6.0E-03 ">
l.OE+00 '"
3.0E-04 <"
7.0E-02 °"
5.0E-03 • w
l.OE-03 '"
NA
Non-Carcinogen Carcinogen %
Slope Factor Index Index RfD
mg/kg/day (conc/RfD) (concxSF)
NA
NA
NA
7.3E-01 """
7.3E+00 <"
7.3E-01 (")(1
NA
7.3E-02 (")l>
1.4E-02 '"
NA
2.0E-02 (b)
7.3E-03 <*H1
NA
NA
7.3E+00 (")(i
NA
NA
NA
7.3E-OI """
NA
NA
NA
2.4E-01 (1)
3.4E-01 "'
3.4E-OI ("
l.SE-iOO (I)
NA
NA
1.5E+00 '•'
NA
4.3E+00 (l)
6.3E+00 (1>
NA
2.7E+02
2.8E-01
1.3E-01
2.3E+OI
1.5E+01
1.8E+01
8.0E+00
1.5E+01
5.5E+00
1.2E-01
NC
1.8E401
4.6E+00
3.5E-01
2.9E+00
2.8E+00
3.0E401
5.0E-01
7.7E-fOO
1.6E+01
2.7E-H)!
5.5E^3
2.8E+03
4.8E+02
6.7E+01
2.3E+04
1.5E+OO
9.3E+03
3.2E+04
3.0E4O2
1.4E+03
NC
NC
NC
NC
5.0E-01
3.4E+00
3.9E-01
NC
3.4E-02
1.5E-03
NC
1.2E-03
3.9E-03
NC
NC
6.4E-01
NC
NC
NC
1.7E-01
NC
NC
NC
3.4E-01
8.2E-02
1.2E-02
1.8E+00
NC
NC
1.5E+01
NC
1.3E+00
8.8E-fOO
NC
0.24%
0.00%
0.00%
0.02%
0.01%
0.02%
0.01%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
NC
0.02%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.03%
0.00%
0.01%
0.01%
0.02%
4.85%
2.44%
0.42%
0.06%
20.46%
0.00%
8.13%
28.34%
0.27%
0.05%
133%
NC
SF
NC
NC
NC
0.04%
0.27%
0.03%
NC
0.00%
0.00%
NC
0.00%
0.00%
NC
NC
0.05%
NC
NC
NC
J^l\»^
0.01%
NC
NC
NC
0.03%
0.01%
0.00%
0.15%
NC
NC
1.17%
NC
0.11%
0.71%
NC
-------
TABLE 2-22
TOXICITY - CONCENTRATION SCREEN FOR CHEMICALS
PRESENT IN SITE SAMPLES - SURFACE SOIL (0-2 FT)
SITE WP-l/OU-5, ELECTROPLATING WASTE DISPOSAL AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
(Page 2 of 2)
Constituent
.
Metals f continue
Chromium w
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese '*'
Mercury
Nickel"'
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Maximum
Concentration RfD
mg/kg mg/kg/day
....
23.4
1.4
160
5800
120
1500
230
0.4
300
2.160
513
14.7
300
— - - - ._
5.0E-03 «•»
6.0E-02 w
3.7E-02
NA
NA
7.0E-03
.._
Non-Carcinogen Carcinogen %
Slope Factor Index Index RfD
mg/kg/day (conc/RfD) (cone x SF)
4.1E+01 (b>
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.4E-01 '"
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.7E+03
2.3E+01
4.3E+03
NC
NC
NC
9.6E+03
1.3E+03
1.5E-KW
NC
NC
2.1E+03
l.OE+03
— —
9.6E+02
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
2.5E+02
NC
NC
NC
NC
4.10%
0.02%
3.79%
NC
NC
NC
8.40%
1.17%
13.15%
NC
NC
1.84%
0.88%
•K^^^MM
%
SF
77.16%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
20.27%
NC
NC
NC
NC
Jk«_s*_ra
Toxicity values quoted in this table are for the oral pathway unless otherwise noted
NA s Not Available
NC = Not calculated
RfD » Reference Dose
SF = Slope Factor
"' IRIS. 1996
""HEAST. 1995
f,ndos"Ifan RfD used as surrogate for endosulfan sulfate
Slope factor is for inhalation pathway
RfD
-------
quantitation limits (SQL) at levels suitably low for risk assessment use were not consistently
achieved.
2.7.1.4 Screening Using Risk-Based Concentrations. Guidance on COPC selection
changed during the development of this document. Therefore, a Risk-Based Concentration
(RBC)-based benchmark screening method was added after input from regulators. Note that
the use of both the toxicity-concentration screening method described in Section 2.7.1.2 and
the RBC method described below results in a greater number of COPCs than use of each
method singly. Therefore, selection of COPCs in this document is more conservative.
Risk-Based Concentrations. Current USEPA Region IV guidance recommends using the
USEPA Region III RBCs as guidance for screening. RBCs are published periodically by
USEPA Region III to act as guidance in risk management, risk assessment, and remediation
decisions. RBCs are generated using default exposure parameters for chemicals in a specific
media. Concentrations quoted in the USEPA Region HI RBC Table that represent risk levels
of 1E-06 (for carcinogens) or a hazard quotient of 1 (for non-carcinogens). USEPA Region
IV suggests that screening values for non-carcinogenic chemicals be adjusted to represent a
hazard quotient of 0.1. "
_&
Maximum concentration values of all chemicals detected in a particular environmental
medium are compared to the appropriate RBCs in Tables 2-23 and 2-24. Chemicals whose
maximum concentration exceeded the benchmark value were added as COPCs. The results
of this process are summarized below.
Ground water. Chemicals detected in groundwater were compared to the Tap Water RBCs.
The results of this comparison are shown in Table 2-23. The comparison resulted in
bromodichloromethane, chloroform, and methylene chloride being added to the list of
COPCs for groundwater. All other chemicals that exceeded the RBCs had been already
selected as COPCs, based on previous screening described in Sections 2.7.1.2 and 2.7.1.3,
and Table 2-21.
Surface soil. Chemicals detected in surface soil were compared to RBCs for residential soil.
The results of this comparison are shown in Table 2-24. The comparison resulted in
benzo(a)Pyrene being added to the list of COPCs for surface soils. Although the maximum
concentration of beryllium in surface soil exceeded its RBCs, the concentrations detected
were within background, so beryllium was not considered a COPC in surface soil.
-59-
-------
TABLE 2-23
RBC-BASED BENCHMARK SCREENING FOR CHEMICALS
PRESENT IN SITE SAMPLES - GROUNDWATER
SITE WP-1/OU-S, ELECTROPLATING WASTE DISPOSAL AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
COPC from
Previous Maximum Toxicitv Values
itOiUUlueut screening?"1 Concentration RfD
(y*5 - +) mg/l mg/kg/day
Slope Factor
(mg/kg/day)'
— ^— — •— — __
RBCs Exceeds
(Regional RBC-based Benchmark
Tap Water) Benchmark (yes = +)
mg/1 mg/l
COPC
Bromodichloromethane
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
SNA*
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate +
Di-n-Butyl Phthalate
2-MethylnaphthaIene c>
Naphthalene
Msials
Aluminum +
Arsenic +
Barium +
Chromium m +
Cobalt
Copper
Lead +
Manganese +
Nickel"' +
Vanadium +
Zinc
0.32
0.0005
0.002
0.001
24
0.092
0.15
0.13
0.0035
0.0119
0.03
0.2
0.008
0.082
0.0335
2.00E-02
1.00E-OI
4.00E-02
4.00E-02
l.OOE+OO
3.00E-04
7.00E-02
S.OQE-O3
6.00E-02
3.70E-02
NA
2.00E-02
7.00E-03
3.00E-01
*" I.40E-02 «
NA
K> NA
"> NA
w NA
w 1.50E+00 »
" NA
'" 4.20E-fOl w
fc> NA
"" NA
NA
m MA
NA
'" 8.40E-01 '•'
*' NA
NA
0.002 2.0E-02 "' 6.2E-02 '« 0.00017
0.002 I.OE-02 * 6.1E-03 « 0.00015
0.007 6.0E-02 « 7.5E-03 » 0.0041
0.0048
3.7
1.5
1.5
37
0.000045
2.6
0.18
2.2
1.5
NA
0.18
0.73
0.26
11
Notes:
Toxicity values quoted in this table are for the oral pathway unless otherwise noted
"11 pmassium "- sodium) ™ not considered in "- table-
NA ^ haVC RBC Va'UeS WCre Calried * COPCS in ^ riSk assessment-
RfD = Reference Dose
'" IRIS, 1996
*' HEAST. 1995
*' ECAO
'" Based on screening carried out in Table 2-5 and Section 2 5
' Naphthalene RfD used as surrogate for2-Methy!naphthalene RfD
Slope factor is for inhalation pathway
'" Nickel refinery dust inhalation slope factor used as surrogate for Nickel slope factor
0.00017
0.00015
0.0041
0.0048
0.37
0.15
0.15
3.7
0.000045
0.26
0.18
0.22
0.15
NA
0.018
0.073
0.026
1.1
NA
+
-------
TABLE 2-24
RBC-BASED BENCHMARK SCREENING FOR CHEMICALS
PRESENT IN SITE SAMPLES - SURFACE SOIL (0-2 FT)
SITE WP-l/OU-5, ELECTROPLATING WASTE DISPOSAL AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
(Page 1 of 2)
COPC from
previous Maximum
Constituent screening?*" Concentration" RfD Slope Factor
(yes = +) mg/kg mg/kg/day mg/kg/day
Toxiclty Values
RBCs Exceeds
(Region in RBC-based Benchmark COPC
ResidSoil) Benchmark (yes = +)
VOCs
Acetone
BJSAs
Acenaphlhene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracenem
Benzo(a)pyrene "'
Benzo(b)fluoranthene "'
Benzo(g,h,i)perylenc °'
Benzo(k)fluoranthene m
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Butylbenzylphthalate
Carbazole0'
Chrysene 0>
Di-n-Butyl Phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Pibenzo(a,h)anthracene m
Dibenzofuran
Fluoranthene
Fluorenc
IndencK 1 ,2,3-c,d)py rene n>
Phenanthrene Q1
Pyrenc
TRPHs fTICsVas n-Nonane> "' +
Pesticides/PCBs
4,4'-DDD«> +
4,4'-DDE">
4,4'-DpT
Chlordane +
Endosulfan Sulfate1"
Metals
Aluminum +
Arsenic +
Barium
Beryllium '"
Cadmium (food) <" +
Chromium m +
Cobalt
Copper +
27
0.017
0.039
0.691
0.46
0.54
0.24
0.46
0.11
0.024
0.062
0.54
0.46
0.007
0.087
0.011
1.2 •*
0.02
0.23
0.49
0.81
3322
1.4
0.24
0.034
1.4
0.0088
9270
9.7
21.2
0.31
1.4
23.4
1.4
160
l.OE-01 <•>
6.0E-02 "'
3.0E-01 '"
3.0E-02 "'
3.0E-02 «
3.0E-02 <"
3.0E-02 "
3.0E-02 '"
2.0E-02 •">
2.0E-01 »>
3.0E-02 »
3.0E-02 M
l.OE-01 "
2.0E-02 '"
3.0E-02 w
4.0E-03 fcl
4.0E-02 «
.4.0E-02 '"
3.0E-02 "
3.0E-02 "'
3.0E-02 «
6.0E-01 »
5.0E-04 '"
5.0E-04 »'
5.0E-04 *•
6.0E-05 "'
6.0E-03 "
l.OE+00 '"
3.0E-04 w
7.0E-02 «
5.0E-03 "'
l.OE-03 «
5.0E-03 «
6.0E-02 '"
3.7E-02 »'
NA
NA
NA
7.3E-01
7.3E+00
7.3E-01
NA
7.3E-02
1.4E-02
NA
2.0E-02
7.3E-03
NA
NA
7.3E+00
NA
NA
NA
7.3E-01
NA
NA
NA
2.4E-01
3.4E-01
3.4E-01
1.3E+00
NA
NA
1.5E+00
NA
4.3E+00
6.3E+00
4.1E+01
NA
NA
7,800
4,700
23,000
mm Qgg
0.088
""" 0.88
2,300
01M gg
" 46
73
»' 32
mm gg
7,800
1,600
m<" 0.088
310
3,100
3,100
""" 0.88
2,300
2,300
NA
w 2.7
"' 1.9
"' 1.9
"' 0.49
470
78,000
'" 0.43
5,500
0.15
« 39
" 390
4700
3,100
780
470
2.300
0.88
0.088
088
w.OO
230
8 8
O.O
46
0.73
32
88
780
llVl
1 W
0.088
31
310
310
0.88
230
230
NA
2.7
1.9
1.9
0.49
47
7,800
0.43
550
0.15
3.9
39
470
310
.
-
+ +
-
-
-
-
NA *
^
]
-
+ +
+
+ -f
+
+
-------
TABLE 2-24
RBC-BASED BENCHMARK SCREENING FOR CHEMICALS
PRESENT IN SITE SAMPLES - SURFACE SOIL (0-2 FT)
SITE WP-l/OU-5, ELECTROPLATING WASTE DISPOSAL AREA
Homestead Air .Reserve Base, Florida
(Page 2 of 2)
Constituent
COPC from
previous Maximum
screening?"' Concentration RfD Slope Factor
+) mg/kg mg/kg/day mg/kg/day
Toxicity Values
RBCs Exceeds
(Region III RBC-based Benchmark COPC
ResidSoil) Benchmark (yes = +)
Metals (continue^)
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel •'
Vanadium
Zinc
120
+ 230
+ 0.4
+ 300
+ 14.7
300
NA
2.4E-02 '"
3.0E-04 *'
2.0E-02 '"
7.0E-03 *'
3.0E-OI "'
NA
NA
NA
8.4E-OI
NA
NA
mg/kg
NA
390
23
!" 1,600
550
23.000
mg/kg
NA
39
2.3
160
55
2,300
NA
•*• -f
•*• +
Toxicity values quoted in this table are for the oral pathway unless otherwise noted.
Essential nutrients (calcium, iron, magnesium, potassium and sodium) are not considered in this table. See Sections 2.4
and 2.5 for full discussion of essential nutrients.
NA = Not Available
NC = Not calculated
RfD s Reference Dose
SFs Slope Factor
IRIS. 1995
HEAST. 1995
ECAO
Massachusetts DEP, October 1994.
Based on screening carried out in Table 2-6 and Section 2.5.
Pyrene RfD and RBC used as a surrogate for RfD and RBC of various PAHs
Endosulfan RfD and RBC used as surrogates for endosulfan sulfate RfD and RBC. respectively
s^p^S^^^^
Nickel refinery dust inhalation slope factor used as surrogate for Nickel slope factor
Tox-cny eqmvalence factor (TEF) was applied to the benzo(a)pyrene slope factor, based on the Native potency of this chemical to benzo(a)pyr
-------
At the suggestion of USEPA Region IV, toxicity values for n-nonane were used as surrogates
for TRPH. As no RBC was available for n-nonane, TRPH was added to the list of COPCs
for surface soil. All other chemicals detected in surface soil whose maximum concentrations
exceeded the RBCs had been already selected as COPCs based on previous screening
described in Sections 2.7.1.2 and 2.7.1.3, and Table 2-22.
2.7.1.5 Chemicals of Potential Concern Selection Process. The chemicals of potential
concern (COPCs) selection process determines those chemicals that are the most toxic and
that are anticipated to create the greatest potential risk. As stated previously, Figure 2-10
illustrates the criteria used to select COPCs in this risk assessment
Identification of the COPCs for the risk assessment was accomplished in accordance with
USEPA (1989a) guidance. All detected constituents were included as COPCs for the risk
assessment with the following exceptions:
• As per USEPA Region IV risk assessment guidance (USEPA, 1992b), inorganic
constituents present at concentrations less than twice background concentrations were
excluded from the list of COPCs. Only those constituents for which the maximum
detected concentration was greater than twice the background concentration were
retained as COPCs. -f
• Chemicals detected in less than 5% of the samples analyzed per media.
• Chemicals represented in less than 1% of the potential overall risk via the
concentration-toxicity screen (USEPA, 1989a), and whose maximum concentration
detected did not exceed a benchmark based on USEPA Region III RBCs (USEPA
1995a).
Based on the above evaluation, a group of COPCs was carried through the quantitative risk
assessment for each of the environmental media, groundwater and soil. This selection is
summarized in Table 2-25. -.
Tentatively Identified Compounds (TICs) and TRPH. Where it was appropriate, TICs
were included within the quantitative risk analysis as COPCs for soil and groundwater.
Tentatively identified chemicals in the Montgomery Watson 1993 dataset associated with
petroleum products were summed for quantification. Categories of TICs included in this
evaluation were: alkanes, unknown hydrocarbons, substituted benzenes, PAHs,
-60-
-------
TABLE 2-25
CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN IN ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA AT
SITE WP-l/OU-5, ELECTROPLATING WASTE DISPOSAL AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Affected Media
Constituents
Groundwater
Surface Soil
(0-2 ft.)
VOCs
BNAs
Bromodichloromethane
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Benzo(a)pyrene
TRPHS rrrcsi
X
X
X
BNAs Base/neutral and acid extractable compounds
PCBs Polychlorinated biphenyls
TRPHs Total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons.
VOCs Volatile organic compounds.
x
Pesticfdes/PCB?
4,4'-DDD
Chlordane
Metals
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Vanadium
s
„
—
X
X
X
—
X
X
—
X
X
X
•
X
—
X
X
X
X
X
..
X
.»
X
X
X
_•»
X
X
X
X
X
^^
••
-------
cycloalkanes, and arpmatics. The summed petroleum-related TICs were treated as TPH in
screening and the risk characterization
Unknown and other partially identified TICs were not included for further analysis due to the
lack of information on these chemicals. Organic acids detected in soil and groundwater were
not included in the quantitative risk assessment as these chemicals are the result of natural
processes by biological organisms (bacteria) in the breaking down or "weathering" of
petroleum product at the site.
USEPA Region IV has adopted an approach to TPH developed by the State of Massachusetts
DEP (Massachusetts DEP, 1994). This approach uses the toxicity values of certain
hydrocarbon compounds (e.g. n-hexane, n-nonane, eicosane) for fractions of TPH. The
toxicity of hydrocarbons tends to decrease with increasing carbon chain length. n-Hexane
has an RfD of 0.06, n-nonane an RfD of 0.6, and eicosane an RfD of 6.
After review and discussion with USEPA Region IV, toxicity values for n-nonane (C9) were
used as surrogate values for TPH/TRPH and fuel-associated TICs. Use of n-nonane as a
surrogate was felt to be more representative of the TPH present at the site than use of n-
hexane, as volatile fractions of TPH (C4-C7) would be expected to attenuate by weathering
more rapidly than heavier components. Also, certain of the soil samples (such as those taken
by Geraghty and Miller) were analyzed for hydrocarbons solely in the C8-C20 carbon range.
2.7.2 Potential Routes of Migration
Contaminants may migrate from a source area through a variety of processes. Volatile
contaminants may be released into air and migrate in the vapor phase. Liquid or aqueous-
phase contaminants may migrate to both soils and groundwater through direct infiltration.
Erosion related to surface runoff or wind may transport contaminants sorbed to surface soils.
Infiltrating precipitation may dissolve contaminants and carry them into deeper soils where
they can be adsorbed, or into groundwater in the dissolved phase. Dissolved phase
contaminants may be carried in the 'down gradient direction by groundwater flow in an
aquifer.
Although other contaminated media are present at OU-5/Site WP-1, the principal route of
migration of contaminants is through shallow groundwater. The impacts associated with the
surface water and sediment samples have been further evaluated in the OU-9, Boundary
Canal RI/RA. Past activities allowed contaminants to enter soil and surface water, which
-61-
-------
eventually migrated to shallow groundwater. Migration of contaminants via surface water
occurs intermittently, during storm events.
OU-5/Site WP-1 and its drainages are situated on a developed portion of the Base which
includes buildings, roads, and parking areas. The cycle of water through the site begins with
precipitation. During rainfall events, water percolates rapidly through the limestone and
weathered limestone bedrock underlying the site. Surface water runoff is over land to one of *
the drainage swales or ditches located in the immediate area of the site. The drainage swales
and canals provide adequate surface water drainage for this site and are typically dry during
non-storm events. Given the highly transmissive underlying formation, rainwater and
surface water will typically infiltrate rapidly into the shallow aquifer system. It is estimated
that horizontal groundwater movement can be on the order of tens of feet during a single
rainfall event. Once the rainfall ceases, the water table returns to near static conditions and
groundwater movement decreases dramatically.
Between rainfall events, evaporation from the surface soils returns water from the aquifer to
the atmosphere. The rate of loss is greatest with open water bodies and decreases with
increasing distance from the water table. - 4fe
The natural concentrations of chemicals in the soil, rock, and water have a controlling effect
on the fate and transport mechanisms. Soils at the site exist primarily as a veneer on the
bedrock surface. A considerable amount of the OU-5/Site WP-1 area is covered by asphalt,
roads, or buildings. The soil has both organic and iron precipitants. Nevertheless the
calcium carbonate from the underlying oolite is the primary mineral present. The site
drainage swales also receive runoff from the asphalted parking area located east of Building
164.
2.7.3 Exposure Assessment
This section of the risk assessment identifies and describes potential human receptors,
reviews possible pathways of exposure"'for compounds of concern at OU-5/Site WP-1, and
presents estimates of exposure doses resulting from identified pathways at OU-5/Site WP-1. *
An exposure assessment is conducted to identify potential sources and mechanisms of
release, transport pathways (e.g., groundwater, surface water, soil, and air), routes of
exposures (ingestion, inhalation, dermal contact), and potential on-site and off-site receptor
populations (current users of the site, as well as adjacent populations which may be exposed
-62-
-------
to chemicals that have been transported off-site). This information provides the basis for
constructing site-specific exposure scenarios.
Two environmental media were considered in this document - groundwater and surface soil.
It should be noted that guidance on what depth range should be used for surface soil differs
between the USEPA (0 to 12 inches) and the Florida DEP (0 to 24 inches). Samples taken
between 0 and 24 inches below land surface (bis) were considered surface soil samples, so
receptor exposure during gardening or landscaping activities could be evaluated in this
assessment. This choice seems reasonable for south Florida, as the year-round, mild climate
would permit possible residential gardening and frequent landscaping activities on base. No
subsurface soil sampling was conducted because most soil layers at OU-5/Site WP-1 are only
one to two inches deep and the underlying layers are composed of limestone and bedrock.
Furthermore, the sediment and surface water samples collected at OU-5/Site WP-1 from the
area canals and drainage ditches are not evaluated in this document. The potential human
health effects due to exposures associated with the canal system are addressed in the BRA for
OU-9, Boundary Canal Evaluation, which will be submitted as a separate report.
Other information considered in the development of present and future exposure scenarios
includes: physical characteristics of the site and surrounding area such as climatology,
groundwater hydrology, location ancTdescription of surface water and surrounding land use
and available state-specific guidelines relevant to exposure and risk assessments.
A critical step in assessing the potential risk to public health is to identify the pathways
through which exposure could occur. A typical transport pathway consists of four necessary
elements: 1) a source and mechanism of chemical release, 2) an environmental transport
medium, 3) a point of potential contact with the contaminated medium, and 4) an exposure
route (inhalation of vapors, ingestion of groundwater, etc.). All four of these elements must
be present for a pathway to be complete.
Exposure Point Concentration. In accordance with USEPA methodology (1989a), the
medium-specific 95 percent UCL on the arithmetic mean concentrations for the COPCs will
be used as exposure point concentrations (EPCs) to estimate reasonable maximum exposure
(RME). The RME approach is suggested by the USEPA (1989a) to provide an estimate of
the maximum exposure (and therefore risk) that might occur. The RME corresponds to a
duration and frequency of exposure greater than is expected to occur on an average basis. In
those instances where the calculated 95 percent UCL exceeds the maximum detected
-63-
-------
concentration, the maximum detected concentration was used as the EPC for a more accurate
estimate of RME concentration (USEPA, 1989a).
The total number of samples collected, as well as the sources of the data used in the risk
assessment and included in the database for the calculation of each COPC exposure point
concentration, varied by medium.
Once the database for each medium was developed, the 95 percent UCL concentration on the
arithmetic mean concentration (one-tailed test, assuming a lognormal distribution) was
calculated and compared to the maximum COPC concentration to determine the EPC for
each COPC. The results of these analyses for the sampled media are presented in Tables 2-
13 and 2-14. The information presented in these tables is discussed in the following
subsections. An example of the data reduction used to calculate the arithmetic mean and
UCL for each COPC is shown in Table 2-15.
Exposure Scenarios. Exposure pathways identified at OU-5/Site WP-1 are shown in Table
2-16 and are associated with soils or groundwater. With the exception of the VOCs, the
chemicals detected at the site have low environmental mobility.
Under present conditions, access to tHe site is limited primarily to base workers performing
duties that might require site access, such as cutting the grass. COPCs detected in the surface
soils include one BNA, two pesticides, nine metals, and TRPH. Base workers cutting the
grass at the site could be exposed to the soils via direct contact with exposed arms and face,
incidental ingestion of soils that might adhere to the hands, and inhalation of dusts or vapors
generated while cutting the grass. The site is sparsely vegetated, therefore, potential
exposure rates will not be reduced by a vegetation factor.
If the operation of Homestead ARB is to continue in the future, exposure pathways at the site
are unlikely to change. Given the location of OU-5/Site WP-1 in the midst of base
administration activity, future development of this area for intensive base operations is
unlikely. Foreseeable future use conditions at the site would result in potential exposure
pathways similar to those discussed for present site conditions. However, it should be noted,
that damage from the hurricane would necessitate construction activities regardless of future
land use. .
Under current reuse plans, OU-5/Site WP-1 will be under cantonment of the US Air Force
Reserve. Therefore, reuse of OU-5/Site WP-1 for residential purposes is unlikely in the
-64-
-------
foreseeable future. However, for risk characterization, hypothetical future residents were
considered as receptors. Exposure pathways for hypothetical future residents would include
direct contact with the surface soils, incidental ingestion of the surface soils, and inhalation
of fugitive dust or vapors.
Hypothetical future construction workers were included in the risk characterization.
Exposure pathways for future hypothetical construction workers would include ingestion and
inhalation of soil. This receptor is evaluated for only surface soils (less than two feet) as no
subsurface soil (greater than two feet) is expected at the site since most soil layers are usually
one to two inches deep and the underlying layers are composed of limestone and bedrock.
Although it is unlikely that potable wells would be installed in the vicinity of the site, a
conservative assumption made in this risk assessment is that a potable well is installed in the
groundwater plume, downgradient of the site. Exposure of hypothetical future residents to
affected groundwater via ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact are considered potential
exposure pathways.
In summary, workers cutting the grass on the site will be used to represent current exposure
to the on-site soils. In the unforeseen event that the site is no longer under cantonment of the
US Air Force Reserve, hypothetical future exposure pathways considered included
residential development of the site. Table 2-16 and Figure 2-9 summarize the potential
exposure pathways for OU-5/Site WP-1.
2.7.4 Toxicity Assessment
This section of the baseline risk assessment provides information on the human health effects
of site-specific COPCs. The information presented in this section provides a basis for the
dose-response assessment carried out in the quantitative risk assessment.
Evaluation of the toxic potential of a chemical involves the examination of available data that
relate observed toxic effects to doses. Generally, there are two categories of information that
are considered in this part of a quantitative risk assessment:
• Information on the potential acute or chronic non-cancer effects of chemicals, and
• Information on the potential for chemicals to initiate or promote cancers.
-65-
-------
A wide variety of factors must be considered in using health effects data in qualitative or
quantitative assessments. As discussed in the following subsections, there may be a variety
of relationships between dose and effects. Also, the fact that some chemicals display
thresholds (i.e.. there are doses below which the chemical does not cause an effect) must be
considered.
Non-Carcinogenic Effects. In general, non-carcinogenic (acute or chronic systemic) effects
are considered to have threshold values, while carcinogenic effects are considered to not have
thresholds. Toxicity studies for the former focus on identifying where this threshold occurs.
The threshold can be related to a reference dose (RfD). A chronic RfD is an estimate of a
daily exposure level for which people, including sensitive individuals, do not have an
appreciable risk of suffering significant adverse health effects. Exposure doses above an RfD
could possibly cause health effects.
Carcinogenic Effects. Studies of carcinogenicity tend to focus on identifying the slope of
the linear portion of a curve of dose versus response. A plausible upper-bound value of the
slope is called the cancer slope factor (CSF) or cancer potency factor (CPF). The product of
the CSF and the exposure dose is an estimate of the risk of developing cancer. In accordance
with current scientific policy concerning carcinogens, it is assumed that any dose, no matter
how small, has some associated resf/onse. This is called a non-threshold effect. In this
assessment, the non-threshold effect was applied to all probable carcinogens.
Toxicological Properties. The risks associated with exposure to COPCs at OU-5/Site WP-1
are a function of the inherent toxicity (hazard) of each chemical and the exposure dose. This
section addresses the inherent toxicological properties of the COPCs. The exposure doses
are estimated in the Exposure Assessment section which follows.
A distinction is made between carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects, and two general
criteria are used to describe these effects: excess lifetime cancer risk for constituents which
are thought to be potential human carcinogens and the hazard quotient (HQ) for constituents
that cause non-carcinogenic effects. - For potential carcinogens, the current regulatory
guidelines (USEPA, 1989a) use an extremely conservative approach in which it is assumed
that any level of exposure to a carcinogen could hypothetically cause cancer. This is contrary
to the traditional toxicological approach to toxic chemicals, in which finite thresholds are
identified, below which toxic effects are not expected to occur. This traditional approach still
is applied to non-carcinogenic chemicals.
-66-
-------
Toxicity Values. In general, CSFs, cancer classifications, RfDs, and RfCs are taken from
IRIS (1996) or, in the absence of IRIS data, the USEPA Health Effects Assessment Summary
Tables (HEAST) (USEPA, 1995). Because toxicity values for dermal exposure are rarely
available, several adjustments were made to toxicity values for use in calculating dermal dose
as per Region IV supplemental guidance to RAGS issued in March of 1994. The PAH CSFs
were not adjusted to assess dermal exposure since the portal of entry differs in the outcome
of tumors from oral and dermal exposure (USEPA, 1989a). Additionally, oral toxicity
constants (RfDs and CSFs) were adjusted for dermal use via the application of oral
absorption efficiency values obtained from Region IV supplemental guidance to RAGS
issued in March of 1994. The factors used to correct both exposure dose calculations for
dermal absorption from soil and the factors used to adjust oral toxicity constants (RfDs and
CSFs) for use in calculating risks and hazard indices via dermal exposure are provided in
Table 2-26. Unadjusted oral and inhalation RfDs are provided in Table 2-27. CSFs, cancer
type or tumor sites, and carcinogen classifications for the COPCs at the site are presented in
Table 2-28. Derivation of the adjusted RfDs and CSFs is shown in Table 2-29.
There are no USEPA-verified acceptable doses (i.e., RfDs) for lead. Considerable
controversy currently exists concerning the appropriate acceptable doses for lead. The best
method for evaluating exposure to lead is through the measurement of lead in blood or blood
lead levels. Lead was evaluated in tfifs risk assessment based on acceptable blood lead levels
for young children using the USEPA (1994a) IEUBK model (LEAD 0.99d).
USEPA Region IV has adopted an approach to TPH developed by the State of Massachusetts
DEP (Massachusetts DEP, 1994). This approach uses the toxicity values of certain
hydrocarbon compounds (e.g. n-hexane, n-nonane, eicosane) as surrogate toxicity values for
fractions of TPH (Andrews and Snyder, 1991). The toxicity of hydrocarbons tends to
decrease with increasing carbon chain length. n-Hexane has an RfD of 0.06, n-nonane an
RfD of 0.6, and eicosane an RfD of 6.
After review and discussion with USEPA Region IV, n-nonane was used to calculate non-
cancer risks associated with exposure to Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons
(TRPHs) and tentatively identified compounds (TICs) shown to be petroleum related. The
toxicity of hydrocarbons generally decreases as chain length increases (Andrews and Snyder,
1991). The light-end hydrocarbons (e.g., n-hexane) present in TPH tend to attenuate by
weathering faster than heavier components, leaving the long-chain, less toxic components of
TPH. Thus, use of n-nonane as a toxicity surrogate for the TPH represents a conservative
(protective) approach.
-67-
-------
TABLE 2-26
DERMAL AND ORAL ABSORPTION EFFICIENCIES
FOR COMPOUNDS OF CONCERN AT SITE WP-17OU-5
ELECTROPLATING WASTE DISPOSAL AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Constituents
Absorption Efficiencies
Dermal (a)
Oral (b)
VOCs
Bromodichloromethane
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
BNAs
Bcnzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
TJJEHs. (as n-nonane)
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.50
0.50
0.50
Pesticides
Chlordane
4,4'-DDD
Metals
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Vanadium
0.01
0.01
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.50
0.50
0.20
0.95
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
(a) Used to adjust dermal dose calculation for absorption from soil as per
Region IVSupplemental Guidance to RAGS Bulletin. Vol. 1 No. 1,
USEPA, Atlanta. Georgia, March 1994.
Used to adjust oral toxicity constants (RfDs and CPFs) to estimate effects
via dermal exposure. Values as per Region IV Supplemental Guidance to
RAGS Bulletin, Vol. 1 No. 1. USEPA. Atlanta, Georgia, March 1994
(b)
4ft
-------
TABLE 2-27
REFERENCE DOSES FOR COMPOUNDS OF CONCERN
AT SITE WP-l/OU-5, ELECTROPLATING WAST?5£o£?AKEA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
stituent
VOQ;
Bromodichloromethane
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
Benzo(a)pyrene<"
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
lEEHs. (as n-nonane) "'
Pesticid.es.
Chlordane
4,4-DDD °>
Msials
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium (water)
Cadmium (food)
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Vanadium
Chronic
Oral RfD
(mg/kg/day)
2.00E-02 a
l.OOE-02 a
6.00E-02 a
3.00E-02 a
s 2.00E-02 a
6.00E-01 c
6.00E-05 a
5.04E-04 a
l.OOE+00 d
3.QOE-04-S a
7.00E-02 a
5.00E-04 a
l.OOE-03 a
5.00E-03 a
3.70E-02 a
NA
2.40E-02 a
3.00E-04 b
2.00E-02 a
7.00E-03 b
' .
Subchronic
Oral RfD
(mg/kg/day)
"" i
2.00E-02
l.OOE-02
6.00E-02
3.00E-01
NA
NA
6.00E-05
5.04E-04
NA
3.00E-04
7.00E-02
NA
NA
2.00E-02
3.70E-02
NA
NA
3.00E-04
2.00E-02
7.00E-03
— — ^— .^^^^ _
Chronic
Inhalation RfC
(mg/kg/day)
'
b NA
b NA
b 8.57E-01 b
b NA
NA
NA
b NA
b NA
NA
b NA
b l.OOE-04 b
NA
NA
b NA
a NA
NA
1.43E-05 a
b 8.60E-05 a
b NA
b NA
Subchronic
Inhalation RfC
(mg/kg/day)
NA
NA
8.57E-01 b
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
l.OOE-03 b
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.60E-05 b
NA
NA
a IRIS, 1996
b USEPA, 1995
c Massachusetts DEP, 1994
d ECAO
™ ^ Pyrene RfD was used as a surrogate for the benzo(a)pyrene RfD
(.2) The n-nonane RfD was used as a surrogate for TRPHs RfD
(3) The DDT RfD was used as a surrogate for the ODD RfD
-------
TABLE 2-28
CANCER SLOPE FACTORS, TUMOR SITES, AND USEPA CANCER
CLASSIFICATIONS FOR COMPOUNDS OF CONCERN
AT SITE WP-l/OU-5, ELECTROPLATING WASTE DISPOSAL AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Constituent
Bromodichloromethane
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
BNAs
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
CSF(mg/kg/day)-l
Oral
Inhalation
Tumor Site
6.20E-02 a
6.10E-03 a
7.50E-03 a
7.30E+00 a
1.40E-02 a
NA'
8.10E-02 b
1.65E-03 a
6.10E+00
NA
Oral
kidney
kidney
liver
stomach
liver
Inhalation
NA
liver
liver and lung
respiratory tract
NA
USEPA
Classification
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
Pesticides
Chlordane
4,4'-DDD
Metals
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Nickel '"
mg/kg/day
NA
NAP
1.30E+00 a
2.40E-01 a
1.50E+00 a
NAP
VI NAP
NA
NAP
milligrams per kilogram per day
Not available
Not applicable since it is consider^
1.30E+00 a
NA
1.50E+01 a
6.30E+00 a
4iiOE+01 a
NA
8.40E-01 a
iH f!firr*tnno«»ni/* %/••» -in
liver
liver
—
skin
NAP
NAP
NA
NA
liver
NA
respiratory tract
respiratory tract
lung
NA
NA
B2
B2
A
Bl
A
B2
A
o
a
b
c
(I)
IRIS.1996
USEPA, 1995
ECAO
Nickel refinery dust inhalation slope factor used as surrogate for nickel slope factor
O
-------
TABLE 2-29
ADJUSTED TOXICITY VALUES USED TO ASSESS DERMAL EXPOSURE
AT SITE WP-l/OU-5, ELECTROPLATING WASTE DISPOSAL AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Constituent
Oral Toricity Values
RfDo Source CSFo Source
Oral
Absorption
Efficiency Source
Dermal Toxicity Value
(Adjusted Oral)
RiDa
BNAs
Benzo(a)pyrene' 3.00E-02
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 2.00B-02
TRPHy (as n-nonane)' 6.00E-01
7.30E-KX)
1.40E-02
NA
0.50
0.50
0.50
NA
l.OE-02
3.0E-01
CSFa
VOCs
Bromodichloromethane
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
2.00E-02
l.OOE-02
6.00E-02
a
a
a
6.20E-02
6.10E-03
7.50E-03
a
a
a
0.80
0.80
0.80
e
e
e
1.6E-02
8.0E-03
4.8E-02
7.8E-02
7.6E-03
9.4E-03
NA j
2.8E-02
NA
Pesticides
Chlordane 6.00E-05 a
4,4'-DDD' 5.04E-04 a
Metals
1.30E+00 a
2.40E-01 a
Aluminum l.OOE+00 c NA
Arsenic 3.00E-04 a 1.50E400 a
Barium 7.00E-02 a NA
Cadmium (water) 5.00E-04 a NAP
Cadmium (food) l.OOE-03 a NAP
Chromium 5.00E-03 a NAP
Copper 3.70E-02 a NA
Lead NA a
Manganese 2.40E-02 a
Mercury 3.00E-04 b
Nickel 2.00E-02 a
Vanadium 7.00E-03 b
CSFa Adjusted cancer slope factor (mg/kg/day)'
CSFo Oral cancer slope factor (mg/kg/day)'1.
NA Not available.
NA
NA
NA
NAP
NA
i .
0.50 e
0.50
0.20 e
0.95 .- i
0.20 e
0.20 e
0.20 e
0.20 e
0.20 e
0.20 e
0.20 e
0.20 e
0.20 e
0.20 e
3.0E-05
2.5E-04
2.0E-01
2.9E-04
1.4E-02
l.OE-04
2.0E-04
l.OE-03
7.4E-03
NA
4.8E-03
6.0E-05
4.0E-03
1.4E-03
2.6E+00
4.8E-0!
NA
1.6E+00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NAP Not applicable, carcinogenic only by inhalation route.
RfDa Adjusted reference dose (mg/kg/day).
RfDo Oral reference dose (mg/kg/day).
a IRIS, 1996
b USEPA. 1995
c ECAO
d Massachusetts DEP, 1994
e Default value as per Region IV SuoDlemei
ital Guidance to RAC
rS Rllllrtin Vnl 1 Mr, 1
rrccDA
• ••• —r* -— —• — »™»ww »w i*t *>^w *_»w*ivillli YWI« A* l^U. A. \J ijfjf n i
Atlanta, Georgia, March 1994.
f Pyrene RfD used as surrogate for benzo(a)pyrcne RfD
g The n-nonane RfD was used as a surrogate for TRPHs RfD
h DDT RfD used as surrogate for ODD RfD
i National Research Council, 1982
j PAH slope factors were not adjusted to assess dermal exposure since the portal of enlry differs in the outcome of tumors
from oral and dennal exposure (USEPA, I989a).
-------
The CSFs for benzo(a)pyrene were used to calculate cancer risks associated with exposure to
all carcinogenic PAHs at the site. In accordance with USEPA Region IV guidance (USEPA,
1992b), the oral CSF and inhalation CSF for benzo(a)pyrene were converted using toxicity
equivalency factors (TEFs) for each individual carcinogenic PAH. This approach is based on
the relative potency of each compound to the potency of benzo(a)pyrene (USEPA, 1992b).
There are a limited number of RfDs available for the PAHs detected at the site. The
following PAHs have USEPA-verified RfDs: fluoranthene and pyrene. The RfD for pyrene
was used to calculate non-cancer risks associated with exposure to detected non-carcinogenic
PAHs not having individual RfDs.
2.7J5 Risk Characterization
This section of the baseline risk assessment describes how calculated exposure doses are
converted into health risks. This section characterizes risks as part of a quantitative risk
assessment for the site. Risk characterization involves the integration of health effects
information developed as part of the dose-response assessment with exposure estimates
developed as part of the exposure assessment. The result is a quantitative estimate of chronic
and non-carcinogenic risks based on the presumption that a threshold dose is required to
elicit a response, as well as a quantitative estimate of carcinogenic risks presumed to exist
regardless of the dose. These estimates are usually presented in either probabilistic terms
(e.g., one-in-one-million), or with reference to specific benchmark or threshold levels.
Because risk estimates are based on a combination of measurements and assumptions, it is
important to provide information on sources of uncertainty in risk characterization. The key
elements of risk characterization included in this section are: an estimation of human dose,
an estimation of risk, a presentation of risk, and an uncertainty analysis.
2.73.1 Carcinogenic Risks. Public health risks are evaluated separately for
carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects. The excess lifetime cancer risk is an estimate of
the increased risk of cancer which results from lifetime exposure, at specified average daily
dosages, to chemicals detected in media at the site. Excess lifetime cancer risk, equal to the
product of the exposure dose and the slope factor, is estimated for each known, probable, or
possible carcinogenic chemical in each medium. The risk values provided in this report are
an indication of the increased risk, above that applying to the general population, which may
result from the exposure scenarios described in the Exposure Assessment Section 2.7.3. The
risk estimate is considered to be an upperbound estimate; therefore, it is likely that Che true
risk is less than that predicted by the model. Current regulatory methodology assumes that
-68-
-------
excess lifetime cancer risks can be summed across routes of exposure and constituents to
derive a "Total Site Risk" (USEPA, 1989a). The USEPA, OSWER Directive 9355.0-30,
Role of the Risk Assessment in Superfund Remedy Selection Decisions (1991e) has stated
that sites with an excess lifetime cancer risk less than 10'4 (1 in 10,000) generally do not
warrant remedial action. However, the state of Florida's target cancer risk is 10'6.
The incremental risk is calculated for each exposure scenario based on the following basic
equation:
Cancer Risk = Exposure Dose x Slope Factor
where the slope factor (SF) is in units of (mg/kg/day)-l based on a compound specific cancer
bioassay dose response curve.
The exposure dose is adjusted over a 70-year lifetime. The summation of dose is in keeping
with the concept that for genotoxic agents there exists no threshold dose and implies that
total, lifetime exposure is of greater importance than the actual dose during the exposure
event(s). Ingestion and inhalation risks are calculated separately since chemicals often have
different SFs for differing routes of exposure. The different SFs relate to the
pharmacokinetics inherent in each chemical/organ and the specific routes of uptake.
Slope factors are derived by USEPA in an intentionally conservative way, that is, the actual
risk is not expected to exceed the predicted risk, and could be considerably lower. Cancer
risks calculated using these conservative slope factors and reasonable maximum exposure
estimates are upper bound estimates of excess cancer risk potentially arising from exposure
to the chemicals in question. A number of assumptions have been made in the derivation of
these values, many of which are likely to overestimate exposure and toxicity. The actual
incidence of excess cancers is likely to be lower than these estimates and may be zero.
Lifetime daily intakes, using an averaging time of up to 70 years, effectively prorates the
total cumulative dose over a lifetime. This approach is based on the assumption for
carcinogens that a high dose received over a short period of time at any age is equivalent to a
corresponding low dose received over a lifetime (USEPA, 1989a). This assumption is
unlikely to be true for all carcinogens, and introduces uncertainty into the assessment of
potential risk. This assumption may also lead to an overestimate or underestimate of
potential risk, depending upon the actual timing of exposure and the mechanism of action of
individual carcinogens.
-69-
-------
The magnitude of cancer risk relative to Superfund site remediation goals in the National
Contingency P,an ranges from 1(H (one-in-ten-thousand) to 1*4 (one-in-one-million)
depending on the site, proposed usage, and chemicals of concern (USEPA 1989a) Within
this range, the level of risk which is considered to be acceptable at a specific site is a risk
management decision and is decided on a case-specific basis. It is generally accepted that
risks above this range require attention. The one-in-a-million level of risk (expressed as
1E-06) is often referred to as the de minimis level of risk; risks calculated below this range
would not require attention. The 1E-06 risk level does not equate to an actual cancer
incidence of one-in-a-million. For substances that may cause cancer, the risk assessment
process uses animal data to predict the probability of humans developing cancer over a
70-year lifetime. The numbers are given as upper bounds; the real risk is expected to be less
The one-m-a-million risk level is a theoretical prediction that no more than one person out of
a million lifetimes would contract cancer due to an environmental exposure. By the way of
companson, the average person in the U.S. incurs a background risk of cancer (from all
causes) of about one chance in four (0.25). Adding a risk of 0.000001 to a background risk
of 0.25 is of little significance to any single individual. These small risk levels maty be of
concern only if the exposed population includes many millions of people. A
2.7.5.2 Chronic Health Risks. The HQ is the ratio of the estimated exposure dose to the
RfD. This ratio is used to evaluate non-carcinogenic health effects due to exposure to a
chemical. An HQ greater than 1 indicates that the estimated exposure dose for that chemical
exceeds acceptable levels for protection against non-carcinogenic effects. Although an HQ
of less than 1 suggests that non-carcinogenic health effects should not occur an HQ of
slightly greater than 1 is not necessarily an indication that adverse effects will occur The
sum of the HQs is termed the hazard index (HI). Current regulatory methodology assumes
that His can be summed across exposure routes for all media at the site to derive a "Total Site
Risk" (USEPA, 1989a). The USEPA, OSWER Directive 9355.0-30, Role of Risk
Assessment in Superfund Remedy Selection Decisions (1991e) has stated that sites with a
non-carcinogenic HQ less than 1 generally do not warrant remedial action.
The USEPA has developed a set of health based benchmark numbers, called reference doses
or RfDs, as guideposts in a risk assessment. Reference doses are an adaptation of the earlier
toxicological measure of "acceptable daily dose" or ADI. The unit of a reference dose is mg
contaminant/kg body weight/day. The potential for adverse effects on human health (other
than cancer) is evaluated by comparing an intake over a specific time period with a reference
dose derived for a similar exposure period.
-70-
-------
The hazard index is the ratio (unitless) of the estimated exposure dose (D) of a compound to
a reference dose (RfD) judged to be without adverse effects given long-term exposure. Thus,
the index is used as a measure of potential noncarcinogenic health risks. Due to the margin'
of safety built into the RfD value, exceedence of the number has no immediate meaning with
regard to specific health effects, the frequency of effects, or the magnitude of effects.
However, exceedence of the number should serve as an indicator that the potential for
unacceptable exposure does exist and further evaluation needs to be considered. The effects
of noncarcinogens in the body vary greatly with regard to potential target organs, threshold
dose, and "severity" of effect. Therefore, the individual toxicity for each compound needs to
be assessed.
If the hazard index is less than 1.0, then no chronic health effects are expected to occur. If
the hazard index is greater than 1.0, then adverse health risks are possible. In the case of
noncarcinogenic effects, chronic exposure below a threshold dose results in a non-response
or a diminished response.
2.7.5.3 Risks Associated With Exposure to Groundwater. Risks for a hypothetical future
adult resident exposed to groundwater are shown in Table 2-30. The excess lifetime cancer
risk and HI are 5E-04 and 3, respectively. The excess lifetime cancer risk level associated
with hypothetical future resident conditions at the site is above the USEPA remediation-
based risk benchmarks for carcinogens (10~4 to 10~6) and above the state of Florida's
criterion of 1E-06. The hazard index also exceeds the risk benchmark of one.
In accordance with current USEPA Region IV guidance (USEPA, 1995d), the inhalation and
dermal exposure to VOCs during showering are assumed to be equivalent to the ingestion
dose. This is based on a growing body of evidence that risk estimates from ingestion of
VOCs in potable water, inhalation of volatiles from showering, and dermal exposure to
volatiles during showering or bathing are similar (Andelman, 1985; Andelman, etal., 1986,
1987; McKone, 1987, and Jo, et.al., 1990). Given this assumption, risks via the inhalation
and dermal routes for groundwater contact can be calculated using the oral dose (mg/kg/day-
1) and multiplying by the inhalation slope factor for carcinogens and dividing by the RfD for
noncarcinogens. No inhalation RfCs were available for bromodichloromethane and
chloroform, thus, oral RfDs are used for these compounds. Therefore, the total risk via
groundwater contact including oral, dermal and inhalation exposures is 5E-04 for cancer risk
and 3 for noncancer risk. Inorganics, including arsenic are not expected to volatilize from
the water droplet, thus, the primary exposure routes via groundwater use would be ingestion
-71-
-------
TABLE 2-30
GROUNDWATERINGESTION EXPOSURE
DOSES AND RISK CALCULATIONS
FOR A HYPOTHETICAL FUTURE ADULT RESIDENT AT
SITE WP-l/OU-5, ELECTROPLATING WASTE DISPOSAL AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Constituent
CANCER EFFECTS
VOCs
Bromodichloromethane
Chloroform
Methylene Chloride
Mb*.
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Metal;
Arsenic
Chromium
Lead
Nickel
NON-CANCER EFFECTS
VOCs
Bromodichloromethane
Chloroform
Methylcne chloride
BNAs
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
(mg/L)
GWExD
(mg/kg-day)
Toxicity
Values
0.004
0.004
0.003
0.04
0.026
0.0292
0.0073
0.0108
4.2E-05
4.2E-05
3.9E-05
4.5E-04
3.1E-04
3.4E-04
8.6E-05
1.3E-04
CSFo
6.20E-02
6.10E-03
7.5E-03
1.4E-02
1.50E+00
NAP
NAP
ELCR =
0.004
0.004
0.003
0.0385
9.9E-05
9.9E-05
9.0E-05
1.1E-03
RfDo
2.0E-02
l.OE-02
6.0E-02
2.0E-02
Calculated
Risk
2.6E-06
2.6E-07
2.9E-07
6.3E-06
4.6E-04
NAP
NAP
5E-04
4.9E-03
9.9E-03
1.5E-03
5.3E-02
Metal;;
Aluminum
1 •
Arsenic
T> •
Barium
Chromium
I &A.J
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Vanadium
NAP
Cgw
GWExD
CSFo
RfDo
ELCR
HI
4.266
0.026
0.0372
(VI) 0.0292
0.0073
0.044
0.0108
0.0164
»
1.2E-01
7.2E-04
l.OE-03
8.0E-04
2.0E-04
1.2E-03
3.0E-04
4.5E-04
l.OE+00
3.0E-04
7.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.40E-02
2.00E-02
7.00E-03
I HI =
1.2E-01
2.4E+00
1.5E-02
1.6E-01
5.0E-02
1.5E-02
6.4E-02
3E+00 ]
Insufficient data; USEPA-verified toxicity value not available.
Cancer slope factor and/or reference dose applies to inhalation pathway only
nottoingestion.
Constituent exposure point concentration in groundwater in milligrams per
liter (mg/L) (see Table 4-2).
Ground-water exposure dose in milligrams per kilogram per day (mg/kg/day)
Cancer Slope Factor, Oral
Reference Dose, Oral
Excess lifetime cancer risk.
Hazard index (sum of the hazard quotients).
-------
and to a small degree dermal. The dermal dose is expected to be two to three orders of
magnitude less than oral dose.
The primary contributor to the carcinogenic risk estimate is arsenic (98% of the calculated
risk). This compound was detected in nine of nine samples at concentrations ranging from
3.9 fig/1 to 92 ug/1. Two of the nine samples had arsenic concentrations (60 and 92 u.g/1)
higher than the state and federal drinking water standard of 50 ng/1. The arsenic risk level is
based on unfiltered samples which exhibited high turbidity during the 1991 G&M sampling
program. Therefore, this level probably overestimates concentrations in a hypothetical
potable well. Further, the presence of arsenic in groundwater in southeast Florida is common
and future use as a potable supply is unlikely due to high levels of dissolved solids associated
with the salt-water intrusion.
The definition of an EPC representing the groundwater plume area for this site is difficult
and is complicated by the turbid sampling conditions noted in 1991. Although, all four wells
were re-sampled in 1996, no removal actions affecting groundwater has occurred at the site.
Therefore, the selection of data points best representing the arsenic concentrations in
groundwater may need additional examination. -
As previously stated in Section 2.7fl of this document, the total unfiltered groundwater
sampling results for arsenic at OU 5/Site WP-1 are as follows:
(1) Four samples were collected by G&M in 1991 from wells SP1-I-01 (92 ug/L), SP1-I-02
(60 ug/L), SP1-I-03 (19 ug/L) and SPl-MW-0001 (11 ug/L). All of the water sampling logs
from the 1991 G&M data indicated turbid conditions;
(2) One sample was collected by MW in 1993 from SP1-I-02 (18.4 ug/L, 18.1 ug/L in the
duplicate). MW also collected a filtered sample and duplicate from SP1-I-02 and detected
concentrations of 16.1 ug/1 and 16.7 ug/1, respectively; and
(3) Four samples were collected from all of the wells by OHM in 1996, SP1-I-01 (9.6 ug/L),
SP1-I-02 (15.3 ug/L, 14.8 ug/L in the duplicate), SP1-I-03 (3.9 ug/L), and SPl-MW-0001
(7.8 ug/L).
Although the 1991 G&M data is not considered to represent actual groundwater conditions,
in order to be conservative, a groundwater EPC of 26 ug/L was used in the risk calculations.
This represents the arithmetic average of the four wells which are assumed to constitute the
-72-
-------
concentrated area of the plume. Therefore, this EPC is considered a reasonably conservative
number. .
However, if the construction of the groundwater EPCs was changed based on the apparent
sampling method discrepancies in 1991, risk estimates would be changed as well. The
following information shows the range of risk estimates via exposure to groundwater for
different EPCs:
If all data points (G&M. 1991: MW 1993: and OHM. 1996t are considered -
For the maximum concentration of 92ug/L, the ELCR = 2E-03 and the HI = 9E+00
For the average concentration of 26 ug/L, the ELCR = 2E-04 and the HI = 3E+00
(26 ug/L represents the EPC used in the risk calculations presented in this assessment.)
If only the MW. 1993. and OHM. IQ96 data are considered -
For the maximum concentration of 18 ug/L, the ELCR = 3E-04 and the HI = 2E+00
For the average concentration of 11 ug/L, the ELCR = 2E-04 and the HI = 1E+00
If only the most recent sampling (OHM. 1996^ is considered --
For the maximum concentration of 15 ug/L, the ELCR = 3E-04 and the HI = 2E+00
For the average concentration of 9 ug/L, the ELCR = 2E-04 and the HI = 1E+00
Therefore the potential risks associated with groundwater exposures could range from 2E-03
to 2E-04 for cancer and from 9E+00 to 1E+00 for noncancer risks. These values are above
the USEPA remediation-based risk benchmarks for carcinogens (10-4 to 10-6) and above the
state of Florida's criterion of 1E-06, The hazard indices also exceed the risk benchmark of
one.
A lesser, secondary contributor to the carcinogenic risk estimate is bis(2-ethylhexyl)ph.thalate
(1.4% of the calculated risk). Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was detected in four of nine
samples at concentrations ranging from 0.3 ug/L to 320 ug/L. The maximum value for this
chemical was used as the exposure point concentration in the risk calculations. The cancer
risk (6E-06) is within the US EPA remediation-based risk benchmark, but above the state
criteria.
However, these exceedances are of limited significance due to the unlikely use of this
groundwater as a potable supply. The use of potable wells on-base has been replaced with
the use of off-base wells because of high dissolved solids due to salt-water intrusion. Finally,
-73-
-------
the future military land reuse of the site makes potable uses of groundwater even more
remote.
2.7.5.4 Risks Associated With Exposure to Soils. Base Worker. Risks for a potential
current base worker who regularly accesses OU-5/Site WP-1 are calculated in Table 2-31.
The ELCR and HI are 2E-07 and 4E-03, respectively. These risk levels are below the
USEPA remediation-based risk benchmarks.
Hypothetical Future Residents . The risks for hypothetical future residents exposed to on-
site soils are calculated in Tables 2-32 (adult, 24-year exposure period) and 2-33 (young
child, 6-year exposure period). For an adult, the ELCR and HI are 9E-06 and 2E-01,
respectively. The ELCR and HI for the child are 2E-05 and 1E+00, respectively. Both the
adult and child cancer risk estimates and the adult hazard index are below the USEPA
remediation-based risk benchmarks. The hazard index for the child is equal to the
benchmark of 1.0.
Hypothetical Future Construction Worker. Risks for future construction workers who
would access OU-5/Site WP-1 are calculated in Table 2-54. The risks are estimated for
construction worker exposure to surface soils via inhalation and ingestion routes of exposure.
The ELCR and HI are 1E-06 and 5E-01, respectively. The cancer risk estimate is equal to
the USEPA remediation-based risk benchmarks of 1E-06, and HI is below the benchmarks of
1.
2.7.5.5 Lead. The USEPA has identified a 10 to 15 ng/dL blood lead level as a range of
potential concern for health effects in children (Federal Register, 1988b). The results from
the IEUBK model using soil and groundwater data are listed in Table 2-35. The model
predicted that 94% of children exposed to lead at concentrations at OU-5/Site WP-1 would
have blood lead concentration below the 10 U£/dL acceptable blood lead level. For this site,
the model assumes the child is exposed to a concentration of 120 mg/kg of lead (represents
the maximum concentration) in surface soil and 30 u.g/1 of lead (represents the maximum
concentration) in groundwater. The model used USEPA default exposure assumptions and
used the EPCs calculated from the site data, conservatively assuming a lognormal
distribution.
Although the maximum concentration of lead detected in unfiltered groundwater samples (30
u.g/1) is greater than the federal treatment technique level in drinking water (15 u.g/1), this
concentration is not anticipated to be the delivered concentration in drinking water, as water
-74-
-------
TABLE 2-31
SOIL EXPOSURE DOSES AND RISK CALCULATIONS
FOR A POTENTIAL CURRENT BASE WORKER AT
SITE WP-1/OU-S. ELECTROPLATING WASTE DISPOSAL AREA
Homestead Air Reserve B«se, Florida
Constituent
CANCER EFFECTS
Bcnzo(a)pyrene
Chlordane homers
4.4--DDD
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium (VI)
Nickel
NON-CANCER EFFECTS
UNA?
Benzo(a)pyrcne
TRPHt (u n-mnanc)
Pesticides/fCBs
CMordane tsomen
4.4--DDD
Mctalt
Aluminum
Ancoic
Cadmium
Chromium (VI)
Copper
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Vanadium
(mg/kg)
0.46
1.4
1.4
7.8
1.4
18
300
0.46
3322
1.4
1.4
6453
7.8
1.4
18
160
184
0.2
300
12
(mg/kg-day)
I.7E-08
5.IE-08
5.1E-OS
2.8E-07
5.1E-08
6.5E-07
LIE-OS
4.7E-C8
3.4E-04
1.4E-O7
1.4E-07 .if
6.6E-O4
7.9E-07
1.4E-07
I.8E-06
I.6E-05
1.9E-05
2.0E-08
3.1E-05
1.2E-06
SExDd
(mg/kg-day)
I.IE-08
3.2E-08
3.2E-08
I.8E-08
3.2E-09
4. IE-OS
6.9E-07
3.0E-08
2.IE-04
9.0E-08
9.0E-08
4.2E-05
S.OE-08
9.0E-09
I.2E-07
l.OE-06
1.2E-06
I.3E-09
1.9E-06
7.7E-OS
ELCR Excess lifetime cancer risk.
HI Hazard index (sum of the hazard quotients)
Cs Concentralion of chemical in soil (mg/kg)
SExDo Soil exposure dose, oral route
SExDd Soil exposure dose, dermal route
SExDi Soil exposure dose, inhalation route
NAP Not applicable, carcinogenic via inhalation pathway only
SExDi
(mg/kg-day)
Z3E-I3
7.0E-13
7.0E-I3
3.9E-12
7.0E-I3
9.0E-12
1.5E-10
6.4E-13
4.7E-09
2.0E-12
2.0E-12
9.0E-09
1.1E-1I
2.0E-12
2.SE-1I
2.2E-10
2.6E-10
Z8E-13
4.2E-10
I.7E-1 1
CSFo
CSFd
CSR
RfDo
RfDd
RfDi
CSFo
7.3E+00
I.3E+00
2.4E-01
I.5E+OO
NAP
NAP
NAP
RfDo
3.0E-02
..~*.OE-<)1
6.0E-05
5.0E-04
l.OE+00
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
5.0E-03
3.7E-02
2.4E-02
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
7.0E-03
C
Toxicity Values
CSFd
7.3E+00
2.6E+00
4.8E-OI
I.6E+00
NAP
NAP
NAP
ELCR
RfDd
l.SE-02
3.0E-OI
3.0E-05
2.5E-04
2.0E-O1
2.9E-O4
2.0E-04
l.OE-03
7.4E-03
4.8E-03
6.0E-OJ
4.0E-03
I.4E-03
HI
CSFi
6.1E400
I.3E400
2.4E-OI
I.5E+OI
6.3E+00
4.IE+01
8.4E-OI
RfDi
3.0E42
6.0E-01
6.0E45
5.0E-04
l.OE+00
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
5.0E-03
3.7E-02
1.4E-05
8.6E-05
2.0E-02
7.0E-03
Calculated
Risfcmi
2.0E-07
2.8E-08
4.5E-07
4.4E-I2
3.7E-10
I.3E-IO
8E-07 I
3.5E-05
I.3E-03
5.4E453
8.6E-04
2.8E-03
I.9E-W
48E-O4 .
5.8E-04
l.OE-03
8.9E-05
2.0E-03
2.3E-04
2E-02 1
Cancer Slope Factor, Oral
Cancer Slope Factor. Dermal
Cancer Slope Factor. Inhalation
Reference Dose. Oral
Reference Dose. Dermal
Reference Dose. Inhalation
-------
TABLE 2-32
SOIL EXPOSURE DOSES AND RISK CALCULATIONS
FOR A HYPOTHETICAL FUTURE ADULT RESIDENT AT
SITE WP-1/OU-S, ELECTROPLATING WASTE DISPOSAL AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base. Florida
Constituent
CANCER EFFECTS
BMAs
Benzo(a}pyiene
Pesticides/PCRs.
Chlordane Isomcrs
4.4-DDD
Meals
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium (VI)
Nickel
NON-CANCER EFFECTS
BNAs
Benzo(a)pyrcne
TRPHs fas n-nqngn;)
Pesticidw/PTB,
Chlordane Isomert
4,4'-DDD
Maals
Aluminum
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium (VI)
Copper
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Vanadium
(mg/kg)
0.46
1.4
1.4
7.8
1.4
18
300
0.46
3322
1.4
1.4
6453
7.8
1.4
18
160
184
0.2
300
12
(mg/kg-day)
2.2E-07
6.6E-07
6.6E-07
3.7E-06
6.6E-07
8.5E-06
1.4E-04
6.3E-07
4.6E-03
1.9E-06
1.9E-06 j
8.8E-03
1. IE-OS
1.9E-06
2.5E-05
2.2E-04
2.SE-04
2.7E-07
4.1E-04
1.6E-05
SExDd
(rog/kg-day)
6.8E-OS
2.1E-07
2.1E-07
I.2E-07
2. IE-OS
2.7E-07
4.5E-06
2.0E-07
1.4E-03
6.IE-07
6.1E-07
2.8E-04
3.4E-07
6. IE-OS
7.8E-07
6.9E-06
8.0E-06
8.7E-09
1.3E-05
5.2E-07
ELCR Excess lifetime cancer risk.
HI Hazard index (sum of the hazard quotients)
Cs Concentration of chemical in soil (rag/kg)
SExDo Soil exposure dose, oral route
SExDd Soil exposure dose, dermal route
SExDi Soil expoiure dose, inhalation route
NAP Not applicable, carci nogenic via inhalation pathway only
SExDi
(mg/kg-day)
I.2E-I1
3.6E-I1
3.6E-I1
2.0E-10
3.6E-11
4.6E-IO
7.7E-09
3.SE-11
2.5E-07
1.1E-IO
I.1E-10
4.8E-07
S.9E-10
1.1E-10
I.4E-09
I.2E-08
1.4E-08
1.SE-1I
2.3E-08
9.0E-10
CSFo
CSFd
CSFi
RfDo
RfDd
RfDi
CSFo
7.3E+00
1.3E+00
2.4E-01
l.SE+00
NAP
NAP
NAP
RfDo
3.0E-02
... 6DE-OI
6.0E-05
S.OE-04
l.OE+00
3.0E-04
I.OE-03
5.0E-03
3.7E-02
2.4E-02
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
7.0E-03
C
Toxkity Values
CSFd
7.3E+00
2.6E+00
4.8E-01
1.6E+00
NAP
NAP
NAP
ELCR
RfDd
l.SE-02
3.0E-01
2.SE-04
2.0E-OI
2.9E-04
2.0E-O4
l.OE-03
7.4E-03
4.8E-03
6.0E-OS
4.0E-03
I.4E-03
HI
CSFi
6.IE+OO
I.3E+00
2.4E-01
I.5E+OI
6.3E+00
4.IE+OI
8.4E-OI
RfDi
3.0E-02
6.0E-OI
6.0E-OS
S.OE-04
l.OE+00
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
S.OE-03
3.7E-02
1.4E-05
8.6E-05
2.0E-02
7.0E-03
Calculated
Risk/Hi
2.1E-06
I.4E-06
2.6E-07
S.7E-06
2.3E-10
I.9E-08
6.SE-09
9E-06 1
3.4E-OS
1.2E-02
5.2E-02
6.3E-03
I.OE-02
3.7E-02
2.2E-03
5.7E-03
6.9E-03
I.3E-O2
1.1E-03
2.4E-02
2.7E-03
2E-OI 1
Cancer Slope Factor, Oral
Cancer Slope Factor. Dermal
Cancer Slope Factor, Inhalation
Reference Dose, Oral
Reference Dose. Dermal
Reference Dose, Inhalation
-------
TABLE 2-33
SOIL EXPOSURE DOSES AND RISK CALCULATIONS
FOR A HYPOTHETICAL FUTURE CHILD RESIDENT AT
SITE WP-1/OU-S, ELECTROPLATING WASTE DISPOSAL AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
ConstttM9t
CANCER EFFECTS
BlSAi
fienzo(a)pyiene
Chlordine Isomen
4.4--DDD
Mciali
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium {VI)
Nickel
NON-CANCER EFFECTS
BNAi
Bempyirne
TRPH* IK n-nonanrt
Chtordane Isomen
4.4'-DDD
Aluminum
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium (VI)
Copper
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Vanadium
Cs
(mg/kt)
0.46
1.4
1.4
7.8
1.4
18
300
0.46
3322
1.4
1.4
6453
7.8
1.4
18
160
184
0.2
300
12
SExDo
(mt/kf-day)
S.OE-07
I.5E-06
1.5E-06
8.5E-06
1.5E-06
2.0E-05
3.3E-O4
5.9E-06
4.2E-O2
I.8E-05
I.SE-05 .f
8.3E-02
l.OE-04
1.8E-OS
2.3E-O4
2.0E-03
2.4E-03
2.6E-06
3.8E-03
1.5E-04
SExDd
(rac/kfday)
9.2E-08
2.8E-07
2.8E-O7
1.6E-07
2.8E-08
3.6E-07
6.0E-06
l.IE-06
7.8E-O3
3.3E-06
3.3E-06
1.5E-03
I.8E-06
3.3E-07
3/7E-05
4.3E-05
4.7E-08
7.0E-OS
2.8E-06
ELCR Excess lifetime cancer risk.
HI Hazard index (urn of the hazard quotients)
Cs Concentration of chemical in soil (mg/kj)
SExDo Soil exposure dose, oral route
SExDd Soil exposure dose, dermal route
SExDi Soil exposure dose, inhalation route
NAP Not applicable, carcinogenic via inhalation pathway only
SExDi
(mg/kf-day)
1.4E-I]
4.2E-1 1
4.2E-I1
2.3E-10
4.2E-1 1
5.4E-10
9.0E-09
I.6E-IO
1.2E-06
4.9E-IO
4.9E-10
2.3E-06
2.7E-09
4.9E-10
6.3E-09
5.6E-O8
6.5E-08
7.0E-I1
1.1 E-07
4.2E-09
CSFo
CSFd
CSR
RfDo
RfDd
RfDi
Toxldtv Values
CSFo CSFd
7.3E-KH 7.3E-tOO
1.3E-tOO 2.6E+00
2.4E-O1 4.8E-OI
l.5E-fOO 1.6E+00
NAP NAP
NAP NAP
NAP NAP
1 ELCR
RfDo RfDd
3.0E-02 I.5E-02
..-6.0E-O1 3.0E-OI
6.0E-05 3.0E-05
5.0E-04 2.5E-04
I.OE+00 2.0E-OI
3.0E-04 2.9E-O4
l.OE-03 2.0E-04
5.0E-03 l.OE-03
3.7E-02 7.4E-03
2.4E-02 4.8E-03
3.0E-04 6.0E-OS
2.0E-02 4.0E-03
7.0E-03 1.4E-03
1 HI
Cancer Slope Factor, Oral
Cancer Slope Factor. Dermal
Cancer Slope Factor. Inhalation
Reference Dose. Oral
Reference Dose. Dermal
Reference Dose. Inhalation
CSfi
6.IE+00
I.3E+00
2.4E-OI
1.5E-KJ1
6.3E+00
4.IE+01
8.4E-01
RfDi
3.0E-02
6.0E-OI
6.0E-05
5.0E-04
l.OE+00
3.0E-O4
l.OE-03
5.0E-03
3.7E-02
1.4E-05
8.6E-05
2.0E42
7.0E-03
Calculated
Risk/Hi
4.4E-06
2.7E-O6
5.0E-07
I.3E-05
2.7E-IO
2.2E-08
2E-05 1
2.7E-04
9.7E-02
4.IE-OI
4.9E-02
9.0E-02
3.4E-01
2.0E-02
S.OE-02
6.0E-02
1.1E-01
9.3E-03
2.IE-01
2.4E-02
IE+00 1
-------
TABLE 2-34
SOIL EXPOSURE DOSES AND RISK CALCULATIONS
FOR A HYPOTHETICAL FUTURE CONSTRUCTION WORKER AT
SITE WP-l/OU-5, ELECTROPLATING WASTE DISPOSAL AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Constituent
CANCER EFFECTS
BNAs
Benzo(a)pyrene
Eesikidcs/PCBs
Chlordane Isomers
4.4'-DDD
Metals
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium (VI)
Nickel
Cs
Surface
(mg/kg)
0.46
1.4
1.4
7.8
1.4
18
300
Surface Soil
SExDo
(mg/kg-day)
3.IE-08
9.4E-08
9.4E-08
5.2E-07
9.4E-08
1.2E-06
2.0E-05
SExDi
Toxicity Values
(mg/kg-day)
3.5E-13
I.IE-12
1.1E-12
6.0E-12
1.1E-12
1.4E-11
2.3E-10
CSFo
7.3E+00
1.3E+00
2.4E-01
1.5E+00
NAP
NAP
NAP
ELCR (Surface Soil
CSFi
6.1E+00
1.3E+00
2.4E-OI
1.5E+01
6.3E-»-00
4.1E+01
8.4E-01
Exposure)
Surface Soil
Calculated
Risk/Hi
23E-07
1.2E-07
2.3E-08
7.9E-07
6.8E-12
5.7E-10
1.9E-10
1E-06
NON-CANCER EFFECTS
.f
RfDo
BNAs
Benzo(a)pyrenc
TRPHs fas n-nonanel
Pesticides/PCB$
Chlordane Isomers
4,4'-DDD
Metals
Aluminum
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium (VI)
Copper
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Vanadium
0.46
3322
1.4
1.4
6453
7.8
1.4
18
160
184
0.2
300
12
2.2E-06
1.6E-02
6.6E-06
6.6E-06
3.0E-02
3.7E-05
6.6E-06
8.5E-05
7.5E-04
8.6E-04
9.4E-07
1.4E-03
5.6E-OS
2.5E-11
1.8E-07
7.5E-11
7.5E-11
3.5E-07
4.2E-10
7.5E-11
9.7E-10
8.6E-09
9.9E-09
1.1E-11
1.6E-08
6.5E-10
3.0E-01
6.0E-01
6.0E-05
5.0E-04
l.OE+00
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
2.0E-02
3.7E-02
2.4E-02
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
7.0E-03
3.0E-01 7.2E-06
6.0E-01 2.6E-02
6.0E-05 l.IE-01
5.0E-04 I.3E-02
l.OE+00 3.0E-02
3.0E-04 I.2E-01
l.OE-03 6.6E-03
2.0E-02 4.2E-03
3.7E-02 2.0E-02
1.4E-05 3.7E-02
8.6E-05 3.1E-03
2.0E-02 7.0E-02
7.0E-03 ' 8.1E-03
1 HI (Surface Soil Exposure) 5E-01 1
ELCR
HI
Cs
SExDo
SExDd
SExDi
NAP
Excess lifetime cancer risk.
Hazard index (sum of the hazard quotients)
Concentration of chemical in soil (mg/kg)
Soil exposure dose, oral route
Soil exposure dose, dermal route
Soil exposure dose, inhalation route
Not applicable, carcinogenic via inh.ilnitnn r>-»huf>
CSFo
CSFd
CSFi
RfDo
RfDd
RfDi
\\t j-tnlmr
Cancer Slope Factor, Oral
Cancer Slope Factor, Dermal
Cancer Slope Factor, Inhalation
Reference Dose, Oral
Reference Dose, Dermal
Reference Dose, Inhalation
-------
TABLE 2-35
MODELED BLOOD LEAD LEVELS IN
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
AREA
Study Site
WP-l/OU-5
Medium
Soil
Air=
Groundwater
Concentration3
120mg/kg
negligible
30ug/L
Geometric Mean
fig/dL
4.8
Blood Lead Level0
Percent Below
10 ug/dL
94.3
Percent Below
15 ug/dL
99.2
a
b
c
Lesser of 95 percent UCL on the mean or maximum detected concentration
Calculated using the USEPA model (version 0.99d) (USEPA 19943?
Air concentration = SPM xCsxUClxUC2. '
where:
Cs Soil concentration (mg/kg).
dL Deciliter.
Kg Kilogram.
np Cubic meter.
mg Milligram.
jig Microgram.
SPM Suspended paniculate matter (0.075 mg/m3) (Federal Register, 1988a)
UC1 Unit conversion 1(10-6 kg/mg).
UC2 Unit conversion 2 (103 ug/mg).
-------
treatment prior to use would be expected to remove the metal in particulate form from water.
Lead was detected in five of nine groundwater samples in concentrations ranging from 5.4 to
30 u.g/1. At present, the shallow groundwater is not used as a drinking water supply. Further,
the use of the shallow groundwater in the future as a potable supply is highly improbable.
Saltwater intrusion under the base has caused the replacement of on-base supply wells with
off-base supply wells. So it is likely that saltwater intrusion would preclude the use of
groundwater at OU-5/Site WP-1 for drinking water.
In addition, the low lead concentrations in surface soil (maximum value of 120 mg/kg) are
not expected to present a significant contribution to blood lead levels in the base worker or
construction worker (USEPA, 1994a). In both cases the potential routes of exposure to site
soils (dermal, ingestion and inhalation), combined with the limited exposure duration for
these receptors compared to the child receptor, minimize the expected dose received from the
soil. Further, the IUEBK model assumes that the child is the most sensitive potential
receptor. Based on this premise, if child blood lead levels do not exceed risk-based
benchmarks, given the conditions at the site, then adult blood lead levels would also not be
expected to exceed the risk-based benchmarks.
The levels of lead in the soil at OU-5/Site WP-1 are not unusual. Soil surveys have found
soils within 25 meters of roadway to*have from 30 to 2,000 mg/kg lead above background
soil concentrations.
In summary, the lead concentrations in soils and groundwater are not expected to be of
concern for the hypothetical future child resident, the current base worker, nor the future
construction worker at OU-5/Site WP-1.
2.7.5.6 Total Site Risk. A summary of the total site risk estimates for OU-5/Site WP-1 is
presented in this section. Table 2-36 includes the hazard indices and cancer estimates for all
scenarios. Potential current total site risk is equivalent to the risk estimates calculated for a
potential current on-site worker exposed to surface soil. This scenario is evaluated in Table
2-31 with an ELCR of 2E-07 and an Hi of 0.004.
Total hypothetical future site risk for residential use was estimated by assuming that a future
child resident could live on the site (6-year period), grow up, and continue to live there as an
adult (24-year period), for a total residency period of 30 years. This total site risk is obtained
by summing all of the residential exposures considered in the risk assessment: groundwater
ingestion by an adult resident, soil exposure by a child resident (6-year period), and soil
-75-
-------
TABLE 2-36
SUMMARY TABLE OF HAZARD INDICES AND
SITE
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
AREA
Scenario
Groundwater Exposure for Future Adult
Resident (Table 5-1, Section 5.1)
Soil Exposure for Current Worker
(Table 5-2, Section 5.2)
Soil Exposure for Future Adult Resident
(Table 5-3, Section 5.2)
Soil Exposure for Future Child Resident
(Table 5-4, Section 5.2)
Surface Soil Exposure for Future Construction
Worker (Table 5-5, Section 5.2)
Total Risk to Future Resident
(Child and Adult) (Tables 5-1, 5-3, and 5-4, Section 5.4)
Cancer
Effects
5E-04
8E-07
9E-06
2E-05
1E-06
5E-04
Hazard
Index
3
0.02
0.2
1
0.5
4
Note: all risk estimates are rounded to one significant figure.
-------
exposure by adult (24-year period) residents. These scenarios are evaluated in Tables 2-30,
2-32, and 2-33. The combined risk across all pathways (groundwater, soils, surface water,
and sediment) for a hypothetical future resident results in a total site excess lifetime cancer
risk of 5E-04 and an HI of 4.
For the hypothetical construction worker, the total future site risk would be based on
exposure to a combination of surface and subsurface soils. However, most soil layers at OU-
5/Site WP-1 are only one to two inches deep and the underlying layers are composed of
limestone and bedrock. The construction worker scenario is evaluated in Table 2-34 with an
excess lifetime cancer risk of 1E-06 and HI of 0.5.
Uncertainties in the Risk Assessment. The uncertainty associated with a risk estimate is
primarily the combination of the uncertainties associated with the exposure estimates and the
uncertainties in the toxicity evaluation. Additional uncertainty is inherent in environmental
sampling, which itself introduces uncertainty, largely because of the potential for uneven
distribution of chemicals in environmental media and the use of estimated data, such as J-
qualified data. The rest of the discussion presented here focuses on the uncertainties in the
exposure assessment and toxicity evaluation. It also presents a perspective on the overall
effect of uncertainties on the risk estimates for OU-5/Site WP-1.
.f
Risks associated with the future exposure pathways are only meaningful if the pathways are
completed. For pathways, such as using shallow groundwater for drinking water, the
probability is very low. It is expected that saltwater intrusion in this area already precludes
the use of wells in this zone for potable supplies. Thus, use of groundwater at the site by the
hypothetical future resident appears remote.
The exposure doses generally represent the reasonable maximum exposure that can be
expected to occur. Most of the parameter values used in calculating the exposure, including
the exposure point concentrations, were selected so that there was only a five to ten percent
probability that the resulting exposure would be underestimated due to an error in an
individual value. The analytical data nsed to estimate risks from groundwater contaminants
probably do not lead to significant errors. These same conclusions can be made for soil
samples. In cases where contaminated soil acts as a continuing source of groundwater
contamination or where contaminants may be produced by biodegradation, the risk may be
underestimated. Likewise, exposure doses are calculated based on the assumption that the
current conditions would remain constant throughout the exposure period. If the source is
-76-
-------
eliminated, natural attenuation processes will reduce constituent concentrations and the
likelihood of exposure, thus reducing risks for the hypothetical future exposure scenarios.
Exposure point concentrations were calculated assuming a lognormal distribution of
concentrations. The entire site was used as an exposure unit. Differing ranges of different
receptors were not considered in the calculation of exposure point concentrations, if a
receptor had a smaller range than the size of the site. However, the assumption of a
lognormal distribution of data, and the use of maxima in many cases for the exposure point
concentrations, means that the exposure point concentration used for COPGs in this
document are conservative.
The most important uncertainties associated with the toxicity evaluation are the absence of a
quantitative dose-response relationship for developmental and reproductive effects, and the
absence of slope factors and reference doses for some chemicals of potential concern. The
developmental and reproductive toxicity of the indicator chemicals has not been
quantitatively accounted for in performing the risk assessment, because this dose-response
relationship has generally not been characterized for the chemicals of potential concern.
Another factor which could lead to an underestimate of thetotal potential risk at the site is
the lack of RfDs or SFs for several chemicals of potential concern. A review of the
chemicals of potential concern without RfDs or SFs indicates the following: calcium, iron,
and potassium are all essential nutrients and unless present in high doses, would have low
toxic potential.
The slope factors are upper bound values for a fit of carcinogenicity data to a specific
mathematical function (of which the function selected is in itself generally conservative with
respect to other mathematical functions that fit the data equally well). Both the slope factors
and reference doses incorporate safety factors when extrapolating from animal data to
humans (including sensitive individuals), although animals may be more sensitive to a given
compound than people. Slope factors and reference doses typically have safety factors of
100 to 1,000. There are some notable exceptions to this, especially when there is human
toxicity data available. The uncertainty factor for the RfD for arsenic is 1, implying that the
chronic dose necessary to cause a toxic effect is well known (IRIS, 1991). On the other
hand, it is possible that some compounds (such as the VOCs) have minimum threshold doses
associated with a carcinogenic response in humans that are not observed in animal
experiments, due to the differences between rodent and human metabolism. If this is true,
the slope factors would be overestimates by one or more orders of magnitude.
-77-
-------
Toxicity values derived from the IRIS database system were accompanied with a qualitative
description of their "strength of evidence" as determined by the CRAVE Work Group; the
corresponding confidence in each toxicity value added to the uncertainty.
The evaluation of health effects associated with arsenic exposure is presently a very
controversial area. While existing toxicological models attempt to relate exposure levels to
quantifiable carcinogenic and toxic risk, there is no general consensus that all arsenic
exposure has negative consequences or that a threshold level of effect does not exist. For
example, recent research indicates that arsenic may be nutritionally essential for humans, a
requirement that has been demonstrated for four other mammalian species. The presently
available technology for estimating cancer risks to humans at low levels may not be
appropriate for evaluating arsenic exposure risks.
For purposes of this risk assessment, it was assumed that all of the chromium detected in
media at the site was in the hexavalent form. Under most natural conditions in soils and
water containing reducing agents, the majority of chromium is in the trivalent oxidation state.
Hexavalent chromium is more toxic than trivalent chromium. Thus, the risk estimates
calculated in this report for potential exposure to chromium likely overestimate the actual
risk.
The non-carcinogenic risks associated with potential lead exposure were not evaluated in a
manner similar to other constituents in this risk assessment (for lack of an RfD). However,
the integrated exposure biokinetic/uptake (IEUBK) model developed by the USEPA (version
0.99d) was used to predict blood lead levels in young children. Although any
pharmacokinetic model is subject to uncertainties, the predicted blood lead levels (which
indicate potential hypothetical future lead exposure at the site is not a major concern) are
believed to be a reasonable estimate.
There is also considerable uncertainty associated with the toxicity of mixtures. For the most
part, data on the toxicity of chemical mixtures are unavailable. Rather, toxicity studies
generally are performed using a single chemical; such is the case for the carcinogenic PAHs.
Chemicals present in a mixture can interact to yield a new chemical or one can interfere with
the absorption, distribution, metabolism, or excretion of another. Chemicals may also act by
the same mechanism at the same target organ or can act completely independently. The risk
assessment assumes that toxicity is additive; the excess lifetime cancer risks and HQ were
each summed across chemicals. This assumes that the mixture of chemicals present at OU-
5/Site WP-l has neither synergistic nor antagonistic interactions and that all of the chemicals
-78-
-------
have the same mechanism of action in the same target organ to produce the same toxic
endpoints.
The toxicity of all chemicals in groundwater and soil has been assumed to be the same as the
sum of the individual effects from each chemical. Neither synergistic nor antagonistic effects
resulting from the interaction of the contaminants have been considered In addition
tonsfonnrion products with greater or less severe toxic effects than chemicals discussed
herein may form, and are not accounted for in this evaluation.
Because of the arguments presented in this section, it can be stated that for those exposure
scenarios which have been quantitatively evaluated and for which the most toxic and
prevalent compounds at OU-5/Site WP-1 have reference doses and slope factors, this risk
assessment is expected to be conservative, and the actual risks are expected to be less than
those calculated.
2 7.5.7 Development of Remedial Goal Options. As risk characterization indicated that
the nsk benchmarks of 1E-04 for ELCR and 1 for HI were exceeded for certain of the
scenarios considered, remedial goal options (RGOs) have been generated for OU-5/Site WP-
X*
^
Remedial Goal Options (RGOs) are outlined in this document to assess potential cleanup
levels if site cleanup is necessary. RGOs were generated for surface soil for the base worker
scenario and the construction worker scenario, and for potable use of groundwater
Residential RGOs for the residential scenario were not generated for soil as residential
development is unlikely at the site, given the planned future military use of the site.
m r* ^i ^ °f RG°S' C°nCentrati0nS f°r each individua' Chemical corresponding to
ELCRs of 1E-04, IE-OS, and 1E-06 (for carcinogenic effects) and HQs of 3, 1, and 0 1 (for
noncarcinogenic effects) are calculated for each chemical that has an ELCR exceeding 1E-06
or a HQ exceeding 0.1. RGOs are specific to a certain risk scenario. RGOs were calculated
as per Florida DEP and USEPA Region IV guidance, by rearranging the site specific risk
equations and solving for the concentration term for the target risk. RGOs were generated
for those chemicals that were significant contributors to hazard, i.e. chemicals with an
individual risk contribution of greater than 1E-06 or HQ of greater than 0 1 The
corresponding state and federal guidance and results of the RGO calculations are presented in
Tables 2-37 through 2-40.
-79-
-------
TABLE 2-37
RISK-BASED REMEDIAL GOAL OPTIONS
AND FDEP SOIL TARGET LEVELS
HYPOTHETICAL FUTURE CONSTRUCTION WORKER AT
SITE WP-l/OU-5, ELECTROPLATING WASTE DISPOSAL AREA
SURFACE SOIL (nig/kg)
COMPOUNDS
Pesticides/PCBs
Chlordane Isomers
Vietalg
Arsenic
SITE SPECIFIC REMEDIAL
GOAL OPTIONS
HAZARD INDEX
0.1
1.3E+00
6.4E+00
1.0
1.3E+01
6.4E+00
3.0
3.8E+01
1.9E+02
SITE SPECIFIC REMEDIAL
GOAL OPTIONS
CARCINOGENIC RISK
1E-06
*
NAP
NAP
IE-OS
NAP
NAP
___________
1E-04
NAP
NAP
=====
....
FDEP
Soil Target Levels
Based on an ELCR
oflE-06/HIofl
3.0E+00
3.1E+00
1 ' , ...
NAP = Not Applicable
ELCR = Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk
HI = Hazard Index
-------
TABLE 2-38
RISK-BASED REMEDIAL GOAL OPTIONS
AND FDEP SOIL TARGET LEVELS
HYPOTHETICAL FUTURE ADULT RESIDENT AT
SITE WP-l/OU-5, ELECTROPLATING WASTE DISPOSAL AREA
SOIL (rag/kg)
f**f\\M D/tV Tltmci
WJMrUUNDS
BNAg
Benzo(a)pyrene
Pesticjdes/PCps
Chlordane Isomers
Petals
Arsenic
.
SITE SPECIFIC REMEDIAL
GOAL OPTIONS
HAZARD INDEX
0.1
,»
NAP
NAP
NAP
- .... ....... BBgaesaL
1.0
NAP
NAP
NAP
=====
3.0
NAP
NAP
NAP
====:
SITE SPECIFIC REMEDIAL
GOAL OPTIONS
CARCINOGENIC RISK
1E-06
H
2.2E-01
l.OE+00
1.4E+00
===*— ssss
IE-OS
2.2E-fOO
l.OE+01
1.4E+01
=====
1E-04
2.2E+01
1.0E-f02
1.4E+02
...
==^^===S===^==j
FDEP
Soil Tarppt I PVP!C
Based on an ELCR
of 1E-06 / HI of 1
1E-01
5E-01
7E-01
.,„
NAP = Not Applicable
ELCR = Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk
HI = Hazard Index
-------
TABLE 2-39
RISK-BASED REMEDIAL GOAL OPTIONS
AND FDEP SOIL TARGET LEVELS
HYPOTHETICAL FUTURE CHILD RESIDENT AT
SITE WP-l/OU-5, ELECTROPLATING WASTE DISPOSAL AREA
SOIL(mg/kg)
C*f\Mt Df\1 TKTT4O
CUMrUUINDo
BNAs
Benzo(a)pyrene
Pesticides/PCB$
Chlordane Isomers
Petals
Arsenic
Manganese
Nickel
SITE SPECIFIC REMEDIAL
GOAL OPTIONS
HAZARD INDEX
0.1
NAP
3.4E-01
2.3E+00
1.7E+02
1.4E+02
1.0
NAP
3.4E+00
2.3E+01
1.7E+03
1.4E+03
3.0
H
NAP
l.OE+01
6.9E+01
5.0E+03
4.3E+03
SITE SPECIFIC REMEDIAL
GOAL OPTIONS
CARCINOGENIC RISK
1E-06
1.1E-01
5.1E-01
6.0E-OI
NAP
'NAP
IE-OS
1.1E+00
5.1E+00
6.0E+00
NAP
NAP
1E-04
1.1E+01
5.1E+01
6.0E+OI
NAP
NAP
3^=
1
NAP = Not Applicable
ELCR = Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk
HI = Hazard Index
FDEP
Soil Target Levels
Based on an ELCR
oflE-06/HIofl
I.OE-01
5.0E-01
7.0E-01
3.7E+02
1.5E+03
-------
TABLE 2-40
RISK-BASED REMEDIAL GOAL OPTIONS
HYPOTHETICAL FUTURE ADULT RESIDENT AT
SITE WP-l/OU-5, ELECTROPLATING WASTE DISPOSAL AREA
GROUNDWATER (mg/L)
LUMrOUNDS
VOCs
Bromodichloromethane ;,
BNAs
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Metals
Aluminum
Arsenic
Chromium (VI)
Manganese
Vanadium
=============:;—-——=
SITE SPECIFIC REMEDIAL
GOAL OPTIONS
HAZARD INDEX
.1
NAP
0.073
3.65
0.001
0.018
0.088
0.026
"•'••-• ' "" i •^•a
1.0
NAP
0.73
36.5
0.011
0.18
0.88
0.26
=====
3.0
NAP
2.19
109.5
0.03
0.55
2.6
0.77
======
SITE SPECIFIC REMEDIAL
GOAL OPTIONS
CARCINOGENIC RISK
1E-06
!' 1.4E-03
6.1E-03
NAP
5.7E-05
NAP
NAP
NAP
=====
IE-OS
1.4E-02
6.1E-02
NAP
5.7E-04
NAP
NAP
NAP
—
1E-04
1.4E-01
6.1E-01
NAP
5.7E-03
NAP
NAP
NAP
==——__
=======
EPA
Maximum
Contaminant
Level
5E-02to2E-01"
0.05
1E-01
0.05"
NA
Florida
Drinking
Water
Standard
0.2"
NAP = Not Applicable
ELCR = Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk
HI = Hazard Index
' USEPA Secondary Drinking Water Standard
b Florida Secondary Drinking Water Standard
-------
For residential groundwater exposure, bromodichloromethane, bis(2-ethylhexyl)Phthalate
and arsenic had ELCRs exceeding 10'6 and aluminum, arsenic, chromium, manganese, and
vanadium had hazard indices above 0.1. In surface soils, the adult resident scenario exposure
the chemicals benzo(a)Pyrene, chlordane, and arsenic had ELCRs exceeding 10'6 but no
hazard indices above 0.1. For the child soil exposure, benzo(a)Pyrene, chlordane, and arsenic
exceeded 10'6, and chlordane, arsenic, manganese, and nickel had hazard indices above 0.1.
The base worker exposure to soils scenario had no chemicals exceeding an ELCR of 10"6 or a
HI or 0.1. The construction worker scenario for exposure to surface soils had no chemicals
exceeding an ELCR of 10* but chlordane and arsenic exceeded His of 0.1.
2.7.6 Ecological Risk Assessment
Conditions at OU-5/Site WP-1 provide little usable or preferred habitat for terrestrial species.
Little vegetation is available for food or cover, and the shallow depth of soil to bedrock is
expected to restrict the activities of burrowing animals. Base personnel activity at OU-5/Site
WP-1 likely inhibit the activities of animals. Although avian species may potentially visit
the site, it is highly unlikely that they would derive a significant portion of their diet from the
limited resources available at OU-5/Site WP-1. Therefore, while constituent concentrations
detected at OU-5/Site WP-1 might potentially represent ecotoxicological hazard, it is
unlikely that terrestrial biota would inhabit or frequent the site.
While there is limited vegetative cover at the site, groundwater may be a potential source of
exposure to plants via their root systems. Possible uptake would be modified by a variety of
factors such as alkalinity of soils, organic content of soils, possible synergistic or antagonistic
effects of multiple compounds, and the individual chemical and physical characteristics of
the COCs in groundwater. Comparison with literature toxicity information indicates that the
concentrations at OU-5/Site WP-1 should not be significant.
Additionally, the potential for animals to contact groundwater constituents would be possible
c if groundwater were to recharge the drainage swales/canals. The maximum detected
concentrations of several metals in groandwater were greater than Florida and Federal MCLs
and associated surface water criteria protective of freshwater and saltwater aquatic species.
These exceedences of surface water quality criteria or MCLs do not indicate the potential for
adverse impacts to aquatic biota or terrestrial animals, respectively, due to the inability to
sustain a resident aquatic population in the intermittent ditch and the limited expected use of
these canals by wildlife.
-80-
-------
09/27 '00 13:41 ® 12005/005
Uncertainties in Ecological Ri«k. Although the effects of
constituents on ecological receptors are a concern, it is
Difficult to predict if observed effects on individual
populations will result in any real damage to the eccsys-em
Populations are dynamic; therefore, information concerning the
normal range of variability within the populations needs to be
known. Sublethal effects, which may be very important to overall
ecosystem health, are difficult to detect, and constituents
present at low concentrations may not kill organisms directly but
may greatly diminish their ability to survive and reproduce.
Finally, it is important to note that constituent contamination
» *S+ 5S °n~y nanner in which humans impact ecosystems .
=aS J?i Destruction from development, agriculture and recreation
are likely the major ways in which humans cause ecological
impacts (Moriarty, 1988} .
In summary, there is no evidence of significant use of the site
as habitat by ecological receptors. Urbanization and base
operations have already replaced this ecosystem and rendered its
current use and likely future use as poor quality habitat for
2.8 DESCRIPTION OP THE "MO FURTHER INVESTIGATION" ALTESHATXVB
Under its legal authorities, USEPA's primary responsibility at
Super^und sites is to undertake remedial actions that achieved
adequate protection of human health and the environment. Based
on .soil, and groundwater analytical results collected to date, and
the Interim Action remedial activities, the Electroplating Waste '
Disposal Area has been cleaned to industrial standards and
therefore must be controlled in the future with Land Use Controls
to safeguard both human health and the environment and be subject
a?i!!trl2a-ggsr ~?new SP assure that the remedial actions do not
allow for contaminant migration.
-81-
-------
Homestead Air Force Base, Florida
Operable Unit No. 5, Site WP-1,
Electroplating Waste Disposal Area
Responsiveness Summary for the
Record of Decision
-------
-------
00 30 09 09:37 "Q @00:> 002
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
FOR THE
RECORD OF DECISION
The responsiveness summary serves three purposes. First, it provides regulators with information
about die community preferences regarding both the remedial alternatives and general concerns
about Operable Unit No. 5, Homestead ARB. Second, die responsiveness summary documents
how public comments have been considered and integrated into the decision making process.
Third, it provided the USEPA with the opportunity to respond to each comment submitted by the
public on the record.
The Remedial Investigation/Baseline Risk Assessment Report and Proposed Plan (PP) for
Homestead ARB, OU-5/Sitc WP-1 were released to the public in October and December 1996,
respectively. These documents were made available to the public in both the administrative
record and an information repository maintained at the Air Force Base Conversion Agency OL-Y
office
A public comment period was held from March 16, 1997 to April 14,1997 as part of the
community relations plan for OU-5/Site WP-1. Additionally, a public meeting was held on
Thursday, March 19, 1997 at 7:00 pm at South Dade Senior High School. A Public Notice was
published in the Miami Herald and South Dade News Leader on February 21,1997. At mis
meeting the US AF, in coordination with USEPA Region 4, FDEP and Dade County
Environmental Resources Management (DERM), will be prepared to discuss the Remedial
Investigation, the Baseline Risk Assessment and the Preferred Alternative as described in the
proposed Plan.
The Air Force Reserves did not receive any public comment cither during the public comment
period or at the public meeting.
-------
I
-------
-------
-------
>
4
. (0 fl)M-
r*. £ o>
£ 0 0) 0
•— U +•»+*
'" '"
-
._, >- V.
£ 0)
0) o 0:5
ajs>
^ CLD)
0£.£
-*f =
W^^
0) • c
°e«
T5 C ®
"
(O'
r
Reproduced by NTIS
National Technical Information Service
Springfield, VA 22161
I/MS report was printed specifically for your order
from nearly 3 million titles available in our collection.
For economy and efficiency, NTIS does not maintain stock of its vast
collection of technical reports. Rather, most documents are printed for
each order. Documents that are not in electronic format are reproduced
from master archival copies and are the best possible reproductions
available. If you have any questions concerning this document or any
order you have placed with NTIS, please call our Customer Service
Department at (703) 605-6050.
About NTIS
NTIS collects scientific, technical, engineering, and business related
information — then organizes, maintains, and disseminates that
information in a variety of formats — from microfiche to online services.
The NTIS collection of nearly 3 million titles includes reports describing
research conducted or sponsored by federal agencies and their
contractors; statistical and business information; U.S. military
publications; multimedia/training products; computer software and
electronic databases developed by federal agencies; training tools; and
technical reports prepared by research organizations worldwide.
Approximately 100,000 new titles are added and indexed into the NTIS
collection annually.
For more information about NTIS products and services, call NTIS
at 1-800-553-NTIS (6847) or (703) 605-6000 and request the free
NTIS Products Catalog, PR-827LPG, or visit the NTIS Web site
http://www.ntis.gov.
NTIS
Your indispensable resource for government-sponsored
information—U.S. and worldwide
-------
O
------- |