PB99-964018
EPA541-R99-091
1999
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Whiting Field Naval Air Station
Site 1 Northwest Disposal Area
Milton, FL
9/29/1999
-------
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
SITE 1, NORTHWEST DISPOSAL AREA
NAVAL AIR STATION WHITING FIELD
MILTON, FLORIDA
UNIT IDENTIFICATION CODE: N60508
CONTRACT NO.: N62467-89-D-0317/116
SEPTEMBER 1999
SOUTHERN DIVISION
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND
NORTH CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA 29418
Harding Lawson As*od«tM
Engineering and Environmental Services
2590 Executive Center Circle East
Tallahassee. Florida 32301 - (650) 65&-1293
-------
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 FORSYTH STREET
one**0 ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30303-8960
CERTIFIED MAIL CCT !}5 199g
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
4WD-FFB
Captain D.W. Nelms
Commanding Officer
Naval Air Station Whiting Field
7550 USS Essex Street
Suite 100
Milton, Florida 32570-6155
SUBJ: Record of Decision
Site 1, Northwest Disposal Area
NAS Whiting Field
Milton, Florida
Dear Captain Nelms:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 has reviewed the above
subject decision document and concurs with the selected remedy for the Remedial Action at Site
1. This remedy is supported by the previously completed Remedial Investigation, Feasibility
Study and Baseline Risk Assessment Reports.
The selected remedy consists of institutional controls to limit land use at Site 1 to
nonresidential use. EPA's concurrence assumes implementation of land use restrictions, through
a land use controls assurance and implementation plan via the Memorandum of Agreement
between the Navy, State and EPA, This remedial action is protective of human health and the
environment, complies with Federal and State requirements that are legally applicable or relevant
and appropriate to the remedial action and is cost effective.
EPA appreciates the coordination efforts of NAS Whiting Field and the level of effort
that was put forth in the documents leading to this decision. EPA looks forward to continuing
the exemplary working relationship with NAS Whiting Field and Southern Division Naval
Facilities Engineering Command as we move toward final cleanup of the NPL site.
Sincerely,
Richard D. Green
Director
Waste Management Division
Internet Address (URL) « http /iVvww.apa.gcv
Ft«cycl*d/R«cycUbl« • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper ^Minimum 25% PosJccr.sumer)
-------
cc: Elsie Munseil, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy
James Holland, NAS Whiting Field
Linda Martin, SOUTHDIV
James Cason, FDEP
-------
cc: Elsie Munsell, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy
James Holland, NAS Whiting Field
Linda Martin, SOUTHDIV
James Cason, FDEP
BENEDIKT BOZEMAN JOHNSTON
C6
X— »3
<^^
-------
-------
Harding Lawson Associates
September 17,1999 2534-2032
Mr. Craig Benedikt, Remedial Project Manager
Federal Facilities Branch
USEPA Region IV
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Subject: Final Record of Decision
Site 1, North west Disposal Area
Naval Air Station Whiting Field, Milton, Florida
Contract No. N62467-89D-0317/116
Dear Craig:
On behalf of Southern Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command (SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM), Harding
Lawson Associates is pleased to submit the final Site 1 Record of Decision (ROD). Copies of the final ROD have also
been forwarded to the Naval Air Station Whiting Field partnering team.
As soon as the ROD is signed by the Commanding Officer, Mr. Jim Holland will forward a copy of Page 1-2 to your
attention. Please replace the current Page 1-2 with the signed copy
If you have any questions please call me at (850) 656-1293.
Sincerely,
HARDING LAWSON ASSOCIATES
»Angara
Principal Project Manager
enclosure
cc: Ms. L. Martin, SDIV (2 copies)
Ms. A. Twitty, CH2M Hill (1 copy)
Mr. J. Cason, FDEP (2 copies)
Mr. T. Conrad, BEI (1 copy)
Mr. T. Hansen, TtNUS (1 copy)
Mr. G. Walker, TtNUS (1 copy)
Mr. P. Ottinger, TtNUS (1 copy)
Mr. J. Holland, NASWF (2 copies)
Mr. E. Blomberg, HLA (1 copy)
File
Engineering and
Environmental Services 2590 Executive Center Circle East. Tallanassee. FL 32301 850/656-1293 Fax: 850/656-3386
-------
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
SITE 1, NORTHWEST DISPOSAL AREA
NAVAL AIR STATION WHITING FIELD
MILTON, FLORIDA
Unit Identification Code: N60508
Contract No.: N62467-89-D-0317/116
Prepared by:
Harding Lawson Associates
2590 Executive Center Circle, East
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Prepared for:
Department of the Navy, Southern Division
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
2155 Eagle Drive
North Charleston, South Carolina 29418
Linda Martin, Code 1859, Engineer-in-Charge
September 1999
-------
-------
CERTIFICATION OF TECHNICAL
DATA CONFORMITY (MAY 1987)
The Contractor, Harding Lawson Associates, hereby certifies that, to the best of
its knowledge and belief, the technical data delivered herewith under Contract
No. N62467-89-D-0317/116 are complete and accurate and comply with all
requirements of this contract.
DATE:
September 16. 1999
NAME AND TITLE OF CERTIFYING OFFICIAL:
Rao Angara
Task Order Manager
NAME AND TITLE OF CERTIFYING OFFICIAL:
Eric Blomberg, P.G.
Project Technical Lead
(DFAR 252.227-7036)
WHTSITE1 .ROD
FGW.O9.99
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Record of Decision
Site 1. Northwest Disposal Area
Naval Air Station Whiting Field
Milton, Florida
CHAPTER TITLE PAgE NQT
1.0 DECLARATION OF THE RECORD OF DECISION 1-1
1.1 SITE NAME AND LOCATION 1-1
1.2 STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE 1-1
1.3 ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE 1-1
1.4 DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY 1-2
1.5 DECLARATION STATEMENT 1-2
1.6 SIGNATURE AND SUPPORT AGENCY ACCEPTANCE OF THE REMEDY 1-2
2.0 DECISION SUMMARY '. - 2-1
2.1 SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION 2-1
2.2 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 2-1
2.3 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 2-1
2.4 SCOPE AND ROLE OF REMEDIAL ACTION SELECTED FOR SITE 1 2-1
2.5 SITE CHARACTERISTICS - • 2-5
2.5.1 Aerial Photography Evaluation .., 2-6
2.5.2 Background • 2-6
2.5.3 Geophysical Surveys - 2-6
2.5.4 Active Gas Survey 2-6
2.5.5 Surface Soil ---2-6
2.5.6 Subsurface Soil 2-6
2.5.7 Groundwater 2-7
2.5.8 Migration Pathways 2-7
2.6 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 2-7
2.6.1 Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) 2-7
2.6.2 Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) 2-10
2.6.3 Risk Summary - 2-10
2.7 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 2-10
2.8 SUMMARY OF THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 2-15
2.8.1 Threshold Criteria 2-15
2.8.2 Primary Balancing Criteria 2-16
2.8.3 Modifying Criteria 2-17
2.9 SELECTED ALTERNATIVE 2-18
- 2.10 STATUTORY STATEMENT 2-18
2.11 DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 2-18
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Community Relations Responsiveness Summary
Appendix B: Land-Use Control Implementation Plan
ROD1.doc
FGW.09.99
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Record of Decision
Site 1, Northwest Disposal Area
Naval Air Station Whiting Field
Milton, Florida
Figure : Title '. _ Page NO.
2-1 Location Map, Site 1 • 2-2
2-2 Site 1, General Features • •• 2-3
LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page No.
2-1 Site 1 Investigative History 2-4
2-2 Summary of Human Health Chemicals of Potential Concern (HHCPCs) 2-9
2-3 Risk Summary Current Land Use for Site 1 •— 2-11
2-4 Risk Summary Future Land Use for Site 1 2-12
2-5 Summary of Ecological Chemicals of Potential Concern (ECPCs) 2-13
2-6 Summary of Remedial Alternatives Evaluated for Site 1 2-14
2-7 Comparison of Selected Remedy with Nine Evaluation Criteria 2-19
2-8 Summary of Federal and State ARARs and Guidance Specific to Alternative 2 2-20
RO01.doc
FGW.09.99
-------
GLOSSARY
AR Administrative Record
ARAR Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CPC Chemical of potential concern
ERA Ecological risk assessment
FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection
FS Feasibility study
HHRA Human health risk assessment
HI Hazard index
HLA Harding Lawson Associates
IR Installation restoration
LUC Land-use control
LUCIP Land-use control implementation plan
mg/kg Milligrams per kilogram
MOA Memorandum of Agreement
NAS Naval Air Station
NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan
RA Remedial action
RAO Remedial action objective
RBC Risk based concentration
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RfD Reference dose
RI Remedial investigation
ROD Record of Decision
SCTL Soil cleanup target level
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ROD1.doc
FGW.09.99
-------
-------
1.0 DECLARATION OF THE RECORD OF DECISION
1.1 SITE NAME AND LOCATION.
Site 1, Northwest Disposal Area, is a 5-acre parcel located along.the northwestern facility boundary
of Naval Air Station (NAS) Whiting Field, Milton, Florida.
1.2 STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE.
This decision document presents the selected remedial action (RA) for Site 1 at NAS Whiting Field.
The selected action was chosen in accordance with the requirements of the Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, and to the extent practicable, the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan (NCP). The information supporting this RA decision is
contained in the Administrative Record (AR) for this site. The Information Repository, including the
AR, is located at the West Florida Regional Library, Milton Branch, 805 Alabama Street, Milton,
Florida, Telephone Number (850) 623-5565.
The purpose of the RA at Site 1 is to implement land-use controls (LUCs) to minimize future
predicted risks. The LUCs will establish controls for land use at the site to nonresidential use as
specified in the LUCIP in Appendix B. These controls will be incorporated into a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) between NAS Whiting Field, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA),
and Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). The USEPA and the State of Florida
concur with the selected remedy.
Through the MOA, NAS Whiting Field, on behalf of the Department of the Navy, will agree to
implement periodic basewide site inspections and agency notification procedures designed to ensure
the maintenance by NAS Whiting Field personnel of any site-specific LUCs deemed necessary for
future protection of human health and the environment.
A fundamental premise underlying execution of the MOA is the Navy's substantial good-faith
compliance with the procedures called for in the MOA. Reasonable assurances will be provided to
USEPA and FDEP as to the permanency of the remedy, including the specific LUC maintenance
commitments stated in the MOA. Should such compliance not occur or should the MOA be
terminated, USEPA and FDEP reserve the right to reconsider the protectiveness of the remedy
concurred upon in this ROD and USEPA and FDEP may require that NAS Whiting Field take addi-
tional measures to adequately ensure necessary future protection of human health and the environ-
ment.
1.3 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 a current or potential threat to
public health, welfare, or the environment. No human health risk was identified for Site 1 surface
soil when compared to USEPA carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risk criteria. However, the FDEP
target carcinogenic risk level of IxlO"6 was exceeded by the hypothetical future resident exposure
scenario (2xlO~5) due to the presence of arsenic in surface soil. The noncancer risk from exposure
to surface soil was below the FDEP target hazard index of 1. No human health risk was identified
for subsurface soil at Site 1. Sublethal effects for the herbivore mammal are present at Site 1 due to
the presence of arsenic in surface soil. A discussion of these potential threats by media is presented
ROD1.doc
FGW.09.99 1-1
-------
these two media were not evaluated. Site 1 groundwater is being addressed and will be presented in
the remedial investigation (RI) for Site 40.
1.4 DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY.
This ROD presents the final action for the surface and subsurface soils at Site 1 and is based on
results of the RI and Feasibility Study (FS) completed for surface and subsurface soils for Site 1.
This ROD is not the final remedy for groundwater which is being addressed as separate site. The
preferred RA at Site 1 is Alternative 2 (LUCs), and includes 5-year site reviews to evaluate the
effectiveness of the LUCs. The LUCs will establish controls for limiting land use at the site to
nonresidential use as specified in the LUCDP in Appendix B. These controls will be incorporated
into a MOA. The 5-year site reviews will verify that the selected alternative is protective of human
health and the environment in future years.
Alternative 2 was selected to address principal threats and risks identified for Site 1. Implementing
Alternative 2 would address current and future risks associated with contaminants present at Site 1.
The Navy estimates the present worth cost of Alternative 2 would be $146,000 over a 30-year period.
The selected action would be implemented for an indefinite period of time.
As stated above, this ROD only addresses surface and subsurface soils at Site 1. Consequently, this
ROD does not address actual or potential groundwater contamination at the site. Groundwater has
been identified as a separate site (Site 40) and will be addressed in a future RI/FS.
1.5 DECLARATION STATEMENT.
The RA selected for surface and subsurface soils at Site 1 is protective of human health and the
environment, complies with Federal and State regulatory requirements legally applicable or relevant
and appropriate (ARARs) to the RA, and is cost effective. This remedy does not utilize a permanent
solution. Alternative treatment technologies were evaluated for use in the FS. However, because
treatment of the principal threats was not found to be practicable, the selected remedy does not
satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a principal element.
Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining on site above health-based levels,
a review will be conducted within 5 years after commencement of the RA to ensure the remedy
continues to provide adequate protection of human health and the environment.
1.6 SIGNATURE AND SUPPORT AGENCY ACCEPTANCE OF THE REMEDY.
9.9
Capt. D.W. Nelms Date V
• Commanding Officer, NAS Whiting Field
Wh-ROD-la
FGW.09.99 1-2
-------
2.0 DECISION SUMMARY
2.1 SITE NAME. LOCATION. AND DESCRIPTION.
Site 1, also known as the Northwest Disposal Area, is a 5-acre parcel of land located along the northwestern
boundary of the installation near the North Air Field at NAS Whiting Field (Figure 2-1). The site is
characterized as a surface depression gently sloping toward a drainage outlet located along the southwestern
site boundary (Figure 2-2). The site covers an area currently forested with pine trees approximately 20 feet in
height. Large concrete pipes and culverts and some concrete rubble are present on the ground surface of the
site.
2.2 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES.
According to the Initial Assessment Study (Envirodyne Engineers, Inc., 1985), general refuse and wastes
associated with operation and maintenance of aircraft at the station may have been disposed of at this site
from 1943 until 1965. Anecdotal evidence suggests this may include unknown quantities of waste paints,
paint thinners, solvents, waste oils, and hydraulic fluids. Access to the site is uncontrolled, and there are no
available written records of the types of wastes disposed of at the site.
Site 1 has undergone several phases of investigations since 1985. Table 2-1 presents a summary of theses
activities.
2.3 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION.
The RI report (Harding Lawson Associates [HLA], 1998a), the FS (HLA, 1998b), and the Proposed Plan
(HLA, 1998c) for Site 1 were completed and released to the public in June 1998. These documents, and
other Installation Restoration (IR) program information, are contained within the Administrative Record in
the information repository located at the West Florida Regional Library, Milton, Florida.
Publication of the notice of availability targeted the communities closest to NAS Whiting Field. The
availability notice presented information on the investigation at Site 1 and encouraged community members
to submit written comments on the Proposed Plan.
A public comment period was held from August 26, 1998 to September 24, 1998, to solicit comments on the
Proposed Plan. In addition, a public meeting was held on August 27, 1998, Representatives from NAS
Whiting Field, SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM, USEPA, and FDEP, plus the Navy's environmental
consultants, presented information on the results of the Site 1 RI, the FS, and the Proposed Plan, and solicited
comments from the community. Comments received on the public meeting during the public comment
period are presented in the Responsiveness Summary in Attachment A.
isiveness
A response to the comments received during the public comment period is included in the Responsi
Summary (Appendix A).
2.4 SCOPE AND ROLE OF REMEDIAL ACTION SELECTED FOR SITE 1.
Investigations at Site 1 have indicated contamination at the site does not pose an unacceptable risk to human
and ecological receptors given a nonresidential land-use scenario and the implementation of LUCs.
Therefore, the purpose of the RA for Site 1 is to maintain the use of the land for nonresidential purposes.
ROD1.doc
FGW.09.99 2-1
-------
. LEOEHO
m| Apf»o«
Bast boundary
HAS Kaval Afr Station
rVS^'^-. "Ti3^
•>g^.Jyf!«ss-^...
1 jA imf^t.jij c j '•••:;;..
0
N
A
SCALt: I INCH - 2000 FCC I
RECORD OF DECISION
SITE 1, NORTHWEST
DISPOSAL AREA
NAI WMTMO FEtD
WLTON, FIOBDA
-------
b w
<0 H
ID 2
SITE 1
LEGEND
Geophysicol onomoly
Areo of planted ping lre«s
Older tree line
Appro iimot« sit* boundary and
(North f/e/d
I Runway
land use control area
Flow direction
fence
FIGURE 2-2
SITE 1, GENERAL FEATURES
RECORD OF DECISION
SITE 1, NORTHWEST
DISPOSAL AREA
SCALE: 1 INCH = 200 FEtl
HAS WHITING FIELD
MILTON, FLORIDA
-------
Table 2-1
Site 11nvestigative History
Record of Decision
Site 1, Northwest Disposal Area
Naval Air Station Whiting Reid
Milton. Florida
Date
Investigation Title
Activities
Findings
1985
IAS, NAS Whiting Field, Milton.
Florida (Envirodyne Engineers. Inc.)
1986
1992-1998
Verification Study, NAS Whiting
Field. Milton, Florida (Geraghty &
Miller)
Remedial Investigation Report, Site
1, NAS Whiting Field, Milton, Florida
(HLA, 1998a)
Review of historical records and aerial
photographs.
Field inspections and personal inter-
views.
One monitoring well was installed at
Site 1 (WHF1-1).
One groundwater sample was col-
lected.
Cone Penetrometer (PCPT) ground-
water sampling.
Geophysical surveying.
Active soil gas surveying.
Aquifer flow testing.
Collection of surface soil samples.
Collection of subsurface soil samples.
Installation of four groundwater moni-
toring wells.
Collection of groundwater samples.
Human Health Risk Assessment.
Ecological Risk Assessment.
From 1943 until 1965. general refuse and wastes assodated with operation
and maintenance of aircraft at the station may have been disposed of at Site
1.
Access to the site was uncontrolled.
There were no available written records of the types of wastes disposed of at
the site.
The IAS recommended a Confirmation Study (consisting of verification and
characterization phases) be completed. Only the verification phase was
conducted.
No organic compounds were detected In the sample.
One Inorganic analyte (lead) was detected at a concentration below Florida's
primary drinking water regulations.
Geophysical survey results do not conclusively support any evidence of
landfilling.
The test pit sampling results do not conclusively support any evidence of
landfilling.
Neither methane nor VOCs were detected during the soil gas survey.
The groundwater flow direction is to the south-southwest and discharges at
Clear Creek, located approximately 5,000 feet southwest of the site.
The Human Health Risk Assessment determined the cardnogenic risk from
exposure to surface soil was within U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
(USEPA's) acceptable risk range for current or hypothetical future residents
at Site 1.
The total excess lifetime cancer risk assodated with ingestion of surface soil
by a hypothetical future resident (1x10°s) and occupational worker (1x10"')
did exceed FDEP's target level of concern (1x10"*) due to arsenic.
The noncancer hazards assodated with ingestion and direct contact of sur-
face soil by a hypothetical future child resident slightly exceeded USEPA
and FDEP target hazard index (HI) of 1; however, no individual analyte ex-
ceeded 1.
The Ecological Risk Assessment suggests concentrations of chromium and
vanadium detected in the surface sol! samples could potentially affect plants.
Soil and food items containing chemicals from Site 1 are unlikely to have
lethal effects to wildlife receptors.
Sublethal exposures are unlikely to result in adverse effects to reproduction
and survival except for the herbivore mammal. The primary contributor of
sublethal risk to wildlife is arsenic (hazard quotient of 1.4).
Notes: IAS = initial assessment study.
NAS = Naval Air Station.
HLA = Harding Lawson Associates.
VOC = Volatile Organic Compound.
FDEP = Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
USEPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
ROD1 .doc
FGW.i
-------
Based on previous investigations, remedial action objectives (RAOs) and chemical-specific action levels
were identified. The primary chemical of concern at the site is arsenic in surface soil. Because Site 1, and
several other sites at NAS Whiting Field, are disposal sites where the cover fill was most likely brought to the
site from an off-site borrow source or subsurface soils on site, the Navy requested the FDEP consider a site-
specific soil cleanup goal for arsenic. The Navy recommended a soil cleanup goal for arsenic at NAS
Whiting Field disposal sites (Sites 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16) of 4.62 milligrams per kilogram
(mg/kg). The FDEP and the USEPA have concurred with the use of this goal at these disposal sites given the
following conditions (FDEP, 1998):
1. The sites may be utilized for activities involving less than full-time contact with the site. This may
include, but is not limited to, a) parks, b) recreation areas that receive heavy use (such as soccer or
baseball fields), or c) agricultural sites where farming practices result in moderate site contact
(approximately 100 days per year or less).
2. The Navy must ensure adherence to the land use by incorporating the site and restricted use conditions in
anMOA.
3. The above soil cleanup goal may not be utilized at any other site without specific FDEP approval.
The groundwater at NAS Whiting Field has been designated as a separate site (Site 40, Facilitywide
Groundwater). If chemicals in the groundwater are posing a threat to human and/or ecological receptors, they
will be evaluated as part of the Site 40 RI/FS; therefore, groundwater is not considered in this ROD.
.The RAO for Site 1, establish and maintain a LUC plan for Site 1, was developed because the use of the site-
specific cleanup goal for arsenic required the implementation of LUCs. Under USEPA Region IV guidance,
the use of LUCs as a remedy for contaminated sites requires the development of a LUC assurance plan,
which may be documented in an MOA, as well as a site-specific LUC Implementation Plan (LUCIP). This
document details the actions required when LUCs are selected as a remedy for a site.
The MOA is developed for the entire installation where LUCs are necessary. This document indicates the
Navy agrees to implement certain periodic site inspections, condition certifications, and agency notification
procedures basewide to ensure the maintenance (by NAS Whiting Field personnel) of any site-specific LUCs
deemed necessary for future protection of human health and the environment. A fundamental premise
underlying execution of an MOA is the Navy's substantial good-faith compliance with the procedures called
for in the MOA. Reasonable assurances will be provided to USEPA and FDEP as to the permanency of those
remedies, including the use of specific LUCs (or development of LUCIPs). It is agreed by the Navy,
USEPA, and FDEP that the contemplated permanence of the remedy would be dependent upon NAS Whiting
Field's substantial good-faith compliance with the specific LUC maintenance commitments stated in the
MOA. Should such compliance not occur or should the MOA be terminated, USEPA and FDEP reserve the
right to reconsider the protectiveness of the remedy concurred upon in the ROD and USEPA and FDEP may
require NAS Whiting Field take additional measures to adequately ensure necessary future protection of
human health and the environment.
2.5 SITE CHARACTERISTICS.
The goal of the RI conducted for Site 1 was to collect data to determine the nature and extent of releases of
site-derived contaminants; identify potential pathways of migration via the vadose zone, soil, or groundwater;
and evaluate risks to human and ecological receptors. Other media (e.g., surface water, sediment, etc.) were
not evaluated because they are not present at the site.
RODl.doc
FGW.09.99 2-5
-------
.?.5.1 Aerial Photography Evaluation
Historical aerial photographs, provided by the Navy at the Public Works Office, were evaluated during the
pCtag pSL ofthe RI The objective of the evaluation was to determine the operational history of the
site and to verify earlier historical accounts. No new information was gathered during this evaluation.
2.?,? Background
A background sampling program was completed for the Main Base of NAS Whiting Field to establish
concentrations of inorganics naturally present in surface soil, subsurface soil, and groundwater.
The results of this background sampling program indicated detectable concentrations of various inorganic
analytes in the aforementioned media.
?.5.3 Geophysical Surveys
A geophysical survey was conducted at Site 1 with the following objectives:
. locate buried metallic or nonmetallic objects indicating a potential waste disposal area and assess the
lateral and vertical extent of the identified disposal area, and
. locate possible underground utility lines, fuel distribution lines, and other man-made obstructions to be
avoided when used with other intrusive subsurface exploration activities.
The geophysical survey results do not conclusively support evidence of landfilling at Site 1.
2.5.4 Active Gas Survey
The objective of the active soil gas survey was to evaluate the presence and potential lateral migration of
methane and other landfill gases. Several soil gas samples contained low-level detections of organic
chemicals when analyzed on a field gas chromatograph, and no methane detections were recorded^ The age
of the landfill (more than 28 years) is believed to be the reason methane generation was not observed.
Measurable concentrations of total volatile organic compounds or methane were not present in the soil gas
samples collected at the site. This suggests landfilled materials, if present, are not generating measurable
concentrations of organic vapors.
?.«5.S Surface Soil
Surface soil sampling was conducted at Site 1 to determine the nature and extent of contamination at the site,
and to assess whether or not surface soil could potentially serve as an exposure pathway to human or
ecological receptors.
Arsenic was detected in eight of eight Site 1 surface soil samples at concentrations ranging from 1.3 to 4.2
mg/kg. The maximum detected concentration exceeded the default industrial Florida soil cleanup ta^et level
(SCTLs) of 3.7 mg/kg, and the background screening concentration of 3.2 mg/kg, but was less than the FDbF
approved site-specific cleanup goal of 4.62 mg/kg (HLA, 1998c).
2.5.6 Subsurface Soil
Subsurface soil sampling was conducted at Site 1 to determine the vertical extent of contamination and to
assess whether or not subsurface soil could potentially serve as an exposure pathway to human or ecological
receptors.
ROD1.doc
FGW.09.99
-------
2i5J — Migration Pathways
«
and (3,
^^^
overflowed during heavy rain a
-------
Five components of the HHRA were completed, including (1) data evaluation, (2) selection of human health
CPCs, (3) exposure assessment, (4) toxicity assessment, and (5) risk characterization.
Pate Evaluation- The data evaluation involved numerous activities, including sorting data by media,
evaluating analytical methods, evaluating quantitation limits, evaluating quality of data with respect to
qualifiers and codes, evaluating tentatively identified compounds, comparing potentially site-related
contamination witty background, developing a data set for use in risk assessment, and identifying CPCs.
Health CPCs. Table 2-2 summarizes the human health CPCs selected for surface soil and
groundwater at Site 1 . These chemicals are the focus of the baseline risk assessment.
Exposure Assessment. Site 1 was evaluated to identify the populations potentially coming into contact with
site-related chemicals and the pathways through which exposure might occur.
Three potential media may be sources of human exposure: surface soil, subsurface soil, and groundwater.
Under current land use, there is no exposure to groundwater or subsurface soil. For future land use, it is
assumed all three media are potential sources of exposure. Groundwater, however, is being addressed as a
separate site (Site 40) and the exposure assessment for the Site 1 groundwater will be addressed in the Site 40
RI. Exposure assessments for surface and subsurface soil are described below.
• Surface Soil No humans currently reside or work at Site 1. Currently, there are no plans for residential
development. However, Site 1 may be developed eventually for residential land use; therefore, the
residential receptor was evaluated as part of the potential future land-use scenario. Since there are no
buildings present at the site, exposure of occupational workers was only considered as part of the future
land-use scenario. Other possible future exposure scenarios included excavation activities, such as
installation of utility lines, and site maintenance, such as mowing the grass. Site maintenance activities
may also include occasional silvaculture activities by a forestry worker.
• Subsurface Soil There are no current exposures to subsurface soil because no excavation or construction
activities are ongoing at Site 1. However, if Site 1 is developed for residential or industrial use or if
excavation activities occur in the future, an excavation worker could be exposed to contaminants in
subsurface soil.
Assessment. The toxicify assessment is a two-step process whereby the potential hazards associated
with the route-specific exposure to a given chemical are (1) identified by reviewing relevant human and
animal studies, and (2) quantified through analysis of dose-response relationships. USEPA has calculated
numerous toxicity values having undergone extensive review within the scientific community. These values
(published in the Integrated Risk Information System and other journals) are used in the baseline evaluation
to calculate both carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks associated with each CPC and rate of exposure
Risk Characterisation. In the final step of the risk assessment, the results of the exposure and toxicity
assessments are combined to estimate the overall risk from exposure to site contamination. For cancer-
causing chemicals, risk is estimated to be a probability. For example, a particular exposure ,to chemicals at a
site may present a 1 in 1,000,000 (or IxlO"6) chance of development of cancer over an estimated lifetime of
70 years. For noncancer-causing chemicals, the dose of a chemical a receptor may be exposed is estimated
and compared to the reference dose (RfD). The RfD is developed by USEPA scientists and represents an
estimate of the amount of a chemical a person (including the most sensitive persons) could be exposed to
over a lifetime without developing adverse effects. The measure of the likelihood of adverse effects other
than cancer occurring in humans is called the hazard index (HI). An HI greater than I suggests adverse
effects are possible.
RODl.doc
FGW.09.99 2-8
-------
Table 2-2
Summary of Human Health Chemicals of Potential Concern (HHCPCs)
Record of Decision
Site 1, Northwest Disposal Area
Naval Air Station Whiting Field
Milton. Florida
Environmental Media
HHCPCs
Surface Soil
Subsurface Soil
VOCs: None
SVOCs: None
Pesticides and RGBs: None
Inorganic Analytes: Aluminum, Arsenic, iron
VOCs: None
SVOCs: None
Pesticides and PCBs: None
Inorganic Analytes: None
Notes: VOC = volatile organic compound.
SVOC = semivolatile organic compound.
PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl.
ROD1.doc
FGW.09.99
2-9
-------
I
Table 2-3 provides a summary of the predicted risks for current exposure scenarios, and Table 2-4 provides
a summary of the predicted risks for future exposure scenarios.
2,fi.2 Ecollflgfcal Risk
medium.
TTie ERA completed for Site 1 considered exposure of terrestrial plants, terrestrial invertebrates, and wildlife
to chemicals in surface soil at the site.
l bdw available invertebrate toxicity benchmark values. Therefore it is unlikely
abundance would be reduced to the point, small mammals and bird populates
X. no RAOs were established for terrestrial plant exposure to surface soil at
Sitel.
Adverse effects to terrestrial invertebrates are not predicted based on exposure to chemicals detected in
surface soil at Site 1.
Si fo? i l^heSvore mammal, the cotton mouse, had a calculated HI of 2 suggesting a potent*! for
adverse effects. The primary contributor to the sublethal nsk is arsenic in surface soil.
Risk Summary
tT
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this site, if not addressed by implementing the
iS^^niected in this ROD, may present an imminent and substanfcal endangerment to public
health, welfare, 'or the environment.
7/7 DESCPTPTION OF AT.TKRNATIVES.
Three remedial alternatives were considered for Site 1 . Cleanup alternatives were developed by the Navy,
the USEPA, and the FDEP. The three alternatives are listed below and summanzed on Table 2-6.
Alternative 1: No Action.
Alternative 2: LUCs.
Alternatives: Capping and LUCs.
These alternatives were developed in consideration of site risks, the predicted future land use and USEPA
conducting RI/FS at landfill sites. All the alternatives include a provision for five-year site
ifyle selected alternative is protective of human health and the environment m future years.
ROD1.doc n
FGW.09.99 z
-------
Risk
Land Use
f
Current Land Use
Surface Soil:
Adult Trespasser
Adolescent Trespasser:
Site Maintenance
Worker:
Table 2-3
Summary Current Land Use for Site 1
Record of Decision
Site 1 . Northwest Disposal Area
Naval Air StaBon, Whiting Field
Milton, Florida
Exposure Route
Incidental ingestion
Dermal contact
Inhalation of parttculates
Total Adult Trespasser
Incidental ingestion
Dermal contact
Inhalation of particulates
Total Adolescent Trespasser:
Total Risk to Trespasser (Adult and Adolescent)
Exposed to Surface Soil:
Incidental ingestion
Dermal contact
Inhalation of particulates
Total Site Maintenance Worker:
HI*
0.01
0.02
ND
0.03
0.02
0.03
ND
0.05
NC
0.004
0.01
ND
0.02
ELCR'
3X10'7
2x10*
9x10-"
3x1 0'7
2x10'7
1x1 Q-8
5x10-r
2x1 0'7
5x1 0-7
1x10*'
2x1 0"8
4X10'10
1x10'7
Notes: * = receptor totals may vary from spreadsheets due to rounding algorithm.
HI = hazard index.
ELCR = excess lifetime cancer risk.
ND = no dose-response data for this exposure route were available for human health chemicals of potential
concern in this medium.
NC = not calculated because child and adult His are not additive.
ROD1.doc
FGW.09.99
2-11
-------
Table 2-4
Risk Summary Future Land Use for Site 1
Record of Decision
Site 1, Northwest Disposal Area
Naval Air Station, Whiting Field
Milton. Florida
Land Use
Exposure Route
HI*
ELCR*
Future Land Use
Surface Soil:
Adult Trespasser:
Adolescent Trespasser:
Adult Resident:
Child Resident:
Occupational Worker:
Site Maintenance Worker:
Excavation Worker
Incidental ingestion
Dermal contact
Inhalation of particulates
Total Adult Trespasser
Incidental ingestion
Dermal contact
Inhalation of partculates
Total Adolescent Trespasser:
Total Risk to Trespasser (Adult and Adolescent)
Exposed to Surface Soil:
Incidental ingestion
Dermal contact
Inhalation of particulates
Total Adult Resident:
Incidental ingestion
Dermal contact
Inhalation of particulates
Total Child Resident:
Total Risk to Resident (Adult and Child) Exposed
to Surface Soil:
Incidental ingestion
Dermal contact
Inhalation of particulates
Total Occupational Worker:
Incidental ingestion
Dermal contact
Inhalation of particulates
Total Site Maintenance Worker:
Incidental ingestion
Dermal contact
Inhalation of particulates
Total Excavation Worker
0.01
0.022
ND
0.03
0.02
0.03
ND
0.05
NC
0.09
0.2
ND
0.03
0.9
0.3
ND
1
NC
0.03
0.05
ND
0.08
0.004
0.01
ND
0.02
0.04
0.01
ND
0.05
3x10-7
2x1 O^"
3x10-7
2x10'7
1x10"*
5x1 0'11
2x10-7
5x10'7
3X10"6
2x10'7
3x10'9
3x10"*
7x10"8
7x10"8
4x10-0
7x1 Q-6
1x10'5
IxlO"8
5x10-8
1x10'9
1x10-°
1x10'7
2x10"*
4x1 a10
1x10'7
5x10'*
6X10'10
2x10'"
5x10^
Notes: * = receptor totals may vary from spreadsheets due to rounding algorithm.
HI = hazard index.
ELCR = excess lifetime cancer risk.
ND = no dose-response data for this exposure route were available for human health chemicals of potential concern in this
medium.
NC = not calculated because child and adult His are not additive.
ROD1.doc
FGW.09.99
2-12
-------
Table 2-5
Summary of Ecological Chemicals of Potential Concern (ECPCs)
Record of Decision
Site 1, Northwest Disposal Area
Naval Air Station. Whiting Field
Milton, Florida
Environmental Medium
Surface Soil
ECPCs
VOCs: Xyfenes (total)
SVOCs: None
Pesticides and PCBs: Dieldrin
Inorganic Analytes: Arsenic, cadmium, chromium, cyanide, tead,
mercury, and vanadium
Notes: VOC = volatile organic compound.
SVOC = semivdatile organic compound.
PCBs = polychlorinated biphenyls.
ROD1.doc
FGW.09.99
2-13
-------
Table 2-6
Summary of Remedial Alternatives Evaluated for Site 1
Record of Decision
Site 1. Northwest Disposal Area
Naval Air Station, Whiting FieW
Milton, Florida
Alternative
Alternative 1: No Action
Alternative 2: Land-Use Controls
Alternative 3: Capping and Land-
Use Controls
Description of Key Components
^•—•^,••—»^^-^— ~
No remedial actions are taken at Site 1.
5-year site reviews.
Implementation of Land-Use Controls. MOA in-
cluding LUCIP (Appendix B), documents created to
maintain the site for nonresktential purposes.
5-year site reviews. __
Development of a plan for site monitoring (includes
visual observation as well as sample collection and
analysis) and maintenance.
Site clearing and grubbing.
Placement of compacted soil cover.
Vegetative support layer and vegetative cover.
Soil cover maintenance.
Implementation of Land-Use Controls. MOA, in-
cluding LUCIP. documents created to maintain the
site for nonresidential purposes.
Cost
(Present Worth)
$23,000
$146,000
$423,000
Duration'
30 Years*
30 Years*
30 Years*
Notes: MOA = Memorandum of Agreement.
LUCIP = Land-Use Control Implementation Plan
——^^—^^^—
ROD1.doc
FGW.09.99
2-14
-------
Alternative 1: The No Action alternative, is required by CERCLA as a baseline for comparison with the other
alternatives.
Alternative 2: LUCs, was considered because site risks, future land-use concerns, and the site-specific
cleanup goal for arsenic would be addressed by LUCs.
Alternative 3- Capping and LUCs, was considered because it is the presumptive remedy for landfills as per
the USEPA guidance document for conducting an RI/FS at municipal landfill sites. This guidance also
suggests treatment alternatives would not be a major component of a remedial alternative at a landfill site
where the presumptive remedy was implemented. It suggests treatment would only be considered for areas
of high levels of contamination (i.e., hot spot areas). Because no hot spots were identified at Site 1, treatment
alternatives were not considered. Under Alternative 3, a cover system would be constructed over the former
landfill to reduce the infiltration of precipitation, control surface water run-on and runoff, and minimize
potential direct contact risks. Reduction of infiltrating precipitation and surface water reduces contaminant
leaching from soil and landfill wastes to groundwater. Surface water runoff controls would also be included
to minimize erosion. In addition, LUCs and 5-year reviews would be implemented as in Alternative 2.
2.8 SUMMARY OF THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATES.
In selecting the preferred alternative for Site 1, nine criteria were used to evaluate the alternatives developed
in the FS The first seven are technical criteria based on the degree of protection of the environment, cost,
and engineering feasibility issues. The alternatives were further evaluated based on the final two criteria:
acceptance by the USEPA and FDEP, and acceptance by the community. The nine criteria are (1) overall
> protection of human health and the environment, (2) compliance with ARARs, (3) long-term effectiveness,
(4) reduction of toxicity, mobility, and volume, (5) short-term effectiveness, (6) implementabiliry, (7) cost,
(8) federal and state acceptance, and (9) community acceptance. These nine criteria can be categorized into
three groups- threshold criteria, primary balancing criteria, and modifying criteria. The USEPA requires the
alternative implemented must satisfy the threshold criteria. Primary balancing criteria weigh the major
tradeoffs among alternatives. Modifying criteria are considered after public comment.
A summary of the ARARs applicable to Site 2 are presented in section 2.10. The State of Florida
Contaminant Cleanup Target Levels are considered chemical-specific ARARs. Certain action-specific
ARARs include permit requirements. Under CERCLA Section 121 (e), permits are not required for remedial
actions conducted entirely on site at Superfund sites. This permit exemption applies to all administrative
requirements, including approval of or consultation with administrative bodies, documentation, record
keeping, and enforcement. However, the substantive requirements of these ARARs must be attained. The
action-specific ARARs are presented in Section 2.10.
Based on the evaluation of the alternatives against these criteria, Alternative 2 was selected as the preferred
alternative for Site 1.
The following subsections discuss the three alternatives relative to the nine criteria.
2.8.1 Threshold Criteria
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment. Alternative 1 would provide no form of
protection to human receptors who may be exposed to soils at Site 1. If this alternative were selected 5-year
site reviews would be instituted. No adverse short-term or cross-media effects are anticipated with this no-
action alternative.
ROD1.doc
FGW.09.99 2-15
-------
Human receptors, namely residents, would be protected if Alternative 2 were implemented. Regulatory
controls (i.e., LUCs) would prohibit potential future residents from exposure to the site because residential
use of the site would be controlled under the proposed LUCs. However, this alternative would not provide
protection for ecological receptors at the site. By implementing this alternative, no adverse short-term or
cross-media effects are anticipated.
Implementation of Alternative 3 would provide the highest standard of protection to human receptors a
landfill cover and regulatory controls (i.e., LUCs) would prohibit potential human receptors from coming into
contact with the soils at Site 1. This alternative would also provide protection for ecological receptors at the
site; however, in doing so, this alternative may alter the native ecological habitat present at the site.
Compliance wjth ARARs. Alternative 1, No Action, does not comply with the chemical specific ARARs in
the short term. Thus this alternative will not comply with the ARARs.
Alternative 2 provides a means of continued protection of human health and the environment because it
includes LUCs. In this manner, Alternative 2 will achieve the RAOs established for the site and would also
therefore achieve ARARs.
Alternative 3, Capping and LUCs, would also achieve the RAOs and meet ARARs. However Alternative 3
would adversely affect the existing environment at the site. Implementation of this alternative has potential
for short-term effects of exposure to site workers.
2t8T2 Primary Balancing Criteria
LpDR-Term Effectiveness and Permanency Human risks due to exposure to site soils would not be
addressed if Alternative 1 were implemented. Administrative actions proposed in this alternative (e g 5-year
site reviews) would provide a means of evaluating the effectiveness of the alternative, but would not provide
a permanent remedy for the site.
Risks presented to the future resident based on exposure to surface soil at the site would be addressed via the
LUCs provided m Alternative 2. The long-term effectiveness and permanence of these controls would be
controlled by the facility under the MOA (including LUCIP) documents being developed for NAS Whiting
Field. Administrative actions proposed in Alternative 2 (e.g., LUCs and 5-year site reviews) would provide a
means of evaluating the effectiveness of the alternative. These administrative actions are considered to be
reliable controls, as long as the facility maintains its MOA.
Implementation of Alternative 3 would include clearing and grubbing vegetation currently existing on the
landfills. Existing vegetation would be removed, and ecological diversity would be reduced at Site 1 This
ecological loss is not permanent; new vegetation would be planted on the final cover. However this new
vegetation would consist of mostly grasses and small brush, not as diverse as the natural vegetation currently
existing. The clearing and grubbing of the existing vegetation can be viewed as a permanent lone-term
ecological impact. &
Shojt-Teriri Effectiveness. Alternative 1 would not reduce human health risks in the short term because no
land-use restrictions would be implemented.
Alternative 2 would reduce human health risks in the short term by reducing the potential exposure to Site 1
soils by human receptors. However, ecological receptors would not be affected by the implementation of this
alternative.
If Alternative 3 were implemented, fugitive dust would be generated during the clearing, grubbing, and
grading of the site. This dust may contain hazardous particulates posing an inhalation risk to human
ROO1.doc
FGW.09.99 2-16
-------
receptors. Dust suppression by the use of water trucks and hoses is included in this alternative to minimize
these potential short-term risks.
Alternative 3 would include clearing and grubbing vegetation currently existing at the site. Both human
health and ecological impacts would occur.
. Site workers would be exposed to increased risks by dermal contact, ingestion, and inhalation during
construction activities. Appropriate personal protective equipment would be used to minimize this
increased risk.
. Ecological species depending upon the surface of the landfills for food and other natural resources would
be impacted by the removal of existing vegetation. This unavoidable construction item, an adverse short-
term impact would be reversed upon the growth of new vegetation. Construction operations are
expected to last for 2 to 3 months, and new vegetation would likely require years to mature. Thus, the
short-term ecological impacts as a result of clearing and grubbing the site may be significant.
Implementabilitv. Alternatives 1 and 2 do not require remedial construction for implementation. Other
activities, such as LUCs and 5-year site reviews, are easily implemented for both scenarios.
Equipment and materials are readily available to construct the cover designed for Alternative 3. Site work
would be completed within a 3-month period, and would require standard construction expertise. Because of
the difficulty in obtaining borrow soil in the vicinity of the site, soil would be obtained from a nonlocal
borrow source. The lack of local borrow sources would result in additional transportation cost, but does not
render the alternative infeasible.
Reduction of T»*icitv. Mobility and Volume of Contaminants through Treatment. Alternatives 1 and 2
would not provide a reduction in contaminant mobility or volume because no active mitigation of
contaminant mobility or reduction in volume is proposed. No treatment residuals would be produced if either
alternative were implemented.
Alternative 3 does not include treatment of contaminants, and does not physically or chemically alter
contaminants contained in the landfills. Thus, this alternative does not reduce the toxicity mobility, and/or
volume of contaminants through treatment. However, the cover design would effectively reduce the mobility
of contaminants contained in surface soil by preventing the spread of wind-blown participates and by limiting
infiltration. The cover would also prevent the uptake of contaminants contained in surface soil, preventing
biomagnification of contaminants through the local ecological food chain.
Cost. The total present-worth cost of the three alternatives is presented below.
Alternative
Alternative 1: No Action
Alternative 2: LUC
Alternative 3: Capping and LUCs
O&M Costs
$23,000
$146,000
$146,000
Capital Costs
SO
$0
$277,000
2.8.3 Modifying Criteria
State and Federal Acceptance. The FDEP and USEPA have concurred with the Navy's selection of
Alternative 2 as the preferred alternative.
ROD1 .doc
FGW.09.99 2-17
-------
Community Acceptance. Community acceptance of the preferred alternative was evaluated at the end of the
public comment period. The comments received during this period are addressed in the Responsiveness
Summary included in Appendix A.
2.9 SELECTED ALTERNATIVE.
Of the three alternatives evaluated, the selected RA for Site 1 is Alternative 2. Alternative 2 consists of LUCs
and 5-year site reviews. The LUCs will limit land use at the site to nonresidential use. These restrictions will
be incorporated into a MOA. The 5-year site reviews will verify that the selected alternative is protective of
human health and the environment in future years. The total cost of Alternative 2 is $146,000 over a 30-year
period. If this alternative were implemented, and the controls were maintained, predicted site risks would be
minimized.
2.10 STATUTORY STATEMENT.
The alternative selected for implementation at Site 1 is consistent with the Navy's IR program, CERCLA, and
the NCP. The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment. The selected remedy does
not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment because it allows hazardous substances in concentrations
above health based levels to remain on site. However, the selected remedy does address the principal threat
because it limits human exposure to contaminated soils through LUCs. Table 2-7 summarizes the
comparison of the selected remedy to the nine criteria. Table 2-8 provides a summary of ARARs specific to
the selected remedy.
Because Alternative 2 would result in hazardous substances remaining on site, a review would be conducted
within 5 years after commencement of the RA to ensure the remedy continues to provide adequate protection
of human health and the environment.
2.11 DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES.
There are no significant changes in the selected alternative described in the Proposed Plan.
ROD1.doc
FGW.09.99 2-18
-------
Table 2-7
Comparison of Selected Remedy with Nine Evaluation Criteria
Record of Decision
Site 1 , Northwest Disposal Area
Naval Air Station Whiting Field
Milton, Florida
Evaluation Criteria
Overall Protection of Human
Health and the Environment
Compliance with ARARs
Long-Term Effectiveness
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility,
and Volume
Short-Terrn Effectiveness
Implementability
Cost
Federal and State
Acceptance
Community Acceptance
Assessment
Human receptors, namely residents, would be protected if this alternative were implemented.
Regulatory controls (i.e.. LUCs) would prohibit potential future residents from exposure to the
site because residential use of the site would be restricted under the proposed LUCs. How-
ever, this alternative would not provide protection for ecological receptors at the site.
By implementing this alternative, no adverse short-term or cross-media effects are anticipated.
This alternative would comply with chemical-specific ARARs or TBCs for soil.
The risks presented to the future resident based on exposure to surface soil at the site would
be addressed via the LUCs. The long-term effectiveness and permanence of these controls
will be controlled by the installation under the MOA developed for NAS Whiting Field.
Administrative actions proposed in this alternative (e.g., LUCs and 5-year site reviews) would
provide a means of evaluating the effectiveness of the alternative. These administrative ac-
tions are considered to be reliable controls, as long as the facility maintains its MOA.
This alternative would not provide a reduction in contaminant mobility or volume because no
active mitigation of contaminants or reduction in volume is proposed. No treatment residuals
would be produced if this alternative were implemented.
This alternative would reduce human health risks in the short term by reducing the potential
exposure to Site! soils by human receptors. However, ecological receptors would not be pro-
tected by the implementation of this alternative.
This alternative does not pose a threat to workers through exposure to contaminated soils
because only limited remedial construction activities (e.g., posting signs) are proposed under
this alternative.
This alternative does not require remedial construction for implementation. Other activities,
such as LUCs and 5-year site reviews, are easily implemented.
The total present worth cost of Alternative 2 is $146,000.
The USEPA and FDEP have concurred with the selected remedy.
The community has been given the opportunity to review and comment on the selected rem-
edy. Comments received were addressed (see Appendix A) and did not alter the selected
remedy proposed in the Proposed Plan.
Notes: LUC = land-use control.
ARAR = applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement.
TBC = to be considered.
MOA = Memorandum of Agreement.
NAS = Naval Air Station.
USEPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
FDEP = Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
ROD1.doc
FGW.09.99
2-19
-------
Table 2-8
Summary of Federal and State ARARs and Guidance Specific to Alternative 2
Record of Decision
Sile 1 . Northwest Disposal Area
Naval Air Station Whiting Field
Name and Regulatory Citation
Occupational Safety and Health Act
(29 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part
1910)
Florida Hazardous Waste Rules
(Chapter 62-730, Florida Administrative Code
[FAC])
Florida Contaminant Target Cleanup Levels
(Chapter 62-777, FAC)
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) Regulations, Landban
(40 CFR, Part 264, 268)
Milton, Florida
Description
Requires establishment of programs to ensure worker
health and safety at hazardous waste sites.
Adopts by reference, specific sections of the Federal
hazardous waste regulations, including the section regu-
lating hazardous waste landfills (40 CFR, Part 264, Sub-
part N) and makes additions to these regulations,
Provides contaminant cleanup target levels.
Provide removal and disposal requirements for landfills
that contain hazardous waste.
Consideration in the
Remedial Action Process
Applicable. These requirements apply to re-
sponse activities conducted In accordance
with the National Contingency Plan. During
the implementation of any remedial alterna-
tive for Site 1, these regulations must be
attained.
Relevant and Appropriate. These regula-
•tions are not applicable to Site 1 because
they apply only to landfills receiving waste
after 1983; however, the requirements may
be used as guidance for developing a landfill
inspection program.
Relevant and Appropriate. Considered be-
cause these default levels represent the
FDEP's most current derivation of target
levels.
Relevant and Appropriate. These regula-
tions are not applicable to Site 1 because
they apply only to landfills receiving waste
after 1980; however, the requirements may
be used as guidance for developing a landfill
inspection program and in the event soils are
moved from the landfill.
Type
Acton-specific
Action-specific
Chemical-specific
Action-specific
Notes: AKAR = applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement.
FDEP = Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
ROD1.doc
FGW.09.99
2-20
-------
APPENDIX A
COMMUNITY RELATIONS
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
-------
Responsiveness Summary
Site 1, Northwest Disposal Area
Naval Air Station Whiting Field
Milton, Florida
A public comment period on the Site 1 Proposed Plan was held from August 26, 1998, to September 24,
1998. Three comments were received during this period. The portions of those comments pertaining to the
Installation Restoration program are summarized below.
Comment: The Navy should make every effort to prevent pollutant discharges into Clear Creek and the
Blackwater River.
Response: The comment does not pertain to the Proposed Plan for Site 1. Potential impacts on Clear Creek
from groundwater discharges will be addressed by the facilitywide groundwater remedial investigation (RI)
(designated as Site 40) currently underway. The Navy follows all regulations to prevent pollutants from
being discharged into the creek.
Comment: A 30-day public comment period on documents not conveniently accessible is insufficient and
suggests a desire to discourage public comment.
Response: A Naval Air Station (NAS) Whiting Field Public Works Department representative contacted the
commenter to determine if-he was making a formal request to extend the comment period. The commenter
replied he was not. The Public Works Department representative then offered to provide the relevant Site 1
documents to the commenter. The commenter declined.
It should be noted Site 1 documents are available for public review at two locations near the site: the West
Florida Regional Library, Milton Branch and the NAS Whiting Field Public Works Department. The com-
menter lived in Pensacola.
Comment: Land-Use Controls (LUC)s proposed for Site 1 will not prevent further groundwater contamina-
tion in the area. It is premature to propose LUCs to address groundwater contamination until the groundwa-
ter investigation is complete.
Response: The LUCs to be implemented at Site 1 are designed to prevent human exposure to potentially
harmful contaminants in surface and subsurface soil at the site. Groundwater at Site 1 will be addressed in
the ongoing facilitywide groundwater RI (Site 40). Once all the groundwater RI data are collected and
evaluated, the need for response actions to address existing groundwater contamination and prevent further
contamination wilt be evaluated.
ROD1 .doc
FGW.09.99
-------
-------
APPENDIX B
LAND-USE CONTROL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
-------
-------
Land-Use Control Implementation Plan
Site 1, Northwest Disposal Area
Naval Air Station Whiting Field
Milton, Florida
Site Description Site 1, the Northwest Disposal Area, is a 5 acre surface depression gently sloping toward a
drainage outlet (Drainage ditch "E"), located along the southwestern site boundary. Drainage ditch E
flows toward the west, and ultimately discharges into a tributary of Clear Creek.
Currently, Site 1 is forested with pine trees, approximately 20 feet in height. The site was first utilized as
borrow area, and then subsequently utilized as a landfill. Site 1 received wastes from a variety of sources
including military household waste and aircraft maintenance activities at NAS Whiting Field.
Large concrete pipes and culverts and some concrete rubble are present on the ground surface. Buried wastes
are not exposed at the land surface in erosional areas, nor are there indications (e.g. stained soil, or stressed
vegetation) of other past waste disposal practices.
Site Location Site 1 is located west of the North Air Field at NAS Whiting Field, along the northwestern
facility boundary. The installation and site locations are shown on Figures 1-1 and 1-2 in the Remedial
Investigation Report for Site 1, Northwest Disposal Area, Naval Air Station Whiting Field, Milton, Florida
(ABB-ES, 1998).
I .nH TTs. Control fLITO Objective Land use at Site 1 is to remain non-residential The FDEP and
USEPA have agreed have concurred with this use at the site given the following conditions (hutr, lyysj.
1 The sites may be utilized for activities that involve less than full-time contact with the site. This may
include but is not limited to, a) parks, b) recreation areas that receive heavy use (such as soccer or
baseball fields), or c) agricultural sites where farming practices result in moderate site contact
(approximately 100 days per year or less).
2. The Navy must ensure adherence to the land use by incorporating the site and restricted use conditions in
a legally binding LUC agreement.
3. The above soil cleanup goal shall not be utilized at any other site without specific FDEP approval.
No further investigation of the soil under the Comprehensive Environmental Restoration Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA) is warranted under non-residential site usage.
The LUC is based on the detection of arsenic in surface soil samples at concentrations exceedmg residential
and industrial soil cleanup target levels established as guidance criteria by Chapter 62-777, F A C (FUbF,
1999) Arsenic at these concentrations could result in a total excess lifetime cancer nsk of 1x10 by a
hypothetical future resident and IxlO"6 by an occupational-worker through the ingestion of surface soil.
These risk levels exceed or meet the FDEP target risk level of IxlO"6. The results of the ecological RA
StTarsenic at these concentrations could result in the occurrence of sublethal effects to the reproduction
and survival of herbivore mammals.
Notation in the NAS Whiting Field's geographic information
use only at Site I. and quarterly inspections will be conducted
to confirm conformance with the industrial land use.
ROD1.doc
FGW.09.99 . B"1
-------
Under CERCLA, the Site 1 Proposed Plan and Record of Decisipn mandate initial implementation and
continued application of appropriate controls on future usage of the property encompassing Site 1 while it is
owned by the Federal government. The LUC will apply until or unless site remediation is conducted to
restore the site for use without any restrictions or controls.
Decision Documents Below are the Site 1 decision documents.
Envirodyne Engineers, Inc. 1985. Initial Assessment Study, Naval Air Station Whiting Field, Milton,
Florida. Prepared for Southern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command
(SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM), North Charleston, South Carolina.
ABB Environmental Services, Inc. (ABB-ES), 1998. Remedial Investigation for Sitel, Northwest Disposal
Area. Naval Air Station Whiting Field, Milton, Florida. Prepared for SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM
North Charleston, South Carolina. '
ABB-ES. 1998. Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study, General Information Report, Naval Air Station
Whiting Field, Milton, Florida. Prepared for SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM, North Charleston, South
Carolina.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Letter dated April 27,1998. Response to report by Navy.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection, August, 1999. Chapter 62-777, F.A.C.
Harding Lawson Associates (HLA), 1998. Feasibility Study for Site 1, Northwest Disposal Area, Naval Air
Station Whiting Field, Milton, Florida. Prepared for SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM, North Charleston
South Carolina.
HLA. l99&&.-Proposed Plan for Site I, Northwest Disposal Area, Naval Air Station Wliiting Field Milton
Florida. Prepared for SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM, North Charleston, South Carolina.
Q.ther Pertinent Information Groundwater contamination beneath Site 1 will be addressed under Site 40,
Basewide Groundwater investigation.
Under the memorandum of agreement for land use controls there are no stipulations precluding the use of the
aquifer. However, because of the proximity to other industrial sites, and the detection of aluminum and iron
at concentration exceeding Federal and State maximum contaminant levels, it would not be advisable or
prudent to use the resource as a potable or non-potable water supply. The Site 40 Basewide Groundwater
investigation, in progress, should be reviewed prior to considering use, if any of groundwater beneath Site 1.
A feasibility study was recommended to address the concentrations of arsenic detected in surface soil samples
during the remedial investigation study for Site 1 (ABB-ES, 1998).
ROD1.doc
FGW.09.99 B-2
-------
REFERENCES
Envirodyne Engineers. 1985. Initial Assessment Study, NAS Whiting Field, Milton, Florida, Final Report.
Prepared for Naval Energy and Environmental Support Activity, Port Hueneme, California.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Letter dated April 27,1998. Response to report by Navy.
Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-777. 1999. Florida Contaminant Target Cleanup Levels.
(August).
Harding Lawson Associates, Inc. (HLA). 1998a. Remedial Investigation for Site 1, Northwest Disposal
Area, Naval Air Station Whiting Field, Milton, Florida. Prepared for SOUTHNAVFACENGC-
OM, North Charleston, South Carolina.
HLA. 1998b. Feasibility Study for Site 1 Northwest Disposal Area, Naval Air Station Whiting Field, Mil-
ton, Florida. Prepared for Southern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command
(SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM), North Charleston, South Carolina.
HLA. 1998c. Proposed Plan for Site 1, Northwest Disposal Area Naval Air Station Whiting Field, Milton,
Florida. Prepared for SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM, North Charleston, South Carolina.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1993. Presumptive Remedy for Comprehensive Envi-
ronmental Response, Compensation, and Liability (CERCLA) Municipal Landfill Sites. Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) directive 9355.0-049FS.
ROD1.doc
FGW.09.99 Ref-1
-------
-------
-------
-------
Reproduced by NTIS
(8 1-
S>E§
£ o 0) Q)
-
3 — •••
±0)
ii
d) O
+* Q.QO
National Technical Information Service
Springfield, VA 22161
This report was printed specifically for your order
from nearly 3 million titles available in our collection.
For economy and efficiency, NTIS does not maintain stock of its vast
collection of technical reports. Rather, most documents are printed for
each order. Documents that are not in electronic format are reproduced
from master archival copies and are the best possible reproductions
available. If you have any questions concerning this document or any
order you have placed with NTIS, please call our Customer Service
Department at (703) 605-6050.
About NTIS
NTIS collects scientific, technical, engineering, and business related
information — then organizes, maintains, and disseminates that
information in a variety of formats — from microfiche to online services.
The NTIS collection of nearly 3 million titles includes reports describing
research conducted or sponsored by federal agencies and their
contractors; statistical and business information; U.S. military
publications; multimedia/training products; computer software and
electronic databases developed by federal agencies; training tools; and
technical reports prepared by research organizations worldwide.
Approximately 100,000 new titles are added and indexed into the NTIS
collection annually.
For more information about NTIS products and services, call NTIS
at 1-800-553-NTIS (6847) or (703) 605-6000 and request the free
NTIS Products Catalog, PR-827LPG, or visit the NTIS Web site
http://www.ntis.gov.
NTIS
Your indispensable resource for government-sponsored
information—U.S. and worldwide
-------
------- |