PB99-964015
EPA541-R99-070
1999
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Homestead Air Force Base OU 7
Homestead, FL
9/29/1999
-------
-------
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Final
Record of Decision for
Operable Unit No. 7,
Entomology Storage Area
January 1998
-------
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE RESERVE
MEMORANDUM FOR: SEE DISTRIBUTION January 29,1998
FROM: 482d SPTG/CEV
29050 Coral Sea Blvd.
Bldg. 232
Homestead ARS, Fl 33039-1299
SUBJECT: Final Operable Unit 7 Record Of Decision
Attached is the Final Record Of Decision for OU-7. As
noted in the Responsiveness Summary Section of the Report,
there were no comments received during the comment period or
public meeting. If you have any questions please contact me
at (305) 224-7163.
jonn B. Mitchel, Chief
Environmental Engineering Flight
Attachment:
Final Operable Unit 7 Record Of Decision
cc:
482d SPTG/CEV, Mr. John B. Mitchell (2)
AFBCA/DD Homestead, Mr. Tom Bartol (2)
HQ AFRC/CEW, Ms. Valerie Stacey (1)
USAGE CENWO-ED-EE , Ms. Taunya Howe (4)
Gannett Fleming, Hugh Vick (1)
DISTRIBUTION:
U.S. EPA, Doyle T. Brittain
FDEP, Jorge R. Caspary
DERM, James A. Carter
-------
-------
Department of
Environmental Protection
Twin Towers Office Building
Lawton Chiles 2600 Blair Stone Road Virginia B. Wechereil
Governor Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Secretary
March 5, 1998
Colonel Richard J. Eustace
Commander
Homestead Air Force Base
360 Coral Sea Boulevard
Homestead, Florida 33039-1299
Dear Colonel Eustace:
The Florida Department of Environmental Protection agrees
with the Air Force's selected alternative for Operable Unit 7
(Site SS-7) , Entomology Storage Area at Homestead Air Reserve
Base.
The Record Of Decision specifies Capping, Access and Use
Restrictions for Soil and Groundwater, Natural Attenuation and
Groundwater Monitoring at Site SS-7 as a cost effective remedy
that provides adequate protection of public health, welfare, and
the environment. The determination to implement the above 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) .
Accordingly, the site shall undergo a five-year review with the
costs of the review to be absorbed by the federal government.
We appreciate your continued cooperation and look forward to
an expeditious economic and environmental recovery of Homestead
Air Reserve Base.
Sincerely,
Virginia B. Wetherell
Secretary
VBW/jrc
"Protect, Conserve and Manage Florida's Environment and Natural Resources"
Printed on recycled paper.
-------
-------
Lawton Chiles
Governor
Department of
Environmental Protection
Twin Towers Building
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee. Florida 32399-2400
Virginia B. Wethe
Secretary
March 19, 1998
Mr. John B. Mitchell
AFRES 482nd Reserve Wing
360 Coral Sea Blvd
Homestead ARE, FL 33039-1299
RE: Record Of Decision for Operable Unit 7. Homestead ARE,
Florida
Dear Mr. Mitchell:
The Department concurs with the selected alternative
detailed in the above referenced document dated January 1998
(received January 30, 1998). I am enclosing a concurrence letter
signed by Secretary Virginia Wetherell. You are encouraged to
proceed with groundwater monitoring at OU-7 at your earliest
convenience.
If I can be of any assistance in this matter, please contact
me at 904/488-3935.
Sincerely,
orge^R. Casp
cc: QgafK&sBPSVESsny EPA-Atlanta
Thomas Bartol, AFBCA OL/Y
Robert Johns, DERM
TJB
ESN
"Protect, Conserve and Manage Florida's Environment and Natural Resources"
Printed on recycled paper.
-------
-------
15=35 3052247361
432SPTG/BCE
Ptuxw: 30M24-7344
Fax: 305.224-7347
HOMESTEAD ARB,
482
Toi Doyto Brlttaln
Pram 482aptg/ce
404-562-8518
Date: S«ptemb«r23,1999
PhoiM* 404-562-8549
IU< OU-7
cc*
D U*9«fit D For M«vl«w D M««MI ComtnMt D PIMM* Itopfy D Pto»M Itecyeto
-------
-------
23/23/1993 15:35 3052247381 432SFTi=/BCE PA.3E 02
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
AM MNCI
MEMORANDUM FOR: SEE DISTRIBUTION September 23, 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
OU-7 Entomology Storage Area
Enclosed please find a copy of a paragraph to be inserted into the Record of Decision
dated January, 1998 for OU-7. This paragraph incorporates language committing to
institutional controls as included in the Land Use Control Implementation Plan (LUCIP)
for this site.
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:
MQ AFRC/CEVV, 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
-------
-------
as.'
RECORD OF DECISION
OPERABLE UNIT SEVEN
MOA INCORPORATION LANGUAGE
By separate Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) dated 15 March, 1 999, with U S
Environment^ Pttrtection Agency (U.S. EPA) and the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP), HARS, on behalf of the Department of the A*
«SS T '° imPlement base-wide, certain periodic site inspection, condition
£££±? h r T? notification P™*«" designed to ensure the
maintenance by Installation personnel of any site-specific Land Use Controls
%%™L T A TT**- f?f foture Flection of human health and the
STST t Sf^8^ Premis« underlying execution of that agreement
was that through the Air Force's substantial good-faith comuliance With the
of *ose remedies which included the use of
°f ** M°A « not ***«ny incorporated
made enforceable herein by reference, it is understood and agreed by the Air
r£^\^EP *r ** «te^ta« P«««J of the rm£y
retlected herein shall be dependent upon the Installation's substantial Eood-feith
compliant with the specific LUC maintenance con^tments^ec^eSn
2S^LSV Til "°*. "^ °r Should ** MOA be terminated, it is
understood that the protectoveness of the remedy concurred in miy be
reconsidered and that additional measures may need to be tto to «to£±
ensure necessary future protection of human health and the environment.
Land Use Controls Implemented:
and
nodltod ^ «>«t«nination exists ami
if excavation activities are proposed on the site
EP Prior to ^
^ ***•• No
n
^JTf^ ^^ ftwr to a11 const™ction activities, a dig permit is
which also restricts groundwater and soil access for this site
Objective:
Contaminatcd media- P^vent trespasser and
-------
-------
* ** \ UNITEO STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
- -'»•••'- * REGION 4
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 FORSVTH STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
4WD-FFB
Maj Gen. David R. Smith
Vice Commander. AFRC/CV
155 Second Street
Robins AFB, GA 31098-1635
SI BJ: Record Of Decision - Operable Unit 7
Homestead Air Force Base NPLSite
Homestead. Florida
DearMaj Gen. Smith:
t-appmg of the site through new construction
Controls to prevent residential development and placement of a potable vv*!i
Drngmg excavation restrictions around areas with elevated arsenic ~
install one new groundwater monitoring well
Pesticides, BNAs, and TAL meuls, and
Thedetenninanon «o itnp.eme* Ms course of ac^n a, ^
Comprehens.ve Env,ronmental Response. Compensation, and Liability AcT CJERCLA
c™^'^ (^R^"dmemS Md R-"'h0ri-i°" A« (S^Sf
Concurrence with the Record of Decision (ROD) is conditioned on the
. our concurrence with this particular ROD is based on the
Internal Address (URL). http://Vww.spa.gov
-------
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 pan of the resulting Land Use Control Implementation Plan
for OU- 7. that will prohibit residential land use.
EPA appreciates the level of effort that was put forth in the documents leading to this
decision. EPA looks fonvard to working with HAPB as we move towards final cleanup of the
National Priorities List (NPL) site.
If you have any questions, please call me at (404) 562-865 1, 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
-------
FINAL
RECORD OF DECISION
FOR
OPERABLE UNIT 7
ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
January 1998
Prepared for:
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Missouri River Division
Omaha District
Omaha, Nebraska
Prepared by:
Montgomery Watson
3501 N. Causeway Blvd.
Metairie, Louisiana 70002
-------
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
Operable Unit 7
Entomology Storage Area
Homestead Air Reserve Base
Homestead, Florida
FDEP Facility No. 138521996
January 1998
Montgomery Watson appreciates the opportunity to work for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
at the Homestead Air 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
d.
JerryqD. Gaccetta, P.O.
Project Manager
-------
't "»'•
-------
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Operable Unit 7,
Entomology Storage Area
Declaration for the Record of Decision
-------
-------
DECLARATION STATEMENT
FOR THE
RECORD OF DECISION FOR OPERABLE UNIT NO. 7
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Homestead Air Reserve Base
Homestead, Dade County, Florida
Operable Unit No. 7, Site SS-7,
Entomology Storage Area (Former Site P-2)
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for the former Entomology
Storage Area, Operable Unit No. 7 (OU-7), at Homestead Air Reserve Base (ARE.) (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
document explains the basis for selecting the remedial alternative for this Operable Unit.
The information that forms the basis for this remedial action is contained in the
administrative record for OU-7.
The selected alternative for OU-7 is capping by recent construction, access and use
restrictions for soil and groundwater, and groundwater monitoring to detect any potential
migration of groundwater contaminants. The State of Florida, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA), and the U.S. Air Force (USAF) concur with the selected
remedy presented in this Record of Decision (ROD).
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this site, if not addressed by
implementing the response action selected in this ROD, may present an imminent and
substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment.
-------
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
The operable unit represents the only unit for the site. This response action reduces the
principle threat at the site by including the recent construction of the new Civil Engineering
and POL Complex as available cover/cap to prevent exposure to site soils. It also requires
the implementation of access and use restrictions for soil and groundwater, and groundwater
monitoring.
The major components of the selected remedy include:
• Capping of the site by recent construction of buildings, pavement, and grassways to
prevent exposure to soil and groundwater contaminants.
• Land use restrictions to prevent digging/excavation activities around areas where
elevated concentrations of arsenic were detected in soil and groundwater.
• Institutional controls to prevent the placement of potable water wells into the
groundwater beneath the site.
• Installation of one shallow groundwater well and groundwater monitoring for 5 years
if necessary. The groundwater samples will be analyzed for organochlorine
pesticides, BNAs, and TAL metals.
• Five year review to determine whether the remedy remains protective of human
health and the environment.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment and through the use
of a groundwater ARARs waiver, complies with federal and state requirements that are
legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial actions. Because this site is in
that portion of the base to be retained by the Air Force Reserves, the industrial scenario has
been deemed appropriate for evaluating site risk. Risk levels at the site are below the EPA
remediation-based risk benchmarks for both current and future base workers, but slightly
exceed the state of Florida's target cancer risk of 1E-06.
-------
Under current and future industrial land use conditions, this alternative is protective of human
health and the environment by using capping by recent construction and institutional controls
to prevent exposure to soils and groundwater. With this alternative, site risk do not present a
threat to human health or the environment, therefore, the more cost effective remedial action
is being implemented based on evaluation of this risk and potential site usage.
Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining on-site above health-
based levels (arsenic in groundwater), a review will be conducted within five years after
commencement of remedial action to ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate
protection of human health and the environment. The review will be performed every five
years thereafter until protectiveness is achieved.
-------
Record of Decision
Operable Unit No. 7
United States Air Force Reserve Command
Robins Air Force Base, Georgia
Date:
2 3 SEP 1999
David R. Smith, Major General, USAF
Vice Commander
-------
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Operable Unit 7,
Entomology Storage Area
Decision Summary for the
Record of Decision
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
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 3
1.3.1 Regional Hydrogeologic Setting 4
1.4 Site Geology and Hydrogeology 5
SECTION 2.0 - SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 6
2.1 Operable Unit No. 7 History 6
2.1.1 Past Site Usage 6
2.1.2 Current Site Usage 6
2.2. Enforcement History 6
2.2.1 CERCLA Regulatory History 6
2.3 Investigation History 9
2.3.1 IRP Phase I - Record Search 9
2.3.2 ERP Phase n - Confirmation/Quantification 10
2.3.3 IRP Phase m - Technology Base Development 10
2.3.4 IRP Phase IV-Additional Investigations.. 10
2.3.4.1 IRP Phase IV-A 10
2.3.4.2 1988 Investigations 11
2.3.4.3 1989 Investigation 11
2.3.5 1991 Remedial Investigation 12
2.3.6 1993 Remedial Investigation Addendum. 13
2.3.7 1994 Investigation 13
2.4 Community Relations History 16
2.5 Scope and Role of Response Action 17
2.6 Summary of Site Characteristics 17
2.6.1 Nature and Extent of Contamination 18
2.6.1.1 Summary of Soil/Bedrock Investigations 19
2.6.1.2 Nature and Extent of Soil/Bedrock Contamination 22
2.6.1.3 Summary of Groundwater Investigations 25
2.6.1.4 Nature and Extent of Groundwater Contamination 26
2.6.1.5 Summary.. 32
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
2.6.2 Potential Routes of Migration
Summary Of Site Risk ' 34
2.7.1.1 Criteria for Selection 36
2.7.1.2 Concentration-Toxicity Screen 36
2.7.1.3 Data Analvcic
Data Analysis ........ ............................................
''' ...................
........ 37
2 7 II rhr"1^ USg Wsk-BaSconC;'n'^i0ns'.:: ................... 40
2-7.2 Po^
2.7.3 Exposure Assessment ........ [[[ 43
2-7.4 Toxicity Assessment ..... [[[ 45
2.7.5 Risk Characterization ..313.3."'."." ................................................. 49
2.7.5.1 Carcinogenic Risks ...... 1 ................................. ' ........... : ......... 51
2.7.5.2 Chronic Health Risks 1 [[[ 52
* '' ................
2.7.5.6 Total Site Risk......... ................ ...................... - ...................... 57
2 7 fi p 7'?'7 DeveI°Pmei« of Remedial^ onions'" ............................ 2
J Ecologlcal Risk Assessment, ' VPOons ............................. 62
Descnption of Alternatives ...... [[[ 63
2.8.1 Alternative 1 - No Action [[[
2'8-2
f ^ of Comparative Analysis of ito^s'3: ............................... £
2.9.1 Overa i Protection of Human Health and Environment' .................... 2
^-y.2 Compliance with ARARs """umnem .................... 57
°"g-terra Effectiveness and Perrnanence' ........................................ «
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 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 Former Site Location Map 2
1 -5 Current Site Location Map 3
2-1 Site Locations .9
2-2 Phase n Sampling Locations 10
2-3 Phase IV 1988 Sampling Locations 11
2-4 Phase IV 1989 Sampling Locations 11
2-5 1991 and 1993 Sampling Locations. 12
2-6 Delineation Sampling Grid 14
2-7 Confirmation Sampling Points, North Excavation 14
2-8 Confirmation Sampling Points, South Excavation 14
2-9 . Final Excavation 14
2-10 Groundwater Sampling Locations 25
2-11 Arsenic/Pesticide Concentrations in Groundwater 1991 and 1993 Data 34
111
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Follows
Title _ page
,v
2- 1 Pesticides Stored at Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida ............. ........ 6
2-2 Analytical Results of Groundwater Samples Collected during
Phase II Investigations at OU-7, Entomology S torage Area .................... 10
2-3 Analytical Results of Phase IV Soil Samples Collected in 1988 at
OU-7, Entomology Storage Area ................... . ............................. _ H
2-4 Analytical Results of Phase IV Groundwater Samples Collected in 1 988 at
OU-7, Entomology Storage Area .................................................. U
2-5 Results of Field Analyses of Phase IV Groundwater Samples Collected in
1988 and 1989 at OU-7, Entomology Storage Area .............................. 11
2-6 Results of Organic Vapor Analyses of Phase IV Soil Samples Collected in
1989 at OU-7, Entomology Storage Area.... ..................................... H
2-7 Analytical Results of Phase IV Soil Samples Collected in 1 989
at OU-7, Entomology Storage Area ....................... ....... .................. 11
2-8 • Summary of Analytical Results for Phase IV Groundwater Samples
Collected in 1989 at OU-7, Entomology Storage Area ........................... 12
2-9 Confirmation Sampling Parameters, OU-7, Entomology
Storage Area [[[ _ j4
2- 1 0 Summary of Soil Samples from Excavated Areas, OU-7,
Entomology Storage Area [[[ 15
2-11 Summary of Corrective Action Levels ............................................. 21
2-12 Background Soil Concentrations ................. . ................................. 21
2- 1 3 Post Excavation Summary of Constituents Detected in Soil/Bedrock ......... 22
2-14 Concentrations of Dissolved Inorganic Constituents in the Biscayne Aquifer
in Dade County, Florida [[[ ........ 26
2-15 Groundwater Quality Criteria ........................... . ........................... 26
2-16 Summaryof 1991 Groundwater Analytical Results ............................ 26
2-17 Summary of 1993 Groundwater Analytical Results ............................. 27
2-18 Summary of Chemicals of Potential Concern in Groundwater ............ ..... 37
2- 1 9 Summary of Chemicals of Potential Concern in Surface Soil .................. 37
2-20 Summary of Chemicals of Potential Concern in Subsurface Soil .............. 37
2-2 1 Toxicity-Concentration Screening for Chemicals in Groundwater at
OU-7 [[[ ....... 38
2-22 Toxicity-Concentration Screening for Chemicals in Surface Soil at
OU-7 [[[ ; .............. 38
2-23 Toxicity-Concentration Screening for Chemicals in Subsurface Soil at
OU-7 [[[ 38
2-24 RBC-Based Benchmark Screening for Chemicals in Groundwater at
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Follows
No. Title Page
2-27 Chemicals of Potential Concern in Environmental Media at OU-7 42
2-2 8 Exposure Point Concentrations for Groundwater 46
2-29 Exposure Point Concentrations for Surface Soil Samples 46
2-30 Exposure Point Concentrations for Subsurface Soil Samples 46
2-31 Example Data Reduction Calculation for Arsenic in Groundwater Samples
atOU-7 47
2-32 Potential Pathways of Exposure to Chemicals Detected at OU-7 47
2-33 Dermal and Oral Absorption Efficiencies for Chemicals of Potential
Concern 50
2-34 Reference Doses for Chemicals of Potential Concern at OU-7 50
2-35 Cancer Slope Factors, Tumor Sites, and USEPA Cancer Classifications for
Chemicals of Potential Concern 51
2-36 Adjusted Toxicity Values Used to Assess Dermal Exposure at
OU-7 51
2-37 Groundwater Ingestion Exposure Doses and Risk Calculations for a
Hypothetical Future Adult Resident at OU-7 54
2-38 Soil Exposure Doses and Risk Calculations for a Potential Current Base
Worker at OU-7 55
2-39 Soil Exposure Doses and Risk Calculations for Hypothetical Future
Adult Resident at OU-7 56
2-40 Soil Exposure Doses and Risk Calculations for Hypothetical Future
Child Resident at OU-7 56
2-41 Soil Exposure Doses and Risk Calculations for Hypothetical Future
Construction Worker at OU-7 56
2-42 Modeled Blood Lead Levels in Hypothetical Children (Aged 0 to 6) 57
2-43 Summary Table of Hazard Indices and Cancer Risks for all Scenarios 58
2-44 Risk-Based Remedial Goal Options 63
2-45 Comparative Analysis of Remedial Alternatives, OU-7 67
-------
-------
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 ARE 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
-------
EVERGLADES [_
NATIONAL '
HOMESTEAD AIR RESERVE BASE
HOMESTEAD, FLORIDA
LOCATION OF
HOMESTEAD AIR RESERVE BASF
-------
RESIDENTIAL RISK
INDUSTRIAL
RISK
-
H * • • fcs • »••••••••*
• • • • • • • •••••••« ^.'l|
VVvj OFFICE
BUSINESS
INDUSTRIAL & OFFICE
INSTITUTIONS
AVIATION FACILITIES
tft/JJJ PARKS & RECREATION
DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN
RESIDENTIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL RISK
I 1 BLDGS. 779 AND 775 HAVE
RESIDENTIAL RISK
HOMESTEAD AIR RESERVE BASE
HOMESTEAD, FLORIDA
FUTURE LAND USB MAP
-------
SITE SS
STUDY AREA
Source: USGS 7.5 minute
Topographic Quadrangles
Arsenicker, Homestead,
Goulds, and Perrine.
1000
2000
FEET
HOMESTEAD AIR FORCE BASE
HOMESTEAD, FLORIDA
BASE LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 1-3
-------
FORMER OPERABLE UNIT 3
OPERABLE
UNIT 7
STUDY AREA
•^ FORMER
\ ENTOMOLOGY 1
STORAGE \ V
AREA
LEGEND
X—X—X FENCE
f~~| STUDY AREA
APPROXIMATE SCALE
HOMESTEAD AIR RESERVE BASE
FLORIDA
FORMER SITE LOCATION MAP
OU-7
ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
FIGURE 1-4
-------
4531st Tactical Fighterwing became the new host. The Base was transferred to Headquarters
Air Combat Command (HQ/ACC) 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 ARE location is depicted in Figure 1-3. Operable Unit 7 originally
encompassed a triangular area of approximately 5,265 square feet or approximately 0.13
acres and is located in the west-central portion of Homestead ARB. The Entomology
Storage Area was a fenced triangular area located in the southeast corner of the Civil
Engineering Storage Compound, which was a storage area for supplies and equipment. The
OU-7 investigation area was later expanded to approximately 4 acres which included a large
portion of the Civil Engineering Storage Compound, OU-3 PCB Spill Area, the asphalt
pavement areas, and a portion of the Building 207, Site ST-18 petroleum contaminated site.
The majority of the site features/structures were razed due to the Interim Removal Action
performed in 1994, and rebuilding activities by the Air Force Reserves. A site map depicting
the former surface features is provided as Figure 1-4.
The OU-7 study area was bordered by a concrete wall at the western edge of the Civil
Engineering Storage Compound; roofed concrete car racks to the east; an asphalt parking
area and Building 220 to the north; and open land consisting of crushed and weathered
limestone covered by grass to the south. The limestone bedrock, which was exposed at the
surface over much of the area, is generally characterized as highly weathered and is
penetrable with a split-spoon formation sampler. A January 13, 1983, aerial photograph
indicates railroad tracks formerly existed between .the fence and the roofed concrete car
racks.
A drainage canal borders the former Civil Engineering Storage Compound to the west. This
drainage canal typically contains water to a depth of 1 to 2 feet. The drainage canal flows
from southeast to northwest and then to the west before draining into the Boundary Canal,
-------
which borders Homestead ARE. The concrete wall on the eastern side of the drainage canal
diverts surface water run-off from OU-7 away from the canal. The date of construction of
the concrete wall is not available.
Operable Unit 7 has been retained by the 482nd Air Force Reserves as part of the
Cantonment Area. Expansion of this area by the Air Force Reserves included rebuilding
over the site for a new Base Supply, Civil Engineering, and POL Operations Area. The
former OU-7 area is now occupied by a new civil engineering complex, three shops, a
storage area, miscellaneous buildings, expanded parking areas, and grassways. Figure 1-5
depicts the current layout of the OU-7 study area.
1.2 REGIONAL LAND USE
The area adjacent to Homestead ARB, including OU-7, 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-7 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 high 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.
-------
eg
S 2
o m
•o faz
% S^o
I If
z o3o o p
CIVIL ENGINEERING COMPLEX
-------
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
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.
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 below ground surface (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 bgs. The weathered
limestone consists of a white to brown semi-consolidated oolitic 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 ARB. 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). 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). 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. The conceptual model that the shallow groundwater is
discharging to the ditches and canals provides sufficient detail for the purpose of discussing
OU-7.
2.0 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
2.1 OPERABLE UNIT NO. 7 HISTORY
2.1.1 Past Site Usage
The former Entomology Storage Area was used in the 1960s as a storage area for bulk
quantities of pesticide compounds. Diesel fuel was also reportedly stored in the southern
portion of the site. Operable Unit 7 was later expanded to include a large portion of the Civil
Engineering Storage Compound, a former petroleum contaminated site, Building 207
(Former Site ST-18) and OU-3 (Former PCB Spill Area), increasing the total area to
approximately 4 acres. A list of pesticides stored on Homestead ARE are presented in Table
2-1. The dates and quantities of pesticides and diesel fuel stored at the site are not available.
2.1.2 Current Site Usage
The OU-7 area has been retained by the 482nd Air Force Reserve as part of the cantonment
area. The site was rebuilt by the Air Force Reserves in 1996 as part of the new Base Supply,
Civil Engineering, and POL Operations area. Operable Unit 7 is now occupied by a new
civil engineering complex, three shops, a storage area, miscellaneous buildings and a
expanded parking areas, and grassways,
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
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).
-------
TABLE 2-1
PESTICIDES STORED AT HOMESTEAD AIR RESERVE BASE, FLORIDA
Vaponite 2EC
Wasp Freeze
Ficam W (bendiocarb)
malathion 95%
Cynthion 57%
baygon strips
baygon 1.5%
Dibrom (85% Naled)
Dursban Granules 0.5% (chlopyrifos)
Dursban 4E
Inspector PT 565
Knox-Out 2FM (Diazinon)
baygon bait
Precor 5E
Talon-G
Baytex
d-Phenothrin (spray cans)
Nemacur
Seven (carbaryl)
Keithane MF
Dowfume MC-2 (methyl bromide)
Phostoxin (aluminum phosphide)
chloropicrin
SA-77, Cide Kick
Nalco-Trol
Dal-e-rad
Velpar
Hyvar X (bromacil)
diquat
Aquazine (simazine)
Balan
Banvel 720
Pramitol 5PS
paraquat
Eptam 7-E
Round-Up (glyphosphate)
Karmex (diuron)
AATREX
Promitol 25e
Asulox
Dowpon (dalapon)
Dithane M-45
Fungo 50 (methyl thiophanate)
Tersan 1991 (benomyl)
Note: Capitalization of the first letter indicates that the name is a registered trademark.
Source: Geraghty & Miller, Inc., 1992/Engineering Science, 1983.
-------
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-7
and selects a remedy for the OU.
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 PSCs 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.
-------
PSC Name
Fire Protection Training Area 2
Residual Pesticide Disposal Area
Oil Leakage Behind the Motor Pool
Electroplating Waste Disposal Area
Aircraft Washrack Area
Entomology Storage Area
Fire Protection Training Area 3
Boundary Canal
Landfill LF-12
Sewage Treatment Plant/Incinerator Ash Disposal Area
Entomology Shop
Landfill SS-22
Drum Storage Area
Hazardous Storage Bldg.
Missile Site
Hanger 793
Construction Debris Landfill
Bldg. 208
Bldg. 618 Parking Lot
# 32, Bldg. 619 Parking Lot
Bldg. 761^764
Bldg. 814
Bldg. 745-'
Bldg. 268 & 268-A
Bldg. 750
Bldg. 760
Operable
Unit No.
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
25
26
27
28
29
Operable Unit No. 3 PCB Spill, C.E. Storage Compound and OU-9 Boundary Canal have
been closed out with No Further Action Record of Decisions (ROD's). 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 has been transferred to investigation and oversight in
accordance with 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
8
-------
in the preliminary assessment phase of investigation. 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 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 Entomology Storage 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, OU-7 received a moderate to high HARM score of 63
due to the high hazard of wastes used and the high potential for contaminant migration via
surface and groundwaters of the site. Operable Unit 7 scored high as a potential migration
pathway because of the extremely permeable nature of the soils and underlying rock in the
area and the proximity of the drainage canal bordering the Civil Engineering Storage
-------
HOMESTEAr _J \
RESERVE^%^|
BASE XJj
OU-]»CB Soil Am
OO-* MotOf POOl « iMk
OU-5 Evctrecuira Wuti
CXM AicnK Wivxadt
OU-7 EMcmotogy Slo»g*
-
-m
OU-11 Snag« Tiunwil Pu
-
FORMER
HOUSING AREA
OO-H Onn Storm Am
oia Slang* Bkfe
-
H ConstniCMn Dtbra
INSTALLATION BOUNDARY
OO-MBWJ.745
OU-Z7BUJ.2M
OO-2SBWg7JO
OU-3*B10g ISO
AOC-1BU9.TE7
XmdlMLl_MI IWIN BUUINUAriT
/UGHTUNEAPRON
•y /LATERALS SS-15A
IOIM8VV if
APPROX. SCALE
LEGEJNQ
BOUNDARY CANAL
HOMESTEAD AIR FORCE BASE
HOMESTEAD, FLORIDA
LOCATION AND DESIGNATION
OF STUDY AREA
IRP SITE LOCATIONS
-------
Compound site. The Phase I report recommended collecting five soil/bedrock samples,
performing water extraction of them, and analyzing the extract for pH, 2,4,5-TP, Chlordane,
DDT and its metabolites, and non-phosphate radical of carbaryl (Sevin).
2.3.2 IRP Phase II - Confirmation/Quantification
An IRP Phase II study was performed by Science Applications International Corporation,
and a report was completed in March 1986 (SAIC, 1986). The objectives of Phase II were to
confirm the presence or absence of contamination, quantify the extent and degree of
contamination, and to determine the necessity to conduct remedial actions. During the Phase
II study, additional investigations were performed at the eight sites recommended for
monitoring in the Phase I report, as well as two of the other thirteen originally-identified
sites. Operable Unit 7 was included in this investigation.
During the Phase II investigation, two shallow monitoring wells (1-15 and 1-16) were
installed at the site (Figure 2-2). Groundwater samples were collected and analyzed for 17
specific pesticides, including insecticides and herbicides (Table 2-2). None of these
pesticides were detected at levels above their respective detection limits. A complete
discussion of the methods and the results of the study are detailed in the Phase II -
Confirmation/Quantification Report (SAIC, 1986).
The Phase n report recommended that no additional work be performed at the site except for
periodic monitoring of the two wells (1-16, HS-16) located at OU-7.
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 HI tasks conducted at the
site to date.
2.3.4 IRP Phase IV- Additional Investigations
2.3.4.1 IRP Phase IV-A. The IRP Phase IV investigations consist of two areas of work
activity. Phase IV-A involved 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.
10
-------
APPROXIMATE SCALE
LEGEND
-------
TABLE 2-2
ANALYTICAL RESULTS OF GROUNDWATER SAMPLES
COLLECTED DURING PHASE II INVESTIGATIONS
AT OU-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
SAIC, 1984
CONSTITUENTS
PESTICIDES ug/L
Aldrin
ODD
DDT
Dieldrin
Endrin
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Lindane
Methoxychlor
Toxaphene
Diazinon
Maiathion
Parathion
2,4-D
2,4.5-T
2,4,5-TF (Siivex)
Sevin
LOCATION
MS M6
<0.02 <0.02
<0.02 <0.02
<0.02 <0.02
<0.02 <0.02
<0.02 <0.02
<0.02 <0.02
<0.02 <0.02
<0.01 <0.01
<0.20 <0.20
<1 .00 <1 .00
<0.02 <0.02
<0.10 <0.10
<0.02 <0.02
<0.06 <0.06
<0.06 <0.06
<0.06 <0.06
<1.00 <1.00
Source: Geraghty & Miller. Inc., 1992
SS6RIT.2-2
-------
Detailed alternatives were developed and evaluated, and a preferred alternative was selected.
The preferred alternative was then described in sufficient detail to serve as a baseline
document for initiation of Phase IV-B.
2.3.4.2 1988 Investigation. The Phase IV 1988 field investigation included the collection
and analysis of seven surface-soil samples (SFS-1 through SFS-7) from the top four inches of
the soil profile (Figure 2-3). Surface-soil sample SFS-1 was collected from outside the
fenced compound near Building 220 to establish background concentrations. These samples
were analyzed for organochlorine pesticides, chlorinated herbicides, volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), base/neutral and acid extractable compounds (BNAs), and total
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) metals (Table 2-3). Arsenic, barium,
chromium, and lead were detected in all seven samples. Additionally, cadmium and mercury
were detected in SFS-4 and SFS-7 and mercury was also detected in sample SFS-1. Six of
the seven samples contained quantifiable concentrations of pesticides including beta-BHC;
delta-BHC; 4,4'-DDE; 4,4'-DDD; 4,4'-DDT; and technical chlordane. Surface-soil samples
SFS-1 (the background sample) and SFS-7 contained detectable concentrations of
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). In 1988, groundwater samples were collected
from two wells, 1-16 and HS-16, and analyzed for VOCs, BNAs, total recoverable petroleum
hydrocarbons (TRPH) and total lead (Table 2-4). An estimated concentration of lead (1.6
micrograms per liter [|ig/L]), was detected in HS-16. Field parameters of pH, conductivity,
temperature, and appearance/odor were measured during sampling and are presented in Table
2-5.
23.43 1989 Investigation. Sixteen shallow (approximately 6 feet below land surface [ft
bis]) soil borings (P2-SS1 and P2-SB1 through P2-SB15) were drilled during the Phase IV
1989 field investigation (Figure 2-4). Continuous split-spoon samples were collected and
screened for organic vapor concentrations using an organic vapor analyzer (OVA) and a total
ionization potential (TIP) meter (Table 2-6). The highest organic vapor concentration of 900
parts per million (ppm) was measured in the four to six foot bis interval sample collected
from soil boring P2-SB8. This sample was collected near the groundwater interface and may
represent groundwater contamination.
Following the OVA screening, the shallow (0 to 2 ft bis) and deep (2 to 4 ft bis) split-spoon
intervals were retained in thirteen of the sixteen soil borings for chemical analysis. These
samples were analyzed for BNAs, organochlorine pesticides, total metals, and Cg-C20
hydrocarbons (Table 2-7). Detectable concentrations of PAHs were found in four (P2-SB5,
P2-SB9, P2-SB10, and P2-SB11) of the thirteen soil samples. Various degrees of
11
-------
APPROXIMATE SCALE
LEGEND
© UONITOflING WELL. WSTALLED 1984 BY SAIC
©MONITORING WELL WSTALLED BY
GERAGHTY * MILLER. 1968^
A SOIL BORING LOCATION .
HOMESTEAD AIR RESERVE BASE
FLORIDA
PHASEIV1908 SAMPLING LOCATIONS
Oif-7
ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
FIGURE 2-3
-------
TABLE 2-3
ANALYTICAL RESULTS OF PHASE IV SOIL/BEDROCK SAMPLES COLLECTED IN 1986
AT 00-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
LOCATION
CONSTITUENTS 1/
Volatile Orp.anle8(uq/Kg)
Bme/NBUiral and AQ|tf Ex1r«c»*hli» Orwntcj
Benzo(a)anlhracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Bon7n(g,h,))p0rylene
BenzofkUluoranthane
bls(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Fluoranthene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pvrene
Qroanoehlorlnit P^tlrM^ (t,gfr9)
Beta-BHC
Della-BHC
4.4'-DDE
4,4'-DDD
4.4'-DDT
Technical Chlordane
Chlorinated Herbicide l,,ni^n)
Total Metals (rpp/hg)
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
If ad
Mercury
Source: Geraghty & Miller, Inc.. 1992
SFS-12/ SFS-2
ND NO
Cus/kgl
[714] <556
• [735] <556
[749] <556
<1,160 <556
16491 <556
(1,000) <556
<1.160 <556
(1,150] .<558
<1,160 <558
|602] <556
F1.0201 ^nrflclal soil samples were collected within 0 to 4 Inches below land surface
[ ] Value Is between level of quantltaHon and Instrument detection limit
sELd?™ ienS,d;aNT °' If9 ,co"9llluent'ln lhls 8rouP ^re detected above their respnctive detection limits.
sx^
-------
TABLE 2-4
ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR PHASE IV GROUNDWATER SAMPLES
COLLECTED IN 1988 AT OU-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Geraghty & Miller, 1988
Constituents 1/
Volatile Organic Compounds (ug/L)
Base/Neutral Extractable Compounds (ug/L)
TRPH (mg/L) 21
Total Lead (ug/L)
1-16 HS-16
ND ND
ND ND
<0.20 <0.20
<1.0 [1.6]
Source: Geraghty & Miller, Inc., 1992
ND Not detected. None of the constituents in this group were detected above
their respective detection limits.
1/ Constituents not detected in any samples in an analytical group are not shown.
21 Total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons.
SS7RI.T.1-4
-------
TABLE 2-5
RESULTS OF FIELD ANALYSES OF PHASE IV GROUNDWATER SAMPLES
COLLECTED IN 1988 AND 1989 AT OU-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Sample
Location
HS-16
1-16
P2-MW1
1-15
1-16
SP4-MW5
Source: Geraahti
Date
Sampled
3/1/88
3/1/88
4/25/89
4/24/89
4/24/89
4/24/89
/& Miller Inn 1<
r— rj;
PH
(standard units)
6.96/6.98
7.55/7.48
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.7
3Q9
juty w KIIIICI, IHOO OC
Conductivity
(umhos/cm)
370/380
350/350
600
520
420
540
I«7O9
Temperature
(degrees Centigrade)
25.1
25.1
25.7
25.2
25.1
25.2
Appearance/Odor
Clear/None
Slightly Turbid/Slight
Clear/Strong
Clear/Slight
Slightly Turbid/None
Clear/Moderate
SS7.RI.'
.^^
-------
Q MONITORING WELL, INSTALLED 1984 BY SAIC
© MONITORING WELL, INSTALLED 1989
W BYGEHAGHTY&MiLLER
A SOIL BORING LOCATION
V SOIL BORING CONVERTED ~O
-* MONITORING WELL
P2-SB-2A
f-V> A P2-SB-9 I
\ ^P2-MW-1 I
P2-SB-8A
A P2-SB-13
F2-SB-1A X A P2-SB-12
P2-SB-14A® M6
A P2-SB-15
APPROXIMATE SCALE
HOMESTEAD AIR RESERVE BASE
FLORIDA
PHASE IV 1989 SAMPLING LOCA T1ONS
OU-7
ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
FIGURE 2-4
-------
TABLE 2-6
RESULTS OF ORGANIC VAPOR ANALYSES OF PHASE IV SOIL/BEDROCK SAMPLES
COLLECTED IN 1989 AT OU-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Geraghty& Miller, 1939
ANALYSIS TIP (a) OVA(b) TIP OVA TIP
SAMPLEDEPTH 0-2' 0-2' 2-4' 2-4' 4-61
BORING NUMBER Concentrations In parts per million loom)
SS1-P2 (Background)
P2-SB1
P2-SB2
P2-SB3
P2-SB4
P2-SB5
P2-SB6
P2-SB7
P2-SB8
P2-SB9(P2-MW1)
P2-SB10
P2-SB11
P2-SB12
P2-SB13
P2-SB14
P2-SB15
6.7
0
0.1
0.5
0.2
18.9
2.6
1.7
2.5 «
2.1
0.8
1.0 «
2.0 <
0.7
0.9 <
1.2
c1 3.2
:1 32.3
:1 0.1
:1 0.7
:1 0.2 (c)
:1 2.8 (c)
:1 1.8(0)
:1 2.1 (c)
:1 1.9
:1 119
:1 1.5
:1 0.8
:1 1.3
:1 1 (c)
:1 1.9
:1 2.6
<1 3.9
60 90 (c)
<1 6.1 (c)
<1 0.7
<1 (c) 0.2
<1 (c) 3.5
<1 (c) 2.3
<1 (c) 2.0
<1 385 (c)
25 89 (c)
<1 1.8
<1 2.1
<1 1.1
<1 (c) 1.2
<1 15.3
<1 12.1
OVA
4-6'
<1
300 (c)
<1 (c)
<•)
<1
<1
<1
<1
900 (c)
50 (c)
<1
<1
<1
<1
4
<1
EXPLANATION:
Shading denotes sample collected from soils later excavated and removed during 1994 Interim Removal Action (data
no longer representative of site conditions).
(a) Total ionizables present measured with a photoionization detector.
(b) Organic Vapor Analyzer measured with a flame ionization detector.
(c) Sample collected from depth interval partially excavated during 1994 interim Removal Action (data may still be valid).
Source: GeraghtyS Miller, Inc. 1992
-------
TABLE2-7
ANALYTICAL RESULTS OF PHASE IV SOIL/BEDROCK SAMPLES COLLECTED IN 1989
AT Ot-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
LOCATION
CONSTITUENTS I/
Base/Neulral and Acid Extractable Organlcs fag/hg)
Acenaphlhene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Bcnzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
uenzo(b)lluoranthene
Bcnzo(g,h,i)perylcne
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Di-n-butylphthatate
Bis(2-Elhylhexyl)phihalate
Fluoranlhene
Fluorene
Indeno(l,2.3-cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
BSSSS^B
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDD
4.4'-DDT
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin kelone
alpha-Chlordane
gamma-Chlordane
Toxaphene
beta-BHC
Tola! Metals fag/kg)
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Thallium
Zinc
/ Constituents not detected in any samples in an nnalyli
P2SB-1 P2SB-2
SV
<602
<602
<602
<602
<602
-------
ANALYTICAL *^« «» o. SAMPLES COLLECTED IN 1919
AT OU-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
Homeiletd Air Reserve Bue, Florid*
I.AALTFA
CONSTITUENTS I/
BiK/Nculnl mrt Arid Futnrtibte Or^if* 6,t^.
Acenaphthcne
Acentphihylcne
Anthracene
Benzofojanlhriceiie
BenzoftMperylene
BenzofkXluoranthene
Chrysene
Fluoranlhene
Fluorene
lndcno(l,2;3-cd)pyrcne
Pyrene
C8-C2Q Hydrocarbon. ri«i.n (tlf^
4,4-DDE
4.4--DDD
4.4'-DDT
Endoiulfan sulfate
Endrin kelone
gamma-Chlordane
Toxaphene
beta-BHC
TOUI Mf di] (me/kg)
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Thallium
Zinc
27 Shallow (0-2 feet below land surfncrt
fl
. ~.. S
<769
. <769
<769
'<769
.<769
f654J
<769
<769
<769
I3&I
'; <769
<769
<15,200
" fl.100)
26,000
83,000
<1,800
<1,800
<9,200
<18,000
<920
<2.8
3.3
[8.1]
-------
organochlorine pesticide and heavy metal contamination were found in all of the soil
samples.
Soil boring P2-SB9 was converted to a shallow (approximately 13 ft bis) monitoring well
(P2-MW1) (Figure 2-4). The groundwater from this well, the existing wells (1-15 and 1-16),
and a background well (SP4-MW5) were sampled and analyzed for BNAs, organochlorine
pesticides, and total Cs-C20 hydrocarbons (Table 2-8). No detectable concentrations of
BNAs were found in these samples. The pesticides that were quantifiable, 4,4'-DDE,
4,4'-DDD, 4,4'-DDT, alpha chlordane and beta chlordane, ranged in concentration from
0.19 lig/L to 2.0 ug/L. The groundwater sample from P2-MW1 was the only sample with a,
detectable concentration of Cg-C20 hydrocarbons (156 fig/L).
In 1989, a topographic survey was conducted at OU-7. The survey was referenced to the
National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD). The location and measuring point
elevation of each permanent monitoring well was determined. A water-level survey from the
permanent monitoring wells indicates that no hydraulic gradient is present and that the
potential for downward migration of constituents is minimal.
2.3.5 1991 Remedial Investigation
In 1991, an RI was conducted at OU-7 by G&M. During the 1991 investigation, 15 surface
and 15 subsurface soil/bedrock samples were collected from soil borings P2-SL-0016
through P2-SL-0030 (Figure 2-5). All soil/bedrock samples were analyzed for
organochlorine pesticides. The soil/bedrock samples from three borings (P2-SL-0022,
P2-SL-0023, and P2-SL-0028) were additionally analyzed for target compound list (TCL)
VOCs, TCL, BNAs, and target analyte list (TAL) metals. The results of these analyses are
discussed in Section 2.6.1.3.
Groundwater samples were collected from 1-15,1-16, HS-16, and P2-MW1 and analyzed for
TCL VOCs, BNAs, TAL metals, organochlorine pesticides, and TRPH (Figure 2-5).
Additionally, the groundwater sample collected from HS-16 was analyzed for total dissolved
solids (TDS). Groundwater samples collected from four monitoring wells (SP10-MW-0003
through SP10-MW-0006) at Site ST-18 and two monitoring wells (SP4-MW4 and
SP4-MW5) at Site SS-2 were analyzed for volatile organic halocarbons, PAHs, benzene,
toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX), methyl t-butyl ether (MTBE), 1,2-dibromoethane
(EDB), total lead, and TRPH. The groundwater quality results from these monitoring wells
were utilized in the characterization of OU-7 in the 1991 investigation. Analytical
12
-------
TABLE 2-8
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR PHASE IV GROUNDWATER SAMPLES
COLLECTED IN 1989 AT OU-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Geraghty& Miller, 1988
CONSTITUENTS 1/
LOCATION
P2-MW1
1-15
1-16
SP4-MW5
(BACKGROUND)
Base/Neutral Extractable Compounds (ug/L ND
C8-C20 Hydrocarbons ftotat) (ug/L) 156
ND
<100
ND
<100
ND
<100
Organochlorlne Pesticides (ug/L)
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDT
alpha-Chlordane
gamma-Chlordane
[0.062]
1.5
2.0
[0.045]
[0.0251
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.50
<0.50
[0.051]
<0.10
[0.017]
[0.22]
fO.151
0.21
0.19
0.98
[0.19]
F0.191
EXPLANATION:
1/ Constituents not detected in any samples in an analytical group are not shown.
ND Not detected. None of the constituents in this group were detected above their detection limits.
[ ] Value is between level of quantitation and instrument detection limit.
Source: Geraghty & Miller, Inc., 1992
-------
FORMER
OPERABLE
UNITS
FORMER LOCATION OF THE
ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AR
\ ..-'*
u..jj 111 M i M r^i u>m i
P2-DMW-0001©.
W DEEP MONITORING WELL
A 1991 SOIL BORING LOCATIONS
A 1993 SOIL BORING LOCATION
-------
methodologies used for sample analysis in 1991 were those specified in USEPA SW 846.
The results of these analyses are presented in Section 2.6.1.5. Complete results of the 1991
RI are presented in G&M's report titled Remedial Investigation Report for Site SS-7
Entomology Storage Area (Former Site P-2), Homestead AFB, Florida (G&M, 1992).
2.3.6 1993 Remedial Investigation Addendum
The purpose of the 1993 RI Addendum was to evaluate the current soil/bedrock and
groundwater quality at OU-7 with respect to the USEPA TCL/TAL employing Contract
Laboratory Program (CLP) methodologies and documentation and to fill data gaps from the
previous field investigations.
Three soil borings (P2-SL-0031, P2-SL-0032, and P2-SL-0033) (Figure 2-5) were advanced
to the water table. Two samples were collected from each borehole. All soil/bedrock
samples were analyzed for TCL organochlorine pesticides and PCBs and cyanide. The two
samples from P2-SL-0031 were additionally analyzed for TCL VOCs, TCL BNAs, and TAL
metals.
One new deep monitoring well (P2-DMW-0001) (Figure 2-5) was installed at 40 ft bis to
determine vertical migration of contaminants. This new deep well was sampled as were four
shallow monitoring wells (P2-MW1, 1-15,1-16, and SP4-MW4). All groundwater samples
were analyzed for TCL organochlorine pesticides and PCBs and cyanide. Additionally,
groundwater samples from wells P2-MW-1 and P2-DMW-001 were analyzed for TCL
VOCs, TCL BNAs, and TAL metals (total and dissolved).
Complete results of the 1993 RI are presented in Montgomery Watsons' report titled
Remedial Investigation Report Addendum for Operable Unit 7/Site SS-7, Entomology
Storage Area (Former Site SP-2), Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida (MW, 1996).
23.7 1994 Investigation
In 1994, an Interim Removal Action (IRA) was conducted at OU-7 by IT under contract with
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) Mobile District. The remedial activities
included delineation and profiling of contaminated soil/bedrock, determination of appropriate
soil disposal methods, excavation and disposal of contaminated soil/bedrock, and analysis of
confirmation samples collected from within the excavation limits. Also performed as part of
the remedial activities was the disposal of miscellaneous debris and decontamination
13
-------
materials from the site. Extensive sampling throughout the CE Storage Area and Pesticide
Storage Area identified two areas with elevated arsenic and pesticide contaminated soils.
The north excavation area (North Area) consisted of a roughly circular area with a diameter
of approximately 55 feet and an area of approximately 2,400 square feet. The south
excavation area (South Area) was trapezoidal in shape and encompassed an area of
approximately 12,300 square feet.
Prior to the removal of contaminated soil/bedrock from OU-7, limited delineation sampling
was performed to provide additional information concerning the concentrations and extent of
selected contaminants in the soil/bedrock. The OU-7 delineation sampling program included
the collection of samples on a 50-foot grid between the North Area and the South Area
(Figure 2-6). The soil/bedrock samples were analyzed for total arsenic, and selected samples
on the grid were also analyzed for pesticides. Additionally, samples were collected from the
North Area to further define the limits of arsenic and pesticide contamination.
In addition to the delineation sampling performed in the OU-7 area, profile samples were
also collected to provide information for the completion of waste disposal profiles for off-site
disposal of contaminated soil/bedrock. Since data collected during the profile sampling
program were used to characterize soil/bedrock removed during the Interim Removal Action,
that information is not summarized in this document. Further details on the profile sampling
program are found in Sections 3.0 and 4.0 of The Interim Action Report: Entomology
Storage Area (SS-7), (IT, September 30, 1994).
Upon completion of excavation activities, confirmatory samples were collected from the
excavation limits of the North and South Areas. Sampling locations are shown in Figures 2-7
and 2-8. The final excavation limits are presented on Figure 2-9. The samples were
analyzed using GLP methodologies for total arsenic and/or TCL VOCs, TCL semivolatile
organic compounds, TCL pesticides/PCBs, TAL metals, and total cyanide. A summary of
the confirmatory sampling results from areas not subsequently excavated is presented in
Section 2.6.1.3. A summary list of detected analytes and their corresponding Removal
Action Levels is provided in Table 2-9.
The soil/bedrock excavated from the ESA were transported to USPCFs Clive, Utah,
incineration facility for disposal. A total of 1,538 tons and 2,809 tons of soil were removed
form the North and South Areas, respectively. According to USPCI representatives,
incineration of the soils was scheduled for January 1995, as part of a trial burn program
associated with startup of the incinerator facility. In addition, approximately 61 tons of
14
-------
• SHALLOW MONITORING WEtl
OF CHAIN LINK FENCE
d SOLBORJN3
1-5 SOENCEAPPUCATCN
INTERNATIONAL CORP., 1S34
SP3-DMW.Q001 GERAGHTY & MILLER, 199t
V/A AREA OF EXCAVATION
100' 150'
SCALE IN FEET
r«80'
MONTGOMERY WATSON
HOMESTEAD AIR RESERVE BASE
HOMESTEAD, FLORIDA
ou-r
-F02MOLOGY STORAGE AREA
FIGURE 2-6
-------
•X'X/VXX/V'
CSNA.3XX*
PAVED AREA
CSNB.1//(30
CSNB.S»;
DEPTH = 6'
NW5.3
(17.4)
DEPTH = 6'
APROX. 0.5' ABOVE
STATIC WATER TABLE
DEPTH=
CN2.4
DEPTH = 4'
FCSN3.4
(12.4)
DEPTH = 6'
.1
SB3.18
(16.9)
SB1.18
(10.6)
HOMESTEAD AIR RESERVE BASE
HOMESTEAD, FLORIDA
•;
LESEM2
CONFIRMATION SAMPLES
X 1 FOOT SIDEWALL SAMPLE
O 3 FOOT SIDEWALL SAMPLE
08 1&3 FOOT SIDEWALL SAMPLES
® FLOOR SAMPLE
(16.9) ARSENIC SOIL CONCENTRATION (mgfog)
CONFIRMATION SAMPLING POINTS
NORTH EXCAVATION
OU-7
ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
FIGURE 2-7
-------
CBS WALL
CS42.1
" 2.3
!
N
CS29.1
CS29.3
CS19.1 (46.9) [4.3]
(47.8)-
FCS1.3
CS23.1(16.9)
CS23.3
ASS2
CS34.1 (24.5)
" CS41.3
CS39.1
[1.8]
13E5MJ
15 10
X 1 FOOT 3IDEWALL SAMPLE
O 3 FOOT SIDEWALL SAMPLE
K 1&3 FOOT SIDEWALL SAMPLES
® FLOOR SAMPLE
• DENOTES SECOND SAMPLE
(48.7) ARSENIC SOIL CONCENTRATION (mg/kg)
H JJ BENZO(a) PYRENE SOIL CONCENTRATION (mg/kg)
HOMESTEAD A.R RESERVE BASE
HOMESTEAD, FLORIDA
CONFIRMATION SAMPLING POINTS
SOUTH EXCAVATION
OU-7
-POMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
FIGURE 2-d
-------
3'CBS SPILLAGE
CONTAINMENT WALL
CBS WALL'
• SHALLOW MONITORING WELL
OF CHAIN LINK FENCE
Zf SCCBORWQ
I-S SCIENCE APPLICATION
INTERNATIONAL CORP., 1984
SP3-OMW-OOOI GERAGHTY & MILLER, 1991
V77X AEHA OF EXCAVATION
A UNEXCAVATEO ARSENIC ABOVE CAL (lOmg/tkg)
GHAPHCSCALE
• UNEXCAVATEO ARSENIC ABOVE CAL AND BENZO M PYHENE ABOVE CAL dOmo/lm Uldl.Sinafta) SO' ?5' 0 SO' 1001
SCALE IN FEET
1V80'
160'
MOWTCOMEHY WATSON
HOMESTEAD AIR RESERVE BASE
HOMESTEAD. FLORIDA
FINAL EXCAVATION
SITE SS-r/OU-7
ENTOMOLOGY STORAGEMEA
FIQWB M
-------
TABLE 2-9
CONFIRMATION SAMPLING PARAMETERS
OU-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
IT Corporation, 1994
Delected Parameter (rt
VOLATILES
Acetone
Benzole Acid
Bromo methane
Chlorobenzene
Melhylene Chloride
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Xylenei (total)
NOTES:
Removal
Action
Level (a)
NL(b)
NL(b)
NL(b)
0.050 (c)
42.2
0.1 (d)
0.050 (c)
O.I (d)
*
Detected Parameter (a)
SEMI-VOLATILES
Naphthalene
2-Melhylnaphlhalene
Acenaphlhene
Dibenzofuran
Fluorene
Phenanlhrene
Aceiuphthylene
Anthracene
Carbazole
Di-n -butylphthalate
Fluoranlhene
Benzo(a)imhracene
Bulylbenzylphlhalale
Pyrene
Chrysene
bis(2-Eihylhexyl)phihalate
Benzo(b)fluoramhenc
Benzo(k)nuoranihenc
Benzo{a)pyrene
lndeno( 1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenzo(a.h)anlhracene
Benzo
-------
debris were removed from the site prior to excavation and transported to USPCI's Lone
Mountain landfill facility in Oklahoma for micro-encapsulation and final disposal in a
hazardous waste landfill. The debris consisted of a variety of materials including wood,
concrete, metal and plastic. Micro-encapsulation was performed by coating the debris with
Portland cement grout prior to landfilling.
The excavations created as a result of the IRA undertaken at OU-7 were backfilled with
imported crushed limestone fill material. Prior to import, the fill was analyzed to verify the
lack of chemical contaminants. Samples of the fill material were analyzed for volatile
organic aromatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated hydrocarbons, PAHs, total petroleum
hydrocarbons, and TCLP chromium, lead, and cadmium. Field density testing was also
performed after backfilling to verify compaction of the backfill material.
As a result of the OU-7 IRA, 35 Soil Sampling points from previous investigations were
excavated and removed. Seven soil sample points from the 1989 G&M investigation and
three sample points from the 1991 G&M investigation were collected at or below the IRA
excavation limits. A summary list of soil samples collected from the excavated areas,
including sample identifiers and interval depths, is presented as Table 2-10.
Delineation Sampling and Analysis. Prior to the removal of affected soils from the OU-7
area, limited delineation sampling was performed to provide additional information
concerning the concentrations and extent of selected contaminants in the soil/bedrock. The
OU-7 delineation sampling program was performed in accordance with directions received
by IT in a USACE-Mobile District letter dated February 3, 1994. The directions in the letter
were based on recommendations made in the Engineering Evaluation Cost Analysis (EECA)
and on requirements of the Base Conversion Team. The delineation sampling program
included the collection of samples on a 50-foot grid between the North and South Areas of
excavation (Figure 2-6). The soil/bedrock samples were analyzed for total arsenic according
to EPA SW-846 Method 6010. Selected samples on the grid were also analyzed for
pesticides in accordance with EPA SW-846, Method 8080. The delineation analyses were
performed in accordance with EPA SW-846 methodologies. In addition to the sampling
program directed in the February 3, 1993 letter, samples were collected in the planned North
Area excavation to further define the limits of arsenic- and pesticide-affected areas.
The soil/bedrock samples were collected using split-spoon sampling procedures in
accordance with methods detailed in the project work plan. The soil/bedrock samples were
composited from a depth of zero to approximately two feet below land surface (ft bis).
15
-------
TABLE 2-10
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
IT Corporation, 1994
Sample Location
P2-SS-1-2
P2-SS-M
P2-SL-0017-2
P2-SL-001S-2
P2-SL-0017-4
P2-SL-OOI8-4
IRA
Depth Excavation
Interval Depth
Investigation
ESA302/CH1I
ESA302/CHI5
ESA302/CHI7
ESA302/CH18
ESA302/CH9; CHIO: CH13:
: CH7: CH8: CH12: ^ CHI6
CHI4: and Delineation Points I 4 2
2" -4'
O'-r
2'-4'
r-4-
O'-r
• O'-r
ff-r
0--2-
O'-r
0'-2'
O'-r
4'
4'
6'
4'-6'
6'
4'-6'
6'
4'
4'-6'
3'
y
r-3-
(b.O
1989 (Geraghiy& Miller)
1989 (Geraghty 4 Miller)
1991 (Gerajhtyi Miller)
1991 (Geraghty& Miller)
199 l(Geraghty& Miller)
1991 (Geraghryt Miller)
1994 (IT Corporation)
1994 (17 Corporation)
1994 (IT Corporation)
1994 (IT Corporation)
1994 (IT Corporation)
1994 (IT Corporation)
1994 (IT Corporation)
Excavated (b)
Excavated (b)
Excavated (b)
Excavated (b)
Excavated (b)
Excavated (b)
Excavated (b)
Excavated (b)
Excavated (b)
Excavated (b)
Excavated (b)
Excavated (b)
(b.O
SFS-2 through-5
SfS-6. SFS-7
P2-SB-I; -2; -8; -9: and -12
P2-SB-4 through -7: -10; -11; and -13
P2-SB-l;-2;-8:-9:and-I2
P2-SB-4 through -7; -10; and -11
P2-SB-13
P2-SL-0022-2; P2-SL-0024-2 and P2-SL-9024-2 (c)
P2-SL-0025-2
P2-SL-0022-4 and P2-SL-0024-4
P2-SL-0025-4
P2-SL-0028-2
P2-SL-0028-4
P2-SM»31;andP2-SL-9031 (c)
P2-SL-0033
P2-SL-0033
ESA302/15; 19; 20; 21; 23 through 25
ESA302/26
ESA302y27
ESA302/28
ESA302A334.I: and CS37.1
0--OJ3'
O'-r
r-4-
r-4-
r-4-
O'-r
0'-4'
0--4'
o--r
r-41
o--r
r-r
o--r
r-4-
y
3-
is-y
y
IS-?
Cg)
te)
1988 (Geraghry 4 Miller)
1988 (Geraghty 4 Miller)
1989 (Geraghty 4 Miller)
1989 (Geraghty 4 Miller)
1989 (Geraghty 4 Miller)
1989 (Geraghty 4 Miller)
1989 (Geraghry 4 Miller)
1991 (Geraghry 4 Miller)
1991 (Geraghty 4 Miller)
1991 (Geraghry 4 Miller)
1991 (Geraghry 4 Miller)
1991 (Geraghty & Miller)
1991 (Geraghry 4 Miller)
Excavated (b)
Excavated (b)
Excavated (b)
Excavated (b)
Excavated (b)
PARTIAL REMOVAL (d)
PARTIAL REMOVAL (d)
Excavated (b)
PARTIAL REMOVAL (d)
PARTIAL REMOVAL (d)
PARTIAL REMOVAL (d)
REMOVAL STATUS UNKNOWN-
REMOVAL STATUS UNKNOWN
3' 1993 (Montgomery Watson)
3' 1993 (Montgomery Watson)
3-
Excavated (b)
Excavated (b)
o REMOVAL STATUS UNKNOWN
1993 (Montgomery Watson) REMOVAL STATUS UNKNOWN
Excavated (bS)
Excavated (bj)
PARTIAL REMOVAL (e,f)
Excavated (b.f)
Excavated (b)
o--r
o--r
o'-r
o'-r
3-
y
y
is-y
y
y
1 994 (IT Corporation)
1994 (IT Corporation)
1994 (IT Corporation)
1994 (FT Corporation)
1994 (IT Corporation)
£) Are. of excavuioo (1994 Interim Removal Action)
. .994,
(0 No dia reported.
S^
Analytal d«, ^ocfcted with thfa sunpk may stfflbewlid.
-------
Confirmatory Sampling. Confirmation soil/bedrock samples were collected from the limits
of the excavation for analysis of TCL VOCs; TCL semivolatile organic compounds; TCL
pesticides/PCBs; TAL metals; and total cyanide. The confirmation samples were analyzed
using CLP methodologies. Each sample was initially analyzed for arsenic using expedited
laboratory turnaround. Samples which were found to contain arsenic in concentrations below
the approved action level of 15 mg/kg were analyzed for the full confirmation analytical
program. Samples with arsenic concentrations greater than or equal to the approved action
level indicated that further excavation was necessary. These areas were presented to the
USACE-Mobile District for direction, with the general course of action to be additional
excavation. Additional information regarding the progress and delineation of the excavation
limits is provided in Section 2.3.7 of this ROD and the September 1994 IT Interim Action
Report: Entomology Storage Area (SS-7). Confirmatory sampling locations are presented in
Figures 2-7 and 2-8. .
2.4 COMMUNITY RELATIONS HISTORY
The Remedial Investigation/Baseline Risk Assessment, Feasibility Study and Proposed Plan
for Homestead ARE, OU-7 were released to the public in April 1996, November 1997, and
November 1997, 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.
The public comment period was held from November 20, 1997 to December 22, 1997 as
part of the community relations plan for OU-7. Additionally, a public meeting was held on
November 20, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. at South Dade Senior High School. Public Notices were
published in the Miami Herald on November 16, 1997, and in the South Dade News Leader
and The Courier on November 17, 1997. At this meeting, officials from the U.S. Air Force
Reserves and Dade County Environmental Resource Management (DERM), were prepared
to discuss the Remedial Investigation, the Baseline Risk Assessment, the Feasibility Study,
and the Preferred Alternative for this OUas described in the Proposed Plan and Record Of
Decision. A court reporter was present at the meeting and prepared 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 version
of ROD. This decision document presents the selected remedial action for OU-7 at
Homestead ARE, chosen in accordance with CERCLA, as amended by SARA and, to the
16
-------
extent practicable, the National Contingency Plan. The decision on the selected remedy for
the site is based on the administrative record.
2.5 SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION
The U.S. Air Force, with concurrence from the FDEP and USEPA, has elected to define
Operable Unit 7 as the former Entomology Storage Area and a large portion of the Civil
Engineering Storage Compound found to have arsenic and pesticide contaminated soils. The
remedial actions planned at each of the operable units at Homestead ARE are, to the extent
practicable, independent of one another. However, with respect to OU-3, OU-7, and FAC
62-770 Site ST-18, the close proximity of these areas has resulted in some physical overlap
of site boundaries.
OU-3 was defined as the PCB spill area and associated potential PCB contamination only.
This site was closed with a No Further Action ROD in 1994. Site ST-18 was regulated as a
petroleum contaminated site under FAC 62-770 and closed with a Contamination
Assessment Report in 1993. As a result, any constituents other than PCBs at OU-3 and the
FAC 62-770 mixed product analytical group at ST-18 were evaluated as part of OU-7. This
response action addresses the contamination Identified at OU-7. Operable Unit 7 is located
in the Cantonment Area retained by the Air Force Reserves and as such an industrial use
scenario has been deemed appropriate for evaluating site risk. Under both the current and
future industrial use scenario, the risk levels present at OU-7 are below the USEPA
remediation-based benchmarks. This response action will be the final action at OU-7. This
alternative offers a permanent solution for the site because the remnant pockets of
contaminated soil have been capped, eliminating the risk to current and future base workers.
2.6 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The former Entomology Storage Area is located in the west-central portion of the Facility.
The Entomology Storage Area was a fenced, sheltered area of approximately 0.13 areas in
the southeast corner of the Civil Engineering Storage Compound that was used in the 1960s
as a storage area for bulk quantities of pesticide compounds. Diesel fuel was also reportedly
stored in the southern portion of the site. The dates and quantities of pesticides and diesel
fuel stored at the site are not available. Operable Unit 7 was later expanded to include a large
portion of the Civil Engineering Storage Compound, A former petroleum contaminated site,
Building 207 (Former Site ST-18) and OU-3 (Former PCB Spill Area), increasing the total
area to approximately 4 acres.
17
-------
The OU-7 area has been retained by the 482nd Air Force Reserve as part of the cantonment
area. Expansion of this area by the Air Force Reserves included rebuilding as part of the new
Base Supply, Civil Engineering, and POL Operations area. Operable Unit 7 is now occupied
by a new civil engineering complex, three shops, a storage area, miscellaneous buildings and
expanded parking areas, and grassways.
2.6.1 Nature and Extent of Contamination
This section describes the nature and extent of contamination identified in the soil and
groundwater at OU-7. As discussed previously, the soils at OU-7 are relatively thin to
absent. Where present, they may be as much as 12-inches thick, with bedrock limestone the
dominate feature exposed at the surface. Because of the absence of a significant soil layer at
the site, the term soil/bedrock has been used to describe the media being sampled during the
various investigations completed at this site.
The site has been characterized by evaluating the data obtained by G&M, Montgomery
Watson, and IT Corporation between 1991 and 1994. Soil/bedrock characterization was
completed by evaluating analytical results from the 1991 and 1993 RI samples that were not
located within the IRA excavation limits as well as the 1994 IRA delineation and
confirmation samples that were not excavated during removal activities. Data from samples
locations excavated during the IRA were not considered representative of current site
conditions and were eliminated from site characterization activities.
Subsurface investigations at the site were initiated in 1986 by SAIC (SAIC, 1986). Further
soil/bedrock and groundwater investigations as part of the RI/BRA process were conducted
by G&M in 1988, 1989 and 1991 and by Montgomery Watson in 1993. RI/BRA activities
were interrupted in 1994 when an IRA, completed by IT under the direction of the USACE-
Mobile District, excavated and disposal of arsenic and pesticide contaminated soil/bedrock
from two areas at OU-7. Remedial Investigation/Baseline Risk Assessment activities
resumed at the conclusion of the IRA in 1994.
FT Corporation, under contract to the US ACE-Mobile District, completed the delineation and
IRA program in 1994. Delineation soil/bedrock samples were obtained by FT from within
the site limits to determine excavation boundaries, as well as to provide waste disposal
profiling information. Excavation activities were restricted to two areas, a North Area,
located adjacent to the former PCB Storage Area, and a South Area, located at the site of the
18
-------
pesticide storage yard. The North Area excavation was circular in shape with a surface area
of approximately 2,400 sq. ft. The South Area was approximately trapezoidal in shape and
encompasses an area of approximately 12,300 sq. ft. A total of 1,538 tons and 2,809 tons of
soil/bedrock were removed from the North and South Areas, respectively, and disposed of in
accordance with applicable regulations.
At the conclusion of the IRA, the site was re-evaluated in an RI/BRA to characterize the
nature and extent of contamination subsequent to the removal activities. The IRA was not
effective in removing soil/bedrock contamination immediately adjacent to buildings or
underlying asphalt paved areas. As a result, four arsenic impacted (>15 mg/kg) areas remain
on-site. However, the RI/BRA took into account the fact that buildings, parking areas, or
grassways now cover the site and have reduced potential future direct and indirect exposures
to the underlying soil/bedrock.
Site characterization activities evaluated data from 14 monitoring wells and 75 soil/bedrock
samples. No groundwater samples have been collected from OU-7 subsequent to the IRA.
However, pre-IRA groundwater impacts indicated arsenic and pesticide contamination exists
at moderate levels. Contaminants identified in the soil/bedrock subsequent to the IRA were
primarily remnant pockets of arsenic that were left in place due to their proximity to asphalt
covered areas or buildings. The PAHs identified in site soil/bedrock have been attributed to
anthropogenic sources.
2.6.1.1 Summary of Soil/Bedrock Investigations
Seven surface soil/bedrock samples (SFS-1 through SFS-7), collected between 0 to 4 inches
bgs, were collected at OU-7 during the 1988 installation restoration program (IRP) Phase IV
investigation and analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs), base/neutral and acid
extractable compounds (BNAs), RCRA metals, organochlorine pesticides, and chlorinated
herbicides. With the exception of sample SFS-1, these sample locations were later excavated
and removed during the 1994 IRA.
Then, in 1989, a Phase IV investigation was completed at OU-7 that included the completion
of 15 soil borings and the installation of one monitoring well. Soil samples were obtained
from the 0-2 ft and 2-4 ft interval at each soil boring location, plus one background location.
Soil borings completed during this investigation were located within approximately 50 ft of
the former pesticide storage building. With the exception of SB-3, all these sample locations
fall within the limits of the IRA excavation and are not considered representative data points.
19
-------
However, several of the 2-4 ft bgs samples may still be representative of site conditions,
given that the sample collection depth may be greater than the excavation depth. A summary
of soil/bedrock sample locations excavated during the IRA are provided in Table 2-10.
Similarly, in 1991, G&M began a CERCLA RI sampling program for OU-7 that included the
completion of 16 soil borings and the installation of three monitoring wells. Soil samples
were again obtained from the 0-2 ft and 2-4 ft bgs interval from each soil boring location.
Eleven of the soil boring locations during this investigation were installed at the perimeter of
the storage compound to delineate the horizontal extent of contamination. Five of the soil
borings were located north of the entomology storage compound, near the former OU-3 PCB
Spill Area.
A total of 26 soil/bedrock samples were collected in 1991 for chemical analyses from the 0 to
2 ft bis interval and the 2 to 4 ft bis interval bringing the total number of soil/bedrock
samples collected as part of the 1989 IRP Phase IV and 1991 CERCLA investigations to 52.
The 1989 soil/bedrock samples were designated as SB-1 through SB-15, and SS-1; and the
1991 soil/bedrock samples were designated as P2-SL-0016 through P2-SL-0030.
In 1993, Montgomery Watson performed an extended RI of the OU-7 site to fill data gaps
from previous investigations. The Montgomery Watson investigation included the
completion of three borings (P2-SL-0031 through P2-SL-0033) andthe collection of surface
(0-1 or 0-2 ft bgs) and subsurface (1 to 2 or 2 to 4 ft bgs) soil/bedrock samples from each
boring. Samples were analyzed using USEPA Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) protocols
for Target Compound List (TCL) organochlorine pesticides/PCBs and cyanide. The samples
from P2-SL-0031 were additionally analyzed for TCL VOCs, BNAs, and target analyte list
(TAL) metals.
In 1994, an IRA was recommended for OU-7 to remove and properly dispose of arsenic and
pesticide contaminated soil/bedrock. Prior to completing the IRA, an engineering
evaluation/cost analysis (EE/CA) was completed by the USAGE to evaluate remedial
alternatives while ensuring protection to the public health or welfare and the environment.
The IRA was performed in accordance with Section 300.415(b) of the National Contingency
Plan (NCP) under CERCLA.
During the IRA, a 50-ft grid was established throughout the civil engineering storage
compound. Soil/bedrock delineation samples were collected from selected locations and
20
-------
analyzed for arsenic and pesticides. Two areas were identified for excavation activities, a
North Area and South Area.
During excavation activities confirmation samples were collected from the edges and floor of
the excavation to further define the contamination limits. The confirmation samples were
initially analyzed for total arsenic. Corrective Action Levels (CALs) for soil/bedrock
removal activities were established for chlordane, 4,4'-ODD; 4,4'-DDE; 4,4'-DDT; and
arsenic based on Florida Health Based Soil Target Levels for an excess cancer risk of 1E-06
for a general worker or for an industrial scenario. The arsenic CAL was subsequently revised
by the Base Closure Team (BCT), which is comprised of representatives from the USEPA,
FDEP, Dade County Environmental Resource Management (DERM), USAF, and the'
USAGE in April 1994, indicating that a higher (15 mg/kg) level would be acceptable for
termination of the excavation activities. Samples that were found to contain less than the 15
mg/kg arsenic action level were analyzed fox TCL VOCs, TCL BNAs, TCL pesticides/PCBs,
TAL metals, and total cyanide. However, remedial boundaries were primarily established
based on arsenic concentrations found in the floor and external sidewalls of the excavation as
it progressed. A summary of the Corrective Action Levels (CALs) established for OU-7 are
provided in Table 2-11. However, as stated previously, four areas with elevated arsenic
concentrations (>15 mg/kg) were left in place due to proximity to buildings or asphalt
covered areas.
Background Soil/Bedrock Concentrations. Early investigations at Homestead ARB
delineated soil/bedrock contamination based on levels of constituents found in background
samples collected from throughout the base. Background levels at Homestead ARB for
surface (0-2 ft bis) and subsurface (2-4 ft and 4-6 ft bis) soils/bedrock were presented in the
OU-7 report prepared by G&M (G&M, 1992). Background levels were established based on
the concentrations of constituents found in soil/bedrock samples obtained from four
CERCLA sites and one RCRA site at Homestead ARB. These values, as well as the
common ranges of inorganic constituents found in soil/bedrock in the eastern U.S., the
average value of inorganics found in carbonates and typical values of both organic' and
morganic constituents found in uncontaminated soil/bedrock are shown in Table 2-12. These
values were used in earlier studies in conjunction with the background boring P2-SL-0023
(1991), as a basis for evaluating the OU-7 soil/bedrock samples.
21
-------
TABLE 2-11
SUMMARY OF
CORRECTIVE ACTION LEVELS
OU-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Chemical
Chlordane
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Arsenic
Corrective Action IPVP!
3.21 mg/kg1
17.5 mg/kg1
12.4 mg/kg1
11.3 mg/kg1
15 mg/kg2
1995
FDEP Health Based
Soil Target Levels
3.0U mg/kg3
17.0 mg/kg3
11.0 mg/kg3
12.0 mg/kg3
3.1 mg/kg3
f
-------
TABLE 2-12
BACKGROUND SOIL CONCENTRATIONS
Homestead Air Force Base, Florida
Compound
Volatile Organic Compounds (Hg/kg)
Acetone
Chlorobenzene
Mcthylene Chloride
Average
Carbonate
Composition
Hem (1989)
Homestead AFB
Background
Soil(a)
0-2 ft bis
119.2
3.8
4
Homestead AFB
Background
Soil(b)
4-6 ft bis
Typical Values
for Uncontaminated
Soils (c)
(mg/kg)
Common
Range(d)
(mg/kg)
Average(d)
(mg/kg)
Tout PAHs (pg/kg)
738.55 ugrtcg
10-1300 forest (d)
10- 1000 rural
60 - 5800 urban
8000 - 336,000 road dust
Base/Neutral and Acid Extractable Organic Compounds (u.g/kg/dw)
Acenaphthene ND
Benzo(a}anthracene 67
Benzo(a>pyrene 66
BcnzcXbJfluoranthene 69
Bcnzo(g,h.i)perylene 44
Bcnzo(k)nuoranthene 66
bis(2.Ethythexyl)phthalate 100
Chrysene 79
Dtbenzofuran ND
Fluoramhcne 52.4
Fluorene ND
2-Methylnaphthatene 84
Naphthalene 50
Phenanthrene 50
Pyrenc 49.15
1.2-Dichlorobenzene ND
1,4-Dichloroberuene ND
Total Phthalales (pg/kg) 126
Metals (mg/kg)
Aluminum 8970 2400
Antimony - <28 - 30
Arsenic 1.8 1.6
Barium 30 42.9
Beryllium - <2.8 - 2.9
Cadmium 0.048 <2.8 - 3.0
Calcium 272.000 345.000
Chromium >0.1 11.5
Cobalt . 0.12 <1. 1-1.2
Copper 4.4 <2.7-3.0
Inn 8,190 1650
Lead 16 4.05
Magotsium 45,300 1050
Manganese 842 23
Mercury 0.046 0.014
Nickel 13 <4.5-4.7
Potassium 2.390 <110-120
Selenium - <5.6 - S.7
Silver - 10,000
2-10(0
<0.1-73
10-1.500
-------
2.6.1.2 Nature and Extent of Soil/Bedrock Contamination
The OU-7 RI/BRA completed by Montgomery Watson in May 1996 presented the analytical
results for soil/bedrock samples collected prior to, during, and subsequent to the 1994 IRA.
However, characterization of the site regarding potential human and ecological health
hazards were evaluated based on the concentration of IRA confirmation/delineation samples
and previous soil/bedrock samples that were not considered within the confines (vertically or
horizontally) of the removal excavation limits. The nature and extent of contamination found
in the soil/bedrock of OU-7 presented in this report focuses only on the locations deemed
representative of the post IRA site conditions. This consists of 75 samples of which 20 were
collected during the 1991 G&M OU-7 RI, 4 from the 1993 Montgomery Watson OU-7 RI, 2
from the 1993 Montgomery Watson OU-3 RI, and 49 from the delineation/confirmation
samples from the 1994 IT removal action. Results from the samples considered
representative of site conditions have been .summarized and are presented in Table 2-13. A
more detailed discussion of the soil sampling methodologies and sample results from each
investigation can be found in the OU-7 Entomology Storage Area RI/BR (Montgomery
Watson, 1996a,b).
Volatile Organic Compounds. Fifty-one of the 75 soil/bedrock samples used to
characterize the site were analyzed for VOCs. Of the 51 samples analyzed, there were none
that contained concentrations of a VOC that exceeded the FDEP Health Based Soil Target
Levels or the Removal Action Levels. Six soil/bedrock samples had no detection of
compounds above the method detection limit, while methylene chloride and/or acetone were
identified in 29 of the 51 samples. Detections of methylene chloride and acetone compounds
in soil samples from at Homestead ARE have been attributed to laboratory or field
decontamination artifacts and are not considered representative of site conditions. Xylene
was detected above the method detection level in five soil/bedrock samples, each obtained
from within the North Area excavation. Concentrations of xylene ranged from 1.0
microgram per kilogram (ug/kg) to 200 ug/kg. Sample CSSB.l, also obtained from the
North Area excavation, had detectable concentrations of 1,1-dichlorethene (25 ug/kg),
trichloroethene (19 ug/kg), toluene (23 ug/kg), and chlorobenzene (19 ug/kg). Table 2-13
presents a summary of the VOC analytical results. Maps depicting the soil/bedrock sampling
locations are provided in Figures 2-5, 2-6,2-7, and 2-8.
22
-------
TABLE 2- 13
PAGE 1 OF 22
c
Simple ID
Simple Uttnil
VOATCIC
tnaamaiane
McthytoeChlortJe
Acetone
I.I-DKHIonxttica:
fanOtiematiaic
Tria\kneOxx
Toluene
CMoratauenc
X)1enei.Tou)
BouaJcAcId
NiftuJuJefie
2*Metfi)iiu{frh2lenc
Aceajf*rcne
Bent>l8uljlnulu!iie
CNyune
BetuatUFluotuiheiie
BtwodlPytcne
l»*J«Xl.:j.C.D>!>yrm:
Dit«>u{A.H)Anhncene
BouofiWjfayteoc
Toil PAHi
AlphlBHC
BellBHC
DcklBHC
dami BHC (Undine)
KepucNtx
Aldrtn
HepucttorEpatkfc
Eodooiirul
Dkkiw
4.4-.DDE
EnMo
EatowlflllK
Efldotulfui SllI/KC
4.4-.DOT
Meflxnjchicf
Eadm Keioee
AlpluOilcrtine
PCB.|:so(ArocJor 1260)
TALMeutt •
Ataaum
Anralc
•«<••
CxMu
Cildua
CoUh
(no
Latf
Mnjueie
Monty
Mckd
Sefcrtun
SJra
Sofea
a»c
FDEPH..!lh R™,,.| «."£ r2'S^"S K*L4»I« P2.Sr.JWt9 P2-S1..4IOI'
BucdSoUTlrget AclhiH Ltvrij
Lcrrb
NCXD
13.000
1.800.000
100
15.000.000
NCXD
28.000
9.300
3.500.000
300.000
92.000.000
NtXl)
12.000.000
1.800.000
34.000.000
30.000.000
3.500.000
30.000.000
21.000.000
300.000.000
120.000
140.000.000
48.000.000
41.000.000
310.000.000
4.900
500.000
110.000
5X100
48.000
500
5.000
500
50.000
NCXI)
42.200
NIXI)
NCXI)
NCXI)
NCXD
NCXI)
24.200
100(2)
50(2)
100(2)
NCXI)
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
224.000
NCXD
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
NCXD
30*0
50.300
NIXI)
5010
4970
5040
505
Nom
(US/IS)
(ug/kg)
("(/kg)
(uj/kg>
(ug/kg)
(i>I/kg>
("I/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg>
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ut/kg)
("gftg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
fllf/k.)
NCXI)
NtXl)
NtXl)
NtXl)
500
200
300
5.900.000
300
11.000
470X00
NCXI)
17.000
5.900.000
12,000
7.800XO)
470.000
480.000
3.000
3X00
NIXI)
3
4.000
1
600
NIXI)
430
110.000
NtXl)
ND(I)
1.000
NCXD
5.500
4tO
2/00
NtXD
9.900
9.000
NtXD
4.100
360.000
NIXD
NWI)
NtXl)
NCXD
NCXD
NCXD
101
NCXI)
296
12.400
NCXD
I7JOO
NtXD
11.300
NCXD
NIXI)
NCXD
3.210
3.210
NCXI)
NtXD
15(3)
4.940
NtXl)
1.070
NtXl)
160
NtXD
NCXD
108
NIXI)
NIXD
23
3.24
NtXl)
389
353
NIXD
NtXl)
NtXD
(ui*|>
(ug/kg)
fog/kg)
(ug/kj)
(Ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(«g/kg>
(ug/kg)
(ut/kg>
(ug/kg)
(ufkg)
0>g/*J>
— W^M^M^MB
Ctif/iu)
(fnf/)ci)
(mg/kj)
(Bf/kc)
(™I/fct}
(nc/kf)
{nc/kf)
(mf/k|)
(mi/kg)
2l
2-1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
KA
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
<2,4
<2.4
«2.4
»% eacrace to aataei nkt bctwetn colo
I - rarp-Jd UcueMd »
Moata Mutt (orfuKci anrlo); Rudin, * kn ^, CRQC to I™,,*™!,,
— r~
noi B»d to On»« «2-7TS o« •>. FAC.
PR • Ptmewly rqnned m4 rvlluMd
*°' Mk"" '*H Compo-M ,«
Ite Stw SS- 1 MXM RbMA
OUJ PAH.. Sun., mtata p
am pktacc Imt
-------
TABLE 2-13
POST EXCAVATION SUMMARY OF CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN SOIL/BEDROCK SAMPLES
OU-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
HOMESTEAD ABB. FLORIDA
PAGE 2 OF 22
Sample ID
Sample Interval
Aulvte
VOA TCL Compounds
Brnmomethane
Metftylene Chloride
Acetone
I.I-DichloroeUienc
2'Buunone
ds-l.3-Dfch)oronmpenc
Tctrach kxoethcne
Trichlonxihene
Toluene
Chlorohenzene
Xyknes. Total
BNA TCL Compounds
Benzole Acid
Naphthalene
2-MclhylnapMulene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphmenc
Dlbenzofuran
Fluorene
Phenanthiene
Anthracene
Caibazole
Di-n-Butyl Phthalacc
Fhtoranthene
Pyrcne
Benzyl Butyl Pmlulate
Bcnzo(a)Anlhjacene
Chrysene
Bis(2-Elhylhcxyl) Phtlulau
BcnzolblFluoranthene
Benzo(k)FluoraMheiic
Benzo(a)Pyrene
lnoeno(IJ.3-C.D)Pyrene
Dihenz(A.H)Anlhracen!
Benzo(tJU)PeryleM
Total PAHs
Pcsucklc/FCB TCL Compounds
Alpha BHC
Beta BHC
Delia BHC
Gamma BHC (Llndane)
Heptachlor
Aldrin
Hepuchlor Epoxide
Endosulfanl
Dicldrin
4.4--DDE
Endrtn
Endoiuiran 11
4.4'-DDD
Eodosulfan Situate
4.4'-DDT
Methozycluor
EndrinKetone
Endrin Aldehyde
Alpna-Chlordane
Gamma-CMonlane
PCB-1 260 (Aroclor 1260)
Aluminum
Anemc
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium, Total
Cobalt
Copper
boa
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
IMS
FDEF Health
Based Sol Target
Levels
NDd)
23.000
1. 8011.000
100
15.000.000
NDd)
28.000
9.300
3.500.000
300.000
92,000.000
NDd)
11000.000
1.800.000
56.000.0)0
30.000.000
3JOO.OOO
30.000.000
21.000.000
300.000.000
120.000
140,000.000
48.000.000
41.000.000
310.000:000
4.900
500.000
110.000
5.000
48.000
500
5.000
500
50.000
NDd)
ND(D
ND(D
NDd)
500
200
300
5.900.000
300
11.000
470.000
NDd)
17.000
5.90r««0
12.000
7.800.000
470.000
4SO.OOO
3.000
3.000
NDd)
+
3
4.000
t
600
ND(1)
430
110.000
NIXD
NIXD
1.000
NDd)
3.500
410
2.600
NIXD
9.900
9.000
ND(D
4JOO
560.000
Removal
ActhM Levels
NDd)
42.200
NDd)
NDd)
NDd)
NDd)
NDd)
24.200
100(2)
50(2)
100(2)
NDd)
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
I.OWX2)
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
224.000
NDd)
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
N0d>
5040
50.300
ND(I)
5010
4970
540
5040
505
ND(I)
NDd)
NDd)
NDd)
ND(I)
NDd)
NDd)
101
NDd)
296
12.400
NDd)
ND(D
17.500
ND(1)
11.300
NDd)
ND(1)
ND(I)
3.210
3.210
NDd)
ND(D
I5<3)
4.940
NDd)
1,070
NDd)
160
ND(1>
NIXD
NDd)
108
NDd)
NIXD
23
3.24
NDd)
389
353
NDd)
NIXD
NDd)
Units
rt-.lbl.
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
lug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
<»g/kg>
(ut/kg)
(ug/kg)
(tit/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/tg)
(ug/fcg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(uiftg)
(us/kg)
(ug/kg>
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/ltg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kt)
(ug/kg)
(ug/k|)
(Ug/kg)
(mf/kf)
(mi/kg)
(mi/kf)
(mg/kf)
2S» «n->n»ct todneewl vike btnntn cobamt
B-co»«ndat«t
NK-Noiltqnwl
AMIyte «na iljo MM UMd ta Qufm «2-773 of MM FAC
2 - Anlyv •» m kiud a* a* Sal Ton Uvrt TjN. M m tkud « CkaDKr SJ.T75 of *e FAC
T«at VOC UM • Ctoft* «J.77» • M«n| a nmnui aacfMnm at 100 w»i a*H I o«*l t* Toul MHi.
3 • Sfmoat Aon Lord Al DoBion»r 1CT.
PR - Pmlaalv repanM >u tnfenrt
-------
TABLE 2.13
POST EXCAVATION SUMMARY OF CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN SOIL/BEDROCK SAMPLES
OU-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
PAGE 3 OF 22
Simple ID
Stmffe Utrrva!
BromoroahJoe
MohjfcaeCNortdc
Acctoec
U'Dkttcrocthcnc
2'BuurtOtx
Torxhtorocthcne
Thchlwoctbenc
Totueae
Xylcoa. Total
BouoicAcId
NipMutae
ActmphCjlCTC
FluortM
Phcu.-u.Vcnc
AnJncnc
Outvote
RwifMlhenc
Pjrtnc
Bouo(a)AKjinccne
ClXJtKflC
BIK2-El)i]rltictyl) Ptxhjliu
B«uo(k)Flucnaticn:
Toil PAHl
AlftuBHC
BCUBHC
DelUBHC
CunnuBHCtUnduK)
Hcpuctiior
AJOrtQ
EnXmilful
OicldrM
4.4-.DDE
Eedria
4.4-.DOD
Eatauilf«aSul/«
4.4-.ODT
MatezyttuVx
EedrtaKaaoe
CumuOHonliiic
TALMeuU — — — —
AnctJc
BaytHua
Cutalum
Cddua
Cotxh
Ire*
Lad
Mifwlum
Mauy
Nktel
Srfwhus
Sil«r
Socfcffl
Vuudua
ZlK
"** ''«"» PJ-SL-OM9 P2-S1.-002'
FDEPHralUi Ranavil It-lN. 0-2 2-4
B»aj Soli T*nct< Action Lcrtli
Lenb
NWD
23.000
l.son.ooo
ion
15.000.000
NWI)
28.000
9.300
3.300X100
300.000
92.000.000
NWI)
12.000.000
1400.000
56.000.a»
30.000.000
3.SOOXW)
30.000.000
21.000.000
300.000.000
120.000
140.000.000
48.000.000
41.000.000
310.000.000
4.900
300.000
110.000
5.000
48.000
300
3.000
300
50.000
NWI)
NWI)
NWI)
NWI)
500
200
300
5.900.000
300
11.000
470.000
NWD
I7JX»
5.900.000
12.000
7400X00
470.000
480.000
3.000
3.000
NWO
3
4.000
1
600
NWI)
430
110.000
NWI)
NWI)
1.000
NWD
5.500
480
2.600
NWD
9.900
9.000
NWD
4JOO
S&OjOOO
NWI) (ug/kg)
42.200 (ug/fcg)
NWI) (ug/kg)
NWD (ug/kl)
NWI) (ug/kg)
NWD (ug/kg)
NWD (ug/kg)
24.200 (ug/k|)
100(2) (ug/kg)
30(2) (ug/k()
100(2) (ug/t;)
NWI) (U|/kg)
1.000(2) (Uf/kf)
1.000(2) (ug/kg)
1.000(2) (ug/kg)
1.000(3) (ug/kg)
1.000(2) (ug/kg)
1.000(2) (ug/kg)
1.000(2) (ug/kg)
1.001X2) (ug/kg)
234.000 (ug/kg)
NWI) (ug/kg)
1.000(2) (ug/kg)
1.000(2) (ug/kg)
NWD (ug/kg)
5040 (ug/kg)
50.300 (u»/kg)
NWI) (ug/kg)
3010 (ug/Vg)
4970 (ug/lcg)
540 (ug/kg)
3040 (ug/kg)
503 (ug/kg)
NWI) (ug/kg)
NWD (Eg/kg)
NWI) (ug/kg)
NWD (ugAg)
NWI) (ug/fcg)
NWD (ug/kg)
NWD (ug/kg)
101 (ug/ko
NWD (ugAf)
12,400 (ug/kg)
NWD (ug/kg)
17^00 (ug/kg)
NWD (ui/kj)
1IJOO (ugAg)
NWD (ug/kg)
NWD P2-SL-003O P2.SI.-00.1
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
NA
NA
NA
<2.3
<2.3
<2.3
<4.6
<4.6
<4.6
5.6
<4.6
<4.6
<93
NA
<2J
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
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
<4.9
<4.9
<4.9
15
<4.9
<4.9
.20
12
.20
NA
<2-5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
l» P3-SU.OOJ;
0-2
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
NA
NA
<2.0
<2J>
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<3,8
5.7
<3.8
<3.8
4.8 P
<3.8
30 B
<20
<3.8
<3.S
<2.0
<38
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
! P2-SI.-9032 P2-SI.-0033
1-4 0-2
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
NA
NA
-Na
-------
TABLE 2-13
POSTEXCAVATIOM5UMMARYOF CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN SOIL/BEDROCK SAMPLES
OU-7. ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
PAGE 4 OF 22
Simple ID
Simple literal
Aulyte
BromomeUune
Mcthytene Chloride
Acetone
I.I-Diditomethcn:
2'Butanone
cis-l.3-Dichloroprapene
Tctradiloroelhcne
TrichJoroetnenc
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Xytaw. Total
BenzoicAcid
Naphthalene
2-Metfiylnaphmalene
AcenaphlhyUne
Accniphlhene
Oibenzoruran
Fluorene
Phenanthrcne
Anthracene
Carhazoie
Di-n-Bulyl Phthalale
Fluoranlhene
Pyrene
Benzyl Butyl Phthalate
Benzo(a)Anthracene
Chrvscne
Bis(2-EUiylhexyl) Pnlhalau
BenzoOilFluortnlhenc
Bcnzo(k)Fluorantnene
Benzo(a)Pvrene
lndeno(1.2.3<.D)Pyrenc
Dibeu(A.H)Anthracene
Benzo(gJi.i)Perylene
Total PAHs
Alpha BHC
BetlBHC
Delia 8HC
Gamma BHC (Undanc)
Hepuchlor
Aldrin
Hepuchlor Epoxide
Endonlfanl
Oieldrin
4.4'-DDE
Endrin
Endosulfan II
4.4'-DDD
Endotulfan Situate
4.4'.DDT
Methoxychlor
Endrin Ketooe
Endrin Aldehyde
Alpha-Chloroane
Gamma-Ouordane
PCB-1260(Aroc!orl260)
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium. Total
Cobtll
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
1WS
FDEP Health
Band Soil T«rget
Lereb
NtXl)
23.000
1.800.000
100
15.000.000
NIXI)
28,000
9.300
3.500,000
300.000
92.000.000
NtHI)
12,000.000
1.800.000
36.000.000
30.000.000
3JOO.OOO
30.000.000
21.000.000
300,000,000
120.000
140.000.000
48.000.000
41.000.000
310.000,000
4,900
500.0110
110.000
5.000
48.000
500
5.000
500
50.000
NIXD
NtXD
NIXD
NIXI)
500
200
300
5.900.000
300
11.000
470.000
NIXD
17.000
5.900X0)
12,000
7,800,000
470,000
480.000
3.000
3,000
NIXD
•f
3
4.000
I
600
NIX!)
430
110.000
NIXD
NIXD
1.000
NIXD
5.500
480
2.600
NIXD
9.900
9.000
NfXl)
4.800
560.000
Uoltt
Removal CL-ibl.
Acllnt Levels
ND(11
42.200
NIXD
NfXD
NIXD
NOdl
NtXD
24.200
100(2)
50(2)
100(2)
NEXD
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
1.000C)
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
224.000
NIXI)
1.000(2)
1,000(2)
NIXD
5040
50.300
NtXD
5010
4970'
540
5040
505
ND(D
NIXD
NIXD
NIXD
NtXl)
NIXD
NIXI)
101
NIXI)
296
12.400
NIXD
NtXD
1 7,500
NIXD
11.300
NTXD
NIXD
NtXD
3,210
3.210
NIXD
NtXD
15(3)
4.940
NIXD
1.070
NIXI)
160
NIXI)
NIXD
NIXD
IDS
NIXI)
NIXD
23
3.24
NtXD
389
353
NIXD
NIXD
NIXD
(Hi/kg)
(ug/kg>
(ug/kgi
(ug/kg!
(ug/kg)
(u8/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kj>
(ug/kg)
teg/kg)
(ug/kg)
Ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ft/kg)
fug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(»g/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(US/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg>
(ug/kg)
(UK/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(t>C/kg>
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg>
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
("(/*«)
{ug/kg>
(ug/kg)
(tig/kg)
(ug/kg)
(Ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
(nig/kg)
(mg/kg)
(mg/Vg)
(nig/kg)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
(mi/kg)
(ing/kg)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
Now:
SP3-SL-4M
0-1
PR
PR
PR
PR
?R
PR
NA
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
NA
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
2610
123
11.4
<0.20
1.4
270000
IJ
0.81
7.6
1830
27.4
97!
69.9
<0.t2
2.2B
545B
<4.0
<0.40
4 JOB
5.7B
34.4
<
06 SP3-SL900S
0-1
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
NA
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
NA
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
3120
109
9.8
<0.20
1.3
261000
9.5
<0.4I
10.2
2050
20.5
875
39.2
<0.12
I. SB
554B
<4.0
<0.40
443B
5JB
38.8
act detected at specified
NEJ
3
2S« aaema to daccud value bemeo c
» - compoon) daeeim In wvva bUok . a*> not luttd io ChiOK. 62-773 oflh. FAC.
3 - AnalrK .. m l,ud mmt joa T.p< L...I TaWc tan.. Hud In Qupw 42-775 ofth. FAC.
Totil VOC liatd « Ourur A2-H5 M hanof A mulnum concratnuon ot 100 M|A{ Md 1 m(A| tor Toul PAHl
) - bm>Yil Acuoo u»rt Ai Dcumutd Sy §CT.
PR • PKnoi'mpotM nlnil.udcl.nni otr Sllc SS-IMXJ.J RlfflRA
Boi »lc><. PAH Compma U«J „ CHC.I« «,i PAH. Sluan, indiciw ,re»n nun i
-------
TABLE 2-13
rOSTEXCAVATTONS^YO^^^^^
HOMESTEAD ABB. FtOKIDA
PAGE 5 OF 22
BNA TCL CtxnpouaJi
<730
<730
<730
<730
<730
<730
<730
1100
220)
<380
<380
<380
<380
<1SO
<380
<3BO
731
<380
<380
r
<400
<400
<400
<400
<400
<400
<400
<400
<40n
4lf>
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
«2.0
c2.0
<4.0
<4.0
<4.0
<4.0
<4.0
<4.0
<4.0
110)
too;
<4in
65)
881
1900
2200
<730
1400
1300
3OOI
3601
<380
2501
51)
47)
<400
<400
1601 1 2000
<4tO
79)
<4IO
130)
<730
970
280)
550J
300)
240)
2301
691
160)
441
47J
<400
511
*"»•»«• «»«1««OI IMM • Oupv «-775 of 0* FAC
>AHr i i i— «•.«!—• --- T-tii Ttirtu
-------
TABLE 2-13
POST EXCAVATION SUMMARY OF CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN SOIL/BEDROCK SAMPLES
OU-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
HOMESTEAD AKB. FLORIDA
PAGE 6 OF 22
Sample ID H9S Units
Sample Interval FDEPHwIUi R«n»*l fu-lhl.
Analyl* Based Soil Tare* Action Levels
Levels
VOA TCL Compounds
Bromomettune NIXI) ND(I) (ug/kg)
Methylene Chloride 23,000 42.200 (ug/kg)
Acetone 1.800.000 NtXI) (ug/kg)
l.l-EXchloroethcne 100 ND(I> (ug/kg)
2-Butanone 15.000.000 NO(I) (at/kg)
dl-U-Dichlorotironene NfXl) NO(1) (ug/kg)
Tenchloroethene 28.000 ND(1) (ug/kg)
Trlchloroethcne 9.300 24.200 (ug/kg>
Toluene 3.500.000 100(2) (ug/kg)
Chlorotenzene 300,000 50(2) (ug/kg)
Xylenes, Total 92.000.000 100(2) (ug/kg)
BNA TO. Compounds
BenzoicAcid NIXI) NIXI) (ug/kg)
Naphthalene 12.000.000 1.000(2) (ug/kg)
2-Metnylnapmhllaie 1.100,000 1.000(2) (ug/kg)
Aceniprahylene 56.000.000 1.000(2) (ug/kg)
Acciuphthene 30.000jOOO 1.000(2) (ug/kg>
Dibenzoniran 3JOO.OOO 1.000(2) (ug/kg)
Fluorene 30.000.000 1.000(2) (ug/kg)
PheninHrenc 21.000.000 1.0110(2) (ug/kg)
Anthracene 300.000.000 1.000(2) (ug/kg)
Cartuzole 120.000 224.000 (ug/kg)
Di-n-Buty! Phuultte 140,000.000 NIXI) (tig/kg)
Fluoranthene 48.000.000 1,000(2) (ug/kg)
Pyrcns 41.000.000 1.000(2) (ug/kg)
Benzyl Butyl PtilhalM 310.000.000 NtXI) (ug/kg)
Benzo(i)Arahncene 4,900 5040 (ug/kg)
Cnrysene 500.000 J0.300 (ug/kg)
BivP-Ethylhexyl) FhUuliti 110,000 NtXD (ug/kg)
Benzo(b)Fluoniuhene 5.000 5010 (ug/kg)
Benzo(k}FluonuiuVne 48.000 4970 (ug/kg)
BcnzodlPyienc 500 540 (ug/kg)
lndeno(1.2J-C.D)Pyirne 5.000 5040 (ug/kg)
Dibcnz(A.H)Anlhraccne 500 505 (ug/kg)
BenzoigJUlPcrylene 50.000 NIXI) (ug/kg)
Toul PAHs (Ut/k, )
Peillcide/PCB TCI. Compound!
Alpha BHC ND(I) NtXD (ug/kg)
BeuBHC ND(I) NIXI) (ug/kg)
Delta BHC NtXD NtXD (ugfltg>
Gamma BHC (Undue) ND(I) ND(D (ug/kg)
Hepuchlot 500 NIXI) (ug/kg)
Aldrin 200 NIXI) (ug/kg)
HeptachlorEpoude 300 101 (ug/kg)
Endosulfinl 5.900.000 ND(1) (ug/kg)
Dieldrln 300 296 (ug/kg)
4.4--DDE 11.000 12,400 (ug/kg)
Endrin 470.000 ND(I) (ug/kg)
Endoiuirui II Nrxi) NCKD (ug/kg)
4.4'-DDD 17.000 17.500 (ug/kg)
Endoculfin Sulfate 5.900.000 ND(1) (ug/k|)
4.4'.DDT UXMO 11.300 (ug/kj)
Methoxyddor 7.800.000 ND(1) (ug/kg)
Endrin Ketone 470.000 ND(I) (ug/kg)
Endrin Aldehyde 480,000 ND(1) (ug/kg)
Alphi-OUordine 3.000 3.210 (ug/kg)
Gamma-Chlordane 3.000 3,210 (ug/kg)
PCB-1260(Arodocl260) ND(I) NtXD (ug/kg)
Aluminum t NIXI) (Dig/kg)
Anenlc 3 15(3) (mg/kg)
Barium 4,000 4.940 (mg/kg)
Beryllium l ND<1) On/kg)
Cadmium 600 1.070 (mg/kg)
Calcium NIXI) NtXD (mg/kg)
Chromium, Total 430 160 (mf/k|)
Cobalt IIOOOO NfXl)
Selenium 9.900 3J9 (mg/k()
Silver 9X100 353 (mi/kg)
Sodium NtXI) NtXD (mg/kf)
Vanadium 4,800 ND(I) (mjfltg)
Zinc 560.000 NtXD (mf/kf)
NWISJ
3
<1500
3SOBJ
340BJ
<1500
<2100
<2IOO
5IOJ
350)
<2IOO
<2IOO
310)
<2IOO
<2IOO
<2IOO
350J
<2IOO
<2IOO
<2IOO
1950
<2.l
<2.l
<2.1
<2.1
<2.I
<2.I
<2.1
25* dUCacna IB dcucw) alB k
NR-NatlUcawl
1 - ND - No dva. aorf]rMwiM^brBO(UjMlantBrSailTatce(L«velTAkorwwHxwl.buiqulifl«twidilANO.
Aiulm m UB « Um*S to Oipur tO-TIl ot o» FAC.
t - AnalfH w* IK BtM o. M Sat T«t« Lral TH* M »M lkl» to Qupur 62-77J ••>•! nf imin(l| »M1 1 tt^Auj tar Total PAHi
3 - Xenoral AOVMI Level AjtOt*um*m&*j BCT.
• ---- • "'" ' — -T~r~1 T-^ ' ----- I'BI mil ri III n ••»! ia«i:nrl jic Mtr *!•
-------
TABLE 2-13
POST EXCAVATION SUMMARY OF CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN SOIL/BEDROCK SAMPLES
OU-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
HOMESTEAD ARB, FLORIDA
PAGE 7 OF 22
Sample ID
Sample latcrval
Aulyl*
Broatomcthine
MelhykneCNonde
Acetone
t.l-OchlarailKae
2-Bounone
Tendikiroeihene
TrkhlocoethcK
Toluene
CUorobceunc
XyknekToul
BouoicAdd
Nacnilulenc
l-Methyliujidtlulene
AcetupniAylcne
Accuphthene
Dibouofunn
Fluorene
Fhenintrrme
Anthracene
Carbuole
Den-Butyl Fhtluliie
Ftoonnthene
Pjntne
Bciuyl Butyl PhUuIiie
BctwX a) Anthracene
Chryiene
BtKl.Einyliiesyl) RuluUit
BcruofrJfluoranUicne
S«niolk}Fluonncnee«:
BentcOJPyrcnc
Ditxal(A.H)Aanrxene
BewoffAHPerjIene
Tcul PAHs
AlfCuBIIC
BCUBHC
DcluBHC
Ginitu BHC (UnOuic)
Hecuchlof
AWr.a
HcctKNcrEpoiioe
Endcaiirul
Dkfcttn
4.4 .DDE
Endrln
EaJonilfMU
4.4-.DDD
EntorjlfinSclfMc
W-DDT
MahatycMor
EadrmKoooe
EndrtaAkldiycle
Alfju-QJcrdine
Guvna-Cnlonltte
rCB-1260(Arodor 1260)
Anealc
Bart urn
BoylUiua
Cactalsa
Cakhta
Chromium. Total
CoMt
Ira*
Lad
Mataaaua
Mercury
NtcUJ
Sekalita
SUitr
Softa
VuacUto
Zlac
1»95
FDEP Health
Bated Soil Target
NWD
23XXJO
1.800.000
100
15.000.000
NWD
28.000
9.300
3JOO.OOO
300.000
92.000.000
NWD
12.000,000
1.800.000
56.000.000
30.000.000
3.300.000
30.000.000
21.000.000
300.000.000
120.000
140,000.000
43.000.000
41.000.000
310.000.000
4.900
300.000
110.000
5.000
48.000
500
5.000
500
50.000
NWD
NWI)
NWD
NWD
500
200
300
5.900.000
300
11.000
470.000
NWD
17,000
5,900.000
12,000
7.600XCO
470.000
480.000
3.000
.3,000
NWD
3
4.000
1
600
NWD
430
110.000
NWD
1.000
NWD
5.500
410
Z600
NWD
9.900
9.000
NIXD
4.MO
560.000
Units
Removal rt.-tM.
Action Leveb
NWD
42.200
NWI)
NWD
NWI)
NWI)
NWD
24.200
100(2)
50(2)
100(2)
NWD
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
224.000
NWD
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
NWD
5040
50.300
NWD
5010
4970
540
5040
505
NWD
NWI)
NWD
NWD
NWD
NWD
NWD
101
NWI)
296
12,400
NWI)
NWD
17.500
NWD
IIJOO
NWD
NWD
NWD
3.210
3.210
NWD
NWD
15(3)
4.940
WXD
1,070
NWD
160
NWD
NWD
NWD
108
NWD
NWI)
23
3.24
NWD
389
353
NWI)
NWD
NWD
(ug/k()
(ug/k()
(uj/kg)
(tig/kg)
(ujAg)
(ug/kg)
(uf/kg)
(ug/kj)
(ujAf)
(ugrtf) [
(uj/kg)
(u|/kg)
(aj/tg)
(UJftg)
(ugAg)
(UgAg)
(ugncg)
(u{/kf)
(ut/kx)
(uj/kj)
(ujyvg)
(ui/ki)
(ut/kx)
(uc/kf)
(uj/kx)
(tij/kj)
(uiVk()
(utAc)
(urAl)
(rat/Vj)
(n^kf}
(aac/lu)
(au/kx)
(•(AD
(ns/kc)
{nit/Vi)
{nc/k()
(»|A|>
(Bf/W
(mt/kx}
(rai/kx)
(mjTlj)
FCS7J
5
<1600
470BJ
1» aaaaa ta dMood v
-coo?omiaM«
NTi-No.Kqx.irf
I - ND . No «* IkM o. tx Sod Tiri« Urt TiM< M .« tbBd la Ourm O-T1S at «" FAC
•o« nttcm PAH CagpaM •»* u
-------
TABLE 2-13
POST EXCAVATION SUMMARY OF CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN SOIL/BEDROCK SAMPLES
OU-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
HOMESTEAD ARIt. FLORIDA
PAGES OF22
Sample ID
Simple Interval
Adalyte
VOA TCL Compounds
Brutnomethane
Mcthylene Chloride
Acetone
I.I-Dtthloroclbcne
2-Buunone
cis- 1 J-DichkHOpropcne
TetrachloroeUiene
Trichloroethcne
Toluene
Chlorobcnzene
Xylcnes. Total
SNA TCL Compounds
BeniCMC Acid
Naphthalene
2-MtthylnaphthaJene
Acenaphthylene
Acenapbihcnc
Dibenzoftiran
Fhnrene
Anthracene
Caibazole
Di-n-Butyl PttthaJaW
Fluorinthenc
Pyrene
Benzyl Butyl Frxhalate
BenzoU) Anthracene
Chryscne
BUa-Ethylhenyl) Phthalau
B*nzo(l>}Fluonnihcne
Benzo(k)F]uoramfienc
Benzo(i)PyTene
lndeno( 1 .2.3-C.O)PyTene
Dibenz(A.H)Anthtacene
Benzo(g.h.l)Perylene
Total PAHx
Peofctde/PCB TCL Compounds
Alpha BHC
Beta BHC
Delia BHC
Gamma BHC
(ug/kl)
(ug/kl)
(uj/kl)
(uefl<»)
W<«)
(ujftj)
(ujrtj)
(uj^J)
(uCM)
(lit/kg)
(uB/kg>
(u{/k{)
(Ul/kf)
(ujflcj)
(u
(ug/k*>
(UfA:g)
(ugAt)
(ujAtt)
(ug/k|)
(u|/k|)
(ui/kf)
(m^t)
(UIAO
(ujdct)
(UI/W
(ui^O
(ul/kj)
(uitna)
(ugA{)
6>g/fc|>
(ujAl)
(ug/k|)
(U{Af)
(ujAl)
(«|ft»>
(UfflCf)
(U(ftf)
(UI^I)
(»t*i)
(til/ks)
(utAx)
<
(U(ntl)
<«|flU)
(utncO
(U(fl
(m(/k|>
(m|/k|)
(msmi)
(m|A|)
(m^tj)
(mj/V«)
15« (Ulinm M itaxud nbc bcnneo (Xum
1-ND-Noibu. w
A»ilyuw».«l«>,»
2 - AU>M >M nu
in •• Son T»« LnU T«Mc M w> H«d to Oi(«r «2-T73 or W FAC
or 100 H/ti mi I m«A» (be Too* MH«.
A»T I »>T»CT.
a»Ste SS-IVOIM RVBRA
r AHk. SkMknt inatcMM 1TMM DUB Cftidam told.
-------
TABLE M3
PAGE 9 OF 22
Simple ID
Analjte
BrOCKRKUUDC
MnhjrteneChlorelc
Acetone
I.l-Dtettcraelhenc
2'BuunOflc
TenchlonxttiQK
Trtchloroctficnc
Toluene
Chlococxtuenc
Xylcnet. Tu<«l
BtlUOKAcid
NiphUulcne
AcoupMnjilcne
AcaupfttfKnc
DtbCTUofltnn
Fluorene
PhauBuVene
Anthracene
Cvtuiolc
DI>a-But> 1 Ftnluhfe
Fbonnhcnc
Pyrcne
Bemjrl Bn>l Phihaiiic
BenKXrtAnthncenc:
Chiytcae
BWJ.EihjtnacyDI'hllulia
BauoftjFIvioranihcne
B«uo(k)Fluana)Kne
BcmoMPjieue
Indent* IJJ-C.D)P)Ttne
DibnufA.H)Anhnt:
BcuO(gAl)Pci>l«x
. Tcul PAH«
PeaWdcVKTB TCL Compounds ~
Alpha BHC
BctlBHC
DrtuBHC
Omni BHC(UocUnc)
Hcpcxhlor
AJdrln
KcpuciilarEpoilde
Eidowirul
Dtcldna
4.4--DDE
Endnn
Eodotuiru II
4.4--DDD
EndouiirinSulfae
4.4-.DOT
Moftoiychte
Eadno Kctcne
Eadrta Aldehyde
Atpht-CMonlue
PCB.|2iO(Arodor 1260)
TALMcull
Alu ml nun
Altaic
Birtoa
Btryfilum
Ctdnlun
Cifchwi
ChnxaIum.Toul
Cobtft
Copper
bo*
Lad
Mtpnfca
Mutuete
Mercury
Nkkd
Scfcsftn
Sodua
Vtojclura
ZlK
1995
FDEP Health
Bated Sou Tirtet
I^-rrtj
NIXD
23.000
1.800.000
100
15.000.000
NIXI)
28.000
9.300
3.500.000
300.000
92.000.000
NIXD
12,000,000
1.800.000
56.000.000
30.000.000
3.500.000
30.000.000
21.000.000
300.000.000
120.000
140.00C.OOO
48.000.000
41.000X00
310.000X00
4.900
500.000
110.000
5.000
48.000
500
5.000
500
50,000
NIXI)
NIXD
NtXl)
NIXD
500
200
300
5.900XOO
300
11.000
470.000
NIXD
17X00
5.900.000
12,000
7.800.000
470.000
480.000
3.000
3X00
NIXD
*
3
4.000
600
NIXD
430
IIOXOO
NIXD
NIXD
1.000
5.500
480
2,600
NIXD
9.900
9.000
NWD
4MB
560.000
Units CS2S.I CS25J
R*mo«al n..iw. ! 3
Action Uvebj
42.200 (ug/kg) 7J
NIXI) (us/kg) 41
NIXD (iig/kg) e) 43
NIXD (ugfltg) <2.1
ND(l) {ueflr*) <2.l
NIXD (ugrtg) 2S* ourona U dtucwl
-------
TABLE Z-13
^
HOMECTIADAHB. FLORIDA
Sample ID
Sample laurval
1*05
FDEr Health
Based Soil T
levels
•••— »w_^
VOA TCL Compounds
Bromomelhanc
Methylene Chloride
Acetone
U-Dfchlorocthcne
2-Bulanone
cSi-U-rAchtoropropciic
Tetrachkxucthcnc
Trichlorocthenc
Toluene
Qilorofccnzcne
Xykncs. Tool
ND(I)
23,000
I.BOO.OOO
100
15.000.000
ND
<1500
380)
lhexyl) Phthalau
Benzo(b)FluoranllKn:
B«nzo(k)Flooranu>:ne
BcnaXalPyrene
...yren
Dit>cnz
3
4,000
I
600
ND(1)
430
110.000
NDC1)
ND(1)
1.000
ND
NCKI)
NCKI)
N0(l)
NtXI)
101
NCXI)
296
11400
ND(1)
NEKI)
I7JOO
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
("I/kg)
fue/kf>
("SAg)
(ugftg)
(ug/k«
(ugflcj)
(ugAg)
(ugftg)
fug/kg)
(ujfltg)
("g/kg)
11,300
ND(I)
ND(I)
3.210
3.210
NCKI)
15(3)
4.940
NCKI)
1.070
NCXD
ISO
ND(1)
NEKI)
NCHI)
108
NEKI)
NCHI)
23
3.24
NCKD
389
353
NCKI)
NCHI)
ND(1)
(ug'kg)
(ug/kg)
(ugnrg)
90
<>90
1IOJ
IJOJ
<390
IKH
m —
«60
<.<90
150
IMJ
<390
<390
1:01
<390
<390
<4IO
<4IO
<4IO
<4IO
<4IO
<4IO
<4IO
<4IO
<410
<4IO
<4IO
<4IO
1- 541 ~
<410
•C4IO
<410
<4IO
<4IO
<410
<4IO
<410
54^
<390
<390
<390
<390
<390
<390
<390
<390
<390
<390
1 210J
1 280<
<390
2001
2201
<390
<3»n
3701
I7IU
14OJ
6OI
140J
1.853
<390
<390
<390
<390
<390
<390
<39f)
1 631 |
<390
"=390
727
I 54J 1
1 841 |
<390
<390
<390
<390
<390
»i__J
<3VO
<39O
44) I
300
<2J)
<2.0
<2.0
•C2.0
4.6
<2.0
-------
TABLE 2-13
PAGE 11 OF 22
SxnpitlatCT-.il
Auljlc
Bnxnomctlunc
MohylcneOilMhlc
Acocee
U-DWiloroctliav:
2'BuUflone
cfc-U-Dfchlorefrorm:
Tctridtloroahcn:
TdcMcroeihav
Toluox:
CMorutKiuaK
Xjkno.Toul
BouolcAcId
NlpWukne
2)lra(*aulcnc
Acoupfchylo*
Acetuptuhcne
CMbcnioAjran
Fjootra:
PtenanCraie
AnOocn*
Cutudc
tX-B-BntylPtuhilae
FMonnlteae
Pjrtne
Beayl Butyl nxhUMe
BouodlAatfnccne
O»)f«cic
BMJ.Bhjtheiy!) PtuhiUu
B«uo(b)FliK>niilfCTc
B«uoX (mg/kg)
ND(I) (mgflig)
NIXD (rag/kg)
23 (mg/kg)
3.2* tag/kg)
NIXD (nx/kg)
389 (mg/kg)
353 {mg/kg)
NIXI) (mg/kg)
NIXD 2S» aamwa to dwcud rtf* b«>K)i
3 • Kcoo.ll ACUOB Lnd A> DtmMiJ tr, iCT.
tB - Pram*, npKM « oHunt OAc U» SiK SS-1VOU-3 UIRA
— in
-------
TABLE 2-13
CAGE 12 OF 72
Sample ID
Sample interval
Analyte
Bnxnomelnane
McthykneCWunoe
Acetone
I.l-Dlchloroclhenc
2-Butanone
dJ-l.3-DichIotopropcnc
Tetrachloroelhene
Trlchtoroethene
Toluene
Chlcrotenzene
Xylenes. Total
Benzole Acid
Naphthalene
2-MettiylnapjiUulcne
Acenaphthylene
Aceruphthene
Dibenzofuran
Fhiorene
Phenamhrene
Anthracene
Cartwole
Di-n-Butyl PtlUulatt
Fluoranlhene
Pyrene
Benzyl Butyl Ptuhalale
Benzc4a)Anlhncene
Chrysene
Benzo(b)Fl uonnthene
Bcnzo(k)F!uoramhene
Benzo(a)Pyrene
Indeno( U J
Arsenic
Birium
BerylUnm
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium, Total
Cobalt
Copper
boa
Lead
Magneskun
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
SdeaUua
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
'»« Units
FDEr Health Removal n.-lb4.
Based Soil Target Action Levels
Levels
NWD
23.000
1.800.000
100
15.000,000
NWD
28.000
9.300
3300.000
300.000
92.000.000
NWD
12.000.000
1,800.000
56.000.000
30.000,000
3.500.000
30.000.000
21.000.000
300.000.000
120.000
140.000.000
48.000.000
41.000.000
310.000.000
4.900
500.000
110.000
5.000
48.000
500
5.000
500
50.000
NWD
NWD
NWD
NWD
500
200
300
5.900.000
300
11.000
470.000
17.000
5500.000
12.000
7.800.000
470.000
480.000
3.000
3.000
NWD
3
4.000
1
«00
NWD
430
110,000
NWD
NWD
1.000
NWD
5.500
4*0
2.600
NWD
9.900
9.000
NWD
4JOO
560.000
NWD
42.200
NWD
NWD
NWD
NWD
NWD
24.200
100(2)
50(2)
100(2)
NWD
1.000(2)
1400(2)
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
1,000(2)
1,000(2)
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
224.000
NWD
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
NWD
5040
50.300
NWD
5010
4970
540
5040
505
NWD
NWD
NWD
NWD
NWD
NWD
NWD
lot
NWD
296
12.400
NWD
NWD
17.500
NWD
11.300
NWD
NWD
NWD
3JIO
3,210
NWD
NWD
15(3)
4.940
NWD
1,070
NWD
160
NWD
NWD
NWD
IOC
NWD
23
J.24
NWD
389
353
NWD
NWD
NWD
•a«— *-^— ^.^a™ « .
(ug/kg)
fog/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg>
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kgl
(ugflcg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kj)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(uj/icj)
(Lj/ta)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
<"E/kg)
(ug/kf)
P2-SL-OOK
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
<2.4
<2-4
<2.4
<2.4
<2.4
<4.g
<4.8
<4.8
<4.8
<4.8
14
<96
NA
3.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
22222222222
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<24
<24
<24
<24
<2.4
<48
420
<48
430
890
<960
NA
90
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
> P2-SL-OOI!
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
NA
NA
<2.4
<4.9
<49
•04.9
<4.9
<4.9
<4.9
<20
<9S
<20
NA .
<2.4
<2.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
P2-ȣ*)2I
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
NA
NA
NA
<2.4
<2.4
2» duTacna to doeciaj »H
NR • Not R«pon*i
l.ND-Noaiu. ««»K«
mi cvMuM Oraf IX sm SS-IMXJ-} DURA
-------
TABLE 2-13
POST EXCAVATION SUMMARY OF CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN SOIL/BEDROCK SAMPLES
OU-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
PAGE 13 OF 22
('
Sample ID
Sample latrnal
AB*J)t#
VO A TO. ComfasaH
Bflxwfflttfufte
McUqtene CMntde
Acetone
I.^Dkftlonxlhcnc
2:B*jt&noaG
dl'liJ-DichlorceircpcftC
TeaKMoraeilKiK
TrkMoroeUxne
Toluene
ChJoriXxiucnc
XjkrKtToul
BNA TCL Corecoundi
BtnjoteAdd
Nifhtfulene
2-MnlijlfupfDula*
AccfuptvhylcAe
Aceuphthene
Dircntoraran
Fluorcne
Phctunthrenc
Anthracene
Cvhuole
(X-lvButyl Pntiulite
F)ucruuhcne
Pyrtnc
Bcniyl Butyl Fitful tie
BouiXalADthncene
Cftryme
BUl2'EiA)1ae*-yt) Plxhibu
BcfUtxbjnuonmheBe
Bctuo(k)FlucnnUicK
Bctuo(a)Pyreftf]
Infcnol IA3-CD»P}ienc
Dlttc
8
100(2)
NWD
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
224.000
NWD
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
NWD
5040
50.300
NWD
5010
4970
540
5040
505
NWI)
NWI)
NWD
NWD
NWD
NWD
NWD
101
NWD
296
12.400
NWD
NWD
17.500
NWI)
11.300
NWD
NWD
NWD
3.2,10
3.210
NWD
NWD
15(3)
4.940
NWD
1.070
NWD
160
NWD
NWD
NWD
108
NWD
NWD
23
3.24
NWD
389
353
NWD
NWD
NWD
UnlU
fL-IN.
(u(/kf)
(ug/kg)
(tig/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(Ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(11*1)
(ug/kg)
(US/leg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
tug/kg )
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ut/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ugAs)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
B%OUtat*ctl*:
dwcKdvitoeben
ratncobtakM
l-ND-No»Mc
AulrK «" »U» nlkM m Oufm «-7T5 at »« FAC
2 - AiulrK m> no. bu*d am at Soil T«t« Urd TiMc k>l -M Hart » Off** tl-TIt tX tl» FAC.
Tool VOCttuim<3anaa-mMt*Mfimua^KixK*mxata< 100 MAC ml 0(1111 for ToulPAlb.
. - -- , .-
PAH Camoud «•* u
•* Slu SS. I IXU-i RI/BRA
oat tUU. StaIB| x«c*K> t
-------
TABLE 2-13
POST EXCAVATION SUMMARY OF CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IS SOIL/BEDROCK SAMPLES
OU-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
PAGE 14 OF 22
Simple ID
Sample Interval
Anilyte
VOA TO. Compounds
Bnxnomethanc
McUiykne Chloride
Acetone
U-Diditorocthene
2-Buianone
ds- 1 J-Dirtitoropropcne
TctractikKoethcne
Trfchkvocthene
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Xytcncs. Total
SNA TCL Compounds
BcnzoicAcld
Naphthalene
2-Mcthylnaphthalene
Accnaphthylene
Acciuphlhene
Dihenzofuran
Flunrcne
Phcnamhrene
Anthracene
Cartuzote
Di-n-Butyl Phthalaie
Ruoramhene
Pyrenc
Benzyl Butyl Phthalaie
Bcnz(Xa)Arthracenc
Ovysene
Bis(2-Eihylhexy]) Ruhalalc
Benzotb)F]uoruHhene
BcnztXklFtuoranihene
Benzo(a)Pyrene
Jndeno(l,2.3-C.D}Pyrcne
Dibenz{A.H)Anihr scene
BctuiXjJi.DPerylene
Total PAHs
Peiticide/PCB TCL Compounds
Alpha BHC
BeuBHC
Delia BHC
Gamma BHC (Undone)
Heptachlor
Aldnn
Hcptachlor Epoxide
Endosulfanf
Dieldrin
4.4--DDE
Endnn
Ewkwulfan H
4.4'-DDD
HndocuiranSutfite
4.4'-DDT
Methoxychtor
Endrin Ketone
Endrin Aldehyde
Alptu-Chlordane
Ganuna-CWordane
PCB-1260{Arodor 1260)
TAi. Metals
Aneoic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Catdum
Chromium, Total
Cctalt
Carpa
be.
Lad
MifnesJum
MMgaaae
Mocury
Nickel
Fountain
Sdenraa
Sflwr
Sodium
Vtiudlum
Zinc
1995
FDF.P Hnllh
Baud Soil Tirget
Lndi
NWD
23.000
l.SOO.OOO
100
15.000.OXI
NWD
28.000
9.300
3.500.000
300.000
92.000.000
NWI)
12.000.000
1.800.000
56.000.000
30.000.000
3.500.000
30.000.000
21.000.000
300.000.000
120.000
140.000.000
48.000,000
41,000.000
310.000.000
4.900
500.000
110.000
5.000
48.000
500
5.000
300
50.000
NWD
NWII
NWI)
NWD
500
200
300
5.900.000
300
11.000
470.000
NWD
17.000
5,900.000
12.000
7.800.000
470.000
480.000
3.000
3.000
NWD
+
3
4.000
1
600
NWD
430
110.000
NWD
NWD
1.000
NWD
3.500
480
2,600
NWD
9.900
9.000
NWD
4.800
560.000
Removil
Acth»Uvefa
NWI)
42.200
NWD
NWD
NWD
NWD
NWD
24.200
100(2)
50(2)
100(2)
NWD
1,000(2)
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
1,000(2)
l.000(2>
224.000
NWD
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
NWD
5040
50.300
NWD
5010
4970
540
5040
505
NWD
NWD
NWD
NWD
NWD
NWII
NWD
101
NWD
296
12.400
NWD
NWD
17.500
NWD
11,300
NWD
NWD
NWD
3.210
3.210
NWD
NWD
15(3)
4.940
NWD
1,070
NWD
160
NWD
NWD
NWD
108
NWD
NWD
23
3.24
NWD
389
353
NWD
NWD
NWD
UoIU
ft-lM.
I
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
("g/kg>
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(tig/kg)
(ug/kg>
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg>
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ui/ki)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg>
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(eg/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg>
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(mg/kg)
{mg/kg)
(Bg/kg)
(Olg/kf)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
(Bf/kf>
Gng/kg)
(•f/kf)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kf)
(rag/k|>
(•g/kg)
(•ig/kg)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
(mf/kg)
(mi/kg)
(mi/kg)
Pl-SL-0029
0-2
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
NA
NA
NA
<2.3
<2.3
<2J
<2.3
<2.3
<2.3
<4.5
<4-S
<4.5
43
<4J
25*dirrio«ic« tadoKcttd viluc betw«n cotunei
t - coatXMaddcMcicd ia MwiriMrfl blink (orfMfca Maple*): Rudii^ U Ita due CRQL for jaarpnlc unpte*
NR-Nollbporwl
I - NO • No 1« Urci TiM« i« w» Uiud !• OufMcT 62-T73 of Ite FAC
Tout VOCt**tma*t~H.m*t*r*tuasummaime*nmot loo pl*t»dl n<*t tor Teal PAHt.
J. b»nl Aaw laa A. Docn_M »r tCT.
Fit - Pnnoulr IVM •« tvnuM «iU( do SHr SS-lvnU-3 RUBRA
e toul PAH«.
-------
TABLE 2-13
POST EXCAVATION SUMMARY OF CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN SOIL/BEDROCK SAMPLES
OU-7. ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
PAGE 15 OF 22
Smpto Inunril
Auljl*
BiwiwractfiMc
MaMffcneCNomfc
Acciooc
I.MXatonetlKn:
2-BuUnmc
cti-IJ-DkNexefrorcne
TcvxMoroalxne
TrfcMaraate«
Tohiew
CMoratauene
Xykna.TouI
BawteACKl
Niftahjkrv:
^Mcttylu^rtulac
AtaupWijIaic
Actuphtene
DibciuuAma
Fluccene
Phauntfrene
AnOnctnc
CxMaXc
Di.lv Butyl Phtlutae
RwanKhcne
fynrc
B«u>t BM>| Piululuc
Bauc(i}Anihncaic
Qtfyxnc
Bl!<:,E*)!hci,0 Phitulw
Bcwo(b)Fluoni*teac
Bauttk^uonathcrc
Btiuo<«)PjTcne
l«fcl«Xiaj<:j))Pjirae
&hau(A,H)Antoj«ne
BcnKXfJUIPajlenc
TculPAHl
AJptuBHC
BaiBHC
DcluBHC
Guum BHCCUMluc)
Hcpudifac
AMni
IfcpucWotEpMJde
Entowirul
DKtdra
4.4-.DDE
Enito
Eodoiulfinlt
4.*.DOD
EolOMlfuSiiUile
4.4MXJT
MaJxnytWor
Ea)n>Kaooe
E»)rt«AJ*flnJ8
AlpfclOllonJine
GuttUfCManlue
K8-l2«0
NWD
NWD
23
3.24
NWD
3S9
353
NWD
NWD
NWD
(ugftg)
(ug/lci)
(u|/k()
(ugftg)
(ug/W
(ucft|>
(UI^J)
(»Btj)
(U|Af)
("23» unmet u daccw .UN bernm c
8 • nefomi MKM k »dd>4«) Hut (oqirtc. MRrfc»: Bc»)bt U ku Oae CROjt to htoipnk unpla
-
J - Aialft n. w, b>] o. *. Soil T.p. L^a TiM. ta «
»r 1CT.
lj nfaM mjmltnia J»m a. Sue SS-IVOUO »MRA
'*H CUSTOM *~l ID aHMm tool TtMt. OaO*t IrOKxa fnaur l>« pktm tewA
-------
TABLE 2-13
POST EXCA VATKW SUMMARY OF CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN SOIL/BEDROCK SAMPLES
OU-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
PAGE 16 OF 22
SunjtelD 19*5 Unit.
Simple literal FDErHuIlh Removil fu-UX.
Awlyte Sued Sod T«r(e( AcOo.Lr.dI
Letcb
VOA TCL Compoundi
Bnxnomelhine ND(I) NCKD (ug/kg)
Mohylene Chloride 23.000 42.200 (ug/kg)
Acetone 1. (00.000 ND(I) (ug/kg)
I.I-Dichkvoethene 100 NCXI) (ug/kg)
2-BulHone 13.000.000 ND(1) (ug/kg)
di-U-Dlchloropnipene ND(I) ND(I) l 92.000.000 100(2) (uj/kg)
Ben/oicAcId NtKD ND(1) (ug/kg)
Niphdulene 12.000.000 1.000(2) (ug/kg)
2-McmymaiJluhalcne 1.800.000 1.000(2) (ug/kg)
Aceniphuiylene 56.000,000 1.000(2) (ug/kg)
Acciuphlhene 30.0CXMXIO I.OOCX2) (ug/kg)
Dlbenzohnn 3.500.000 1,000(2) (ug/kg)
Fhiorcne 30,000.000 1.000(2) (ug/kg)
Phenaralrcne 21.000.000 1.000(2) (ug/kg)
Anthracene 300.000.000 1.000(2) (ug/kg)
Cirtuzole 120.000 224.000 (u|/kg)
Di-n-Butyl Phlhalue 140.000.000 NCXI) Phllulau 110.000 NtXI) (ug/kg)
Bcnzo(b)nuof3na>ene 5,000 S010 (ug/kg)
Benzo(k)Fluoranlhene 48.000 4970 (ug/kg)
EcruoulPyrene 500 54O (ug/kg)
Indeno(UJ^.O)P>-icne 5.000 5040 (ug/kg)
Dihcnz(A.H)Anmracene 500 505 (ug/kg)
BaizotgJUWcrylene 50.000 NtXI) (ug/kg)
ToolPAHl (aeltafl
Alpha BHC NCXI) ND(1) (ug/kg)
BeuBHC NCKD NCKD (ug/kg)
DeluBHC NCKD NCKD (uj/kg)
Camilla BHC (Undue) NZX1) NEH1) (tig/kg)
Hepuchlor SCO NtXI) (ug/kg)
AWrin 200 NtKI) (ug/kg)
HepuchlorEpoxide 300 101 (ug/kg)
EndosulflHl 5.900.00O NCXI) (ug/kg)
Dieldnn 300 296 (ug/kg)
4.4'-DDE 11.000 12.400 (ug/kg)
Endrin 470.000 ND(I) (ug/kg)
Endoalfinll ND(1) NtXI) (ug/kg)
4.4'-DDD 17,000 17300 (ug/kg)
Endoiulfui Sulfue 5.900,000 NCXI) (ug/kg)
4.4'-DDT 12,000 11.300 (ug/kg)
Methozyctdor 7.800jOOO NCKD (ug/kg)
Eudnn Keuxx 470.000 ND(I) (tig/kg)
Endrin Aldehyde 480.000 NCXI) (ug/kg)
Alptu-Chlordine 3.000 3.210 (ug/kg)
Gimnu-Ctlkildane 3,000 3.210 (ug/kg)
PCB-l260(ArodorI260) NCXD NCXI) (ug/kg)
TALMeuls
Alumlaura + • NtKI) (mgflcg)
Arsenic 3 15(3) (mg/kg)
Barium 4.000 4.940 (mg/kg)
Beiylliura l NCKD (mg/kg)
Cidnium «oo 1.070 (mg/kg)
Calcium NCXI) NCKD (mg/kg)
Chromium. TouJ 430 160 (mg/kg)
C<*»" HO.OOO NCXI) (mg/kg)
CoB" NtKl) NCXI) (rag/kg)
Iron MOO) ND(1) (mg/kg)
<-"& 1.000 108 (mg/kg)
Mlgnewim NCKD NCXI) (mg/kg)
Minganese 5JW NCKD (mg/kg)
Meraiiy 480 23 (mg/kg)
Nickel 2.600 3.24 {mg/kg>
Pousiium NCK1) NCKD (mg/kg)
Sctauum 9.900 389 (mg/kg)
Silver 9.000 353 (mg/kg)
Sodium NCKD NCXI) (mg/kg)
Vinjdium 4.800 NCXI) (rag/kg)
Z"" 560.000 NCKD (mg/kg)
CSNAJ
3
4V
89)
441
47J
451
<400
<4QO
521
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
«2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2XI
<2.0
<4.0
<4.0
<4.0
<4.0
<4.0
<4.0
<4.0
<20
<4.0
<4.0
J3* (SfTercaee ia detected vihtc betweeo cohiimt
B - oxrpMiid dcMctcd la auociated blank (orixiics turpb*); Readiof i* leu Uun CRQL for M»f»Mic
NR-NoiRcpofud
I - ND - No data. aailyt« wai eibar KX liiwl oa tbe Soil Tar|el Level Table or mt Iwed. but quilifkd mth an ND.
Aiutyw »M al» not listed in Chapter 62-77$ of the FAC.
2 - AMiyte «u rw littol.»the Sod Tar^a Urd TiKe b« wa> lined n Chipwr 62-773 of ttwFAC.
TMJ| Vex: lined m Chapter 62-775 M h*vM( » muinnm conccttiratwn of lOOfif/kf wd 1 m|A| for Tool PAJU
.1 - Rv*k»al Action U»*i At DcwmrM] by SCT.
fR • Prcnoirtly aponat *»J «««lu>ed tfannc che Sue SS-1WOU-3 RIARA
lo» inAcato PAH Compwtoii u*ed 10 ciiculxe tutaj PAHt Sbadutf inUcaws grtutr ihan lUKfaKC kYri.
-------
TABLE 2-13
POST EXCAVATION SUMMARY OF CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN SOIL/BEDROCK SAMPLES
OU-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
PAGE 17 OF 22
Simple literal FDErHeailh Hcmou] ft,(6L
AuJjh BucdStflTuro AclloaLmli
Ltttb
BrorawaJunc ND(I) NWI) (uj/kj)
McthyleneCNcriiJc 23.000 42.200 (utfkj
AMOK I.MO.OOO NWI) (og/kg)
l.l-DfcNoreetficne loo ND(I) (us/kg'
I.BuUaone 15.000.000 ND(I) (ug/kg]
dt-IJ.DIcMxorropcnc NtHD ND(I) (ui/kg)
TnracWonxtjCTe 28.000 ND(I) (iii/kg)
TridilOTcthmc 9JOO 24.200
Toluene 3.500.000 100(2) (ur/ks)
CHontaaaie 300.000 50(2) (ug/kj)
Xytoict-Toul 92.000.000 100(2)
DihouoUmn 3.300000 1.000(2) (ujflcj)
Ftomic 30.000000 1.000C) (uj/kg>
PteunUltne 21.000.000 1.000(2)
Artfoccne 300.000JXJO 1.000(2) lc 140.000.000 ND<1) (ug/k|)
nuaMUKM 48.000.000 1.000(2) dig/kg)
Pytne 41.000.000 1.000(2) (u{/k{)
8ouy)B«)r|PIllhal«l« 310.000.000 ND(I) (ui/kj)
BtaiodlAotfmecne 4.900 5040 (ug/kj)
CJ«y»«: 300.000 50.300 (nj/kj)
Bt«2.Eaijltalynn«»alau 110.000 NWI) (ug/kj)
BousXWFIoonntllene 5.000 5010 (u(/k|)
SauaWnxnntKK 48.000 4970 (ug/kg)
Bauo(l)F)TEac 500 540 (Ufftf)
ln*«XI,2J-C.D)Pjitnc 5.000 5040 (ug/kg>
Oibau(A.H)Ainhoce« 500 505 (ug/kg)
BauiXlJUffHjlCTe 50.000 NWI) (us/k£>
TV.UPAHI n,^;;
rsucxfcTOI TO. Cixn pound.
At*U»HC NtXI) ND(I) (uj/kg)
B«UBHC ND(1) NWI)
DtluBHC ND(I> ND(1) NWI) ND(1) (ui/kj)
HtpucWoe JOO NIXI) («(/lg)
*"*» 200 NKI) (ajftg)
HcfOctitorErmkJc 300 101 (u^kj)
En*«u''wl 3.900000 ND(I) (u./kl>
DW-*" 300 296 tog/kg)
•»'-r-BDE 11.000 12.400 (uj^g)
E"*« -<70XX» N«l) (U|^)
E»*«»«"» NEXI) N«l) (UMCI)
<^W» 17X00 17.500 (ugflt!)
EldOKlflnSuUlli 5.900.000 NIXI) N«l) NWI) Cujftj)
*»•*»• * ' N0(l) <»l/k«>
*"f* 3 "(3) m 1 NIXI) (mg/kj)
^""a «» IJWO
C«"*" NtXI) NIXI) (n^kg)
O«WBluia.TD(iI «0 iiso (miftl)
CM»N 110.000 NIXI) (rngfltf)
CORW NIXI) NtHD (mgftf)
«• NIXI) NIXI) (mg*»)
Laa 1.000 lot (onto)
M^""*"" NWI) NIXI) (n^kf)
"*«"<« 5400 NWI) (*,/k,)
M«»r 4«0 23 (mtAD
WW 1«00 3.24 (nj/kji
J««*» N«l) NIXI) (mtyktf
««>^'«» 9500 389
S»«f »JX» 333
3.9
<2.0
<3.9
23
<3.9
<3.9
10
<3.9
62
<20
<3.9
<3.9
110
no
56
1040
59.38
FCNI.6 SWIU.l
6 1
<1600
4:oBJ
•CI600
<1600
NA
<1600
<1600
2IOBI
470BJ
<160f)
25» KITaxna In dewud vHuc bmnt* ntom
• - caeinxl damd u maamia bb* (»i»a aavktl lUntkii b ka DIM CJKJt (or kntialc wqUa
2 . AuliK n.«
Tcul VOC uma > Cb|Mc M-775
i.»— _ i.-^., — •i,r
42-775 (TM FAC
w« l«d » Oi|n 62-775 el Ike FAC
axxnnap. of I DO «*, ma 1 n«t| to Tool PA*.
PAH Conpom
•« SM U-iyaU-J KVBkA
TO) PAHt S
-------
TABLE 2-13
POST EXCAVATION SUMMARY OF CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IX SOIUBEDROCK SAMPLES
OU-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
PAGE IS OF 22
Sample ID
Sample Interval
Aaalyte
VOA TCL Compounds
Bromomettune
Methylene Chloride
Acetone
U-DKhkxoeihcne
2-Butanone
di- 1 .3-DichJoropropene
Tctraditoroethcrte
Trichloroetnene
Toluene
Chtorobenzene
Xylcnes, Total
BNA TCt Compounds
BcfuoicAcid
Naphthalene
2-McthyJraphthalene
AccnaphUiylenc
Acenapnlhene
Dibcnzofuran
Fluorene
Pnerunihrene
Anthracene
Carbuole
Di-n-Butyl Phthalaie
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzyl Butyl Phttulitt
Benzo(3)Aflihn>cene
Chrysene
Bisa-Eihylhexyl) Phtnalau
Benzo(b)Ruoranthene
BenzoOORuoraathenc
Benzo
TAL Metals
Aluminum
Ancnlc
Brfum
Cxtaium
Cdctum
Chromium, Tool
Cobalt
Copper
Iim
u>a
MagKttan
Mcrauy
Nickel
Poustium
Setenuua
Silver
Sodium
Vuadium
Zinc
19»5
FDEPHelllh
Bmnl Soil Tirget
NWD
23.000
1.800.000
100
15.000.000
NWO
28.000
9.300
3JOO.OOO
3110.000
92.000.000
NWD
11000.000
1.800.000
56.000.000
30.000.000
3.500.000
30.000,000
21.000.000
300.000.000
120.000
140.000.000
48.000.000
41.000.000
310.000.000
4.900
500.000
110.000
5.000
48.000
300
5.000
500
50.000
NIXI)
NWD
NKD
NWI)
500
200
300
5.900.000
300
11.000
470.000
NWD
17.000
5.900.000
11000
7.800.000
470.000
480,000
3.000
3.000
NWD
3
4.000
1
600
NWI)
430
110.000
NWI)
NWD
1.000
NWD
5.500
480
1600
NWI)
9,900
9,000
NWD
4.800
560.000
Rrnxnll
Action Levels
NWD
41200
NWI)
NWI)
NWI)
NWD
NWD
24.200
100(2)
50(2)
100(2)
NWD
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
1. 000(2)
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
224.000
NWD
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
NWD
5040
50.300
NWD
5010
4970
540
5040
505
NWD
NWD
NWD
NWD
NWI)
NWD
NWD
101
NWD
296
11400
NWD
NWD
17.500
NWD
11.300
NWI)
NWD
NWD
3.210
3.210
NWD
NWD
15(3)
4.940
NWD
1.070
NIXD
160
NWD
NWD
NWD
IM
NWD
NWI)
23
3.24
NWD
389
353
NWD
NWD
NWD
Units
fU-lM.
(°g/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(US/Kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
Ong/kg)
(m(/kg)
(mg/kg)
(rag/kg)
(rag/kg)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kj>
On g/kg>
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg>
(mg/ks>
<•>»*«>
{Mt/ktO
(oig/lcM)
FCS7.5
5
25» dUTtnm ta Huaa nhc tawvii cotam
Aulyv >M tfp> KCIUM u Ovm tt-TIS t«nbo«ot 1I»MI/*I »»11 "1*1 fcrlonl f.
1 nimn •! IrTlnnlr il 'I nuiiniaiOj BIT
t« Sac SS-1MXM RWtA
urAH*. s
-------
' ' }
£ t | 8 J j t
I
JtS^MI |i
}r «l! !l
f!
i I
f |
! I
f
ftff?
» r §
f
I
j? *s fi »i Mltfsf
.3 *S "I * SRs?Ss|
«*:/?•?»?=• v. a* a • >
n '$>
*•$ Sf
f!
•o
IsisiilitJfllpIUliffl
-8 -4J!i-S§SS§S§§§ =
f i'i'S'S'S'HS'f^
•J oo i.
SStiS
..tti
SSSSS;
..__A-AiAA>AAAA
o o o o 5 5 S S 3 5 S 5 S 5 S 5 s 5 5 53
5 S 5 s 5 5 53 3 S
Sfj
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
S3
t it}.}.
sssisig
illllllll
fk
.- c*
-8
I*
U I
I
i
en
e
.E| wf
£
M
O
»
O
n
v.
-------
TABLE 2-13
POST EXCAVATION SUMMARY OF CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN SOIUBEDROCK SAMPLES
OU-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
PAGE 20 OF 22
Simple ID
Sample Interval
Anilvtt
VOA TCL Compounds
Methylene Chloride
Acetone
l.l-DKhloroetnene
2-BuUnone
cis-l.3-Dich)oropcunene
Tctrachloroclhene
Trichlowcthcne
Toluene
Chloroccnzene
Xyicnes.Toul
BN A TCL Compounds
Benzotc Acid
Naphthalene
2-Met>i>liuphllulene
Accnaphthylene
Acctuphlhene
Dibenzoftiran
Fluarene
Anthracene
Carhazote
Di-n-Butyl Phthalale
Fluorantnene
Benzyl Butyl Phthalale
Benzo( a) Anthracene
Cluyttnc
Bis(2-Elhylne>yl) Ptlllulau
Bcnzo(b)Ruonmhene
BenzoOOFIuoranthcn:
Benzo(a)Pvrene
InueixX 1 .2J-C.D)Pyrenc
Dibau(A.H)Amhncene
Bcnzo(gJi,i}Perylerte
Peslicide/PCB TCL Compounds
Alpha BHC
BeuBHC
Delta BHC
Gamma BHC (Lindane)
Heptachlor
Aldiin
Heptachlor Epoxide
Endosulfanl
DieUrin
4.4'. DDE
Endrin
Endosulfan II
4.4--DDD
EndoiulranSuUale
4.4--DDT
Mclhoiychlor
EndrinKetone
Endrin Aldehyde
Alpha-Chlordaae
Gamma-Cblonlanc
PCB-1260(AroclorI260)
TALMctall
Aluminum
Anerac
Bjliuin
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium, Total
Cobalt
Copper
[TOO
Lead
Magneshua
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Vanadium
Zinc
1995
FDEP Health
Based Soil Target
Levels
NDO>
23.000
1.800.000
100
15.000.000
NWI)
28.000
9JOO
3.500.000
300.000
92.000.000
NIXO
12.000.000
1.800.000
56.000.000
30.000.000
3.500.000
30.000.000
21.000.000
300.000.000
120.000
140.000.000
48.000.000
41.000.000
310.000.000
4.900
200,000
110.000
5.000
48,000
500
3.000
500
50JOOO
NIXI)
NWI)
NWD
NDCI)
500
200
300
5.900.000
300
11.000
470.000
NIXI)
17.000
5.900.000
IZOOO
7JOO.OOO
470.000
480,000
3.000
3.000
NWD
+
3
4,000
I
«00
NW)
430
110.000
NWI)
NDO)
1.000
ND(1)
5.500
480
2.600
NIXI)
9.900
9.000
NIXI)
4400
mooo
Removal
Action Levels
NIXI)
42.100
NIXI)
NWD
NIXI)
NWI)
Nixn
24.200
100(2)
50(2)
100(2)
ND(I)
I.OOCK2)
I.OOCK2)
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
224.000
NWD
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
NWI)
5040
50.300
NWI)
5010
4970
540
50*0
505
NWI)
NWI)
NWI)
NWD
NWD
NWI)
NWD
101
NWD
296
12.400
NWI)
NWD
17,500
NIXI)
11.300
NWD
NDtl)
NWI)
3.210
3,210
NWI)
NWD
15(3)
4.940
NWI)
14)70
NWI)
160
NWD
NWD
NWD
10!
NWD
NWD
23
3.24
NWO
389
353
NIXD
NWI)
WXD
•Join
H.-IM.
(ug/kg>
(US/kg)
(ug/kg)
(Ug/kg)
(ug/Iig)
(ug/kg)
(utAO
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ui/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(og/kg) |_
(ug/kg)
frig/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(t>g/kg)
(Of/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(Ug/kg)
, (ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg>
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg>
(lUJ/kg)
(ug/kg)
(Ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg)
(«g/kg>
(ugfkg)
(ug/kg)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
(mgftg)
(mg/kg)
(ntg/kf)
(mg/kg)
(mjAg)
(mgAcg)
(ngAg)
(rag/kg)
(af/kg)
(mgntg)
(mgAg)
(tug/kg)
(mf/kf)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
oa
780)
14001
<2000
780)
1000J
<:ono
2300
<2000
8701
<2000
<2000
<2000
8.010
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
2.2P
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<4.0
8.0
<4.0
<4.0
49
<4.0
170
<20
8.5
5.1P
13P
13
<40
2710
48.7
I7.4B
0.64B
<5J
331000
12.7
4IJ
<400
<400
<4OO
3101
94)
501
TOBJ
3AOB)
4K>
<400
?3)J
2401
45BJ
43)
<400
I50J
<400
<400
<400
1.945
<4.1
<4.I
<4.1
<4.1
2IP
<4.1
<4,l
<4.l
<7.9
23P
<7.9
<7.9
98
<7.9
800P
<41
<7.9
<7.9
76
32
<79
2680
20,
1MB
0.6
<5.6
357000
U.I
<11.2
<11.2
2010
30.1
I310B
33.3
<0.12
<2Z4
<1120
<0.47
<5.6
796B
<11.2
28.1
CSJ9.1
1
23% aulmttai in dMcud vtlM between eoltoiu
I - aneoMd dwcM to tuaOMfi bunk (oojaala MOJpte): Reading tt te«
tt»aiQL«ijclK«t»*:iainplel
l-ND-Noaxa.
AJUIVU WM JU» mi *Md la Chapw «-T75 of *• FAC.
2 - Amy* w« m* IMI o> •» SMI Imt* UvU T«Me Ml w» MM U Oupio 6J-77S of A> FAC
Total VOC»««li«au(«rr«.77J aHuMnf iraow»i»(liiKeo«alionof IODuiA| lod 1 n«*l »T«alPAIfc.
3 • Rental ActkM Uvd Aa f>nvmMil »r BCT-
P« - Pwrto—lr neo«4 ~J mkum 4««H •« «• SS-tMOO-I KUVKA
•ct Uiacaui PAH C
-------
TABLE 2-13
PAGE 21 OF 22
Sample ID
Simple Interval
Aaaljtc
MonylcneChlertoe
Acetone
l.l-tXEhloroethcne
2*Butarune
cU-U-Dlchloropropene
TctnchkirocthcTC
Trtchlwrahene
Toluene
CMorvcxtucne
Xytcna. Total
BauaicAcId
Naphthalene
2.Me*ylnaphUulene
Acenaphlhylcae
Acetuphthenc
CHtiouofunn
Ftuoreae
FnciunuVene
Anthracene
Cxttuole
Dl-n- Butyl PhUutate
FkXYinthcne
tyene
Bcujrl Bufyl Phtfulue
Bcnio(a)Aix>nctne
Chtyicae
BeiuoOilFliioruUienc
BcalZ5« artmoc, 1, iatati nhc bemai cortmu
I -ND-No^a. >^y«w»«kto«lte«lootteS»ilT«l«UYdT*l.crwt.li«t»Bg«llfcdw«-ND.
*««ln. « ato « B«d to oupo 62-775 of *. PAC
J - **,*, „ « KM o. 0. Sell Tirr< Lml T*k M .. Hurt I, dupe. 62 -T75 of 0. FAC.
- VOC HM u, awM-TO » ta™ , ratm , „»», f-Tool MIU
•o> Mlcw. PAH Co«p»«|
-------
TABLE 2-13
POST EXCAVATION SUMMARY OF CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN SOIUBEDROCK SAMPLES
OU-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
PAGE 22 OF 22
Sample Interval
Analjrte
VOATU, Compounds
Brotnomcthane
Methylcne Chloride
Acetone
t.l-Dkhloroethcne
2-Bulanonc
cis- 1 .3-DicMoropropene
Tctrachlorocthene
Trichloroahene
Toluene
Chlorohcnzene
Xylencs. Total
BenzofcAcId
Naphthalene
2-Melhylnaphthalcne
Accnaphthylene
Accnxphthcne
Dihenzoruran
Fluorene
Phenanthrcnc
Anthracene
Carttazule
Di-n-Butyl PhlhalaU:
Ruoranthcne
Benzyl Butyl Phlhalalc
Benzo(a)Anthraccne
Chrysene
Bist2-Elhy!hexyl) Phtrulatt
BenzoftOFluoraiuhene
Benzo(k>Ruoranlhene
Benzu(a)Pyrene
Indcixx I.2.3-C.D)Pyrene
D!henz(A.H)Anlhraccne
Benzo(gJt,i)Perylene
Total PAHs
Alpha BHC
Beta BHC
Delta BHC
Gamma BHCfLiitdancj
Heptachlor
Aldrin
Heptachlor Epoxide
Endosulfan I
Dieldrin
4.4'-DDE
Endrin
Endosulfan It
4.4--DDD
Endosulfan Sulfatc
Methoxychlor
Endrin Ketone
Endrin Aldehyde
Alpha-Chlordane
Gamma-Chlordane
PCB-1260(Aroclor 1260)
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium. Total . ,.
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
1995
FDEP Health
Band Soil Target
Levtb
NWD
23.000
1.800.000
100
15.000.000
NWD
28.009
9.300
3JOO.OOO
300.000
92.000.000
NWD
12.000.000
1,800.000
56.000.000
30.000.000
3.500.000
30.000.000
21.000.000
300.000,000
120.000
140.000.000
48.000.000
41.000.000
310.000.000
4.900
500.000
iio.ooo
5.000
48.000
500
5.000
500
50.000
NWD
NWD
NWD
NWI)
500
200
300
5.900.000
300
11.000
470.000
NWD
17.000
5.900.000
12.000
7.800XJOO
470.000
480.000
3.000
3.000
NWD
4-
3
4.000
I
600
NWD
430
110.000
NWD
NWI)
1,000
5.500
480
2.600
NWI)
9.900
9.000
NWD
4,800
560.000
Unlti
Removal n_-tb[
Actlnn Levels
NWD
42.200
NWD
NWD
NWI)
NWD
NWD
24.200
101X2)
50(2)
100(2)
NWD
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
' 1.000(2)
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
224.000
NWD
1.000(2)
1.000(2)
NWD
5040
50.300
NWD
5010
4970
540
5040
505
NWD
NWD
NWD
NWD
NWD
NWD
NWD
101
NWD
296
12.400
NWD
NWD
17JOO
NWD
11.300
NWD
NWD
NWD
3,210
3.210
NWD
NWD
15(3)
4.940
NWD
1.070
NWD
160
NWD
NWD
NWD
108
NWD
NWD
23
3.24
NWD
389
353
NWD
NWD
NWD
CS2H.I
(ugAg) 4BJ
(UgAg)
(UgAg)
(ugAg)
(UgAg)
(ugAg)
(ugAg)
(UgAg)
(ugAg)
(mgAg)
(mgAg)
(mgAg)
(mgAg)
(mgAg)
(mgAg)
(mgAg)
(mgAg)
(mg/kg)
(mgAg)
(ngAg)
(mgAg)
(mgAg)
(mgAg)
(mgAg)
(mgAg)
(mgAg)
(mg/kg)
(mgAg)
(ragAg)
(mgAg)
<400
<400
<400
57J
<400
<400
<400
<400
<400
<400
I80BJ
1501
2IOJ
<400
I70J
I70J
52J
220J
220;
1701
I50J
7SJ
120J
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<10
<2.0
<3.9
120
<3.9
<3.9
16
<3.9
150
<20
<3.9
<3.9
32
28
<39
4020
13.0
I8.0B
716000
32.8
<23.8
<23.8
2860
14.2
<2320B
85.4
<0.10
<47.6
<2380
<0.44
20.0B
1480B
<23.8
13.4B
CS34.I
1
«I400
25* dirrocnce In detected fihie bctw««n columu
8 - compound deucicd u iuoculM blink (orpnici tunctol^ Rcxlint U to, Kin CRQL la noriinic
I - ND - No ^o. „,,« .„ dlto „„, „„„, „, ^
»iuJytc m ax, not liool n Oupcr 6J-775 of ihe FAC.
2 • Aiulylt .« noi lined oo Ihc So,] T»|e< U.tl T»k bu wa, llslrt In Qupur 62-775 or UM FAC.
Tu.J VOC ln«| „ Qufu, 62.7,5 ««.,„,, 1^umura caxoiraloo of 1UO utAf and 1 mi/fc, (or Toul PAHt
.1. Renvtval Action Urel A< Dcunmaol ttj BCT
PR - Prtrvtou*!), rcr«n«d Ml evaJaaMI cbnnf UK SiK SS-1JXK;-) Rt/BftA
B..« »lK>a PAH C.m(«Q»l .nt u cUcolau (oul PAH, Stolmi indican jniicr Uun juidmce lenl.
-------
Base/Neutral Acid Extractable Compounds. Fifty-one of the 75 soil/bedrock samples
collected at OU-7 were analyzed for BNAs. Analytical results from these samples indicated
detectable concentrations of one or more of the following polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons(PAHs); acenaphthylene, phenanthrene, anthracene, fluoranthene, pyrene,
benzo(a)anthracene, chrysene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benozo(k)fluoranthene,
benzo(a)pyrene, indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, and benzo(g,h,i)perylene.
Concentrations of total PAHs in soil/bedrock samples ranged from 44 to 43,380 ug/kg.
Twenty samples had total PAH levels greater than the 1,000 ug/kg clean soil criteria (Florida
Administration Code 62-775), benzo(a)pyrene was the only BNA compound that was
detected above the 500 ug/kg FDEP Health Based Soil Target Level or the 540 ug/kg
Removal Action Level. Benzo(a)pyrene exceeded soil action levels in six soil/bedrock
samples with the maximum concentration being 4,300 ug/kg. Three of the soil/bedrock
samples containing elevated benzo(a)pyrene were taken from confirmation samples in the
South Area and three were collected in the North Area. The PAHs in this area are likely the
result of stormwater runoff and accumulation from anthropogenic sources such as roadways.
Di-n-butylphthalate, butylbenzylphthalate, and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate were detected
along with many of the PAH compounds at concentrations less than the established Removal
Action Levels in one or more confirmatory samples. In some instances, soil/bedrock BNA
detection limits were elevated to greater than the Removal Action Levels due to matrix
interference. However, arsenic was the primary compound used for determining excavation
limits.
Naphthalene or methylenaphthalene were detected in 4 soil/bedrock samples. One sample
FCS4.5 collected from the floor of the South Area excavation at a depth of 4.5 ft bgs,
exceeded the Removal Action Level for naphthalene (3.1 fig/kg), 2-methylnapthalene (8.1
Jig/kg), acenaphthene (1.7 M-g/kg), dibenzofuran (2.6 u.g/kg), fluorine (3.4 Jig/kg),
phenanthrene (5.8 Ug/kg), and anthracene (6.3 M-g/kg). Minimal exposure potential exist for
this sample, given the fact it was collected from a depth of 5 ft bgs in bedrock. A summary
of soil/bedrock analytical results for BNAs are presented in Table 2-13. Maps depicting the
soil/bedrock sampling locations are provided in Figures 2-5,2-6,2-7, and 2-8.
Organochlorine Pesticides/PCBs. Seventy three of the 75 soil/bedrock samples used to
characterize OU-7 were analyzed for organochlorine pesticides and PCBs. Of the samples
collected, none were found to contain levels of pesticides which exceeded the FDEP Health
Based Soil Target or the Removal Action Levels. One sample, FCS7.5, collected from
23
-------
bedrock at a depth of 5 ft bgs, contained 45O ug/kg of heptachlor which approaches the 500
ug/kg FDEP Health-Based Soil Target Level. In addition, four samples collected from the
North Area excavation, contained a detectable levels of the PCBs aroclor 1260 at a
concentration of 56 ug/kg. No Removal Action Levels were established for alpha-BHC,
beta-BHC, delta-BHC, gamma-BHC (Lindane), aldrin, heptachlor, endrin, endosulfan II,
endosulfan sulfate, methoxychlor, endrin ketone, endrin aldehyde, or PCBs.
Twenty pesticide compounds were detected in one or more of the soil/bedrock samples
collected from the North and South Areas. Compounds in detectable concentrations were
alpha-BHC, beta-BHC, delta-BHC, gamma-BHC (Lindane), aldrin, heptachlor, heptachlor
epoxide, dieldrin, 4,4'-DD, 4,4'-DDD, 4,4'-DDT, Endrine, Endosulfan I, Endosulfan sulfate,
Methoxychlor, Endrin ketone, Endrin aldehyde, alpha-Chlordane, and gamma-Chlordane. A
summary of the pesticide/PCB analytical results is provided as Table 2-13. Soil/bedrock
sampling locations are provided in Figures 2-5,2-6,2-7, and 2-8.
Metals and Cyanide. Fifty-three of the 75 soil/bedrock samples used to characterize the site
were analyzed for TAL metals. Cyanide was not detected in any of the samples collected. Of
the metals analyzed, only arsenic and lead were detected at concentrations that exceeded
Health Based Soil Target or Removal Action Levels. Arsenic exceeded the Removal Action
Levels of 15 mg/kg in 16 samples with concentrations ranging from 16.7 mg/kg to 123
mg/kg. One of the samples that exceeded arsenic removal levels was associated with the Site
SS-13/OU-3, PCB Storage Area investigation. Arsenic concentrations in the North Area
confirmation samples ranged from 3.5 to 44.5 mg/kg and from 4.3 mg/kg to 47.3 mg/kg in
the South Area samples. Those soil/bedrock sample locations that exceed the present
Corrective Action Level of 10 mg/kg include 22 soil/bedrock sample locations; the two
samples associated with the OU-3 sample location E-5, as well as 10 samples from the North
Area and 10 samples from the South Area excavations. Arsenic was the primary constituent
determining the IRA excavation limits. Those locations that contained concentrations of
arsenic that exceed Removal Action Levels are typically found in areas where the
excavations could not be extended laterally due to the proximity to buildings or parking
areas.
Lead was reported above action levels in soil/bedrock samples FCSN4.4 and CS37.1 at
concentrations of 114 mg/kg and 6,050 mg/kg, respectively. The 114 mg/kg concentration of
lead is below the FDEP action level of 1,000 mg/kg but above the Removal Action Level of
108 mg/kg. The 6,050 mg/kg concentration of lead in sample CS37.1 appears to be an
anomaly, as no apparent source was identified.
24
-------
Additional metals detected in soil/bedrock samples collected included aluminum, calcium,
barium, beryllium, chromium, copper, cobalt, iron, magnesium, manganese, nickel, sodium,
vanadium, zinc, and mercury (Table 2-13). These metals are typically present in carbonate
rocks and soiltoedrock at various concentrations. According to average carbonate
composition data presented by Hem (1989), calcium, magnesium, aluminum, iron,
manganese, and sodium are the most common constituents of carbonates (Table 2-12).
Additionally, barium, chromium, cobalt, copper, nickel, vanadium, zinc, mercury, and
arsenic occur as trace concentrations. Concentrations of chromium, copper, arsenic, barium,
calcium, sodium, and zinc were also reported in background sample P2-SL-0023-2 at levels
above the average carbonate composition.
A summary of metal analytical results for soil/bedrock samples is provided in Table 2-13.
Soil/bedrock sampling locations are provided in Figures 2-5, 2-6, 2-7, and 2-8.
2.6.1.3 Summary of Groundwater Investigations
Groundwater samples were collected from OU-7 monitoring wells during all phases of the
IRP investigations with the exception of the 1994 IRA. Fourteen monitoring wells, ten in the
South Area and four in the North Area, have been used to evaluate groundwater impacts at
OU-7. Four wells in the South Area, SP-10-MW-0003 through SP-10-MW-0006, were
associated with the former fuels site ST-18, while the four wells in the North Area were
associated with the former OU-3 PCB Spill Site or the fuels Site SS-2. Monitoring well
locations are depicted in Figure 2-10.
The IRP Phase II investigation conducted in 1984 included the installation of two shallow
monitoring wells (1-15 and 1-16). Groundwater samples were collected and analyzed for 17
specific pesticides. None of these pesticides were detected at levels above their respective
quantitation limits.
In 1991, groundwater samples were collected from ten permanent monitoring wells located at
OU-7 and adjacent sites. Groundwater samples collected from the monitoring wells at OU-7
(1-15, 1-16, HS-16, and P2-MW1) were analyzed for TCL VOCs, BNAs, TAL metals, OC
pesticides, and TRPH. The groundwater sample from HS-16 was additionally analyzed for
TDS. The groundwater samples collected from the monitoring wells SP10-MW-0003
through SP10-MW-0006 and the monitoring wells SP4-MW4 and SP4-MW5 were analyzed
for volatile organic halocarbons, PAHs, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX),
25
-------
CIVIL ENGINEERING COMPLEX
-------
,he samples ,
TCL VOCs, BNAs, and total and dissolved (ffl ^ ""^ «*»• «*
2-«.1.4
Nature and Extent of Groundwater Contamination
detected in
goals (MCLOs) (Table 2-15).
Level, (MCLs) and MCL
Volatile Organic Compounds. 1991
from JOpe.manen, monitoring wells WT, "™
analyzed for TCL VOC, M. vr»^ - " ine UU'7 monitoring well samples were
samples. A 30!^^ r^"" ^ '"^ " ^ 1991 gr°Und—
mmary of the 1991 groundwater analytical results are provided in Table 2-16.
wells were cocted
monitoring
VOCs were detected in sample P2-MW1 and its
26
-------
TABLE 2-14
CONCENTRATIONS OF DISSOLVED INORGANIC CONSTITUENTS
DETECTED IN THE BISCAYNE AQUIFER IN DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Constituent Range Mean
(mg/I) (mg/I)
Arsenic <0.001 -0.002 0.0012
Barium <0.1 -0.1 0.1
Cadmium <0.001 - 0.003 0.001
Calcium 55. 140 90
Chloride 13 -110 42
Chromium(a) <0.01 - 0.01
Fluoride 0.1 -0.5 0.2
Iron <0.01 -1.9 0.56
Lead <0.001 -0.006 0.0019
Magnesium 1.7-19 5.6
Manganese <0.01 -0.03 0.0097
Mercury <0.0001 - 0.0003 0.0001
Potassium 0.2 - 6.5 2.4
Sodium 7.4 - 77 26.6
Sulfate 0.1-45 14.6
Zinc <0.01 - 0.03 0.0075
TDS 196-478 333
Alkalinity (as CaCO3) 157-624 263
Hardness (as CaCOs) 150-370 249
Source: Causaras, C.R., 1987, Geology of the Surficial Aquifer System, Dade County,
Florida. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigation Report 86-4126.
Notes:
te) All detected observations had the same value.
TDS - Total Dissolved Solids
mg/1 - milligrams per liter
-------
TABLE 2-15
GROUNDWATER QUALITY CRITERIA
Analyte
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (ug/L)
Bromodichloromethane
Chloroform
Dibromochloromethane
PESTtCIDES/PCBs (ug/L)
AIpha-BHC
DDD
METALS (ug/L)
Aluminum
Arsenic
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Lead
Manganese
Vanadium
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
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
2001
50k
5 k
NS
100k
15k
501
NS
NS
5001
NS
NS
NS
NS
250
NS
NS
Florida
62-770
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
50
NS
NS
5
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
EPA
Drinking
Water
Standards
100
100
NS
NS
NS
50 to 200 h
50*
5 i
NS
lOOi
15s
50h
NS
NS
500 h
NS
NS
NS
NS
500
NS
NS
EPA Maximum
Contaminant
Level Goal
0
0
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
5 i
NS
lOOi
0
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
500g
NS
NS
ug/L - micrograms per liter
mg/L - milligrams per liter
NS - No Standard
odor or appearance guidelines.
g - Numbers represent EPA's Primary MCL for Inorganics.
h - Numbers represent EPA's Secondary MCL for Inorganics which are non-enforceable taste, uuor or appearance i
j-Numbers represent EPA's Final MCL effective July 1992, Federal Register, January 30,1991 and July 1,1991.
k - Florida Primary Drinking Water Standard.
1 - Florida Secondary Drinking Water Standard.
S - Final Action Level - The final lead action level is exceeded if the level of lead/copper in more than 10 percent
*-Under Review
-------
TABLE 2-16
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS OF GROUNDWATER SAMPLES
COLLECTED IN 1991 AT OU-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Geraghty & Miller, 1991
Analyte
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (Ug/L):
Bun/ene
Melhylone chloride
BASE/NEUTRAL AND ACID EXTRACTABLE
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (ug/L)i
Acenaphthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
bis(2-Elhylh«xyl) phlhalata
Butylbenzylphthalale
Di-n-bulytphlhalale
Dibanzoluran
Fluoranlhena
Fluorene
2-Malhylnaphlhalane
Naphthalen*
Phenanthrena
Pyrena
CHLORINATED PESTICIDES (ug/L):
4,4'-DDD
4.4'-DDE
METALS (ug/L):
Aluminum
Florida
Groundwattr
Guidance
Concentration* m
1 ' k
5
20
0.2
6
1400
700
NS
280
280
NS
6.8
10
210
0.1
0.1
200
FAC
62-770
Florida
1
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
N3
EPA O&M Sample I.D.
Drinking Savannah 1.0.
Water Sampling Date
Standard!
b 5 a <
NS <
c NS
c 2 1
NS 1
NS
NS
NS
C NS
C NS
d NS
d NS
c NS
c NS
NS
NS
SOT0200h.l
Trip Blank
37647-10
11/24/91
5.0
S.O
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
P2-EB-0029
37647-1
11/24/91
< 5.0
< S.O
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 0.020
< 0.020
< 200
P2-HS-16
37647-2
11/24/91
< 5.0 UJ
< 5.0
< 10
< 10
I 320 |UJ
(0.50) J
(1.01
< 10
|0.82)
< 10
< 10
< 10
[0.69]
10.641 J
< 0.020 UJ
< 0.020 UJ
1 2900 |J
P2-HS-9016
37647-3
11/24/91
< 5.0 UJ <
< 5.0 <
< 10
11.71 U
< 10 <
< 10 <
< 10 <
10.55) <
< 10 <
< 10 <
< 10
< 10 <
(0.31) J <
< 0.020 <
< 0.020 <
1 4300 U
P2-I-16
37647-6 .
11/24/91
S.O
6.0
[Ob9|
10
(2.6)
10
10
10
10
10
10
10.95)
10
10
0.020
0020
21000
UJ
U
J
Aluminum
Barium
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
M. mqanese
Nickel
I'otassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
200
SO
2000
NS
100
1000
300
IS
NS
50
100
NS
160000
49
5000
k
k
k
1
1
k
1
I
N3
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
SO
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
SOT0200h.l
SO g
2000 1,9
NS
100 l,g
1300
300
IS
NS
SO
100
NS
NS
NS
5000
h
h
1
1
h
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
< 200
< 10
< 10
360
< 10
< 25
< SO
< 5.0
< 50
< 10
< 40
< 1000
< 500
< 10
24
1 2900
34
39
1300000
22
< 26
I 2000
UJ 21
4200
38
< 40
1600
13000
13
37
|j [
J
J
J
J
UJ <
J
J
J
UJ <
J
J
J
UJ
4300
38
49
1700000
26
25
2500
24
6000
48
40
I BOO
14000
17
61
Jj
J
J
J
J
UJ
J
J
J
UJ
J
J
J
UJ <
21000 J
150 J
120 J
8900000 J
320 |j
26 J
23000 IJ
20 J
22000 J
iio |j
44 J
3600 J
26000 J
120 J
100 UJ
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS (mg/L) NS
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS NS
6
NS
NS
800.000 h
NA
NA
1.0
0.5
1.0
410
1.0
450
1.0
NA
PAGE 1 OF 3
-------
TABLE 2-16
»e, Florid.
G««HhIy& Millar, 1991
Analyii
Florid*
Groundw»t«r FAC
Guldanc* 62-770
Conc»nlr«lloni m Florida
EPA G»MSimpl»I.D. P2.M0
Drinking Savannah I.D. 37647.5
'
P2-MW-1
37647-4
11/24/91
SP10-MW-0004 SP10-MW-0005
37282-4 37J9J.S
11/6/81 11/W1
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMHOUNDS (utfL)
^SB/NEUTRAL AND ACID EXTRACTABLE
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (ug/L):
Acenaphlhone
Boiuo(a)pyfone
bls(2-Elhylh8)(yl)phihalat8
Bulylbenzylptiihalan
Di-n-butylphlhala!«
Hibeniotufan
Fluoranlhane
Fluorene
2-Molhylnaphlhal«na
Naphlhalonu
Phsnonihrena
CHLORINATED PESTICIDES (uort.1-
4,4'-DDD ''
4.4'.DOE
METALS (ug/L):
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
TOTAL PETROLtUM HYDROCARBONS (mrjft.)
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS
PAGE 2 OF 3
-------
TABLE 2-16
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS OF GROUNDWATER SAMPLES
COLLECTED IN 1991 AT OU-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Garaghty & Miller, 1991
Anilyt*
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (ug/L):
Benzene
Melhylana chloride
B ASE/NEU1 HAL AND ACID EXTflACTABLE
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (ug/L):
Actmiiphthene
Benio(a)pyrena
bis(2-Elhylhexyt) phlhalale
Butylbenzylphlhalale
Di-n-bolylphthalate
Dibanzoluran
Ruoranlhene
Fluorena
2-Malhylnaphlhatene
Naphthalene
Phananlhrane
Pyrene
CHLORINATED PESTICIDES (ug/l);
4.4'-DDO
4,4'-DDE
METALS (ug/L):
Aluminum
Manic
Barium
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
lion
Lead
Magnatkim
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
TOTAL PETHOLEUM HYDROCARBONS (tng/L)
1 01 AL DISSOLVED SOLIDS
Florid*
Groundwaler FAC
Guldanc* 62-7/U
Concentration* m Florid*
t
6
20
0.2
6
1400
700
NS
280
280
NS
69
to
210
0.1
01
200
60
2000
NS
100
1000
300
15
NS
60
too
NS
160000
49
5000
NS
NS
k 1
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
k NS
k NS
NS
k NS
1 NS
1 NS
k 60
NS
1 NS
NS
NS
NS
US
1 NS
6
NS
EPA GAM Simple 1.0. SP10-MW-8005 SP10-MW-0006 SP4-MW-4
Drinking Savannah I.D. 37292-2 37321-4 37373-10
Water Sampling Dale 11/6/91 11/7/91 11/11/91
Standards
b 5 •
NS
c NS
c 2 1
NS 1
NS
NS
NS
0 NS
c NS
d NS
d NS
c NS
c NS
NS
NS
50T0200h,i
60 g
2000 l.g
NS
100 i,g
1300 a
300 h
15 a
NS
60 h
100 1
NS I
NS
NS
5000 h
NS
500,000 h
3.2 <
NA
< 10 <
< 10 <
< 10 <
< 10 <
< 10 <
< 10 <
< 10 <
< . 10 <
< 10 <
< 10 <
< 10 <
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1 160 1 1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
< t.O <
NA
1.0
NA
10
10
10
10
10
10
to
to
10
10
10
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
240 |
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
t.O
NA
NA
300
< 10
< 10
< 10
< to
< 10
< to
< 10
< to
< 10
< 10
< 10
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
IS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
< t.O
NA
SP4-MW-6
37401-5
11/12/91
NA
< 1.0
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
to
10
to
to
to
10
< 10
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
It
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
< 1.0
NA
PAGE JO?3
-------
duplicate sample P2-MW91. Acetone and chloroform were detected in sample P2-DMW
0001 at concentrations of 4 ug/1 and 2 ug/1, respectively. Chloroform,
bromodichloromethane, and dibromochloromethane were detected in the duplicate sample (flfe
P2-DMW-9001 at concentrations of 9 ug/1, 4 ug/1, and 2 ug/1, respectively. All of these ™
detection's are qualified as estimated, because they where less than the CRQL These
compounds are classified as trihalomethanes with a regulatory level established in drinking
water at <100 ug/1 total concentration. Acetone and 1,2-dichloropropane were detected in
equipment blank P2-EB-0001 at concentrations of 11 ug/1 and 2 ug/1, respectively. Neither
of these two compounds were detected in the associated samples (P2-MW1 and duplicate
P2-MW91). Methyl ethyl ketone and 1,2-dichloropropane were detected in equipment blank
sample P2-EB-0002 at concentrations of 4 ug/1 and 3 ug/1, respectively. 1,2-dichloropropane
was detected in the associated sample duplicate, P2-DMW-9001. The source of these
compounds is most likely the isopropanol used for equipment decontamination.
A summary of constituents detected in groundwater during the 1993 investigation is provided
as Table 2-17.
1994 Investigation. No groundwater samples were collected for analysis during the 1994
Base/Neutral and Acid Extractable Compounds. 1991 Investigation. Several BNAs
mostly PAHs, were detected in five of the ten groundwater samples, including one duplicate'
collected at OU-7 in 1991, as shown in Table 2-17. Total PAHs were detected in samples I-'
15 1-16, HS-16, HS-9016 (the duplicate of HS-16), and P2-MW1 at concentrations of 1 84
0.91, 1.46, 1.02, and 61.2 Ug/1/respectively. The FAC 62-770 regulations establish a 10 ug/I
action level for total PAHs in groundwater for petroleum contaminated sites. The aerial
extent of groundwater containing PAHs above 50 ug/1 is limited to the southern portion of
the site in the immediate vicinity of monitoring well P2-MW1 (Figure 2-10) The
naphthalene concentration of 54 ug/1 detected in sample P2-MW1 exceeded the Florida
Groundwater Guidance concentration of 10 ug/1; however, none of the other concentrations
of PAHs detected in the five groundwater samples exceeded Florida or Federal Standards for
drinking water.
Additional BNAs (non-PAHs) detected in groundwater samples include di-n-butylphthalate
detected in sample HS-16 at a concentration of 1.0 ug/1; dibenzofuran was detected in sample
P2-MW1 at a concentration of 5.0 ug/1; and butylbenzylphthalate was detected in sample
HS-16 at a concentration of 0.50 ug/1. The concentrations of these non-PAHs detected were
27
-------
TABLE 2-17
SUMMARY TABLE OF DETECTED COMPOUNDS IN GROUNDWATER
OU-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
MONTGOMERY WATSON, 1993 INVESTIGATION
HOMESTEAD ARB, FLORIDA
Analyle
VOA TCL Compounds (ug/1)
Acetone
Chloroform
Methyl Ethyl Ketone (2-Bulanone)
Bromodichloromethone
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
Dibromochloramelhane
Pesticide/PCB TCL Compounds (ug/1)
Alpha BHC
p,p'-DDE
p.p'-DDD
p.p'-DDT
BNA TCL Compounds (ug/1)
2-Chloropheno!
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Bis(2-Ethylhexy!) Phthalate
Di-n-Butyl Phthalate
Dibenzofuran
Dielhylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Florida
Drinking
Water
Standard
NS
NS
NS
NS
5
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
!
-------
TABLE 2-17
SUMMARY TABLE OF DETECTED COMPOUNDS IN GROUNDWATER
OU-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
MONTGOMERY WATSON, 1993 INVESTIGATION
HOMESTEAD ARB, FLORIDA
(CONTINUED)
Florida
Drinking
Water
Standard
EPA Drinking
Water
Standard
EPA Maximum
Contaminant
Level
Goal
Sample ID
OaleCollectc
VOA TCL Compounds (ug/1)
Acetone
Chloroform
Meihyl Ethyl Ketone (2-Butanone)
Bromodichloromethane
1,2-Dichloropropane
Dibromochloromeihane
Pestlclde/PCB TCL Compounds (ug/1)
Alpha BHC
p.p'-DDE
p,p'-DDD
p,p'-DDT
UNA TCL Compounds (ug/1)
2-Chlorophenol
2-Methylnaphlhalene
Acenaphihene
Anthracene
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phlhalatc
Di-n-Butyl Phlhalale
Dibenzofuran
Dieihylphlhalate
Fluoramhene
Fluorene
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
^^^^^a
All samples analyzed by Savannah Laboratories. Tallahassee Florida
NS " no* andard"' ^^ ^^ """' B' ^^^ ^^'" a" """^ blank
i - estimated quantity, quality control crilcria were not met
Notes:
(a) - MCL of 100 ug/L is for total THM's
(b) - total naphthalenes must be
-------
Analyle
Metals (Mg/1)
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Calcium
Copper
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Sodium
Zinc
Florida
Drinking
Water
Standard
200(g)
50(0
2,000(f)
5(0
NS
1,000
300
NS
50 (g)
NS
160,000(0
5.000 (g)
TABLE 2-17
SUMMARY TABLE OF DETECTED COMPOUNDS IN GROUNDWATER
OU-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
MONTGOMERY WATSON, 1993 INVESTIGATION
HOMESTEAD ARB, FLORIDA
(CONTINUED)
EPA Drinking
Water
Standard
50-200(c)
50 (d)
2,000 (d)
5(e)
NS
1,300
300(c)
NS
50(c)
NS
NS
5,000(c)
All samples analyzed by Savannah Laboralories, Tallahassc, Florida
< not detected at specified detection limit
Bold > equal or greater than BG
Bold & Shaded > equal or greater lhan2* BG
NS - no standard
Notes;
(c) - EPA Secondary Drinking Water Standard
(d) - EPA Primary MCL
(e) - EPA Final MCL
(0 - Florida Primary MCL
(g) - Florida Secondary Drinking Water Standard
B - Value is less than CRQL but greater than IDL
W - post digestion spike for furnace AA out of control limits
EPA Maximum
Contaminant
Level
Goal
Sample ID
Date Collected
P2-MW-1
3/3/93
P2-MW-91
3/3/93
•^^^••MMM
126 B
540
5.6 B
5.S
98900
<2.0
981
I890B
16.5
3140 B
17300
20.1
~ ••
'"• ~^^^^^^=a
P2-MW-I
3/3/93
Filtered
MMH^M^^MMHH
<2.0
510
5.6B
5.5
99600
<2.0
983
I920B
18
3260B
17600
I6.4B
P2-MW-91
3/3/93
Filtered
P2-DMW-0001
3/12/93
P2-DMW-90OI
3/12/93
PAGE 3 OF 4
-------
TABLE 2-17
SUMMARYTABLEOFDETECTEDCOMPOUNDS.NGROUNDWATER
OU.7, ENTOMOLOGYSTORAGE AREA
MONTGOMERY WATSON, 1993 INVESTIGATION
HOMESTEAD ARB, FLORIDA
(CONTINUED)
Florida
Drinking
Water
Standard
Sample ID
Date Collected
P2-DMW-0001
3/12/93
Filtered
P2-DMW-9001
3/12/93
Filtered
Contaminant
Level
Goal
Metals (mg/1)
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Calcium
Copper
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Sodium
Zinc
200
50(0
1,000(0
5(0
NS
1,000
300
NS
50 (g)
NS
160,000(0
5,000 (g)
50-200(c)
50 (d)
2.000 (d)
5(e)
,000(c)
1,300
300(c)
NS
50(c)
NS
NS
5,000(0
<20.0
<5.0 W
I I.OB
<2.0
95800
<2.0
I1.7B
3540B
2.4B
6010
15100
II.7B
All samples analyzed by Savannah Laboratories. Tallahasse. Florida
< not detected at specified detection limit
Bold > equal or greater than BG
Bold & Shaded > equal or greater Ihan2* BG
NS - no standard
Notes:
(0 - EPA Secondary Drinking Water Standard
(d)-EPA Primary MCL
(e) - EPA Final MCL
(0 - Florida Primary MCL
(g) - Florida Secondary Drinking Water Standard
B - Value is less than CRQL but greater than IDL
W - post digestion spike for furnace AA out of control limits
PAGE4 OF 4
-------
•well below the Florida Groundwater Guidance Concentrations and Federal Drinking Water
Standards (Table 2-15).
1993 Investigation. One shallow (P2-MW1) and one deep (P2-DMW-0001) monitoring
well were sampled for BNAs in the 1993 investigation. Groundwater samples from both
wells were collected in duplicate. Several BNAs, mostly PAHs, were detected in the sample
and duplicate collected from P2-MW1. Total PAHs in sample P2-MW1 and duplicate P2-
MW91 were 29.8 jig/1 and 26.4 (xg/1. Both of these values exceed FDEP 62-770 guidelines
of <10 jig/1 for total PAHs. Total PAHs detected in sample P2-DMW-0001 and duplicate
P2-DMW-9001 were 0.5 p.g/1 and 3 jig/1, respectively.
Additional BNAs (non-PAHs) detected in groundwater include phenol in P2-DMW-0001 and
P2-DMW-9001 at 4 ug/1 and 35 jig/1, respectively; 2-chlorophenoI in P2-DMW-9001 at
3 |ig/l; dibenzofuran in P2-MW1, P2-MW91 and P2-DMW-9001 at 3 U£/l, 2 ug/1 and
0.7 ug/1, respectively; diethyl phthalate in P2-DMW-9001 at 0.3 ug/1;
n-nitrosodiphenylamine in P2-DMW-0001 at 0.8 ugA; di-n-butyl phthalate in P2-DMW-0001
and P2-DMW-9001 at 0.6 ug/1 and 2 ug/1, respectively; and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate in P2-
MW1, P2-MW91, P2-DMW-0001, and P2-DMW-9001 at 1 ug/1, 1 ug/1, 0.2 ug/1, and 1 ug/1,
respectively. A summary of constituents detected in groundwater during the 1993
investigation is provided as Table 2-17.
1994 Investigation. No groundwater samples were collected for BNA analysis during the
1994 IRA.
Organochlorine Pesticide/PCBs. 1991 Investigation. In 1991, five groundwater samples,
1-15, 1-16, HS-16, HS-9016 (the duplicate of HS-16), and P2-MW1 were analyzed for
pesticide compounds (Table 2-6). Two pesticide compounds, 4,4'-DDD and 4,4'-DDE, were
detected in only one groundwater sample, P2-MW1, at concentrations of 8.7 and 0.095 ug/1,
respectively. No other pesticide compounds were detected above their respective
quantitation limits in the five groundwater samples collected during this investigation. In
1991, the aerial extent of pesticide compounds dissolved in groundwater was limited to the
immediate vicinity of P2-MW1 in the southern portion of the site.
1993 Investigation. In 1993 groundwater samples from four shallow monitoring wells (1-15,
1-16, SP4-MW4, and P2-MW1) and one deep monitoring well (P2-DMW-0001) were
analyzed for organochlorine pesticides and PCBs. PCBs were not detected in any of the
samples collected. Groundwater samples from P2-MW1 and P2-DMW-0001 were collected
28
-------
in duplicate. DDT and/or its metabolites were detected in four of the five wells sampled.
DDT was detected in samples P2-MW1, duplicate P2-MW91, P2-DMW-0001, duplicate P2-
DMW-9001, and SP4-MW4 at concentrations of 0.023 ug/1, 0.022 ug/1, 0.078 ug/1, 0.11 ug/1
and 0.075 Ug/1, respectively. The ODD metabolite was detected in samples P2-MW1,
duplicate P2-MW91, P2-DMW-0001, duplicate P2-DMW-9001, SP4-MW4, and 1-15 at
concentrations of 10 ug/1, 9.6 ug/1, 0.16 ug/1, 0.18 ug/I, 0.019 ug/1, and 0.23 ug/1,
respectively. The DDE metabolite was detected in samples P2-MW1, duplicate P2-MW91,'
and SP4-MW4 at concentrations of 0.12 ug/1, 0.09 ug/1, and 0.044 ug/1, respectively'.
Alpha-BHC was detected in sample P2-MW1 and its duplicate P2-MW91 at concentrations
of 0.030 Ug/1 and 0.024 Ug/1, respectively. A summary of constituents detected in
groundwater during the 1993 investigation is provided.as Table 2-17.
1994 Investigation. No groundwater samples were collected for pesticide analysis during
the 1994 Interim Removal Action.
Metals and Cyanide. 1991 Investigations. The following metals were detected in one or
more of the groundwater samples collected in 1991 by G&M: aluminum, barium, calcium,
chromium, iron, magnesium, manganese, nickel, potassium, sodium, vanadium, lead, and
arsenic. Calcium, potassium, magnesium, and vanadium were detected in the five
groundwater samples analyzed for TAL metals; however, no groundwater quality standards
or guidelines exist for these metals (Table 2-15).
Groundwater samples collected from HS-16, HS-9016,1-15,1-16, and P2-MW1 contained
very high concentrations of total calcium, 1,300,000, 1,700,000, 8,900,000, 2,500,000, and
370,000 ug/1, respectively. The sampling logs for all 5 samples indicate that the samples
were turbid. It is probable that the high TAL metal concentrations, particularly calcium, are
a result of suspended sediments and thereby overstate the actual concentrations of the
analyses at the site (G&M, 1992d). These calcium concentrations are significantly higher
than the calcium concentration range (55,000 to 140,000 ug/1) reported in the Biscayne
Aquifer by Sonntag (1987).
Arsenic was detected in samples HS-16, HS-9016,1-15,1-16, and P2-MW1 at concentrations
of 34, 38, 150, 29, and 960 ug/1, respectively. The arsenic concentrations detected in 1-15
(150 ug/1) and P2-MW1 (960 ug/1) exceed the Florida Primary Drinking Water Standard and
Federal MCL for drinking water of 50 ug/1 for arsenic. Barium was detected in all samples
collected, except P2-MW1, at concentrations ranging from 39 to 120 ug/1 which are well
29
-------
below the Florida Primary Drinking Water Standard of 1000 p.g/1 and the Federal MCL for
drinking water of 2000 jag/1.
Chromium concentrations were detected above the Florida Primary Drinking Water Standard
of 50 p.g/1 and the Federal MCL for drinking water of 100 p.g/1 in sample 1-15 at a
concentration of 320 u.g/1. Sodium was detected in all wells sampled at concentrations
ranging from 11,000 to 28,000 J4,g/l which were well below the Florida Primary Drinking
Water Standard of 160,000 (ig/1.
Lead was detected in samples HS-16, HS-9016, 1-15, SP4-MW4, SP4-MW5,
SP10-MW-0003, SP10-MW-0004, SP10-MW-0005 and its duplicate SP10-MW-9005, and
SP10-MW-0006 at concentrations of 21, 24, 20, 15, 11, 230, 12, 140, 160, and 240 ug/1,
respectively which exceed the Federal Action Level for lead of 15 (j.g/1 in all samples except
SP4-MW4, SP4-MW5, and SP10-MW-0004. Total lead concentrations detected in samples
SP10-MW-0003, SP10-MW-0005 and its duplicate SP10-MW-9005, and SP10-MW-0006
exceeded the Florida Primary Drinking Water Standard of 50 jig/1. The aerial extent of total
lead dissolved in groundwater is primarily located off-site in the southeastern corner of the
site in the vicinity of Site ST-18. In addition, a localized area of total lead dissolved in the
groundwater is located in the immediate vicinity of 1-15. Nickel was detected in one sample
1-15 at a concentration of 44 fig/1, which is below the Florida Groundwater Guidance
Concentration of 150 \ig/l and the Federal MCL of 100 |Lig/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. Iron, which is naturally high in the Biscayne Aquifer and
commonly exceeds the Florida standard (Sonntag, 1987), was detected in all of the
monitoring wells sampled for TAL metals at concentrations ranging from 630 to 23,000 p.g/1
which exceed the Federal Secondary MCL for drinking water and the Florida Secondary
Drinking Water Standard of 300 |ig/l (Table 2-15). The Federal Secondary MCL for
drinking water and Florida Secondary Drinking Water Standard for manganese (50 ug/1) was
exceeded in two samples, 1-15 and 1-16, at concentrations of 880 and 99 jig/1, respectively.
Aluminum was detected in all samples at concentrations ranging from 640 to 21,000 jlg/1.
The Federal Secondary MCL for aluminum (50 to 200 (ig/1) was exceeded in all samples.
1993 Investigation. Groundwater samples from four shallow monitoring wells (1-15,1-16,
SP4-MW4, and P2-MW1) and one deep monitoring well (P2-DMW-0001) were analyzed for
30
-------
cyanide during the 1993 investigation. Groundwater samples from P2-MW1 and P2-DMW-
0001 were additionally analyzed for TAL metals. Groundwater samples were analyzed for
total (unfiltered) and dissolved (filtered) metals due to concerns about the elevated turbidity
of the groundwater samples collected during previous sampling events. Samples analyzed
for dissolved metals were field filtered using an in-line, disposable (single use) 0.45 micron
filter. The groundwater samples from monitoring wells P2-MW1 and P2-DMW-0001 were
collected in duplicate for cyanide and TAL metals (both filtered and unfiltered). No cyanide
was detected in any of the samples collected.
Arsenic calcium, and iron exceed both the federal and state drinking water MCL in both the
unfiltered and filtered sample for well P2-MW-1 and its duplicate. Calcium was the only
compound that exceeded MCLs in the deep well P2-DMW-0001 and its duplicate. Iron
exceeded the state and federal MCLs of 300 ug/1 in both the filtered and unfiltered samples
P2-MW-1 and P2-MW91 ranging in concentration from 758 jig/1 to 994 u.g/1. However, the
concentrations of calcium and iron fall within the range of dissolved calcium in the Biscayne
Aquifer as reported by Causarus (1987) and Sountage (1987), respectively. Arsenic
concentrations detected between the filtered and unfiltered samples were comparable at P2-
MW-1 with concentrations ranging from 510 mg/1 to 632 mg/1. These concentrations exceed
both the Florida Primary Drinking Water Standards and the federal Primary MCL of 50 ug/1.
Other dissolved metals detected at trace levels include barium, cadmium, magnesium,
manganese, potassium, sodium, and zinc. Copper was detected slightly above the detection
level in the unfilter sample from P2-MW-1.
Groundwater metal analytical results for filtered and unfiltered samples from the 1993
Investigation are summarized in Table 2-17.
1994 Investigation. No groundwater samples were collected for metals analysis during the
1994 Interim Removal Action.
Hydrocarbon Compounds. In 1991 groundwater samples were analyzed for TRPH
analysis. In 1991, TRPH was detected in one of the eleven samples. TRPH was detected in
the sample from well P2-MW1 at a concentration of 14 mg/1 which exceeds the Section 62-
770, FAC TRPH criteria of 5 mg/1 (Table 2-15). The aerial extent of TRPH dissolved in
groundwater is limited to the vicinity of monitoring well P2-MW1 and corresponds to the
soil/bedrock headspace data of >50 ppm and TRPH concentrations detected in soil/bedrock
samples collected from the 4 to 6 ft interval at this location.
31
-------
1993 and 1994 Investigation. No groundwater samples were collected for TRPH analysis
during the 1993 or 1994 Investigations.
2.6.1.5 Summary
Subsequent to the 1994 IRA, the soil/bedrock impacts at OU-7 have been characterized by
sample locations which were not excavated as a result of the IRA. Seventy-five soil/bedrock
samples from four investigations, including the G&M 1991 OU-7 RI, the 1993 Montgomery
Watson OU-7 RI, the 1993 Montgomery Watson OU-3 RI and the 1994 IRA delineation and
confirmation samples provided the sources of data for site characterization.
Characterization of OU-7 indicated remnant levels of PAHs and arsenic in soil/bedrock near
areas that were capped by buildings or parking areas. The excavations were not extended
under these covered areas because the covers act as a cap and reduce the potential for
exposure to the underlying soil/bedrock. Furthermore, the development of this area by the
Air Force Reserve provides a cap over much of the site. Exposure is further reduced by the
limited amount of soil which prohibits manual excavation activities. The thickness of soil at
this site, as determined from soil boring logs, indicates a relatively thin veneer of soil, less
than 12 inches.
Lead was found to exceed action levels in one sample while PAHs, primarily
benzo(a)pyrene, and arsenic were found in isolated pockets above action levels. Fifteen
soil/bedrock samples with arsenic concentrations above the 15 mg/kg Removal Action Level
range in concentration from 16.7 to 123 mg/kg. Eight of the samples containing arsenic
above the Removal Action Level are located in the South Area, five are located in the North
Area, and one sample is located southeast of the former PCB Spill Area. A summary of the
soil/bedrock metal analytical results is presented as Table 2-13.
Volatile organic compounds were not reported above Removal Action Levels in any of the
non-excavated soil/bedrock samples. Twenty-three BNAs, primarily PAHs, were detected in
soil/bedrock samples. The PAH benzo(a)pyrene was reported above the 1995 FDEP Health
Based Soil Target Level of 500 u,g/kg in six samples. However, only two of these samples
associated with the South Area excavation, CS34.1 (1.8 u.g/kg) and CS 19.3 (4.3 ug/kg),
exceeded the current BCT acceptance level for benzo(a)pyrene of 1.5 p.g/kg. Two of the
samples were collected from the southwest corner of the North Area, while the remainder of
the elevated detections were from the east side wall samples in the South Area, adjacent to
32
-------
the asphalt covering. Total PAH concentrations in soil/bedrock samples ranged from below
the detection limit to 43,380 ug/kg. Twenty samples had reported total PAH concentration
greater than the 1,000 ug/kg Clean Soil Criteria of FAC 62-775.400. PAHs concentrations
have been observed throughout the Homestead ARE area and have been associated with
anthropogenic sources such as asphalt. The elevated PAHs are within the range of
concentrations detected in urban areas and within the range of values reported for road dust
(Menzie, et al., 1992).
One or more pesticides were reported in each of the 1994 IRA confirmation soil/bedrock
samples. However, the concentration of pesticides reported were all below the specified
Removal Action Levels in the confirmation samples. One PCB, aroclor 1260, was detected
in four confirmation soil/bedrock samples, NW15.3 (56 ug/kg), CS15.3 (48 ug/kg), CS23 3
(62ug/kg), and CS34.1 (97 |ig/kg) also below the specified Removal Action Level" '
The groundwater at OU-7 appears to be relatively unaffected by former operations at OU-7.
Groundwater analytical results did not indicate concentrations for VOCs, BNAs, or
pesticide/PCB compounds above state or federal drinking water standards (Table 2-16 and 2-
17). Groundwater contaminants detected during previous investigations consist primarily of
metals. Groundwater metal analytical results indicate arsenic, calcium, and iron above the
USEPA and State of Florida drinking water standards.
The arsenic concentration of 960 ug/1 in the unfiltered 1991 P2-MW1 sample is much higher
than that in the 1993 P2-MW1 filtered sample (534 ug/1). This is likely related to the high
turbidity in the 1991 P2-MW1 sample relative to the 1993 P2-MW1 sample, as indicated by
the respective calcium concentrations. (1991 calcium concentration: 370,000 ug/1. 1993
calcium concentration: 101,000 ug/1). This suggests that the 1993 P2-MW1 sample arsenic
results are more representative of the groundwater underlying OU-7. However, the level of
arsenic found in groundwater at P2-MW1 still exceeds state and federal MCLs. In general,
groundwater metals are lower in the 1993 samples as compared to the 1991 samples. This is
presumed to be due to the groundwater sampling methodology used during the 1993
sampling event which utilized a low flow sample pump to minimize turbidity during
sampling. With the exception of arsenic, elevated calcium and iron concentrations would be
expected given the composition of the aquifer material and are consistent with the levels of
these constituents commonly found in the Biscayne Aquifer (Causarus, 1987).
33
-------
A summary of constituents detected in OU-7 groundwater from the 1993 investigation is
provided as Table 2-17. Figure 2-11 depicts the concentrations of arsenic and pesticides in
groundwater from the 1991 and 1993 sampling event.
2.6.2 Potential Routes of Migration
The source of wastes at OU-7 were accidental releases of diesel fuel and pesticides. Products
spilled on the ground may have moved down through the soil/bedrock profile and leached to
shallow groundwater, migrated in surface runoff, or been released to the air via direct
volatilization, volatilization from groundwater, or dust emission. The drainage canal to the
west may not drain the area because the concrete wall east of the canal prevents site surface
runoff from entering this canal.
Elevated levels of 7 metals (aluminum, arsenic, barium, chromium, lead, silver and
vanadium) were detected in surface soil/bedrock. Elevated levels of arsenic were observed in
site soil/bedrock samples across the site, as well as in groundwater from within the source
area. The source of the arsenic contamination is likely through the use of arsenical
pesticides. Other Chemicals of Concern (COCs) include one VOC (benzene), and 5
pesticides (DDT, DDE, the alpha-chlordane and gamma-chlordane isomers, endrin ketone
and heptachlor epoxide). Six metals at elevated levels were found in subsurface soil/bedrock
(aluminum, antimony, arsenic, chromium, silver, and vanadium). The isomers of chlordane
had penetrated to the subsurface also.
DDE is a break-down product of DDT and is somewhat more water soluble than its parent
compound. DDE has the potential to migrate further than DDT due to this characteristic.
Only metals were found as COPCs in the groundwater. There are no potable wells located
on-site. In the immediate vicinity (within one mile) of the site there are two wellfields (Nos.
1 and 2). These wells are no longer in use. Additionally, migration to the groundwater at the
two non-potable wells south of the site is not expected to occur because several drainage
ditches and canals occur between the site and these wells. Thus, there is currently little
potential for exposure to affected groundwater. The base water supply is obtained currently
from a wellfield located off-base and more than 1.5 miles southwest of OU-7. Although the
old on-base wells are still on-line and are used during peak consumption periods to augment
the off-site wells, this pumping is infrequent and does not alter the groundwater on-site
(Geraghty & Miller, 1992a). Future potable use of the groundwater in the vicinity of OU-7 is
unlikely due to salt-water intrusion.
34
-------
SHOPS
c.
g
|
1
COMPOUND
ARSENIC
P.PMJDE
P.PMJOO
PHEHAMTHRENC
GAHDEN
w
^
5
_j
o
1991 1993
960UQ/L 534|ig/L
).095ud/L ( Jl 0.12UO/L
.8.7u5LtJl KHKJ/L
ISug/l 14ng/L
COMPOUND
ARSENIC
P.P"J3DD
1991
iSdugA.Wk
0.020uq/L
1993
— —
0.23UO/L
T..;A~E s rs
LAYO ;T is NOT TO se.v_=
APPROXIMATE SCALE
HOMESTEAD AIR RESERVE BASE
FLORIDA
ARSENIC/PESTICIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN
GROUNDWATER. 199 J AND 1993 DATA
OU-7
ENTCUOLOGY STORAGE AREA
FIGURE 2-11
-------
Although other contaminated media are present at OU-7, the principal route of migration of
contaminants is through shallow groundwater. Past activities allowed contaminants to enter
soil/bedrock and surface water, and the contaminants eventually migrated to shallow
groundwater.
Operable Unit 7 is situated on very level topography at the Base. 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
limited due to the flat topography and lack of drainage at OU-7. Given the highly
transmissive underlying formation, rainwater typically infiltrates 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 soil/bedrock 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.
The natural concentrations of chemicals in the soil/bedrock, rock, and water have a
controlling effect on the fate and transport mechanisms. Soil/bedrock at the site exist
primarily as a veneer on the bedrock surface. The soil has both organic and iron precipitants.
Nevertheless, the calcium carbonate from the underlying oolite is the primary mineral
present.
2.7 SUMMARY OF SITE RISK
In order to evaluate whether existing or future exposure to contaminated media at OU-7
could pose a risk to people or the environment, USAF completed a Baseline Risk Assessment
(BRA) in May 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 environmental media. This ROD addresses the risks
attributable to chemicals in the soil and groundwater at OU-7. 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.
35
-------
2.7.1 Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern
TV •
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.
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 2-12 and 2-14 present soil and groundwater 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.
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.
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 discussed further 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 samples for a given medium, they are
36
-------
not selected as chemicals of concern. However, the number of samples at OU-7 for any
given medium is no more than 24. Therefore this criterion was not used for OU-7. The
following paragraphs discuss the three 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, 1992b), inorganic chemicals where the
maximum detected concentration is 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 for groundwater, surface soil, and subsurface soil are
summarized in Tables 2-18, 2-19, and 2-20, respectively.
Soil. For surface soil, five Base-wide background samples were collected by Geraghty &
Miller in 1991. These samples include SP11-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 (SP11-SL-
0028-6 and SP7-SL-0002) were collected. Soil background values are summarized in Table
2-12. As in the case of groundwater, data concerning typical chemical concentration ranges
in soil are used to place the site data in perspective. In particular, data from Hem (1989)
concerning carbonate sediments are employed for this purpose.
Groundwater. For groundwater, United States Geological Survey (USGS) data on the
Biscayne Aquifer have been used for comparison with site groundwater samples. The USGS
data are summarized in Table 2-14. While it is generally considered preferable to determine
background concentrations with wells immediately upgradient of the site, the monitoring
well P2-I-15 designated by Geraghty & Miller as a background well has concentrations of
several metals which are greater than associated site samples, and which are also above
regulatory concentrations. These results indicate that this well is probably not representative
of background levels, and the USGS data are more likely to represent undisturbed conditions.
Other sources of background information for groundwater include data concerning typical
chemical concentration ranges in groundwater. These data have been used to place the site
data in perspective.
37
-------
TABLE 2-18
SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN IN GROUNDWATER
OU-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
(Page 1 of 2)
Constituent
VOCs (ug/L)
Bromodichloromethane
Chloroform
Dibromochloromethane
BNAs (ug/L)
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Butylbenzylphthalate
Di-n-butylphthalate
Dibenzofuran
Dielhylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
2-Methylnaphthalene
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
TPHs (ug/L)
Minimum
Concentration
4
9
2
5.3
2.0
1.0
0.5
1.0
0.7
0.3
0.8
1.0
0.3
0.8
0.6
0.7
35.0
0.6
Maximum
Concentration
4
9
2
5.3
2.0
1.0
0.5
2.0
5.0
0.3
0.8
9.9
34.0
0.8
12.0
15.0
35.0
1.0
No. of
Wells
With Detects
1/5
1/5
1/5
i/5
1/5
2/5
1/5
2/5
3/5
1/5
2/5
3/5
4/5
1/5
4/5
4/5
1/5
2/5
Preliminary Screening
Summary
Included1
Included2
Included2
Excluded,
Excluded,
Excluded,
Excluded,
Excluded,
Excluded,
Excluded,
Excluded,
Excluded,
Excluded,
Excluded,
Excluded,
Excluded,
Excluded,
Excluded,
low score'
low score1
low score1
low score1
low score1
low score1
low score1
low score'
low score1
low score1
low score1
low score1
low score'
low score1
low score1
51.0
882
2/2
Included2
-------
TABLE 2-18
SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN IN GROUNDWATER
OU-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
(Page 2 of 2)
Chemical
(Hg/»
Minimum
Concentration
Maximum
Concentration
Pesticides (ug/L)
Alpha-BHC
ODD
DDE
DDT
Inorganics (mg/L)
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium (VI)
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Note; " '
No. of
Wells
With Detects
Preliminary Screening
Summary
0.03
0.18
0.09
0.02
0.049
0.0025
0.0056
0.001
101
0.026
0.0026
0.069
0.024
1.91
0.0023
1.8
11.0
0.013
0.027
0.03
10
0.12
0.11
4.3
0.96
0.039
0.0055
2,500
0.026
0.0026
2.5
0.024
7.7
0.099
6.0
17.3
0.013
0.10
1/5
3/5
2/5
2/5
5/5
5/5
4/5
2/5
5/5
1/5
1/5
5/5
1/5
5/5
5/5
4/5
5/5
1/5
3/5
Included1
Included2
Excluded, low score1
Excluded, low score1
Included1
Included
Excluded, low score1
Included
Included, qualitative, high cone essential nutrient
Included
Excluded, low score'
Excluded, below Biscayne Aquifer value, essential nutrient
Included, above current action level
Excluded, below Biscayne Aquifer value, essential nutrient
Included1
Excluded, below Biscayne Aquifer value, essential nutrient
Excluded, below Biscayne Aquifer value, essential nutrient
Excluded, low score'
Excluded, low score'
11 Low score indicates <1% result for concentration-toxicity screen (USEPA, 1989) for the RID and/or SF calculation (see Table 2-6)
» Chemical was included as a COPC based on additional screening using benchmarks based on USEPA Region III Risk-Bawd Concentrations (RBCs); sec Section 2.6 for details.
-------
TABLE 2-19
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
(Page 1 of 3)
Constituent
VOCs(pg/kg)
Acetone
Benzene
1,1-Dichloroethene
Chlorobenzene
Methylene Chloride
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Xylenes (total)
BNAs(ng/kg)
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalat.
Butylbenzylphthalate
Carbazole
Chrysene
Di-n-butylphthalate
Di-n-octylphthalate
Dibenzo(a,h)an«hracene
Fluoranthenc
Indeno(1.2,3-c,d)pyrene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Minimum
Concentration
4
24
25
19
3
1
19
1
57
110
65
66
69
44
66
52
8.6
59
79
56
10
17
97
45
43
50
50
92
Maximum
Concentration
560
24
25
19
720
23
19
I
57
220
1,400
970
2,000
550
500
130
8.6
92
1,300
1,010
10
280
1,900
630
84
50
1,100
2,200
No. of
Samples
With Detects
10/14
1/14
1/14
1/14
8/14
3/14
1/14
1/14
1/15
2/15
5/15
5/15
6/15
4/15
4/15
3/15
1/14
2/13
6/15
4/15
1/14
3/15
8/15
5/15
2/15
1/15
3/15
6/15
Preliminary Screening
Summary
Excluded, equipment decontamination contaminant
Included, Class A carcinogen
Excluded, low score'
Excluded, low score1
Excluded, low score1
Excluded, low score1
Excluded, low score1
Excluded, low score1
Excluded, low score1
Excluded, low score1
Included1
Included2
Included2
Excluded, low score1
Excluded, low score1
Excluded, low score1
Excluded, low score1
Excluded, low score1
Excluded, low score1
Excluded, low score1
Excluded, low score1
Included2
Excluded, low score1
Excluded, low score1
Excluded, low score'
Excluded, low score1
Excluded, low score1
Excluded, low score1
-------
TABLE 2-19
SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN IN SURFACE SOIL AT
OU-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
(Page 2 of 3)
Constituent
Minimum
Concentration
Maximum
Concentration
No. of
Samples
With Detects
Preliminary Screening
Summary
Pesticides/PCBs (ng/kg)
alpha-BHC 15
della-BHC 83
Chlordane isomers 7.6
DDD 4.8
DDE 5.1
DDT 12
Endosulfan sulfate 540
Endrin Ketone 1200
Heptachlor 4.6
Heptachlor epoxide 6.8
Methoxychlor 960
Inorganics (mg/kg)
Aluminum 681
Arsenic 0.49
Barium 5.2
Beryllium 0.12
Cadmium 1.6
Calcium 241000
Chromium (VI) 6.8
Copper 3.4
Iron 484
Lead 6.6
Magnesium 844
Manganese 9.8
Mercury 0.021
Nickel 2
Potassium 330
Silver 5.8
Sodium 356
15
83
3,500
890
2,200
4,600
540
1,200
37
94
960
17,700
44.5
451
1.1
1.6
716,000
61.5
26.5
15,500
43.4
23,220
119
0.39
2
330
20
1,480
1/24
1/24
15/25
15/25
19/25
18/25
1/25
MS
3/24
3/24
1/24
14/14
30/31
15/15
6/15
1/15
14/14
15/15
11/15
14/14
15/15
14/14
14/14
5/14
1/15
1/10
5/14
14/14
Excluded, low score'
Excluded, low score1
Included
Excluded, low score1
Included
Included
Excluded, low score1
Included
Excluded, low score1
Included
Excluded, low score1
Included
Included
Included
Excluded, below site background
Excluded, low score'
Excluded, essential nutrient (qualitative evaluation)
Included
Excluded, low score'
Excluded, essential nutrient (qualitative evaluation)
Excluded, below 400 mg/kg screening level
Excluded, essential nutrient (qualitative evaluation)
Included
Excluded, low score'
Excluded, low score'
Excluded, essential nutrient (qualitative evaluation)
Included
Excluded, essential nutrient (qualitative evaluation)
-------
TABLE 2-19
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
(Page 3 of 3)
Constituent
Inorganics (mg/kg)
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
Notes:
Minimum
Concentration
Maximum
Concentration
4
5
20
26.5
222
20
No. of
Samples
With Detects
4/14
15/15
1/14
Preliminary Screening
Summary
Included
Excluded, low score1
Excluded, low score1
-------
TABLE 2-20
SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN IN SUBSURFACE SOIL O2FT) AT
OU-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE ARE A i «I;AI
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
(Page 1 of 3)
Constituent
Minimum Maximum
Concentration Concentration
VOCs(ng/kg)
Acetone
Bromomethane
Methylene Chloride
Tetrachloroethene
Xylenes (total)
BNAs (ng/kg)
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)pcrylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Butylbenzylphthalate
Carbazole
Chrysene
Di-n-butylphlhalate
Di-n-octylphthalate
Dibenzofuran
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
2-MethylnaphthaIene
Naphthalene
Phcnanthrenc
Pyrene
3
350
2
4.800
160
1,700
41
45
18
14
44
44
47
45 ''
13
50
43
47
25
2,600
60
27
56
64
44
3,100
46
6.5
1,600
350
2,100
4,800
200
1,700
110
6,300
1,500
1,000
2,000
810
510
944
13
310
1,300
677
25
2,600
350
2,700
3,400
830
8,100
3,100
5,800
2,600
No. of
Samples
With Detects
21/29
1/29
18/29
1/2
2/29
1/36
2/36
5/36
10/36
11/36
9/36
6/36
8/36
8/35
1/29
2/27
11/36
12/36
1/29
1/29
41/29
14/36
2/36
6/36
2/29
1/36
10/36
14/36
Preliminary Screening
Summary
Excluded, equipment decontamination contaminant
Excluded, low score1
Excluded, low score1
Excluded, low score1
Excluded, low score1
Excluded, low score1
Excluded, low score'
Excluded, low score1
Excluded, low score1
Included1
Excluded, low score1
Excluded, low score1
Excluded, low score"
Excluded, low score1
Excluded, low score1
Excluded, low score1
Excluded, low score1
Excluded, low score'
Excluded, low score'
Excluded, low score1
Excluded, low score1
Excluded, low score1
Excluded, low score1
Excluded, low score1
Excluded, low score"
Excluded, low score1
Excluded, low score1
Excluded, low score1
-------
TABLE 2-20
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
(Page 2 of 3)
Constituent
Pesticides/PCBs (|Jg/kg)
Aldrin
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
delta-BHC
gamma-BHC
Chlordane isomers
DDD
DDE
DDT
Dieldrin
Endosulfan I (alpha)
Endosulfan II (beta)
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin
Endrin Aldehyde
Endrin Ketone
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxidc
Methoxychlor
Toxaphene
Aroclor 1260
Inorganics (rag/kg)
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Calcium
Chromium (VI)
Minimum
Concentration
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.0
2.4
2.1
6
5.1
5.1
8
6
5.1
2.7
5.9
2.6
3.8
100
200
56
199
14.6
0.62
4
0.12
48,400
3.1
Maximum
Concentration
38
2.6
9
12
10
1,890
650
460
1,100
50
5.1
13
20
230
18
23
450
13
100
200
56
52,800
14.6
47.3
156
2.5
726,000
145
No. of
Samples
With Detects
2/40
1/40
4/47
3/40
2/40
29/47
31/47
30/47
37/47
4/40
1/38
2/40
2/47
5/40
2/28
4/47
13/40
5/40
1/40
1/21
1/28
29/29
1/36
29/36
36/36
13/36
29/29
35/36
Preliminary Screening
Summary
Excluded, low score1
Excluded, low score1
Excluded, low score1
Excluded, low score1
Excluded, low score1
Included
Excluded, low score1
Excluded, low score1
Excluded, low score1
Excluded, low score1
Excluded, low score1
Excluded, low score1
Excluded, low score'
Excluded, low score'
Excluded, low score'
Excluded, low score'
Excluded, low score1
Excluded, low score'
Excluded, low score1
Excluded, low score1
Excluded, low score1
Included
Included, high detection limits
Included
Excluded, low score1
Excluded, below site background
Excluded, essential nutrient (qualitative evaluation)
Included
-------
TABLE 2-20
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
(Page 3 of 3)
Constituent
• , — . — , —
Inorganics (mg/kg) (continued)
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Notes:
LOW K£*OrP itlflif*'lll»C 1f\Qt r/tet.l
==^======
Minlmum
Concentration
10
0.41
45
0.79
513
3
0.21
1,320
49
5.6
336
4
0.43
Maximum
Concentration
10
25
46,200
114
2,880
167
0.21
22.9
1,320
4Q
19.7
1,700
IftO
129
No. of
Samples
With Delects
2/29
14/36
28/29
29/36
29/29
27/29
1/27
2/36
1/29
1/29
6/29
29/29
3/29
31/36
"
Preliminary Screening
Summary
Excluded, low score1
Excluded, low score1
Excluded, essential nutrient (qualitative evaluation)
Excluded, below 400 mg/kg screening level
Excluded, essential nutrient (qualitative evaluation)
Included
Excluded, low score1
Excluded, low score1
Excluded, essential nutrient (qualitative evaluation)
Excluded 3
Included
Excluded, essential nutrient (qualitative evaluation)
Included
Excluded, low score'
or de
' '989) f°r thC R'D and/0r SF calcula'i°" (« Table 2-8)
™"S be"Chmarks based °" USEPA «^» «' ««*-B»ed Concentrations (RBCs);
bCTChmarks
USEPA «^« HI Risk-Based Concentrations (RBCs)
-------
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 slope factor (SF). 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 SFs 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
SF is used for chemicals that are only carcinogenic by inhalation (chromium and cadmium).
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, surface soil, and subsurface soils
are presented in Tables 2-21, 2-22, and 2-23, respectively. Due to changes in guidance
during the development of this document, an additional toxicity - screening method, based on
Region IE 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,
surface soil, and subsurface soil). Within each medium, the data are presented in the order of
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi volatile organic compounds (SVOC),
pesticides/polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), inorganics. Comparisons are made to the four
criteria listed in Section 2.7.1.1, and then chemicals of potential concern are selected. The
38
-------
TABLE 2-21
TOXICITY-CONCENTRATION SCREENING FOR CHEMICALS IN GROUNDWATER AT
OU-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base. Florida
Constituent
VOCs
Bromodichloromethane
Chloroform
Dibromocnloromethane
BNAs
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Butylbenzylphthalate
Di-n-Butyl Phthalate
Dibenzofuran
Diethyl phthalate
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
2-MethyInaphthalene '"
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene '"
Phenol
Pyrene
TPHs "'
Pesticides
alpha-BHC'"
DDD
DDE
DDT
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium (water) "'
Calcium
Chromium (VI) *
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese "'
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Maximum
Concentration
(mg/l)
0.004
0.009
0.002
0.005
0.002
0.001
0.0005
0.002
0.005
0.0003
0.00082
0.0099
0.034
0.0008
0.012
0.015
0.035
0.001
0.882
0.00003
0.01
0.00012
0.00011
4.3
0.%
0.039
0.0055
2.500
0.026
0.0026
2.5
0.024
7.7
0.099
6.02
17.3
0.013
0.0956
Non-carcinogen
RfD Slope Factor Index
(mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/day)'' (conc/RfD)
2.0E-02
l.OE-02
2.0E-02
6.0E-02
3.0E-01
2.0E-02
2.0E-01
l.OE-OI
4.0E-03
8.0E-01
4.0E-02
4.0E-02
4.0E-02
NA
4.0E-02
3.0E-02
6.0E-OI
3.0E-02
6.0E-01
3.0E-04
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
l.OE-KX)
3.0E-04
7.0E-02
5.0E-04
NA
5.0E-03
3.7E-02
NA
NA
NA
2.4E-02
NA
NA
7.0E-03
3.0E-01
« 6.2E-02
6.1E-03 »
"' 8.4E-02 m
NA
'" NA
1.4E-02
NA
NA
"' NA
'" NA
'" NA
'" NA
NA
4.9E-03
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6JE+00 '*
2.4E-01
'" 3.4E-01
3.4E-01
NA
1.5E+00 "•
'•> NA
6.3E+00
NA
'" 4.1E+01 M
NA
NA
NA
NA
'" NA
NA
NA
w NA
NA
2.0E-01
9.0E-01
l.OE-01
8.3E-02
6.7E-03
5.0E-02
2.5E-03
2.0E-02
1.3E+00
3.8E-04
2.1E-02
2.5E-01
8.5E-01
NC
3.0E-01
5.0E-01
5.8E-02
3.3E-02
1.5E+00
l.OE-01
2.0E-tOl
2.4E-01
2.2E-01
4.3E+00
3.2E+03
5.6E-01
1.1E+01
NC
5.2E+00
7.0E-02
NC
NC
NC
4.1E+00
NC
NC
I.9E+OO
3.2E-01
Carcinogen
Index
(cone x SF)
2.5E-04
5.5E-05
1.7E-04
NC
NC
. 1.4E-05
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
3.9E-06
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
1.9E-04
2.4E-03
4.1E-05
3.7E-05
NC
1.4E+00
NC
3.5E-02
NC
1.1E+00
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RfD
0.01%
0.03%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.04%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.03%
NC
0.01%
0.02%
0.00%
0.00%
0.05%
0.00%
0.61%
0.01%
0.01%
0.13%
98%
0.02%
034%
NC
0.16%
0.00%
NC
NC
NC
0.13%
NC
NC
0.06%
0.01%
SF
0.01%
0.00%
0.01%
NC
NC
0.00%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.00%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.01%
0.09%
0.00%
0.00%
NC
57%
NC
1.4%
NC
42%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Notes:
Toxkity values quoted in this table are for the oral pathway unless otherwise noted
cone = concentration
NA = Not available
NC = Not calculated
RfD = Reference dose
SF = Slope factor
'« IRIS. 1996
"' HEAST, 1995
«• ECAO
'" Massachusetts. DEP, October 1994
"' Naphthalene RfD used as surrogate for 2-Methylnapthalene RfD
"' Pyrene RfD used as a surrogate for Phenanthrene RfD
'" n-Nonane RfD used as surrogate for TPHs RfD
'" Gamma-BHC RfD used as surrogate for alpha-BHC RfD
'" Slope factor is for inhalation pathway
"' RfD for manganese is calculated based on the NOAEL of 10 mg/day in food, using a modifying factor of 3 for non-dietary intake.
-------
TABLE 2-22
TOXICITY-CONCENTRATION SCREENING FOR CHEMICALS IN SURFACE SOIL AT
OU-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Page 1 of 2
Chemical
VOCs
Benzene
1,1-Dichloroethene
Chlorobenzene
Methylene chloride
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Xylenes
BNAj
Acenaphthylene '"
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene "'
Benzo{a)pyrene ni
Benzo{b)nuoranthene Q>
Bcnzo(g.h.i)petylene">
Benzo(lc)fluoranthenc 01
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalatt
Butylbenzylphthalate
Carbazole
Chcysene *
Di-n-butylphthalate
Di-n-octylphthalate
Dibenzo{a,h)anthracene 01
Fluoranthene
Indeno(1.2.3-c.d)pyrene "'
2-McthylnapthaIcne "'
Naphthalene
Phenanthrenem
Pyrene
EesticIdeypCBs
alpha-BHC'"
delta-BHC'"
Chlordane Isoraers
DDD°>
DDE'"
DDT
Endosulfan Sulfate
Endrin Ketone"'
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxlde
Methoxychlor
Maximum
Concentration
(mg/kg)
0.024
0.025
0.019
0.72
0.023
0.019
0.001
0.057
0.22
1.4
0.97
2.0
0.55
0.5
0.13
0.009
0.092
1.3
1.01
0.01
0.28
1.9
0.63
0.08
0.05
1.1
2.2
0.015
'0.083
33
0.89
2.2
4.6
0.54
1.2
0.037
0.094
0.96
RfD
(mg/kg-day)
3.0E-4 «'
9.0E-3 "'
2.0E-2 "'
6.0E-2 '»
2.0E-1 <"
6.0E-3 '"
2.0E+0 '"
6.0E-2 a>
3.0E-1 «
3.0E-2 '"
3.0E-2 "'
3.0E-2 '"
3.0E-2 ">
3.0E-2 w
2.0E-2 «
2.0E-1 '"
NA
3.0E-2 '"
l.OE-1 '"
2.0E-2 *>
3.0E-2 '•'
4 OE-2 M
3.0E-2 '"
4.0E-2 ">
4.0E-2 «
3.0E-2 »
3.0E-2 "'
3.0E-4 "
3.0E-4 «>
6.0E-5 »'
5.0E-4 «
5.0E-4 '"
5.0E-4 '"
6.0E-3 »
3.0E-4 »
5.0E-4 <•'
13E-5 '•'
5.0E-3 '"
Slope Factor
(mg/kg-day)-'
2.9E-02 <•>
6.0E-01 '•'
NA
7.5E-03 <•>
NA
1.1E-02 »
NA
NA
NA
7.3E-01 <"»»l
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
7.3E-01 '""'•'
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.3E+00 <"
1.8E+00 '"><"
1JE+00 '•'
2.4E-01 «
3.4E-01 <"
3.4E-01 '•'
NA
NA
4.5E+00 M
9.1E+00 <••
NA
Non-Carcinogen
Index
(conc/RfD)
8.0E+01
2.8E+00
9.5E-01
' 1.2E+01
1.2E-01
3.2E+00
5.0E-04
9.5E-01
7.3E-01
4.7E+01
3.2E+01
6.7E+01
1.8E-f01
1.7E+01
6.5E+00
4.3E-02
NC
4.3E+01
l.OE+01
5.0E-01
9.3E+00
2.1E-f01
2.IE+00
1.3E+00
3.7E+01
7.3E+01
5.0E+01
2.8E-(-02
5.8E+04
1.8E+03
4.4E+03
9.1E+03
9.0E+01
4.0E+03
7.4E+01
7.2E+03
1.9E+02
Carcinogen
Index
(cone x SF)
7.0E-04
1.5E-02
NC
5.4E-03
NC
2.1E-04
NC
NC
NC
l.OE+00
7.1E+00
1.5E+00
NC
3.7E-02
1.8E-03
NC
1.8E-03
9.5E-03
NC
NC
2.0E+00
NC
4.6E-01
NC
NC
NC
NC
9.5E-02
1.5E-01
4.6E+00
2.1E-01
7.SE-01
1.6E+00
NC
NC
1.7E-01
8.6E-01
NC
RfD SF
0.03% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% NC
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% NC
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% NC
0.00% NC
0.00% NC
0.02% 0.04%
0.01% 0.27%
0.02% 0.06%
0.01% NC
0.01% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% NC
NC 0.00%
0.01% 0.00%
0.00% NC
0.00% NC
0.00% 0.08%
0.02% NC
0.01% 0.02%
0.00% NC
0.00% NC
0.01% NC
0.03% NC
0.02% 0.00%
0.10% 0.01%
20% 0.17%
0.61% 0.01%
1.51% 0.03%
3.2% 0.06%
0.03% NC
1.4% NC
0.03% 0.01%
2.5% 0.03%
0.07% NC
-------
TABLE 2-22
TOXICITY-CONCENTRATION SCREENING FOR CHEMICALS IN SURFACE SOIL AT
OU-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Page 2 of2
Chemical
Metals
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium (food) m
Calcium
Chromium VI '"
Copper
Cyanide (free )
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese '"
Mercury
Nickel <•>
Potassium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Notes:_
Maximum
Concentration
(mg/kg)
17,700
443
451
1.1
1.6
716,000
61.5
26.5
20
15,500
43.4
23,220
119
0.39
2
330
20
1,480
263
222
RfD
(mg/kg-day)
l.OE+0 '"
3.0E-4 '•'
7.0E-2 '"
5.0E-3 <"
l.OE-3 '"
NA
5.0E-3 '•'
3.7E-2 «
2.0E-2 '•'
NA
NA
NA
2.4E-2 '"
3.0E-4 »'
2.0E-2 '"
NA
5.0E-3 "'
NA
7.0E-3 '»
3.0E-1 '•'
Slope Factor Non-Carcinogen
(mg/kg-day)" Index
(conc/RfD)
NA
1-5E+00
NA
4.3E+00
6.3E+00
NA
4.1E+01
NA
NA
NA
MA
NA
NA
NA
8.4E-01
MA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.8E+04
1.5E+05
6.4E+03
w 2.2E+02
'" 1.6E+03
NC
'" 1.2E+04
7.2E+02
l.OE+03
NC
NC
NC
5.0E+03
1.3E+03
'" l.OE+02
NC
4.0E+03
NC
3.8E+03
7.4E+02
Carcinogen %
Index RID
(cone x SF)
NC
6.7E+01
NC
4.7E+00
l.OE+01
NC
2.5E+03
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
1.7E+00
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
6.1%
51%
2.2%
0.08%
0.55%
NC
4J%
0.25%
0.35%
NC
NC
NC
1.7%
0.45%
0.03%
NC
1.4%
NC
1.3%
0.26%
%
SF
NC
2.5%
NC
0.18%
0.38%
NC
96%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.06%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Toxicity values quoted in this table are for the oral pathway unless otherwise noted
cone = concentration
NA = Not available
NC = Not calculated
RfD = Reference dose
SF = Slope factor
'" IRIS, 1996
»' HEAST, 1995
'" ECAO
*" Massachusetts, DEP, October 1994
™ Acenaphthene RfD used as surrogate for Acenaphthylene RfD
Pyrene RfD used as a surrogate for RfD of various PAHs
^j Naphthalene RfD used as surrogate for 2-MethylnapthaIene RfD
Si^^"0^ US6d ^ surr°Sate foralpha-BHC, beta-BHC, and delta-BHC RfDs
uoi RfD used as a surrogate for ODD and DDE RfDs
Endrin RfD used as surrogate for Endrin Aldehyde and Endrin Ketone RfDs
Mope factor is for inhalation pathway
tobenz
-------
TABLE 2-23
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Page 1 of 2
Constituent
VQQL
Bromomethane
Methylene chloride
Tetrachloroethcne
Xylencs
SNA-;
Acenaphthene
Accnaphthylene"'
Anthracene
Bcnzo(a)amhracene "'
Benzo(a)pyrene °»
Benzo(b)nuoranthene0>
Bcnzo(g,h.i)peiylene01
Benzo(lc)nuoranlhene 0|
Bis(2-Eihylhexyl)phihalale
Buiylbenzylphthalate
Caibazole
Chiysenc "
Di-n-butylphthalate
Di-n-octy!phthaJaie
Dibcnzofuran
Dibenzo(a.h)anthracene C1
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indcno(l,2,3-c.d)pyrene °»
2-MethyInaphthalene °»
Naphthalene
Phcnanthrene °'
Pyrene
Aldrin
aJpha-BHC ">
beta-BHC<"
dclta-BHC '"
gamma-BHC(Lindane)
Chlordane Isomeis
DDD°'
DDE*
DDT
Dieldrin
Endosulfan I
Endosulfanll
Endosulfan Sulfaie
Endrin
Endrin Aldehyde wl
Endrin Kctone "'
Hcpiachlor
HepiachlorEpoxide
Methoxychlor
Toxaphene
Aroclor 1260
Maximum
Concentration
(mg/kg)
__
0.35
2.1
4.8
0.2
1.7
0.11
6.3
1.5
1
2
0.81
0.51
0.944
0.013
0.31
1.3
0.677
0.025
2.6
0.35
2.7
3.4
0.83
8.1
3.1
5.8
2.6
0.038
0.0026
0.009
0.012
0.01
1.89
0.65
0.46
1.1
0.05
0.0051
0.013
0.02
0.23
0.018
0.023
0.45
0.013
0.1
0.2
0.056
RfD
(mg/kg/day)
~"
Slope Factor
(mg/kg/day)-'
— — — —
1.4E-03 <•> NA
6.0E-02 '•' 7.5E-03 '•>
l.OE-02 » 5.0E-02 '"
2.0E+00 '" NA
6.0E-02 <•>
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-OI »
NA
3.0E-02 '•'
l.OE-01 '•'
2.0E-02 *'
4.0E-03 "'
3.0E-02 '•'
4.0E-02 '•'
4.0E-02 '•'
3.0E-02 <•'
4.0E-02 <•>
4.0E-02 «
3.0E-02 »
3.0E-02 <•'
3.0E-05 »
3.0E-04 «
3.0E-04 '•'
3.0E-04 <•>
3.0E-04 ««
6.0E-05 <•>
5.0E-04 '"
5.0E-04 »
5.0E-04 '•'
5.0E-05 »
6.0E-03 <"
6.0E-03 »
6.0E-03 <"
3.0E-04 '»
3.0E-04 <"
3.0E-04 <">
5.0E-04 '•'
1.3E-05 '•>
5.0E-03 "'
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.3E-OI "D""
7.3E+00 '»
7.3E-OI '">»•>
NA .
7.3E-02 '"""'
I.4E-02 '«
NA
2.0E-02 «'
7.3E-03 '"»'••
NA
NA
NA
7.3E+00 <""•»
NA
NA
7.3E-OI '"»'•'
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.7E+OI <•>
6.3E+00 '•'
1.8E+00 <•>
1.8E+00 '"><•>
1.3E-KX) »•
1 JE+00 '•'
2.4E-01 «
3.4E-01 '•'
3.4E-01 '•'
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.5E+00 <•'
9.1E+00 <•'
NA
1.1E+00 <•'
7.7E+00
— — ^— B^VH^BK^H
Non-Carcinogen Carcinogen %
Index index Rfn
(conc/RfD)
1
2.5E+02
4.8E+02
l.OE-01
2.8E+01
1.8E+00
2.1E+OI
5.0E+01
3.3E+01
6.7E+01
2.7E+OI
1.7E+OI
4.7E+OI
6.5E-02
NC
4.3E+01
6.8E+00
I.3E+00
6.5E+02
I.2E+01
6.8E-H)1
8.5E+01
2.8E+01
2.0E+02
7.8E+01
1.9E+02
8.7E+01
1.3E+03
8.7E+00
3.0E+OI
4.0E+01
3.3E+OI
3.2E-H)4
1.3E+03
9.1E+02
2.2E+03
1.0E-M)3
8.5E-01
2.2E+00
3.3E+00
7.7E+02
6.0E+01
7.7E+01
9.0E+02
I.OE+03
2.0E+01
NC
NC
(cone x SF)
— .
NC
1.6E-02
2.4E-01
NC
NC
NC
NC
1.1E+00
7.3E-I-00
I.5E+00
NC
3.7E-02
I.3E-02
NC
6.2E-03
9.5E-03
NC
NC
NC
2.6E+00
NC
NC
6.1E-01
NC
NC
NC
NC
6.5E-01
1.6E-02
I.6E-02
2.2E-02
I.3E-02
2.5E+00
1.6E-01
1.6E-OI
3.7E-01
8.0E-01
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
2.0E+00
1.2E-01
NC
2.2E-01
4.3E-01
0.07%
0.01%
0.13%
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.02%
0.01%
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
NC
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.18%
0.00%
0.02%
0.02%
0.01%
0.06%
0.02%
0.05%
0.02%
0.35%
0.00%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
8.7%
0.36%
0.25%
0.60%
0.28%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.21%
0.02%
0.02%
0.25%
0.28%
0.01%
NC
NC
—•"•—•——.
cp
or
NC
0.00%
0.00%
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.02%
0.12%
0.02%
NC
0.00%
0.00%
NC
0.00%
0.00%
NC
NC
NC m
0.04% 1
NC
NC
0.01%
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.04%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.01%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.03%
0.00%
NC
0.00%
0.01%
-------
TABLE 2-23
CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN IN SUBSURFACE SOIL <>2FD AT
OU-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Page 2 of2
Constituent
Metals
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Calcium
Chromium (VI) '"
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese '"
Mercury
Nickel'"
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Notre-
Maximum
Concentration
(mg/kg)
52,800
14.6
413
156
2.5
726,000
145
10
25
46,200
114
2,880
167
0.21
23
1,320
49
19.7
1,700
109
129
RfD
(mg/kg/day)
l.OE+00 i"
4.0E-04 <•>
3.0E-04 «
7.0E-02 '•'
5.0E-03 '•>
NA
5.0E-03 «
6.0E-02 «>
3.7E-02 »>
NA
NA
NA
2.4E-02 "'
3.0E-04 »'
2.0E-02 »
NA
5.0E-03 '•'
5.0E-03 '•'
NA
7.0E-03 «
3.0E-OI »
Slope Factor
(mg/kg/day)-1
NA
NA
1.5E+00
NA
4.3E+00 '•'
NA
4.1E+01 »'
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.4E-01 '•'
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
~ ~ ' ...
— — — — — — — .—
Non-Carcinogen Carcinogen
Index index
(conc/RfD) (concxSF)
• .
5JE+04
3.7E+04
1.6E+05
2.2E+03
5.0E+02
NC
2.9E+04
1.7E-f02
6.8E+02
NC
NC
NC
7.0E+03
7.0E+02
1.2E+03
NC
9.8E+03
3.9E+03
NC
1.6E+04
4.3E+02
•
•"" —
NC
NC
7.1E+01
NC
UE+01
NC
5.9E+03
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
1.9E+01
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
^•^M^H^^MH
%
RfD
.
15%
10%
44%
0.62%
0.14%
NC
8.0%
0.05%
0.19%
NC
NC
NC
1.9%
0.19%
0.32%
NC
2.71%
1.1%
NC
4.3%
0.12%
VMH^^MM
%
SF
•'•"• i i -
NC
NC
1.2%
NC
0.18%
NC
98%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.32%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
cone = concentration -------- ........ «••« F^»way u
NA = Not available
NC = Not calculated
RfD = Reference dose
SF = Slope factor
(w IRIS, 1996
*' HEAST, 1995
'" ECAO
"' Massachusetts, DEP, October 1994
<« pvCe"aPp^ne ^° U$ed " surr°Sate for Acenaphthylene RfD
o> My u t US6d M a &mo^K fw RfD of various PAHs
tEJ
-------
summary Tables 2-18 through 2-20 present for each chemical, the range of concentrations,
the frequency of detection, and whether the chemical has been selected as a chemical of
potential concern.
The analytical data for this risk assessment were collected by Geraghty & Miller during
investigations in 1989 and 1991, Montgomery Watson during 1993 and FT Corporation in
1994. An in-depth discussion of the sample collection and analytical methodology is
presented in Section 2.0 of the Montgomery Watson RI (1996). These analytical data were
reduced and analyzed for use in the risk assessment according to guidelines provided by
USEPA (1989a, 1991). Geraghty & Miller and IT Corporation performed laboratory
analyses and data validation for their field samples; Montgomery Watson performed its own
data validation, which is reported in a Quality Control Summary Report, while Savannah
Laboratories performed the laboratory analyses. All data collected by Geraghty & Miller in
1991, Montgomery Watson in 1993, and IT Corporation in 1994 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 Contract Laboratory Protocol Scope of Work (CLP SOW) contract required
quantitation limits (CRQL).
Sample quantitation limits (SQL) at levels suitably low for risk assessment use were not
consistently achieved. In the subsurface soil data base obtained in 1994 by IT Corp, three of
27 samples had SVOC SQL at 8000 to 8100 /ig/kg while air others were 2000 /ig/kg and
below. In 1989, the thallium detection limit in all seven samples collected was 8 mg/kg
while all others were 1.0 mg/kg and below. In both cases, had maximum concentrations at
these detection limit levels been used in the toxicity screen, it could have affected the
outcome of the selection of COPCs. The majority of the data obtained during other sampling
events had acceptable detection limits for thallium and SVOCs which indicated that these
chemicals were of limited occurrence on site. When thallium was repeatedly not detected in
soils where a suitably low detection limit was reached, it was assumed that thallium was also
not detected to low levels in the samples with high detection limits. Similarly, it is highly
unlikely that SVOCs would have been consistently found at levels just beneath the Sample
Quantitation Limit (SQL) in the samples where a high SQL was obtained. Professional
judgment indicated that inclusion of the nondetect data through use of 1/2 of the detection
limit was sufficiently representative.
In reviewing the IT laboratory reports to obtain detection limits, some omissions from the
Summary Table (IT Corp, 1994) were noted. In particular heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide,
39
-------
and DDE had been detected in sample point FCSN2.4 but had been omitted from the
Summary Table. These chemicals were added to the MW data base so it no longer is
identical to the IT Summary Tables.
Geraghty & Miller specify in their remedial investigation that groundwater was analyzed for
total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), while soil was analyzed for hydrocarbons limited in
size to compounds with a carbon chain length of 8-20. Although these are two distinct
analyses, both are termed TPH for the purposes of this document.
2.7.1.4 Screening Using Risk-Based Concentrations. Guidance on COPC selection
changed during the development of this document. Therefore, an 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
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 III RBC Table represent risk levels of
1 x 10 (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 RBC-based benchmark in Tables 2-24 to 2-26.
Chemicals whose maximum concentration exceeded the benchmark value were added as
COPCs. The results of this process are summarized below.
Groundwater. Chemicals detected in groundwater were compared to the Tap Water RBCs.
The results of this comparison are shown in Table 2-24. The comparison resulted in
bromodichloromethane, dibromochloromethane and chloroform, the pesticides alpha-BHC
and DDD, TPHs, and manganese being added to the list of COPCs for groundwater. All
other chemicals that exceeded the RBC-based benchmarks had already been selected as
COPCs, based on previous screening described in Sections 2.7.1.2, 2.7.1.3, and Table 2-21.
40
-------
TABLE 2-24
MC-BASED BENCHMARK SCREENING FORCHEMICALS IN GROUND
00-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
WATER AT
COPCfrom
Previous
Screening'"
(yes = +>)
— — — _
-
-
-
-
-
-
•
"
-
-
+
+
+
+
-
-^— — — ^^^_
Maximum
Concentration
ntg/l
— -^— __
0.004
0.009
0.002
0.005
0.002
0.001
0.0005
0.002
0.005
0.0003
0.00082
0.0099
0.034
0.0008
0.012
0.015
0.035
0.001
0.882
0.00003
0.01
0.00012
0.00011
43
0.96
0.039
0.0055
2.500
0.026
0.0026
3
0.024
8
0.099
6
17
0.013
0.0956
Toxicity Valn~
RfD
mg/kg/day
• • — .
2.0E-02 '"
l.OE-02 »
2.0E-02
6.0E-02
3.0E-OI '»
2.0E-02
2.0E-01
I.OE-01 •«
4.0E-03
8.0E-01
4.0E-02 '»
4.0E-02 '•'
4.0E-02
NA
4.0E-02
3.0E-02
6.0E-OI '•'
3.0E-02
6.0E-01 •*
3.0E-04
5.0E-04 »
5.0E-04 »'
5.0E-04 '••
l.OE+00 <°
3.0E-04 «
7.0E-02 «
5.0E-04 >•<
NA
5.0E-03 "
3.7E-02 *
Kf A
NA
NA
NA
2.4E-02 <«
NA
NA
7.0E-03
3.0E-OI <•>
Slope Factor
(mg/kg/day)1
— — — — -
6.2E-02
6.1E-03
8.4E-02
MA
NA
1.4E-02
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.9E-03
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6JE+00 «
2.4E-01 «
3.4E-01 '»
3.4E-01
NA
1-5E+00
NA
6_JE+00 <•<
NA
4.1E+01 *>
NA
ii/\
NA
VA
i^lA
NA
NA
NA
MA
INA
NA
NA
RBCs
(Region UI
Tap Water)
mg/1
~
'" 0.00017
" 0.00015
" 0.00013
2.2
11
0.0048
7.3
3.7
0.15
29
1.5
1.5
1.5
0.014
1.5
1.1
22
1.1
NA
0.000011
0.00028
0.0002
0.0002
!..
RBC-Based Exceeds
Benchmark Benchmark
mg/1 (yes = +) COPC
~~~ — _
0.00017 + +
0.00015 + +
0.00013 + +
0.22
1.1
0.0048
0.73
0.37
0.015
2.9
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.014
0.15
0.1 1
2.2
0.1 1
NA
0.000011 + +
0.00028 + +
0.0002
0.0002
37 3.7 + .
0.000045 0.000045 +
2.6 0.26
0.018 0.0018 + +
NA NA . I
0-18 0.018 + +
1.5
NA
NA
NA
0.18
NA
NA
0.26
11
0.15
NA
NA . +
NA
0.018 + +
NA
NA
0.026
1.1
Constituent
VOCS
Bromodlchloromethane
Chloroform
Dibromochloromethane
BNA^
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
bis(2-EthylhexyI)phthalate
Butylbenzylphthalate
Di-n-Butyl Phthalate
Dibenzofuran
Dieihyi phthalatc
Fluoranihcnc
Fluorene
2-Methylnaphthalene1]>
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
Naphthalene
Phenanthrcne'"
Phenol
Pyrenc
lEHs"1
Pesticide;
alpha-BHC"1
ODD
DDE
DDT
Mcisls
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium (water) •"
Calcium
Chromium VI •
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese ">
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Noi«-
NC s Not calculated
RfD = Reference dose
SFs Slope factor
w IRIS.1996
IM HEAST. 1995
"' ECAO
•* Massachusetts, DEP. October 1994
"* Ft ACMrl nn vi->.>__..! .
t in Table 2-6 and Section 2.5.
Slope facto
^
-------
TABLE 2-25
RBC-BASED BENCHMARK SCREENING FOR CHEMICALS IN SURFACE SOIL AT
OU-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Page I of 2
Chemical
VOCs
Acetone
Benzene
1,1-Dichloroethene
Chlorobenzene
Methylene chloride
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Xylenes
BNAs
Acenaphthylene '"
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene '"
Benzo(a)pyrene **
Benzo
Di-n-butylphthalate
Di-n-octylphlhalate
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene '"
Fluoranthene
Indeno( 1 ,2,3-c.d)pyrene 1!1
2-Methylnaphthalene "'
Naphthalene
Phenanthrenc m
Pyrene
Peslicides/PCBs
alpha-BBC14'
delia-BHC"1
Chlordane fsomers
DDD11'
DDE"*
DDT
Endosulfan 'Sulfate
Endrin Ketone"1
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Methoxychlor
COPC from
previous Maximum
screening?"' Concentration
(yes = +) mg/kg
0.56
0.024
0.025
0.019
0.72
0.023
0.019
0.001
0.057
0.22
1.4
0.97
2.0
0.55
0.5
0.13
0.009
0.09
1.3
1.01
0.01
0.28
1.9
0.63
0.08
0.05
t.l
2.2
0.015
0.083
+ 3.5
0.89
+ 2.2
+ 4.6
0.54
0.037
+ 0.094
0.96
Toxicity Values
RfD
mg/kg-day
l.OE-1 '"
3.0E-4 »
9.0E-3 '"
2.0E-2 '"
6.0E-2 "'
2.0E-1 '••
6.0E-3 «'
2.0E-*O '"
6.0E-2 -
3.0E-1 '•>
3.0E-2 "
3.0E-2 '•'
3.0E-2 -
3.0E-2 "'
3.0E-2 -1
2.0E-2 •»
2.0E-1 "'
NA
3.0E-2 "'
l.OE-1 »
2.0E-2 »
3.0E-2 «
4.0E-2 '•'
3.0E-2 '•'
4.0E-2 "'
4.0E-2 «
3.0E-2 '"
3.0E-2 ••'
3.0E-4 <•'
3.0E-4 «
6.0E-5 ."
5.0E-* '"
S.OE-4 w
5.0E-4 '"
6.0E-3 «'
3.0E-4 «
5.0E-4 <•
1JE-5 <"
5.0E-3 «
Slope Factor
{mg/kg-day)-1
NA
2.9E-02 -
6.0E-01
NA
7.5E-03 »'
NA
1.1E-02 «'
NA
NA
NA
7JE-01 '""•'
7JE+00 •«
7JE-01 "°""
NA
7.3E-02 """•
1.4E-02
NA
2.0E-02 »'
7.3E-03 """•'
NA
NA
7JE+00 •"""
NA
7.3E-01 "•"•'
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.3E400 '«
1.8E+00 ' '
UE+00 »
2.4E-01
3.4E-01 «
3.4E-01 w
NA
NA
4.5E+00 '"
9.1E+00 w
NA
RBCs
(Region III
Resid Soil)
mg/kg
7,800
22
1.1
1,600
85
16.000
58
160,000
4.700
23,000
0.88
0.088
0.88
2.300
8.8
46
16,000
32
88
7.800
1,600
0.088
3,100
0.88
3,100
3,100
2.300
2.300
0.1
0.35
0.49
2.7
1.9
1.9
470
23
0.14
0.07
390
Exceeds
RBC-based Benchmark
benchmark (yes = +)
mg/kg
780
22
1.1
160
85
1.600
58
16.000
470
2,300
0.88 +
0.088 +
0.88 +
230
8.8
46
1600
32
88
780
160
0.088 +
310
0.88
310
310
230
230
0.1
0.35
0.049 +
2.7
1.9 +
1.9 +
47
23
0.14
0.07 +
39
^ ,
COPC
-
+
+
.
-------
, TABLE 2-25
RBC-BASED BENCHMARK SCREENING FOR CHEMICALS IN SURFACE SOIL AT
OU-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Page 2 of2
Chemical
Metals
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium (food) ">
Chromium (VI) *
Copper
Cyanide (free )
Lead
Manganese ™
Mercury
Nickel"1
Silver
Vanadium
Zinc
NftTM*
COPC from
previous Maximum
screening?'" Concentration
(yes = +) mg/kg
+ 17,700
+ 44.5
+ 451
1.1
1.6
+ 61.5
26.5
20
43.4
+ 119
0.39
2
+ 20
+ 26.5
222
Toxicity Values
RfD
mg/kg-day
l.OE+0
3.0E-4
7.0E-2
5.0E-3
l.OE-3
5.0E-3
3.7E-2
2.0E-2
NA
2.4E-2
3.0E-4
2.0E-2
5.0E-3
7.0E-3
3.0E-1
Slope Factor
(mg/kg-day)1
w NA
'" l.SE+00 "'
NA
" 4JE+00 '"
"' 6.3E+00 '"
" 4.1E+OI »'
™ NA
NA
NA
'• NA
111 NA
'" 8.4E-01 '•'
"• NA
» NA
'" NA
RBCs
(Region III
Resid Soil)
mg/kg
78,000
043
S^OO
0.15
39
390
3.100
1.600
NA
390
23
1,600
390
550
23.000
RBC-based
benchmark
mg/kg
7,800
0.43
550
0.15
3.9
39
310
160
NA
39
2.3
160
39
55
2.300
Exceeds
Benchmark COPC
(yes = +)
+ +
+ +
" *
^
"
- t
-
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 Table 2-4
and Sections 2.4 and 2£ for full discussion of essential nutrients.
NA = Not available
NC = Not calculated
RfD s Reference dose
SF = Slope factor
" IRIS.1996
" HEAST. 1995
" ECAO
" Massachusetts, DEP. October 1994
" Acenaphthene RfD used as surrogate for Acenaphthylene RfD
1 Pyrene RfD used as a surrogate for RfD of various compounds
' Naphthalene RfD used as surrogate for 2-Methylnapthalene RfD
1 Gamma-BHC RfD used as surrogate for alpha-BHC. beta-BHC, and delta-BHC RfDs
1 DDT RfD used as a surrogate for ODD and DDE RfDs
' Endrin RfD used as surrogate for Endrin Aldehyde and Endrin Ketone RfDs
1 Slope factor is for inhalation pathway
1 RfD for manganese is calculated based on the NOAEL of 10 mg/day in food, using a modifying factor of 3 for non-dietary intake
1 Nickel refinery dust inhalation slope factor used as surrogate for Nickel slope factor
!! To*fcJ5;J?!.UivaIcnCy ?«=«"• CTEF) was applied to the benzo(a)pyrene slope factor, based on the relative potency of this chemical to benzo(a)pyrene
" beta-BHC slope factor used as surrogate for delta-BHC slope factor
-------
TABLE 2-26
RBC-BASED BENCHMARK SCREENING FOR CHEMICALS IN SUBSURFACE SOIL (>2FT) AT
OU-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
(Page I of 2)
Chemical
VOCs
Bromomethane
Melhylene chloride
Tetrachloroeihenc
Xylenes
BNAs
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene '"
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene '"
Benzo(a)pyrene ">
Benzo(b)fluoranthene "'
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene m
BenzoWfluoranthene "•
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Butylbenzylphthalate
Carbazole
Chrysene '"
Di-n-butylphthalate
Di-n-octylphthalate
Dibenzoftiran
Dibenzo(a.h)anthraccne '"
Fluoranthenc
Fluorene
Indenof 1 ,2.3-c.d)pyrenc l!l
2-Methylnaphthalenc '"
Naphthalene
Phcnanthrene l!1
Pyrcne
Pesiicides/PCpjj
Aldrin
alpha-BHC '"
beta-BHC "'
delta-BHC ">
gamrna-BHC (Lindane)
Chlordane Isomers
ODD "'
DDE1"
DDT
Dieldrin
Endosulfan I
Endosulfan II
Endosulfan Sulfate
Endrin
Endrin Aldehyde '"
Endrin Ketone '"
Hepiachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Methoxychlor
Toxaphene
Aroclor 1260
COPCfrom
previous Maximum
screening?'" Concentration
(yes = +) mg/kg
0.35
2.1
. - 4.8
0.2
1.7
0.11
6.3
1.5
1
2
0.81
0.51
0.944
0.013
0.31
1.3
0.677
0.025
2.6
0.35
2.7
3.4
0.83
8.1
3.1
5.8
2.6
0.038
0.0026
0.009
0.012
0.01
+ 1.89
0.65
0.46
1.1
0.05
0.0051
0.013
0.02
0.23
0.018
0.023
0.45
0.013
0.12
0.2
0.056
Toxicity Values
RfD
mg/kg-day
1.4E-03 '"
6.0E-02 '•>
l.OE-02 '•
2.0E+00 '«
6.0E-02 "'
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 -
NA
3.0E-02 »
l.OE-OI '"
2.0E-02 »
4.0E-03 "•
3.0E-02 "'
4.0E-02 '"
4.0E-02 "'
3.0E-02 '"
4.0E-02 «>
4.0E-02 *•
3.0E-02 '"
3.0E-02 "'
3.0E-05 '"
3.0E-04 '•'
3.0E-04 '-
3.0E-04 «
3.0E-04 "'
6.0E-OS "
5.0E-04 '»
5.0E-04 »'
5.0E-04 "'
S.OE-05 «
6.0E-03 ">
6.0E-03 «
6.0E-03 '"
3.0E-04 «
3.0E-04 '»
3.0E-04 '-
5.0E-04 »
1.3E-05 "'
5.0E-03 •"
NA
NA
Slope Factor
(mg/kg-day)-1
NA
7.5E-03 «
5.0E-02
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.3E-01 '""'•'
7JE+00 «
7.3E-01 """'
NA
7.3E-02 '"""
1.4E-02 '"
NA
2.0E-02 «
7.3E-03 ""•"
NA
NA
NA
7.3E+OO
NA
NA
7.3E-01
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.7E+01
6.3E+00 '"
l.SE+00
1.8E+00 ' '
1.3E+00 '"
IJE+00 '•'
2.4E-01
3.4E-01
3.4E-01
I.6E+01
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.5E+00 "'
9.1E+00
NA
1.1E+00 '"
7.7E400 '«
RBCs
(Region HI
Resid Soil)
mg/kg
2900
760
no
1,000,000
120,000
120.000
610,000
7.8
0.78
7.8
78
410
410,000
290
780
200.000
41,000
8,200
0.78
82,000
82,000
7.8
82,000
82.000
61,000
61.000
0.34
0.91
3.2
3.2
4.4
4.4
24
17
17
0.36
12,000
12.000
12,000
610
610
610
1.3
0.63
10.000
5.2
0.74
Exceeds
RBC-based Benchmark
benchmark (yes = +}
mg/kg
290
760
110
100.000
12,000
12.000
61,000
7.8
0.78 -*•
7.8
NA
78
410
41,000
290
780
20.000
4.100
820
0.78
8.200
8,200
7.8
8,200
8,200
6.100
6.100
0.34
0.91
3.2
3.2
4.4
4.4
24
17
17
0.36
UOO
UOO
UOO
61
61
61
1.3
0.63
1.000
5.2
0.74
COPC
"
•
-
-
*
_
-
-
.
.f
-
-
-
-
.
-------
TABLE 2-26
RBC-BASED BENCHMARK SCREENING FOR CHEMICALS IN SUBSURFACE SOIL <>2FT) AT
OU-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
(Page 2 of 2)
Chemical
Mcl.ilt
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Chromium (VI)"1
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Manganese *
Mercury
Nickel1"
Selenium
Silver
Vanadium
Zinc
COPCfrom
previous Maximum
screening?1" Concentration
(yes = +) mg/kg
+ 52,800
+ 14.6
+ 47J
156
2S
+ 145
10
25
114
+ 167
0.21
23
+ 49
* 19.7
+ 109
129
Toxicitv Values
RfD
mg/kg-day
l.OE+00 w
4.0E-04 »
3.0E-04 "
7.0E-02 "'
S.OE-03 "
5.0E-03 "
6.0E-02 ">
3.7E-02 '"
NA
2.4E-02 »
3.0E-04 '»
2.0E-02 «
5.0E-03 "•
S.OE-03 «•
7.0E-03 "
3.0E-01 «'
RBCs
Slope Factor (Region HI
(mg/kg-day) ' Resid Soil)
mg/kg
NA
NA
1.5E-HX)
NA
4JE+00
4.1E+01
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.4E-01
NA
NA
NA
NA
1,000,000
820
3.8
140,000
1J
'" 10,000
120,000
82.000
NA
10,000
610
41,000
10,000
10,000
14,000
610.000
Exceeds
RBC-based Benchmark
benchmark (yes = +}
mg/kg
100,000
82
3.8 +
14,000
1,000
12,000
8.200
NA
1000
61
4,100
1.000
1,000
1400
61.000
COPC
•f
•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 Table 2-5
and Sections 2.4 and 2.5 for full discussion of essential nutrients.
NA = Not available
NC M Not calculated
RID * Reference dose
SF = Slope factor
" IRIS. 19«
'• HEAST, 199S
" ECAO
* Massachusetts. DEP, October 1994
" Acenaphthene RfD used as surrogate for Acenaphthylene RflD
" Pyrene RfD used as a surrogate for RfD of various PAHs
* Naphthalene RfD used as surrogate for 2-Methylnaphthalene RfD
'' Gamma-BHC RfD used as surrogate foralpha-BHC, beta-BHC. and delta-BHC RfDs
DDT RfD used as a surrogate for ODD and DDE RfDs
* Endrin RfD used as surrogate for Endrin Aldehyde and Endrin Ketone RfDs
Slope factor is for inhalation pathway
-------
Surface soil. Chemicals detected in surface soil were compared to RBCs for residential soil
The results of this comparison are shown in Table 2-25. The comparison resulted in
benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene and
manganese being added to the list of COPCs for surface soils. Although the maximum
concentration of beryllium in surface soil exceeded its respective RBC-based benchmark the
concentrations detected were within background levels, and so beryllium was not considered
a COPC in surface soil. All other chemicals detected in surface soil whose maximum
concentration exceeded the RBC-based benchmarks had already been selected as COPCs
based on previous screening described in Sections 2.7.1.2, 2.7.1.3 and Table 2-22.
Subsurface Soil. Chemicals detected in subsurface soil were compared to RBCs for soil in
an industrial area. The results of this comparison are shown in Table 2-26. The comparison
resulted in benzo(a)Pyrene being added to the list of COPCs for subsurface soils Although
the max:mum concentrations of beryllium in subsurface soil exceeded its respective RBC-
based benchmark, the concentrations detected were within background levels, and so
berylhum was not considered a COPC in subsurface soil. In the toxicity-screening (Table 2-
23). selenium contributed greater than 1% of the overall risk for subsurface soils However
selenium was detected in only 1 of 29 subsurface soil samples at 49 mg/kg, and this'
concentration is well below both the industrial and residential RBC concentrations
Therefore, selenium was not retained as a COPC. All other chemicals detected in subsurface
soil whose maximum concentration exceeded the RBC-based benchmarks had already been
selected as COPCs based on previous screening described in Sections 2.7.1.2, 2.7.1 3, and
1 able 2-23.
2-7.1.5 Chemicals of Potential Concern Selection Process. The chemicals of potential
concern selection process detennines those chemicals which are the most toxic and which are
anticipated to create the greatest potential risk.
USEPA ^ th H CCOr—
USEPA (1989a) guidance. All detected chemicals were included as COPCs for the risk
assessment with the following exceptions:
• Chemicals that are essential human nutrients and chemicals that are toxic only at very
high doses (i.e, much higher than those that could be associated with contact at the
site) were eliminated from the quantitative risk assessment. Examples of such
chemicals are calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium.
41
-------
• As per USEPA Region IV risk assessment guidance (USEPA, 1992b), inorganic
chemicals present at concentrations less than twice background concentrations were
excluded from the list of COPCs. Only those chemicals for which the maximum
detected concentration was greater than twice the background concentration were
retained as COPCs.
• Inorganic and semi-volatile organics considered to be present in background
concentrations according to the scientific literature for the specific chemical or those
chemicals considered ubiquitous and determined not to be site-related. Although,
phthalate esters, such as bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and butylbenzylphthalate, are
relatively ubiquitous in the environment, the presence of these constituents in media
at the site may be due to sampling or laboratory artifacts, as well. Since these
phthalates may not be site-related, for purposes of this risk assessment only the
significant phthalates were considered COPCs.
• Chemicals detected in less than 5% of the samples analyzed per media (except in
groundwater where data was obtained from only five sample points).
• Chemicals represented in less than 1% of the potential overall risk via the
concentration-toxicity screen (USEPA, 1989), 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 2-27.
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 groundwater dataset
associated with petroleum products were summed for quantification. Categories of TICs
included in this evaluation include: alkanes, unknown hydrocarbons, substituted benzenes,
PAHs, cycloalkanes, and aromatics. 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
42
-------
TABLE 2-27
CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
IN ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA AT
OU-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Compound
Groundwater
Surface
Soil
Subsurface
Soil
VOCs
Benzene
Bromodichloromethane
Chloroform
Dibromochloromethane
BNAs
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
TPHs
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Pesticides/PCBs
Alpha-BHC
Chlordane isomers
DDD
DDE
DDT
Endrin ketone
Heptachlor epoxide
Metals
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Manganese
Silver
Vanadium
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
BNAs Base-neutral and acid extractable compounds
PCBs Polychlorinated biphenyls
VOCs Volatile organic compound
s.
-------
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 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.
2.7.2 Potential Routes of Migration
The source of wastes at OU-7 were accidental releases of diesel fuel and pesticides. Products
spilled on the ground may have moved down through the soiL'bedrock profile and leached to
shallow groundwater, migrated in surface runoff, or been released to the air via direct
volatilization, volatilization from groundwater, or dust emission. The drainage canal to the
west may not drain the area because the concrete wall east of the canal prevents site surface
runoff from entering this canal.
Elevated levels of 7 metals (aluminum, arsenic, barium, chromium, lead, silver, and
vanadium) were detected in surface soilftedrock. Elevated levels of arsenic were observed in
site soil/bedrock samples across the site, as well as in groundwater from within the souce
area. The source of the arsenic contamination is likely through the use of arsenical
pesticides. Other Chemicals of Concern (COCs) include one VOC (benzene), and 5
pesticides (DDT, DDE, the alpha-chlordane and gamma-chlordane isomers, endrin ketone
and heptachlor epoxide). Six metals at elevated levels were found in subsurface soil/bedrock
(aluminum, antimony, arsenic, chromium, silver, and vanadium). The isomers of chlordane
had penetrated to the subsurface also.
DDE is a break-down product of DDT and is somewhat more water soluble than its parent
compound. DDE has the potential to migrate further than DDT due to this characteristic.
43
-------
Only metals were found as COPCs in the groundwater. There are no potable wells located
cm-site. In the immediate vicinity (within one mile) of the site there are two wellfields (Nos
1 and 2). These wells are no longer in use. Additionally, migration to the groundwater at the
two non-potable wells south of the site is not expected to occur because several drainage
ditches and canals occur between the site and these wells. Thus, there is currently little
potential for exposure to affected groundwater. The base water supply is obtained currently
from a wellfield located off-base and more than 1.5 miles southwest of OU-7 Although the
old on-base wells are still on-line and are used during peak consumption periods to augment
the off-site wells, this pumping is infrequent and does not alter the groundwater on-site
(Geraghty & Miller, 1992a). Future potable use of the groundwater in the vicinity of OU-7 is
unlikely due to salt-water intrusion.
Although other contaminated media are present at OU-7, the principal route of migration of
contaminants is through shallow groundwater. Past activities allowed contaminants to enter
soil/bedrock and surface water, and the contaminants eventually migrated to shallow
groundwater.
Operable Unit 7 is situated on very level topography at the Base. 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
limited due to the flat topography and lack of drainage at OU-7. Given the highly
transmissive underlying formation, rainwater typically infiltrates 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 soil/bedrock 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.
The natural concentrations of chemicals in the soil/bedrock, rock, and water have a
controlling effect on the fate and transport mechanisms. Soil/bedrock at the site exist
primarily as a veneer on the bedrock surface. The soil has both organic and iron precipitants
Nevertheless, the calcium carbonate from the underlying oolite is the primary mineral
present.
44
-------
2-7.3 Exposure Assessment
Sroundwater nydrrtogv, location
"
puwic
3, apointof potential
route (inhaladon o, vapors, ingestion
be present for a pathway to be complete.
«ranspon
T ^ " "^
"** Cleme"tS must
Three environmental media were considered in fhi= ^
and subsurface soil. Guidance on wtod 1 "' "
between me USEPA (0 tlT2 II? , T '^ Sh°UW "= "ed f°r
between 0 and 24 ^ (° '°
soil,
*»*-
COPCs wiil be used as
max™ exposure
-de an estate of the
""" "««ta» for me
'° "^ ~"»»W«
neT
45
-------
natural log of the data was used since environmental data is typically log normally
distributed. 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 following decision criteria were used in the development of the database used to
calculate exposure point concentrations.
• All chemicals that were never detected in a medium (e.g., groundwater, soil, surface
water, sediment) were eliminated from further analysis for that group.
• All analytical results reported as detects were used at the reported value. This
included estimated data (J-qualified), as well as unqualified data.
• For non-detects, one-half the practical quantitation limit (PQL) was used as a proxy
concentration (rather than using zero or eliminating the data point). In instances
where one-half the PQL exceeded the maximum detected concentration for that
constituent in that data group (i.e., an unusually high PQL), the maximum detect was
used as the proxy value for that non-detect.
• For duplicate samples, the result for each chemical was selected as follows: if both
were detects, the higher measured analytical concentration was used; if only one
result was a positive detect, that concentration was used; if both were non-detects
one-half the lower PQL was used as the proxy concentration. For the case of two
non-detects, the smaller PQL was used because higher PQLs are frequently the result
of dilution of the sample, and use of the higher PQL would introduce more
uncertainty into the calculation. Additionally, it is not reasonable to use the higher
PQL when the duplicate analysis on the same sample has indicated that the chemical
was not present at the lower PQL.
The results of these analyses for the sampled media are presented in Tables 2-28 through 2-
30. The information presented in these tables includes, for each chemical of potential
concern, the number of samples collected and included in the database developed by G&M
(1989, 1991) for a preliminary BRA and, for soils, the number of these samples which
remained following the 1994 IT Corporation soil removal activity. Similar information is
presented for samples collected by Montgomery Watson in 1993 and IT Corporation in 1994
46
-------
TABLE 2-28
EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS FOR GROUNDWATER
OU-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Constituent
vocsfMg/n
Bromodichloromethane
Chloroform
Dibromochloromethane
PESTIClDRSf)lg/l)
Alpha BHC
ODD
METAL*
Aluminum
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium VI
Lead
Manganese
Hg/L micrograms per Liter
mg/L miligram per Liter
Not Recalculated
ND Not Delected
NA Not Applicable
NC Not Calculated
Geraghty & Miller
Samples Collected
1991
No. Samples
JTollected & Avg.
3
3
3
NA
3
3
3
3
3
3
Montgomery Watson
Samples Collected
1993
No. Samples
Collected
2
2
2
2
2
2
Total Number
Samples Averaged
1991-93
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
UCL
5.0
II.I
4.5
NC
0.154
7.24E+13
51,019
973,871
0.020
1.96
0.16
7.19
J5&M
Max
ND
ND
ND
NA
ND
8.7
4.3
0.96
ND
0.026
0.024
0.099
JWV
Max
4
9
2
882
0.03
10
0.126
0.54
0.0055
ND
ND
0.017
Value Used in
Risk Calculation'
4
9
2
882
0.03
10
4.3
0.96
0.0055
0.26
0.024
0.017
^^^^
-------
TABLE 2-29
EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS IN SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES
OU-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Geraghty & Miller
Chemical
Samples Samples Samples Samples
Collected Remaining Collected Remaining
1989' 1995 1991' 1995
Montgomery Watson' IT Corp
Samples Samples Samples
Collected Remaining
1993' 1995
Remaining
1994'
Total
No.
Samples*
Maximum
Detected
Concentration' Concentration
Value Used
in Risk
Calculations'
BNAs <|ig/hg)
Benzo(a)amhracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)nuoramhene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Pesticides fug/frg)
Chlordane Isomers
DDE
DDT
Endrin Kelone
Heplachlor Epoxide
Metals (mg/l^)
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium VI
Manganese
Silver
Vanadium
ft/kg
mg/kg
2
3
4
5
12
12
12
0
0
0
12
12
12
0
0
0
Mitrotram! per kilogram
Miligrjm per kilogram
Nnl Recalculated
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
25
25
25
25
24
14
31
15
15
14
14
14
1,663
1,505
1,362
2.094
1.143
762
1.541
56.1
7.7
7,501
18.0
65.2
26.7
90.9
10.4
11.8
..... '—
•
TW I numhe, ,,f «mplcs UKl) lhc ritk .^^ j^^. ^ ^ rf ^ ^^ ^
The UCL uincenlRHiiiR wi» cafculated assuminj a l,,gm,nml uislrihulhm ,,f ihe dala
1,400
970
2,000
280
3,500
2,200
4,600
1,200
94
17,700
45
451
62
119
20
26.5
1,400
970
1,362
280
1,143
762
1,541
56
7.7
7,501
18
65.2
26.7
90.9
10.4
11.8
-------
TABLE 2-30
EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS IN SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPIES
OU-7, ENTOMOLOG V STORAGE AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Geraghty& Miller '
Constituent
BNAs flip/fa)
samples Samples
Collected Remaining
1989' 1995
Samples
Collected
1991'
Samples
Remaining
Montgomery Watson'
Samples Samples
Collected Remaining
1993 1995 •
Samples
Remaining
1994'
Total
No.
Samples'
UCL
Concentration
— — — — — — __
Benzo(a)pyrenc
Chlordane homers
Metals (mylkg\
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Chromium VI
Manganese
Stiver
Vanadium
US/kg
mg/kg
Maximum Value Used
Detected in Risk
Concentration Calculations'
1.038
Micrograms per kilogram
Miligram per kilogram
Not Recalculated
^
-5D.'>2SB.6D.P2SB.7D.P2SB.mD,P2SB.|| D
MW 1993 Dau Point P2SKX)32 ...
i.ooo
' IS-'- NW.3.CSNA.3.CSNB.3.CSSB.3.
.. 8.3. CS29.3, CS30.3. FC56.3, FCS5.3. FCS3.3, FCS2.3. FCSI.3. FCS4.5. FCS7.5
The UCL conccniralnm was calculated assuming a lojnmmal distrihuiinn «)f (he dala
^
1.000
550
-------
The informatio "^ *ssummg log normal
subsections. An example ™*££^^ * *c ™"«°8
chemicals detected is shown in Table 2-31. ' **** "^ UCL for the
Exposure Scenarios. Exposure pathways identified at OU 7 » K •
associated with soils and groundwater Mo. 71 ? °Wn " Table 2'32 ™d «
environmental mobility " ^ °f the Chemicals ^tected at the site have low
inctade aluminum, arsenic, cadmium
BHC and DDD, and the VOCs
chloroforn, were also i
located on-site. In the
-..fields (No, , and 2).
Sroundwater at the two
several drainage ditches and canals
, " "
'"
'" ""
The Prides alpha-
°™»™ and
There are no potable weils
°f *° ^ '"ere are two
"
'° OCOT
Per day, 5 days per week. Forpu
could be at the site as long as 2
As a conservative assumption
*** '" "* " °W f<* 8
' " *" ^^ *" *
"* '° StOTe °r rettieve materials.
to
vapors. The amount of dust, vapo
"y the grave! and sparse vegetaZ'c e
vegetation factor. ' °
totaW- "^ Peculates and
* *
" **
eX"°sure ™es were no. reduced by
The OU-7 area has been retained by the 482nd Air Pnr o
area. As such, this area has been rebuilt 7 t ' " **" °f *c cantonment
POL Operations are, Op^^"
, three shops, a storage Ire" m ' * "" ** "*"«*'«
Buildings or asphalt
47
-------
TABLE 2-31
EXAMPLE DATA REDUCTION CALCULATION
FOR ARSENIC IN GROUNDWATER SAMPLES AT
OU-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Sample
Designation
'
P2-HS-16
P2-I-16
P2-MW-1 ('91)
P2-MW-1 ('93)
P2-DMW-0001
Analytical
Result
(Hg/I)
38
29J
960
540
2.50
Value
Used
(Hg/D
38
29
960
540
2.50
Log
Transformed
Data
3.64
3.37
6.87
6.29
0.92
UCL=e
x + [O.5.s2
where:
Arithmetic mean of transformed data
Total number of samples
Degrees of freedom
Standard Deviation
H-statistic of transformed data («==0.05)
Upper Confidence Limit (in mg/L)
X = 4.22
n = 5 •
n- 1=4
s = 2.41
H= 11.259
UCL = 9.7E+08
(1)
All statistics were calculated using one-half the detection limit for non-detects, where
applicable.
-------
TABLE 2-32
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
(Page 1 of 2)
Medium
Pathway/Route
Potentially-Exposed
Population
Comments
Groundwater (potable use)
Ingestion, dermal contact, and
inhalation of constituents in
groundwater.
to nature
O-~«..V».THH^ uj3V,ii
-------
TABLE 2-32
POTENTIAL PATHWAYS OF EXPOSURE TO CHEMICALS
DETECTED AT OU-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
(Page 2 of 2)
Medium
Soil (Weathered Bedrock)
Soil (Subsurface)
Pathway/Route
Incidental ingestion of and
dermal contact with affected
surface soils/dust and inhalation
of affected dust.
Potentially-Exposed
Population
Current base workers accessing
the area to drop off or retrieve
piping. Hypothetical future
residents (children and adults)
on-site unlikely.
Incidental ingestion of and
dermal contact with affected
surface soils/dust and inhalation
of affected dust.
Future construction worker
excavating site.
Comments
Most of the site is covered with
sparse grass or gravel, so
contact with soil, dust, or
volatilized constituents is
possible. The site is located
approximately one-half mile
south of base housing and is
used currently by base
personnel; the potential for
future development of the site is
limited due to the surrounding
land use and deed restrictions.
Construction worker is exposed
to subsurface soil contaminants
during excavating.
-------
re-use would require construction and thus potential exposure for the construction worker.
Exposure pathways for potential future construction workers include incidental ingestion of
dirt and inhalation of fugitive dust.
The future construction worker could be exposed to both surface and subsurface soils via
ingestion and inhalation of particulates. Inhalation of vapors and dermal exposure are not
quantified because a relatively low contribution to overall site risk is expected given the
nonvolatile character of OU-7 COPCs. This scenario, of 1-year duration, used subchronic
oral and inhalation RfDs when they were available. Hexavalent chromium had a subchronic
oral RfD (2.0E-02 mg/kg/day) and barium had a subchronic inhalation RfD (l.OE-03
mg/kg/day) which differed from the chronic values.
In the unforeseen event that the site is closed, the possibilities for future exposures could
include the development of the land for residential use. Exposure pathways for these
hypothetical future residents have been evaluated but are not deemed approximate for
evaluating site risk. Future residential scenarios evaluated include direct contact with the
soils, incidental ingestion of the soils, and inhalation of fugitive dust or vapors.
There are no potable wells on the base between OU-7 and the groundwater discharge point at
the drainage ditches or Boundary Canal. There are no active potable wells within a 1-mile
radius of the site. The base water supply is obtained currently from a wellfield located off-
base and more than 1.5 miles southwest of OU-7. Although the old on-base wells are still
on-line and are used during peak consumption periods to augment the off-site wells, this
pumping is infrequent and does not alter the groundwater on-site (Geraghty & Miller,
1992a). Future potable use of the groundwater in the vicinity of OU-7 is unlikely due to salt-
water intrusion. On-base wells that were used previously to supply potable water have been
replaced by the off-base wellfield due to the effects of salt-water intrusion. Therefore, it is
unlikely that new wells would be located in the area.
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 is considered a potential
exposure pathway.
In summary, workers accessing the site to store or retrieve materials are the most likely
population potentially exposed to the on-site surficial soils. The future plans for this site
48
-------
include a new civil engineering complex building, three shops, a storage area, miscellaneous
building and a much expanded parking area. This plan for future paving and building
structures would cover all existing soils and thus eliminate any potential exposures for future
site workers. However, foreseeable future land use would include construction. Therefore,
the potential construction worker exposure pathway was included in this risk analysis. In the
unforeseen event that the site is closed, hypothetical future exposure pathways might include
residential development of the site in which residents are potentially exposed. Table 2-32
summarizes the potential exposure pathways for OU-7.
2.7.4 Toxicity Assessment
This section of the risk assessment provides information on the human health effects of site-
specific contaminants of potential concern. 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.
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 effects (acute or chronic systemic)
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.
49
-------
Carcinogenic Effects. Studies of carcinogenicity tend to focus on identifying the s/ope 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 response. This is called a non-threshold effect. In this
assessment, the no-threshold effect was applied to all probable carcinogens.
Toxicological Properties. The risks associated with exposure to constituents detected at OU-
7 are a function of the inherent toxicity (hazard) of the constituents and exposure dose. This
section addresses the inherent toxicological properties of the constituents. The exposure
doses are estimated in the Exposure Assessment section which follows.
A distinction is made between carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects. 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.
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). Oral toxicity constants (both
RfD 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 2-33. Unadjusted oral
and inhalation RfDs are provided in Table 2-34. CSFs, cancer type or tumor sites, and
50
-------
TABLE 2-33
DERMAL AND ORAL ABSORPTION EFFICIENCIES
FOR CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN AT
OU-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Constituents
VOCs
Benzene
Bromodichloromethane
Chloroform
Dibromochloromethane
BNAs
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
TPHs (as n-nonane)
Pesticides
Alpha-BHC
Chlordane isomers
ODD
DDE
DDT
Endrin ketone
Heptachlor epoxide
Metals
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium (VI)
Lead
Manganese
Silver
Vanadium
Absorption
Dermal a
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
Efficiencies
Oral
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.20
0.20
0.95
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
b
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
d
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
Notes:
a Used to adjust dermal dose calculation for absorption from soil as per
Region IV Supplemental Guidance to RAGS Bulletin, Vol. 1 No. 1,
USEPA, Atlanta, Georgia, March 1994.
b 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
c default value
d National Research Council (1982).
-------
TABLE 2-34
REFERENCE DOSES FOR CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN AT
OU-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Constituent
VOCs
Benzene
Bromodichloromethane
Chloroform
Dibromochloromethane
BNAs
Benzo(a)anthracene'"
Benzo(a)pyrene "'
Benzo(b)fluoranthene "'.
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene <
TPHs (as n-nonane) ™
Pesticides
Alpha-BHC<3)
Chlordane Isomers
DDD(4)
DDE'41
DDT
Endrin ketone(5>
Heptachlor epoxide
Metals
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium(water)
Cadmium(food)
Chromium (VI)
Lead
Manganese
Silver
Vanadium
Chronic
OralRfD
(mg/kg/day)
3.00E-04 a
2.00E-02 b
l.OOE-02 b
2.00E-02 b
3.00E-02 b
3.00E-02 b
3.00E-02 b
3.00E-02 b
6.00E-01 d
3.00E-04 b
6.00E-05 b
5.04E-04 b
5.04E-04 b
5.04E-04 b
3.00E-04 b
1.30E-05 c
l.OOE+00 a
4.00E-04 b
3.00E-04 b
7.00E-02 b
5.00E-04 b
I.OOE-03 b
5.00E-03 b
NA
2.40E-02 b
5.00E-03 b
7.00E-03 c
1 ;
Subchronic
OralRfD
(mg/kg/day)
._
NA
2.00E-02 c
l.OOE-02 c
2.00E-01 c
3.00E-01 c
3.00E-01 c
3.00E-OI c
3.00E-01 c
NA
3.00E-03 c
6.00E-05 c
5.04E-04 c
5.04E-04 c
5.04E-04 c
3.00E-04 c
1.30E-05 c
NA
4.00E-04 c
3.00E-04 c
7.00E-02 c
NA
NA
2.00E-02 c
NA
NA
5.00E-03 c
7.00E-03 c
Chronic
Inhalation RfD
(mg/kg/day)
.
1.70E-03 a
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
l.OOE-04 c
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.43E-05 b
NA
NA
Subchronic
Inhalation RfD
(mg/kg/day)
•
NA
NA
NA .
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
l.OOE-03 c
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ECAO
IRIS, 1996
USEPA, 1995
Massachusetts DEP, 1994
™ ™C Pyvene RfD Was used M a sl"Togate for PAH RfDs
(2) The n-Nonane RfD was used as a surrogate for TPHs RfD
4 £ SSrTm110 Rf° J"5 USCd " " SUIT°gate f°r ** *Pi»BHC RfD
iS T^ ^ £^WaS USed " a surr°gate for the DDD and DDE RfDs
(5) The endnn RfD was used as a surrogate for the Endrin Ketone RfD
-------
carcinogen classifications for the COPCs at the site are presented in Table 2-35. Derivation
of the adjusted RfDs and CSFs is shown in Table 2-36.
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 this risk assessment based on acceptable blood lead levels
for young children using the USEPA (1994a) ffiUBK 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.
2.7.5 Risk Characterization
This section of the 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
51
-------
TABLE 2-35
CANCER SLOPE FACTORS, TUMOR SITES, AND USEPA CANCER CLASSIFICATIONS
FOR CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN AT
OU-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Constituent
CSFJmg/kg/dayH
Oral
Inhalation
Tumor site
Oral
Inhalation
USEPA
Classification
VOCs
Benzene
Bromodichloromethane
Chloroform
Dibromochloromethane
BNAs
Benzo(a)anthracene (l>
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene("
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene "
Pesticides
Alpha-BHC
Chlordane Isomers
ODD
DDE
DDT
Heptachlor epoxide
2.9E-02 b 2.9E-02
6.2E-02 b NA
6.1E-03 b 8.1E-02
8.4E-02 b NA
7.3E-01 b 6.1E-01 a
7.3E+00 b 6.1E+00 a
7.3E-01 b 6.1E-01 a
7.3E+00 b 6.1E+00 a
6.3E+00
1.3E+00
2.4E-01
3.4E-01
3.4E-01
b
b
b
b
b
6.3E+00
1.3E+00
NA
NA
3.4E-01
c
b
b
9.1E+00 b 9.1E+00 c
leukemia
kidney
kidney
liver
stomach
stomach
stomach
stomach
liver
liver
liver
liver
liver
liver
leukemia
NA
liver
NA
respiratory tract
respiratory tract
respiratory tract
respiratory tract
liver
liver
NA
NA
liver
liver
mg/kg/day Milligrams per kilogram per day.
NA Not available.
NAP Not applicable since it is considered carcinogenic via inhalation only.
a
b
c
ID
A
B2
B2
C
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
Metals
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium (VI)
Lead
1.50E+00 b
NAP
NAP
NA
1.5E+01
6.3E+00
4.IE+01
NA
b
b
b
skin
NAP
NAP
NA
respiratory tract
respiratory tract
lung
NA
A
Bl
A
B2
ECAO
IRIS,1996
USEPA, 1995
The CSF for benzo(a)pyrene was used as a surrogate value for this compound. A Toxicity Equivalency Factor
(TEF) based on the relative potency of the chemical to benzo(a)pyrene is used to adjust the benzo(a)pyrene CSF
for each carcinogenic PAH.
-------
TABLE 2-36
ADJUSTED TOXICITY VALUES USED TO ASSESS DERMAL EXPOSURE AT
OU-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Oral Toxicity Values
Oral
Dermal Toxicitv Values
Absorption
Constituent RfDo Source CSFo Source Efficiency Source
VOCs
Benzene 3.0E-04 a 2.9E-02 b
Bromodichtoromethane 2.0E-02 b 6.2E-02 b
Chloroform l.OE-02 b 6.IE-03 b
Dibcomochtoromethane 2.0E-02 b 8.4E-02 b
BNA.5.
Benzo(a)anthracene 3.0E-02 c 7.3E-01 b
Benzo(a)pyrene 3.0E-02 c 7.3E+00 b
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 3.0E-02 c 7.3E-01 b
Dibenzo(a,h)anthraccne 3.0E-02 c 7.3E+00 b
T£HS (as n-nonane) 6.0E-01 k NA
Pesticides
Alpha-BHC 3.0E-04 f 6.3E+00 b
Chlordane Isomers 6.0E-05 b 1.3E+00 b
ODD 5.0E-04 g 2.4E-01 b
DDE 5.0E-04 g 3.4E-OI b
DDT 5.0E-04 b 3.4E-01 b
Endrin Kctone 3.0E-04 h NA
Heptachlor cpoxide . 1.3E-05 j 9.1E+00 b
Metals
Aluminum l.OE+00 b NA
Antimony 4.0E-04 b NA
Arsenic 3.0E-04 b 1.5E+00 b
Barium 7.0E-02 b NA
Cadmium (water) 5.0E-04 b NAP
Cadmium (food) l.OE-03 b NAP
Chromium (VI) 5.0E-03 b NAP
Lead NA NA
Manganese 2.4E-02 b NA
Silver 5.0E-03 b NA
Vanadium ' 7.0E-03 b NA
CSFa Adjusted cancer slope factor (mg/kg/day)*- 1 .
CSFo Oral cancer slope factor (mg/kg/day)*- 1 .
NA Not available.
NAP Not applicable. Carcinogenic only by inhalation route.
RfDa Adjusted reference dose (mg/kg/day).
RfDo Oral reference dose (mg/kg/day).
a ECAO
b IRIS
c Pyrenc RfD used as surrogate for PAH RfDs.
d Default Value.
e N-Nonane RfD used as surrogate for TPH RfD
f gamma-BHC RfD used as surrogate for alpha-BHC RfD
g DDT RfD used as surrogate for ODD and DDE RfDs.
h Endrin RfD used as surrogate for Endrin Ketone RfD
i National Research Council (1982)
j USEPA (1995)
k Massachusetts DEP. 1994
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.20
0.20
0.95
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
i
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
(Adjusted Oral)
RfDa
2.4E-04
1.6E-02
8.0E-03
1.6E-02
1.5E-02
1.5E-02
1.5E-02
1.5E-02
3.0E-01
1.5E-04
3.0E-05
2.5E-04
NA
2.5E-04
1 .5E-04
6.5E-06
2.0E-01
8.0E-05
2.9E-04
1.4E-02
l.OE-04
2.0E-04
l.OE-03
NA
4.8E-03
l.OE-03
1.4E-03
CSFa
3.6E-02
7.8E-02
7.6E-03
1.1E-01
1 .5E+-00
l.SE-i-Ol
1.5E+00
1.5E+01
NA
1.3E+01
2.6E+00
4.8E-01
6.8E-01
6.8E-01
NA
1.8E+01
NA
NA
1.6E+00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
I
1
1
1
1 PAH slope factors were not adjusted to assess dermal exposure since the portal of entry differs in the outcome of
tumors from oral and dermal exposure (USEPA, I989a).
-------
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.
2.7.5.1 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
constituents detected in media at the site. Excess lifetime cancer risk, equal to the produci of
the exposure dose and the slope factor, is estimated for each known, probable, or possible
carcinogenic constituent 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 the true
risk is less than that predicted by the model. Current regulatory methodology assumes that
excess lifetime cancer risks can be summed across routes of exposure and constituents to
derive a "Total Site Risk" (USEPA, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Sites 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 1(T* (1 in 10,000) generally do not warrant remedial action. However, the state of
Florida's target cancer risk is 10" .
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)-! 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 compounds 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 EPA 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
52
-------
of up 70 years-
The HQ is the ratio of the estimated exposure dose to the
aiuate non-carcinogenic health effects due to exposure to a '
«^ greater than 1 indicates that the estimated exposure dose for that
for protection against non-carcinogenic effects. 4$
53
-------
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 aUhe
site to derive a "Total Site Risk." 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 1.0 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.
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 noncarcmogens 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
resident exposed to groundwater are shown in Table 2-37. The excess lifetime cancer risk
and HI are 2E-02 and 90, 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 1Q-6) and above the state of Florida's criterion of 1E-
06. The hazard index also exceeds the risk benchmark of one.
54
-------
TABLE 2-37
GROUNDWATERINGESTION EXPOSURE
DOSES AND RISK CALCULATIONS
FOR A HYPOTHETICAL FUTURE ADULT RESIDENT AT
OU-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Cgw
Constituent (mg/L)
CANCER EFFECTS
VOCs
Bromodichloromethane 0.004
Chloroform 0.009
Dibromochloromethane 0.002
Pcsiicides
Alpha-BHC 0.00003
DDD 0.01
Metajs
Arsenic 0.96
Cadmium 0.0125
Chromium 0.026
Lead 0.024
NON-CANCER EFFECTS
VOCs
Bromodichloromethane 0.004
Chloroform 0.009
Dibromochloromethane 0.002
TEH* 0.882
Pesticides
AJpha-BHC 0.00003
DDD o.oi
Metals
Aluminum ' 4.3
Arsenic 0.96
Cadmium 0.0125
Chromium (VI) 0.026
Lead 0.024
Manganese 0.099
GWExD Toxicity
(mg/kg-day) Values
CSFo
4.7E-05 6.20E-02
1.1E-04 6.10E-03
2.3E-05 8.40E-02
3.5E-07 6.30E+00
1.2E-04 2.40E-01
1.1E-02 I.50E+00
1.5E-04 NAP
3.1E-04 NAP
2.8E-04
| ELCR =
RfDo
1.1E-04 2.00E-02
2.5E-04 l.OOE-02
5.5E-05 2.00E-02
2.4E-02 6.00E-01
8.2E-07 3.00E-04
2.7E-04 5.00E-04
1.2E-01 I.OOE+00
2.6E-02 3.00E-04
3.4E-04 5.00E-04
7.1E-04 5.00E-03
6.6E-04
2.7E-03 2.40E-02
1 HI =
Calculated
Risk
2.9E-06
6.4E-07
2.0E-06
2.2E-06
2.8E-05
1.7E-02
NAP
NAP
2E-02 J
5.5E-03
2.5E-02
2.7E-03
4.0E-02
2.7E-04
5.5E-01
1.2E-01
8.8E+01
6.8E-01
1.4E-01
5.4E-01
9E+01 |
Insufficient data; USEPA-verified toxicity value not available.
NAP Cancer slope factor and/or reference dose applies to inhalation pathway only,
not to ingestion.
Cgw Constituent exposure point concentration in groundwater in milligrams per
liter (mg/L) (see Table 4-2).
GWExD Ground-water exposure dose in milligrams per kilogram per day (mg/kg/day).
CSFo Cancer Slope Factor, Oral
RfDo Reference Dose, Oral
ELCR Excess lifetime cancer risk.
HI Hazard index (sum of the hazard quotients).
-------
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, et.al 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, chloroform
and dibromochloromethane, thus, oral RfDs are used for these compounds. Therefore, the'
total risk via groundwater contact including oral, dermal and inhalation exposures is 2E-02
for cancer risk and 90 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 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. This compound was
detected in five of five samples at a range of concentrations of 25 (ig/1 to 960 jig/1. Only two
of the samples contained concentrations of arsenic below the state and federal drinking water
standard of 50 ug/1. The arsenic risk level is based on unfiltered samples; therefore, this
level probably overestimates concentrations in a hypothetical potable well. Finally, as stated
in the exposure section, future potable use of the groundwater at the site is unlikely because
of the high level of dissolved solids associated with the salt-water intrusion.
The pesticide DDD has a cancer risk estimate of 3E-05. DDD was detected in three out of
five groundwater samples. Compounds with cancer risk estimates greater than 1E-06 include
bromodichloromethane, dibromochloromethane, and alpha-BHC. These compounds were
detected in one out of five groundwater samples. As stated in the exposure section, future
potable use of the groundwater at the site is unlikely because of the high level of dissolved
solids associated with the salt-water intrusion.
2.7.5.4 Risks Associated With Exposure to Soils. Base Worker. Risks for a potential
current base worker who regularly accesses OU-7 are calculated in Table 2-38. The excess
lifetime cancer risk and HI are 2E-6 and 0.02, respectively. These risk levels are below the
USEPA remediation-based risk benchmarks and slightly above the state of Florida's target
riskoflE-06.
55
-------
TABLE 2-38
SOIL EXPOSURE DOSES AND RISK CALCULATIONS
FOR A POTENTIAL CURRENT BASE WORKER AT
OU-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base. Florida
Constituent
CANCER Elmers
VQCs
Benzene
BNAs
Benzo(a)anthracenc
Benzo(b)pyrene
BenzotWfluoramhene
Dibenzo(aJi)inthracene
Chlordane Isomers
DDE
DDT
Hcptachlor Epoxide
Arsenic
Chromium (VI)
NON-CANCER EFFECTS
VOCj
Benzene
BNAt
Benzo(a)juithracene
Bcnzoibjpyrene
Bcnzo(b)fjuoranthene
Dibenzo(a.h)anthracene
Chlordane Isomers
DDE
DDT
Endrin Ketone
Heptachlor Epoxide
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium (VI)
Manganese
Silver
Vaiudium
Cs
(mg/kg)
0.024
1.4
0.97
1.362
0.28
1.143
0.762
1.541
0.0077
18
26.7
0.024
1.4
0.97
1.362
0.28
1.143
0.762
1.541
0.0561
0.0077
"7.501
18
65
26.7
91
10.4
11.8
SExDo
(mg/kg-day)
8.7E-10
5.1E-08
3.5E-08
4.9E-08
I.OE-08
4.2E-08
2.8E-08
5.6E-08
2.8E-10
6.SE-07
9.7E-07
2.4E-09
1.4E-07
9.9E-08
1.4E-07
2.8E-08
1.2E-07
7.8E-08
1.6E-07
5.7E-09
7.8E-10
7.6E-04
I.8E-06
6.6E-06
2.7E-06
9JE-06
1.1E-06
I.2E-06
ELCR Excess lifetime cancer risk.
HI Hazard index (sum of the hazard quotients)
Cs Concentration 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
SExDd
(mg/kg-day)
5.5E-IO
3.2E-08
2.2E-08
3.1E-08
6.4E-09
2.6E-08
1.8E-08
3.5E-08
1.8E-10
4.1E-08
6.IE-08
I.SE-09
9.0E-08
6.2E-08
8.8E-08
1.8E-08
7.4E-08
4.9E-08
9.9E-08
3.6E-09
5.0E-10
4.8E-OS
1.2E-07
4.2E-07
1.7E-07
5.9E-07
6.7E-08
7.6E-08
CSFo
CSFd
CSR
RfDo
RfDd
RfDi
SExDI
(mg/kg-day)
3.8E-OS
1.1E-12
7.4E-13
I.OE-12
2.1E-I3
8.7E-13
5.8E-I3
1.2E-12
5.9E-I5
1.4E-I1
2.0E-I1
1.IE-07
3.0E-I2
2.1E-12
2.9E-12
6.0E-13
2.4E-12
1.6E-12
3.3E-12
1.2E-13
1.6E-14
1.6E-08
3.8E-1 1
1.4E-10
5.7E-1 1
I.9E-IO
2.2E-11
2.5E-11
CSFo
2.9E-02
7.3E-01
7.3E+00
7.3E-OI
7.3E+00
1.3E+00
3.4E-01
3.4E-01
9.1E+00
1.5E+00
NAP
RfDo
3.0E-04
3.0E-02
3.0E-02
3.0E-02
3.0E-02
6.0E-05
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
3.0E-04
1.3E-05
J.OE+00
3.0E-04
7.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.4E-02
5.0E-03
7.0E-03
Toxicity Values
CSFd
3.6E-02
7.3E-01
7.3E+00
7.3E-01
7.3E+00
2.6E+00
6.8E-01
6.8E-01
I.8E+01
I.6E-KX)
NAP
ELCR
RfDd
2.4E-04
1.5E-02
l.SE-02
1.5E-02
I.5E-02
3.0E-05
2.5E-04
2.5E-04
1.5E-04
6.5E-06
2.0E-OI
2.9E-04
1.4E-02
I.OE-03
4.8E-03
I.OE-03
1.4E-03
HI
CSfi
2.9E-02
6.IE-01
6.1E+00
6.1E-01
6.1E+00
1.3E+00
3.4E-01
3.4E-01
9.IE+00
l.SE+01
4.IE+0!
RfDi
1.7E-03
3.0E-02
3.0E-02
3.0E-02
3.0E-02
6.0E-05
S.OE-04
S.OE-04
3.0E-04
1.3E-05
l.OE+00
3.0E-04
l.OE-04
5.0E-03
1.4E-05
5.0E-03
7.0E-03
Calculated
Risk/Hi
1.1E-09
6.1E-08
4.2E-07
I.2E-07
1.2E-07
2. IE-OS
4.3E-08
5.8E-09
I.OE-06
8.4E-IO
2E-06
7.7E-05
LIE-OS
7.4E-06
l.OE-05
2.2E-06
4.4E-03
3.5E-04
7.IE-04
4.3E-05
1.4E-04
l.OE-03
6.5E-03
1.3E-04
7.2E-04
5.2E-04
2.8E-04
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
-------
Hypothetical Future Residents . The risks for hypothetical future residents exposed to on-
site soils are calculated in Tables 2-39 (adult, 24-year exposure period) and 2-40 (young
child, 6-year exposure period). For an adult, the estimated excess lifetime cancer risk and HI
are 2E-05 and 0.2, respectively. The excess lifetime cancer risk and HI for the child are 5E-
05 and 2, respectively. The adult cancer risk estimates and the adult hazard index are below
the USEPA remediation-based risk benchmark, and above the state of Florida target risk of
1E-06. The child cancer risk does not exceed the USEPA one in ten thousand upperbound
but does exceed the state of Florida target risk of 1E-06. The hazard index for the child is
above the benchmark of 1.0. The principal contributors to the excess cancer risk level are
arsenic, PAHs, and chlordane. The principal contributors to the hazard index are arsenic and
chlordane.
Arsenic was detected in 30 of 31 surface soil samples in concentrations ranging from 0.49 to
44.5 mg/kg. Although this exceeds the site-specific background concentration of 1.6 mg/kg,
this range of concentrations is comparable to reported literature values for typically
uncontaminated soils and the common range for eastern soils in the U.S. (GRI, 1987,
Shacklette and Boerngen, 1984). PAHs were detected in 3 to 6 of the 15 samples collected in
surface soils. The sum of the maximum PAH concentrations detected is 4.5 ppm. This
concentration is within the range of concentrations reported for urban soils of 0.06 to 5.8
ppm (Menzie, et. al., 1992). Chlordane was detected in 15 of 25 samples in concentrations
ranging from 0.07 to 3.5 ppm. The individual excess cancer risk attributable to chlordane is
at the benchmark of 1E-6 for the adult resident and at 2E-6 for the child. However, the
maximum concentration detected is well above levels detected in areas unaffected by
industrial activities (U.S. National Soils Monitoring Program, 1970-72). But the detection of
this compound is not unusual, as this site is a former pesticide storage area and chlordane is
still used in the-control of underground termites. The hazard index for the child resident
exceeds the benchmark of one due to the sum of compounds detected. No individual
noncancer risk estimate is greater than one.
Hypothetical Future Construction Worker. Risks for future construction workers who
would access OU-7 are calculated in Table 2-41. The risks are estimated for construction
worker exposure to surface and subsurface soils via inhalation and ingestion routes of
exposure. The excess lifetime cancer risk and HI for ingestion and inhalation of surface soil
are 3E-6 and 0.5, respectively. The excess lifetime cancer risk and HI for ingestion and
inhalation of subsurface soils are 3E-6 and 0.6, respectively. The cancer risk estimate is
slightly above the state of Florida target cancer risk, but below the USEPA remediation-
56
-------
TABLE 2-39
SOIL EXPOSURE DOSES AND RISK CALCULATIONS
FOR A HYPOTHETICAL FUTURE ADULT RESIDENT AT
OU-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Constituent
Cs
(mg/kg)
SExDo
(mg/kg-day)
SExDd
(mg/kg-day)
SExDi
(mg/kg-day)
Toxicity Values
Calculated
Risk/Hi
CANCER EFFECTS
Benzene
0.024
1.1E-08
3.6E-09
9.9E-07
CSFo
2.9E-02
CSFd
3.6E-02
CSFi
2.9E-02
2.9E-08
. SNA;
Beazo(a)anthracenc
Benzo
-------
TABLE 2-4O
SOIL EXPOSURE DOSES AND RISK CALCULATIONS
FOR A HYPOTHETICAL FUTURE CHILD RESIDENT AT
OU-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Constituent
CANCER EFFECTS
VOCs
Benzene
Cs
(mg/kg)
SExOo
(mg/kg-day)
SExDd
(mg/kg-day)
SExDi
(mg/kg-day) Toxicitv Values
Calculated
Risk/Hi
Benzo(a)amhracene
Benzo{b)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoramhene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Pesticides/PCBij
Chtordane Isomers
DDE
DDT
Heptachlor Epoxide
Arsenic
Chromium (VI)
NON-CANCER EFFECTS
VOOj
Benzene
BNAs
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Dibenzo(a.h)anthracene
Pesticides/PCBs
Chlordane Isomers
p,p'-DDE
p.p'-DDT
Endrin Ketone
Heptachlor Epoxide
Metals
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium (VI)
Manganese
Silver
Vanadium
0.024
1.4
0.97
1.362
0.28
1.143
0.762
1.541
0.0077
18
26.7
0.024
1.4
0.97
1362
0.28
1.143
0.762
1.541
0.0561
0.0077
7,501
18
65
26.7
91
10.4
11.8
2.6E-08
1.5E-06
l.IE-06
1.5E-06
3.1E-07
1.3E-06
8.4E-07
1.7E-06
8.4E-09
2.0E-05
2.9E-05
3.1E-07
CSFo
CSFd
CSR
ELCR
HI
Cs
SExDo
SExDd
SExDi
NAP
4.8E-09
2.8E-07
1.9E-07
2.7E-07
5.6E-08
2.3E-07
1.5E-07
3.1E-07
1.5E-09
3.6E-07
5.3E-07
2.3E-06
3.2E-U
2.2E-I1
3.1E-I1
6.4E-12
2.6E-11
1.7E-11
3.5E-11
1.8E-13
4.1E-10
6.1E-10
2.9E-02 3.6E-02 2.9E-02
5.6E-08
2.7E-05
3.0E-04 2.4E-04 1.7E-03
6.8E-08
7.3E-01
7.3E+00
7.3E-01
7.3E+00
I.3E+00
3.4E-01
3.4E-01
9.1E-fOO
1.5E+00
NAP
1
RfDo
7.3E-01
7.3E+00
7.3E-01
7.3E+00
2.6E+00
6.8E-01
6.8E-01
I.8E+01
1.6E+00
NAP
ELCR
RfDd
6.1E-01
6.1E+00
6.1E-01
6.1E+00
1.3E+00
3.4E-01
3.4E-01
9.1E+00
I.5E+OI
4.IE+01
RfDi
1.3E-06
9.2E-06
1.3E-06
2.6E-06
2.2E-06
3.9E-07
7.8E-07
I.OE-07
3.0E-05
2.5E-08
5E-05 |
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 inhalation pathway only.
1.7E-02
1.8E-05
1.2E-05
1.7E-05
3.6E-06
I.5E-05
9.7E-06
2.0E-05
7J2E-07
9.8E-08
9.6E-02
2.3E-04
8.3E-04
3.4E-04
1.2E-03
1.3E-04
1.5E-04
otients)
ng/kg)
ntnftrin math*...... — _
3.3E-06
2.3E-06
3.2E-06
6.5E-07
2.7E-06
1.8E-06
3.6E-06
1.3E-07
1.8E-08
1.8E-03
4.2E-06
I.SE-05
6.2E-06
2.1E-05
2.4E-06
2.8E-06
..
3.7E-10
2.6E-10
3.6E-10
7.5E-I1
3.1E-10
2.0E-10
4.1E-10
1JE-II
2.1E-12
2.0E-06
4.8E-09
1.7E-08
7.1E-09
2.4E-08
2.8E-09
3.2E-09
CSFo
CSFd
CSH
RfDo
RfDd
RfDi
3.0E-02
3.0E-02
3.0E-02
3.0E-02
6.0E-05
5.0E-04
5.0E-O4
3.0E-04
1.3E-05
l.OE+00
3.0E-04
7.0E-02
S.OE-03
2.4E-O2
5.0E-03
7.0E-03
1.5E-02
1.5E-02
1.5E-02
1.5E-02
3.0E-05
2.5E-04
2.5E-04
1.5E-04
6.5E-06
2.0E-01
2.9E-04
1.4E-02
I.OE-03
4.8E-03
l.OE-03
I.4E-03
HI
3.0E-02
3.0E-02
3.0E-02
3.0E-02
6.0E-05
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
3.0E-04
1.3E-05
l.OE+00
3.0E-04
l.OE-04
5.0E-03
1.4E-05
5.0E-03
7.0E-03
8.1E-04
5.6E-04
7.9E-04
I.6E-04
3.3E-01
2.7E-02
5.4E-02
3.3E-03
1.0E-O2
l.OE-01
7.8E-01
1.3E-O2
7.5E-02
5.5E-02
2.9E-02
2.4E-02
2E+00
Cancer Slope Factor, Oral
Cancer Slope Factor, Dermal
Cancer Slope Factor, Inhalation
Reference Dose, Oral
Reference Dose, Dermal
Reference Dose, Inhalation
-------
TABLE2-1I
SOIL EXPOSURE DOSES AND RISK CALCULATIONS
FOR A HYPOTHETICAL FUTURE CONSTRUCTION WORKER AT
OU-7. ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
Homejteail Air Reserve Base, Florida
Cl Surface Soil
Constituent
CANCER EFFECTS
Benzene
BNAj
Benzo(a)anlhracene
Benzo(b)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranlhcne
Dibenzo(a,h)amhracene
Peslicirfes/PCBs
Chlordane Isomers
p,p'-DDE
P.P-DDT
Heptachlor Epoxide
Mctajj
Arsenic
Chromium (VI)
ELCR
HI
Cs
SExDo
SExDd
SExDi
NAP
NC
uiun.ic ouDsunaee SExuo
{mg/kg) (mg/kg) (nig/kg-day)
0.024 NotaCOPC I.6E-09
1.4 NolaCOPC 9.4E-08
0-97 1 6.5E-08
1.362 NolaCOPC 9.IE-08
0.28 NotaCOPC I.9E-08
'•143 0.55 7.7E-08
0.762 NolaCOPC 5.1E-08
1.541 NolaCOPC I.OE-07
0.0077 NolaCOPC 5.2E-10
'8 20.7 I.2E-06
26-7 13.6 1.8E-06
Excess lifelime 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 inhalation pathway only
Not calculated, not a COPC
SExDi
(mg/fcg-day)
2.IE-07
8.2E-I3
5.7E-I3
8.0E-I3
I.6E-I3
6.7E-I3
4.5E-I3
9.0E-I3
4.5E-I5
I.IE-II
I.6E-II
race I or 2
"•ir4 11 ummmssss
To
CSFo
2.9E-02
7..1E-OI
7.3E400
7.3E-OI
7.3E+00
1.30E+00
3.4E-OI
3.4E-OI
9.IE+00
I.5E+00
NAP
CSFo
CSI'd
CSFi
RIDo
RfDd
RfDi
clclly Values Surfirt
-------
TABLE 2-41
SOIL EXPOSURE DOSES AND RISK CALCULATIONS
FOR A HYPOTHETICAL FUTURE CONSTRUCTION WORKER AT
OU-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Han, Florida
Cs Surface Soil
Constituent
Toxlcllv Values Surface Soil
aunace subsurface SExDo SExDl
(mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg-day) (mg/kg-day)
NON-CANCER EFFECTS
VOCs.
Benzene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)pyrene
Benzo(b)nuoramrtene
Dibenzo(aji)anihracene
Pesticides/PCB»
Chlordanc homers
p,p'-DDE
p.p'-DDT
Endrin Kelone
Heptachlor Epoxide
Metals
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium (VI)
Manganese
Silver
Vanadium
ELCR
HI
Cs
SExDo
SExDd
SExDi
NAP
NC
0.024 NolaCOPC I.1E-07
1.4 NolaCOPC 6.6E-06
0.97 1.0 4.6E-06
1.362 NolaCOPC 6.4E-06
0.28 NotaCOPC 1.3E-06
1.143 0.55 5.4E-06
0.762 NolaCOPC 3.6E-06
1.541 NotaCOPC 7.2E-06
0.0561 NotaCOPC 2.6E-07
0.0077 Not a COPC 3.6E-08
7.501 3.328 3.5E-02
NolaCOPC 14.6 NC
18 20.7 8.5E-05
65 NolaCOPC 3.IE-04
26-7 13.6 I.3E-04
91 57 4.3E-04
10.4 5.6 4.9E-05
H.8 II 5.5E-05
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 inhalation pathway only
Not calculated, not a COPC
I.4E-05
5.8E-1I
4.0E-I 1
5.6E-II
I.2E-1 1
4.7E-1 1
3.1E-I1
6.3E-II
2.3E-12
3.2E-I3
3.IE-07
NC
7.4E-10
2,7li-09
I.IE-09
3.7E-09
4.3E-IO
4.8E-IO
RfDo
3.0E-04
3.0E-OI
3.0E-OI
3.0E-OI
3.0E-01
6.0E-05
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
3.0E-04
I.3E-OS
I.OE+00
4.0E-04
3.0E-04
7.0F.-02
2.0E-02
2.4E-02
5.0E-03
7.0E-03
CSFo
CSFd
CSFi
RIDo
RfDd
KfUi
Calculated
Risk/Hi
RfDi
I.7E-03 8.8E-03
3.0E-OI 2.2E-05
3.0E-OI I.5E-05
3.0E-01 2.IE-05
3.0E-01 4.4E-06
6.0E-05 8.9E-02
5.0E-04 7.2E-03
5.0E-04 I.4E-02
3.0E-04 8.8E-04
I.3E-05 2.8E-03
I.OE+00 3.5E-02
4.0E-04 NC
3.0E-04 2.8E-OI
I.OE-0.1 4.4E-03
2.0I--02 " 6.3E-03
I.4E-05 I.8E-02
5.0E-03 9.8E-03
7.0E-03 7.9E-03
HI 5H-OI
Cancer Slope Factor, Oral
Cancer Slope Factor, Dermal
Cancer Slope Factor. Inhalation
Reference Dose Oral
Reference Dose, Dermal
Reference Dose, Inhalation
Subsurfa™ Snit
SExDo
(mg/kg-day)
NC
NC
4.7E-06
NC
NC
2.6E-06
NC
NC
NC
NC
1.6E-02
6.9E-05
9.7E-05
NC
6.4E-05
2.7E-04
2.6E-05
5.2E-05
3 [
SExDl
(mg/kg-day)
NC
NC
4.IE-1I
NC
NC
2.3E-1I
NC
NC
NC
NC
I.4E-07
6.0E-10
8.5E-IO
NC
5.6E-IO
2.3E-09
2.3E-10
4.5E-IO
HI
Subsurface Soil
Calculated
Risk/Hi
NC
NC
I.6E-OS
NC
NC
4.3E-02
NC
NC
NC
NC
I.6E-02
I.7E-OI
3.2E-OI
NC
3.2E-03
I.IE-02
5.3E-03
7.4E-03
6E-OI
-------
based risk benchmarks for the cancer and noncancer risk estimates for surface and subsurface
soil. Arsenic is the primary contributor to risks greater than 1E-6. However, as discussed
above, the arsenic concentrations are comparable to reported literature values, but greater
than site-specific background concentrations.
The dermal exposure of the base worker to PAHs is approximately half that by the oral route,
and the dermal exposure of the base worker to metals is an order of magnitude lower than the
oral exposure. Given that the construction worker is assumed to have a much greater oral
uptake of soil than the base worker (480 mg/day compared to 50 mg/day), and the dermal
exposure of the base and construction worker would be expected to be similar because Air
Reserve Base and OSHA regulations require construction workers to wear shirts and long
pants; the dermal route of exposure is considered negligible compared to other routes for the
construction worker.
2.7.5.5 Lead. The USEPA has identified a 10 to 15 Hg/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 2-42. The model
predicted that 99% of children exposed to lead at concentrations at OU-7 would have blood
lead concentration below the 10 u,g/dL acceptable blood lead level. For this site, the model
assumes the child is exposed to a concentration of 25 mg/kg of lead (represents the 95 %
UCL) in surface soil and 24 ^ig/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 (24
Hg/1) is greater than the federal treatment technique level in drinking water (15 lLg/1), this
concentration is not anticipated to be the delivered concentration in drinking water, as water
treatment prior to use would be expected to remove the metal in particulate form from water.
Lead was detected in one of five groundwater samples. 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-7 for drinking water.
In addition, the low lead concentrations in surface soil (maximum value of 43.4 mg/kg) and
subsurface soil (maximum value of 114 mg/kg) are not expected to present a significant
contribution to blood lead levels in the base worker or construction worker (USEPA, 1994a).
57
-------
TABLE 2-42
MODELED BLOOD LEAD LEVELS IN
HYPOTHETICAL CHILDREN (AGED 0 TO 6)
OU-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Blood Lead Level**
Study Site
Below
SS-7/OU-7
Medium
Soil
Groundwater
Concentration8
25.0 mg/kg
negligible
Geometric Mean Percent Below
Hg/dL 10 |ig/dL
3.4 99
Percent
15 Hg/dL
100
a
b
c
Lesser of 95 percent UCL on the mean or maximum detected concentration
Calculated using the USEPA model (version 0.99d) (USEPA 1994a)
Air concentration = SPM x Cs x UC1 x UC2.
where:
Cs
dL
Kg
m3
mg
Hg
SPM
UC1
UC2
Soil concentration (mg/kg).
Deciliter.
Kilogram.
Cubic meter.
Milligram.
Microgram.
Suspended paniculate matter (0.075 mg/m3) (Federal Register. 1988a).
Unit conversion 1 (10-6 kg/mg).
Unit conversion 2 (103 fig/mg).
-------
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-7 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-7.
2.7.5.6 Total Site Risk. A summary of the total site risk estimates for OU-7 is presented in
this section. Table 2-43 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 surficial soil at the site. This scenario is evaluated in Table
2-38 with an excess lifetime cancer risk of 2E-6 and an HI of 0.02.
The 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, and soil exposure by child (6-year period) and
adult (24-year period) residents. These scenarios are evaluated in Tables 2-37, 2-39, and 2-
40. The combined risk across on-site pathways (groundwater and soils) for a hypothetical
future resident results in a total site excess lifetime cancer risk of 2E-02 and an HI of 92.
For the hypothetical future construction worker, the total future site risk would be based on
exposure to a combination of surface and subsurface soils. Exposure point concentrations
were not calculated for combined surface and subsurface soil. In practice, the total site risk
to the hypothetical future construction worker would lie between the risk calculated for the
surface soil and the subsurface soil, i.e., between 2.6E-06 and 2.7E-06, and hazard index
between 0.5 and 0.6.
58
-------
TABLE 2-43
SUMMARY TABLE OF HAZARD INDICES AND
CANCER RISKS FOR ALL SCENARIOS
OU-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
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)
Subsurface 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
2E-02
2E-06
2E-05
5E-05
3E-06
3E-06
2E-02
Hazard
Index
90
0.02
0.2
2
0.5
0.6
92
Note: all risk estimates are rounded to one significant figure.
-------
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 constituents 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-7.
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 used 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
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 small size of the site
(0.13 acres), 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 COPCs in this document are conservative.
59
-------
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 compounds of concern. The
developmental and reproductive toxicity of the indicator chemicals has not been
quantitatively accounted for in performing the risk assessment, because the dose-response
relationship has generally not been characterized for the compounds of concern. Another
factor which could lead to an underestimate of the total potential risk at the site is the lack of
RfDs or SFs for several compounds of concern. A review of the compounds of concern
without RfDs or SFs indicates the following: calcium is an essential nutrient and unless 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.
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.
60
-------
*
61
-------
The non-carcinogenic risks associated with potential lead exposure were not evaluated in a
manner similar to other chemicals 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 bldod 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 about the toxicity of constituent mixtures are unavailable. Rather, toxicity studies
generally are performed using a single constituent; such is the case for the carcinogenic
PAHs. Constituents present in a mixture can interact to yield a new constituent or one can
interfere with the absorption, distribution, metabolism, or excretion of another. Constituents
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 constituents. This assumes that the mixture
of constituents present at OU-7 has neither synergistic nor antagonistic interactions and that
all of the constituents have the same mechanism of action in the same target organ to produce
the same toxic endpoints.
The toxicity of all compounds in groundwater and soil has been assumed to be the same as
the sum of the individual effects from each compound. Neither synergistic nor antagonistic
effects resulting from the interaction of the contaminants have been considered. In addition
transformation 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-7 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 risk 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-7.
Operable Unit 7 has been retained by the 482nd Air Force Reserve as part of the cantonment
area. As such, the site has been rebuilt as the new Base Supply, Civil Engineering, and POL
62
-------
Operations area. This rebuilding includes a new civil engineering complex building, three
shops, a storage area, miscellaneous building and a much expanded parking area. Potential
exposures to construction workers during excavation and building activities are possible.
However paving and building structures cover all existing soils and have eliminate any
potential exposures, direct or indirect via soil for future site workers.
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
and residential scenarios, surface and subsurface soil for the construction worker scenario,
and for potable use of groundwater.
In the calculation of RGOs, concentrations for each individual chemical corresponding to
ELCRs of 1E-04, 1E-05, 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
Table 2-44.
2.7.6 Ecological Risk Assessment
Conditions at OU-7 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-7 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-7. Therefore, while constituent concentrations detected at OU-7 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
63
-------
TABLE 2-44
RISK-BASED REMEDIAL GOAL OPTIONS
HYPOTHETICAL FUTURE ADULT RESIDENT AT
OU-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
GROUNDWATER (mg/L)
COMPOUNDS
VOCs
Bromodichloromethane
Di bromochloromethane
Pesticides
Alpha-BHC
DDD
vletals
Aluminum
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium (VI)
Manganese
SITE SPECIFIC REMEDIAL
GOAL OPTIONS
HAZARD INDEX
0.1
NAP
NAP
NAP
1.8E-03
3.7E+00
1.1E-03
1.8E-03
1.8E-02
1.8E-02
1.0
NAP
NAP
NAP
1.8E-02
3.7E+01
1.1E-02
1.8E-02
1.8E-01
1.8E-01
3.0
NAP
NAP
NAP
5.5E-02
1.1E+02
3.3E-02
5.5E-02
5.5E-OI
5.5E-01
SITE SPECIFIC REMEDIAL
GOAL OPTIONS
CARCINOGENIC RISK
1E-06
1.4E-03
l.OE-03
1.4E-05
3.5E-04
NAP
5.7E-05
NAP
NAP
NAP
IE-OS
1.4E-02
l.OE-02
1.4E-04
3.5E-03
NAP
5.7E-04
NAP
NAP
NAP
1E-04
1.4E-01
I.OE-01
1.4E-03
3.5E-02
NAP
5.7E-03
NAP
NAP
NAP
EPA
Maximum
Contaminant
Level
iE-01
1E-01
NA
NA
5E-02 to 2E-011
5E-02
5E-03
IE-01
0.05"
Florida
Drinking
Water
Standard
NSC
NSC
NSC
NSC
0.2"
5E-02
5E-03
IE-01
0.05"
NAP = Not Applicable
NS = No Standard
ELCR = Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk
HI = Hazard Index
" USEPA Secondary Drinking Water Standard
b Florida Secondary Drinking Water Standard
c There are no Drinking Water Standards for these compounds.
However, Florida Groundwater Guidance Concentrations are available as follows:
bromodichloromethane - 0.6 ug/L; dibromochloromethane -1 ug/L; alpha-BHC - 0.05 ug/L; and DDD - 0.1 ug/L.
-------
TABLE 2-44
RISK-BASED REMEDIAL GOAL OPTIONS
AND FDEP SOIL TARGET LEVELS
HYPOTHETICAL CURRENT BASE WORKER (MOWING SCENARIO) AT
OU-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
SOIL (mg/kg)
COMPOUNDS
Metals
Arsenic
SITE SPECIFIC REMEDIAL
GOAL OPTIONS
HAZARD INDEX
0.1
NAP
1.0
NAP
—
3.0
NAP
SITE SPECIFIC REMEDIAL
GOAL OPTIONS
CARCINOGENIC RISK
1E-06
1.7E+01
IE-OS
I.7E+02
1E-04
1.7E+03
^^
FDEP
Soil Target Levels
Based on an ELCR
of lE-06/HIofl
3E+00
NAP = Not Applicable
ELCR = Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk
HI = Hazard Index
-------
TABLE 2-44
RISK-BASED REMEDIAL GOAL OPTIONS
AND FDEP SOIL TARGET LEVELS
HYPOTHETICAL FUTURE ADULT RESIDENT AT
OU-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
SOIL (mg/kg)
NAP = Not Applicable
ELCR = Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk
HI = Hazard Index
PfiMpnnwnc
l^ \JiVl rv/UlNUo
BNAs
Benzo(b)pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Pesticides/PCB.s
Chlordane Isomers
Petals
Arsenic
Gallium
SITE SPECIFIC REMEDIAL
GOAL OPTIONS
HAZARD INDEX
0.1
NAP
NAP
NAP
NAP
5.0E+00
=====
1.0
NAP
NAP
NAP
NAP
5.0E+01
•
3.0
NAP
NAP
NAP
NAP
1.5E+02
— " - - ' '- - — ' .-.
SITE SPECIFIC REMEDIAL
GOAL OPTIONS
CARCINOGENIC RISK
1E-06
2.2E-OI
2.2E-01
l.OE+00
1.4E+00
NAP
"
IE-OS
2.2E+00
2.2E+00
l.OE+01
1.4E+01
NAP
••
1E-04
2.2E+OI
2.2E+01
I.OE+02
1.4E+02
NAP
'
FDEP
Soil Target Levels
Based on an ELCR
of lE-flfi / HI nf 1
1E-01
1E-0!
5E-01
7E-01
NA
======= —
-------
TABLE 2-44
RISK-BASED REMEDIAL GOAL OPTIONS
AND FDEP SOIL TARGET LEVELS
HYPOTHETICAL FUTURE CHILD RESIDENT AT
OU-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
SOIL (mg/kg)
COMPOUNDS
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Pibenzo(a,h)anthracene
SITE SPECIFIC REMEDIAL'
GOAL OPTIONS
HAZARD INDEX
'SITE SPECIFIC REMEDIAr
GOAL OPTIONS
Chlordane Isomers
Aluminum
Arsenic
NAP = Not Applicable
ELCR = Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk
HI = Hazard Index
0.1
— — — _____
NAP
NAP
NAP
NAP
3.4E-01
7.2E+03
2.3E+00
1 1
1.0
NAP
NAP
NAP
NAP
3.4E+00
7.2E+04
2.3E+01
1
\
1 3.0 IR.(M
NAP
NAP
NAP
NAP
l.OE+01
2.2E+05
6.9E+01
I.1E+00
1.1E-01
1.1E+00
1.1E-01
5.1E-01
NAP
6.0E-01
T —
IE-OS
1
1.1E+01
l.IE+00
1.1E+01
l.IE+00
5.1E+00
NAP
6.0E+00
*^*_^A«.
T — •
1E-04
j ^^
l.IE+02
1.1E+01
l.IE+02
1.1E+01
5.1E+OI
NAP
6.0E+01
FDEP
Soil Target Levels
Based on an ELCR
oflE-06/HIofl
1.4E+00
l.OE-01
1.4E+00
l.OE-01
5.0E-01
7.5E+04
7.0E-01
-------
TABLE 2-44
RISK-BASED REMEDIAL GOAL OPTIONS
AND FDEP SOIL TARGET LEVELS
HYPOTHETICAL FUTURE CONSTRUCTION WORKER AT
OU-7, ENTOMOLOGY STORAGE AREA
SUBSURFACE SOIL (mg/kg)
C*r\\/l Df\i TKTrhc*
CUM r U U IN Lla
VIetals
Antimony
Arsenic
'-'-•••--'-' -n r- *1'- IIP^— — • ^ -.11 a^gi^e! •••^•.
SITE SPECIFIC REMEDIAL
GOAL OPTIONS
HAZARD INDEX
0.1
8.5E+00
6.4E+00
=====
1.0
8.5E+01
6.4E+01
=====
3.0
2.6E+02
1.9E+02
' — —"•-i
SITE SPECIFIC REMEDIAL
GOAL OPTIONS
CARCINOGENIC RISK
1E-06
NAP
9.9E+00
=====
IE-OS
NAP
9.9E+01
1 "" i .-
1E-04
NAP
9.9E+02
FDEP
Soil Target Levels
Based on an ELCR
oflE-06/HIofl
2.2E+02
3.1E+00
NAP = Not Applicable
ELCR = Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk
HI = Hazard Index
-------
the COCs in groundwater. Comparison with literature toxicity information indicates that the
concentrations at OU-7 should not be significant.
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. However, the potential
for the migration of these compounds into boundary canal and other downgradient water
bodies may need to be explored further.
Uncertainties in Ecological Risk. 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 ecosystem. Populations are dynamic; therefore,
information concerning the normal range of variability within the population 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 is not the only manner in which humans
impact ecosystems. Habitat destruction from development, agriculture, recreation, etc., is
likely the major way humans cause ecological impacts (Moriarty, 1988).
2.8 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
The USAF only considered two alternatives in the Feasibility Study (FS) to" address the
contamination identified at OU-7: Alternative 1 - No Action, and Alternative 2 - Access and
Use Restrictions for Soils and Groundwater and Groundwater Monitoring. These two
alternatives were screened based on the criteria of effectiveness, implementability, and cost.
These two alternatives were then carried forward through complete evaluation. These two
alternatives were evaluated against the nine CERCLA criteria requirements for selecting a
remedial alternative. These nine criteria include effectiveness, implementability, cost, state
acceptance, community acceptance, long-term effectiveness and permanence, reduction of
mobility, toxicity, or volume through treatment, compliance with ARARs, short-term 'I
effectiveness, and overall protection of human health and the environment. A summary of
the two alternatives described in the Feasibility Study is presented below while each is
discussed in greater detail in the FS. ,)
64
-------
2.8.1 Alternative 1 - No Action
The No-Action Alternative is evaluated as required by the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), the regulation implementing CERCLA, for
comparison with other alternatives. The No-Action Alternative takes into account the
capping of the site through new construction and includes one 5-year site review involving
literature searches, site walks, interviews, and minimal sampling.
Under current land use conditions, this alternative poses an acceptable excess cancer and
noncancer risk, per USEPA guidelines. The only completed exposure pathway is that of a
base worker dropping off and picking up supplies. The total excess cancer risk to the base
worker was estimated at 2E-06, which is considered an acceptable risk by USEPA. The total
estimated noncancer risk of 0.02 is also considered acceptable by USEPA.
The present worth analysis is used to evaluate expenditures that occur over different time
periods by discounting all future cost to a common base year, usually the current year. This
allows the cost of remedial action alternatives to be compared on the basis on a single figure
representing the amount of money that, if invested in the base year and disbursed as needed,
would be sufficient to cover all cost associated with the remedial action over its planned life.
The present-worth cost of this alternative is estimated at $24,270. This cost consist of one 5-
year site review with an estimated cost of $29,500. The cost of the 5-year site review has
been discounted to present value using a 5% discount rate.
2.8.2 Alternative 2 - Access And Use Restrictions For Soil And Groundwater And
Groundwater Monitoring
This alternative takes into account the capping of the site through the construction of
buildings, pavement, and grassways as an effective barrier to prevent exposure to soil and
groundwater contaminants, access and use restrictions, and monitoring well installation and
sampling.
Rebuilding over OU-7 as part of the Base Supply, Civil Engineering, and POL Operations
Area, effectively provides a natural barrier or cap from exposure to the underlying soil and
groundwater. Institutional controls would be enacted to prevent residential development and
placement of a potable well.
Access and use restrictions would be developed and enforced by the current landowner, the
U.S. Air Force.
65
-------
This alternative includes land use and access restrictions in the form of digging/excavation
restrictions around the areas where elevated concentrations of arsenic were detected in the
soil and groundwater (north and south excavation areas). Under the current land use, access ^
to the area is limited given the site is located within the cantonment area, which is fenced and *
patrolled by Base security. Future land use of the site is inherently limited by its proximity to
the airfield and ordnance storage areas. If ownership of the base is transferred to private or
non-DOD entities, use restrictions could be established that would prevent schools *
playgrounds, hospitals, and housing from being built, and prevent placement of a potable'
well at OU-7 until contaminants in the soils and/or groundwater are below levels of concern
If the base is deactivated and a transfer of ownership occurs, the new landowner would be
responsible for enforcing these restrictions.
This alternative also includes the installation of one new monitoring well as depicted in
Figure 2-11. The new well and two existing Wells (MW-1-204-1 OLD and MW-1-207-1)
will be sampled quarterly for one year, semi-annually for one year, and annually for the next
three years if necessary. Samples will be analyzed for organochlorine pesticides, BNAs and
TAL metals.
One 5-year site review is included which involves literature searches, site walks, interviews
minimal sampling, and a groundwater sampling review to determine the effectiveness of the
remedy. This alternative is protective of human health and the environment under the current
and potential future land use conditions and relies on institutional controls to prevent
exposure for the hypothetical future residential land use scenario. This alternative does not
actively reduce the toxicity, mobility or volume of the potential contaminants in the soil, and
relies on control measures to prevent access or exposure to contaminated areas at OU-7.
The present-worth cost of this alternative is estimated at $ 163,467. This cost consists of an
estimated initial capital cost of $21,920, one year of quarterly groundwater sampling, one
year of semi-annual groundwater sampling, three years of annual groundwater samplin- if
necessary with an estimated cost of $124,200, and one 5-year site review with an estimated
cost of $29,500. The cost of the annual O&M reviews and the 5-year site review have been >
discounted to present value using a 5% discount rate.
j
66
-------
2.9 SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
An evaluation and comparison of the alternatives is presented in Table 2-45. The
comparison is based on the nine key criteria required under the National Contingency Plan
and CERCLA Section 121 for use in evaluation of remedial alternatives by USEPA. The
nine criteria are as follows:
• Overall protection of human health and the environment;
• Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements;
• Long-term effectiveness and permanence;
• Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume;
• Short-term effectiveness;
• Cost;
• State acceptance; and
• Community acceptance.
2.9.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The estimated excess cancer and noncancer risks to humans under current and future
industrial landuse conditions are within acceptable guidelines set by USEPA. The excess
cancer risk for the worst-case scenario, a future construction worker exposed to surface soils
is estimated at 3x10-6. The noncancer risk is estimated at 0.5. The excess cancer risk range
considered acceptable by USEPA is 10-4 to 1Q-6 The noncancer limit considered acceptable
by USEPA is 1. Predicted blood lead level for a hypothetical future child resident was
estimated at 3.4 jig/dL, which is below the USEPA guideline of 10 ug/dL, and indicates a
low level of concern for lead exposure if the site were re-developed for future land use.
Both of the alternatives are protective of human health under current and potential industrial
land use conditions based on the site-specific risk assessment performed for OU-7.
However, the no-action alternative may not be protective of the environment. Arsenic levels
in the groundwater exceed the federal and state MCLs very locally in the south excavation
Alternative 2 is protective of the environment because it addresses the concentrations of
arsenic in the groundwater by providing groundwater monitoring to assess the migration of
contaminants over time.
67
-------
TABLE 2-45
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES, OU-7
Remedial Alternative
Evaluation Criteria
— _—
Overall Protection of Human
Health & Environment
Compliance w/ARARs
Long-Term Effectiveness
and Permanence
Reduction of Toxicity,
Mobility, or Volume
Short-Term Effectiveness
Implementability
Estimated Present Worth
Alternative 1
No Action
A
A
O
Easy
$24,270
Alternative 2
Capping/Institutional Controls/GW Monitoring
O
A*
A*
A Does not meet criterion
O Meets criterion
* Has potential to meet criterion
(1) 1994 IRA removed over 4.300 tons of contaminated soils which, if included as a part of
this comparative analysis, would satisfy this criterion.
O
Easy
$163,467
-------
1.9.2. Compliance with ARARs
None of the alternatives meet the groundwater ARARs. Arsenic detected in groundwater is
above the federal and state promulgated standards and there are no ARARs for soils. -Neither
of the alternatives meet the TBC guidelines for soil cleanup levels. However, a waiver to the
chemical specific ARARs is appropriate because Alternative 2 will attain the standard of
performance considered protective of human health and the environment through access and
use restrictions and assesses the compliance of groundwater ARARs through annual
groundwater monitoring and a 5-year site review. Alternative 2 also prevents exposure to
soils through access and use restrictions.
2.9.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternatives 1 does not provide permanent solutions to the remedial action objectives.
Alternative 2 permanently reduces the risks from both inhalation and ingestion of soils and
groundwater by capping the site and by the use of access and use restrictions at OU-7.
2.9.4 Reduction of Mobility, Toxicity, or Volume Through Treatment
Neither Alternative 1 or 2 involve treatment. However, as discussed above, the 1994 IRA
was implemented to reduce the mobility, toxicity, and volume of the contaminated soils and
removed the majority of the contaminants of concern which was the source of the
groundwater contamination.
2.9.5 Short-Term Effectiveness
Neither Alternatives 1 or 2 are expected to pose significant risk to the community or workers
during implementation. There are no anticipated adverse environmental impacts from either
of the alternatives.
2.9.6 Implementability
Alternatives 1 and 2 are easily implementable.
68
-------
2.9.7 Cost
Alternative 1 provides protection to human health, but may not adequately protect the
environment and has a 5-year present worth of $24,270. Alternative 2 uses capping and
institutional controls to limit access to the contaminated soils and groundwater monitoring to *"
assess compliance with ARARs and to detect any future migration of contaminants over
time. Alternative 2 would cost approximately $163,467. ' *
2.9.8 State and Community Acceptance
State and community concerns will be addressed in the proposed plan.
2.10 SELECTED REMEDY
Based upon consideration of the requirements of CERCLA, the detailed evaluation of the
alternatives and public comments, the U.S. Air Force, in concurrence with the USEPA and
the state of Florida, has determined that Alternative 2 - Access and Use Restrictions for Soil
and Groundwater and Groundwater Monitoring is the most appropriate course of action at
OU-7.
41
This alternative is protective of human health and the environment under current and future
industrial landuse conditions. The groundwater will be monitored quarterly for one year,
semi-annually for one year, and annually for three years if necessary to assess any future
migration of contaminants over time. After the 5-year monitoring period, EPA, FDEP, and
the USAF will evaluate the effectiveness of the remedy and the need for continued
groundwater access restrictions. The selected remedy has been accepted by the state and
community concerns have been addressed in the Responsiveness Summary of this ROD.
A 5-year review will be conducted to determine whether the remedy remains protective of
human health and the environment and to evaluate the need for continued groundwater access
restrictions.
2.11 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
Under its legal authorities, EPA's primary responsibility at Superfund sites is to undertake ij
remedial actions that achieve adequate protection of human health and the environment. The
selected remedy reduces and controls the existing risk to human health by relying on capping
69
-------
and institutional controls to prevent exposure to soils and groundwater. The selected remedy
is protective of the environment by providing capping and groundwater monitoring to detect
and/or prevent surface and subsurface exposure to arsenic contaminated soils and
groundwater. In addition, Section 121 of CERCLA establishes several other statutory
requirements and preferences. These specify that when complete, the selected remedial
action for this site must comply with applicable or relevant and appropriate environmental
standards established under Federal and State environmental laws unless a statutory waiver is
justified. The selected remedy does not meet ARARs as arsenic has been detected in
groundwater at concentrations greater than Federal and State MCLs. No ARARs exist for
soil, but the selected remedy does not meet TBC guidelines for soil cleanup levels. However,
a waiver to the chemical specific ARARs is appropriate because Alternative 2 will attain the
standard of performance considered protective of human health and the environment through
access and use restrictions and assesses the compliance of groundwater ARARs through
annual groundwater monitoring and a 5-year site review. Alternative 2 also prevents
exposure to soils through access and. use restrictions. The selected remedy also must be cost-
effective and utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource
recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable. The selected remedy has been
determined to be cost-effective and utilizes permanent solutions.
Finally, the statute includes a preference for remedies that permanently and significantly
reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility of hazardous wastes as their principal element. The
selected remedy does not involve treatment. However, as previously discussed, the 1994
IRA was implemented to reduce the mobility, toxicity, and volume of the contaminated soils
and removed the majority of the contaminants of concern which "was the source of the
groundwater contamination. The selection of Alternative 2-Access and Use Restrictions for
Soil and Groundwater and Groundwater Monitoring satisfies the statutory determinations for
this site.
2.12 DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The Proposed Plan for OU-7 was released for public comment in November 1997. The
Proposed Plan identified Alternative 2 - Access and Use Restrictions for Soil and
Groundwater and Groundwater Monitoring as the preferred alternative. EPA reviewed all
written and verbal comments submitted during the public comment period. Upon review of
these comments, it was determined that no significant changes to the remedy, as it was
originally identified in the Proposed Plan, were necessary.
70
-------
-------
Homestead Air Force Base, Florida
Operable Unit No. 7,
Entomology Storage Area
1 ' • • _
Responsiveness Summary for the
Record of Decision
-------
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
FOR THE
RECORD OF DECISION
The responsiveness summary serves three purposes. First, it provides regulators with
information about the community preferences regarding both the remedial alternatives and
general concerns about Operable Unit No. 7, Homestead ARE. Second, the responsiveness
summary documents how public comments have been considered and integrated into the
decision making process. Third, it provides USEPA with the opportunity to respond to each
comment submitted by the public on the record.
The Remedial Investigation/Baseline Risk Assessment Report, Feasibility Study and
Proposed Plan for Homestead ARB, OU-7 were released to the public in April 1996
November 20, 1997, and November 20, 1997, respectively. These documents were made
avulable 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 November 20, 1997 to December 22 1997 as part of
the community relations plan for OU-7. A public meeting was held on November 20 1997
at 7:00 p.m. at South Dade Senior High School. Public Notices were"published in the Miami
Herald on November 16, 1997, and in the South Dade News Leader and The Courier on
November 17, 1997. At this meeting, the USAF and Dade County Environmental Resource
Management (DERM), were prepared to discuss the Remedial Investigation, the Baseline
Risk Assessment, the Feasibility Study, and the Preferred Alternative for this OU as
described in the Proposed Plan.
There were no comments at the public meeting regarding the selected alternative for OU-
7/Site SS-7. Additionally, no comments were received during the public comment period.
-------
-------
£ 0"0 0)
TJ t S>
ScS>S
>- * 0) O
o
w
atmm ii
-. ,
i_i .
0 0
d) 3
-------
------- |