EPA/ROD/R04-95/232
July 1995
EPA Superfimd
Record of Decision:
Homestead Air Reserve Base
OU4, Site SS-8, FL
6/22/95
-------
FINAL
RECORD OF DECISION
FOR
OPERABLE UNIT 4
SITE SS-8, MOTOR POOL OIL LEAK AREA
HOMESTEAD AIR RESERVE BASE, FLORIDA
January 1995
Prepared for:
u. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Missouri River Division .
Omaha District'
Omaha, 'Nebr3$ka
Prepared by:
Montgomery Watson
3501 North Causeway Boulevard, Suite,300
Metairie, Louisiana 70002
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
Operable V nit 4
Site SS-8, Motor Pool Oil Leak Area
Homestead Air Reserve Base
Homestead, Rorida
FDEP Facility No. 138521996
January 1995
Montgomery Watson appreciates the opportunity to work for the V.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 one of the individuals listed below.
Respectfully submitted,
MONTGONIERYWATSON
~~~~ ~~
Randall S. Luwe, P.G.
Y:;jge~
Jerry D. Gaccetta, P.G.
Project Engineer
-------
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Operable Unit 4 ,
Site SS-8, Motor Pool Oil Leak Area
Declaration for the Record of Decision
-------
DECLARATION STA TEl\1ENT
FOR THE
RECORD OF DECISION FOR OPERABLE UNIT NO.4
HOMESTEAD AIR FORCE BASE SUPERFUND SITE
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Homestead AU- Reserve Base
Homestead, Dade County, Florida
Operable Unit No.4 - Site SS-8
Motor Pool Oil Leak Area (former Site SP-2)
STATEl\1ENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
The decision document presents the selected remedial action for the Motor Pool Oil Leak
Area (Site SS-8) Operable Unit No.4, at Homestead Air Reserve 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 Site. The information that forms the
. .
basis for this remedial action is contained in the administrative record for this site.
The selected alternative for Site SS-8 is institutional controls and groundwater
monitoring. The State of Florida, the U.S. Environmental ProtectiQn Agency (USEPA),
and the U.S. Air Force (USAF) concur with the selected remedy pres~nted 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 actions selected in this ROD may present a current or . .
potential threat to public health, welfare, or the environment.
1
-------
D,ESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
The response action selected in the document addresses, through institut}onal controls,
the health and environmental threats at this site, exposure to soil contamination. It also
requires groundwater monitoring.
The major components of the selected remedy include:
.
Implementation of deed restrictions covenants to limit usage of Site SS-8 to
the Base worker and to limit construction activities to only those where
workers are appropriately protected and erosion and silt control implemented.
..
Site fencing and signage indicating use of the site.
.
Groundwater monitoring program to assess potential release of contaminants
from the identified source.
.
Five year review to determine whether the site remains protective of human
health and the environment. . .
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedy is .protective of human health and the environment, complies with
Federal and State requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to
remedial action, and is cost effective. This remedy utilizes permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies to the. maximum extent practicable for this site.
However, because treatment of the principal threats at the site were not found to be
practicable, this remedy does. not satisfy the statuary preference for treatment as a
principal element of the remedy. The nature of the risk to human health is minimal.
Manganese is the only chemical of concern to current and future Base workers and
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PARs) are the only chemicals of concern for future
child residents. Under the current conditions, the only significant exposure is to surface
soils which is minimal due to the presence of the asphalt cover over much of the site.
With institutional controls these risks do not present a threat to human health or the
environmental, therefore, the most 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, pollutants, or contaminants
remaining on-site above health-based levels, a review will be concluded within five (5)
years after commencement of remedial action to ensure that the remedy continues to
2
-------
provide adequate protection of human health and the environment. The review will be
. performed every five (5) years thereafter.
U,.NITED STATES AIR FORCE
HOMESTEAD AIR FORCE BASE
Date:
By:
ALAN K.
Director
Air Force Base Conversion Agency
3
-------
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Operable Unit 4-
Site S8-8, Motor Pool Oil Leak Area
Decision Summary for the Record of Decision
-------
2.0
~
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paee
1.0
SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION.. ........,... ........ ........... """
1.1
1.2
1.3
Operable Unit No.4 Description.................................. ""'"'''''' "" 2
Regional Land Use... .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . .. .. . . . ..... .. . . . .. .. .. .. "'" .. .. .. .. ~.. . 3
Regional Surface Hydrology..................... .........,. ....... ........... """ 3
1.3.1 Regional Hydrogeologic Setting.......................................... 4
Regional Site Geology And Hydrogeology. . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. .. . . . .. " .. .. .. .. . . 5
1.4
mSTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES........................................ 6
Site SS-8 History..... .. . . ... .. . . .. .. . , . . . . . .. . . . .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. ..... .. .. ....... , 6
2.1.2 Past Site Usage.............,. ,.....................,.... ................... 6
2.2 Base Enforcement History ..........,....... .."... """"""""" """'" .... "" 7
2.2.1 CERCLA Regulatory History.. ... ... ................,. ........... ......., 7
. .
2.3 Investigation History. .. .. ..... .. .. .. . . . . . ..'. . .. . . . . ~ . .. .. .:. .. .. "." ~...... .. ....... ; 8
2.3.1 IRP Phase I - Record Search............................................... 8
2.3.2 IRP Phase II - ConfmnationiQuantification ........ .. .. . . . .. .. .. .. ... .. . 9
2.3.3 IRP Phase ill - Technology Base Development......................... 10
2.3.4 IRP Phase IV - Additional Investigations....................'.. .......... 10
2.3.4.1. Phase. IV-A Groundwater Investigation.... "'"'''' ......., 11
2.3.4.2 Phase IV-A Sediment Investigation. ""'''''''''''''''''''''' 11
2.3.4.3 Phase IV-A Surface Water Investigation ....:................ 12
2.3.5 1991 Remedial Investigation of Site SS-8 . .. . .. .. .. .. ..... .. .. .. ..... ... 12
2.3.6 1993 Remedial Investigation of Site SS~8 '"'''''''''''''''' .. .......... 12
2.4 Community Participation History. ..... .... ..... "'" ........... """'" .......... 13
2.5 . Scope And Role Of Responsible Action................................... ........ 13
2.6 Summary Of Site Characteristics..................... ........... """"'" ..~..... 14
2.6.1 Nature and Extent Contamination......................................... 14
2.6.2 Groundwater Investigations................. ........... ........... ........ 14
2.6.2.1 Initial Investigations (1988).................................... 14
2.6.2.2 1991 Investigation............................................... 15
2.6.2.3 1993 Investigation............................................... 16
2.6.3 Soil Sample Analytical Results............................................ 16
2.1
-------
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.10
TABLE OF 'CONTENTS (continued)
Page
2.6.3.1 Initial Investigations (1988).................................... 16
2.6.3.2 1993 Investigation.......... ... ..................... ......... .,.. 17
2.6.4 Sediment Sample Analytical Results ....,...... .:....... .... ......... .,.. 18
2.6.4.1 Initial Investigations (1986-1991)................. .........,.. 18
2.6.4.2 1993 Investigation............................................... 18
2.6.5 Surface Water Sample Analytical Results.... """'" .,..... ........ .,.. "19
2.6.5.1 Initial Investigations (1991).................................... 19
2.6.5.2 1993 Investigation.....~......................................... 19
Summary of Site Risks.... [[[ 19
2.7.1 Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern... .......... ........... .... 20
2.7.2 Exposure Assessment.................. .."............... ............... '." 21
2.7.2.1 Exposure Point Concentrations.... ....... ...,......... .... .... 21
2.7.2.2 Land Use .........,.... ............... ... ......., ..... ........ .... 21
2.7.2.3 Exposure Scenarios.... .......................,....... ... ....... 22
2.7.3 Toxicity Assessment .... ..; ........ ..............;............ .......... ...." 22
2.7.4 Risk Characterization[[[ 23
2.7.4.1 Carcinogenic Risk.... ............................. .... ........,. 23
2.7.4.2 Hazards Due to Non-Carcinogenic Chemicals............... 24
2.7.4.3 Total Risk.... '...'."'" ............. "".'.".'.""" .".. .~..... 25
2.7.4.4 Risk from Lead Exposure...................................... 25
2.7.5 Chemicals of Concern and Remedial Goal Options..... .. .. .. ... ... . ... 25
" "
2.7.6. EGological Risk Assessment...... ....... ....................... ~......... 26
Uncertainties in the Risk Assessment.............................................. 26
Description of the Alternative... ............ ........ ........... ..... ...... .......... 27
2.9.1 Alternative Number 1 - No Action with Groundwater
Monitoring. . . . . . .. '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . .. . . .. .. . . . .. .. .. .. .. . .. . . . .. 27
2.9.1.1 Description. ..... .. .... . .. .. .. ..,.. ".' .. ....... .. .... ... .. '. ... 27
2.9.2 Alternative Number 2 - Institutional Controls and
Groundwater Monitoring. . . . .. .. . . . .. . . . . . .. . . .. .. . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . .. . .. . . . . . 28
2.9.3 Alternative Number 3 - Soil Excavation and Disposal with
Groundwater Monitoring.. .. . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . .. . . .. .. . . . . . .' '. . . . . .. . . . .. . .. 29
-------
2.11
2.12
2.13
TABLE OF' CONTENTS (continued)
Pa&e
2.10.2 Compliance with FederaUState Standard ... ......... ............... .... 30
2.10.3 Long-tenn Effectiveness and Pennanence........... ............... .... 30
2.10.4 Treatment to Reduce Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume............ ...... 31
2.10.5 Short-Term Effectiveness ................................................ 31
2.10.6 Implementability[[[ 31
2.10.7 Cost................. ............................................. .. ........ 31
Selected Remedy.. . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. .. . . . . .. 32
Statutory Determinations. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ~ . . . . . . .. .. . . .. . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . " 32
-------
Figure
No.
1-1
1-2
. 1-3
2-1
LIST OF FIGURES
Title
Follows
Pal:e
Location of Homestead Air Force Base....... .................. ........... ..,. .... 1
Base Location Map.. . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. .. .. . .. . . .. .. . . .. . .. .. . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . 2
Site SS-8, Study. Area .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . .. .. . . .. . . . ... . .. .. . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 2
1991 & 1993 Field Investigations Surface water, sediment, soil, and
Groundwater Sampling Locations, Site SS-8, Motor Pool Leak Area..... . ... 14
iv
-------
Table
No.
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
2-5
2-6
2-7
2-8
2-9
2-10
2-11
2-12
2-13
2-14
2-15
2-16
2-17
2-18
LIST OF TABLES
Title
Follows
Paee
Groundwater Analytical Results, Geraghty & Miller
Phase IV-A (1988) Investigation..... ...., ...... ....... ... ... ...... .:.............. 11
Sediment Analytical Results, Geraghty & Miller
Phase IV-A (1988) Investigation. . . .. ... ...... .. .. .... . ... ... .. .. .. ....... .. .. .. .. . 11
Sediment Analytical Results, Geraghty & Miller
Phase IV-A (1988) Investigation............. ~.............................. ....... 11
Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results,
Geraghty & Miller (1991) . .. . . .. .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. . . . .. .. .. .. .. . 15
Summary of Constituents Detected in Groundwater Samples,
Montgomery Watson, 1993 [[[ 16
Summary of Constituents Detected in Soil Samples,
Montgomery Watson, 1993 "........................................ ................ 17
" Summary of Constituents Detected iJl Sediment Samples, .
Geraghty & Miller, 1991 ...... ......................... ............................. 18
Summary of Constituents Detected in Sediment ~amples,
Montgomery Watson, 1993..........~..... ... ... .......... ....... ........... ....... 19
Summary of Surface Water Analytical Results,
Geraghty & Miller, 1991 [[[ ~ .... . 19
Summary of Constituents Detected in Surface Water Samples,
, Montgomery Watson, 1993[[[ 20
Compounds of Potential Concern in Environmental Media. .. ..... .. .. .. ....... 20
Exposure Point Concentrations for Groundw~ter. ... .......... ........... .~..... 21
Exposure Point Concentrations for Surface Water ... ...... .... ..... ..,.......... 21
Exposure Point Concentrations for Subsurface Soil................ . . .. .. .. . .. .. 21
Equation and Sample Calculation for Hypothetical Future Potable
Groundwater Exposure.......................... .,....... ............,...... ......... 22
Equation and Sample Calculation for Surface Soil Exposure. . . . . . .. .. .. ... . . .. 22
Equation and Sample Calculation for Hypothetical Future
-------
Table
No.
2-19
2-20
2-21
2-22
2-23
2-24
2-25
2-26
2-27
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Title
Follows
Pa2e
Risk-Based Remedial Goal Options - Hypothetical Future
Adult Resident (Soil).... ......... ......... .. .. .. ... .. .. .. ..... .. .. .. ~. . .... .... .. .... 26
Risk-Based Site Specific Remedial Goal Options and FDEP Soil
Target Levels, Hypothetical Current Base Worker (Soil) ....................... 26
Risk-Based Site Specific Remedial Goal Options and FDEP
Soil Target Levels, Hypothetical Future Adult Resident (Soil) ....... .......... 26
Risk-Based Site Specific Remedial Goal Options and FDEP Soil
Target Levels, Hypothetical Future Child Resident (Soil).. .. .. . . ......... ...... 26
Risk-Based Site Specific Remedial Goal Options and FDEP Soil
Target Levels, Hypothetical Future Construction Worker (Surface.
Soil). . . .. .. . . .. ... ... .. .. . . .. . .. . . .. .. . .. . . .. .. . . .. . . . .. .. .. ... . . . . .. .. . . . .. .. .. . . . . .... 26 .
Risk-Based Site Specific Remedial Goal Options and FDEP Soil
Target Levels, Hypothetical Future Construction Worker (Subsurface
Soil).. ... ... ......... ... . ., ......:..... .. .. .. .. .... . .. .. .. .: ".'" .. .... . ...... ... . .. ... . . 26
Identification of Alternatives. . . . .. . . . . . . . .. .. . . . .. .. .. . . .. . .. .. .. . . . .. . . .. .. . . . . .... 29
Comparative Cost Analysis of Remedial Alternatives... .. .. .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .... 29
Comparative Analysis of Remedial Alternatives.. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .... 29
VI
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
FOR THE
RECORD OF DECISION
1.0
SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND HISTORICAL DESCRIPTION
Homestead Air Reserve Base (ARB) 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 is semi-rural. The majority
of the Base is surrounded by agricultural land. The land surface at Homestead ARB is
relatively flat, with elevations ranging from approximately 5 to 10 feet (ft) above mean sea
level (msl). The Base is surrounded by a. 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 an estimated 1,600 people obtain
drinking water from the Biscayne Aquifer while 18,000 acres of fannland are irrigated
from aquifer wells (United States Environmental Protection Agency [USEP A], 1990). All
recharge to the aquifer is through rainfall.
Homestead Anny Air Field, a predecessor of Homestead ARB, 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 and
used it primarily for pilot training. Prior to that time, the site was undeveloped. Initially
operated as a staging facility, the field mission was changed in i 943 to training transport
pilots and crews.
In September 1945, a severe hunicane 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.
-------
1-
'-
-
N
~\
~ u . ,
II'-'\/; I \
~u/ : o. ~ )
.~ \;\~~ ~ : HENDRY COUNTY : )
\ t ~.IJ FT. MYERS: : PALM BEACH COUNTY
~~~\ . r-----:: {
l ,-- I '. I
~\-_J L------f-~:::~::::~TE~(
. . I . FORT-:
COLLIER COUNTY: LAUDERDALE.
~---L ...r--~
I ------ I
-, I /II
L. I DADE COUNTY ~MIAMI
~~~~~~:;E-J~~~l Ji"
. "~ . I I I PERRINE.! BISCAYNE
--r' I -l 8M
: HOMESTEAI2... HOMESTEAD
. .!... . ~~ ARB
EVERGLADES L
NATIONAL: ./
PARK 1-
.e~: -1(j) ,
~ P fJ:Jj
. ~.~ -, 0 ~ ~
. t 00 ~ ..
. . -.
.. .
~
,.';'
. ~'
&.:;:1
/
.' .
.
. .
lj
~ ~~ ,p.-
.".;:?f:::)i.I~~
O'
10Mi
20Mi
APPROX. SCALE
HOMESTEAD AIR RESERVE BASE
HOMESTEAD, FLORIDA
LOGA nON OF
HOMESTEAD AIR RESERVE BASE
RGURE 1-1
-------
LEVEE '
-"'0 '
T/H . 'I
Source: USGS 7.5 minute ~ HOMESTEAD AIR RESERVE BASE
Topographic Quadrangles N HOMESTEAD~ FLORIDA
I 1000 0 2000
Arsenicker, Homestead, I I , BASE LOCATION MAP
() Goulds. and Perrine.
E FEET FIGURE 1-2
In
----
HOMESTEAD
AIR FORCE BASE
,...
~
ORNE
-~ ~.
=
LEVEE
7
~.- --..---
HIGHWAY
7
I
.. ----------
HOMEStEAD
ORa: 8I\SC
.
5
-------
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 (f AC) and the 4531st Tactical Fighter Wing became the new host. The Base
was transfeITed to Headquarters Air Combat Command on June I, 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 <;>f the Base with the
remaining 2/3 slated for use and oversight by Dade County.
1.1
OPERABLE UNIT NO.4 DESCRIPTION
Operable Unit (00) No.4 is the Motor Pool Oil Leak Area, Site SS-8 (former Site SP-2).
The Motor Pool has been in operation since the Base was reactivated in the 1950's. Site
SS-8 is located in the west centnil portion of Homestead ARB (fomierly Homestead Air
Force Base [AFB]) (Figure 1-2), just south of the West Gate on Bougainville Boulevard.
Site SS-8 (Figure 1-3) is an asphalt lot that is surrounded on all four sides by a drainage
ditch system. The 3 foot wide ditch lies between the site and Elmendorf 5treet to the north
and between the site and grassy fields to the south and west, an asphalt parking lot is
located east of the site. Building 312, the main motor pool shop, is centrally located within
Site 55-8. Additional buildings (Buildings 310, 307, 313, and 308) within the site
. .
boundary provide vehicle maintenance, equipment storage, tire repair' and storage~ and
administrative functions.
The ditch surrounding Site S5-8 is a man-made feature which is approximately 3 ft wide by
3 ft deep. The ditch has been cut into the underlying Miami oolite and contains varying
thicknesses of sediment. Water in the ditch is intermittent based solely on rainfall and the
area along and within the ditch is moderately vegetated with weeds and grasses.
Prior to Hurricane Andrew, the site housed several buildings and numerous roofed
concrete slabs used as loading bays and washracks. Due to damage experienced during the
hurricane~ the cover and frames of the washracks no longer exist. Site S5-8 is cwrently
the active motor pool for Homestead ARB. The site is primarily used for cleaning,
2
-------
servicing and repairing the Facility's utility vehicles. There are two monitoring wells
on-site that were installed during the Phase n and Phase N -A Installation Restoration
Program (IRP) investigations.
The ground surface at Site SS-8 is almost entirely covered with asphalt. The asphalt
paving ends 2 ft from the edge of the drainage ditch along the north and northwest
perimeter of the site. A 75 foot wide patch of sparse grass lies between the asphalt paving
and the ditch along the southwestern portion of the boundary behind Building 307. Along
the east edge of the site the asphalt ends approximately 10ft from the drainage ditch with a
thin grassy area between the ditch and the asphalt Building 308, at the northeast end of the
site, is centrally located where the grassy area widens abruptly into a 150 foot by 200 foot
square.
On a larger scale, Site SS-8 is located southwest of Site SS-2, the POL Bulk Fuel Storage
Area (formerly Site SP-4). Directly north and south of Site SS-8 are vacant fields of sparse
grasses overlying a weathered limestone surface. The Facility boundary, marked by the
Boundary Canal, is cidjacent to Site SS-8 to the west. The drainage canal surrounding
Site SS-8 discharges into the Boundary Canal at two points west of Site SS~8.
1.2
REGIONAL LAND USE
The area adjacent to Homestead ARB including Site SS-8, 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 appro~tely one-half-mile east of the facility and mangroves and
marsh occur adjacent to Biscayne Bay. The Biscayne National Park is located two miles
east of Homestead ARB; the Everglades National park is located 8 miles west- southwest
of the Base; and the Atlantic Ocean is approximately eight miles east of the Base. Site
SS-8/0U-4 lies within the portion of the Base retained by the Air Force Reserve and will
likely continue operating as the facility Motor Pool. Development of the site for other than
non-military purposes is not likely in the foreseeable future.
1.3
REGIONAL SURFACE HYDROLOGY
Surface hydrology at Homestead ARB, including Site SS-8 is controlled by five main
factors: I) relatively impermeable areas covered by runways, buildings and roads;
3
-------
-"- ----.
. ---.-......"---.""-
"I
/WESTGATE
f
~..~
!i~
Q'"
!!
it
I
\
1
i
i
1
i
LEGEND
--- ~~~'81~~~~~
- ORAIHA(tr CANAL
StUDY ARf:A
, ,
l~
.
ASPHAL 1 rARKING lO'
SITE $5".
/IIOTOR POOl
( )0'
8°
~.
BASI!'HOUSING
~~
-------
I-~-
2) genertilly 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 Fonnation; and 5) relatively high precipitation rare 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
Homes~ead ARB boundaries is drained via diversion canals to the Boundary CanaL
A drainage divide occurs within the Homestead ARB facility property, running from the
northern end of the facility, toward the center. Water in the Boundary Canal flows
generally south and east along the western boundary of the property, and south along the
eastern boundary, converging at a storm-water reservoir located at the southeastern comer
of the Base. Row ou~ of the stotmwater reservoir flows into Outfall Canal, which, in
turn, flows east into Biscayne Bay, approximately two miles east of the Base. WaJ.er
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 ft 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 penneable parts of the aquifer lie within the Miami OOlite and the
Fort Thompson Fonnation.
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
4
-------
,-
Water Act (SDW A). 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 ap~roximately 4 to
8 million gallons per day per foot (mgdlft) (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 ftImile.
The water table at Homestead ARB generally is encountered within 5 to 6 ft 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 fonnations 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 it below ground
surface [bgs}), the Floridan Aquifer is of limited usefulness as a source of. potable water
supply in the study area.
1.4
REGIONAL SITE GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY
The stritigraphy of the shallow aquifer system as detemiined from soil borings perfonned
during site investigations by Geraghty & Miller (G&M) and Montgomery Watson, consists
of a surficial weathered MiaJ?1i OOlite ranging in depth from 2 to 6 ft 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
5
-------
coarse to fine sand and clayey sand layers and lenses down to the total depth of borings
(approximately 40 ft bgs). Approximately 80% of Site SS-8 is covered with asphalt.
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 ft d~p, 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, manganese, 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 (mglkg). The range and the standard deviations are not
provided at this time. It should be expected that, as precipitation infiltrates and recharge
takes place. leaching of metal ions from the weathered vadose zone and shallow
unsaturated zone occurs. Regional data collected suggest that concentrations of trace metals
can be expected to be the greatest in the shallow portion of the aquifer because of the
proximity to the source (i.e., the weathering vadose structure) and the decreasing retention
time with. decreasing depth of the saturated zone. These observations support a
hydrogeologic model in which the shallow portion of the aquifer has a greater horizontal
transmissivity than the vertical component during recharge events. However, it is not
possible from the available data at the she to quantitatively differentiate horizontal and
vertical components of the aquifer's hydrologic conductivity. The possible presence of
vertical solution zones is well documented in literature. The site-specific effects have not
been fully investigated. Nevertheless, the available data does not lead to the immediate
conclusion that this is a' necessary task.. The conceptual model that the shallow
groundwater is discharging to ditches provided sufficient detail to arrive at" the remedial
decision for Site SS-8.
2.0
HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
2.1
SITE SS-8 mSTORY
2.1.2
Past Site Usage
The Motor Pool area has been in operation since the facility was reactivated in the 1950' s.
Waste o'ils from the Facility's motor pool were collected and stored in two 500 gallon
above-ground tanks northeast of Building 307, prior to disposal. Leaks in the tanks have
6
-------
occwred at various times since 1960. resulting in oil spills on the surrounding ground
surface. In addition to waste oils. spills from used batteries that were ~tored at the site
were also reported.
Partly because of the site's proximity to a Base well field. the initial evaluation of Site SS-8
infonnation resulted in a moderately high score in relation to potential environmental
impact.
2.2
BASE 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
(OOD) developed the Installation Restoration Program (IRP) for response actions for
potential releases of toxic or hazardous substances at DQD facilities. Like the USEP A
Superfund Program. the IRP follows the procedures of the National Oil and Hazardous'
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). Homestead ARB 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 DaD'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 USEP A involvement and oversight of Federal Facility Cleanups. On
March 1. 1991. a Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) was signed by Homestead ARB
(fonnerly Homestead AFB). the USEPA. and the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (FDEP). The FFA guides the remedial design! remedial action (RDIRA)
process.
The purpose of the FF A was to establish a procedural framework and schedule for
developing, implementing, and monitoring appropriate response actions at
Homestead ARB in accordance with existing regulations. The FF A requires the submittal
of several primary and secondary documents for each of the OUs at Homestead ARB. This
7
-------
Record of Decision (ROD) concludes all of the Remedial InvestigationIFeasibility Study
(RJJFS) requirements for Site SS-8 and selects a remedy for aU-No.4.
As part of the RI/FS process, Homestead ARB has been actively involved in the
Installation Restoration Program (IRP) since 1983, and has identified 27 Potential Sources
of Contamination (PSCs). Nine sites are in various stages of reporting -under the RIfFS
stage of CERCLA; ten sites are being investigated in the Preliminary Assessment/Site
Investigation (P NSI) stage of CERCLA w~th three of these sites warranting no further
investigation; one site has been closed under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) guidelines; and seven sites are being investigated under the FDEP petroleum
contaminated sites criteria (Florida Administrative Code 17-770). Additionally, an RCRA
Facility Investigations (RFI) is underway to evaluate numerous solid waste management
units (SWMU) identified during a RCRA Facility Assessment (RFA). The following
PSCs are currently being investigated according to the CERCLA RIlFS guidelines:
OU-l
OU-2
OU-3
OU-4
OU-5
OU-6
OU-7
OU-8
OU-9
Fire Protection Training Area 2 (Ff-5)
Residual Pesticide Disposal Area (OT-Il)
PCB Spill C.E. Storage Compound{SS-13)
Oil Leakage Behind the Motor Pool (SS-8)
Electroplating ,Waste Disposal Area (WP-I)
Aircraft Washrack Area (SS-3) .
Entomology Storage Area (SS-7) ,
Fire Protection Training Area 3 (Ff -4)
Boundary Cana1/Military Canal (SD-27)
OU-3, PCB Spill C.E. Storage Compounds, has been closed out with the No Further
Action ROD in June 1994. All other CERCLA sites at Homestead ARB are cUITently,in
various phases of the RIJFS process.
2.3
2.3.1
INVESTIGA TION HISTORY
IRP Phase I . Record Search
, An IRP Phase I - Records Search was perfonned 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
8
-------
waste disposal practices were identified. 13 sites of potential concern were identified by
reviewing available installation records, interviewing past and present Homestead ARB
employees, inventorying wastes generated and handling practices, conducting field
inspections, and reviewing geologic and hydrogeologic data.
The 13 sites identified were ranked using the Hazard Assessment Rating Methodology
(HARM) developed by JRB Associates of McLean, Virginia, for the USEP A. 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 13 sites were determined" to have a moderate to high
contamination potential, one of which was the Motor Pool Oil Leak Area. These eight sites
were recommended for further investigation. The remaining five sites were determined to
have low potential to exhibit environmental contamination.
The IRP Phase I Report evaluated the Motor Pool Leak Area (Site SS-8) and assigned a
moderate to high HARM score of 59, due to the moderate quantity of liquid wastes used
and " the high potential for contaminant migration in surface and groundwaters of the-site.
Site SS-8 scored high as a potential migration pathway because of the extremely permeable
nature of the weathered bedrock that is exposed at the surface and the proximity of the
drainage canal bordering the site.
2.3.2
IRP Phase II - Confirmation/Quantification
An IRP Phase IT study was perfonned by Science Applications International Corporation
(SAlC), and a report was submitted in March 1986 (SAlC, 1986). The objectives of the
Phase IT study were to confirm the presence or absence of contamination, to quantify the
extent and degree of contamination, and to determine if remedial actions were necessary.
The Motor Pool Oil Leak Area was included in the Phase IT investigation.
One shallow monitoring well (1-17), approximately 19 ft deep, was installed immediately
south of Building 307 within the Motor Pool boundary during Phase II investigations. The
groundwater was analyzed for oil and grease and total lead. Oil and grease were not
,-
detected above the analytical procedure detection limit and the lead detected
(7.74 micrograms per liter [J.LgIL] ) was below federal and state drinking water standards
9
-------
(50 JLg/L in 1986). Two sediment samples (SD-3 and SD-4) were collected from the
drainage ditch immediately east of the Motor Pool fenceline. Four soil samples were
collected from the strip of ground between the fenceline and the drainage canal. All the soil
and sediment samples had reported concentrations of oil and grease above Ambient Soil
Quality Criteria (ASQC) (ten parts per million [ppm]). Two of the soil samples (SL-5 and
SL-6) and both of the sediment samples had lead levels above the ASQC(O.37 ppm) but
below the normal level in soils (NLS) (100 ppm).
The relative magnitude of these constituents migrating from the site via surface water
(ditches) could not be assessed because the nearby drainage ditches were dry. A complete
discussion of the methods and results of the study is foilnd in the Phase
II-Confirmation/Quantification Report (SAlC. 1986).
The Phase n report contained the following alternatives for additional investigation at this
site: 1) install and sample a minimum of two additional monitoring wells southeast and east
of the site; these new wells could be analyzed for the Stage 1 scan parameters. followed by
a more complete analysis if contamination is confirmed; 2) collect a minimum of four
. surface water and four sediment samples. to detennine the possibility of surface water as a
contamination pathway; surface water sampling was recommended because of the close
relationship between groundwater and surface water in this region; and 3) make a more
complete characterization of local groundwater quality around. Well Field No.2 due to its
close proximity to the Motor Pool Area.
2.3.3
IRP Phase III - Technology Base Development
The IRP Phase ill is a research phase and involves technology development for an
assessment of environmental impacts. There have been no Phase ill tasks conducted at the
Base to date.
2.3.4
IRP Phase IV - Additional Investigations
An IRP Phase IV -A investigation was performed at Site SS-8 by G&M during two separate
field programs. the first in 1988 and the second in 1989. The IRP Phase N investigations
consist of two areas of work activity. Phase IV-A involves additional site investigations
necessary to meet the Phase II objectives. review of all management methods and
technologies that could possibly remedy site problems, and preparation of a baseline risk
10
-------
. assessment (BRA) to address the potential hazards to human health and the environment
associated with the constituents detected at the site. Detailed alternatives are developed and
evaluated, and a preferred alternative is selected. The preferred alternative is then described
in sufficient detail to serve as a baseline document for initiation of Phase IV-B.
2.3.4.1 Phase IV -A Groundwater Investigation. An additional monitoring well
(HS-9) was installed at Site SS-8 during the 1988 Phase IV-A Investigation. Groundwater
samples from the two monitoring wells, 1-17 and HS-9, were collected and analyzed for
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (including xylenes), base/neutral extractable organic
compounds (BNAs), total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPH) and total RCRA
metals plus. sodium. All the metals detected in the groundwater were either below the
analytical detection limit, or were below the federal drinking water maximum contaminant
level (MCL). All the metals detected in the groundwater were either below the analytical
detection limit or were below the federal drinkiQg water maximum contaminant level
(MCL). Di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) was the only organic compound detected in
the groundwater at a concentration of 66 and 7.9 micrograms per liter (J.1g/L).
DEHP, also JOlown as bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, is a known laboratory. contaminant;
however, this compound was not detected in any of the associated blanks (field or
laboratory). TRPH was not detected above the analytical detection limit. A summary of
the 1988 Groundwater analytical results are presented in Table 2-1. The Phase IV-A
investigation indicated that groundwater had not been impacted by activities at Site SS-8.
2.3.4.2 Phase IV-A Sediment Investigation. In 1988, two sediment samples
(SEDOI and SElX>2) were collected from the drainage ditch east of the site and analyzed for
VQCs, BNAs, and total RCRA metals. Several BNAs (mostly polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons [PAHs]) were detected in the sediment; however, the number of samp~g
locations were insufficient to determine the extent of contamination around the site.
Concentrations of BNAs reported in sediment sample SEDOI were above health based
levels when compared to the "site specific remedial goal options" and the FDEP "Soil
Target Levels" for both current and future risk scenarios. A summary of the 1988 sediment
analytical results is presented in Table 2-2.
"
In 1989, eight additional sediment samples were collected. from the perimeter drainage ditch
to. delineate the horizontal extent of contamination within the ditch sediments. Constituents
detected in the sediment at Site SS-8 include BNAs and several metals, including lead. The
11
-------
TABLE 2-1
GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
GERAGHTY & MILLLER PHASE IV-A (1988) INVESTIGATION
AT SITE SS-8, MOTOR POOL OIL LEAK AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Constituents[l]
USEPA
MCL [2]
Location
HS-9
1-17
V olarile Organics ()lg/l) BDL[3] BDL
Base/Neuttal Extractable Organics ()lg!l)
di(2- Ethylhexyl) phthalate [4] 14 [5] 66 7.9
Total Metals (Jlgll)
Barium 1000 [7.3] [2.2]
Chromium 50 [8.1] 12
Lead' 50 BDL. .[2.3]
Silver 50 10 BDL.'
Sodium NS [6] 13,200 18,500
TRPH (mg/l) [7] NS BDL BDL
Explanation:
[1] Constituents not detected in any samples are not shown.
[2] Maximum Contaminant Level in Drinking Water.
[3] Below Instrument Detection Limit.
[4] Di(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate is also known as Bis(2-ethylhexy)phthalate.
[5] Proposed MCL, Federal Register, 7/25/90.
[6] No Standard
[7] Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons.
[] Value is between level of quantitation and insttument detection limit.
Source: Geraghty & Miller, Inc., 1992
-------
TABLE 2-2
SEDIMENT ANALYTICAL RESULTS
G&M PHASE IV -A (1988) INVESTIGATION
AT SITE SS-8, MOTOR POOL OIL LEAK AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Constituents [a]
Location
SEDOI SED02
V olatile Organics (Jlg/kg)
BDL[b]
Base/Neutral Extractaple Organics (Jlg/kg)
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b )fluoranthene .
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
. Di(2-ethy 1hexy 1 )ph thaI ate
Fluoranthene .
Fluorene
lndeno (1,2,3-cd)pyrene
N-nitrosodipheny1amine(l )
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
4,540
[3,810]
70,200
74,900
134,000
138,000
73,200
BDL
67,200 .
[1,910]
7,700
[1,860]
[3,090]
15,500
61,100
Total Metals (Jlg/kg)
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
BDL
[8,900]
BDL
11,000
30,000
44
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
[843]
.18,900
[1,150]
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
[863 ]
[902]
36000
54000
[600]
69000
2,650,000
180
Source: Geraghty & Miller, Inc., 1992
[a] Constituents not detected in any samples are not shown.
[b] Below Instrument Detection Limit.
[] Value is between level of quantitation and instrument detection limit.
,.
-------
TABLE 2-3
"SEDIMENT ANALYTICAL RESULTS
G&M -1989 PHASE IV-A INVESTIGATION
AT SITE SS-8, MOTOR POOL OIL LEAK AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Constituents
Sample Location [1] SP2-SEDI
SP2-SED2 SP2-SED3 SP2-SED4 SP2-SEDS SP2-SED6 SP2-SED7 SP2-SED8
Base/NeUlral Extractable Organics (Ilglkg)
Benzo(a)anlhracene BDL[2] SDL 5,930 2,060 BDL BDL BDL BDL
Bcnzo(a)pyrene - BDL BDL 7,070 2,530 BDL BDL BDL BDL
Benzo(b)t1uoranthene BDL "BOL 8,320 3,250 BDL BDL BDL BDL
Bcnzo(g,h, i )pery Icnc BDL BDL BDL 2,870 BDL BDL BDL BDL
Benzo(k)f1uoranthene BOL BDL 7,390 2,470 BDL BDL BDL BOL
B uty Ibenz yip hthalatc BDL BDL BDL BOL BOL 10,300 BOL BOL
Chrysene BOL BOL 7,910 2,700 BOL BDL BDL BDL
Di-n-bulylphthalatc SDL BDL BDL 1,060 1,890 [4,820J BDL [3,500]
Di benzo( a ,h)an th racene BOL 9,140 BOL 1,140 BDL BDL BDL BOL
'Di(2-ethylhcx yl)phlhalatc 0 10,800 BDL BDLo 2,080 [844] [3,760J BDL 8,630
PI uoran thene BDL BDL 7,280 2,110 BDL BDL SDL BDL
Indeno (1,2,3-cd)pyrenc BDL BDL 6,260 2,450 BDL 0 BDL BDL BDL
Phenanthrene BDL BDL BDL [642J BDL BDL" BDL BDL
Pyrcne BDL BDL 6,610 2,000 BDL BDL BDL BDL
Total Lead (jlg/kg) 2,740,000 420,000 289,000 43,000 170,000 271,000 557,000 66,000
EP Tox Metals (Ilg!kg)
Barium NA[3J NA NA [160J NA NA NA NA
Source: Geraghty & Miller, Inc., 1992
[I] ConstitUents not detected in any samples are not shown.
[2] Below Instrument Detection Limit.
'0.
(3] Not A\1atyzed.
[J Value is between level of quantitation and instrument detection limit.
I
-------
r--
highest concentrations were detected in the northeast corner of the drainage ditch which
surrounds the site. In general, BNA concentrations were an order of magnitude below the
concentrations in the 1988 sediment sample SEDOl; however, 1989 BNA sediment
concentrations were above the health based levels for both CUITent and future risks..
The contamination associated with the ditch sediments are presently being evaluated in the
Boundary and Outfall- Canal (OU-9), Remedial Investigation. Further investigation was
necessary to delineate the areal extent of contamination. A summary of the analytical results
from the 1989 sediment sampling event are provided in Table 2-3.
2.3.4.3 Phase IV-A Surface Water Investigation. In both the 1988 and 1989 -
investigations, surface water samples could not be collected because the drainage ditches
were dry.
2.3.5
1991 Remedial Investigation of Site 8S-8
In 1991, an RI was conducted at Site SS-8 by G&M. - The 1991 investigation included the
collection of 25 sediment samples, ten - surface water samples; and two groundwater
samples. Results of the 1991 RI are presented in G&M reported titled Remedial
Investigation Reportfor Site SS-8, Motor Pool Oil Leak Area (Former Site SP-2), May
1992.
2.3.6
1993 Remedial Investigation of Site 8S-8
In 1993, Moritgomery Watson Americas, Inc. perform~ an additional RI to evaluate the'
current soil and groundwater quality with respect to the USEP A target compound list
(fCL)fTAL utilizing USEPA Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) protocols and to fill data -
gaps from the previous field investigations, as well as evaluate any impacts due to
, HUITicane Andrew. Five soil borings were drilled and advanced t
-------
2.4
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION HISTORY
The RIlBRA report and the Proposed Plan (PP) for Homestead ARB, Site SS-8, were
released to the public in June and September of 1994, respectively. These documents were
made available to the public in both the administrative record and an information repository
maintained at the Miami-Dade Community College Library.
A public comment period was held from September 8, 1994, to October 22, 1994, as part
of the community relations plan for OU-4. Additionally, a public meeting was held on
Thursday, September 29, 1994 at 7:00 pm at South Dade High School. A public notice
was. published in the Miami Herald on September 9, 1994. At this meeting, the United
States Air Force (USAF), in coordination with USEP A Region IV, FDEP, and Dade
County Environmental Resource Management (DERM), was prepared to discuss the RI
results, the BRA, FS, and the Proposed Alternative of institutional controls with
groundwater monitoring, as described in the PP. A response to the comments received
during this period is included in the Responsiveness Summary, which is part of this ROD.
This ROD document presents the selected remedial action for OU-4 at Homestead ARB,
chosen in accordance with CERCLA, as amended by SARA and, to the extent practicable,
the NCP. The decision on the selected remedy for this site is based on the administrative
record.
2.5
SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSIBLE ACTION
Currently, many areas within the boundaries of Homestead ARB are under investigation as
part of the designated NPL status of the Base. Each of the nine CERCLA investigation
areas has been designated as an individual OU.
The U.S. Air Force with concUITence from the State of Rorida and the USEP A, has elected
to defme OU-4 as the Motor Pool Oil Leak Area. The remedial actions planned at each of
the Operable Units at Homestead ARB are, to the extent practicable, independent of one
another.
This response action addresses soil contamination at OU-4. Soil contamination at OU-4
poses a threat to human health and the environment, based on soil exposure to the future
construction worker through dermal contact or inhalation of dust associated with
13
-------
construction activities. In the unlikely event that the site is developed for residential use,
the conservative evaluation indicated that the child resident scenario also results in soil
exposure presenting a risk. Site risk is minimal, as the calculated risk using extremely
conservative models only slightly exceeds USEP A target ranges. This response action will
be the final acti9n at Site SS-8. Neither the groundwater nor surface water was found to
pose a threat to human health or the environment at OU-4.
2.6
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The Motor Pool has been in operation since the Base was re-activated in the 1950's. Waste
oil from the Motor Pool vehicular maintenance activities was collected and stored in 500
gallon above-ground storage tanks. Leaks in the tanks have. resulted in spills to the
environment. Additionally, old batteries were stored in the Motor Pool Area. The majority
of the Motor Pool Site is covered by asphalt.
The following subsections summarize the nature and extent of contamination identified at
Site SS-8 during investigations conducted from 1988 through 1993. The investigations in
1991 and 1993 were conducted in accordance with the approved Facility Remedial
Investigations Work Plans (G&M, 1991) and Work Plan Addendum (MW, 1993). It
should be noted that "soil" at Site SS-8 is limestone or weathered limestone not typical
sand, clay, or sandy clay.
2.6.1
Nature and Extent of Contamination
RIs have been perfonned at Site S5-8 to evaluate the nature and extent. of contamination in
1991 and 1993. A detailed evaluation of the nature and extent of contamination is
presented in the RI Report Addendum prepared by Montgomery Watson in 1993. A brief
summary of findings is presented below. In general, the results of the sampling and
analysis presented in the RI Addendum Report reveal that contamination at the site is
limited to the surrounding canal system and the subsurface soillbedrook. Contamination
associated with the canal. system is being evaluated separately under the OU-9, Boundary
Canal investigation. Although groundwater sampling in 1991 indicated the presence of
elevated metals, resampling of the wells in 1993 indicated that the 1991 samples were
turbid and that the 1993 sample results indicated no metals contamination in the site wells.
Figure 2-1 depicts the 1991 and 1994 surface water, sediment, soil and groundwater
sampling locations for Site SS-8.
14
-------
.---. ---.
'---
. . ~--_._.-_-- .
8ASE HOUSING
..Wt~1 (IAn
----
"~l~'..
!.[GiIlO
. YONlIOIllItG WILL INS1ALI.£O nv
OERAHItJY. ML'-fR. 1188
8 MON'ORIHQ W(U INStAUfO BY SAiC. 1986
t. SOil BORING LDCA lION
0 111111 SI/QrACI WAUA SAUPt.NlLOCAlION '.5£D.23
I a 1991 $fUfMfIfT S.PIPlINQ tOC.nON SPI.SfD-2fi
( . 1M3 5WtF"C~ "'AnA S...MPUNG LOCAUON
~ . 1M) SfOIMt;NT 8AMPLlHO toe.TION
-- ~IIAFAr.f wATE£a FLOW DIRECTION
J - DRAWAG£ CANAL
f STUDY AREA
: <.,
, . A5,,"A,t PARtelwe; lOt
'i
,
.,
300
I
o
I
A,pAOII"AT£ IICA!.E
~oo
I
HOMCSTeAD AllllleaellVl! 8ASE
FLORIOA
ntu A fll:AtI't'UI wvtsr~r.)N:"i :illlftA.;1. W,",'. If
!o1:"O&ff.'NJ, ~)H. AM) t:ROUNf.lWAU:q 5,41.1'\1.\10
tOCAlIOH.ft, .0;,1£ s."f II. Ik)'()H '''',X''' Off ,(Alii At/I A
--
tKiURf 201
-------
2.6.2
Groundwater. Investigations
2.6.2.1 Initial Investigations (1988). Groundwater samples at Site SS-8 were
analyzed for VOCs, BNAs, TRPH and total RCRA metals. plus sodium. All the metals
detected in the groundwater were either below the analytical detection limit or were below
the federal drinking water maximum contaminant level (MCL). Di (2-ethyIhexyl) phthalate
(DEHP) was the only organic compound detected in the groundwater at a concentration of
66 and 7.9 ~g/L.
DEHP, also known as bis (2-ethylhexyI) phthalate, is a known laboratory contaminant;
however, this compound was not detected in any of the associated blanks (field or
laboratory). TRPH was not detected above the analytical detection limit. A summary of
the 1988 Groundwater analytical results are presented in Table 2-1. The Phase IV-A
investigation indicated that groundwater had not been impacted by activities at Site SS-8.
. The 1988 investigation indicated that groundwater had not been impacted by activities at
Site SS-8.
2.6.2.2 1991 Investigation. The following metals were detected in the groundwater
at Site SS-8: aluminum, barium, calcium, chromium, cobalt, iron, magnesium,
manganese, nickel, potassium, sodium, vanadium, and mercury. Groundwater samples
contained very high concentrations of total calcium: 8,400,000; 71,000; and 70,000 ~gIL,
respectively, in addition to significant concentrations of other TAL metals. Lead was
detected in one sample at a concentration of 20 ~gIL, which is above both the Florida .
Groundwater Guidance Concentration (FGWGC) of 5 p.gIL and the Federal action level of
15 p.gIL. Chromium waS also detected in one sample at a concentration of 249 p.gIL, above
. the FGWGC of 50 J1g/L and above the Federal Drinking Water Standard of 100 ~gIL.
The sampling log for one of the wells indicated that the sample was extremely turbid when
collected. Metals tend to sorb to aquifer substrates and the presence of fines in .
groundwater samples tends to increase the amount of metals present. It is possible that the
high metal concentrations are a result of suspended sediments as artifacts of well
construction, and thereby, overstate the actual concentrations of the analytes at the site. A
summary of the 1991 groundwater analytical results is presented as Table 2-4.
All remaining metals detected were below the FGWGC except for aluminum, iron, and ,.
manganese. Federal Secondary Drinking Water Regulations establish recommended limits
and deal with the aesthetic quality of drinking water; however, the FDEP has adopted these
15
-------
TAnLE 2-4
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ANAL YTICAL RESULTS
SITE SS.8 MOTOR POOL OIL LEAK AREA
HOMESTEAD AIR RESERVE nASE, FLORIDA
. GERAGHTY AND MILLER, INC., 1991
Florida G&M Sample LD. Trip Blank SP2-EB-0003 SP2-1-0017 SP2-HS-0009 SP2-HS-9009
Analyte GroWld Water Savannah LD. S135369*15 S135369*2 S135369*1 5135369*3 S 135369*4
Guidance' USEPA Sampling Date' 22-Aug-91 22-Aug-91 22-Aug-91 22-Aug-91
Concentrations MCL 1/
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND 2/ BOL - BOL 3/ BOL BOL BOL
8ASE/NEUTRAL AND ACID EXTRACTAnLE COMPOUNDS: (uWL)
bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate 14 - NS 3/ NA 5/ [0.89} J <10 [1.2} U [1.31 U
INORGANIC CONSTITUENTS: (uwL)
Aluminum NS NS NA <200 25000 <200 <2(X)
Barium 1000 2000 NA <10 130- <10 <10
Calcium NS NS NA <50 8400000 71000 70000
Chromium 50 100 NA <10 240 <10 <10
Cobalt N5 NS NA <10 11 <10 <10
Iron 300 NS NA <50 23000 62 63
Magnesium NS NS NA <50 24000 11(X) 1100
Manganese 50 NS NA <10 320 <10 <10
Nickel 150 100 NA <40 80 <40 <40
Potassium NS NS NA <1000 6700 1700 1600
Sodium 160,000 NS NA <500 84000 9900 98
-------
standards as the Florida Secondary Drinking Water Standards and requires that the potable
groundwater shall meet these recommended limits. Iron and manganese are both regulated
in tenns of secondary drinking water standards. There is no FGWGC standard for
aluminum, however, the Federal Secondary Drinking Water Standard for aluminum is 50
to 200 ~g/L which is significantly lower than the 25,000 J.lg/L of aluminum that was
detected in one well. Chromium was the only metal detected above the lJSEP A maximum
contaminant level (MCL). As mentioned above, the turbidity of the groundwater samples
may have contributed to the high inorganic concentrations detected which are not believed
to be site related contamination.
2.6.2.3 1993 Investigation. Groundwater 'samples collected from the two.
monitoring wells in 1993, did not indicate the presence of VOCs or organochloride
pesticides/PCBs. Only groundwater from the monitoring well which produced turbid
samples in 1991 was analyzed for TAL metals. Both total and dissolved metals analyses
were performed. Metals detected in the total fractionmclude aluminum, barium, calcium,
chromium, iron, magnesium, manganese, nickel, potassium, sodium, vanadium, and zinc.
Lead which was identified as a possible contaminant in 1991, was not detected in the
groundwater sample collected in the 1993 investigation. Chromium, which was detected .at
elevated levels (maximum concentration 240 ~g/L) in 1991, was reported at only 3.6 J.lg/L
in the 1993 sample. Dissolved lead and dissolved chromium analyses in 1993 indicated no
detectable presence of either analyte. This decrease in lead and chromium concentrations is
likely related to the much higher sample turbidity observed in 1991; the total calcium .
concentrations of the turbid 1991 samples were over thirty times higher than those of the
1993 samples.
Aluminum is the only metal in the total fraction which exceeded state and federal standards.
In general, groundwater metals were an order of magnitude lower in the 1993 sample when
compared to the 1991 samples. This is likely due to the reduction in the turbidity prior to
sampling. A summary of constituents detected in the 1993 groundwater samples is
presented in Table 2-5.
2.6.3
Soil Sample Analytical Results
2.6.3.1 Initial Investigations (1988). During the IRP Phase II Investigation, four
soil samples were collected from the strip of ground between the fenceline and the drainage
canal east of the site. 1988 soil samples were only analyzed for oil and grease and total
16
-------
TA8LE 2-5
SUMMARY OF CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN GROUNDWATER SAMPLES
SITE SS.8 MOTOR POOL OIL LEAK ARF..A
MONTGOMERY WATSON, 1993 INVESTIGATION
Analyle F10rtdl EPA Drinking EPA Maximum Sample ID SP2.I-11 SP2.I.!l11 SP2-1-17 F SP2-I-917 F
Dale Sampled Groundwaler Wiler Contaminant Dale Colleded Jl8/93 Jl8/93 Jl8/93 318193
Guldan~e Standard Level Dupll~lle Flilered F1llered
Con~enlrallon m Goal Ouplklle
VOA TCL Compounds (ug/l)
2-Butanone NS NS NS <10 <10 NA NA
1,2.Dichloropropane NS NS NS <10 <10 NA NA
cis.I,3.Dichloropropene NS NS NS <10 <10 NA NA
P~lIcld~8 TCL Compounds (ug/l) ND ND ND NO NO NO NO
BNA TCL Compounds (ug/l)
Di-n-Butyl Phthalate NS NS NS 0.4J O.H NA NA
Dl'l.o;olved Metals (ug/l)
Barium 1000 2000g 2000 NA NA NA 8.1!B
Calcium NS NS NS NA NA NA 83,300
Iron 300 300h NS NA NA NA <7.0
Magnesium NS NS NS NA NA NA 3090 8
Manganese 50 50h NS NA NA NA 1.98
Potassium NS NS NS NA NA NA 6460
Sodium 160000 NS NS NA NA NA 35400
Zinc SOOO SOOOh NS NA NA NA 13.88
Total Metals (ug/l)
Aluminum NS 50-200h NS 1550 1310 <20.0 <20.0
Barium 1000 2000g 2000 26.68 27.78 8.8B 8.88
Calcium NS NS NS 270000 301 000 82600 83300
Chromium, Total 50 100g 100 3.68 <3.0 <3.0 <3.0
Copper 100 130 130 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
Iron 300 300h NS 1100 1180 <7.0 <7.0
Magnesium NS NS NS 3800B 3940B 3080 8 3090 8
Manganese 50 SOh NS 20.7 22.2 t.88 1.98
Nickel 6.48 . <6.0 <6.0 <6.0
Potassi u m NS NS NS 6730 7200 6230 6460
Sliver <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
Sodium 160000 NS NS 36300 37100 36100 3S4OO
Vanadium NS NS NS 7.08 1.68 <3.0 <3.0
Zinc SOOO SOOOh NS 33.4 39.3 14.88 13.88
All samples analyzed by Savannah Laboratories, Tallahassee, Florida.
< . not detected at specified detection limit
NS. no standard
ND . not detected
NA - not analyzed
Notes:
F Fitered samples for metals
g Numbers represent EPA's Primary MCL for Inorganlcs.
h Numbers represent EPA's Secondary MCL for Inorganlcs which life non-enforceable tasle, odor or appearence guidelines.
m Florida Oround-Water Ouldance Concentrations for Minimum Criteria Requirements (Rule 17-3.402,FAC),
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, February 1989.
Data Qualifiers for Organic Compounds
J . EstimatC!l Value,
-------
TABLE 2.5
SUMMARY OF CONSTITUENTS DETECTED. IN GROUNDWATER SAMPLES
SITE SS.8 MOTOR POOL OIL LEAK AREA
MONTGOMERY WATSON,I993 INVESTIGATION
(CONTINUED)
Analyle
Date Sampled
Florid.
Groundwater
Guidance
ConcentralJon m
EPA Drinking
Water
Standard
EPA Maximum
Contaminant
Leyel
Goal
VOA TCL Compounds (ugll)
2.Butanone
] ,2-Dichloropropane
cis-I,3.Dichloropropene
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
ND NO ND
NS NS NS
1000 20008 2000
NS NS NS
300 300h NS
NS NS NS
50 50h NS
NS NS NS
160000 NS NS
5000 5000h NS
NS 50-200h NS
1000 2000g 2000
NS NS NS
50 100g 100
100 130 130
300 300h NS
NS NS NS
. 50 50h NS
NS NS NS
160000 NS NS
NS NS NS
5000 5000h NS
PesllcidtIPCB TCL Compounds (ug/l)
RNA TCL Compounds (ug/l)
Di.n.Butyl Phthalate
Dissolved Metals (ug/l)
Barium
Calcium
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Sodium
Zinc
Tolal Metals (ugll)
Aluminum
Barium
Calcium
Chromium, Total
Copper
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
All samples analyzed by Savannah Laboratories. Tallahassee. Aorida.
< . not detected at specified detection limit
NS. no standard
ND - n01 detected
NA. not analyzed
Notes: \.
/' /'itercd samples" for metals
g Numbel1l represent EPA's Prlm8l)' MC)" for lriorganlcs,
h Numbers represent EPA's Secondary MCL for inorganiC! which are non-enforceable \asIC, odor
m Aorida Ground-Water Guidance Concentrations for Minimum Criteria Requirements (Rule 17.3.402,FAC),
Aorlda Department of Environmental. Regulation, February 1989.
Data Qualifiers for Organic Compounds
J - Estimated Value.
-------
lead. All four of the soil samples were found to contain concentrations of oil and grease
above ASQC (10 ppm) and two of the soil samples had lead levels above the ASQC (0.37
ppm) but below the NLS (100 ppm).
2.6.3.2 1993 Investigation. In the 1993 soil investigation at Site SS-8,
Montgomery Watson collected soil samples from five soil boring locations. Two soil
samples were collected from each of the five soil boring locations from the 0 to 1 foot bls
interval and the 3 to 4 ft bls interval. Soil samples were analyzed for the following
chemical compounds: TCL VOCS, TCUBNAs, TCL' Organochlorine (OC)
Pesticide/PCBs, and TAL metals and cyanide.
Contaminants detected in Site SS-8 soils include VOCs, BNAs and metals. The Voc
detected (toluene) can be a common laboratory contaminant and was detected in only one
sample. BNAs, primarily P AHs, were detected in the soils at Site SS-8. Because P AHs
are commonly found in asphalt, the elevated P AH concentrations may be due to sampling
either directly adjacent to or directly below asphalt. Additionally, these PAH
concentrations are within the typical range found for areas affected by anthropogenic
influences. Low levels of pesticides were also detected in four soil samples. Cyanide and
PCBs were not detected in any of the soil samples.
Concentrations of barium. cobalt, magnesium. and nickel were all reported below the
Homestead ARB average background soil concentration from the 0-2 ft interval.
Aluminum was detected in all of the samples at concentrations above the Homestead ARB
background concentrations in three samples. Concentrations of copper, manganese,
sodium potassium and Zinc do not exceed the average natural levels for ,soils. The
. ,
concentrations for calcium and iron do exceed the natural levels for soils.
Lead was detected in all the soil samples. Concentrations of lead in three samples were
above the maximum detected concentration of lead in the Homestead ARB background
soils and the average carbonate bedrock concentration, but within the common range of
soils found in the eastern U.S. A summary of constituents detected in soil samples from
the 1993 investigation are presented in Table 2-6.
17
,.
-------
TABLE U
SUMMARY OF CONS1111JENTS DETECI'ED IN SOn. SAMPLES
SITESS-8, MOTOR POOL On. LEAK AREA
MONTGOMERY WATSON,1993
AuI)1e
HcmcsUad AFB
Bac:kpamd
0.2 ft Ills
AVERAGE S8mpJe ID.
CARBONATE Sample I.aternJ
COMPOSITION Date CGIIected
OA TCL Compoauds (ug/IIg)
Ace!one 119.2 NS
Toluene NS NS
PesticideIPCB TCL CompouDds (agIkg)
Alpba-Ollordane <2.9 NS
Bela Et>dosulfan <2.9. NS
Beta-OIlordaDe <2.9 NS
Eodrin <29 NS
HepladlJor <2.9 NS
p,p'-DDD <4.7 NS
p,p'-DDE <4.7 NS
p,p'-DDT <12 NS
BNA TCL CompclUllds (uglkg)
Accnaphthene <390 NS
Anthracene <390 NS
Benzo(a)Anthracene 67 NS
Benzo(a)1'yrene 66 NS
Benzo(b )Fluoramhcne 69 NS
Benzo(g,h.i)Perylene 44 NS
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 66 NS
Benzyl Butyl PbIhaIare 16 NS
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) PbtbaIate 100 NS
Carbazole NS NS
4-Ch10r0pbeuyl Phenyl Ether <390 NS
CIuysene 79 NS.
2,4-DidIIoropbenol <390 NS
Di-n-Butyl PhIba1a1e <390 NS
Di-n-Octyl Phthalate (Bis-(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate) 10 NS
DibeDz(A.H)Anthraceue 17 NS
Dibenzofuran <390 NS
Diethylphthalate <390 NS
Fluorantbene 524 NS
FluOrale NS NS
lndeao(l~)Pyreoe 45 NS
2-Methylnapbthalene 84 NS
Naphthalene SO NS
Phcuanthrelle <2000 NS
Phenol SO NS
Pyrene 49.15 NS
1,2,4- Trich10r0be0zene <390 NS
Meta1s (mglkz)
Alamimun 2400 8970
. Arsenic 1.6 1.8
Barium 429 30
BeryUium <2.8 NE
Cadmium <28 0.048
Calcium 345000 272,000
Ouomium. Tocal 11.5 >0.1
Cobalt <1.1 0.12
Copper <27 4.4
Iron 16SO 8,190
Lead 4.05 16
MagDesium 10SO 45.300
Manganese 23 842
Nickel <4.5 13
Potassium <110 2390
Sodium 555 398
Vanadium <5.7 13
Zinc 20 16
All samples analyzed by Savannah Laboratories, Tallahassee, Florida.
< not det£cIed at specified detection limit Data Qualifim for Organic: Componds
NS - DO standard J - Estimated Value, 25'1> difference
between the two GC columns
snsLOOOl
0.1
5Ir1fJ3
<2.1
<4.1
<21
0.89 IP
<21
<4.1
<4.1
<4.1
.4S60
1.4S
11.28
O.26B
. <0.41
383000
13.4
0.93B
O.84B
24SO
15.9N*
1390E
2M
29B
1070
5138
8.9B
5.5
SP2SLOOO1
34
5fZ1fJ3
SP2SLOOO2
8-1
5lZ1193
730
<12
~~~1m?{t~
18
<22
<4.2
<2.2
2.5 IP
<22
1.2IP
0.97 lP
<4.2
<2.0
1.3 J
<2.0
0.98 J
<2.0
<4.0
<4.0
<4.0
613 4-
d.1 <1.0
15.78 10'9B
<0.21 o.29B
0.558 <0.40
372000 321000
7.7 15.9
0.768 0.778
8.6 2.18
890 3%40
r~1i~ ~~tk~k@
8..8 4Z.9 .
2.68 3.98 -
9938 9008
7308 4628
5.08 9.88
24.6 ,.18.1
Data Qua1ifim for Inorganic: Componds
B - Reading is less than CRQL but greaIer dJan IDL
E - reponed value is estimated due to interference
N - spiked sample recovery not within conuollimits
S - value detennined by method of standard additions
* - duplicate analysis not within COIltrollimirs
-------
TABLE U
SUMMARY OF CONSTI'ItJENTS DETEC1'm IN SOIL SAMPLES
SlTESS-8, MOTOR POOL OIL LEAK AREA
MONTGOMERY WATSON, 1993
Homestead AFB AVERAGE Sample m. SP2SLOOO2 SP2SLOOOJ SP2SLOOO3 SP2SLOOO4
ADaJyte IIactcroud CARBONATE Sample hItenal ).C 0.1 3-4 0-1
0.2 It bIs COMPOSl110N Date CoOected 5I1:1/fJ3 5/ZT193 511:1/93 511:1/93
VOA TCL CompollJlds (ag/k&)
Acetooe 119.2 NS lSOO 2000 1600 12000
Toluene NS NS 2J <13 2J 2J
hsticiMII'CB TCL Compoauds (G&fk&)
Alpba.QUordane <2.9 NS <2.4 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1
Beu FntIo$nlfan <2.9 NS <4.7 <4.1 <4.1 <4.0
Beta-Chlonlane <2.9 NS <2.4 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1
Endrin <29 NS <4.7 <4.1 <4.1 <4.0
Heptachlor <2.9 NS <2.4 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1
p.p'-DDD <4.7 NS <4.7 <4.1 <4.1 .. <4.0
p,p'-DDE <4.7 NS <4.7 <4.1 <4.1 <4.0
p,p'-DDT <12 NS <4.7 <4.1 <4.1 <4.0
BNA TCL CompclUllds (uglkg)
Acenaphthenc <390 NS <470 <410 <410 -<400
Anthracene <390 NS 3J <410 <410 <:400
Bcnzo(a)Anthracene 67 NS 83J <410 <410 <400
Bcnzo( a}Pyrene 66 NS 120J <410 <410 <400
Bcnzo(b )Ruoranthene 69 NS 1.3OJ <410 16J SJ
Bcnzo(g,h,i)Perylene 44 NS 67J <410 <410 <400
Bcnzo(k)Ruoranthene 66 NS 110J <410 12J 4J
Beozyl Butyl Pb1ha1art 16 NS <470 61 <410 <400
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate 100 NS 100 BJ 15BJ 96BJ 25BJ
Cmbazole NS NS <470 <410 <410 <400
4-Cblorophenyl Pbenyl Ether <390 NS <470 <410 <410 <400
Chrysene 79 NS 120J <410 . <410 <400
2,4-Dichloropbenol <390 - NS <470 <410 <410 <400.
Di-n-Butyl PhIha1aIe <390' NS '7BJ 14BJ 11 BJ 7BJ
Di-n..Qcty1 Phtha1ale (Bis-(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate) 10 NS <470 <410 <410 <400
Dibenz(A.H)Anthracene 17 NS 19J <410 <410 <400
Dibenzofuran <390 NS <470 <410 <410 <400
Diethylphtha1ale <390 NS <470 <410 <410 <400
Auoranthcne 52.4 NS 120J 3J 17 J 7J
Auorene NS NS <470 <410 <410 <400
Jndeno( 1.2.3-C,D)Pyrene 45 NS 70J <410 <410 <400
2-Melhylnaphthalc:ne 84 NS <470 <410 <410 <400
Naphthalene SO NS <470 <410 <410 <400
Phenanthrene <2000 NS 20J <410 61 <400
Phenol SO NS <470 <410 <410 <400
Pyrene 49.15 NS 13OJ' <410 17J 71
1,2,4- Trichlorobenzene <390 NS <470 <410 <410 <400
MNJs (mg/k&)
Aluminum 2400 8970 4Z90 S95 314 . 1220
Arsenic 1.6 1.8 3.0 <1.05 <1.0 1.8B
Barium 42.9 30 1 LIB 4.8B S3B 5.IB
Beryllium <2.8 NE 039B <0.21 ~.21 ~.20
Cadmium <2.8 0.048 ~.48 <0.42 ~.42 ~.41
Calcium 34SOOO 272.000 32S000 34SOOO 32S000 32S000
C1uomium, Total 11.5 >0.1 19.6 4.0 2.7 .53
Cobalt <1.1 0.12 O.89B <0.42 ~.42 ~.41
Copper <2.7 4.4 <0.48 <0.42 <0.42 ~.4J
Iron 1650 8.190 1620 20S 171 466
Lead 4.OS 16 :-,.~~ 7.5SN. 4.1SN. 3.6N.
MagDesium 10SO 4S300 -IOII)BE- 9S3BE 908BE I020E
Manganese 23 842 57.11 15.6 9.9 19.4
Nickel <4.5 13 2.3B <1.2 <1.2 25% difference N - spiked sample recovery not within c:ontrollimilS
between the two GC columns S - value determined by me!hod of SWIdard additions
. - duplicate analysis nOl within coolrOllimilS
-------
TABLE U
SUMMARY OF CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN SOIL SAMPLES
SITE ss.s. MOTOR POOL OIL I.EI.K AREA
MONTGOMERY WATSON, 1993
(CONTINUID)
Homestead AFB AVERAGE Sample ID. SP2SLOOO4 SPlSLOOOS SP2SL9OOS SP1SLOOOS
AaaIyte B8ckgnxmd CARBONATE Sample IIIten'8I 3-4 0-1 0-1 3-4
0.2 ft Ills COMPOSITION Date CoUeded sml9J sml9J sm/93 !IZ.7/9'J
Duplicate
VOA TCL c-poaDCIs (ag/k&)
Acetooe 119.2 NS 10000 3100 260 9200
Tolaeoe NS NS <13 <12 <12 <13
Pestic:ide/PCB TCL CompcMlllds (lIgIkg)
Alpba-Ollordane <2.9 NS <2.1 <2.1 0.56 JP <2.1
Bela Fntlncnlun <2.9 NS <4.1 <4.0 <4.2 <4.0
BeIa-OIIordane <2.9 NS <2.1 <2.1 O.sU <2.1
Endrin ;J.9 NS <4.1 <4.0 <4.2 <4.0
HeptaclIJor <2.9 NS <2.1 <2.1 O.54J <2.1
p,p'.DDD <4.7 NS <4.1 <4.0 <4.2 <4.0
p,p'.DDE <4.7 NS <4.1 <4.0 <4.2 <4.0
p,p'-DDT <12 NS <4.1 '<4.0 1.61 <4.0
BNA TeL CompclllDds (uglkg)
Acenapbthene <390 NS <410 <400 <400 <420
Anthracene <390 NS 5J <400 4J <420
Benzo(a)Anthraceoe 67 NS <410 16J 241 <420
Benzo(a)Pyrene 66 NS <410 2iH 26J ISJ
Benzo(b)Auoranthene 69 NS 3J 26J 31 J 18J
Benzo(g,h,i)Peryleoe 44 NS <410 14J 15 J 111
Benzo(k)Auoranthene 66 NS 4J 19J 24J 121
Benzyl Batyl Phtha1ale 16 NS 6J 6J 11J 71
Bis(2-Ethylbexyl) Ptnha1ate 100 NS 120 BJ 23BJ 47Bl 938J
Carbazole NS NS <410 3J 4J <420
4-Q10r0pbenyl Phenyl Etbcr <390 NS <410 <400 <400 <420
Cbrysene' 79 NS <410 25J 30J <420
2,4-DidIlorophenol <390 NS <410 <400 '<400 <420
Di-n-Batyl PhtbaJatc <390 NS 1181 20BJ 12BI 10 BJ
Di-o-Oc:tyl PhtbaJatc (Bis-(2-Ethylllexyl)Phthalale) 10 NS <410 <400 <400 <420
Dibenz(A.H)Anthracene 17 NS <410 <400 <400 <420
Dibenzofuran <390 NS <410 <400 <400 <420
Diethylphtha1ale <390 NS <410 <400 <400 <420
Auoranthene 52.4 NS 10J 40J 51J 28J
Auorene NS NS <410 <400 <400 <420
lndeno(l~D)Pyrene 45 NS <410 13 J 15 J 10J
2-Methylnaphtha1ene 84 NS <410 <400 <400 <420
Naphthalene SO NS <410 <400 <400 <420
Phenanthrene <2000 NS 5J 181 23J 121
Phenol SO NS <410 <400 <400 <420
Pyrene 49.15 NS 9J 37BJ 44J 241
1,2,4- Tricb10r0bem.enc <390 NS <410 <400 <400 <420
Mdals (mg/k&)
Aluminum 2400 8970 394 720 S92 323
Arsenic 1.6 1.8 <1.0 UB I.4B d.l
Barium 42.9 30 4.68 6.IB 6.3B S.8B
Berylliam <2.8 NE <0.21 <0.20 <020 <0.21
Cadmium <2.8 0.048 <0.42 <0.41 <0.41 <0.43
Calcium 345000 272,000 348000 369000 367000 348000
Ouomium, ToraJ 11.5 ;>(u 3.5 4.7 42 4..
Cobalt <1.1 0.12 <0.42 <0.41 <0.41 <0.43
Copper <2.7 4.4 <0.42 <0.41 <0.41 <0.43
Iron 1650 8,190 171 304 262 170
Lead 4.05 16 23N. 1S.SN. 11.2N- 4.ON*
Magnesium 1050 45,300 I060E I0s0E lUOE 10lOBE
Manganese 23 842 8.1 13.2 14.1 8.8
Nickel <4.5 13 <1.2 <12 <1.2 d3"
Potassium <110 2,390 909B 986B 965B mB
Sodium 555 398 615B 670B 70711 8S7B
Vanadium 15% difference N . spiked sample ~very oat within COIIIJ'OIlimits
between the tWO GC columns S . value determined by method of standard additions
. - duplicate analysis DOt within c:ontrollimitS
-------
2.6.4 Sediment Sample Analytical Results 2.6.4.1 Initial Investigations
(1986-1991). In 1986, two sediment samples were collected from the drainage ditch
immediately east of the Motor Pool fenceline. Both sediment samples had reported
concentrations of oil and grease above ASQC (10 ppm). Both of the sediment samples had
lead levels above the ASQC (0.37 ppm) but below the NLS (100 ppm).
In 1988, two sediment samples were collected from the drainage ditch east of the site and""
analyzed for YOCs, BNAs, and total RCRA concentrations of 30 mg/kg and 2,650 mglkg.
Several BNAs (mostly PARs) were also detected in the sediment. In 1989, eight additional
sediment samples were collected from the perimeter drainage ditch. constituents detected in
the sediment included BNAs, and several metals including lead. The highest
concentrations were detected in the northeast corner of the drainage ditch which surrounds
the site.
In 1991,25 sediment samples were collected from the ditches surrounding Site SS-8. Five
of the sediment samples collected in 1991 were analyzed for BNAs. Analytical results
indicated BNA's, primarily PARs, detected in all but one sample. Total PAR
concentrations ranged from 2,400 'J.Lglkg to 20,750 J.Lglkg. BNA concentrations found in "
sediment samples are within the target risk range of 10-4 to 10-6, considered protective of
human health by the USEPA; however, the state of Florida's target risk of 10-6 is exceeded.
Lead was detected in all samples with reported concentrations ranging from 14 to
2,300 mglkg. Additional metals detected included alurninum~ barium, calcium, chromium,
copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, sodium, vanadium, zinc, mercury and arsenic.
Sediment samples had reported arsenic and lead concentrations which exceed soil target
clean-up levels. Contaminants associated with the ditch sediments are presently being
evaluated in the Boundary and Outfall Canal (OU-9), Remedial Investigation. A sur:mnary
of sediment analytical results is presented in Table 2-7.
2.6.4.2 1993 Investigation. In 1993, 13 sediment samples :-vere collected from the"
area canals and drainage ditches. Each sediment sample was analyzed for TCL VOCs,
TCL BNAs, TCL organochlorine pesticides/ PCBs, TAL metals, and cyanide. 23 BNAs,
primarily P AHs were detected" in the sediment samples collected during the 1993
investigation. In general, lower total P AH levels were reported during the 1993 samples.
,.
However, BNA concentrations were still observed above health based levels.
IS
-------
TABLE %-7
SUMMARY OF CONSTlTUENI'S DETECTED IN SEDIME!\o'T SAMPLES
COu.ECT£D AT SITE S>S, MOTOR POOL On. LEAK A.REA
Homestead Air RacM'C Base, Florida
GERAGIITY 8< MIlLER. 1991
ADoly1e
NOAAI/ NOAA2/ Jnu:rimSQC G&MSamplcLD. Trip Blank SP2.SD-0Q09 SP2.s0.0010 SP2-SDOOll
ER.L ER-M Ng/KgOC3/ SavannahLD. 35283-11 3S3~ 35303-7 35283-2
(ug/kg) (ug/kg) (1'1.0C)4/ SomplingDarc 8IWfJ1 MOOI 08119.91
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS: u~lK~ dw
AccIonc N N NS <10 NA NA 22DJ
2-BUlanOllC N N NS <10 NA NA <01
BASEINEUTRAL EXTRACTABLE COMPOUNDS: u~~ dw 150 650 7320 NA NA NA <2200
A<:cnaphthenc
Amhn..:"nc as 960 NS NA NA NA <2200
Benzo(a)antluaccnc 230 1600 13170 NA NA NA <2200
Benzo(a)pyrcnc: 400 2S00 10630 NA NA NA <2200
Benzo(b )fIuonnthenc N N NS NA NA NA <2200
Benzo(gJ>.j)perylcnc N N NS NA NA NA <2200
Benzo(k)fluoranthcnc N N NS NA NA NA <2200
Benzoic acid N N NS NA NA NA [2400]
bis(2-Ethylhcxyl) phIhaJatc N N NS NA NA N.A [1600]
Quyscnc 400 2800 NS NA NA NA <2200
Dibcmo(a,h)anlhraccnc 60 260 NS NA NA NA. <2200
Fluoranthcu: 600 3600 18830 NA NA NA <2200
Fluorene 3S 640 NS NA NA NA <2200
Indcno (1,2.3-cd)pyrcne N N NS NA NA NA <2200
Phenanthrene 22S 1380 1390 NA NA NA <2200
Pyrene 350 2200 J3110 NA NA NA <2200
INORGANIC CONSTITUEI'o'TS: mWK~ dw
Aluminum N N NS NA NA NA 2400
Barium N N NS NA. NA NA 12
Calcium 80 .N NS' NA NA NA 81
QvomiLlm 70 145 NS NA' NA NA <63
Copper N 390 ~S NA NA NA 29
Iron 1\ N NS NA NA NA 3000
Magnesium N. N NS NA NA NA 100
Manganese 1\ N :-;S NA NA NA 39
Sodium N N NS NA NA NA <330
Vanadiwn N N NS NA NA NA 33
Zinc 120 270 NS NA NA NA S4
Mcrcwy 0.15 1.3 1'1S NA NA N.A 0.091
Arsenic 33 85 NS' NA I'A N.A <6.7
Lead 35 110 NS NA 150 27 160J
METALINTCLPEXTRACT:m~
Arsenic NA <2.0 <4.0 4.20
Cadmium NA <0.10 <0.20 .f170(.C75)
Lead NA <2.0 <4.0 4.20
-------
TABLEZ.1
SUMMARY OF CONS'lTnJE!\'TS DETECTED TN SEDIMEl'oT SAMPlES
COI.l.EC'nD AT SITE ss.s. MOTOR POOL On. LEAK AREA
Homestead Air Rauve a-, Aorid.
GERAGHTY &. MILLER. 1991
COt."'I1NUED
NOMI! /'OOM 2J Interim SQC G&:.\i S8mple I.D. SP2-SD-OOI2 SP2-SD-9012 SP2-sD-0013
Am!yte ER.L ER.M Ng/Kg QC 3! SavumaJ1 LD. 35283.3 35283-4 35283-5
(UBA<&> (ugA.20 <0.20
Cadmium <050 .016(.082) .090(.097)
Lead <0.2.0 <'<>.20 <'<>.20
-------
TABLE 2-7
SUMMARY OF CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN SEDIMEI'n' SAMPlES
COLLECTED AT SITE SS-8, MOTOR POOL OIL LEAK AREA
Homatad Air aCKrYe Base, F10rida
GERAGHTY a MILLER, 1991
CON11NUED
AnaJyIc
NOAAI/ NOAA 2J Imerim SQC G&M Sample !.D. SP2-SD-0014
ER-L ER-M Ng/Kg OC 3/ Sova:mah!.D. 35283-6
(uglkg) (ugIkg) (I ~ OC) 4/ Sampling Date 08I19lJ1
SP2-SD-0015
35283-7
08119191
Sn.sD-0016
35283-9
08119,')1
VOlATJLEORGANlCCOMPOUNDS: uWK~ dw N NS NA
A- N NA NA
2-&Ianone N N N5 NA NA NA
BASElNEUl'RAL EXTRACTABLE COMPOUNDS: .WK~ d.. 150 650 7320 NA NA NA
Ac:enap!uh
-------
TABLE 2-7
SVMMARY OF CONsnTUENTS DETECn:D J1'i SEDJMEIIT SAMPLES
COu..ECTED AT SITE SS3, MOTOR POOL On. LEAK AREA
Homeskad Air R....... Base, FIoric18
GERAGHTY & MILLER, 1991
COIlo'T!NUED
NOAAII NOAA 1J lntaim SQC G&MSampk:LD. SP2-SD-0017 SP7,SI).OO18 SP2-SD-0019 SJ>2.SIJ.0020
Arulytt ER-L ER-M NgIKa OC 3/ Savannah LD. 35283-10 35283-8. 35303-8 35417.9
(ug/kg) (ug/kg) (1'100C)4/ Samplins DIIt: 08/19191 08/19191 8I1JJI91 8I2A191
VOLATlLEORGANlCCOMPOUNDS: alVK~ dw N N NA NA NA
A.cc:IDnc NS NA
2-iIuImIoIu: N N NS NA NA NA NA
BASElNEVTRAL EXTRACTABLE COMPOUNDS: alVK~ dw 150 650 7320 NA NA NA NA
Acenap/Uhene
~ 8S 960 NS NA NA NA NA
Barzo(a)onlhncc:uc 230 1600 13170 NA NA NA NA
Bcrrzo(a)pyrcne 400 2500 10630 NA NA NA NA
Benzo(b)fluomuhc:ne N N NS NA NA NA NA
Ba1zo(g,h,i)pcyI"", N N NS NA NA NA NA
Bc:nzo(k)fluomuhc:ne :\ N NS NA NA NA NA
Benzoic acid N N N5 NA NA NA NA
bis(2,.E1hylhc:xyl) phlhaJatc: N N NS NA NA NA NA
Cluysc:ne 400 2800 NS NA NA NA NA
Dibc:nzo( a,h)anthrac:c:nc: 60 260 1':5 NA NA NA NA
AuOl'8l1lhc:n. 600 3600 18830 NA NA NA NA
Auorene 35 640 NS NA NA NA NA
Incleno (I,2.3-c:d)pyrc:nc: N N NS NA NA NA NA
Phenanthrene: 22S 1380 1390 NA NA NA NA
PymIc: 350 2200 13110 NA NA NA NA
JNORGAN1CCONSTITlJENTS: mlVK~ dw
Aluminum N 1'- NS NA NA NA NA
Barium N N NS NA NA NA' NA
Calciuni 80 I' NS NA 'NA NA NA'
Chromium 70 J45 NS NA NA NA NA
Copper N 390 NS NA NA NA NA
Iron N N NS NA NA NA NA
Magnesium N N I\S NA NA NA NA
Man8= N N NS NA NA NA NA
Sodium N N NS NA NA NA NA
Vanadium I' N NS NA NA NA NA
Zinc 120 VO NS NA NA NA NA
Mercury 0.15 1.3 NS NA NA NA NA
Arsenic 33 85 NS NA NA NA NA
Lead 35 110 NS 1600J I600J SOO 1000
METALINTCLPEXTRACT: ~
Antc:nic: <0.20 <0.20 <4.0 <2..0
, Cadmium, .076(,082) .035(.038) <0.20 <0.10
Lead 2..111.8) 4.7(4.1) 0.37(.36) <2..0
,.
-------
,---
TABLE 2-7
SUMMAR Y OF CONSTITUENTS DE'l'ECnD IN SEDIMENT SAMPU:S
COLLEcrm AT SITE SS-8, MOTOR POOL OIL LEAK AREA
lIomestead Air Rc:sa-ve Base, Florida
GERAGHTY &: MII.LER, 1991
CONIDiUm
NOAAl/ NOAA'}J III1erim SQC G&M Sample LD. SJ>2.SD.OO2I SJ>2..SD.OO22 SP2-SD-9022 SP2-SD-0023 SP2-SD-0024 $P2..SD-0026 SnsD-002S
AnaIy1c £R-t ER-M NgIKg OC 31 Savannah LD. 35417-8 35303-10 35303-9 35417-10 35417-7 35417.5 35417-6
(~ (ugIkg) (1'1, OC)41 Sampling Dale 8/24191 8120191 8120191 8124191 8/24191 8/24191 &24191
VOLATlLEORGANlCCOMPOUNDS: UWKR d,.
AceIOnC N !Ii NS NA <96 <93 NA NA NA NA
2-BuIznanc N N NS NA <38 <37UJ NA NA NA NA
BASEINEtlTRAL EXTRACTABLE COMPOUNDS: aWKR dw NA <1200 NA NA NA NA
A<:cuoplnhene 150 6.50 7320 <1300
Anlhrac:cnc 8S 960 I\"S NA < 1300 <1200 NA NA NA NA
Benzo(ajarlthnccne 230 1600 13170 NA [280] (280] NA NA NA NA
Bcnzo(a)pyrcne 400 2500 10630 NA [430] (430] NA NA NA NA
Benzo(b)fluonnthc:ne N N NS NA [660] [650] NA NA NA NA
Benzo(g,h.i)perylcnc iii !Ii I'S NA (400J <1200 NA NA NA NA
Benzo(k)fluoranthc:ne !Ii I' NS NA (5OO] [430] NA NA NA NA
Benzoic acid N N NS NA <6400 <6200 NA NA NA NA
bis(2-Ezhylhc
-------
TABLE 2-7
SUMMARY OF CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN SEDIMENT SAMPLES
COI.LECnD AT SITE SS-8, MOTOR POOL On. LEAK AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, F10rilb
GERAGH1Y & MlLLER.I991
CON'ItNUED
AnaJy2.SD-0027 SJ>2.SD-0028 SJ>2.SD-0029 SP2SJ).Q)30 SP2-SD-0031 SP2-SD-0032 SP2SD-0033
ER-L ER-M Ng/KgOC31 SavmnahLD. 35417..4 35303-1 35303-2 35283-1 35303-3 35303..4 35303-5
(ug/k&) (ug/kg) (1'1, OC)41 Sampling D~ 8/24f}1 8!2/J191 8/.ZOI91 08I19m 8/20,91 8!2/JI91 &201} I
VOLATU.EO'RGANlCCOMPOUNDS: ..~ dw
A.cc:Ianc N N NS 130 NA NA 320 NA NA NA
2-Bazononc N N NS [19J NA NA <2.4 UJ NA NA NA
BASEINEUTRAL EXTRACTABLE COMPOUNDS: .~ dw NA NA (2WJ NA NA NA
Accnaphlhcne ,ISO 650 20
Anthracene: as 960 NS <2400 NA NA [~J SA NA SA
Bcnzo(I)mUInc:cnc 230 1600 13170 <2400 SA NA 1800 SA NA NA
Bcnzo(l)pyrcnc 400 2SOO 10630 <2400 SA NA 2200 SA NA NA
Bcnzo(1) )f1uonuuhcru: N N NS <2400 NA NA 2100 SA NA 'NA
Bcnzo(g,h.i)pcrylcnc N N 1\S <2400 NA NA 1200 SA 1\A NA
Bcnzo(t)f1uormthcnc N N SS <2400 NA NA, 1800 NA NA NA
Be:nz.oic acid N N NS <12000 NA NA [460J NA NA NA
bis(2-Elhylhcxyl) phthalate N N NS [290J NA NA '<800 NA NA NA
Chryscnc 400 2SOO 1'5 <2400 NA NA 1900 NA NA NA
Dibcnzo(I,h)anthnccnc 60 260 NS <2400 NA NA [300J NA NA NA
Auoranthcnc 600 3600 18830 <2400 NA NA 3000 NA NA SA
Fluorene 3S 640 NS <2400 NA NA [230] NA NA NA
Indcno (1,2,3-cd)pyrcnc N N NS <2400 NA NA 1200 NA NA NA
PhcnanIhrcnc 22S 1380 1390 <2400 NA NA 1700 NA NA SA
Pyrcnc 3SO 2200 13110 <2400 NA NA '2400 NA NA NA
INORGANIC CONSTITtJEI\TS: malKR dw
Aluminum !,. N 1"S NA SA NA '3950 NA NA NA
Barium N N NS NA . NA 'NA 8.6 NA NA NA
Calcium 80 N NS NA NA NA 3S 1 000 NA NA NA
Ouomium 70 145 NS NA NA NA <47 NA NA SA
Copper N 390 SS SA NA NA <6.2 NA NA NA
Iron S N NS NA NA NA 2610 'NA NA NA
Magnesium N N NS NA NA NA 1100 NA NA NA
Manganese N N NS NA NA NA 26 NA NA NA
Sodium N N NS NA 'NA NA 454 NA NA NA
Vanadium N N NS NA NA NA 7.7 NA NA NA
Zinc 120 VO NS NA SA NA 28 NA NA NA
Mercury 0.15 1.3 NS NA NA NA 0.12 NA NA NA
.Arsenic 33 85 NS NA' NA NA <2.S NA NA NA
Lead 35 110 NS VJ 450 690 371 130 120 9S,
METALINTCLPEXTRACT: JnR/L
.Arsenic <2.0 <0.20 <2.0 <0.20 <2.0 <0.20 <2.0
Cadmium <0.10 .017(.014) <0.10 .091(.098) <0.10 <0.010 <0.10
,Lead <2.0 <0.20 0.39(.39) <0.20 <2.0 <0.20 <2.0
~
21
31
ug/K8 dw micrograms per kilogram dry weighL
mg/L milligrams per IiII:':
NA not analyzed
N Not Available
NS N. SLlndard
1 J Value is greater lhan inmparison
between the scdimcn1 data Ind SQC. the SQC for an organic carbon conLeDL of 1.0% OC
were calculalCd. The SQC (ugA
-------
TAJLE :u
SUMM.UIY OF mNST1TVDITS DE1ECIED IN SEDlMEM"SAMPLES
sm: ss.a, MOTOR POOL on. u:.u AaEA
MON1'GOMEIIY WATSON.~
A8I7te NOAA V NOAA7J -SOC ~ srz..sD.4I15 ~ SPJ,.SDaJ7 ~
Dol. ER-M IIIIKc OC 31 M5II3 M5093 JIUo93 3IIW3 JnWJ
(~ (~ (I"0C)4I
OA. Ta.~(8I/II8)
~ NS NS NS NA <120 Z20 <15 <13 <16
ModI7Iu.,I~~) NS NS NS NA <120 5IB <15 <13 <16
Ta. c-...-(q/III)
AIdriII NS NS NS NA <12 <3.6 <2J <2.3 <1..7
Alpba- NS NS NS NA <12 <3.6 <2J 0.92" <1..7
~ 0.51'> 6 NS NA <12 0.28 IP 0.671 0."'" 0.77"
-- NS NS NS NA <12 <3.6 1.7IP UIP <1..7
~- 0..51'> 6 NS NA 3.2J 0.53 IP <2J I.IIP I.JIP
-~ NS NS NS NA 5.71P <71) 2.4IP 4DIP UIP
Eodrio Q02 45 NS NA <24 <71) <4.9 <4,5 <5.3
Eodrio x..- NS NS NS NA <24 <7JJ 2.IJP 2.91 <5.3
Ifqaddar NS NS NS NA 2.6J <3.6 <4.9 <4.5 I.3J
HqadIIar EpaxiIe NS NS NS NA <12 <3.6 <2J <2.3 <1..7
~ NS NS NS NA <12 <3.6 I.4J 7.9IP (a)- 230 16QO 13.170 <1400 <2400 89J 82J I20J 671
1Ieoz<>(~ 400 2500 10.630 <1400 1I0J I20J 1301 I30J 111
Beuo(b~ HI NS NS <1400 170J 1401 1801 I30J 761
llalzc(aJl.i)FayIcac HI NS NS <1400 <2400 <700 I60J 361 11 OJ
1IcmG(t)fluanadlosle HI NS NS <1400 I&OJ 1201 ISOI 2001 991
8a1zy11IuIyI- NS NS NS <1400 looJ 361 141 101 131
B~~ NS NS NS <1400 2901 1201 1.900 UOO 1.300
c-.. NS NS NS <1400 <2400 <700 <490 <450 630
0.,-. 400 2800 NS <1400 UOJ 120J 1501 1901 100J
Di-O-BalylI'lllllolR NS NS NS <1400 ISOBJ 37BJ. 2OB! 21 BI 2581
Dibelu(A.iI)AIIIInca>e 60' 260 NS <1400 <2400 <700 <490 III 630
DiI>eIIzof1InI! NS NS NS <1400 <2400 <700 <490 U 630
DimodIyI- NS NS NS <1400 <2400 <700 6J <450 91
~ 6QO 3600 18.130 <1400 260J I&OJ Z20J 360J I40J
FIuamIe 35 6010 NS <1400 <2400 8J <490 <450 131
1Ddc8o(1.2.).C.D)PyIme NS NS NS <1400 64J 80J IIOJ I30J 701
.............. )41) 2100 NS <1400 <2400 <700 <490 <450 291
I'eoIodIIorapbm NS NS NS <1400 a NS NS NS 1700 2820 E 4440 E 10300 E III0E 3020 E
Lad 35 110 NS II 55.6 64JJ 1480 16QO 643
........... NS NS NS 1000 816BE I170E I680E 1230E I44CI E
"'- NS NS NS <29 34.5E 59.1 E 122 E 289E SlAE
N"1Ctd 3CI SO NS NA 6JJB 4.1B 6.5B 1..58 2.18
......... NS NS NS NA 703B 811B 8398 9538 9368
SodiaIII NS NS NS 290J 402B 57GB 4698 4738 ~8
V- NS NS NS 5.7J 60JJ 14.3 14.2 6.68 9.9 8
ZiDc 120 270 NS 27J 211E 6O.IE 390E 171 E 2ZSE
AD -"*" III8Iyzzd b)' SmIIIaaI> ~ T..-, Florida.
<.. ~ alpOCifiod_- DmQualilimf1>rOlpaic~ Doll QJIIifi OC....deriwd b)' maItipIyioalbc SQC
(UJlKiOC)byllD OC_.d I'JI> (1)1 KaofOC/Ka ofeedi....,,).
41 Orvlllic CaJboa
" M ToW CbIonIme
-------
TA8LE U
SVMMAIIY OF CONST1TVEN1'S DETECnD IN smDIENTSA.MI'LES
SlTE ss-a. Moroa POOL OIL u:.uc AJI£A
MONTGOMERY WATSON, Uf3
(00HTINtJiD)
......,.. NOA.AV NOAA V ...... 5QC SPJ.SII..- ~ ~I 5J'2..SII.4N2 SPJ.SD.tN3
Ea.I. - "lllCaOC 31 J/I5/J3 J/I5/J3 J/I5/J3 311!093 3IUIJ.I
(~ (~ CI"'0C)4I
YO" Ta.c-.-(~
- NS NS NS NA <16 <14 160 130 d.l
-,I fdI)1 ~eua--) NS NS NS NA <16 <14 <21 <29 d.l
--.n>c81a.<:-.-(..,
AJdzia NS NS NS NA <2..! <2.2 <3.! IAIP ."..5
AIpIa- NS NS NS NA <2..! <2.2 <3.! <2.1 ."..5
~ O..!(.!) 6 NS NA 2.9P 3.0 <3.! 1.01 1.61
-~.. NS NS NS NA <2..! <2.2 <3.! <2.1 ."..5
I\eQ.QIordoae O..!(.!) 6 NS NA 7JP 2..5P <3.! 2.61 2JI
-~ NS NS NS NA d.9 14P <69 "'.4
2.4-~1 NS NS NS <1400 <490 <430 21J ~ <1100
~ 6.! 670 NS <1400 36OJ .!1I .!601 ~ <1100
4OIoro-~ NS NS NS <1400 <490 <430 26J ~ <1100
-~(P.o.sd) NS NS NS <1400 211 <430 <690 ~ <1100
~ I.!O 6.!0 13211 <1400 1,400 2.!0 J 2.100 1.'51 <1100
AoaIIpIIII7Ieae NS NS NS <1400 1.11 <430 23J 41 <1100
- IS 960 NS <1400 2.000 C20) 4.300 631 <1100
Bcaza(.~ 230 1600 13.170 <1400 4J)OO 910 16.000 2901 <1100
Bcaza(.)P)raIe 400 2.!00 10.630 <1400 2.700 870 13.000 2301 901
I!eam(b~ NS NS NS <1400 3.400 990 14,000 3201 1101
1Icazo(J.IIJ"""'" NS NS NS <1400 2.2110 690 9,400 1101 971
BcmIJ(t~ NS NS NS <1400 2.000 910 16.000 1101 110J
I!eDz7I BoryI- NS NS NS <1400 29J 19) 1101 311 341
~- NS NS NS <1400 .!I08 310J 2.000 160BI 22DI
C81IaaIe NS NS NS <1400 2.000 3901 4J)OO ~ ~1I00
a.,...,. . 400 :zsoo NS <1400 3.900 1.100 19.000 3101 901
DH>BuI7I PIIIIWioe NS NS NS <1400 <490 <430 <690 .!OBI .!9B1
DiIaz(~ 60 260 NS <1400 <490 <430 <690 ~ .<1100
Dibcozdm:u NS NS NS <1400 900 IIOJ 1,100 ~ <1100
DiIDorhyll'lllbalare NS NS NS <1400 <490 <430 <690 ~ <1100
-- 600 3600 IUJO <1400 1.100 1,100 3.5.000 .!10 1.!OI
~ 3.! 640 NS <1400 1.1110 3301 3.200 311 <1100
bdc.ocl.uc.D)I'yIme NS NS NS <1400 2.2110 .!10 1.600 1901 341
NIp/IIIakIIe 340 2100 NS <1400 640 1101 1.200 ~ <1100
~ NS NS NS <1400 <1200 <1100 <1100 <1300 <2600
- 22.! 1310 1.390 <1400 1.600 1.- 29.000 . 210 BI <1100
~ 3.!0 2200 13.110 <1400 1,200 2.700 32.000 4.!O1 I.!OI
(arIkIJ
-- NS NS NS -2700 4940. 732. 36.!0 0 30600. 3320.
- 33 IS NS 2 3UN 9..5N 112N .!13N 21N
- .NS NS NS 14 22.6 8N' 1I4N' 291N' 37.1BN' 10A8N'
\IayUiaIII NS. NS NS NA cO.2O «120 cO.2O 0.718 <020
CodJIIium .5 .9 NS <2.1 0.768 1.3 1.1 0.168 0..!18 .
CIIciIIIII NS NS NS 310.000 239000 272IDI 343000 I.!.!OOO mooo
CIIromiuIII. TocoJ 10 14.1 NS IU 21.9 14.6 2O.J 61.1 12.0
~ NS NS NS <4.2 I.lJ08 MI8 0.14 8 2..!8 G.698
Copper 70 390 NS 16J 9.4 6.9 16.1 8.4 1.4
boo NS NS NS 1700 3160E 6.!6E 2140E 1.!600 E 2100E
Lead 3.5 110 NS II IS2 66.J 412 176 172
MapooiunI NS NS NS 1000 12.!O E 1000E 1310E 1110E 711 BE
"'- NS NS NS <29 .!6.IE IUE 27.oE 843E 11.3E
Na:d 30 .!O NS NA 3.98 <12 .5.18 1.1..5 4.18
- NS NS NS NA 6848 6IS8 9868 1018 6618
- NS NS NS 290J 3438 5308 69!8 4078 C208
V- NS NS NS .1.1 J 9.18 .538 12.7 38.1 12.1
Zi:Ic 120 270 NS 21J 3O.!E 68.6E 23.!E 1I2.8E 36.11E
AIllUlpksomlJml by-~ T.-. Florida.
<...- aopa::ifiod- - Dou QaIIificft forOrpoic Compou8dI DouQu8lifiea for 1oorpaic~
NA-...oniIIbIe I. -quuIiry 8. ROrIis... -- - ,.
~
II - Ocuoic ad AImoIpberic ."""'-v-., (NOAA) Toc:baIcoJ
Iootemcnodam NOS 0MA.l2; EIl-L a dfoo
(iL p...-II:d oo weial1l basis). To 8I1ow. diru:t ~
_«he ocdimcat dua ODd SQC. me SQC for.. orpa;c i:oJI>oG - of I.MOC
wm: c:akuIaUd. The SQC (ua/Ka) as 1')(, OC -- - by maJtjplyioa the SQC
(u;!KaOCJby 8IIOC_of 1')(,(.01 KaofOClKaof_).
., Orpnic: Catt>oa
Y As ToW 01I0nIane
-------
TABLE U
SUMMARY OF 00NS1111JEN'TS DETECI'ED III SI:I)IMI1a SAMI'Ia
SITE ss.I, MOTOR POOL on. LE.UC AREA
MONTGOMERY WATSON, B93
(
Aldrio NS NS NS NA <1.6 <2.7 <3.7 <18
AIpIa- NS NS NS NA <1.6 <2.7 <3.7 <18
~ 0.5(5) 6 NS NA <1.6 <2.7 <3.7 18J
-- NS NS NS NA <1.6 <2.7 <3.7 <18
~ 0.5(5) 6 NS NA <1.6 0.93 JP <3.7 26
_s..tr. NS NS NS NA <5.1 <5.2 <72 <35
--. om 45 NS NA <5.1 <5.2 <72 <35
fadriIo - NS NS NS NA UJ 3.01 <72 <35
IicJ>IdIor NS NS NS NA <1.6 <2.7 <3.7 <18
IicJ>IdIor EpaUIe NS NS NS NA <1.6 <2.7 <3.7 <18
~ NS NS NS NA <1.6 <2.7 <3.7 <18
p,p'.oDD 2 20 NS NA <1.6 <2.7 <3.7 63C
p,p'-DDE 2 I' NS NA . <1.1 O.94J 1.&1 220C
p,p' .oDT I 7 NS NA <5.1 I.6IP <72 190
BNA TCLc--.(~
2.~ NS NS NS <1400 <510 <520 <12JJ <100
2~ M 670 NS <1400 <510 <520 <12JJ <100
4.QIoro.3-~ NS NS NS <1400 <510 <520 <12JJ <100
~(P-CraoI) NS NS NS <1400 <510 <520 <12JJ <100
~ UO 650 7320 <1400 141 12J <12JJ <100
Aa:aapIIdIyIr:D NS NS NS <1400 <510 <520 <12JJ <100
- ., 960 NS <1400 3U 26J 241 32J
1IazcIe NS NS NS <1400 <510 <520 <12JJ <100
aa,...,. 400 2800 NS <1400 600 4101 230J 340J
Di-o&oyJ - NS NS NS <1400 '1 BI .29B1 6681 6181
Dihca:z(~ 60 260 NS <1400 <510 <520 <12JJ <100
Dibc:mIaf1InD NS NS NS <1400 (J <520 <12JJ <100
-11 PIIhaIaIe NS NS NS <1(00 <510 <520 <12JJ <100
- 600 3600 18.830 <1(00 630 '201 . 330J ~J
~ 3S 610 NS <1400 81 7J <720 22J
IIIdo8o( 1,2,3.CJ))PymIe NS NS NS <1400 ~ 3501 <12JJ au
NapIabaIme 30 2100 NS <1(00 <510 <520 <12JJ <100
I"eaIac:bIarop NS NS NS <1400 <1200 <1300 <1700 <1700
-- ~ 1380 1.390 <1400 I70BI 130J 1101 120J .
P)Iax 330 2200 13.110 <1(00 790 710 110J '30J
-(illite>
- NS NS NS 2700 5030. (670° 4160. 3450.
- 3) &5 NS 2 3.01'1 3.21'1 2.61'1 10.91'1
- NS NS NS 14 12.2 BN" 12.3 BN" 102 BN'" U.5BJo1O
BayIIiaIII NS NS NS NA <0.20 cO.2O <0.20 cO.2O
Cadmium ., 9 NS <2.1 0.918 0.918 <0..0 0.89 8'
0iIciam NS 'NS NS 310.000 29(000 309000 297000 216000
au-. TCIII 80 1(' NS 11J 23.5 212 12.2 17.6
Cobalt NS NS NS d.2 O.73B 0.418 0.56 8 cOAD
Copper 70 390 NS 161 7.1 7.8 2.98 17.3
Itao NS NS NS 1700 2300 £ 2440 E 2100E 2140E
Lad 3S 110 NS 11 12.5 6&.6 75.7 42.1
~ NS NS NS 1000 9708£ I060E 988 BE 1240£
r.taaa- NS NS NS <29 26.1£ U.6E 22.S E 7(.5£
Nid- B. -... b Ioa_CRQLIxa -_0:
... - GonrabIYa:MiIkr~ 8'C
-------
The pesticides heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide, alpha and beta endosulfan, endosulfate,
methoxychlor, endrin ketone, alpha-chlordane, beta-chlordane, and the DDT metabolites
p,p'-DDE and p,p'-DDD were detected in sediment samples at Site SS-8. Concentrations
of pesticides were below health based cleanup levels. No PCBs were detected in sediment
samples obtained during the 1993 investigation.
18 TAL metals (aluminum, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, calcium chromium,
cobalt, copper, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, nickel, potassium, sodium, vanadium
and zinc) were detected in sediment samples at Site SS-8 during the 1993 investigation.
Arsenic was detected in all sediment samples with concentrations exceeding background
soil levels and background sediment concentration in six samples. Lead was detected in
sediment samples ranging from 55.6 to 1600 mg/kg. Lead concentrations in the canal
surrounding the Motor Pool were lower in the 1993 samples when compared to 1991 .
levels. Sediment metals concentrations exceeded health based cleanup levels for lead and
arsemc. A summary of constituents detected in sediment samples from the 1993
investigation are presented in Table 2-8.
2.6.5
Surface Water Sample Analytical Results
. 2.6.5.1 Initial investigations (1991). In the samples collected in 1991, no VOCs
were detected. Only one BNA, DEHP, had a quantifiable concentration detected. DEHP is
a common laboratory contaminant and its presence may be due to laboratory conditions and
not representative of site conditions. A summary of the 1991 surface water analytical
results is presented in Table 2-9.
Mercury was detected in five of the seven samples (six sample locations plus one duplicate
sample) that were analyzed for mercury. Mercury concentrations ranged from less than
0.10 to 0.22 ~g/L. In three of the samples where mercury was detected, the concentrations'
were above the Federal Water Quality Criteria (FWQC) of 0.012 ~gIL and the Florida
Surface Water Guidance Criteria (FSWGC) of 0.012 ~gIL. Other inorganic constituents
detected in the surface water included: . aluminum, barium, calcium, copper, iron,
magnesium, potassium, sodium, and zinc. Aluminum was the only constituent detected
above the FSWGC or the FWQC.
2.6.5.2 1993 Investigation. Four surface water samples were collected at Site SS-8.
No VOCs were detected, as were no BNAs and no organochlorine pesticidesIPCB
19
-------
TABLEM
SUMMARY OF SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
SITRSS.8; MOTOR POOL OIL LEAK AREA
m;RAGHTY & MILLER,INC" 1991
HOMFB'fEAD ARB, FLORIDA
Florida Federal G&M Sample J.D. Trip mank SP2.nB-0004 SP2-SW-OOOl SP2.SW.OO02 SP2.SW.0003 SP2-SW-0004
Surface Water Water Savannah I.D. 35328-8 35394-5 35328.3 35328.5 35328-1 35328.2
Analyte Quality Quality Sampliug Date 8121191 8123191 8/21191 8/21191 8/21 191 8/21191
Standards Criterion
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS: (ug/L) II £lOt (2 not £IOL BOL £IDL £IDI..
BASFlNEUTRAL AND ACID
EXTRACTABLE COMPOUNDS: (uglL)
Benzoic acid NS NS 31 NA <25 <25 NA41 <25 <25
bis(2-Elhylhexyl) phthalate NS NS NA <5.0 <5.0 NA 71 140
BUlylbenzylphlhalale NS NS NA <5.n <5.0 NA <5.0 <10
2.Chlorophenol NS NS NA <5.0 10.34) NA <5.0 <5.n
Oi-n-bulylphlhalale NS NS NA <5.0 <5.0 NA 10.111 <5.0
INORGANIC CONSTITUENTS: (uWL)
Aluminum NS 87 <200 <200 NA <200 <200
Barium NS NS NA <10 13 NA 13 14
Calcium NS NS NA 150 100000 NA 93000 98000
Copper 30 2551 NA <2.0 2.1 J NA <2.0 <2.0 UJ
Iron 1000 1,000 NA <50 <50 NA <50 <50
1- Magnesium NS NS NA <50 3000 NA 2800 2900
[ Polassium NS NS NA <1000 6200 NA 57()() 6600
Sodiwn NS NS NA <500 13000 NA 12(X)() 12000
Zinc NS 223 51 NA <20 63 NA 270 23
Mercury 0.0\2 0.012 NA <0.\0 0.17 U NA 0.2\ U 0.13 U
Lead 30 9.751 NA <5 <5 <5 <5 <5
"\
-------
TABLE 2.9
SUMMARY OF SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
SITE 88.8, MOTOR POOL OIL LEAK AREA
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC., 1991
HOMESTEAD ARB, FLORIDA
CONTINUED
Annlyte
Aorida Federal G&M Sample 1.0.
Surface Water Waler Savannah J.D.
Quality. Quality Sampling Date
Standards Criterion
SI'2.SW.9004 SP2.SW.0005 SP2.SW.0006 SI'2.SW.oom SP2.SW.0008 SP2.SW.0009 SP2.SW.0010
35328.4 35328.7 35445.5 35328.6 35394.11 35394.1\ 35445.1\
8m 191 8121191 8/27191 8121191 8/23191 8123191 8/27191
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS: (ug/L)
BASFlNEUTRAL AND ACID
EXTRACTABLE COMPOUNDS: (uglL)
Benzoic acid
bis(2.Ethylhexyl) phthalate
BUlylbenzylphthalate
2.Chlorophenol
Di.n.butylphthalale
INORGANIC CONSTITUENTS: (ug/l,)
Aluminum
Harju!n
Calcium
Copper
Iron
Mugnesium
Potassi um
Sodium
, Zinc
Mercury
Lead
II
BDL
IIDL
BDL
IIDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
NS NS 31 10.611 NA' NA NA NA <25 <25
NS NS <5.0 NA NA NA NA <5.0 <5.0
NS NS <5.0 NA NA NA NA <5.0 (1.6)
NS NS 10.321 NA NA NA NA <5.0 <5.0
NS NS <5.0 NA NA NA NA <5.0 <5.0
NS 87 <200 NA NA NA NA 680 <200
NS NS 13 NA NA NA NA <10 <10
NS NS 97000 NA NA NA NA 191X)O 14000
30 2551 <2.0 NA NA NA NA <2.0 UJ <2.0 UJ
1000 1,000 <50 NA NA NA NA 720J <50
NS NS 2900 NA NA NA NA 450 410
NS NS 6400 NA NA NA NA
-------
TABLE 2-10
SUMMARY OF CONSTITUENTS DECTECTED IN SURFACE WATER SAMPLES
COLLECTED AT SITE SS.8 MOTOR POOL OIL LEAK AREA
. MONTGOMERY WATSON, 1993
florida Federal Sample ID SP2.SW.0011 snSW.OOI2 SnsW.OOI3 SP2-SW.9013 SP2-SW.OOI4
Surface Water Water Date Collected 3/14/93 3114/93 3114/93 3114/93 3/14/93
Quality Quality
AnoJyte Standards Criterion .. Duplicate
VOA TCL Compounds (ug/l)
Chloroform NS 28900 <10 <10 I J 1 J 1 J
PestiddelPC8 TCL Compounds (ug/l) ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
DNA TCL Compounds (ug/J) ...
Bis(2.Ethylhexyl) Phthalate <3000 <3000 <10 0.2J
-------
compounds. The metals barium, calcium, iron, magnesium, manganese, potassium,
sodium, and zinc were detected in surface water samples. Metals results are below state
and federal groundwater quality criteria and Rorida surface water quality criteria. Cyanide
was not detected in any of the 1993 surface waster samples. A summary of constituents
detected in surface water samples collected in 1993 are presented in Table ,2-10.
2.7
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
In order to evaluate whether existing or future exposure to contaminated media at Site SS-8
could pose a risk to people or the environment, USAF completed a BRA in July 1994,
. with USEP A oversight of this process. In estimating pOtential site risks, USAF assumed
no further action would be taken to address contamination at the site. This evaluation then
served as a baseline for detennining whether cleanup of each site media was necessary. In
the BRA, USAF evaluated site risks for several environmental media. This ROD addresses
the risks attributable to chemicals in the groundwater, soil and sediment at Site SS-8.
Sediment and surface water will also be addressed as part of OU-9, the site-wide canal
assessment. 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.
2.7.1
Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern
Samples collected at Site SS-8 indicated that groundwater contains semi-volatile organic
chemicals (SVOCs) and metals. Soils at the site contain VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, and
. .
metals.
Chemicals are included in the risk assessment as chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) if
the results of an initial screening indicate that the chemical might pose a current or future
risk above levels deemed protective of human health and the environment by the USEP A.
COPCs at Site SS-8 included all detected organic chemicals and inorganic chemicals that
are not human nutrients and are present at levels greater than twice the average background
concentrations. A concentration toxicity screen was performed to eliminate from
consideration chemicals that contributed less than I % of the total estimated risk in a given
,.
medium.
COPC for groundwater and soil are shown in Table 2-11.
20
-------
TABLE 2-11
COMPOUNDS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN IN ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA AT
SITE SS-8, MOTOR POOL OIL LEAK AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Affected Media
Constituent Soil
Groundwater Surface ' Subsurface
BNAs
Benzo(a)anthracene X X
Benzo(a)pyrene X X
Benzo(b )fluoranthene X X
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene X X
Benzo(k)fluoranthene X
Chrysene X X
Dibenzo(a.h)anthracene X X
Auoranthene X
Indeno( l,2,3-c,d)pyrene X X
Pyrene X' X
Metals
Aluminum X X
Arsenic X X
Barium X
Cadmium X
Calcium X
Chromium X X X
Cobalt X
Copper X
Iron X
Lead X X X
Manganese X X X
Mercury X
Nickel X
v anadium X X
BNAs
Base/Neutra:l and Acid Extractable Compounds
-------
2.7.2
Exposure Assessment
In the exposure assessment, USAF considered ways in which people could come into
contact with contaminated media under both current and future conditions. A critical step in
assessing the potential risk to public health is to identify the pathways through which
exposure to chemicals could occur. A typical transport pathway consists of four necessary
elements: 1) a source and mechanism of chemical release; 2) an environmental transport
medium; 3) a point of potential contact with the contaminated medium; and 4) exposure
routes (inhalation of vapors, ingestion of groundwater, etc.). All four of these elements
must be present for a pathway to be complete.
2.7.2.1 Exposure Point Concentrations. the exposure point concentration for each
contaminant was derived using the 95 percent upper confidence limit (UC45) on the
arithmetic mean as defined by the following fonnula:
(- [s2 sH ]J
UCL95 =e x+ "2+ -,In-l
where:
x = arithmetic mean of the log-transfonned data
s = standard deviation of the log-transfonned data
H = statistical parameter
UCL = Upper Confidence Limit
Often, with limited data sets, the UC45 is higher. than the maximum detected
concentration. If so, the maximum concentration detected was used as the exposure point
concentration rather than the UC45. Exposure 'point concentration for groundwater,
surface soil, and subsurface soil are presented in Tables 2-12, 2-13, and 2-14,
respectively.
2.7.2.2 Land Use. Hypothetical future use of the site for residential purposes in
unlikely. However, for the purposes of the baseline risk assessment, the hypothetical
future risks were evaluated for the possibility of future residential development of the site
and installation of a potable well.
,.
21
-------
TAULE 2.12
EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS FOR GROUNDWATER
SITE SS-8 WORMERLY SP.2) MOTOR POOL OIL LEAK AREA
. HOMESTEAD AIR RESERVE BASI~
Geraghty & Miller Montgomery Watson.
Samples Collected Samples Collected
1990-1991 1993 G&M MW Value Used
Constituent No. Samples No. Samples Total No. Samples UClA II Max[ll --- Maxnr- In Calculation
Collected & A vI;. Collected A veral;ed 1990-93
METALS (Jlg/L)
Chromium 2 3 4.52E+12 240 3.6 240
Manganese 2 3 2. \3E+20 320 22.2 320
Mercury 2 3 .11.64 0.32 0.1 0.32
Nickel 2 3 1.20E+08 80 6.4 80
Vanadium 2 3 7.16E+13 120 7.6 120
Lead 2 3 3.76E+08 20 1.5 20
Note: VCLs based on the 95 percent VCL of the arithmetic average of the log-transformed data.
VCL Upper Confidence Limit
J1glL micrograms per Liter
Not Detected
(1) VCLs are used as exposure point concentrations unless calculation produces a VCL greater than the maximum detected concentration.
in which case the maximum detected concentration is used. This UCL value is for the combined sample sets.
....
-------
TAULE 2-13
EXPOSURE POINT CONCRNTRATIONS FOR SURI~ACE SOIL
SITE SS-8 (FORMERLY SP-2) MOTOR POOL OIL LEAK AREA
HOMESTEAD AIR RESERVE BASE
Constituent
Geraghty & Miller Montgomery Watson
Samples Collected Samples Collected
1990.1991 1993 MW Value Used
No. Samples --- No. Samples Total No. Samples -
UCL[1] Maxlt] In Calculation
Collected & A vg. Collected Averaged 1990-93
5 5 1.62E+08 3,700 3,700
5 5 1.94E+09 5,300 5,300
5 5 6.0IE+13 5,800 5,800
5 5 9.57E+08 3,800 3,800
5 5 1.20E+13 4,500 4,500
[No soil samples collected in 1990-1991) 5 5 8.74E+08 5,200 5,200
5 5 3.86E+03 1.000 1,000
5 5 6.94E+ 16 5,100 5,100
5 5 3.13E+08 3,200 3,200
5 5 4.32E+12 5,800 5,800
"NAS (UI!/kl!)
Benzo(a)anthracene.
Bcnzo(a)pyrene
Bcnzo(b )l1uoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylelie
Benzo(k)l1uoranthenc
Chrysene
Dibenzo( a,h)anthracene
FIuoranthene
Ideno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
Pyrene
METALS (ml!/kl!)
Arsenic
Chromium
Lead
Manganese
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5 .
6.24
27.0
999.0
45.5
2.4
15.9
92.4
42.9
2.4
15.9
92.4
42.9
Note: UCL~ based on the 95 percent UCL of the arithmetic average of the log-transformed data.
UCL Upper Confidence Limit
Ilg/L micrograms per Liter
Not Detected .
[I) UCLs are used as exposure point concentrations unless calculation produces a UCL greater than the maximum detected concentration,
in which case the maximum detected concentration is used.
'\.
-------
TABLE 2-14
EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS FOR SUBSURFACE SOIL
SITE SS-8 (FORMERLY SP.Z) MOTOR POOL OIL LEAK AREA
HOMESTEAD AIR RESERVE DASE
Constituent
Geraghty & Miller Montgomery Wal'ion
Samples Collected Samples Collected
199Q.1991 1993 MW Value Used
No. Samples No. Samples Total No. Samples UCL(I) .----.----.. --....
Max(l\ In Calculation
Collected & A vg. Collected Averaged 1990-93
5 5 7.4 I E+04 3,200 3,200
5 5 7.36E+07 5,500 5,500
5 5 4.67E+12 7,000 7,000
5 5 1.1 OE+08 4,300 4,300
[No soil samples collected in 1990-1991] 5 5 3.62E+05 5,600 5,600
5 5 9.69E+04 1,200 1,200
5 5 4.43E+07 3,300 3,300
5 5 3.59E+1O 6,500 6,500
UNAS (ul!/kl!)
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)lluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Chrysene
Dibenzo( a,h)amhraccnc
Indcno(I,2,3-c,d)pyrcne
Pyrenc
METALS (mg/kg)
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Vanadium
5 5 4.78 3 3
5 5 19.5 15.7 15.7
5 5 0.50 0.55 0.5
5 5 38.3 19./i 19.6
5 5 1030 8.6 8.6
5 5 9.01E+04 120 120
5 5 108.8 57.8 57.8
7.39E+OO 7.3 7.3
Note: VCLs based on the 95 percent VCL of the arithmetic average of the log-LTansformed data.
UCL Upper Confidence Limit. .
~glL micrograms per Liter
Not Detected .
[1) UCLs are used as exposure point concentrations unless calculation produces a UCL greater than the maximum detected concenuation,
in which case Ihe maximum detected concenrration is used.
"\.
'.
-------
TABLE 2-15
EQUATIONS AND SAMPLE CALCULATIONS FOR HYPOTHETICAL FUTURE
POT ABLE GROUNDWATER EXPOSURE AT
SITE SS-8, MOTOR POOL OIL LEAK AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Equation Definition:
where:
AP
BW
CSFo
. Cgw
ELCR
EF
GWExD
HQ
IR
RfDo
GWExD =
C~ x IR x EF
BW x AP
ELCR
GWExD x CSFo
GWExD
.RfDo
=
HQ
=
Averaging period (25,550 days/lifetime [365 days/yr for 70 years] for
carcinogenic effects; 10,950 days/lifetime [365 days/yr for 30 years] for non-
carcinogenic effects (USEP A, 1989a).
Body weight (70 kg) (USEPA, 1991a).
Cancer slope factor for oral exposure (mg/kg-day)-l (Table 3-3).
Concentration in ground water (mg/L) (lesser of 95 percent upper confidence li.mit
. on the aritlimetic mean or the maximum detected concentration) (Table 4-2).
Excess lifetime cancer risk. .
Exposure frequency (10,500 days/lifetime [350 days/year for 30 years]) (USEPA,
1991a).
Potable ground-water exposure dose (mg/kg-day).
Hazard quotient. .
Ingestion rate - drinking water (2 liters/day) (USEPA, 1991a).
Reference dose for oral exposure (mg/kg-day) (Table 3-2). .
Sample Calculation - chromium. cancer effects
GWExD
ELCR
= (0.24 mgfL) x (2 Udav) x 00.500 davs/Jifetime)
(70 kg) x (25,550 days/lifetime)
= 2.8E-03 mg/kg-day
= Not calculated because chromium is carcinogenic through
inhalation only
"
-------
1----
TABLE 2-15 (continued)
EQUATIONS AND SAMPLE CALCULATIONS FOR HYPOTHETICAL FUTURE
POT ABLE GROUNDWATER EXPOSURE AT
SITE 8S-8, MOTOR POOL OIL LEAK AREA
Homestead Air Force Base, Florida
Sample Calculation - chromium. non-cancer effects
GWExD =
(0.24 mgIL) x (2 Uday) x 00.500 daysnifetime)
(70 kg) x (10,950 days/lifetime)
6.6E-03 mg/kg-day
=
HQ
=
6.6E-03 mg/kg-dav
5E-03 mg/kg-day
1.3E+00
=
,.
-------
TABLE 2-16
EQUATIONS AND SAMPLE CALCULATIONS FOR SURFACE SOIL EXPOSURE AT
SITE S8-8, MOTOR POOL OIL LEAK AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
SExDo
Equation Definitions:
SExDd
SExDj
ELCR
HQ
where:
ABS
AP
BR
BW
Cs
Cs TEF
CSFn
CSFj
CSFo
ED
EF
ELCR .
=
C~~TEF) x IR x EF x ED x UCL(I)
BW x AP
=
C~ x SSA x SAR x ABS x EF x ED x UCL(I}
BW x AP
=
C~.i.2LC.s TEF) x BR x ET x EF x ED x RF x (1-G) x (W IUt )3 x.J:(x) (particulates)
BW x AP x Q/C x UC2
or
=
~~ TEF) x BR x ET x H x EF It ED x 2 x Dei x Pa x UCsLKL (vapors) (2)
BW X AP x Q/C x (3.1416 x alpha x ED x UC3)1/2 x UC4
(SExDo x CSFo) + (SExDd x CSFa) + (SExDjx CSFj)
=
(SExDJRIDo) + (SExDdIRIDa) + (SExD/RIDj)
Dennal absorption efficiency, constituent-specific (from Table 3-1).
Averaging period (equal to ED x 365 days/year for non-cancer effects: 25,550 days [70 years x 365 days/year] for cancer effects) (USEPA,
1989a). . . .
Breathing rate (0.83 m3fhour (20 m3fday] for residents (USEPA, 199Ia]; 2.5 m3fhour for base worker [USEPA, 1989b\).
Body weight {70 kg for adults; 15 kg for a young child (aged 0 to 6 years]) (USEPA, 1991 a). '
Constituent concentration in the soil (mg/kg) (from Table 4-3).
Constituent concentration in the soil (mglkg) (from Tablc 4-3) multiplied by toxicity equivalency factors (TEFs). TEFS have been applied
to constituent concentrations based on each compounds relative potency to the potency of benzo(a)pyrcne.
Cancer slope factor for dennal exposure. adjusted for absorbed dose.(mg/kg-day)-I (Table 3-4).
Cancer slope factor for inhalation exposure (mg/kg-day)-l (Table 3-3).
Cancer slope factor for oral exposure (mg/kg-day)-I (Table 3-3). .
Exposure duration (25 years for base worker; 24 years for an adult resident; 6 years for a child resident (aged 0 to 6 years)) (USEPA, 1991a).
Exposure frequency (350 days/year for residents (USEPA. 1991a]; 12 days/year (I day/month for 12 months per year] for a base worker).
Excess lifetime cancer risk (unitless). . .
-------
TABLE 2-16 (continued)
EQUATIONS AND SAMPLE CALCULATIONS FOR SURFACE SOIL EXPOSURE AT
. SITE SS-8, MOTOR POOL OIL LEAK AREA
. Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
. ET
H
HQ
IR
RlDa
RlDj
RlDo
SAR
SExDd
SExDj
SExDo
SSA
F(x)
G.
RF
UCt
UC2
Ut
Q/C
Exposure time (I hour/day for abase worker; 24 hours/day for residents).
Henry's Law Constant (atm-m3/mol; constituent specific) (Table 3-6).
Hazard quotient (unitless):.. .
Incidental ingestion rate for soil (50 mg/day for workers; tOO mg/day for an adult resident; 200 mg/day for a child resident [aged 0 to 6
years]) (USEPA, 1991a). .
Reference dose for dennal exposure. adjusted for absorbed dose (mg/kg-day) (Table 3-4).
Reference dose for inhalation exposure (mg/kg-day) (Table 3-2). .
Reference dose for oral exposure (mg/kg-day) (Table 3-2).
Soil adherence rate (1 mg/cm2-day) (USEPA. 1992c).
Soil exposure dose from dennal contact (mg/kg-day).
Soil exposure dose from inhalation of particulates or vapors from soil (mg/kg-day).
Soil exposure dose from incidental ingestion (mg/kg-day).
Exposed skin surface area (3,160 cm2 for adult resident and base worker [USEPA, 1991 al; 3.652 cm2 for child resident [aged 0 to 6 years)
[USEPA. 1989bJ).
Unitlcss function dependent on W/Ut (0.0497)
Fraction of vegetative cover (unitless) (0)
Respirable fraction of dust (0.036 g/m2-hr)
Unit conversion (10-6 kg/mg). . .
Unit conversion 2 (3.600 sec/l'n) .
Equivalent threshold windspeed at a height of 10 meters (12.8 m/sec) .
Emission flux per unit concentration (g/m2.sec/kg/m3); calculaled as [ollows:
Q/C = exp(Y + 2.92s(y»-1
Y = 0.1004X - 5.3466
(X - 11.0509)2 .
s(Y) = 0.02685 x (0.25 + 26.3608 )
X Naturallogari!hm of !he contiguaous area of contamination in 012 (8.02) (based on one fourth of a three-acre contaminated'
area being free of structures) .
'\.
,.
-------
TABLE 2-16 (continued)
EQUATIONS AND SAMPLE CALCULATIONS FOR SOIL EXPOSURE AT
SITE SS-3 (FORMER SP-7), AIRCRAFT W ASHRACK AREA
Homestead Air Reserve--Base, Florida
alpha
beta
Dei
Dj
Pa
Pt
roe
theta
UC3
UC4
UCs
Convenient collection of variables (cm2/sec); calculated as follows:
Dei x P a
alpha = Fa + [roc x (I-Fa) x Kd/(UCS x H»)
Soil bulk density (1.5 gtcm3)
Effective diffusivity (cm2/sec); calculated as follows:
Dei = Di(Pa3.33/Pt2)
Chemical-specific diffusivity in air (cm2/sec)
Air-lilled porosity (unitless); calculated as follows:
Pa = Pt - (theta x beta) -
Total soil porosity (unitless); calculated as follows:
Pt = 1 - (beta/roe)
Soil particulate density (2.65 g/cm3) -
Average soil mosilure content (0.1 cm3 waler/gram of soil)
Unit conversion 3 (31,500.000 sec/yr)
Unit conversion 4 (0.0001 m2/cm2)
Unit conversion 5 (41 mol/alm-m3) (Hwang and Falco, 1986)
...
-------
TABLE 2-16 (continued)
EQUATIONS AND SAMPLE CALCULATIONS FOR SURFACE SOIL EXPOSURE AT
SITE SS-8, MOTOR POOL OIL LEAK AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Sample Calculation - benzo(a)pyrene. cancer effects. base worker (mowing scenario):
(5.3 mglkg) x (50 mg/day) x (52 days/yr) x (25 yrs) x (IO~6 kg/mg)
(70 kg) x (25.550 days)
SExDo =
=
SExDd =
SExDj (3)
(Particulate)
ELCR
1.9 X 10-7 mg/kg-day
(5.3 O1~/k~) x (3.160 c012) x (1 O1~/c012-day) x m.Olh (52 days/yr) x (25 yrs) x (lO:.6k~/mg)
(70 kg) x. (25.550 days)
1.2 X 10-7 mg/kg-day
mg m1 hrs days. 9 m m 3
5.3-x2.5-xl-x52-x25yrs x 0.036 2 x(l-O)x(4-112.8-) xO.0497
kg hr day yr m - hr sec sec
g .
2 see
70 kg x25.500daysx89.5 m j;see x3.600-
g Itr
m1
=
1.6 x 10-12 mg/kg-day
=
[(1.9 x 10-7 mg/kg-day) x (7.5 kg-day/mg») + [(1.2 x 10-7 mg/kg-day) x (6.6 kg-day/mg)1 +
[(1.6 x 10-12 mg/kg-day) x (7.5 kg-day/mg)]
2.2 x 10-6
=
"
-------
TABLE 2-16 (continued)
EQUATIONS AND SAMPLE CALCULATIONS FOR SOIL EXPOSURE AT
SITE SS-3 (FORMER SP-7), AIRCRAFT W ASHRACK AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
SExDo
Sample Calculation - manganese. noncancer effects. future child resident:
SExDd
SExDi
( p'articu/me)
HQ
=
(42.9 mg/kg) x (200 mg/day) x 050 days/yr) x (6 yrs) x (l0-6..kg[mg)
(I5 kg) x (2,190 days)
5.5 x 10-4 mg/kg-day
(42.9 mg/kg) x (3.652 cm2) x Omg/cm2-day) x (0.001) x (350 days/yr) x (6 yrs) x (l0-6..kglmg1
(15 kg) x (2,190 days)
\.0 x 10-5 mg/kg-day
=
=
=
=
mg m3 hrs days g m m
42.9-xO.83-x24-x350..,.--x6yrs x 0.036~x(1 ~O)x(4- / 12.8-i xO.0497
kg hr day yr m - hr sec sec
g
2 -' sec
15kg x2, \90daysx89.5 m k/cC x3.600J;
m)
=
9.3 x 10-9 mg/kg-day
5.5 x 1O-4mglkg-day
0.10 mg/kg-day
+
1.0 x W-5mg/kg-day
5.0 x 10.3 mg/kg-day
+
9.3 x 1O-9mglkg-dav
1.1 x 10-4 mg/kg-day
=
=
7.6 x 10.3
(I) This equation as presented in Risk Assessment Guidance Volume I (USEPA.1989)
(2) This equation as prescnted in RAGs Volume I. modified t~ estimate air concentrations
based on soil concentrations. .
"
(3) Calculations not performed for vapors due to absence of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) atlhis site.
I
-------
TABLE 2-17
EQUATIONS AND SAMPLE CALCULATIONS FOR HYPOTHETICAL FUTURE CONSTRUCTION WORKER
FOR SOIL EXPOSURE AT
SITE S8-8, MOTOR POOL OIL LEAK AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Sample Calculation - arsenic. cancer effects. construction worker. subsurface soil:
SExDo =
=
SExDj =
=
ELCR =
=
(3 mglkg) x (480 fig/day) x (250 days/yr) It (I vr) x (l0.6..kgfmg)
(70 kg) x (25.550 days)
2.0 x 10.7 mg/kg-day
(3 mglkg) x (5 mglml) x (2.5 m3/hr) x (8 hr/d!\y) x (250 days/yr) x (I yr) x OO~ kg/mg)
(70 kg) x (25.550 days) .
4.2 x \0.8 mg/kg-day
[( 2.0 x ]0.7 mg/kg-day) x (1.75 kg-day/mg)] + [(4.2 x ]0.8 mg/kg-day) x (5.0 x 10+1 kg-day/mg)]
2.4 x 10.6
Sample Calculation - benzo(~.h.i)perylene. noncancer effects. construction worker. surface soil:
.
SExDo =
=
SExDj =
=
HQ
=
(3.8 mglkg) x (480 fig/day) x (250 days/yr) x (\ yr) x (l0~Jsg[mgl
(70 kg) x (365 days) .
1.8 x 10-5 mg/kg-day
0.8 mglkg) x (5.0 m~) x (2.5 ml/hr) x (8 hrs/day) it. (250 days/yr) x (l yr) x 00-2 cmlfml}
(70 kg) x (365 days) .
3.7 x 10-6 mg/kg-day
1.8 x 10.5mglk2-day
3.0 x 10-2 mg/kg-day
+
3.7 x 1O.6mglkg-day
1.0 x 10-2 mglkg-day
9.7 x 10-4
'I.
-------
TABLE 2-17
EQUATIONS AND SAMPLE CALCULATIONS FOR HYPOTHETICAL FUTURE CONSTRUCTION WORKER
FOR SOIL EXPOSURE AT
SITE SS-8, MOTOR POOL OIL LEAK AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Equation Definitions:
where:
AP
BR
BW
Cs'
CSFj
CSFo
ED
EF
ELCR
ET
HQ
.IR
RlDj
RlDo
SExDj
SExDo
SPM
UCI
UC3
UC4
SExDo =
SExDj =
ELCR =
C~ x IR x EF x ED x UCl
BW x AP
C~ x SPM x BR x ET x EF x ED x UCI
BW x AP
(SEx Do x CSFo) + (SExDj x CSFj)
HQ
(SExDJRID) + (SExDj/RlDi)
=
Averaging period (equal to ED x 365 days/year for non-cancer effects; 25,550 days [70 years x 365 days/year] for cancer effects) (USEPA,
1989a).
Breathing rate (2.5 m3fhour [20 m3/day] for construction workers [USEP A, 1991 a].
Body weight (70 kg for adults (USEPA, 1991a). .
Constituent concentration in the s6il (mg/kg) (from Table 4-4).
Cancer slope factor for inhalation exposure (mglkg-day)-I (Table 3-3).
Cancer slope factor for oral exposure (mg/kg-day)-I (Table 3-3).
Exposure duration (1 year for a construction workcr)(USEPA, 1991a).
Exposure frequency (250 days/year for a construction worker).
Excess lifetime cancer risk (unilless).
Exposure time (8 hour/day for a construction worker;).
Hazard quotient (unitless).
Incidental ingestion rate for soil (480 mg/day for construction workers) (USEPA, 1991a).
Reference dose for inhalation exposure (mg/kg-day) (Table 3-2); subchronic value used if available.
Reference dose for oral exposure (mg/kg-day) (Table 3-2); subchronic value used if available.
Soil exposure dose from inhalation of particulates or vapors from soil (mglkg-day).
Soil exposure dose from incidental ingestion (mglkg-day). .
Suspended particulate matter (5 mg/m3) (OSHA).
Unit conversion (10-6 kg/mg). .
Unit conversion 3 (106 cm3/m3).
. Unit'"conversion 4 (103 g/kg).
-------
2.7.2.3 Exposure Scenarios. Potential cUITent risks at the site were evaluate based
on a base worker accessing the site for job-related duties. Hypothetical future risks at the
site were evaluated based upon the following exposure scenarios: groundwater ingestion
by a hypothetical future adult resident; soil exposure by hypothetical future adult and child
residents; and, soil exposure by hypothetical future construction workers. Risks were
evaluated based on conservative use of Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME)
assumptions.
The exposure assumptions for each pathway are provided in Tables 2-15, 2-16, and 2-17.
Based on the exposure point concentrations derived from site data for the chemicals shown
in Table 2-11 and using the exposure assumptions identified in Tables 2-15, 2-16, and
2-17, USEPA estimated the chronic daily intake (CDI) associated with each exposure
pathway and population combination. The fonnulas used to calculate the CD! for each
pathway are provided in Tables 2-15,2-16, and 2-17.
2.7.3
Toxicity Assessment
The toxicity assessment evaluated possible harmful effects of exposure to each COPe. A
number of chemicals found at the site, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PARs), arsenic, chromium and lead have ~e potential to cause cancer (carcinogenic).
Slope factors (SFs) have been developed by USEP As Carcinogenic Assessment Group for
estimating lifetime cancer risks associated with exposure to potentially carcinogenic
compounds. These SFs, which are expressed in units of (mg/kg/day)-l are multiplied by
the estimated CD! of a potential carcinogen to provide an upper bound estimate of the
excess lifetime cancer risk associated with exposure at that intake level. The term "upper
bound" reflects the conservative estimate of the risks calculated from the SF.. Use of this
approach makes underestimation of the actual cancer risk highly unlikely. Slope factors are
derived from results of human epidemiological studies or chronic animal bioassays to
which animal-to-human extrapolation and uncertainty factors have been applied. The SFs
for the carcinogenic contaminants of concern are contained in Table 2-18.
As an interim procedure until more defmitive Agency guidance is established. Region IV
has adopted a toxicity equivalency factor (TEF) methodology for evaluating the
carcinogenic risk from PAHs. This methodology relates the relative potency of each ,.
individual carcinogenic PAH to the potency of benzo(a)pyrene, the most carcinogenic
P AH. The TEFs for the P AHs are also presented in Table 2-18.
22
-------
TABLE 2-18
ADJUSTED TOXIOTY V ALVES USED TO ASSESS DERMAL EXPOSURE AT
SITE SS-8, MOTOR POOL OIL LEAK AREA
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Oral Toxicity Values Oral Dermal Toxicity Values
Absorption (Adjusted Oral)
Constituent RIDo Source CSFo Source Efficiency Source RIDa CSFa
BNAs
Benzo(a)anthracene 1.0E-02 a 7.3E+OO d 0.90 e .9.0E-03 NAP
Benzo(a)pyrene 1.0E-02 a 7.3E+OO c 0.90 e 9.0E-03 NAP
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.0E-02 a 7.3E+OO d 0.90 e 9.0E-03 NAP
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 3.0E-02 b NA 0.90 e 2.7E-02. NA
Benzo(k)fl uoranthene 1.0E-02 a 7.3E+OO d 0.90 e 9.0E-03 NAP
CJuysene I.OE-02 a 7.3E+OO d 0.90 e 9.0E-03 NAP
Dibenzo( a,h)anthracene 1.0E-02 a 7.3E+OO d 0.90 e 9.0E-03 NAP
Fl uoranthene 4.0E-02 c NA . 0.90 e 3.6E-02 NA
Indeno( l,2,3-c,d)pyrene I.OE-02 a 7.3E+OO d 0.90 e 9.0E-03 NAP
. Pyrene 3.0E-02 c NA 0.90 e 2.7E-02 NA
Metals
Aluminum NA c NA c 0.02 e NA NA
Arsenic 3.0E-04 c 1.75E+OO c 0.95 e 2.9E-04 1.8E+OO
Barium 7.0E-02 c NA c 0.05 e 3.5E-03 ~A
. ':admium (food) [b] 1.0E-03 c. NAP c 0.06 e 6.0E-05 NA
..:admium (water) 5.0E-04 c NAP c 0.06 e 3.0E-05 NA
Calcium NA NA NA NA NA
Chromium 5.0E-03 c NAP c 0.05 e 2.5E-04 NA
Cobalt NA NA 0.30 e NA NA
Copper [c] 3.7E-02 c NA c 0.60 e 2.2E-02 NA
Iron NA c NA c 0.15 e NA NA
Lead NA c NA c 0.08 e NA NA
Manganese 1.0E-Ol c NA c 0.05 e 5.0E-03 NA
Mercury 3.0E-04 c NA c 0.95 e 2.9E-04 NA
Nickel 2.0E-02 NA 0.06 e 1.2E-03 NA
Vanadium 7.0E-03 c NA .c 0.01 e 7.0E-05 NA.
[a] The RID for food should be used for soil exposure.
[b] Based on current drinking water standard.
CSFa Adjusted cancer slope factor (mg/kg/day)J\-1.
CSFo Oral cancer slope factor (mg/kg/day)I\-1.
NA Not available.
NAP Not applicable. Carcinogenic only by inhalation route.
RIDa Adjusted reference dose (mg/kg/day).
RIDo Oral reference dose (mg/kglday).
a Environ, 1986.
b Inferred from pyrene. ,-
c USEPA Integrated Risk Information System (1993).
d USEPA Region 4 TEF guidance (USEPA, 1992b)
BaP (USEPA, 1992b).
See Table 3-1.
-------
Other COPCS, including other PAHs and metals, may cause health problems other than
cancer. Reference doses (RIDs) have been developed by USEPA for indicating the
potential for adverse health effects from exposure to contaminants of concern exhibitirig
noncarcinogenic effects. RIDs, which are expressed in units of mglkglday, are estimates
of lifetime daily exposure levels for humans, including sensitive individuals, that are
believed to be safe by USEP A. RIDs are derived from human epidemiological studies or
animal studies to which uncertainty factors have been applied (e.g., to account for the use
of animal data to predict effects on humans). Estimated intakes of COPCs from
contaminated media can be compared to their respective RIDs.. The RIDs for the
noncarcinogenic contaminants of concern are also provided in Table 2-18.
2.7.4
Risk Characterization
The centerpiece of the BRA is the risk characterization, which combines the other
components of the evaluation to estimate the overall risk from exposure to site
contamination.
In summary, the results of the BRA indicate that human health risks associated with
potential future scenarios at Site SS-8 slightly exceed USEPAs target risk range for
protection of human health.
2.7.4.1 Carcinogenic Risk. For cancer-causing compounds, risk is a probability
that is expressed in scientific notation. For example an excess lifetime cancer risk of
IxlO-6 means that an individual has an additional I in 1,000,000 chance of developing
cancer as a result of site-rel~ exposure over an estimated 70 year lifetime. USEPA has
established a target risk range for DOD and Superfund cleanups of between Ix 10-4 (1 in
. 10,000) and IxlO-6.
The formula used for calculating cancer risks is shown below:
Risk = CDI x SF
where:
Risk = a unitless probability of an individual developing cancer
CDI = chronic daily intake averaged over 70 years (mg/kglday)
SF = slope factor, expressed as (mglkglday)-I
23
,.
-------
Potential current total site risk for an on-site worker (e.g., a mower exposed to soils results
in a total site excess lifetime cancer risk of 6.1 xl 0-6. The excess lifetime cancer risks for
an hypothetical future construction worker were 1.4xHf5 and 1.8x10-5 for swface and
subsurface soils respectively.
The excess lifetime cancer risk for a hypothetical future adult resident exposed to
groundwater at the site was not calculated because none of the COPCs in groundwater are
considered carcinogenic via the ingestion exposure route. The excess lifetime cancer risk
for an adult resident exposed to soils at the site is 4.5xlo-5. The excess lifetime cancer risk
for an hypothetical future child resident is 1.2xl0-4, slightly above the upper end for the
risk range deemed protective of human health by the USEP A.
2.7.4.2 Hazards Due to Non-carcinogenic Chemicals. For compounds which
cause toxic effects other than cancer, USEP A compared the exposure point concentration of
a contaminant found at the site with a reference dose representing the maximum amount of
a chemical a person could be exposed to without experiencing harmful effects. The ratio of
the average daily intake to the reference dose is called a hazard quotient (HQ). The formula
for calculation the HQ is shown below:. .
Noncancer HQ = CDIIRfD
where:
CD! = chronic daily intake
RID = reference dose
CDI and RID. are expressed in the same uni~ (mglkglday) and represent the same exposure
period (i.e., generally chronic, but also subchronic or short-term).
The hazard index (HI) can be generated by adding the HQs for all contaminants of concern
that affect the same target organ (such as the liver) within a medium or across all media to
which a given population may reasonably be exposed. In general, USEP A considers an HI
of 1.0 to be the maximum acceptable hazard.
The hazard index for a current base worker is 0.002. The hazard indices for a future
construction worker exposed to surface and subsurface soils are above the USEP A risk
benchmark, 3 and 4 respectively.
24
-------
" -
The non-cancer hazard index (HI) for hypothetical future adult resident exposure to
groundwater (3.7) is above the USEPA risk benchmark of 1. Hypothetical future hazards
for residents exposed to soils (both an adult and a young child [aged 0 to 6 years]) are at or
below the USEP A risk benchmarks (0.03 and 0.2 for the adult and child respectively).
2.7.4.3 Total Risk. The total site risk for hypothetical future resident exposure is
obtained by summin~ all of the residential exposures considered in the risk assessment
groundwater ingestion by an adult resident. soil exposure by child (6 year period) and adult
(24 year period) residents. The combined risk across these on-site exposure media
(groundwater and soils) for a hypothetical future resident results in a total site excess
lifetime cancer risk of 1.6xl Q-4 and an HI of 3.9. The total hypothetical future site risk for
the construction worker is equivalent to the risk estimates calculated for the future
construction worker exposed to surface and subsurface soils for ingestion and inhalation
exposure routes. The cancer risk estimates are 3.2xlO-5 and the HI is 7.0 for surface soils
and subsurface soils. combined.
2.7.4.4 Risk from Lead Exposure. Based on the Integrated Exposure
UptakelBiokinetic (TEUBK) model for lead. hypothetical future sensitive receptors
(children age 0 to 6 years) exposed to soils at Site SS-8 would not have blood lead levels
that exceed 10 micrograms per deciliter (J.lg/(iL) (the blood concentration of concern
identified by the CDC') assuming exposure to site concentrations of lead in soil and
groundwater.
2.7.5
Chemicals of Concern and Remedial Goal Options
Chemicals of concern (COCs) contribute significantly to a use scenario for a receptor that
(a) exceeds a 1()4 total carcinogenic risk; (b) exceeds an HI of 1; or (c) exceeds a state or
federal chemical specific ARAR. Chemicals need not be included if their individual
carcinogenic risk contribution is less than lxlQ-6 or their non-carcinogenic HQ is less than
0.1. The COCs in groundwater at Site SS-8 are chromium and manganese. The COCs in
soil are manganese and. to a much lesser extent, PARs.
Remedial Goal Options (RGOs) are risk-based cleanup levels. They are developed by
,.
combining the intake levels to each chemical by a receptor from all appropriate routes of
1 CDC (1991) Preventing Lead Poisoning in Young Children.
Centers for Disease Control. October 1991.
A statement by the
25
-------
TABLE 2-19
RISK-BASED REMEDIAL GOAL OPTIONS
HYPOTHETICAL FUTURE ADULT RESIDENT AT
SITE 88-8, MOTOR POOL OIL LEAK AREA
GROUNDWATER (mgIL)
SITE SPECIFIC REMEDIAL SITE SPECIFIC REMEDIAL
GOAL OPTIONS GOAL OPTIONS EPA Florida
HAZARD INDEX . CARCINOGENIC RISK Maximum Drinking
COMPOUNDS Contamlnat Water
0.1 1.0 10.0 lE-06 IE-OS lE-04 Level Standard
Chromium 2E-2 2E-l 2E+0 2E-l 2E+0 2E+l 1 E-Ol 0.1 (a)
Manganese 2E-2 2E-l 2E+0 NAP NAP NAP NS .050 (b)
NAP - Not Applicable. The constiuent is not a carcinogen via oral exposure.
NS - No Standard. .
(a) - Florida Primary Drinking Water Standard (mg/L).
(b) - Florida Secondary Drinking Water Standard (mg/L).
(c) - Final Action Level- The final lead action level is exccede if the level of lead/copper is more than 10 percent.
"
-------
.T ABLE 2-20
RISK-BASED SITE SPECIFIC REMEDIAL GOAL OPTIONS
AND FDEP SOIL TARGET LEVELS
HYPOTHETICAL CURRENT BASE WORKER (MOWING SCENARIO) AT .
SITE SS-8, MOTOR POOL OIL LEAK AREA
SOIL (mglkg)
SITE SPECIFIC REMEDIAL FDEP SITE SPECIFIC REMEDIAL FDEP
GOAL OPTIONS Soil Target Levels GOAL OPTIONS Soil Target Levels
HAZARD INDEX Based on a Hazard CARCINOGENIC RISK Based on an Excess
COMPOUNDS Index of 1 Cancer Risk of
0.1 1.0 10.0 lE-06 IE-OS lE-04 lE-06
Manganese 6E+4 6E+S 6E+6 SE+3 NA NA NA ND
NA - Not Applicable
NO - Not Oetennined
-------
TABLE 2.21
RISK-BASED SITE SPECIFIC REMEDIAL GOAL OPTIONS
AND FDEP SOIL TARGET LEVELS
HYPOTHETICAL FUTURE ADULT RESIDENT AT
SITE SS-8, MOTOR POOL OIL LEAK AREA
SOIL (mglkg)
SITE SPECIFIC REMEDIAL FDEP SITE SPECTIFIC REMEDIAL FDEP
GOAL OPTIONS Soli Target Levels GOAL OPTIONS Soli Target Levels
HAZARD INDEX Based on a Hazard CARCINOGENIC RISK Based on an Excess
COMPOUNDS Index of I Cancer Risk or
0.1 1.0 10.0 lE.06 IE.OS lE.04 IE.06
Manganese SE+3 SE+4 SE+S 2E+3 NA NA NA ND
.
NA - Not Applicable
ND - Not Determined
-------
T ABLE.2-22
RISK-BASED SITE SPECIFIC REMEDIAL GOAL OPTIONS
AND FDEP SOIL TARGET LEVELS
HYPOTHETICAL FUTURE CIDLD RESIDENT AT
SITE SS-8, MOTOR POOL OIL LEAK AREA
SOIL (mg/kg)
SITE SPECIFIC REMEDIAL FDEP SITE SPECIFIC REMEDIAL FDEP
GOAL OPTIONS Soil Target Levels GOAL OPTIONS 8011 Target Levels
HAZARD INDEX Based on a Hazard CARCINOGENIC RISK Based on an Excess
COMPOUNDS Index of 1 Cancer Risk of
0.1 1.0 10.0 lE-06 IE-OS lE-04 lE-06
Semi-Volatiles -
Benzo(a)anthracene (I) 7E+1 7E+2 7E+3 ND 4E-2 4E-1 4E+O IE+O
Benzo(a)pyrene 7E+l 7E+2 7E+3 NO IE-I IE+O IE+I IE-I
Benzo(b )fluoranthene( I) 7E+1 7E+2 7E+3 ND 4E-2 4E-2 4E+O IE+O
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 2E+2 2E+3 2E+4 2E+3 NA NA NA NO
Benzo(k)fluoranthene( 1) 7E+1 7E+2 7E+3 NO. 4E-2 4E-1 4E+O IE+O
Chrysene( I) 7E+1 7E+2 7E+3 ND 6E-3 6E-2 6E-1 1E+1
Dibenzo( a,h)anthracene( I) 7E+1 7E+2 7E+3 ND IE+I tE+O lE+t IE-t
Fluoranthene 3E+2 3E+3 3E+4 3E+3. NA NA NA ND
Indeno( I ,2,3-c,d)pyrene( I) 7E+1 7E+2 7E+3 ND 4E-l 4E-1 4E+O IE+O
Pyrene 2E+2 2E+3 2E+4 2E+3 NA NA NA NO
Manganese 7E+2 7E+3 7E+4 4E+2 NA NA NA NO
(I) - Toxicity Equivalent Factors (TEFs) have been applied to constituent concentratit>ns based on each compound
relative potency to the potency of benzo(a)pyrene (oral and inhalation exposure only) for the carcinogenic risk only.
NA - Not Applicable .
-------
TABLE 2-23
RISK-BASED SITE SPECIFIC REMEDIAL GOAL OPTIONS
AND FDEP SOIL TARGET LEVELS
HYPOTHETICAL FUTURE CONSTRUCTION WORKER AT
SITE SS-8, MOTOR POOL OIL LEAK AREA
. SURFACE SOIL (mglkg)
SITE SPECIFIC REMEDIAL FDEP SITE SPECIFIC REMEDIAL FDEP
GOAL OPTIONS Soli Target Levels GOAL OPTIONS Soli Target Levels
HAZARD INDEX Based on Ii Hazard CARCINOGENIC RISK Based on an Excess
COMPOUNDS Index of 1 Cancer Risk of
0.1 1.0 10.0 1E-06 1E-OS 1E-04 1E-06
Manganese IE+O IE+I IE+2 5E+3 NA NA NA ND
NA - Not Applicable
NO - Not Determined
-------
. TABLE 2-24
RISK.BASED SITE SPECIFIC REMEDIAL GOAL OPTIONS
AND FDEP SOIL TARGET LEVELS
HYPOTHETICAL FUTURE CONSTRUCTION WORKER AT
SITE SS-S, MOTOR POOL OIL LEAK AREA
SUBSURFACE SOIL (mWkID
SITE SPECIFIC REMEDIAL FDEP SITE SPECIFIC REMEDIAL FDEP
GOAL OPTIONS Soil Target Levels GOAL OPTIONS Soli Target Levels
HAZARD INDEX Based on a Haiard CARCINOGENIC RISK Based on an Excess
COMPOUNDS Index of 1 Cancer Risk of
0.1 1.0 10.0 lE-06 IE-OS 1 E-04 lE-06
Manganese lE+O lE+l lE+2 5E+3 NA NA NA NO
NA - Not Applicab~
NO - Not Oelennined
NP - Not Provided
-------
exposure (i.e., inhalation, ingestion and dermal) and pathways within a scenario and
reammging the site-specific CDI equations used in the risk characterization to solve for the
concentration tenn. RGOs are developed for each medium. each land use, and each
receptor type.
The RGO are presented here in tabular form and include cleanup levels for the 10-4, and
10-5, and 1 Q-6 risk levels for each cae medium and scenario and the HQs of 0.1, 1, and
10 levels, as well as any chemical-specific ARARs. A summary of the risk based RGOs
are presented in Tables 2-19 through 2-24.
2.7.6
Ecological. Risk Assessment
Because of the developed character of this site, it does not provide suitable habitat for
wildlife; thus, plants and animals are not likely to contact chemicals present at Site SS-8.
Site canals are to be more fully addressed in the OU-9 site-wide canal assessment.
2.8
. UNCERTAINTIES IN THE RISK ASSESSMENT
The factors that contribute uncertainty to the estimates of exposure concentrations, daily
intakes, and toxicity infonnation also contribute uncertainty to the estimates of risk. These
factors include:
.
Chemicals not included in the risk assessment;
Exposure pathways not considered;
Derivation of exposure point concentrations;
Intake uncertainty; and
Toxicological dose response and toxicity values.
.
.
.
.
There are uncertainties associated with summing cancer risks or hazard indices for different
chemicals. The cumulative dose ignores possible synergism of antagonism among
chemicals and differences in mechanisms of action and metabolism.
In addition, the assumption was made that all chromium present was in the more toxic
hexavalent form. Generally, the trivalent form is predominant.
26
-------
Lead exposure was evaluated with a model that predicts blood levels based on levels
measured in environmental media. Another uncertainty is the faithfulness of this model in
reproducing the actual blood levels. Although any pharmacokinetic model is subject to
uncertainties, the predicted blood lead level in children (indicating that lead is not a COC)
are believed to be a reasonable estimate.
2.9
DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVE
An FS was conducted to develop and evaluate remedial alternatives for OU-4 at Homestead
. ARB. The following discussion presents a brief description of the alternatives considered
in the FS for the Motor Pool Oil Leak Area. The alternatives are numbered to cOITespond
to the numbers in the FS report, which presents each alternative in more detail.
2.9.1
Alternative Number 1 - No Action With Groundwater Monitoring
2.9.1.1 Description. The no action alternative provides a baseline case for- comparison
with other alternatives. This alternative includes semi~annual sampling of the site's.
monitoring wells for two years. The samples would be analyzed for .BNAs and metals. .
The groundwater monitoring program would be used to monitor the validity of the
sampling and analysis events of years 1991 and 1993. Per CERCLA, site reviews would
be conducted as part of this alternative as COCs exceeding USEP A target risk ranges
would remain on-site.
There are no chemical.,., location-, or action-specific ARARs for soil at Site SS-8. The
State of Florida has. developed health-based cleanup goals which are TBCs for the site.
The COCS present at Site SS-8 under the most likely scenario (construction worker) do not
exceed the State of Florida goals.
The No Action alternative does not provide control measures to prevent access to the
contamination. Under current land use conditions, this alternative does not pose an .
unacceptable cancer and non-cancer risk. However, if the future risk scenario of an on-site
construction worker or the unlikely scenario of a future child resident were to occur, risks
would exceed USEP A risk ranges and the no action alternative would not be protective of ,.
human health. If the asphalt pavement at Site SS-8 were removed, exposure to fugitive
dust would be the largest contributor to the total site health risks. Assuming that the asphalt
27
-------
cap remains in place and that construction does not occur at the site, the No Action
Alternative is protective of human health.
The esrim~ted cost in present worth for this alternative is $ 65,000
2.9.2 Alternative Number 2 - Institutional Controls and Groundwater-
Monitoring
This alternative includes access restrictions that would limit entry to the site by
unauthorized base personnel. This alternative includes fencing the site and posting signs
indicating access to the site is limited to authorized personnel. In addition, a periodic
monitoring of the asphalt cap would be undertaken and made available to regulatory
agencies. Deed restrictions would be established to limit the use of the property to non-
residential dwelling purposes. Deed restrictions would also be established to prevent
schools, playgrounds, hospitals, and residential areas ftom being built at the site.
Restrictions would also be established (by deed and/or construction bid documents) to
limit any construction activity to only those activities where workers are appropriately
. protected (e.g., personal protective equipment) ftom exposure to any COCs above health-.
based levels. Restrictions would be established ( by deed and/or construction bid
documents) to ensure that any construction activities would utilize erosion and dust
control as well as silt cOntrol measures to protect the drainage canal system adjacent to
SbS~.. "..
This alternative includes semi annual sampling of the site's monitoring wells for two years
to monitor the validity of previous sampling events. The samples would be analyzed for
the BNAs and metals. The groundwater monitoring program would be used to monitor
the validity of the. sampling and analysis of years 1991 and 1993. Applicable performance
standards and guidance for monitoring of the groundwater at Site SS-8 include Federal
and State groundwater MCLs. No groundwater access restrictions are contemplated
because the two sampling events of 1991 and 1993 indicated that groundwater has not"
been adversely impacted with respect to Federal and State groundwater standatds and/or.
guidance. Site reviews every five years would be conducted as part of this alternative, as
per CERCLA guidance. Presently, current land use conditions do not pose any risks to
human health. Under the potential scenario of a construction worker at the site,
Alternative 2 protects human health through environmental control measures described
above. The control measures also would prohibit the use of residential development, and .
thereby, protects human health.
Because of the developed" character of this site (paved surface) there would be no adverse
impacts to the environment under Alternative 2. In the event of construction or
redevelopment, the use of environmental and personal control measures will protect
human health. Construction controls will ensure the adjacent drainage canal is protected.
,.
The estimated cost for impl~mentation of this alternative is $ 85,000 in present worth.
-------
2.9.3
Alternative Number 3 . Soil Excavation and Disposal with
Groundwater
With this alternative. the contaminated soil would be excavated to water table (2-J ft bls)
and disposed. The areal extent of the contaminated soil is assumed to ?e the total areal
extent of the soil under the asphalt pavement. Assuming the soil would be excavated to the
water table, the total volume of soil to be excavated and disposed is approximately
2,700 cubic yards. Field screening supported by laboratory analysis will be conducted to
verify that "clean" soil is encountered after soil is excavated. Where warranted. excavation
activities would implement erosion control and silt control measures to protect the
drainage/canal system adjacent to the site.
Before the disposal facility will accept the waste, toxicity characteristics leaching procedure
(TCLP) analysis must be performed. It is expected and assumed for this analysis that the
waste will pass TCLP and disposal will occur in Class ill landfill. In the unlikely scenario
that the waste is indicated by TCLP to be hazardous. then disposal of the waste would
occur in a RCRA.. Subtitle C. TSD facility.
Under this alternative. post-removal groundwater sampling will also be perfonned to
evaluate groundwater. conditions. This alternative protects human health by removing all
COCs from the Site SS-8. This alternative meets the cleanup goals for the site, for both the
current and future land use conditions. If warranted, erosion control and silt control
measures will be implemented during the excavation of Site SS-8~ Alternative 3 is
therefore protective of the environment as well as human health.
This alternative also reduces potential mobility and volume of constituents at the site
through their complete removal.
Alternative 3 . is expected to take one to two years to implement and complete at a cost of
$1,238,000 including post removal sampling.
2.10
SUMMARY OF
ALTERNATIVES
COMPARATIVE
ANALYSIS
OF
An evaluation and comparison of the alternatives are presented in Tables 2-25. 2-26. and
2-27. The comparison is based on the nine key criteria required under the National
29
-------
TABLE 2-25
IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVES
SITE SS-8
Remedial technologies are assembled into alternatives in this section and table, and enable the review of the Focused
Feasibility Study (FFS). A limited number of alternatives are developed and all are carried into the detailed analysis.
Three remedial alternatives were deveioped for Site SS-8 as follows:
. .
Alternative
No
Action
Access
Restrictions
Deed
Restrictions
Groundwater
Monitoring
Soil
Excavation
I No Action
2 Institutional Controls &
Groundwater Monitoring
3 Soil ExcavationIDisposal
x
x
x
x
x
X
X
I
Source:
Homestead Air Force Base, Florida
Focused Feasibility Study
Operable Unit 4, Motor Pool
Oil Leak (Site SS-8)
-------
TABLE 2-26
COMPARATIVE COST ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
SITE SS-8
Alternative # Title Capital Expense Annual O&M Expense Total Present Cost/Alternative Notes:
No Action $17 ,000 $48,000 $65,000 See #1
2 Institutional Control & $31,000 $54,000 $85,000 See #2
Groundwater Monitoring
'-
[ 3 Excavation & $1,052,000 $186,000 $1,238,000 See #3
Soil Disposal
Notes:
I. No Action Capital Expenses incorporate administrative and legal costs associated with curtailing re-use of property other then by current owner, and establisl
record of controlled ownership by the US Air Force to ensure no disruption of soil sedimentations. O&M annual expenses are the Operating and Maintenan
costs associated with the sampling of groundwater for 2 years.
2. Institutional Control & Groundwater Monitoring capital expenses involve the installation of site perimeter fencing and signage to ensure no access to the
property title shaH remain under controlled ownership by the US Air Force. O&M annual expenses are the Operating and Maintenance costs associated with
sampling events for 2 years. .
3. Excavation & Soil Disposal capital costs are the removal of costs for the removal of costs for an approximate quantity of 2,700 cubic yards of contaminated
soils to an offsite area. O&M costs are associated with confirmatory samples taken during the year. .
4. Detailed cost estimates of the above alternatives are currently on file at Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida and may be duplicated from the RACER II
estimating system onto diskettes for public review.
Source:
Homestead Air Forte Base, Florida
Focused Feasibility Study
Operable Unit 4, Motor Pobl
Oil Leak (Site SS-8)
-------
TABLE 2-27
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES, SITE SS.B
REMEDIAL ACTION
Evaluation Criteria No Action Institutional Controls & Groundwater Monitoring Excavation & Disposal
Overall Protection of Human
Health & Environment X 0 0
Compliance w/ARAS 0 0 0
Long Term Effectiveness
and Performance X 0 0
Reduction of Toxicity,
Mobility, or Volume X X 0
Short Term Effectiveness * * 0
Implementability Easy Easy Moderate
Estimated Present Worth 65,000 85,000 1,238,000
o Meets Criteria
X Does Not Meet Criteria
* No Remedial Activityffherfore No Effects From Implementation
Source:
Homestead Air Force Base, ,Florida
Focused Feasibility Study
Operable Unit 4, Motor Pool
Oil Leak (Site SS-8)
-------
Contingency Plan and CERCLA Section 121 for use in evaluation of remedial alternatives
by USEP A. The nine criteria are as follows:
.
Overall protection of human health and the environment.
.
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Require~ents.
Long-term effectiveness and permanence.
Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume.
Short-term effectiveness.
Implementability.
Cost.
. State acceptance.
Community acceptance.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2.10.1
Overall Protection of Human Health and Environment
Altern~ves 2 and 3 meet Remedial Action Objectives for the site and provide protection of
human health and the environment. Alternative 3 provides the best protection through.
excavation of the site. While Alternative 2 does not satisfy the statutory preference for
treatment, this alternative effectively protects human health and the environment through the
. utilization of institutional controls that would limit exposure to site contaminants.
Alternative 1 would have no treatment or monitoring mechanism and, therefore, would not
be protective of human health and the environment.
2.10.2
Compliance with Federal/State Standards.
There are no ARARs that apply for Site SS-8. State of Florida soil cleanup goals would be
met for all alternatives. No state or federal MCL is exceeded for any of the COCs for
OU-4, Site SS-8.
2.10.3
Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternative 3 provides the best long-term effectiveness and permanence for Site S S-8.
Although Alternative 2 allows for hazardous substances to remain on site, it utilizes
institutional controls, which are adequate, reliable and effective to manage untreated
hazardous substances in a safe manner. In addition, institutional controls would need to be
evaluated during the five-year review. Alternative 1 does not change the conditions of the
30
-------
Site; therefore, any contaminants remaining at the site would not be expected to decrease
over time.
2.10.4
Treatment to Reduce Toxicity, Mobility or Volume
.
None of the alternatives would provide treatment of the COCs at the Site. Alternative 3
would reduce the mobility of the contaminants through excavation of the contaminants from
the Site and disposal in an engineered landfill. Alternative I and 2 would not provide any
additional reduction in toxicity, mobility or volume of the contaminants. Under
Alternatives I and 2 site contaminants are nearly immobile due to the asphalt covering the
site.
2.10.5
Short-term Effectiveness
Alternative 3 is expected to be completed within one to two years. The excavation of soil
may impose risks by disturbing the remaining contamination, however, it would not be
expected to pose unacceptable short-term environmental or health hazards, which could not
be. controlled. Under Alternatives 1 and 2, there is no construction activities against which..
short term effectiveness may be evaluated. Alternative 2 would deem "to be protective as
soon as the institutional controls are in place and in effect. Most likely, the institutional
controls should be in place within 12 months from the selection of the remedy.
2.10.6
Implementability
Alternative I and 2 would ~ easy to implemerit. The .ease to implement Alternative 3
would be moderate.
2.10.7
Cost
The "no action" alternative is the least expensive option, but it is not protective under
potential future scenarios of an on-site construction worker or a child resident. Alternative
2 is also minimal in expense and is protective. Alternative 3 would attain the fullest
protection but at high cost relative to Alternatives I and 2.
31
-------
2.11
SELECTED REMEDY
Based upon consideration of the requirements of CERCLA. the detailed evaluation of the .
alternatives and public comments, the U.S. Air Force and concwrence with the USEPA
and the State of Florida has determined that Institutional. Controls and Groundwater
Monitoring is the most appropriate course of action at Site SS-8.
The primary media of concern at Site SS-8 is soWbedrock. The site is currently covered by
asphalt providing an in situ barrier to surficial contact. The implementation of institutional
controls will include deed restrictions and covenants on future use and activities at the site
to minimize exposure by construction workers: Requirements for use of appropriate
personal protective equipment with implementation of a site health and safety plan during
any construction activities will protect workers at the site. Deed restrictions would also
establish erosion and silt control measures for use as warranted to protect the area drainage
canal system.
These deed restrictions would also prevent residential use and construction of schools,
playgrounds or hospitals at Site SS-8. . .
A fence would be installed surrounding Site 55-8 to minimize unauthorized or inadvertent
access to the site. The estimated cost of fence installation is $31,000. This is the only
capital expenditure to be incurred. This site is also to remain under Air Force jurisdiction
within the Cantonment Area.
Annual, O&M 'costs include the groundwater monitoring :which is scheduled semi-annually
for 2 years. This annual cost is estimated at $54,000.
In accordance with CERCLA requirements for sites where contaminants remain in place
above USEP A Target Levels, five year reviews of the site will be perfonned.
2.12
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment as required by
Section 121 of CERCLA. Existing or potential risks from exposure to soils are reduced
and controlled through institutional controls.
32
-------
There are no chemical-, location-, or anction-specific ARARs that apply for soil at Site
SS-8. State of Florida soil cleanup goals would be met for the one chemical of concern
(manganese) under the construction worker scenario.
The selected remedy is cost effective because it has been determined t? provide overall
effectiveness proportioned to its costs, the present net worth is estimated at $85,000.
Neither Permanent Solutions nor alternative treatments were employed at this site due to the
minimal risks associated with the COCs present and the unlikely scenario of residential
development as well as associated costs for removal of site contaminants. The statutory
preference for treatment as a Principal Element is not met. However; Site contaminants are
currently nearly immobile due to the presence of an asphalt covering.
2.13
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The PP was released for public comment in September 1994. The PP identified
Alternative 2, Institutional Controls and Groundwater Monitoring, as the preferred
alternative for remedial action at Site SS-8. OU-4. .
33
-------
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Operable Unit 4
Site SS-8, Motor Pool Oil Leak Area
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 OU-4, Homestead A.RB. Second, the responsiveness summary
documents how public comments have been considered and integrated into the decision
making process. Third, it provides USEP A with the opportunity to respond to each
comment submitted by the public on the record.
The Remedial InvestigationlBaseline Risk Assessment report and the Proposed Plan for
Homestead ARB Site SS-8 were released to the public in June and September of 1994,
respectively. These documents were made available to the public in both the administrative
. . . .
record and an information repository maintained at the Miami-Dade Community College
Library .
A public comment period was held from September 8..1994 to October 22, 1994 as part of
the community relations plan for OU-4. Additionally, a public meeting was held on
Thursday, September 29. 1994 at 7:00 pm at South Dade High School. A public notice
was published in the Miami Hera.ld on September 9. 1994. At this meeting. the USAF. in
. coordination with USEPA Region IV. FDEP, and DERM were prepared to discuss the
investigation, results of the Baseline Risk Assessment, and the Preferred Alternative
described in the Proposed Plan. .
No comments were received during the public comment period and no comments were
made at the public meeting regarding the implementation of Institutional Controls and
Groundwater Monitoring.
------- |